xt7p8c9r3p2d https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7p8c9r3p2d/data/mets.xml Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1962 journals 111 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.111 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.111 1962 2014 true xt7p8c9r3p2d section xt7p8c9r3p2d ` I I ' I I I
I = I I I I _,~"““r~~wmI __
T"`TT§”T`I **`’` TT T ‘`‘.A TTWTWTTT
. · I3 sq
I I Trends sn Use of MI
I I I »*"* ; _ _ sgrisj
I Recommended Farm Prachces I ;
·I . E
and FBFITI II’IIOI'ITI8I'IOI"I Sources I
I A ` I2 Kentucky Nenghborhoods ` j A I
.w-~-s__o,..·_,y W_-__-___-,I-,,,_-s_s--4,M-M s__s__I,__,o--,c-_-_-- l-e---_,- ..l. MI
I I of Iw””'“'Ew I ff 5
ceccc cccc I cc c _
T ' .c_. _~,,.°%,I,..--..._.,--, .,.. I ,.,,,.,c,d.- ,.`. .. ~-. ..»-. ...~--g
I I I I
?fg %Mwww@? I I I I I I
in I By C. Milton Coughenour ond N.B. P¤teI ME
%w”@I I ? Y I I I I
A
cc ,,c I ..__
I
Progress Report III Jonuory I962
A umvrnsnrv or Kmrucxv
I AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
I LEXINGTON
Progress Report 111 January 1962
TRENDS IN USE OF RECOM NDED
FARM PRACTICES AND OF FARM INFORMATION SOURCES
. IN 12 KENTUCKY NEIGHBORHOODS
A Some Findings from Surveys Conducted
in 1950, 1955, and 1960
C. Milton Coughenour
and
N. B. Patel
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIM NT STATION
LEXINGTON
SUMMARY AND INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS
What happens to new ideas and practices recommended by
agricultural agencies? Do they eventually become accepted by
· nearly all farmers? How soon do they become obsolescent? Are
' some accepted more readily than others? What factors are re-
_ sponsible for differences in acceptability, speed of adoption,
A and continued use of recommended farm practices? A study of
U trends in the use of recommended farm practices by farm operators
in 12 Kentucky neighborhoods and the sources of farm information
utilized by these farm operators helps to provide answers to these
. and related questions.
In 1950, 1955, and 1960 surveys were made of the use of
r 14 farming practices by farm operators in 12 neighborhoods of an
Outer Bluegrass county. The practices pertain to, but do not
necessarily represent in a statistical sense, animal husbandry,
animal pathology, agronomy, and farm management. When the first
survey was made in 1950 all of the practices were recommended by
the University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service as being
w· applicable in general to the types of farming engaged in by farmers
in the 12 neighborhoods. For the most part, the practices were
* also recom ended in 1960, although there are some partial exceptions,
_ as will be seen.
Trends ig_Practice gse
(a) Most of the 14 recommended practices gained in acceptance
V and use throughout the 1950 to 1960 decade. The practices that were
still gaining in 1960 are soil testing, terracing and/or contouring,
, 2 s
plowing tobacco beds in the fall, using methyl bromide gas to kill
weed seed in tobacco beds, using commercial fertilizer on corn, grow-
ing Kenland red clover, growing alfalfa, using artificial breeding,
and keeping records of receipts and expenses.
(b) However, several practices, after gaining in use during _ ‘
the first half of the decade, either remained stable or declined in
extent of use after 1955. These were use of bluestone—lime on toe n
bacco beds, calf vaccination for brucellosis, phenothiazine in salt,
phenothiazine drench for sheep, and keeping an all-pullet flock.
Trends in th; gs; gf Information Sources V
(a) For most sources of farm information, the extent of use
by farm operators in these neighborhoods increased notably from 1950
to 1955 but declined in the period 1955 to 1960. This applies to
contacts with the Extension Service, Soil Conservation Service, Agri-
cultural Stabilization and Conservation program representatives,
Vocational Agriculture teacher, and Kentucky Agricultural Experiment 9
Station personnel; and to getting farm information from newspapers,
farm magazines, farm meetings of agricultural agencies, visits with
agricultural agency representatives, county agricultural extension E
agent's circular letters, farm bulletins, dealers and salesmen.
