xt7nk931453n https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7nk931453n/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1956 journals 040 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.40 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.40 1956 2014 true xt7nk931453n section xt7nk931453n Progress Report 40 October 1956 · 9
  The Adoption
of Recommended 1
Farm Practices, and y 1
  Sources of Farmer Information
Some Findings from Surveys '
Conducted in 1950 and 1955
Washington County, Kentucky
U
, umvnnsnrv or xmrucxv
Aonncuuunn zxvsnmnur surnon y
uxmorou

 THE ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDED FARM PRACTICES ·
—__ ANL) SOURCES QF FARMER INFORMATION ‘
Some Findings from Surveys Conducted in 1950 and 1955 '
Washington County, Kentugfy _— 1-
By James N. Young and C. Paul Marsh E _
Department of Rural Sociology
How farmers come to adopt new farm practices and where they get their
information about them have long concerned those interested in the spread of new
discoveries and techniques in agriculturec That new ideas are being rapidly and
effectively spread is indicated by the fact that farmers now produce much more A
food and fiber annually than they did a generation ago, despite a decrease in the
number of people working on farms.
New farm practices, however, are not adopted at the same rate of speed
by all farmers. One frequently sees farms side by side, on which the operator
of one is following the latest and most modern techniques in agriculture while
I on the other the operator is employing methods characteristic of a generation `
ago.
. The purpose of the two surveys reported here is to indicate some of the
factors that appear to be important both in the adoption of new practices and in
the use of various channels of farming information. The first survey, conducted
in 1950, consisted of interviewing all farm operators in 13 Washington county
neighborhoods. This study was followed in 1955 with a similar survey of the
same neighborhoodsu In 1950 a total of 393 farmers were interviewed; in 1955, ·
however, because of a 13 percent decrease in farms during the 5-year period,
the number of farmers interviewed dropped to 343t
Adoption tif Recommended Practices -
For many of the practices recommended by agricultural agencies there
is no definite way of determining when a farmer has "accepted" or "adopted" ,
the practice. For example, with regard to the use of bluestone—lime in treating
tobacco beds a farmer may (1) never have used it (2) used it in some years
) but not in others or (3) used it as recommended for several years. But if a
farmer builds terraces, he is pretty much committed to farming with them for
sometime to come and he cannot vary from year to year.
It is generally agreed, however, that the biggest hurdle in gaining accept-
ance of new practices is getting the farmer to make the first trial. For most
practices included in this study the definition of "adoption" was that the farmer had
tried the particular practice In several instances, however, there appeared
to be good reason for employing a stricter definition of adoption for this study.

