Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An analysis of the adoption of innovations by Okanagan orchardists Millerd, Frank Webb 1965

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1965_A4 M5.pdf [ 9.05MB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0093659.json
JSON-LD: 1.0093659+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0093659.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0093659+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0093659+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0093659+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0093659 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0093659.txt
Citation
1.0093659.ris

Full Text

AN ANALYSIS OF THE ADOPTION OF INNOVATIONS BY OKANAGAN ORCHARDISTS by FRANK WEBB MILLERD B.S.A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1963 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE i n the Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1965 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f • B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r  m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e Head o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t . c o p y i n g o r p u b l i  c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n * D e p a r t m e n t o f The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , V a n c o u v e r 8, C a n a d a D a t e ABSTRACT i i This study analyses the adoption of some innovations by Okanagan Valley orchardists. Comparisons were made with findings on the adoption of innovations by American farmers. Also included i n the study i s an evaluation of the 1964 televised chautauqua produced by the H o r t i c u l t u r a l Branch of the B r i t i s h Columbia Department of A g r i c u l t u r e . This s t y l e of chautauqua (which may be defined as an assembly for education a l purposes, lectures, entertainment, etc.) replaced an e a r l i e r version held i n d i s t r i c t h a l l s throughout the Okanagan Valley. The data were gathered by interviewing a sample of Okanagan Valley orchardists from the population of orchard i s t s i n the area served by the 1964 T.V. Chautauqua and who were also included i n the 1960 Orchard Survey of the Okanagan Val l e y . Generally, adoption theory, as developed from studies i n other countries, can be applied to a s p e c i f i c Canadian s e t t i n g . E a r l i e r adopters of innovations were more active educationally, had been i n orcharding longer, -had larger and more valuable orchards, and sold more orchard products than l a t e r adopters. These r e s u l t s coincide with past studies. However, the vast majority of the early adopters were f u l l - t i m e orchardists, i i i while other studies have found part-time farmers to be the most innovative. Also, t h i s study found complete ownership of the farm to be a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the l a t e r adopters while other studies have found t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of early adopters. Two differences with previous studies were found i n the use of sources of information. A g r i c u l t u r a l agencies increased i n importance between the awareness and i n t e r e s t stages i n the adoption process. Also unique to t h i s study was less use of mass media and a g r i c u l t u r a l agencies by the e a r l i e r adopters than the l a t e r ones. Evidence of a two-step concept of the d i f f u s i o n of tech n o l o g i c a l innovations was found with innovations flowing from t h e i r place of o r i g i n to the e a r l i e r adopters and from them to the l a t e r adopters. Innovativeness was found to be a general c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of c e r t a i n respondents i n that they adopted most innovations. The T.V. Chautauqua was more valuable than i t s prede cessor i n one respect; more of the laggards (who use fewer a g r i c u l t u r a l agencies than most orchardists) watched the t e l e  vised program than attended the d i s t r i c t h a l l chautauqua. This study i s limited by the use of a sample to gather data, the use of an incomplete population l i s t f o r sampling and inconsistencies i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of questions and answers by the interviewers. x i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The w r i t e r i s i n d e b t e d t o a number o f p e o p l e f o r t h e i r h e l p i n t h i s s t u d y . Mr. C h a r l e s C a r t e r , t h e P r o v i n c i a l H o r t i c u l t u r i s t , and th e D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t s o f the B.C. Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e s t a t i o n e d i n t h e Okanagan V a l l e y gave h e l p f u l a d v i c e and v e r y a b l y c a r r i e d o u t t h e i n t e r v i e w i n g . S p e c i a l thanks a r e due t o t h e one hundred and f o r t y - f i v e o r c h a r d i s t s who v o l  u n t a r i l y gave t h e i n f o r m a t i o n e s s e n t i a l t o t h e s t u d y . Mr. A. Gagne and M i s s R. Hogan and t h e o t h e r s t a f f mem be r s o f the U.B.C. Gdmputing C e n t e r were e x t r e m e l y c o - o p e r a t i v e i n t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f t h e d a t a . Dr. J o s e p h J . R i c h t e r and the members o f t h e t h e s i s committee p r o v i d e d i n v a l u a b l e a d v i c e and a s s i s t a n c e . The g r e a t e s t d e b t i s t o Dr. C o o l i e V e r n e r w i t h o u t whose a d v i c e , encouragement, and p a t i e n c e t h i s s t u d y would n e v e r have been co m p l e t e d . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Abstract • i i L i s t of Tables v i i L i s t of Figures x i i Acknowledgements. • * x i i i CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 The Okanagan Valley 1 A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension 3 Purposes of the Study i ^ . « / ^ a i ^ K » t « 5 ^ : . . • • 7 Review of Related L i t e r a t u r e • . 8 I I . METHODOLOGY 19 The Sample 19 Procedure 22 Kinds of Data Gathered 25 Analysis of Data 29 Plan of the Study 31 I I I . CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE 32 Di s t r i b u t i o n of Socioeconomic Charact e r i s t i c s of the Sample • 32 P a r t i a l Correlation C o e f f i c i e n t s of Socioeconomic Cha r a c t e r i s t i c s . . . . . . . 35 V CHAPTER PAGE IV. THE ADOPTER CATEGORIES. . . . . . . . 40 D i v i s i o n of the Respondents into Adopter Categories 40 Chi Square Analysis of the Differences Between Adopter Categories • 41 Regression and Correlation Analyses of the Differences Between Adopter Categories 49 V. SOURCES OF INFORMATION. ...... 52 D e f i n i t i o n of C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . 52 Sources of Information Used by Stage i n the Adoption Process 55 Sources of Information Used by Adopter Category • 64 Sources of Information Used f o r the Specified Innovations 68 The Most Used Sources of Information Overall. . • 76 VI. THE INNOVATIONS 77 The Pre-Chautauqua Innovations 77 The Chautauqua Innovations 80 Comparisons Between Adopter Categories 80 V I I I , THE 1964 T.V. CHAUTAUQUA 83 Analysis of Those Watching the 1964 T.V. Chautauqua 83 v i CHAPTER PAGE A t t e n d a n c e a t Ot h e r E d u c a t i o n a l G a t h e r i n g s F o r Respondents A t t e n d i n g V a r i o u s Com b i n a t i o n s o f Chautauquas 87 Comprehension o f t h e T.V. Chautauqua. 88 V I I I . SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND LIMITATIONS 94 BIBLIOGRAPHY 101 APPENDIX I . P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n s o f Socioeconomic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 108 APPENDIX I I . D e t a i i f e d t A n a l y s i l , o f t h e Use o f Sources o f I n f o r m a t i o n 124 APPENDIX I I I . D i s t r i b u t i o n o f St a g e s i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s by I n n o v a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . 145 APPENDIX IV. A. Program o f t h e 1964 T.V.Chautauqua. . . 151 B. I n t e r v i e w S c h e d u l e Used 152 v i i LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Sample 20 I I . Comparisons of Sample and Population Mean Number of Trees per Respondents Overall and by Variety. . 23 I I I . Comparisons of Sample and Population Mean Number of Trees per Respondents by D i s t r i c t 24 IV. Table of P a r t i a l C orrelation C o e f f i c i e n t s . . . . . 36 V. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Respondents into Adopter Categories . . 4 2 VI. Chi Square Values Between Adopter Categories for Various Socioeconomic Data . . . 43 VII. M u l t i p l e .Regression Analysis of Selected Independent Variables on Adoption Percentage . . . 49 VIII. P a r t i a l Correlation C o e f f i c i e n t s Between Selected Variables and Adoption Percentages. .... . 51 IX. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Sources of Information . . . . . 54 X. Chi Square Values f o r Comparisons of Source of Information Used by Stages i n the Adoption Process. 56 XI. The Five Most Frequently Used Sources of Information by Stage i n the Adoption Process . . . 62 XII. Chi Square Values f o r Comparisons of Sources of Information Used by Adopter Categories 65 XIII. The Five Most Popular Sources of Information by Adopter Category 67 XIV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Source Use by Innovation 70 XV. The Five Most Used Sources of Information for the Pre-Chautauqua Innovations • • . . 72 XVI. The Five Most Used Sources of Information Overall and for the Chautauqua Innovations . . . . 74 XVII. The Most Used Sources of Information Overall . . . 76 XVIII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n s of Adoption Stages f o r the Pre-chautauqua Innovations . . . . . . . . . . 79 v i i i TABLE PAGE XIX. Percentage Dis t r i b u t i o n s o f Adoption Stages for the Chautauqua Innovations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1 XX. Distributions of Respondents by Adopter Category Attending Various Combinations of Chautauquas . . . 85 XXI, Attendance at Other Educational Gatherings Versus Attendance at the Chautauquas. . . . . . . . 89 XXII. Mean Score by Program Segment 91 X X l i i . Comparisons Overall and by Program Between Mean Scores f o r Respondents Watching and Not Watching the T.V. Chautauqua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 XXIV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Age fo r A l l Respondents . • • 109 XXV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Education f o r A l l Respondents • • • • 109 XXVI. Miscellaneous Socioeconomic Data. . 