(b) Only radio and television (not available in 1950) in- b
creased proportionately in use as sources of farm information at
each survey period.
- 3 -
Trends by Educational_Lgyel of Neighborhood
The neighborhoods were grouped as to the median number of
years of schooling completed in 1950 by the farm operators. Neigh-
borhoods in which the median educational level of farm operators in
1950 was 4.4 to 7.4 years, 7.5 to 8.4 years, and 8.5 to 9.9 years
1 are referred to as having low, medium, and high educational levels,
' respectively.
(a) In general, for practices that gained in use during the
decade gains were registered in neighborhoods of all educational levels.
However, compared with farmers in neighborhoods of medium educational
levels, those in the high neighborhoods are 5 years ahead in the ex-
- tent of using these recommended practices; in practice utilization
levels farmers in the high neighborhoods are about l0 years in ad-
‘ vance of those in neighborhoods of low educational levels.
The trends toward stability or decline of certain practices
also were found in neighborhoods of each educational level.
(b) The prevailing patterns of increase in the extent of
use of all agricultural agencies and media during the first half of
the decade and the decline in use of all sources except radio and
* television during the latter half of the decade apply to all neigh-
V borhoods, regardless of educational level. But, at all three
survey periods the most extensive use of information sources was
made by farmers in the high-education neighborhoods, followed, in
\ order, by those in the medium- and low-education neighborhoods.
Moreover, while newspapers, agency representatives, county agent's
. letters, farm bulletins, and dealers and salesmen were less
- 4 -
extensively utilized as sources in the 5-year period ending in 1960,
the decline in use was less pronounced in the high- than in the medium-
or low-education neighborhoods.
Trends by Dominant Land Egg-Suitability_Eypg of Neighborhood ‘
By reference to_Lggd_g;gg§ gf Kentucky_ggd_Ihgig Potential lx
jg£_gsg (1953),* each neighborhood was classified as to the pre- .
dominant use—suitability of the land in farms in the neighborhood,
thereby producing a three-fold classification of neighborhoods --
Inner Bluegrass, Outer Bluegrass, and Hills of the Bluegrass.**
Significantly, the best farming neighborhoods in use-suitability L
of land (Inner Bluegrass) also had the highest educational levels
of farmers, while the poorest farming neighborhoods (Hills of the
Bluegrass) had the lowest educational levels. In general, therefore,
the patterns of farm practice and information source utilization are _
the same whether neighborhoods are classified by educational level i
or by land use—suitability.
While terracing, diversion ditches, and/or contouring are
being used with increasing frequency, especially in the Inner and
Outer Bluegrass neighborhoods, there is evidence that under present F
conditions periodic soil testing as a practice has reached a
utilization plateau. In the three years ending in 1960, about 2 L
out of every 3 farm operators had had soil tests made.
*See footnote 4, page 9 ,
**The categories are explained in detail in footnote 4,
Page 9.
- 5 -
Use of commercial fertilizer on corn is rapidly becoming
established as a routine practice in the Inner Bluegrass neigh-
borhoods. Outer Bluegrass farmers, however, lag about 5 years
in attaining equality in level of fertilizer utilization while
the majority in the Hills of the Bluegrass remain unconvinced
of its usefulness for them.
' Trends by heighborhood Eiale if firm Operations
l On the basis of median gross sales in l950 the l2 neigh-
borhoods were grouped as follows: $1,100 to $1,999 (small scale),
` $2,000 to $2,999 (medium scale), and $3,000 to $3,999 (large
scale),
(a) As expected, the prevailing scale of farm operations in
a neighborhood mattered most for those practices which cost most in
themselves or are related to intensive and specialized livestock
enterprises. In 1960 terraciug and/or contouring, calf vaccination,
artificial breeding, phenothiazine dreneh for sheep, and an all-
pullet flock were used to a considerably greater extent in the
large-scale-of-farming neighborhoods than in those of medium- and
small-scale farms. Moreover, the decline in the use of calf
vaccination for brucellosis, phenothiazine drench for sheep, and
i ` an all-pullet flock, which generally characterized these practices
after 1955, did not occur at all or was less pronounced in the
large-scale-of-farming neighborhoods.