 -2,-
The definition of adoption used for each practice is as follows; ·
1 Artificial Breeding: had bred one or more cows artifically.
2. Farm Recordsz kept complete farm records — receipts, expenditures,
inventory, and production.
3. Terracing or Contouring: had any terraces or had ever cultivated any
fields on the contour.
4. Ladino Cloverz had ever planted any ladino clover.
5. Kentucky 31 Fescue: had ever planted any Kentucky 31 fescue.
6. Calf Vaccination: had ever vaccinated for Bang's diseaset if
7. Chick Purchase? had purchased all chicks from a hatchery and from _
one in Kentucky in the year preceding the interview.
G Al1~Pullet Flock? had kept a1l~pnl1et flock in the year preceding the "
interviewt
9. B1uestone—Lime: had ever used the bluestone -1ime treatment on tobacco
beds.
10 Soil Testingw had ever had any soil tested.
11. Phenothiazine Drench: had drenched sheep with phenothiazine at least
once in the yea: preceding the interview
12 Phenothiazine with Salt: ha.d given. sheep phenothiazine wi.th salt at
least part of the time in the year preceding the interview. .
13 Alfalfa: had some alfalfa at time of interview (this practice was not
included in 1950 study).
14 Plow Tobacco Beds in Fall: had plowed tobacco beds in the fall pre-
ceding the interview (this practice was not included in 1950 study).
The purpose of Table 1 is to show how widespread the adoption of the prac-
tices was in 1955 as compared with 1950, while the purpose in Tables 2-5 is to
show these changes according to the level of education of the farmers interviewed
and according to the value of crops they sell. The percentage of farmers adopti.ng
each practice is based on the number of farmers having the enterprise to which
the practice applies Thus, 374- ofthe 393 farmers interviewed in 1950 had dairy
cows and of these 52 (14l percent) had adopted artificial breeding (Table 1). This
means that 332 (86 pe recent) of the farm operators had not adopted this practice.
ln 1955, 330 of the 3/E3 farmers interviewed had dairy ;o—ws and 21 percent of
them had adopted artificial breeding. Sinnilarly, in 1950, 132 of the farmers with
7 grades or less of schooling had dairy cows and only 6 percent of these had
adopted artificial breeding (Table 2) In 1955i 123 farm operators with less than
7 yea *s of schooling had dairy cows and 7 percent of the.m had adopted artificial l
breeding In other words, the re had been no important change in the extent of
adoption of this practice during the 5-year period.
The keeping of farm records is of course. a psactice that applies to all
farrnets regardless of what enterprises they have As is indicated in Table 1,
however only 13 percent of the farmers were following this practice in 1950
and only 12 peVcentin1955. Thus. the re has been no significant change in the
adoption of this practice since 1950

 What Changes Have Occurred Between 1950 and 1955
in the Adoption of Certain Recommended Farm Izactices?
TABLE 1
PERCENTAGE OF FARMERS WHO HAD ADOPTED ,
CERTAIN RECOMMENDED PRACTICES, 1950 AND 1955*
Practice Year
1950 1955
% %
 
Artificial breeding 14 21
Farm records 13 12
Terracing or contouring 20 35
Ladino clover 25 50
Kentucky 31 fescue 25 85
I Calf vaccination 27 39
Chick purchase 57 63 . V
Pullet flock 25 39
Bluestone—lime 60 77
Soil testing 23 52
Phenothiazine drench 60 76 ,
Phenothiazine with salt 59 66
l Alfalfa>·'=='·= —— 27
Plow tobacco beds in fall** —·— 25
*For each practice, the percentages are based on the number of farmers having the enterprise to which the
practice applies. (See page 2) ‘
**Not included in the 1950 studyi
There were no significant decreases in the number of farmers adopting
A any of the practices, and in most instances there were marked increases. The l
_ increase in the adoption of Kentucky 31 Fescue was especially marked, Al-
though there were important gains in the adoption of nearly all practices in-
cluded in the present study, it is apparent that there was no uniformity in the `
rate of increase of the various practices during the period between 1950 and
19557 The tables which follow indicate some of the factors which possibly have
been influencial in promoting or retarding the adoption of these practices. Be-
sides these factors, however, it should be noted that there are other important
1 considerations that may account for differences in the rates of adoption. Such
considerations are as follows:
lt The table above indicates a great deal of variation in the percentage of farmers
who have adopted the various practices in 1950; the potentiality or possibility
7 for wider adoption after 1950 is largely determined by the number who had