110 XXVII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Attendance at University Courses i n Agriculture by Adopter Category. 110 XXVIII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Attendance at Adult Courses i n Agriculture by Adopter Category I l l XXIX. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Attendance at D i s t r i c t H a l l Chautauqua by Adopter Category . . . . . . . .112 XXX. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Attendance at D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t Discussion Groups by Adopter Category. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112 XXXI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Enjoyment of Or charding by Adopter Category. • .113 XXXII. D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Number of Organizations Belonged to For a l l Respondents . . . . . . . . . .114 XXXIII. D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Number of Organizations Attended at Least Once a Year f o r A l l Res pondents. • 114 XXXIV. D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Number of Organizations Contributed to F i n a n c i a l l y f o r A l l Respondents. . .115 XXXV. D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Number of Committee Member ships for a l l Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . .116 i x TABLE PAGE XXXVI. D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Number of Offices Held For A l l Respondents. 117 XXXVII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Years i n Agriculture for A l l Respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 XXXVIII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Years i n Orcharding by Adopter Category. 118 XXXIX. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Years on Present Orchard by Adopter Category. 118 XL. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Acres i n Orchard by Adopter Category 119 XLI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Enterprise Value by Adopter Category. . . . . . . 119 XLII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Occupation by Adopter Category 120 XLIII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Size of Enterprise by Adopter Category. 120 XLIV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Tenure by Adopter Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 XLV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Relationships of Agriculture and Non-Agriculture Income by Adopter Category • • • 121 XLVI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Value of Orchard Products Sold by Adopter Category 122 XLVII. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Scores for Willingness of Community to Adopt New Farm Practices 122 XLVIII. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Scores for Community Regard of People Who Try Many New Practices. . . . . . . . . 122 XLIX. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Scores for Community Regard of People who are Slow i n Adopting New Practices. . . 122 L. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Personal Reaction to the T.V. Chautauqua by Adopter Category. . . . . . 123 LI. Source Use by Stages i n the Adoption Process f o r a l l Respondents 125 LII. Source Use by Stages i n the Adoption Process for Innovators and Ear l y Adopters. 125 X TABLE PAGE L I I I . Source use by Stages i n the Adoption Process for the Early Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 LIV, Source Use by Stages i n the Adoption Process for the Late Majority 127 LV. Source Use by Stages i n the Adoption Process for Laggards 129 LVI. Source Use by Adopter Categories f o r A l l Stages i n the Adoption Process. 131 LVII. Source Use by Adopter Categories f o r the Awareness Stage i n the Adoption Process. . . . . . . . . . . 131 LVIII. Source Use by Adopter Categories f o r the Interest Stage i n the Adoption Process 133 LVIX. Source Use by Adopter Categories f o r the Evaluation Stage i n the Adoption Process . . . . . 133 LX. Source Use by Adopter Categories f o r the T r i a l Stage i n the Adoption Process • • 135 LXI. Source Use by Adopter Categories f o r the Adoption Stage i n the Adoption Process. 135 LXII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Source Use f o r the Interest Stage i n the Adoption Process by Adopter Category . . . . . . 137 LXIII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Overall Source Use by Adopter Category, 138 LXIV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Source Use f o r the Awareness Stage i n the Adoption Process by Adopter Category . . . . . . . . . . . 139 LXV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Source Use f o r the Evaluation Stage i n the Adoption Process by Adopter Category 140 LXVI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Source Use f o r the T r i a l Stage i n the Adoption Process by Adopter Category . . . . . . . . 141 LXVII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Source Use f o r the Adoption Stage i n the Adoption Process by Adopter Category 142 x i TABLE PAGE LXVIII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Source Use f o r the Pre-Chautauqua Innovations . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 LXIX. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Source Use f o r the Chautauqua Innovations and A l l Innovations . . . . 144 LXX. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Adoption Stages f o r Dwarfing Root Stocks by Adopter Category . . . . . 146 LXXI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Adoption Stages f o r Low Volume Sprayers by Adopter Category 146 LXXII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Adoption Stages for Hardy Frame Works by Adopter Category. 147 LXXIII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Adoption Stages for Power Take-Off Sprayers . . « • 147 LXXIV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Adoption Stages for Four-Way Spraying by Adopter Category. . . . . . . 148 LXXV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Adoption Stages f o r Moristan and Morocide by Adopter Category. . . . . 148 LXXVI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Adoption Stages f o r Central Leader Pruning by Adopter Category . . . . 149 x i i LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Percentage Use of Information Source Types by Stage i n the Adoption Process • 57 2. Percentage Use of Information Source Methods by Stages i n the Adoption Process . . . . . . . . 58 3. Percentage Use by Degree of Contact of Information Sources by Stages i n the Adoption Process 59 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION I . THE OKANAGAN VALLEY The Okanagan V a l l e y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a i s one o f t h e p r i n c i p a l t r e e - f r u i t g r o w i n g a r e a s o f Canada. I t i s l o c a t e d i n t h e i n t e r i o r p l a t e a u o f t h e p r o v i n c e , two hundred m i l e s e a s t o f Vancouver. Bounded o n t h e e a s t by t h e G o l d Range o f moun t a i n s and o n the west by t h e Cascade Range, t h e v a l l e y s t r e t c h e s n o r t h w a r d from t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ' b o r d e r f o r one hundred m i l e s . I n 1961, t h e p o p u l a t i o n o f t h e a r e a was a p p r o x i m a t e l y 85,000. A l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f the p o p u l a t i o n l i v e d i n t h e t h r e e m a jor towns o f t h e a r e a : Vernon ( w i t h a p o p u l a t i o n o f 10,250), Kelowna ( 1 3 , 1 8 8 ) , and P e n t i c t o n ( 1 3 , 8 5 0 ) . The v a l l e y i s i n t h e d r y b e l t o f t h e p r o v i n c e and has an average a n n u a l r a i n f a l l o f 14*63 i n c h e s . T h i s compares w i t h the c o a s t a l c i t y o f Vancouver w h i c h has a n ave r a g e a n n u a l r a i n f a l l o f 62*&? i n c h e s . S u r r o u n d i n g mountains p r o t e c t t h e v a l l e y from c o l d weather systems and a l l o w t h e l o w e s t m o n t h l y mean tempera t u r e to s t a y a t t w e n t y - s i x degrees F a h r e n h e i t . On the o t h e r hand, the f o u r summer months o f J u n e , J u l y , A u g u s t , and September have mean tempe r a t u r e s o f s i x t y - t h r e e , s e v e n t y , s i x t y - s e v e n , and 2 s i x t y degrees Fahrenheit, respectively.*" The most common s o i l s of the area are the Brown and Dark Brown Chernozemic. These environmental at t r i b u t e s of the Okanagan Vall e y have a l l contributed to i t s development as a t r e e - f r u i t growing area. F r u i t trees w i l l not grow na t u r a l l y i n the v a l l e y because of the low lev e l s of p r e c i p i t a t i o n and thus t h e i r planting had to wait u n t i l the development of i r r i g a t i o n . 1866 saw the f i r s t a r t i f i c i a l i r r i g a t i o n started near Vernon. By 1874 several small plots of trees had been planted by ranchers to supply themselves with f r u i t . The f i r s t commercial orchard was planted i n 1892 on the Coldstream Ranch near Vernon. From then u n t i l 1913, a f r u i t land boom occurred as many r e a l i z e d the p o t e n t i a l  i t i e s of the area. The B. C. f r u i t industry has grown u n t i l the value of 2 the 1963 crop was $17,565,729. This was eleven per cent of the p r o v i n c i a l farm cash income. The Okanagan Vall e y produces approximately 92.5 per cent of a l l the f r u i t grown i n the pro vince. Thus, s l i g h t l y over ten per cent of the B. C. farm cash Climatic data i s based on t h i r t y year averages of Summerland, B.C., from B r i t i s h Columbia Department of A g r i c u l  ture, Climate o f B r i t i s h Columbia. Report f o r 1963. Victoria,n.d. B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Ag r i c u l t u r e , Markets and S t a t i s t i c s Branch. A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a t i s t i c s Report 1963. undated, mimeo. 