(b) The over-all trends in the utilization of agricultural
agencies and media as farm information sources were manifested in
all neighborhoods, regardless of scale.
o x_ g Q
- 6 -
what the Trends Indicate I
The trend of continued growth of certain practices, of
stability or decline in extent of use for others, is consistent
with the findings of other surveys. Soon after being initially j
recommended, farm practices are adopted by a few innovators. In s
a community, however, the time from initial adoption to majority
adoption often takes a decade or longer, Thereafter, the rate of Q
new adoptions gradually slows down until a level of saturation or
a plateau is reached, after which there are few new adoptions.
The saturation level or plateau for a practice may be at or near
lOO percent of the farmers, or considerably lower. In the latter
case, increased efforts to alert farmers to the need for the
practice, improvements in the practice itself, reduction in the
time ar; initiative involved in carrying out the practice, and
the like, may result in increased usage. It is evident that a
fem cf these practices have become obsolescent or partly so in ’
;he sense that either they are being supplanted by other more
eifecilxo practices (e. g., phenothiazine drench or in salt for
sheep}, or that the entire enterprise of which they are a part is
declining in the survey area (e. g., the commercial production of
eggs), The use of bluestone-lime on tobacco beds seems to have W
hee; influenced by a combination of factors, including the de-
velopment of tobacco varieties more resistant to wildfire and angular
leaf spot, the decline in incidence of wildfire, and considerable
lack of knowledge among farmers as to what bluestone-lime protects
againsi and when to apply it.
The feasibility or "practicability" of some practices is
related to the type and extensiveness of cropping that is suitable.
- 7 -
The "practicability" of other practices is influenced by cost either
of the practices themselves or the enterprise system of which they
are parts. It is to be expected, therefore, that different satura-
tion levels of a practice will exist for neighborhoods that differ
as to land use-suitability or scale of farm operations. In addition,
the general level of education of farm operators in a neighborhood
` influences the use of each source of farm information and the readi-
ness of farmers to be convinced of the utility of recommended
practices. Since the factors which from the farmer's standpoint
make a recommended practice "practical" and make it understandable
A are highly correlated, there is little wonder that certain neigh-
borhoods take the lead both in the initial adoption of recommended
practices and often in the extent of use finally attained.
The decline after 1955 in information source utilization in
all types of neighborhoods and for all agricultural agencies and media
except radio and television suggests that the influential factors
mainly are of a general nature rather than specific to certain groups
of farmers or information sources. There are several possible ex-
planations: (a) a shift in emphasis by all agricultural agencies from
‘ personal contacts to radio and television as the means of dispensing
1 information; (b) a coincidental change in the professional leadership
of agricultural agencies; (c) a possibly diminished motivation by
farmers to utilize agencies as information sources, owing to the de-
pressed conditions of agriculture generally; and (d) a breakdown in
organization and in local leadership. On the basis of information
presently available there does not seem to be a single influential
- 8 -
A factor, but problems relating to local professional and lay leader-
ship seem to have been principally responsible.
Regardless of the explanation, the most important question
is what effect, if any, has the decline in source utilization had
on the use of recommended farm practices. It is widely known that _
the general level of practice utilization is dependent on the ex-
tent of contact with agricultural agencies and farm information A
media. Whether this relationship is linear over the range of in-
formation source utilization in question is not known precisely,
but it seems so. Contacts with agricultural agency representatives
are particularly important in clinching a farmer's decision to try
new practices and in helping him to adapt general ideas to his
particular situation. Although there are doubtless better reasons,
as noted earlier, for the decline in use of certain recommended `
practices, one wonders to what extent the premature slow-down after f
1955 in the rate of new practice adoption of certain other practices,
such as soil testing, terracing and/or contouring, plowing of to—
bacco beds in the fall, and use of commercial fertilizer on corn,
may be attributed to the decline in personal contacts with agri-
cultural agency representatives. T
- g -
TRENDS IN USE OF RECOMM NDED FARM PRACTICES
AND OF FARM INFORMATION SOURCES IN l2 KENTUCKY NEIGHBORHOODS
by
C. Milton Coughenour and N. B. Patell
In two earlier reports (4,9)2 the recommended farm practices
I and farm information sources used by farmers in 12 neighborhoods in
_ an Outer Bluegrass3 county were shown. Compared with 1950, more
farmers in 1955 were found to be using ll of 12 recom ended farm
practices and 7 of 9 media of farm information. Farm operators”
use of these practices and media was found to be related to the i
amount of education possessed by the farmer, his scale of farm
operations, and the general level or extent of use of recommended
farm practices in the neighborhoods in which he resided.