 -4,- .
already adopted at that time.. For example, while 60 percent of the farmers _
in 1950 had tried using bluestone—lime on their tobacco plants, only 14 percent
had used artificial breeding, so that the possibility for wider adoption of the
latter practice was considerably greater.
2.. The spread of farm practices may be enhanced or impeded by the expense and/
or physical effort involved in actually putting the practices into operation. The __
· fact that some practices are more cheaply and easily applied to the farming
operation than others is an important factor effecting the rapidity of their adop- ·
tion. _
3. A third variable which may account for differences in the rate of adoption is ·
whether the practice was introduced recently or earlier and, in this connection,
the awareness or degree of acquaintance that farnners have in regard to a par—
ticular practice.
4 All the practices included in this study were generally quite highly recommended
by the agricultural agencies and professional personnel. However, differences
in emphasis on specific practices by agricultural agents and in the several com- I T
munication media no doubt has some influence on farmers' decisions regarding ‘
adoption.
5 Also, certain practices tend to have more tangible and immediate results and
frequently more appeal for the farmer than other practices. For instance,
terracing may not produce the same rapid results that might be evidenced in
the use of a different variety of tobacco seed.
\
6. Finally, "outside" forces, (e. g., economic, governmental, etc.) may accelerate
or retard certain farming innovations. For example, the striking increase in
the adoption of Kentucky 31 fescue between 1950 and 1955 is in part a result of
its relative newness but may also be attributed to a shift toward more pasture
farming as a result of governmental controls on production of tobacco and other
crops. Related to this, on the reverse side, is the marked increase in soil A
testing, a relatively old practice. This is no doubt due in some degree to the
fact that acreage limitations on cash crops (e. g., tobacco) might be partly over-
come by an increase in production per acre. Thus, many farmers adopt soil
testing, increased amounts of fertilizer, and other practices in order to achieve
higher production.
7. A part of the increase in the percentage who had adopted given practices by 1955
may be due to marginal farmers (who had adopted few of the practices) dropping `
out of farming during the period. Even though this part of the increase does not
involve new adoptions and may in a sense be "artificial," the practical result is i
the same, in that a higher proportion of those actually farming were using the
recommended practices.

 -5-
Do farmers of different_educational levels
. adopt recommended practices to the same extent? _
. TABLE 2
PERCENTAGE OF FARMERS OF DIFFERENT EDUCATIONAL LEVELS I
WHO HAD ADOPTED CERTAIN RECOMMENDED PRACTICES BY 1950 AND 1955*
  L
Practice Years of Schooling Completed
Less than 7 I ` 7 - 8 More than 8
Year Year Year
1950 1955 1950 1955 1950 1955
% % % % % %
 
Artificial breeding 6 7 13 26 28 45
I Farm records 3 5 13 13 29 30
Terracing or contouring 4 18 17 36 48 74
Ladino clover 13 40 23 47 47 74
Kentucky 31 fescue 15 81 Z3 85 42 94
Calf vaccination 18 19 27 42 43 83 l
Chick purchase 51 53 53 67 76 81
Pullet flock I 13 27 27 47 38 43
B1uestone—1ime 46 68 60 82 82 91
Soil testing 11 39 19 66 46 87
Phenothiazine drench 37 72 63 75 76 82
Phenothiazine with salt 44 44 54 72 76 77
Alfalfa** —— 16 —— 29 -- 51
Plow tobacco beds in fa·ll** -— 12 —— 33 —— 34
* For each practice, the percentages are based on the number of farmers having the enterprise to which the practice
applies. (See page 2)
**N0t: included in the 1950 study.
The more schooling a farmer has had the more likely he is to adopt recommended
practices. For each practice, in both 1950 and 1955, the higher the educational level,
the greater was the percentage of farmers adopting the practice. ·
Although there is no consistency in the rate of increase for the different educa-
tional levels between 1950 and 1955, there appears to be some indication that for the
better educated farmers there is a shorter time interval between the introduction of
a new practice and the adoption of that practice than is true for the farmers with less
schooling. _