3 income i s due to Okanagan tree f r u i t . A g r i c u l t u r e , and e s p e c i a l l y tree f r u i t s , are also very important i n the t o t a l economy of the Okanagan. In this region over eighteen per cent of the population livens on farms. This i s a higher percentage than other regions of the province. Fifty-two per cent of these farmers• cash income comes from tree f r u i t . The crop i s produced by 2790 growers on over two m i l l i o n trees. Orchards range i n s i z e from one acre to over three hundred acres. About seventy per cent are s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t e d . On an acreage basis, apples are the most extensive crop com p r i s i n g s l i g h t l y over s i x t y per cent of the orchard area. Pears and peaches each make up ten per cent of the acreage, cherries eight per cent, apricots s i x per cent, prunes f i v e per cent, and crabapples and plums both less than one per cent. I I . AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION Section ni n e t y - f i v e of the B r i t i s h North America Act gives the powers of l e g i s l a t i o n respecting agriculture to both the f e d e r a l parliament and the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e s . Section ninety-three states that the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e s s h a l l have the exclusive powers to make laws i n r e l a t i o n to education. These c o n s t i t u t i o n a l requirements along with the d i v e r s i f i e d climate, topography, and a g r i c u l t u r e of Canada have made the 4 organization of the extension of information to the farmer a f i e l d of p r o v i n c i a l a c t i v i t y with federal co-operation. B. C. Department of Agriculture The B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Agriculture was organized i n 1873 and the f i r s t M i nister of Agriculture appoin ted i n 1891. O r i g i n a l l y , contacts with the farmers of the province were through f i f t y - f o u r farmers acting as correspon dents who were a means of disseminating information and d i s  t r i b u t i n g b u l l e t i n s . Later, the department worked through the newly-formed Farmers' I n s t i t u t e s and other a g r i c u l t u r a l organizations• In the B. C. Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , there was an e a r l y emphasis on the c o n t r o l and eradication of f r u i t diseases and pests. This required a number of f u l l - t i m e s t a f f members and the f i r s t h o r t i c u l t u r a l extension s t a f f grew out of these. To provide technical assistance to orchardists and d i f f u s e new information related to f r u i t culture at the present time, the department maintains nine h o r t i c u l t u r i s t s , an a p i a r i s t , a plant pathologist, and an entomologist i n the Okanagan Valley. Canada Department of Agriculture The federal co-operation i n extending information to Okanagan Valley orchardists i s primarily through the experimen t a l farm at Summerland, B.C. Founded i n 1914, t h i s research 5 establishment has made a number of important contributions to the f r u i t industry through research i n boron deficiency, f r u i t q u a l i t y c o n t r o l , bulk handling of f r u i t , concentrate spraying, and other f i e l d s . Not only i s t h i s new information extremely valuable to the orchardists, but the experimental farm personnel are very active at various educational gatherings of orchard i s t s . The T.V. Chautauqua One of the primary extension methods used by the B. C. Department of Agriculture H o r t i c u l t u r a l Branch i s the annual fruit-growers• chautauqua. Carter defines a chautauqua as "an assembly f o r edu- 3 c a t i o n a l purposes, lectures, entertainment, etc." The f i r s t chautauqua was given approximately f i f t y years ago. H o r t i c u l  t u r i s t s and associated s p e c i a l i s t s gave t h i r t y or more talks i n centers throughout the Okanagan V a l l e y but " i t was . . . a long 4 d i f f i c u l t series and expensive as we l l . " A method to overcome these problems needed to be found. T e l e v i s i o n appeared to be the answer. T. V. has been used as a A. C. Carter, Report of the 1963 Televised Chautauqua. unpublished, B. C. Department of Agriculture H o r t i c u l t u r a l Branch, June 1963, p. 2. 4 Ibid. 6 mass communication method i n a g r i c u l t u r a l extension f o r the Okanagan since A p r i l 1958. CHBC-TV, located i n Kelowna but with a number of s a t e l l i t e transmitters throughout the Okanagan Vall e y , agreed to carry a chautauqua program f o r a modest fee during a period when the s t a t i o n was normally o f f the a i r . Carter^ f e l t that the advantages of a t e l e v i s e d chautauqua over the e a r l i e r procedure were that a larger s t a f f of s p e c i a l i s t s and more v i s u a l aids could be used, unfavourable winter t r a v e l conditions could be avoided, and the time would not c o n f l i c t with other community a c t i v i t i e s . The only disadvantage seen was the lack of d i r e c t p a r t i c i p a t i o n from the audience. To overcome t h i s , i t was arranged to have questions phoned i n and answered l a t e r on the program. The f i r s t T. V. Chautauqua was held during the week of January 28 to February 1, 1963 from nine to t e n - t h i r t y i n the morning. The end of January was thought to be the best time as thi s i s usually a period of poor weather and also i t was the week following the convention of the B. C. F r u i t Growers Association where p u b l i c i t y could be given for the T.V. chau tauqua. The f i r s t four programs covered entomology, pathology, A. C. Carter, l o c . c i t . 7 pomology, and weather. The last program was devoted to answer ing telephoned question. Three hundred growers responded to a mail questionnaire with 96.4 per cent expressing approval and wishing to have the program continued the following year. The 1964 T.V. Chautauqua was held from January 27 to 31 from eight-thirty to ten a.m. The Monday to Thursday pro grams were devoted to pest control, apple maturity and harvest, peach maturity and harvest, and what to plant. Friday was again used for telephoned questions and answers. Those appearing on the chautauqua were specialists from the B. C. Department of Agriculture, the Research Branch of the Canada Department of Agriculture, and the f r u i t industry i t s e l f . III. PURPOSES OF THE STUDY After two T. V. Chautauquas, the B. C. Department of Agriculture f e l t that an evaluation of the effectiveness of the T.V. Chautauqua was needed especially i n relation to the old style of chautauqua. In co-operation with the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, the study was expanded to include an overall study of the adoption of technical innovations by Okanagan Valley orchardists. More specifically, the study reported here had a two fold purpose. On the one hand, i t was concerned with assessing the adoption behavior of a specified Canadian population i n 8 order to determine the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of general adoption theory and research to a Canadkn a g r i c u l t u r a l s e t t i n g . On the other hand, the study was concerned with assessing the effectiveness of t e l e v i s i o n as a method of introducing innovations to a s p e c i f i e d a g r i c u l t u r a l population. f IV. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The majority of previous studies of the adoption of innovations by any group have been c a r r i e d out i n the United States of America. None have been done i n Canada. The follow ing review summarizes d e f i n i t i o n s , theory, and findings having to do with the adoption of innovations. D e f i n i t i o n s The following d e f i n i t i o n s are used throughout t h i s study and are adapted from Rogers.*' A s o c i a l system i s a population of d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n d i  viduals who are s i m i l a r to the extent of having a common problem to solve. E. M. Rogers, D i f f u s i o n of Innovations. New York, Free Press, 1962, pp. 61 - 70. 9 An i n n o v a t i o n i s an i d e a p e r c e i v e d as new by i n d i v i d u a l s . A d o p t i o n i s a d e c i s i o n t o use and c o n t i n u e u s i n g an i n n o  v a t i o n . The a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s i s t h e m e n t a l p r o c e s s t h r o u g h w h i c h an i n d i v i d u a l passes from f i r s t h e a r i n g about an i n n o v a t i o n to f i n a l a d o p t i o n . The d i f f u s i o n p r o c e s s i s t h e s p r e a d o f an i n n o v a t i o n from i t s s o u r c e o f i n v e n t i o n o r c r e a t i o n t o i t s u l t i m a t e u s e r s o r a d o p t e r s . I n n o v a t i v e n e s s i s t h e degree t o w h i c h an i n d i v i d u a l i s r e l a t i v e l y e a r l i e r i n a d o p t i n g i n n o v a t i o n s t h a n o t h e r members o f h i s s o c i a l system. A d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s a r e the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s o f members o£,a s o c i a l system on the b a s i s o f t h e i r i n n o v a t i v e n e s s . S t ages i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s L i o n b e r g e r ^ has c o m p i l e d f i v e s t a g e s i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s from a number o f p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s . W i t h m inor m o d i f i  c a t i o n s t h e s e a r e : 1. Awareness: d e f i n e d as the f i r s t knowledge about a new p r a c t i c e . 2. I n t e r e s t : t h e a c t i v e s e e k i n g o f e x t e n s i v e and de t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e i d e a t o d e t e r m i n e i t s p o s s i b l e u s e f u l n e s s and a p p l i c a b i l i t y . H. F. L i o n b e r g e r , A d o p t i o n o f New Id e a s and P r a c t i c e s . Ames, Iowa S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1960, p i 70. 10 3. Evaluation: weighing and s i f t i n g the acquired information and evidence i n the l i g h t of e x i s t i n g conditions into which the practice w i l l have to f i t . 4. T r i a l : the tentative trying out of the practice accompanied by a c q u i s i t i o n of information on how to do i t . 5. Adoption: the f u l l - s c a l e i n t e g r a t i o n of the practice into the behaviour of an i n d i v i d u a l , g Beal et a l . examining the concept of stages i n the adoption process, f e l t that such a concept was v a l i d . Lionberger states that the stages of adoption: represent a u s e f u l way of describing a r e l a t i v e l y continuous series of actions, event, and influences that intervene between i n i t i a l knowledge about an idea, product, or practice and the actual adoption of i t . 