These findings were based on interviews with all the farm A
operators in 12 neighborhoods. The study neighborhoods were selected
from the major land—use-suitability types in the county--Inner
Bluegrass, Outer Bluegrass, and Hills of the Bluegrass.a This
lAssociate Professor of Rural Sociology and Graduate Assistant,
respectively.
2Numbers in parentheses refer to reports listed in the Appendix.
, 3Economic Area 6. See State Economic Areas. Bureau of the `
Census, Washington, D. C.: 1951.
. 4See Land Areas_gf Kentucky and Their Potential for Use. Frank-
fort, Kentucky: Agricultural and Industrial Development Board of
Kentucky with the Cooperation of the Soil Conservation Service, U.S.D.A.,
and the Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Kentucky, 1953.
The three use-suitability types are defined as follows:
Inner Bluegrass--Undulating to rolling; mainly of soil suited
for cultivation in crop rotations,
Hills of the Bluegrass-—Hilly to rolling; mainly of soils suited
for continuous pasture, and, pasture with occasional cultivation,
Outer Bluegrass--Rolling to undulating; mainly of soils suited
for continuous pasture, and, pasture with occasional cultivation.
- 10 -
classification emphasizes the different possibilities for cultivated
crops, pastures, and woodlands. In the general potential for farming,
the farmers interviewed thus reflect the differences characteristic
V of the whole Bluegrass area, although in a statistical sense they are
more typical of the Outer Bluegrass than of the area as a whole. r
In 1960 a 50 percent sample of the farmers in these neigh-
borhoods was interviewed. Since the interviews were conducted in A
the same neighborhoods each time, the findings can be used first to
discern trends in the use of recommended practices and of information
sources. Second, these trends can be related to certain economic
and social characteristics of the neighborhoods which these researches .
have shown affect practice adoption and source utilization. This
information will be of practical value to those planning educational
programs for farm people, the main purposes of this progress report,
Eh] Identify Neighborhoods?
Information about new farm ideas typically flows through mass
media to innovators and local adoption leaders in each community.5
On the basis of their experiences and the recommendations of innovators
and adoption leaders, as well as the recommendations of agricultural _
change agents, other farmers in the com unity are persuaded to try
the practice. The rate of adoption is uneven, however, being slow ·
at first, and then gaining with increasing rapidity until the bulk
sggy {gpg People Accept Ngw Iggag. Lexington: North Central
Regional Publication l, November 1955; Adopters pf Egg {gpm Iggas,
Characteristics gpg Com unications Behavior. North Central Regional
Publication 13, October 1961.
of potential users have adopted it. Thereafter, new adoptions occur
at less frequent intervals as the most resistant decide to try the
practice. Typically, the frequency of initial adoptions when plotted
against time describes a normal curve.6 Neighborhoods differ as to
the span of time or the characteristic shape of the normal adoption
curve. In the proportion of adoptions some of the 12 neighborhoods,
‘ as the information in this report shows, lag as much as 10 years be-
hind other neighborhoods. In the 1950 study it was found that the 12
neighborhoods could be grouped into "high," “mediu ," and "low"
adoption areas on the basis of the mean practice adoption score of
farm operators in each neighborhood (4). In the "low" adoption neigh-
borhoods farm operators typically were using from 25 to 33 percent of
the reco mended practices applying to them compared with 39 to 44
l percent in "mediu ," and 50 to 57 percent in "high" adoption neigh-
borhoods.