 -6-.
Do farm operators of different income levels
adopt recommended farm practices to the same extent?
TABLE 3
PERCENTAGE OF FARMERS HAV}lNG DIFFERENT GROSS SALES A
WHO HAD ADOPTED CERTAIN RECOMMENDED PRACTICES BY 1950 AND 1955*
Practice Annual Value of Crops and Products Sold 5
Under $2, 500 $2, 500 or more
Year Year A
1950 1955 1950 1955
°/0 % % %
.,_,.,..,..... _____..............--- 
Artificial breeding 10 8 27 37
Farm records 7 5 21 1 22
Terracing or contouring 10 11 43 62
Isadino clover 14 36 45 66
Kentucky 31 fescue 14 74 43 98
Calf vaccination 19 17 42 , 67 y
l Chick purchase 54 51 69 n 77
Pullet flock 19 30 36 48
Bluestone—lin1e 49 77 77 90
Soil Testing 12 44 41 76
Plienothiazine drench 34 68 77 81 \
Phenothiazine with salt 33 51 73 84 .
Alfalfa** —— 19 —— 37
Plow tobacco beds in fall=¢<* —— 21 ‘—- 31
* For each practice, the percentages are based on the number of farmers having the enterprise to which the practice
applies. (See page 2)
*=*Not included in the 1950 study., I
The larger the income (as indicated by value of crops and products sold) the more
ltkvlv the farm operator is to adopt recommended practices. For all practices studied,
the percentage of farmers adopting the practice increased as the value of crops and
products sold increased This trend. for most practices, is more apparent in 1955

 .-7-
D0 more of the farmers who have personal contact with agricultural agency repre- I
sentatives adopt practices than farmers who do not have such personal contact?
I TABLE 4 I
PERCENTAGE OF FARMERS WHO HAD ADOPTED CERTAIN RECOMMENDED
PRACTICES BY 1950 AND BY 1955, CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO " _
WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAD TALKED WITH AN AGRICUL-
TURAL AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE IN THE TWO YEARS
PRECEDING THE INTERVIEW*
Practice I Contact with Agency RIepresentative**
Had Not Talked With Had Talked With
1950 1955 1950 1955
% % % %
Artificial breeding 2 8 22 30
Farm records 5 1 19 20 I
Terracing or contouring 2 12 33 48
I
1
Ladino clover 10 35 37 59 I
I Kentucky 31 fescue 14 69 34 94
Calf vaccination . 17 16 35 46 '
  Chick purchase 47 44 65 76
Pullet flock 16 23 31 48
: Bluestone—lime I 44 67 72 84
Soil testing 23 36 33 78 -
Phenothiazine drench 45 69 66 78
Phenothiazine with salt 40 49 67 72
I Alfalfa*** —— 14 —— 35
Plow tobacco beds in fal1>c<>c==:< -- 26 —— 39
*For each practice, the percentages are based on the number of farmers having the enterprise to which practice applies.
(See page 2)
** County Agent, Soil Conservation Service Technician, Farmer‘s Home Administration Representative, or Production and
Marketing Administration Representative.
i *** Not included in the .1950 study.
` As was expected, more of the farmers who had talked with representatives of the
agricultural agencies had adopted recommended practices than had those who had not
experienced this contact. This was true for all practices in both surveys. The
differences between those who had agency contact and those who did not were  eneral

 -g-
Do recommended farm practices "take" at the same rate
__   ig areas rf icounty'? _—-_ _-'—
TABLE 5
PERCENTAGE OF FARMERS LIVING IN DIFFERENT TYPES
OF NEIGHBORHOODS WHO HAD ADOPTED CERTAIN RECOMMENDED PRACTICES
BY 1950 AND 1955.* i .
 
Type of Neighborhood _ c
Practice "Low Adoption" "Medium Adoption" "High Adoption"
Neighborhoods** Neighborhoods** Neighborhoods **
1950 1955 1950 1955 1950 1955
% % % % % %
 
