xt7q5717nn0p https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7q5717nn0p/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1959 journals 082 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.82 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.82 1959 2014 true xt7q5717nn0p section xt7q5717nn0p Progress Report 82 A I November 1959 l
Agricultural Agencies As Information
  in Sources For Farmers In A Kentucky
County, 1950-55
Vet1,'Teg<1ie(;1s  
  C C ¤»P¤ra    
o zo 40 so
Percent of Farmers Regularly Getting Information from Each Agency
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY Acnicmrumt EXPERIMENT STATION
LEXINGTON

 Progress Report 82 November 1959
_ AGRICULTURAL AGENCIES As INFORMATION SOURCES FOR
FARMERS IN A KENTUCKY COUNTY, 1950-1955
( C. Milton Coughenour
Department of Rural Sociology
E R R A T A
pm EQU warn 2g line 23 ”with” ehoulé he Wwithoutrw
, p. bln para Ev lime 62 ”a1ong” shoul6.be "alouoe”
i
University of Kentucky
_ Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station
Lexington

 \
CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION , , , . . ....... , . . . ; . .¤........ . 3
The Washington county farmers who were interviewed and the
agricultural agencies they used as sources of farm information.
PATTERNS OF AGENCY UTILIZATION ..................... 3
The proportions of farmers who ”Regularly," "Irregularly," and
· ”Never” used each agricultural agency. ‘
CHARACTERISTICS OF FARMERS WHO ”REGULARLY," "IRREGULARLY,” AND "NEVER"
USED AGRICULTURAL AGENCIES .....,............... . . IO
How difference among farmers in their use of each agency as an
information source are related to the personal and social
characteristics of farmers ......
THE "REGULAR USERS” AS THE AGENCY'S CLIENTELE . ............ I?
What the principal personal and social characteristics of the ‘
information clienteles of each agency are and the extent to
which the clienteles of the agencies overlap.
THE NUMBER OF AGENCIES "REGULARLY” USED .............. . . . 2E’ ,
How farmers differ in the number of agricultural agencies "regularly"
used as information sources and the relation of this to the personal
and social characteristics of farmerso -
STABILITY AND CHANGE IN THE USE or AGRICULTURAL AGENCIES, l950 T0
1955 ,.,....,..........¤....... . ....... 22
How the number of farmers receiving information from each agency
changed from 1950 to 1955, and the relation of changes in the I
use of agencies to the personal and social characteristics of
A farmers.
» THE NUMBER OF AGENCIES "REGULARLY" USED AND THE ADOPTION OF FARM
A PRACTICES . ..,........ 0 ."............. . . . 28
How differences in the adoption of improved farm practices are
related to the number of agencies used, and how farmers' personal
and social characteristics are related to the process of contacting
agencies and adopting practices.
IM LICATIONS FOR A STRATEGY OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE ........... 37
with the relation of farmers' characteristics to adoption and {
their responsiveness to educational programs as criteria, a
classification of farmers' characteristics is developed which
facilitates the assessment of the strategic value of each
characteristic as a focus of attention in educational programs.
APPENDIX TABLES ..... . ............. . .........

 AGRICULTURAL AGENCIES AS INFORMATION SOURCES FOR
FARMERS IN A KENTUCKY COUNTY, 1950-1955
I C. Milton Coughenourl
Department of Rural Sociology
Introduction
Since the beginning of the effort to deal with agricultural problems through
organized public action, the number of state and federal agencies directly serving
farmers or having agricultural programs has grown to nearly a dozen.2 When
classified by primary purpose, these agencies are of two types: action agencies
which have police or tax powers, or extend credit, for example, the Farmers Home
Administration and the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Program; and
nonaction or educational agencies which are concerned with research, demonstration,
education, and counseling. Agency programs designed to serve one purpose often serve
other purposes also. Thus, in establishing a pasture—bui1ding program an action
L agency will probably dispense much up—to—date information about pasture-building
practices—a primary function of the euueamionai agencies.
U As an occupational group, farmers are doubtless unique in the number of public
{ services designed to assist them in adapting to changing agricultural conditions. »
Yet much evidence indicates that farmers do not use agricultural agencies, although
1The author is indebted to Thomas R. Ford for much editorial assistance.
2
An agency is considered to be directly concerned with farming, the farm, or
local areas if such is the focus of oneo or more of its programs. Agricultural
agencies serving Kentucky farmers include the following: Agricultural Stabilization
_ and Conservation, USDA; Bureau of Vocational Education, Kentucky; Cooperative
b Extension Service; Cooperative Farm Crédit Banks; Department of Agriculture, Kentucky;
3 Department of Conservation, Kentucky; Department of Economic Development, Kentucky;
Farmers Home Administration, USDA; Forest Service, USDA; and, Soil Conservation
' Service, USDA.