Neighborhoods grouped on the basis of adoption level differ
on other characteristics as well, notably median number of years of
schooling completed, median value of gross sales, median socio-
economic status, median participation score in formal social organi-
· zations, dominant land use-suitability type, and the prevailing
attitudes toward scientific farming (7,10,14). The characteristic
6H. Earl Pemberton, "The Gurve of Culture Diffusion Rate,"
American Sociological Review, 1 (August, 1936) 547-556; James Coleman,
Elihu Katz, and Herbert Menzel, "The Diffusion of an Innovation among
Physicians," Sociometmy, 20 (December, 1957) 253-270; Bryce Ryan, "A
Study in Technological Diffusion," Rural Sociology, 13 (September, 1948)
273-285; E. A. Wilkening, Acceptance pj Improved Farm Practices. North
Carolina Agr. Expt. Sta., Tech. Bul. 98, May 1952; E. A. Wilkening,
Adoption pf Improved Farm Practices mp Related mg Farm Factors. Wis-
consin Agr. Expt. Sta., Res. Bul. 183, December 1953.
r 12 -
pace of adoption in neighborhoods thus is not accidental, but is a mani-
festation of the communication and influence structure in the community
together with the characteristics of the individual farmers and their
farming operations (15).
Identification of different types of neighborhoods as to .
practice adoption has considerable practical value for change agents.7
Much greater dependence can be placed on the mass media and on l
farmers' own initiative in getting essential information and help in
the "high" adoption than in the "low" adoption neighborhoods. In the A
"low" adoption neighborhoods change agents must take relatively
greater responsibility themselves for establishing and maintaining
personal channels of communication while dispensing useful farm in- U
formation.
Because of their influence on the speed of adoption, three
factors -- the median education in 1950, median gross sales in 1950, t
and dominant land-use-suitability characteristics of neighborhoods --
are used to reveal the principal differences among neighborhoods in
adoption trends. The dominant land—use·suitability type of each
neighborhood was determined by superim osing a map of the neigh-
borhoods on an equal-sized map of use-suitability areas. Needless Q
to say, the boundaries of the neighborhoods and those of the use- —
suitability areas did not always coincide, and a judgment had to be
made as to which type predominates. For analysis purposes, the
groupings of neighborhoods as to median education and median gross
7The term "change agent" refers to those persons actively
engaged in promoting improved farming techniques. It includes the
County Extension Agent, Soil Conservation Service agent, Vocational
Agricultural Agent, salesmen for farm supplies, and the like.
- 13 -
sales were made somewhat arbitrarily. The aim was to strike a balance
between having equal class intervals and equal numbers of neighborhoods
in each category.
For the neighborhoods studied, the association between ed-
‘ ucational level, scale of farming, and use-suitability was very
· high. These factors thus converge and reinforce each other in their
impact on practice adoption and information source utilization.
A Recommended Practices Egg the Definitions gf Adoption_ysgg ig_Ehg Three
Surveys
Rarely is adoption of a practice an all-or-none decision.
I Typically it occurs by stages, with a partial trial one year and, if
that is successful, a complete and repeated use later. In many respects
the first trial is the most crucial, since the probability is high that,
once tried, a practice will be used increasingly thereafter. However,
full-adoption cannot be said to have occurred until the practice is
in regular use. Some practices, e.g., methyl bromide gas on tobacco
beds, com rise only one of a number of alternatives having approximately
equal utility and their use depends on the specific conditions. In
this case it may be sufficient to know that the farmer has ever tried
' the practice. On the other hand, soil testing is a practice that must
‘ be used periodically and to know that a farmer has ever tried it does
not provide assurance that he uses it periodically. Thus a stricter
definition of adoption should be used.