Artificial breeding 3 2 14 30 31 39
Farm records 7 1 14 23 20 15
Terracing or contouring 1 9 17 40 53 68 1
Ladino clover 9 41 25 50 52 66 '
Kentucky 31 fescue 17 74 21 86 43 97  
Calf vaccination 13 14 33 44 43 70
Chick purchase 42 42 68 80 80 74
Pullet flock 12 29 32 44 35 46
Bluestone-lime 41 as 70 71 76 90
Soil testing 10 41 25 50 42 66
Phenothiazine drenchi 36 68 68 80 73 77
Phenothiazine with salt 34 51 63 73 76 69 Q
Alfa1f*>¢=>¢= -- 23 -- 20 -- 43 1
l Plow tobacco beds
in fall >4<>*s>4< -.. 24 —— 26 -- 27
* Em each practice, the percentages are based on the number of farmers having the enterprise to which the i
practice applies. (See page:2) ` C
** Classified on the basis of adoption up to 1950.
*** Not included in the 1950 study.
Extension workers have long recognized that recommendations "take" more
quickly and more completely in some areas than in others, as is clearly the case
here. Farmers in certain neighborhoods were so consistently high in adoption of
practices and farmers in other neighborhoods so consistently low that it was pos- Y
sible to group the neighborhoods as "loxv, " "medium, " and "high" in adoption.
In both surveys the neighborhoods that were low in adoption were those lo-
cated in the hill section of the county. The farms were small, the educational
level of the farm operators was low, and relatively few operators reported at-
tending farm meetings, talking with agricultural agency representatives, or
l

 -9-
reading farm bulletins (Table 12). As has been indicated in another report,
however, it is not safe to assume that all differences among neighborhoods can
be attributed to differences in size of operation, education, or contact with
communication channels. For example, farmers of low educational level who l
live in neighborhoods that are high in adoption have higher adoption rates than
farmers of similar educational level who live in neighborhoods that are low in
adoption. Similarly, farmers living in "low adoption" neighborhoods who have _
talked with agricultural agency representatives have lower rates of adoption
than residents of "medium adoption" and "high adoption" neighborhoods who
have had such contacts.
Contact with Channels of Communication
In both 1950 and 1955 each of the farm operators interviewed was asked
the questions listed below. The reponses given to these questions are shown in
Table 6.
1. During the past 2 years, have you read any farm papers or magazines? .
` 2. Do you read any newspapers? Do you get farming information, ideas,
or help of any kind from the newspapers you read? (Only a "yes" answer to the
second of these questions was counted as a "contact".)
3. During the past Z years, have you listened to any farm programs on
the radio?
_ 4. During the past 2 years, have you attended any farm meetings of the ‘
county agent, Soil Conservation Service, Pl\/LA, agriculture teachers, or other
agricultural agencies?
5. During the past 2 years, have you talked personally to any of the repre-
sentatives of the agricultural agencies, such as the county agent, soil conser— _
vation man, Farmers Home (Farm Security) man, Production Credit man, etc.
about farming problems, to get their advice and suggestions?
6. During the past 2 years, have you read any of the letters which the
county agent sends out from time to time, which include advice and suggestions
about various farming matters?
· 7. During the past Z years, have you read or referred to any of the farm
bulletins put out by agricultural agencies, experiment station, or federal govern-
ment?
8. During the past 2 years, have you gotten any farming information, ad-
vice, or suggestions from salesmen, dealers, storekeepers, bankers, business-—
men, or co—ops?
`
C. Paul Marsh and A. Lee Coleman, "The Relation of Neighborhood of Residence to Adoption of Recommended
Farm Practices, "Rural Sociology, XIX;4 (December 1954). Reprints available from the Department of Rural
Sociology, University of Kentucky, Lacington.