 -gm
objective appraisals show they need such assistance, How to narrow the
gap between the availability of services and their use by farmers is a
problem which concerns both agricultural agencies and local community
leaders. With reference to this problem, this report is focused on `
differences among farm operators in the use of agricultural agencies as
farm information sources.
Information concerning farmers° contacts with agricultural agencies
was collected in 1950 and 1955 from farm operators in 12 neighborhoods in
in Washington county, Kentucky.3 In 1950, 393 farm operators were in these l
1
neighborhoods, but by 1955 the number operating farms had declined to jk},
Of the latter only 285 had been in the survey neighborhoods in 1950.u In
order that the analysis can be carried out in greater detail, this report
is based on findings obtained from the 285 farmers interviewed twice: in
most respects they are representative of the total numbers in the ·
neighborhoods on each survey date. A
Since the survey neighborhoods were not randomly selected, it cannot
be claimed in any statistically meaningful way that the farmers surveyed are
 
3For data from these surveys which pertain to the present report, see
especially A. Lee Coleman and C. Paul Marsh, ”Differentia1 Communication
Among Farmers in a Kentucky County.“ Rural Sociology, 20 (1955), 9j~10l3
C. Paul Marsh and A, Lee Coleman, Com unication and the Adoption gf
Recommended Farm Pgactices, Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station,
Progress Report 22, November 195M; and James N. Young and C. Paul Marsh, The
Adoption gf Recommended Farm Practices and Sources gf Farmer Information, .
Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station, Progress Report bO, October 1956.
uFor a comparison of the farmers who had left, those who had come inte
the neighborhoods during the five year period, and those who remained, see A
Gordon DeJong and C, Milton Coughenour, ”What°s Happening to Kentaoky Rrra' A
Neighborhoods?” Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station, Kentucxg_§;;; `
and Home Science, Sum er 1958, Vol. M, No. 3, pp.}, passim. l

 f
-5%
representative of all farmers in the county.5 The neighborhoods were selected to
; represent the range of farming conditions in Washington county, which itself is
typical of much of the outer Bluegrass economic area. Farmers in these
neighborhoods face problems that are common throughout a wide area. This
report is concerned more with relationships between the use of agricultural
agencies and the personal and social characteristics of farmers than with
precise numbers or proportions of farmers who exhibit certain characteristics
or patterns of behavior. The general nature of these relationships is much
the same for farmers in broad areas and thus can be studied despite the
inadequacy of the sampling fdr some other purposes.
The general approach used in the analysis is that the farmer's contact
with agricultural agencies depends on both the agency and the farmer and,
also, that the relationship which develops between them is shaped and mediated
by the characteristics of both and by the social and physical environment in
.t which contact occurs. In this report contact with agricultural agencies is
t viewed as largely dependent on the personal and social characteristics of
farmers. For present analytical purposes, agency characteristics and those
p of the society are taken as constants in the equation, and the importance of
differences among agencies for contact with farmers is given only brief
attention.
However, among the characteristics of agencies that affect the extent of
contacts with farmers is the scope of the agency's program. Ordinarily, the
more specialized the program the smaller will be the number of farmers in an
a area to whom the program applies. The applicability of a program is also
5Use of the neighborhood as the sampling unit was dictated by the focus
of the study, of which this is a part, on the influence of neighborhood norms
in farmers' practice adoption decisions.