9 Rogers*"^ thought i t was conceptually c l e a r and p r a c t i c a l l y sound to use the five-stage adoption process. Adopter Categories 11 Rogers states that the d i s t r i b u t i o n of adopters when g George M. Beal, Everett M. Rogers, and J . M. Bohlen, " V a l i d i t y of the Concept of Stages i n the Adoption Process," Rural Sociology, v o l . 22, no. 2 (June 1957), pp. 166 - 168. 9 Lionberger, op. c i t . . p. 23. 1 0 E . M. Rogers, op. c i t . . pp. 81 - 86. 11 T,., Ibid. 11 c l a s s i f i e d o n t h e b a s i s o f i n n o v a t i v e n e s s w i l l be n o r m a l . U s i n g t h e mean and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f the n o r m a l d i s t r i b u t i o n , Rogers has p a r t i t i o n e d t h e continuum o f i n n o v a t i v e n e s s i n t o f i v e a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s . I n d i v i d u a l s a r e c l a s s i f i e d as i n n o  v a t o r s , e a r l y a d o p t e r s , e a r l y m a j o r i t y , l a t e m a j o r i t y , o r l a g g a r d s . T h i s i s a somewhat a r b i t r a r y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n b u t when u t i l i z e d by r e s e a r c h w o r k e r s , s h o u l d l e a d t o a g r e a t e r s t a n d  a r d i z a t i o n o f methodology. A diagram o f t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s shown below. CLASSIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR INNOVATIVENESS Farmers having Adopted Per c e n t o f Time o f A d o p t i o n o r A d o p t i o n S c o r e KEY X = mean A I n n o v a t o r s cr- = s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n B E a r l y a d o p t e r s E a r l y m a j o r i t y C D L a t e m a j o r i t y Laggards E 12 12 Lionberger however, states that for purposes of describing most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c differences i n r e l a t i o n to innovativeness, a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n into e a r l y adopters, l a t e adopters, and intervening (the majority) i s s u f f i c i e n t . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Adopter Categories 13 Lionberger, using h i s s i m p l i f i e d d i v i s i o n of i n d i v i  duals on the basis of th e i r innovativeness, has summarized the d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of these groups. Early adopters are owners of large farms, have high incomes, are w i l l i n g to take r i s k s , are usually less than f i f t y years o l d , are active seekers of new ideas, and pa r t i c i p a t e i n many non-local groups. In contrast, late adopters own small farms, have low incomes, are secur i t y minded, are usually over age s i x t y , are complacent or s k e p t i c a l , and seldom p a r t i c i p a t e i n formal groups. The major i t y are characterized by average farms, average incomes, age between f i f t y and s i x t y , being receptive but not a c t i v e l y seeking new ideas, and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n some l o c a l groups. There have been many exceptions and additions to these 14 general c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Beal and Rogers found early adopters 12 Lionberger, OP. c i t . . pp. 36 -41. 1 3 I b i d . 14 George M. Beal and Everett M. Rogers, The Adoption of Two Farm Practices i n a Central Iowa Community. Ames, Iowa, A g r i c u l t u r a l and Home Economics Experiment Station, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, June 1961 (Special Report No. 26). 13 to be older than the l a t e r adopters. P a r i s h ^ noted that farmers who have established them selves within the l a s t decade were the most innovative. He reasoned that the newly-established farmers bring a freshness of outlook to farming and have not had time to harden t h e i r attitudes and behaviour into prejudice and habit. Bailey and Bryant**' observed that farm families with non-farm income had a higher adoption score than farm families with no non-farm income. F l i e g e l ^ has reinforced this finding by s t a t i n g that maximum involvement of family members i n the farm work force i s associated with a negative attitude towards the use of c r e d i t , which was chosen by Fliege1 as a represen t a t i v e a t t i t u d e of technological change. In other words, farmers having non-farm jobs, and thus presumably less involved i n the farm operation, tend to be more favourable towards technolo g i c a l change. ^Ross Parish, "Innovation and Enterprise i n Wheat Far ming," Review of Marketing and A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, v o l . 22, no. 3 (September 1954), pp. 189 - 218. 16 Wilfred C. Bailey and E l l e n S. Bryant, Adoption of  Homemaking Practices i n Alcorn County. M i s s i s s i p p i , State College, M i s s i s s i p p i State University - A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, June 1962 (Progress Report i n Sociology and Rural L i f e , no.25). 17 Frederick C. F l i e g e l , "Traditionalism i n the Farm Family and Technological Change," Rural Sociology, v o l . 27, no. 1 (March 1962), pp. 70 -76. 14 18 Other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s l i s t e d by Rogers as b e i n g con d u c i v e to i n n o v a t i o n were a f a v o u r a b l e f e e l i n g o f t h e community toward i n n o v a t o r s , enjoyment o f f a r m i n g , and o w n e r s h i p (as opposed t o r e n t i n g ) o f t h e farm. I n n o v a t i v e n e s s o v e r Time F i n d i n g s o n t h e c o n s i s t e n c y o f i n n o v a t i v e n e s s among i n d i v i d u a l s o v e r time and f o r d i f f e r e n t i n n o v a t i o n s a r e n o t con i c e l u s i v e . B e a l and Rogers upon o b s e r v i n g t h a t farmers who were e a r l y a d o p t e r s o f 2,4-D weed s p r a y were a l s o e a r l y a d o p t e r s o f a n t i b i o t i c s s u g g e s t e d t h a t an a t t i t u d e towards a s p e c i f i c new p r a c t i c e i s b u t one p a r t o f a more g e n e r a l a t t i t u d e towards 20 changes i n farm t e c h n o l o g y . P a r i s h a l s o c o n c l u d e d t h a t when f a r m e r s ' b e h a v i o u r o v e r t h e whole f i e l d o f i n n o v a t i o n i s examined, t h e y e i t h e r t e n d t o adopt i n n o v a t i o n s c o n s i s t e n t l y o r c o n s i s t e n t l y f a i l t o do so. 21 On the o t h e r hand, W i l k e n i n g e t aj.. s t a t e t h a t though t h e r e i s a tendency f o r t h e a d o p t i o n o f a few p r a c t i c e s t o v a r y 18 R o g e r s , op. c i t . . pp. 148 - 192. 19 B e a l and R o g e r s , l o c . c i t . 20 P a r i s h , l o c . c i t . 21 E. A. W i l k e n i n g , J o a n T u l l y , and H a r t l e y T r e s s e r , "Communication and A c c e p t a n c e o f Recommended Farm P r a c t i c e s Among D a i r y Farmers o f N o r t h e r n V i c t o r i a , " R u r a l S o c i o l o g y , v o l . 27, no. 2 ( J u n e 1962), pp. 116 - 198; 15 together, t h i s does not hold f o r most practices. The i n d i c a t i o n i s that the adoption of one practice i s not o r d i n a r i l y related to the adoption of others. Charact e r i s t i c s of the Innovation The inherent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the innovation i t s e l f also play an important role i n determining i t s rate of adoption. 22 Rogers states that the higher the innovation's r e l a t i v e ad vantage, compatibility, d i v i s i b i l i t y , and communicability, and the lower an innovation's complexity the more r e a d i l y i t w i l l 23 be adopted. Silverman and Bailey have found that the adoption of a practice may be linked with the use or non-use of other practices. Some practices are complementary i n that the adop t i o n of one without the p r i o r adoption of another w i l l r e s u l t i n a lower net return than i f both practices had been adopted. 24 Bradner observed that persons who evaluate an innova t i o n as congruent with a previous favorably evaluated practice w i l l accept the innovation more ra p i d l y than those who f a i l to 22 Rogers, op. c i t . . pp. 121 - 147. 23 L e s l i e J . Silverman and Wilfred C. Bailey, Trends i n  the Adoption of Recommended Farm Practices. State College, M i s s i s s i p p i State University, A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, A p r i l 1961 ( B u l l e t i n 617). 24 Lowell Bradner and Kearl Bryant, "Evaluation f o r Congruency as a Factor i n the Adoption Rate of Innovations", Rural Sociology, v o l . 29, no. 3 (September 1964), pp. 288 - 303, 16 make such an e v a l u a t i o n . He found the congruency f a c t o r to be more i m p o r t a n t i n d e t e r m i n i n g the i n n o v a t i v e n e s s o f a p e r s o n t h a n t h e f a c t o r s o f age, e d u c a t i o n , and income. Sources o f I n f o r m a t i o n B e a l and Rogers d e f i n e s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n a s : t h e i n d i v i d u a l s , o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and media w h i c h t r a n s m i t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e new p r a c t i c e t o the farmers.25 Sources o f i n f o r m a t i o n may be c l a s s i f i e d by t y p e . B e a l and R o g e r s ^ use f o u r t y p e s : 1. Mass media ( e . g . magazines, newspapers, r a d i o , T.V.). 2. A g r i c u l t u r a l a g e n c i e s ( e . g . e x t e n s i o n s e r v i c e , vo c a t i o n a l a g r i c u l t u r a l c l a s s e s a t h i g h s c h o o l , e v e n i n g c l a s s e s ) . 3. Commercial s o u r c e s ( e . g . d e a l e r s , s a l e s m e n ) . 4. I n f o r m a l ( e . g . r e l a t i v e s , f r i e n d s , n e i g h b o u r s ) . I n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s may a l s o be c l a s s i f i e d by the r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e communicator and t h e communication r e c e i v e r . P e r  s o n a l s o u r c e s a r e t h o s e h a v i n g a d i r e c t c o n t a c t between communi c a t o r and communication r e c e i v e r . These i n c l u d e r e l a t i v e s , f r i e n d s , n e i g h b o u r s , and e x t e n s i o n a g e n t s . Examples o f i m p e r s o n a l s o u r c e s w h i c h do n o t i n v o l v e B e a l and R o g e r s , l o c . c i t . 2 6 T . . . I b i d . 