 -10-
9. During the past 2 years, have you gotten any farming information, ad-
vice, or suggestions from neighbors, friends or relatives or by watching how
they farm or new things they are trying?
In addition, the following question was also asked in 1955: i
"During the past 2 years have you watched any farm programs on television?"
These questions were designed to determine whether there had been any
contact at all with the various means of communication. Except for newspapers, ·
"contact" refers to any at all for a 2-year period —— or, more accurately, any A
that made enough of an impression to be remembered. This should be kept in
mind in interpreting Tables 6, 8, 10, and 12. Obviously the frequency and type .
of contact varied widely among those reporting this minimum of contact.
Table 6 is designed to show, for the total sample, the changes between
1950 and 1955 in the extent of contact with channels of communication. Tables
8, 10, and 12. are designed to show changes within different groupings _of farmers.
For example, in 1950, 56 percent of the farmers interviewed said they had talked
personally with an agricultural agency representative, while in 1955, 61 percent `
1 of the farmers reported such a contact during the previous Z years. Similarly,
36 percent of the farm operators with less than 7 grades of schooling said they
had talked with an agricultural agency representative, and in 1955, 37 percent
of the farmers of this educational level reported such contact. Thus, little change
in the use of this source has occurred during the 5-year interval.
Though little information was obtained as to how frequently farm operators
were in contact with the various channels of information, the following question
was asked in both surveysin an attempt to determine which of the media each
\ respondent regarded as most important to him personally:
"Of all the ways of getting information that we have talked
, about -~· farm papers, newspapers, radio, farm meetings,
talking to the agricultural agency people, talking to dealers, T
and talking to friends, neighbors and relatives -— from what
one or two sources do you usually get the most helpful in-
formation? "
Tables 7, 9, 11, and 13 are based on answers to this question. They are
designed to show changes from 1950 to 1955 in the extent to which various
groupings of farmers considered different channels as "most helpful". Thus, l
as may be seen in Table 9, in 1950, 11 percent of the farmers with less than
7 grades of schooling considered agricultural agency representatives as among
the one or two most helpful sources. ln 1955, 16 percent of the farmers of a
similar educational level reported that personal contacts with agency repre-
sentatives were among the sources they had found most helpful.

 -11-
From what sources do farm operators
get information about new things in farming?
TABLE 6
PERCENTAGE OF FARMERS REPORTING USE OF VARIOUS CHANNELS Q
FOR FARMING INFORMATION IN THE TWO YEARS
BEFORE THEY WERE INTERVIEWED,
1950 AND 1955
 
Channel of Communication Year Interviewed
1950 1955
(N=393) (N=343)
  %” % 0
_ Radio 86 85 I
Farm magazines 77 78
Newspapers 67 69
V Television -— 41
Agricultural agency representatives 56 61 '
Farm meetings 33 42
Farm bulletins 46 67
Circular letters from county agent 76 86
Friends, neighbors, or relatives 88 87 ' .
Dealers and salesmen 33 55
N ; the number of farmers in each group.
1 In both 1950 and 1955, radio and "friends, neighbors, and relatives" were
top sources of information, so far as the proportion of farmers who reported using
thse channels to some extent is concerned. Both reached about 9 out of 10 farmers.
In 1955, however, a third channel —— the county agent’s circular letters -— had a
similarly high coverage. Between 1950 and 1955 there was a marked increase in
the use of professional personnel and their publications as sources of farming in-
formation, and also substantial increase in the use of dealers and salesmen. An-
other source of farm information that has recently become important is television —-
while the use of television for farm information was negligible in 1950, more than
40 percent of the farmers in 1955 indicated that they got information from the
agricultural pro  rams. “

 -12-
D0 farm operators find some channels if information
more helpful than others? `
TABLE 7
PERCENTAGE OF FARMERS WHO REPORTED VARIOUS CHANNELS
AS AMONG THOSE FROM WHICH THEY GET V °
THE MOST HELPFUL INFORMATION, V
1950 AND 1955 g
Channel of Communication Year Interviewed
~. 1950 1955
(N=393) (N=343)
. , % %
Radio 33 Z3
Farm magazines 16 18 A V
Newspapers .4 8
Agricultural agency representatives 20 32.
Farm meetings 7 7 3
Farm bulletins 5 3
Circular letters from county agent 6 6
Friends, neighbors, or relatives 30 52
Dealers and salesmen 2. 4
None helpful 3 3
N- the number of farmers in each group.
In both studies the most helpful channels of information reported were
"friends, neighbors and relatives, " the agricultural agency representatives,
and the radio. The fact, however, that those particular sources were frequently
the only sources of information mentioned automatically made them the most
helpful The proportion listing agricultural agency representatives substantially
increased during the 5 years, as did also the proportion listing "friends, neigh-
bors, and relatives. " Fewer people listed radio.