 \
;®- l I C ·
restricted whenever there are general qualifications, such as having served
in the armed forces, for those using its services. For these reasons the
primary agencies or organizations serving as sources of farm information in A
Washington cointy are the following:
Cooperative Extension Service
Farmers Home Administration (FHA) `
V Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station (KAES)
Production Credit Association (PCA)
Production and Marketing Association (now
Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation, Asc)
Soil Conservation Service (sos)
Vocational Agriculture and/or Veterans' i A
teachers
The Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station is not an agricultural
agency in the same direct sense as the others in this list, but it serves
as an important farm information source through the annual Farm and Home
Week, special field—day programs, and the direct distribution of printed
materials and information on request. In this report the Experiment
Station is classified as a nonaction agricultural agency.
Although data were obtained in both surveys on all these agencies so
few farmers had said they had gotten farm information from the Production
Credit Association that it is omitted from the analysis.
In the l95O and 1955 surveys farmers were asked whether during the
past two years they had obtained information, ideas, or help of any kind
from each of the various agencies in any manner whether by mail, at V
meetings, or in person. Since the frequency, duration, spontaneity, l
and closeness of contacts may vary widely among those reporting some
contact, the data provide only a minimal indication of the farmer°s
relationship to agricultural agencies. However, the regularity with which

 , *7*
ifarmers received at least some information from each agency can be determined
by examining the responses on both surveys of the 285 farmers interviewed
1 twice. For each agency three types of farmers can be identified:
Regular users——farmers reporting in both surveys that they had
obtained information (at least once) from the `
agency.during the past two years.
I Irregular users——farmers reporting in only one of the two
surveys that they had obtained information during j
the past two years.
Nonusers—-farmers reporting in both surveys that they had not
obtained information from the agency during the
past two years.
With respect to farmers who differ in their patterns of agency
" utilization, several questions arise having practical as well as general ° _
sociological significance.
1. What proportion of the farmers fall into each utilization category
for individual agencies?
2. Do farmers who are "regular users" have characteristics which
· distinguish them from the "irregular users" and the "nonusers,"
and to what extent can these characteristics produce the patterns
of utilization?
3. To what extent do farmers who obtain information from one agency
also obtain information from the other agencies?
p M. To what extent do farmers who do not receive information "regularly"
from any agency, those who receive information "regularly" from one
A or two agencies, and those who receive it "regularly" from three
to five agencies differ in their personal and social characteristics?_
5. Since for each agency the "irregular users" include those farmers
who, as determined by their reports in 195O and 1955, had stopped
or started receiving information from the agency,
V (a) what is the average rate of turnover as reflected by
the dropouts?
(b) how do the dropouts differ from the "regular" users in
their personal and social characteristics?
(0) how do the new users differ from the "nonusers" in
their personal and social characteristics?
6. With respect to the adoption of improved farm practices, what
relationship exists between farmers' personal and social

 -*8* ‘
characteristics, and their contact with agricultural agencies?
The remainder of this report presents data and interpretations V
relating to these questions.
Patterns gf`Uti1ization
According to the reports of farmers themselves as summarized in Table ‘
1, the Cooperative Extension Service through the county agricultural agent
provided information regularly to more farmers than any other agency (60
percent).6 None of the farmers, however, received farm information
regularly during this period from the Farmers Home Administration.
Moreover, the Extension Service and Farmers Home Administration are at
opposite poles with respect to the proportions of "nonusers" (10 percent
and 90 percent, respectively). Except for the Extension Service, each
agency has more "nonusers" or "irregular users" than "regular users."
Table l.~—Percentage distribution of farm operators by pattern of
utilization of agricultural agencies, Washington county, 1950-1955
Pattern of Utilization
All Non 1rregular·Hegular
Agricultural Agency Farmers Use Use Use
(Number)
........Percent.......-
Agricultural Extension Service (285) 100 l0 30 60
Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Program .... (285) 100 31 M5 2M
Farmers Home Administration . (28b) 100 90 10 0
Kentucky Agricultural Experiment
Station ........... (283) 100 59 26 15
Soil Conservation Service (285) 100 30 N5 25
Vocational Agriculture or Veterans'
__Teachers ............ (28U) 100 7b 18 8
6 . . .
These findings must be used cautiously in their general application
since representativeness of the sample cannot be determined,