17 f a c e - t o - f a c e c o n t a c t a r e m a g a z i n e s , newspapers, r a d i o , and T.V. B e a l and Rogers a l s o used two r e s i d u a l c a t e g o r i e s ; s e l f ( e . g . m y s e l f , my own e x p e r i e n c e , my own t r i a l ) and no r e s p o n s e ( e . g . d on't know o r no a n s w e r ) . Sources o f I n f o r m a t i o n and t h e Stages i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s The v a r i o u s s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n p l a y r o l e s o f d i f f e r  i n g i m p o r t a n c e a t t h e d i f f e r e n t s t a g e s i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s . 27 S e v e r a l g e n e r a l t r e n d s were n o t e d by B e a l and R o g e r s ; t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f mass media s o u r c e s d e c r e a s e d from t h e awareness to the a d o p t i o n s t a g e , i n f o r m a l s o u r c e s i n c r e a s e d i n i m p o r t a n c e f r om t h e awareness to t h e e v a l u a t i o n s t a g e and d e c r e a s e d through t h e t r i a l and a d o p t i o n s t a g e s , t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f c o m m e r c i a l s o u r c e s i n c r e a s e d from t h e awareness t h r o u g h the t r i a l s t a g e , and a g r i c u l t u r a l agency s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n were most impor t a n t a t theawareness s t a g e , t h e n d e c r e a s e d t h r o u g h l a t e r s t a g e s . I n e x a m i n i n g p e r s o n a l and i m p e r s o n a l s o u r c e s , B e a l and Rogers found p e r s o n a l s o u r c e s were most i m p o r t a n t a t t h e e v a l u a t i o n s t a g e , and l e a s t i m p o r t a n t a t t h e awareness s t a g e , where imper- 28 s o n a l s o u r c e s were most i m p o r t a n t . L i o n b e r g e r i n h i s examina t i o n o f a number o f p i e c e s o f r e s e a r c h g e n e r a l l y a g r e e s w i t h t h e s e p o i n t s a l t h o u g h he p l a c e s more s t r e s s on i n f o r m a l s o u r c e s i n t h e t r i a l and a d o p t i o n s t a g e . 27 B e a l and R o g e r s , l o c . c i t . 28 L i o n b e r g e r , op. c i t . . p. 103. 18 Sources of Information and Adopter Categories The sources of information used by a farmer are also a function of the adopter category i n which the farmer f a l l s . 29 Lionberger using h i s s i m p l i f i e d adopter categorization, states that the early adopters tend to use college and other research sources, a g r i c u l t u r a l agencies, mass media sources, and com mercial sources. The majority use adoption leaders, farm papers, magazines, radio, commercial sources, and a g r i c u l t u r a l agencies i n that order. Late adopters use primarily other l o c a l farmers and adoption leaders and then farm papers, magazines and radio. Beal and Rogers^ have put forward a two-step concept of d i f f u s i o n of technological information. They state that inno vations often flow from the impersonal sources to the e a r l i e r adopters and from them to l a t e r adopters. Innovators seem to have the a b i l i t y to u t i l i z e impersonal information sources whereas the laggards require more personalized sources. 29 Lionberger, l o c . c i t . 30 Beal and Rogers, l o c . c i t . CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY The information needed to f u l f i l l the purposes of the study was gathered by interviewing a sample of Okanagan Valley orchardists. I. THE SAMPLE Choosing the Sample The sample was chosen from the 1960 orchard survey of the Okanagan Valley c a r r i e d out by the H o r t i c u l t u r a l Branch of the B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Agri c u l t u r e . This survey divides the v a l l e y into twenty-three d i s t r i c t s . A f i v e per cent random sample was chosen from each d i s t r i c t within the area covered by the 1964 T. V. Chautauqua. The sample s i z e was limit e d by the time available from the d i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t s who ca r r i e d out the interviews. Random numbers supplied by 1 2 Fisher and Yates and Tippett were used to choose the sample. A two and one-half per cent sample of alternates was also chosen by the same method. Table I shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the sample by d i s t r i c t . *R. A. Fisher and Frank Yates, S t a t i s t i c a l Tables f o r  B i o l o g i c a l . A g r i c u l t u r a l , and Medical Research. London, O l i v e r and Boyd, 1948. 2 L. R. C. Tippett, Random Sampling Numbers. London, Cambridge University Press, 1950. 20 Table I DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE Number D i s t r i c t Name T o t a l * Sample Orchardists 1 L i l l o o e t 9 ** 2 Kamloops 53 ** 3 Salmon Arm 56 3 4 Armstrong 4 ** 5 B.X. 1021 8 6 Vernon 40 3 7 Coldstream 65 4 8 Upper Arrow Lakes 3 ** 9 Oyama 96 5 10 Okanagan Centre and Winfield 159 8 11 Kelowna 467 24 12 Westbank 158 8 13 Peachland 68 4 14 Summerland 336 17 15 Naramata 87 5 16 Pen t i c ton 2255 11 17 Penticton West Bench 82 5 18 Kaleden 43 3 19 Okanagan F a l l s 18 1 20 Keremeos 102 6 21 Caws ton 86 5 22 Oliver 334 16 23 Osoyoos 207 12 TOTAL 2790 145 * from B r i t i s h Columbia Department o f Agri c u l t u r e , H o r t i c u l  t u r a l Branch, Orchard Survey of the Okanagan Valley I960, undated, mimeo. ** these d i s t r i c t s were not studied because they are not within the area covered by the 1964 T.V. Chautauqua. 21 The sample of orchardists was examined to determine how representative i t was of the population ( i . e . , a l l growers included i n the 1960 Orchard Survey and who were i n the area served by the 1964 T.V. Chautauqua). The 1960 Orchard Survey gives data on the number of growers by d i s t r i c t and the v a r i e t y and number of trees c u l  t i v a t e d , by d i s t r i c t . Thus, i t was possible to obtain the average number of trees per grower o v e r a l l , by v a r i e t y , and by d i s t r i c t for both the sample and the population. None of the sample averages corresponded exactly to th e i r respective population averages, although the sample average number o f t o t a l trees per grower of 860.86 was extrem el y close to the population average of 857.88 trees per grower. In any case, s t r a i g h t comparisons or differences between means are not too u s e f u l . What i s needed i s a measure to determine whether the difference between the sample and population means i s s i g n i f i c a n t ( i . e . , i s the sample mean a v a l i d estimator of the population mean). The sampling d i s t r i b u t i o n of means from large samples can be approximated by a normal curve. S i m i l a r l y , the sampling d i s t r i b u t i o n of means from small samples can be approximated by the t - d i s t r i b u t i o n . The normal curve was used i n comparison of the sample and population means o v e r a l l and by v a r i e t y and the 22 t - d i s t r i b u t i o n used i n comparing sample and population means by d i s t r i c t . The means of both of these sampling d i s t r i b u t i o n s are equal to the means of the population. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the sample and population mean number of a l l trees per grower. By v a r i e t y , there was only a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the sample and population means of the number of East Maling and Maling Merton trees per grower. The r e s u l t s are shown i n Table I I . In c a l c u l a t i n g the means by d i s t r i c t , d i s t r i c t s were consolidated which had a sample of less than f i v e chosen from them. S i g n i f i c a n t differences between the sample and population means of the number of trees per grower were found f o r d i s t r i c t s 1 ' 1 1 , s 16, 17-19, and 23. More detailed data are shown i n Table I I I . I I . PROCEDURE The actual interviewing of the sample was c a r r i e d out during the week of A p r i l 13 to 17, 1964 by the d i s t r i c t h o r t i  c u l t u r i s t s resident i n the Okanagan Val l e y a f t e r a short t r a i n i n g course at Kelowna on A p r i l 13. The interviewers were instructed to interview the decision maker on the orchard ( i . e . , the per son responsible f o r the adoption or non-adoption of innovations). The questions were to be asked i n the same order and using the same wording as given on the interview schedule. Alternate 23 Table II COMPARISONS OF SAMPLE AND POPULATION MEAN NUMBER OF TREES PER RESPONDENT OVERALL AND BY VARIETY Variety of Trees Sample Mean Population Mean z Value A l l v a r i e t i e s 860.86 857.88 0.1249 Summer apples 9.92 9.09 0.3036 Winter apples 362.65 338.56 0.6008 East Maling and Maling Merton 60.58 94.51 -2.9903 Other apples 3.11 3.13 -0.0139 Crab-apples 3.90 3.22 0.5058 Pears 163.06 139.64 0.7138 Peaches 130.70 118.54 0.6592 Aprico ts 44.45 52.60 -1.2421 Cherries 50.22 59.38 -1.3742 Prunes 31.23 37.83 -0.9795 Plums 1.05 1.38 -1.2031 NOTE: The underlined value indicates a difference between the sample and population means. The si g n i f i c a n c e test was carri e d out using the n u l l hypothesis that the sample mean i s equal to the population mean and a .05 l e v e l of si g n i f i c a n c e ( i . e . , i f we state the sample mean i s not a v a l i d estimator of the population mean, there i s a f i v e per cent chance that, i n f a c t , the sample mean i s a v a l i d estimator). The c r i t e r i o n used to test the n u l l hypothesis was to r e j e c t the hypothesis ( i . e . , state that there i s a difference between the sample and population means) i f Z < -1.96 or Z > 1.96 and_accept the hypothesis i f -1.96 ^ = Z 6z 1.96 where Z = /^_- (yi* = population mean, X = sample mean, S = standard deviation of the sample, *\ = sample s i z e ) . T a b l e I I I COMPARISONS OF SAMPLE AND POPULATION MEAN NUMBER OF TREES PER RESPONDENT BY DISTRICT 24 Number D i s t r i c t Name Sample Mean P o p u l a t i o n Mean t V a l u e t .025* 3,5,6 Salmon Arm,B.X. and Vernon 855.00 680.83 1.2576 2.228 7,9 10 C o l d s t r e a m and Oyama Okanagan C e n t e r and W i n f i e l d 677.33 2,083.50 825.57 900,93 -1.0179 1.0205 -2.306 2.365 11 Kelowna 785.21 1,097.00 -2,7033 -2.069 12,13 Westbank and P e a c h l a n d 1,294.58 925.22 1.7684 2.201 14 Summerland 576.18 659.98 - .7156 -2.120 15 Naramata 649.60 899.77 -1.3503 -2.776 16 P e n t i c t o n 479.36 792.32 -3.3874 -2.228 17,18 19 P e n t i c t o n , West Bank, K a l e d e n , Okanagan F a l l s 246.67 562.33 -4.0248 -2.306 20 Keremeos 789.17 635.37 .9685 2.571 21 Caws t o n 831.20 1,026.57 - .6355 -2.776 22 O l i v e r 1,280.75 878.46 1.8466 2.131 23 Osoyoos 629.83 988.51 -3.5237 -2.201 NOTE: U n d e r l i n e d v a l u e s l a t i o n and sample i n d i c a t e means. A d i f f e r e n c e s .05 l e v e l of between popu- : s i g n i f i c a n c e was u s e d to t e s t t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e sample mean i s e q u a l to t h e p o p u l a t i o n mean. The c r i t e r i o n u sed i n t e s t i n g t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was to r e j e c t t h e h y p o t h e s i s i f t < -t.025 o r t > t . 