 3 -13-
Do farmers of different educational levels
. gg farming?.-nformation ingiag same Wg? '
TABLE 8 '
PERCENTAGE OF FARMERS OF DIFFERENT EDUCATIONAL LEVELS
REPORTING USE OF VARIOUS CHANNELS FOR FARMING INFORMATION _
IN THE TWO YEARS BEFORE THEY WERE INTERVIEWED, 1950 AND 1955
Channel of Communication Years of Schooling Completed and y
A Year Interviewed
l Less than 7 7-8 More than 8
1950 1955 1950 1955 1950 1955
(N=149) i_N:.l30) (N:147) (N;l64) (N:9E) (N;47)
% % % % % %
_ Radio 79 87 91 85 88 82 '
Farm magazines 7l 68 86 86 94 100
Newspapers 49 49 73 79 86 96
Television —— 27 —- 48 —— 53
Agricultural agency representa— t
s tives 36 37 60 73 85 » 91
Farm meetings 13 19 34 50 64 79
Farm bulletins 26 48 43 75 83 94
Circular letters from county ·
agent 63 73 82 94 88 98
Friends, neighbors, or
relatives 84 89 89 84 94 92
Dealers and salesmen 30 48 33 43 ___ 38 68
N =· Nmimber of farmers in each group.,
The more education a farmer had, the more likely he had used each of the ·
channels of communication, As the amount of education increased, the percent- _
age of farmers who reported attending meeting;g,,.reading farm bulletins, and
r talking with agricultural agency representatives increased sharply., With in-
creased education there was also a definite increase in the percentage of farmers
reading farm magazines, circular letters from the county agent, and newspapers,
The proportion reporting farm inforrriation from television increased similarly,
Most farmers of all educational levels got farming information from "friends,
relatives, or neighbors, " and listened to farm programs on the radio, so that
the differences between groups were small
For the most part the differences between educational levels widened during
the five yearst

 -14- . .
Do farmers of different educational levels
consider-E12 same clgnnels Q information Q-if most helpful?
TABLE 9 *
PERCENTAGE OF FARMERS OF DIFFERENT EDUCATIONAL LEVELS WHO
REPORTED VARIOUS SOURCES AS AMONG THOSE FROM WHICH THEY GET
THE MOST HELPFUL INFORMATION, 1950 AND 1955 ‘
  1.
Channel of Communication Years of Schooling Completed and
Year Interviewed
Less than 7 7-8 More than 8
1950 1955 1950 1955 1950 1955
(N:l49) (N:130)(N:l47)(N=164) (N·96) (N;47)
% % °/o °/o % %
Radio 41 28 37 24 18 9
Farm magazines 8 9 17 24 27 21 .
Newspapers 6 5 Z 9 5 13
Agricultural agency repre— _
sentatives 11 16 23 37 35 55
Farm meetings 1 3 5 8 18 15
Farm bulletins 5 2 2 5 4 8
Circular letters from county agent 1 5 6 8 13 2
Friends, neighbors, or relatives 37 60 27 49 21 38 7
Dealers and salesmen 3 5 2 2 1 11
Nppplelpful 5 2 1 4 0 2
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, agricultural agency
representatives, and farm meetings as channels of most helpful information in-
creased sharply as education increased while the percentage listing "friends,
neighbors, or relatives" and radio decreased with increasing education. Even
among the better educated farmers, however, "friends, neighbors, or relatives"
were among the channels most often listed as most helpful. Newspapers, cir-
cular letters from the county agent, farm bulletins, and dealers and salesmen
are reported as being the most helpful sources of information by relatively few of
the farm operators,
Over the 5 years the most pronounced change that took place in the relationship
between education and the farm information sources considered most helpful was
that the differential between educational levels widened as to the proportion listing
agricultural agency representatives as a most helpful source., Among those of
least education the number listing this source continued quite small, but in 1955
over half of the better-educated considered the agency representatives most