 -g,_
The proportion of farmers contacted provides another perspective from
which to view these data. Thus, for example, over a period of time 90
percent of these farmers received information from the Extension Service,
although only 60 percent had done so regularly.
In interpreting these findings it is best to consider carefully the
information function of each agency and its position in the system of
communications. Of the six agencies only the Extension Service and the
Soil Conservation Service aim primarily to supply up—to—date farm
information to all farmers desiring it. Of the two, the Extension Service
may be expected to have the widest contacts owing to its broader purpose.
Therefore, although the percentage of "regular users" of the county agent
is noteworthy,7 it is not surprising that this proportion is larger than
that for any other agency. On the other hand, the percentage who
regularly reported having obtained help from the Agricultural Experiment
Station (15 percent) is somewhat surprising in view of the limited
opportunities that farmers have to obtain information from this source.
Although contacts with the Soil Conservation Service and the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation agencies cannot be directly compared with
7Although direct comparison with findings from other states is
inadvisable the percentage of "regular users" of the county agent compares
favorably to the percentage of farmers usually getting helpful information
from printed extension (82 percent) and oral extension (55)percent) in
Schuyler county, New York. See Helen C. Abell, Olaf F. Larson, and
Elizabeth R. Dickerson, Communication gf Agricultural Information in g
South—Central New York County, Cornell University Agricultural Experiment
Station, Mimeographed Bulletin M9, January, 1957. The percentage of
"regular users" of the county agent in Washington county is far greater,
as would be expected from the definition used, than the percentage using
the county agent as a personal source of information as reported by studies
in Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

 .yg.
those in other counties or states, the proportion of ”regular users” for
each appear noteworthy.8 The specialized purpose and limited applicability
of the Farmers Home Administration program doubtless accounts for the
restricted use of this agency as a source of information. Since so few U
farmers obtained information from this agency, the Farmers Home
Administration as an information source is not considered further in this
report.
Characteristics qf Farmers Khq "Regularly,” "Irregularly,"
gpg "Never" Qggd Agencies
The information services of the agricultural agencies, except for
vocational agriculture and veterans' teachers, are available to farmers
with regard to need or station in life; but one expects that the more
knowledgeable, perceptive, resourceful, active, and profit-oriented
farmers in the community will exert the greatest effort to obtain these
services. In societies where social position is predetermined by the
accident of birth, personal qualities count for little in_social
achievement. In our society, however, social and economic achievement
tend to be positively associated with acquired personal qualities, owing
to the accessibility of formal education on one hand, and on the other,
to the importance of the individual's abilities and values in making the
short and long run decisions which are necessary for continued development.
Measures of socio—economic status, participation in formal organizations, I
8The percentage regularly using these two agencies is generally
above the percentage of farmers in other states who are reported as
"usually" obtaining information from these agencies. However, since the
question asked Washington county farmers was more inclusive as to means
of direct contact between a farmer and the agency than that asked farmers
in other states, to what extent the proportions reflect differences in
question wording rather than levels of contact cannot be determined
precisely.

 -1]-
value of crops and products produced for sale, and level of practice-
adoption in neighborhood of residenceg reflect the economic and social
position of the farmer, the favorability of the social climate in which
he lives to the adoption of farm practices, and his scale of farming
operations.1O Measures of the farmer's education, age, attitude toward
scientific farming, and years farming reflect the extent of personal
farming experience, development of intellectual abilities, and motivation
to seek "authoritative” sources. With chronological age and years of
farming as exceptions, research in Kentucky and elsewhere has shown that
the number and kinds of information sources used are directly associated
with all these variables. Increasing chronological age inevitably brings
with it a decrease in activity levels, in expectations of economic growth
and/or of levels of living, willingness to assume risks, and the like.
Moreover, as compared with younger farmers, older ones tend to have less
formal education. Older farmers are less inclined to feel a need for and
to seek up—to—date information. Years in farming is associated with age
9Analysis of data pertaining to the level of practice adoption of
farmers in these neighborhoods has led to the conclusion that there are
group expectations or norms which guide the information—seeking and
practice—adoption behavior of farmers. See especially, A. Lee Coleman
and C. Paul Marsh, gp. cit; C. Paul Marsh and A. Lee Coleman, ”The
Relation of Neighborhood of Residence to Adoption of Recommended Farm
Practices," Rural Sociology 19, (1954), 385-389; and C. Paul Marsh
and A. Lee Coleman, "Group Influences and Agricultural Innovations:
Some Tentative Findings and Hypotheses." American Journal gf Sociology,
61 (1956) . 588-59L+-
lOWhile the value of crops and products produced is commonly
regarded as an index of socio—economic status it also reflects the
scale of farming operations. In a study of 506 farmers in Magoffin,
Powell, Trigg, Garrard, and Harrison counties in l9b9 and 1950, the
value of crops and products produced and scale of farming operations were
shown to be highly related (X2 : 281.8, P<(.OOl; gamma, the relative
probability of like and unlike orders, was f 0.6U).