0 2 5 , a c c e p t _ t h e h y p o t h e s i s i f -t.025 < t £ i t.025 where t = - ^ y ^ = f ( >c = sample mean, M- - p o p u l a t i o n mean, "S = s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f t h e sample, v\ = sample s i z e ) , t.025 i s g i v e n u s i n g n-1 degrees o f freedom. from T a b l e 2 o f J . F. Freund and F. J . W i l l i a m s , Modern  B u s i n e s s S t a t i s t i c s . Englewood C l i f f s , P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1958. 25 names were provided i n case one of the names drawn i n the sample was unable to be interviewed. Each respondent was to be v i s i t e d at least three times before using an alternate; with at least one of the f i r s t three v i s i t s being i n the evening. The data were recorded on interview schedules prepared f o r the study (see Appendix IV). Altogether, information was ga thered from 145 orchardists. I I I . KINDS OF DATA GATHERED In order to f u l f i l l the purposes of t h i s study, data were c o l l e c t e d with respect to the personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the respondents, t h e i r sources of information, t h e i r stage of adoption of c e r t a i n innovations, and t h e i r r eaction to the 1964 T.V. Chautauqua. Personal Characteristics A l l personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which were thought to i n  fluence the rate of adoption of an orchardists were included. S p e c i f i c a l l y , data were gathered on the respondent's age, educational l e v e l , attendance at sp e c i a l i z e d educational courses (agriculture courses i n high school and at uni v e r s i t y , adult courses i n agricul t u r e and i n other subjects, the d i s t r i c t h a l l chautauqua, and discussion groups with d i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l  t u r i s t s ) , enjoyment of orchardings; subscription to newspapers etc; 26 l e v e l of s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n (number of organizations belonged to, attended, and supported f i n a n c i a l l y , * committee memberships, 2 and o f f i c e s held ); years i n a g r i c u l t u r e , orcharding and on 3 present orchard; and f u l l - t i m e or part-time occupations. Data were also gathered on the respondent's s i z e of 4 enterprise, acres i n orchard, enterprise value, tenure status, r e l a t i o n of non-agricultural income to a g r i c u l t u r a l income, and t o t a l value of orchard products sold i n 1962.^ The willingness of t h e i r community to adopt new farm practices, the community regard of innovators, and the community regard of laggards were sought from each respondent because of the possible influence of these factors on adoption. Organizations belonged to, attended, and supported f i n a n c i a l l y were those of a service, c i v i c , f r a t e r n a l , etc. nature and not a church per se or the B.C. F r u i t Growers Asso c i a t i o n . 2 Committee memberships and o f f i c e s held included those i n the B.C. F r u i t Growers Association. 3 F r u i t growing was considered a part-time occupation i f the respondent had any other job for which he received income. 4 This question was worded i n such a way to try and obtain a r e a l i s t i c p r i c e f o r the orchard and not one based on specu l a t i v e land values. ^1962 was- selected as the year to ask for t o t a l value of orchard products sold because i t was thought that the respon dents would have th i s information r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e from t h e i r income tax returns. 27 Sources of Information Sources of information were sought under two categories. The f i r s t was the source or sources of information used by each respondent at each stage i n the adoption process. Also the sources of information were sought which each of the respondents used i n working towards adoption of each of the s p e c i f i e d inno vations . Innovations Respondents were questioned on two groups of innovations. The f i r s t was s p e c i f i c new practices introduced to the orchard industry during the l a s t f i v e years (excluding those introduced on the 1964 T.V. Chautauqua). The second was those practices introduced primarily on the 1964 T.V. Chautauqua. The groups were compiled by sending l e t t e r s to a l l persons who had taken part i n the 1964 T.V. Chautauqua asking f o r innovations f a l l i n g into these two categories. In order to eliminate one of the ba r r i e r s to innovation, high cost, only those practices were included on the interview schedule which were either cost saving or equal i n cost to the previous prac t i c e . Using the f i v e stages i n the adoption process: awareness, i n t e r e s t , evaluation, t r i a l , and adoption, respondents were asked to name the stage at which they were f o r each innovation. 28 Although s i x innovations were included i n each group on the interview schedule, some of these had to be eliminated during analysis. Bulk-bin handling of f r u i t during harvest and the use of c e r t i f i e d nursery stock were both eliminated from the pre-chautauqua group because the decision to adopt these practices was not always made by the grower. In many cases only bulk-bins were avail a b l e from the packing house. Also, some nursery operators only c a r r i e d c e r t i f i e d nursery stock and many respondents adopted this p r actice without being aware of i t . In the chautauqua innovations, spraying of Urea and Zinc to control powdery mildew on young apples trees, use of fixed copper sprays f o r f i r e b l i g h t c o n t r o l , and two by three planting pattern f o r dwarf apple trees were a l l found to be innovations applicable to only c e r t a i n v a r i e t i e s of f r u i t trees and hence could not be used as a true measure of adoption for a l l respondents. T. V. Chautauqua Data were also gathered concerning the effectiveness of the 1964 T.V. Chautauqua. Respondents were asked whether they had a working t e l e v i s i o n set, i f they watched the 1964 T.V. Chautauqua, the s p e c i f i c days they watched, the length of time they watched, i f anyone watched the chautauqua with them, t h e i r 29 personal reaction to the programs, and i f they found the time of year, time of day, and length of program suitable. A true-false t e s t of the content of the chautauqua was used to measure the respondents 1 understanding of the chautuaqua o v e r a l l , by program, and by program segment. Three questions were made up on each program segment, making nine per program and f o r t y - f i v e o v e r a l l . IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA The interview schedules were pre-coded f o r processing of the data by the IBM 7040 computer of the U.B.C. Computing Center. Since the data were from a sample of Okanagan Valley orchardists, tests of s i g n i f i c a n c e were c a r r i e d out on a l l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . In other words, a l l relationships were examined to see i f they were due to chance alone or whether the r e l a t i o n  ship was, i n f a c t , true f o r a l l orchardists. For each test of s i g n i f i c a n c e , a n u l l hypothesis of no difference was formulated and tested at a .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i  cance* This means that i f we state there i s a difference present there i s a f i v e per cent chance that i n r e a l i t y , there i s no difference. Several s t a t i s t i c a l methods;- were used to test for s i g n i f i c a n c e . These were: 6 Respondents' personal reactions to the T.V. Chautauqua were tested using an evaluation scale modified from one used i n J . M. Welch, An Evaluation of Three Adult Education Methods for  Disseminating Trade Information to Missouri Restaurant Owners. Unpublished Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , F l o r i d a State University, 1961. 30 Chi square. This test i s used on contingency tables and compares the observed frequencies with the frequencies expected -7 i f the n u l l hypothesis was true. C o e f f i c i e n t o f determination. The c o e f f i c i e n t of deter mination measures the variance of a sing l e dependent variable which i s explained by the variance of one or a combination of independent v a r i a b l e s . The r e l a t i v e importance of each of the independent variables i s shown by t h e i r regression c o e f f i c i e n t s . P a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n . The p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t measures the strength of the c o r r e l a t i o n between one indepen dent and one dependent va r i a b l e while the e f f e c t s of a l l other independent variables are held constant. F test The F t e s t i s used f o r testing the differences between means of classes. Two variances are calculated (the variance within classes and the variance between classes) which may be regarded as estimates of the same unknown popu l a t i o n variance. I f the n u l l hypothesis of no difference Although many tables show percentages, s i g n i f i c a n c e tests were ca r r i e d out an absolute values and percentages are shown to simplify comparisons. 