The definition of adoption for each practice is as follows:
1. Soil testing: had had any soil tested during the 3-year
period preceding the interview
- 14 -
2. Terracing, diversion ditches, and/or contouring: had
made any terraces, diversion ditches,
and/or had ever cultivated any fields
on the contour
3. Plow tobacco beds in fall: had plowed tobacco beds
in the fall preceding the interview
(this practice was not included in
1950 study) —
4. Methyl bromide gas; had ever used this gas to pre-
vent weeds in tobacco beds ·
5. Bluestone-lime: had ever used the bluestone-lime
treatment on tobacco beds
6. Fertilizer on corn: had used commercial fertilizer
on corn one or both of the two years
preceding the interview
7. Kenland red clover; was growing Kenland red clover °
at tbme of interview or had planted
some in the year preceding the interview
8. Alfalfa; was growing alfalfa at the time of the inter- _
view (this practice was not included in
1950 study)
9. Calf vaccination: had all calves vaccinated for brucellosis
in the year preceding the interview
l0. Artificial breeding: had bred all cows artificially during
the year preceding the interview
ll. Phenothiazine in salt: had given sheep phenothiazine in
salt at least once in the year preceding
the interview
12. Phenothiazine drench: had drenched sheep with pheothiazine U
at least once in the year preceding the
interview ·
13. All-pullet flock; had kept all·pullet flock in the year
preceding the interview
14. Receipts and expenses: had kept records of receipts and
expenses in the year preceding the inter-
view
- 15 -
d Applicability of Practices
The percentage of farmers using each practice is based on
the nu ber having the enterprise to which the practice applies.
Thus, the practice of calf vaccination is applicable to all farmers
' except those who have no cattle; artificial breeding unless no
_ cows; phenothiazine treatment unless no sheep; fertilizer on corn
unless no corn; terracing, diversion ditches and contouring unless
P all cropland is level or the farmer has less than two acres in crops.
The keeping of farm records is, of course, a practice that applies
to all farmers, regardless of what enterprises they have.
Trends_ig Practice Utilization
jh; "Gaining" Practices (ggblg l) U
In the decade under review, nine of the 14 recommended
practices were "gaining“ practices in the sense that at each survey
a large proportion of the farmers were using the practice thatnat
the time of the preceding survey. Practices having uniform
applicability over a long period of time, such as soil testing,
terracing, diversion ditches and/or contouring, and keeping
records of receipts and expenses, showed steady increase in use.
' Methyl bromide gas and artificial breeding, although used with
increasing relative frequency, are at a low level of adoption com-
pared with other practices.
Regardless of whether they were using a practice, farmers
were asked under what conditions they would use it. It was hoped
that this would provide information as to the circu stances under
, 16 -
Table 1
Percentage of Farmers Who Had Adopted Specified Recommended Practices,
1950, 1955; and 1960*
Practice +—é+—---§EEEL----;--4-- _`
1950 1955 1960
-—·- Percent -·-· -
cainlng Practices (increasing adoption over the 10 years)
Soil Testing 19 53 58
Terraclng and/or contourigg 20 34 38
Plow tobacco beds in fall - 25 28
Methyl bromide gas 1 6 9
Fertilizer on corn** - 65 70 ’
Kenland red clover 8 17 26
A1falfa** - 27 44
Artificial breeding 7 9 13
Keeping receipts and expenses 33 39 65
Stable gg Declining Practices (decreasing or stable adoption
over the 10 years)
Bluestone-lime 51 79 75
Calf vaccination 14 16 16
Phenothiazine with salt 59 66 53
Phenothiazine drench 60 76 62 —
All—pullet flock 25 39 16
*For each practice, the percentages are based on the number of
farmers having the enterprise to which the practice applies.
**Not included in the 1950 study.
which farmers use or do not use particular practices. The answers
are instructive mainly from the standpoint of the beliefs which
farmers hold concerning the usefulness and limitations of, or
alternatives to, each practice. 1
- 17 -
For instance, it is perhaps not surprising that the 106 farmers
in 1960 who had EXE; had soil tested said they had done so to determine
fertilization needs. Only about 7 out of 10 of these farmers,8 however,
had had soil tested for any purpose in the past 3 years, Perhaps more
( important, only a little more than half the farmers who had ever had
. soil tested had done so for the positive purpose of continually
evaluating and up-grading the fertility of their soil. The remainder
seem to take the position that soil testing is to be used in case
of crop failure, to meet A. S. C, program requirements, or when the
farmer's "inherent" soil sense fails. Interestingly, 3 out of 4
A farmers who had_neyg£ had any soil tested said that they might
do so if they needed to know how much commercial fertilizer to use;
apparently, they either do not use commercial fertilizer or consider
that their intuitions as to the requirements are satisfactory.