 _ si  
and, for this reason as well as perhaps others, years farming tends to be
negatively associated with information seeking.
It was to be expected that the same factors associated with the use
of agencies at a particular time would also be associated with the
frequency of use over an extended period of time. Put somewhat
differently, one expects "regular," "irregular," and "nonuser" farmers
to form a gradient with the ”regular users" highest and the ”nonusers”
lowest when ranked according to measures of these personal and social
characteristics (the order would be reversed for farmers ranked by age
or years in farming). The expected relationships are shown schematically
for each farmer characteristic in the first column of Table 2. Moreover,
it is expected that the associations between the patterns of utilization
and these characteristics of farmers will be stronger for the educational
than for the action agencies.
The expected associations between patterns of utilization and these
personal and social characteristicsll are in large part confirmed for the
surveyed operators. As indicated in Table 2, in only three cases is the
direction of the actual relationship the reverse of the one predicted.
Enthusiasm for this conclusion, however, should be tempered by a
consideration of the degree of association. For this purpose two levels
of association have been indicated in Table 2. Moderate association of
information patterns for a particular agency is indicated by a single ‘
11For the purpose of this analysis little significance is attached to
the classification of farmer characteristics as personal or economic,and
social. It is based largely on a judgment of whether the particular
characteristic best represents the temperament, attitude, and mental
ability of the farmer, or the social aspects of his position and extent
of participa+ion in the community, or the scale of his farming operations.

 .13.
line under the appropriate pair of ”Yes's,” and strong association is
indicated by a double underline.12
with these guides one can (1) compare the relative importance of
each farmer characteristic with respect to receiving information from
agricultural agencies generally, and (2) for each agency assess the
characteristics of farmers that appear particularly related to information
patterns with respect to that agency.
12The choice of gamma (N') as a measure of association was dictated by
the following considerations: (l) several of the measures provide only
ordinal measurement which suggests the use of a nonparametric measure of
association; (2) since the 285 farm operators do not comprise a sample from
any known universe, use of the more familiar sampling statistic, chi—square,
raises the risk of misinterpretation; and (3) the coefficient of contingency,
which is based on chi-square, is difficult to interpret. These difficulties
are avoided by using gamma. See: Leo Goodman and William H. Kruskal,
”Measures of Association for Cross—classifications." Journal of the
American Statistical Association, M9 (195U), 732-76b.
For present purposes the two levels of association indicated in
Table 2 may be described as follows: Suppose that two of the farmers in
this survey are chosen at random and classified as to their respective
relationships to a particular agency and any given personal or social
characteristic, e.g. as to relationship to Experiment Station and age.
One underline means that for these two farmers the probability of the
expected direction of association occurring is at least 30 percent .
greater: than the probability of the reverse association occurring.
A double underline means that the probability of the expected
association occurring is at least 50 percent greater than the probability
of the reverse association. Selection of these two breaking points and
the respective descriptive adjectives used (moderate and strong) is
purely arbitrary.