3 1 between means i s true, then the same factors that cause v a r i  a t i o n within classes w i l l be responsible f o r the v a r i a t i o n between class means and the two calculated variances w i l l be equal. V. PLAN OF THE STUDY In the report of the study which follows, the character i s t i c s of the sample are f i r s t analysed. Following t h i s , the respondents are divided into adopter categories on the basis of th e i r innovativeness. S i g n i f i c a n t differences between adopter categories and factors a f f e c t i n g adoption are noted. In Chapter V, sources of information are examined for t h e i r use by stages i n the adoption process, by adopter cate gory, and for the s p e c i f i e d innovations. Following t h i s , the rates of adoption of the s p e c i f i e d innovations are compared. Also, differences between adopter categories i n the i r rate of adoption of each innovation are noted. Chapter VII i s an analysis o f those watching the T.V. Chautauqua, a comparison of the T.V. Chautauqua with other educational gatherings, and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the chautauqua through the use of the true-false t e s t . The f i n a l chapter i s devoted to a summary of the study, relevant conclusions drawn from i t , and the lim i t a t i o n s of the study. CHAPTER III CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE I. DISTRIBUTION OF SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE Detailed tables showing the percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n s of the socioeconomic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the sample are avai l a b l e i n Appendix I. The most pertinent points w i l l be commented on here. Personal Data Age. The median category of age was f o r t y - f i v e to f i f t y - four years. The age d i s t r i b u t i o n was skewed towards the older age groups as there were few respondents ( 10.4 per cent) less than t h i r t y - f i v e years of age and a large percentage (38.6 per cent) over f i f t y - f o u r years. Education. The median l e v e l o f education was nine to eleven years. Approximately thirty-seven per cent of the res pondents had obtained at l e a s t junior matriculation or i t s equi valent. Attendance at s p e c i f i c educational gatherings. The most popular a g r i c u l t u r a l courses offered to orchardists were those i n high school which were attended by 14.7 per cent of the res pondents. Adult courses i n a g r i c u l t u r e drew 13.1 per cent of the respondents but only 7.7 per cent had attended u n i v e r s i t y 33 agri c u l t u r e courses. Forty per cent of the respondents attended adult courses i n subjects other than a g r i c u l t u r e . On a more informal l e v e l , 63.4 per cent of the respondents attended the d i s t r i c t h a l l s t y l e of chautauqua and 64.1 per cent attended discussion groups with their d i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t and other orchardists. Subscriptions to newspapers and magazines. A large number of magazine and newspaper subscriptions have been taken out by the respondents. Ninety per cent subscribe to at least one l o c a l newspaper and 84.6 per cent r e g u l a r l y receive at least one farm magazine other than "Country L i f e " . Enjoyment of orcharding. Most f r u i t growers enjoyed t h e i r occupation with 79.3 per cent enjoying orcharding very much and only 1.4 per cent not enjoying orcharding at a l l . S o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n . There was generally a low l e v e l of s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n among respondents. The median number of organizations attended, belonged to, and contributed to finan c i a l l y was only one. Also, the majority of respondents did not belong to any committees nor hold any o f f i c e s of organi zations. Years i n orcharding. Most of the respondents have been orchardists f o r many years. The majority have worked i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l industry f o r over twenty years. For the number of 34 years as an orchardist and for the number of years on the present orchard, the median category i s ten to nineteen years. Occupation and income. The majority of respondents were f u l l - t i m e orchardists. That i s , they did not have income from any other sources. For those respondents who did have other income, the most popular occupations were other forms of a g r i  culture, managerial positions, and craftsmen, production process, and related workers. Examining the r e l a t i o n s h i p of respondents' agriculture income to non-agriculture income shows that s l i g h t l y over h a l f had no income from sources other than a g r i c u l t u r e . However, about one-quarter had non-agriculture income twice as much or greater than t h e i r a g r i c u l t u r e income. Orchard Information Size of enterprise and orchard. The median s i z e of en t e r p r i s e was ten to nineteen acres. However, approximately seven per cent of the enterprises were less than three acres and two per cent were over 180 acres. The same type of d i s t r i b u t i o n i s noted f o r the number of acres i n orchard where the median category i s again ten to nineteen acres. Enterprise value. The median category of enterprise value was $14,950 to $24,949. Almost twenty per cent of the enter prises were worth over $49,950. 35 Tenure of operator. Almost ninety per cent of the res pondents completely owned t h e i r orchard. Value of orchard products sold. The median category of sales value was $3750 to $4999. Notable i s the f a c t that 18.1 per cent of the respondents sold less than $1200 worth of orchard products. Community Data Three questions were asked about the community i n which each respondent l i v e d and the r e s u l t s showed a generally favor able environment f o r adoption. S i x t y - f i v e per cent of the res pondents f e l t that t h e i r community was w i l l i n g to adopt new farm practices while only 5.6 per cent f e l t that t h e i r community was not very w i l l i n g to adopt new farm practices. When asked how t h e i r community regarded people who t r y many new practices, 72.5 per cent responded that t h e i r community f e l t favourably towards these innovators. Conversely, only 4.3 per cent f e l t that t h e i r community had a favourable regard o f laggards, 63.1 per cent f e l t t h e i r community had no f e e l i n g towards laggards, and 32.6 per cent thought that t h e i r community regarded laggards unfavourably. I I . PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS P a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s which show the r e l a t i o n  ship between two variables while holding the ef f e c t s of a l l T A B L E O F P A R T I A L n o po po m r > H o z n o ra T j n -3 A g e E d u c a t i o n E n j o y m e n t of o r c h a r d i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n s b e l o n g e d to O r g a n i z a t i o n s attended O r g a n i z a t i o n s c o n t r i b u t e d to C o m m i t t e e s b e l o n g e d to O f f i c e s h e l d Y e a r s i n a g r i c u l t u r e Y e a r s i n o r c h a r d i n g Y e a r s on p r e s e n t o r c h a r d S i z e of e n t e r p r i s e A c r e s i n o r c h a r d V a l u e of e n t e r p r i s e R e l a t i o n of n o n - a g i n c o m e to a g i n c o m e S a l e s of o r c h a r d p r o d u c t s W i l l i n g n e s s o f community to adopt C o m m u n i t y regard of adopters C o m m u n i t y regard of l a g g a r d s tion co fore th greater N O T E : a .05 li r* n n n 1? 3 2. ^' a. o rs $ § s £5. 3' 1 3. ~ 2" o rt n p f» TJ — • TJ s ° P i-n 3 i-r, s s: •roxim  ect th $1 ct P £. °" 2 4 a- 5" v V)' £ ely w  pothe a* TO » EP w ft n 9r o- rt » TO § 2 P >•*, 3 5* o A 2 A i n •s 1 curve - 1.96/\ is. i " o 2 0 ? 3 * 0 TO f3 c „ v; 2 5 £• » ft n p.. . P 5- ^ vO 3 C\ „ <> 3 * E. o « n_ 3 " » ' the st 1 (i.e •2 °' *S . . . 3 (B P W « P r s. w o O P deviati( partial 8 S rt, g >n 1/y n- correlati p wt § » •1 w h( on co< 3 ~ :re n • officii " » 2 37 other variables constant were calculated between a l l pairs of socioeconomic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which could be quantified. These are shown i n Table IV. For the s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n indicators there were the expected c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s showing high degrees of asso c i a t i o n with each other. For instance, the number of organi zations belonged to, the number of organizations contributed to, and the number o f committee memberships were associated with each other. Also, the number of o f f i c e s held i s highly asso ciated with the number of organizations belonged to and the number of committee memberships held. Two surp r i s i n g c o e f f i c i e n t s i n d i c a t i n g high degrees of association are those between education and number of organiza tions belonged to and education and organizations attended. The f i r s t r e l a t i o n s h i p shows a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n and the second a negative one. This indicates that the more educated respondents belonged to more organizations but attended less than those with a lower l e v e l of education. The number of o f f i c e s held was s i g n i f i c a n t l y p o s i t i v e l y correlated with the s i z e of enterprise and the value of sales i n d i c a t i n g that the larger orchardists p a r t i c i p a t e more i n organizations than those,with smaller orchards. There are p o s i t i v e correlations which show high asso c i a t i o n between years i n orcharding and years i n agricult u r e 38 and also between years on the present orchard and years i n or charding. These are expected. The i n t e r e s t i n g c o r r e l a t i o n i s the negative one between education and years i n ag r i c u l t u r e . This indicates that the respondents who have been i n agriculture many years have a lower educational l e v e l than the newer en trants to the industry. In other words, the average educational l e v e l of people i n ag r i c u l t u r e i s increasing. S i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e correlations between s i z e of enter p r i s e and acres i n orchard and also between s i z e of enterprise and value of enterprise were found, meaning simply, that the larger enterprises had more acres i n orchard and were worth more. Correlation of the given variables with the r e l a t i o n s h i p of a g r i c u l t u r e income to non-agriculture income for a l l res pondents re s u l t s i n a s i g n i f i c a n t negative association with education and a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e association with years i n orcharding and sales of orchard products. The importance of t h i s i s that those orchardists with a higher educational l e v e l tend to have more income from non-agricultural work than those with a lower l e v e l of education. Also, orchardists having