Nearly all farmers using commercial fertilizer on corn in
1960 were convinced that it produced larger yields and regularly
applied it. Even so the amount applied almost always depended on
convention or what a standard application was considered to be.
_ Only l in 8 fertilizer users volunteered the information that
the extent of fertilizer use should depend on the results of
` a soil test, Opinions of farmers growing corn but not using
fertilizer were divided along two lines. One-half recog-
nized that it would increase yields but were unconvinced that
8This is 58 percent of the 140 farmers in the entire sample
(Table 1). The estimated proportion of farmers in the 12 neigh-
borhoods who have had soil tests made during this period seems
somewhat excessive when compared to the soil test records of the
actual tests made in the county.
- 18 - ‘ A
it was worth the cost in time or effort, either because they cone ’
sidered their acreages too small (26 percent), corn too cheap, (13
percent), or that fertilizer for tobacco came first (ll percent);
29 percent considered that fertilizer was unnecessary if, as they
were doing, corn was grown on river bottom land, new sod, or `
where yields had been satisfactory. U
Farmers who had plowed their tobacco beds in the fall of I
1959, as well as those who had not done so, generally lacked com-
plete understanding of the purpose for fall plowing. About half
of those who ddd pddwdd in the fall had done so to conserve moisture;
20 percent thought that it helped control weeds, and l in 10 did it
mainly to save time in the spring and to control plant bed diseases
and insects, Farmers who hdd_ddE_pddgdd their beds the preceding
fall thought it might be helpful in conserving moisture or making
the soil more tillable (33 percent), in killing weed seed (16 per-
cent), or in saving time in the spring (26 percent). Except for the
15 percent of each group who gave no clear reason for fall plowing,
the reasons given in each case have merit. Even so, no farmer gave
more than one or two of the reasons for fall plowing and many gave
no reason. In view of their incomplete knowledge about fall plowing, `
the erratic use of this practice thus is not surprising. _
The relatively low frequency of using methyl bromide gas is
attributable in the farmers' minds to the existence of a plentiful
wood supply for burning beds and to other equally good alternatives.
In addition to the relatively small percentage of farmers
using artificial breeding altogether, twice that number said they
i - 19 -
were breeding their best animals artificially to strengthen their herds.
1 Farmers who were not using artificial breeding at all in 1960 either
considered it unpractical for beef herds of grade cattle (26 percent),
1 or thought that keeping a bull was just as good or perhaps better (29
Z. percent).
, In regard to the big increase in keeping records of receipts
and expenses after 1955, the advent of Old Age and Survivors Insurance
5 for farmers in 1955 seems to have had more than a coincidental importance.
§tgb1g_g; Declining Practices
Several practices that had gained in use during the first half
I of the decade thereafter either showed no gain or declined in extent
j of use. In most cases this was due either to the partial obsolescence
F of the practice itself or to the progressive abandonment of the enter-
I prise as a com ercial venture in the survey area. Phenothiazine, which
{ performed well at first on internal parasites of sheep, later lost its
Q effectiveness in part, and, on the reco mendation of the University,
; herdsmen turned to other treatments in whole or in part. By 1960,
phenothiazine in salt was considered effective only in slowing in-
' fection after use of a recommended drench. Of the farmers with sheep
\_ in 1960 who were not using phenothiazine in salt, 46 percent felt it
v could be used as a preventive after drenching but were relying on
I drenching practices alone; and 30 percent had no clear understanding
t of the reason for using or not using phenothiazine in salt.
In 1960, 20 percent of the farm operators surveyed had no
chickens at all, and less than 4 percent of the remainder had more
1 than 75 laying hens. Thirty percent of those with laying hens but
· 20 ¤ ’ A
not keeping an all-pullet flock said they would do so if they were V
selling eggs commercially. The responses of the others reflect a
lack of incentive to keep an a1l—pul1et flock, which they related
to the low value of eggs commercially. f
Between 1955 and 1960 the proportion of farmers in these _~
neighborhoods who reported that they had ever used bluestone-lime p
on their plant beds dropped from 79 to 75 percent, while the per- `
centage of "ever" users actually treating their plant beds with i
bluestone-lime in the survey year d