 -15-
D0 farm- operators with different amounts of income
get farming information in the same way?
TABLE 10
PERCENTAGE OF FARMERS HAVING DIFFERENT GROSS SA LES WHO
REPORTED USE OF VARIOUS CHANNELS FOR FARMING INFORMATION, Y
1950 AND 1955
 
Channel of Communication Annual Value of Crops and Products
Sold and Year Interviewed
Under $2, 500 $2, 500 or more
1950 1955 1950 1955
(N;241l lN=182) lN:1291 (N:154l
% · % % %
Radio 83 82 90 88
Farm magazines 67 73 93 92
Newspapers 56 45 83 88
Television -— 27 ~— 55
Agricultural agency representatives 40 43 84 84
Farm meetings 21 25 54 62 I
Farm bulletins 31 -53 71 86
Circular letters from county agent 66 79 92 97
Friends, neighbors, or relatives 88 82 89 92
Dealers or salesmen 28 45 42 67 `
I N; Number of farmers in each group.
` The great majority of all farmers, regardless of income (as indicated by
value of crops and products sold), said they got farming information from
"neighbors, friends, or relatives" and listened to farm programs on the radio.
For other channels, the larger the income the larger the percentage of farmers
who said they used each channel. The differences between the two income groups
are especially great for the following media: talking with agricultural agency re-
- presentatives, reading or referring to farm bulletins, and attending farm meetings
and demonstrations sponsored by agricultural agencies. In short, agricultural
agencies seem to be reaching a much higher percentage of large farmers than
small farmers through personal contact, bulletins, and meetings and demonstrations.
This situation did not change much over the five years.

 -16-
Do farm operators with different levels of income »
consider the same channels of information the most helpful?
TABLE 11
PERCENTAGE OF FARMERS HAVING DIFFERENT GROSS SALES ·
WHO REPORTED VARIOUS CHANNELS AS AMONG THOSE
FROM WHICH THEY GET THE MOST HELPFUL ` ·
INFORMATION, 1950 AND 1955
 
Channel of Communication Value of Crops and Products Sold
and Year Interviewed
Under $2, 500 $2, 500 or more
1950 1955 1950 1955
(N szzsj ZN:1821 (N;143) iN:1545
% °/0 % %
Radio 33 28 34 16 `
Farm magazines 13 16 21 20
Newspapers 4 , 7 4 10
Agricultural agency representatives 12 17 40 50
Farm meetings 3 4 13 10
Farm bulletins 4 5 6 3
Circular letters from county agent 3 5 9 8
Friends, neighbors, or relatives 39 57 14 46
Dealers or salesmen 3 4 2 4
None helpful 4 4 2 2
N - Number of farmers in each group.
Among the lower—income farmers, "friends, neighbors, or relatives, " and
radio were most frequently mentioned as being the channels of "most helpful"
information Farm magazines and personal conversations with agricultural
agency representatives were next most often named by those farmers as most
helpful sources.
Among the larger operators, "friends, neighbors, or relatives" were less
frequently regarded as a most helpful source. Other sources often listed by
these larger farmers were farm magazines, farm meetings, and ·- most of
all —- personal contact with agricultural agency representatives.
Dealers and salesmen, bulletins, and newspapers were listed as being the
most helpful by very few farmers, and circular letters were frequently listed
only by the higher income farmers,

 -17- .
Are there differences among neighborhoods in farmers' use
_'-H of the various means if communicaaon? __- ·
TABLE 12
PERCENTAGE OF FARM OPERATORS REPORTING USE OF VARIOUS CHANNELS
FOR FARMING INFORMATION IN THE TWO YEARS PRECEDING THE '
INTERVIEW, 1950 AND 1955, CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE
V TYPE