 hl (D V
(DUH}-4.
,.¤¤0,¤0<¤ I>ZD ¥>· ¥>-· I>-¢ §>·
cu
E? 5 3
'3>~ 0 00:Q:u m m uz ua
Mo U ,_;_¤¤ D I>-• §>·· I>-· ¥>·
0 r¤*··mv-.
wgn *`°`3¤0.> rn
3*% gmc!/1;:5 cn rn
U)
r¤.¤ .0 O 00 0 cu 0 (3
  2 Z:) }>‘* P" P" I>·*
Bw v-.
.2 ¤> 5 3
20 "’ ·0n30> uz cn an m
ww ~g__j§`,..u>¤¤ :¤ >· :>· :>· :>·
nd .,..‘,:d¤0.
.s2° »¤ <*5,.‘:
KH; 2 >¢¤¤.J no ua m m
Om O mom 0 cv 0 0
mg I} ZD }>* W }>·• ¥>·*
¤ cd
3’¤¤ H ¤i>· =¤
GO 2 gD¥-•1·-•
4..gjm Hmmm ua ua ua rn
czdm .,,5 D40-·u> 0 ¤.> 0 0
°’E°` .¤,¤ _£¤ D £>* ¥>-¤ >· >¤
U "" 4;*; H
$$2 33*2.23
‘•-4
°‘¤¤s ,,, . ::::0 m LD 6. 6.
¤···•O >_¤n 00m 0 cz 0 0
g_s_;_m ;·,<1 UZD3 ¥>·· §>-· l>-•V ¥>*
'Bmg: E
2333,,. SH · ·~
·¤..=»- *g·==¤ .3..33 3 3 3 3
...*,5*E ¤;.23¤>~*·¤ >· >· >— :>·
.9.—¤>§,’ ¤:§·;°‘ D
igu Bev:-· U,
{gmc; ....‘§L‘g¤:—4 cn rn zn nn
.2*2 ’.:..¤¤ 83 ; :2 gi g
::,"§Lfg> < zz
'"'f\$·.·<
°’ .¤
Hmm an U 4-• u 4->
·¤.‘3.<2 ¤.¤,_,:~. T6 co my 76* cm T; -4 on
4 •y-Q
3; 35,323 g¢¥3 3%,; $@75 '§<>.'§
2.6 +5,:m D ug >-7 A an ·-J un an »-T
00 ¤>,°
U; 5*;% yy, U3 *.3 E *.7. 0 .» 1;;
¤..¤ BJ']; rn on .2 2 <1> 3 3 (3 (D
‘“u mnp. no ··‘ ·—· on ·-· no on Q
-0 D ¤ <¤ >·v>"’ “’6>+· "’¢>>· *~<·‘#‘“
(pq; Gm cc E E as E cd as E .
gg ZD .-1 nn an .-1 cn ..1 A an
00
@.401
(D (IJ
[Arg u U, A
'qg ZS 1-• ‘° $21
¤__ ¤> m m °> ~ B2 ~-· .
gm Bm `Z °’*¤>` $:0 g·°·° -0 °"
¤ ·-·v-· 0 >`*··o -¤~·-• ·¤‘°'° cu Q c
MO IDU U (gv, E mi-1}-• H -.-1
,,(m -.-• U (DG) $-1 HOO (D m E G.) N
,.¤;_· RE (Q ¥'*>,¤ (GH O>> •-1 G) ¤ H H C:
M0 BM H ..°c_<=$ 3,,*2 >§\fE} ¤· ’·• ns xv 0 cd
¤~¤~ ~~ ~ ¤E....a :2 as E ° #= - &3¤
mf:. —¤ uw __E’, 3*0 0 E “ ¤ *"
s-·__( L) 0~80¤¤ ¤.>·... :>~...”’ 0 H w --· Hom
20 __‘ .-4 #$3   ;..q,>,,_, (:],.,0 uy In O·->q?
Ks `©© *-l¤Ln¤)¥—|O HO O.) IH LDQGJ
U sz: 3\¤ ¥>D..Z ,¤Oc~00.J m€>m¢\1.J1
3 ¤¤ ·*$`5`£ W5 ME?
,_, {Z ·•u> >-4.-4
£ .

 3;, m 2
0 ‘,q
.-Q‘b01—•(*B un rn rn m *5
. gwgm 0 0 0 0 jim
QDSUQS D $>·* }>* ¥>·* I>-• Sgt?
..·EH cn (,,00
Mlm _|;.. (Dm-.-
gO¤4.¤$Z1® rn an rn m .,.»*""¤
cd
**—·*{> @0**1 0 0 0 0 ¤u***_§
E >z¤ >· >·. >~ >· ;§€:
Q) U] 
Q 0 rn ESQ
(D _ gbgg uz ua an m  _'
H Hm 0 0 0 0 OH4.·
*-’ (DW! ¥>* >-* I>·• }>·* s: _"* 
 ua uz ua rn Ogg 
FU 0m 0 0 0 0 :00
(D ZD l>·* }>* I>·* ¥>·* $3,1, 
I> ;>,‘:*&"~•`n
E aién m :2.00
1-es-4 cn rd
3 ..7*,**;*.* <¤ 3 3 3 Aug,
0-;., M ‘” 7>* >-* >·* ¥>* cd E
¤.Q"°°,.¥ D "'BEE
_ .. ¤
zz"? 33 2 M-°·=·
I .. •,
C2 [*]::0 3 (3 Q3 3 ·:·>-4m
0 om ***000
nc za >* *‘ >* >* *ég>U,
**3 °·’:—·: 0
r··| ° ..
bon ug =•-4*¤ mw-·‘*·> >· :>· >~ >· S’°°’"*€
U 0, A ,,, <¤.2`“,·
3 Om gih rn m m cn gh *:1
4) O:-<
  *¤‘¤ qtiim 0 0 0 0 ·E4*mq,¤
IO mdgq
29, E ' m -U0'G
·· QF? SUSE 53 "’ 23 :3 "‘*>¤¤
' $32***-* 0-*u¤ 0 "¤E€¥+`°°°
. Ogjgqg P" >'* P" V" gg U)
(D ,'jm.H 4 4-*;: 
'_‘ U¤> m »-—¢>4m¤*1> 0 0 0 0 0®£:.
H  4-•E-|§"§'-:7*
an m 4-» ·s-» gn +-> U; QJ
0; *:2 §,§ 3DS 30% Ea, é’>E2€§§
  ·
pq DD N (D ;.,€_>fU H®d HQM H6-$(6 C: DD Q H
'U-·-**¤·—**¤ 0 E ME 0 E **5 Eg_Ig—··
,2*- §0 ··-·_*j ¥·-* .9.__ :sE§§,<»4§§‘*$:*O
*—·°’ ¤LS‘ cc: E **-0 "¤ 0::*0
Da OHOC: O
H .,-4 .,4uD C: O $-1 -,-1 a
UGS UH "";.‘ E O E r¤__¤ E O-acgi QU
_ 0 B10 ***0 :.1 gs *** :1 0;*, ·
\ I-af-7-1 4-> Q-4 ·-• U ·,-4 LHR .,-4 `*"~0 *3 ££l#—*¤~;
` \ ·gU Il.-·e-· ug--< E-*0 > img;
' ‘. _   . ,/ ·jC‘/Jiu)

 alr-
Table 2 indicates that the most important single farmer characteristic A
in agency utilization is socio-economic status, since the information
patterns for every agency are moderately or strongly associated with this
characteristic of farmers. The extent of the farmer's formal education
is second in importance. Obtaining or not obtaining information from
these agencies is least associated with the farmer's age, years in farming,
and attitude toward scientific farming. (However, as we shall see, the
farmer's age and attitude toward scientific farming are particularly
important with regard to the number of agencies contacted regularly and
practices adopted.)
Earmers' information patterns with respect to the Experiment Station,
county Extension agent, and Soil Conservation Service agent are
moderately to strongly associated with most of these personal and social
characteristics. Farmers who “regularly" obtain information from these
agencies thus may be described as the better—educated who possess the most
favorable attitudes toward scientific farming, have a relatively high
scale of farming operations and socio-economic status, and who participate
heavily in formal organizations and live in neighborhoods which encouraged
the adoption of improved farming practices.
Getting information from the Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Program representatives is only moderately associated with
education and socio-economic status. Since this agency is geared
principally to action programs, less association between its use as a
farm information source and these characteristics is to be expected. The
fact that the better—educated and high status farmers more often receive
information "regularly" from this agency probably reflects their greater
participation in stabilization and conservation programs generally. Farm
information is thus obtained as a byproduct of contact for other purposes.

 -1%-
The vocational agriculture and the veterans' teachers are used
primarily by the young, better-educated, and higher status persons who
have recently started farming. Of course, these agents are most
accessible to the high school graduate and the young veteran. At the
same time, the conditions which lead more high than low status farmers
to use the other educational agencies also presumably operate in the same
way for those who have the opportunity to obtain help from the vocational
agriculture and veterans' teachers.
U Thg_"Regular Q§ggg" ag thg_Agency's Clientels U
Program planning to improve or extend an agency's services requires
knowledge of clients' needs and characteristics. Such information aids
identification of the clientele and points to factors which must be
considered in planning. The farmers who receive information and help
from an agricultural agency, especially the ”regular users,” may be
. regarded as the clientele of that agency. However, two facts shcild be
U pointed out: (l) the ”regular users" as defined here are clients with
respect to receiving farm information. An action agency's clientele
would include those who receive monetary and other kinds of assistance.
(2) Since random sampling procedures were not used in selecting respondents,
V the extent to which the findings apply generally cannot be determined in
a percise way. With these facts in mind the reader is invited to examine
the information in Table 3.

 ’uS
.. %¤,
¤~ T;
{J
'Q .
2: 2 Z
¤¤ ol; 0
,_¤ _ .-4
. 0 __` jg
°° QB 0~ m ···•
 > ® ;·_¤D