been many years i n fruit-growing and those having high sales of orchard products receive most of t h e i r income from agriculture. The v a r i a b l e , sales of orchard products, was also posi t i v e l y associated with a number of other v a r i a b l e s ; namely, 39 age, acres i n orchard, value o f enterprise, and community regard f o r laggards. Thus, those respondents with a high value of f r u i t sold were older, had more acres i n orchard, and had more valuable enterprises than the majority of respondents. These respondents also f e l t that t h e i r community regarded people who are slow i n adopting orchard practices unfavourably. The unfavourable regard of laggards by the community was further associated with a favourable regard of the adopters by the community. A high regard of adopters was, i n turn, asso ciated with an above-average willingness of the community to adopt new farm practices. A l l other p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s did not show high degrees of association at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . CHAPTER IV THE ADOPTER CATEGORIES The respondents were divided into adopter categories on the basis of t h e i r innovativeness. Chi square, multiple re gression, and p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n analyses were then carried out to discern the differences between adopter categories. I. DIVISION OF THE RESPONDENTS INTO ADOPTER CATEGORIES A l l respondentsuwere given a percentage score on the basis of t h e i r progress towards adoption of the s p e c i f i e d inno vations. A respondent who f u l l y adopted a l l innovations would receive an adoption score of one hundred per cent while one not aware of any of the innovations would receive an adoption score of zero per cent. The respondents were then divided into adopter categories using the method proposed by Rogers.* The d i s t r i b u t i o n of 2 adoption scores was found to approximate a normal curve. The standard deviation of the d i d s t r i b u t i o n was 20.085 per cent and the mean 50.814 per cent. H E . M . Rogers, D i f f u s i o n of Innovations. New York, Free Press, 1962, p. 162. 2 The c h i square test was used with the n u l l hypothesis that the d i s t r i b u t i o n approximated a normal curve and a .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . 41 Using these two s t a t i s t i c s , i t was possible to divide the respondents into adopter categories. Innovators were a l l those having an adoption score greater than the mean score plus two standard deviations, early adopters have an adoption score greater than the mean plus one standard deviation but less than two standard deviations; a member of the early majority has a score greater than the mean but less than the mean plus one standard deviation; the late majority have scores less than the mean but greater than the mean minus one standard deviation; and laggards have scores less than the mean minus one standard deviation. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of the respondents into these adop ter categories i s shown i n Table V. Because of the small number of innovators, innovators and early adopters were grouped together for purposes of analysis. I I . CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES Chi square values for the d i s t r i b u t i o n of each socio economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c were calculated using four adopter categories (1. innovators and early adopters, 2. early majority, 3. late majority, and 4. laggards) and also using two adopter categories (1. innovators, early adopters and early majority, and 2. late majority and laggards). These are shown i n Table VI. Complete percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n s by adopter category f o r the s i g n i f i c a n t variables are i n Appendix I. 42 Table V CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS INTO ADOPTER CATEGORIES Adopter Category Bound aries Number of Standard Deviations from Respondents i n Category the Mean Number Per Cent Innovators % 91.004 +2 1 0.7 Earl y adopters 19 13.1 Early majority 70.909 50.814 +1 0 59 40.7 Late majority 43 29.7 Laggards 30.720 -1 23 15.9 TOTAL 145 100.0 43 Table VI CHI SQUARE VALUES BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES FOR VARIOUS SOCIOECONOMIC DATA Chi square value Socioeconomic data U j ^ n ? t U ® i n S ^ adopter adopter categories categories Age 6.069 3.754 Education 8.667 2.218 Agriculture course i n high school 0.992 0.317 A g r i c u l t u r e courses at u n i v e r s i t y * 4.035 Adult courses i n agricult u r e 11.996 1.003 Adult courses i n other subjects 2.471 0.617 Attendance at d i s t r i c t h a l l chautauqua 13.389 7,2,r3 Attendance at d i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t discussion groups 14.662 4.031 Enjoyment of orcharding 10,794 1.896 Subscription to newspapers 2.302 0.835 Subscription to magazines 1.641 0.217 Organizations belonged to 6.607 5.021 Organizations attended 3.775 4.516 Organizations contributed to f i n a n c i a l l y 17.397 5.752 Committees belonged to 5.558 1.674 Offices of organizations held 5.491 2.495 Years i n agr i c u l t u r e 6.765 5.863 Years on present orchard 12.646 9.983 Years i n orcharding 13,029 8,55,6 Occupation 19.578 14,658 Size of enterprise 12.527 14.206 Acres on orchard 41.339 27.382 Value of enterprise 17.664 13,161 Tenure 8,127 3.521 Relation of non-ag. income to ag.income 10.841 11,584 Sales value 37.824 49.609 Willingness of community to adopt 3.165 0.301 Community regard of adopters 4.554 2.430 Community regard of laggards Personal reaction to TV Chautauqua 3.752 2.723 11.665 11.298 NOTE: Underlined values are s i g n i f i c a n t . A n u l l hypothesis of no difference i n proportions between adopter cate gories was used with a .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . * too many low c e l l frequencies to carry out a c h i square analysis. 44 Differences between adopter categories as indicated by the c h i square values w i l l be commented upon i n order. Agriculture courses at u n i v e r s i t y Thirteen per cent of the e a r l i e r adopters attended a g r i  culture courses at u n i v e r s i t y while only two per cent of the l a t e r adopters reported such attendance. Adult courses i n agricu l t u r e There was a r e l a t i o n s h i p between attendance at adult courses i n agricu l t u r e and the rate of adoption. Forty-two per cent of the innovators and early adopters attended adult courses i n agriculture while only seven per cent of the early majority, seven per cent of the late majority, and thirteen per cent of the laggards did. Attendance at the district h a l l chautauqua A d i r e c t c o r r e l a t i o n between attendance at the d i s t r i c t h a l l chautauqua and percentage adoption of the selected inno vations i s evident. Eighty-five per cent of the innovators but only twenty-five per cent of the laggards attended the d i s t r i c t h a l l chautauqua. Discussion groups with the d i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t There also appeared a r e l a t i o n s h i p between attendance at discussion groups with the d i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t and per centage adoption of the selected innovations. Ninety per cent of the innovators attended these discussions but only twenty-two per 45 cent of the laggards did. Enjoyment of orcharding The enjoyment of orcharding was another c h a r a c t e r i s t i c associated with innovativeness. Ninety-five per cent of the innovators and early adopters enjoyed orcharding very much while thirty-nine per cent of the laggards only enjoyed orcharding occasionally and four per cent of these slow adopters did not enjoy orcharding at a l l . Years i n orcharding A general trend of the higher adopters being the longest i n orcharding was evident. The highest percentage i n the twenty years or over grouping was the early majority category. The second highest percentage i n the twenty years or over grouping was found with the innovator and early adopter category. At the other end of the scale, the largest percentage i n the less than f i v e years was found with the laggards. However, the next largest percentage for t h i s new orchardist group were the innovators and early adopters. Years on present orchard A s i g n i f i c a n t c h i square was found using two categories of adopters only. Again, there was a general trend towards the e a r l i e r adopters being on the orchard longer. Thirty-three per cent of the f a s t e r adopters (as compared with f i f t e e n per cent of the slower adopters) have been on t h e i r present orchard for twenty or more years. Eight per cent of the slower adopters (as compared to one per cent of the fa s t e r adopters) have been on t h e i r present orchard less than one year. Occupation Several important trends between adopter categories are evident here. Ninety per cent of the innovators and early adopters are f u l l - t i m e orchardists, while only t h i r t y per cent of the laggards are f u l l - t i m e orchardists. The same trend i s followed by the early majority and the l a t e majority categories, with the early majority having seventy per cent* f u l l - t i m e orchardists and the l a t e majority f i f t y - o n e per cent f u l l - t i m e orchardists. An inverse r e l a t i o n s h i p between adoption and employment i n other types of a g r i c u l t u r e i s evident; s i m i l a r l y for mana g e r i a l , c l e r i c a l and sales, loggers, fishermen, miners, and related workers, and those with no f u l l - t i m e occupation. In a l l of these jobs there were no innovators and early adopters and i n each, laggards made up the largest percentage. The only occupational r e l a t i o n s h i p showing any d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p with adoption was the professional and technical c l a s s . Here were found ten per cent of the innovators and early adopters but none of the laggards. Size of enterprise A general trend towards the e a r l i e r adopters having 47 larger enterprises was shown. For a l l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s above nine acres except f o r t y - f i v e to f i f t y - f o u r acres, there were larger percentages of the e a r l i e r adopters than the l a t e r ones. Acres i n orchard The median c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of acreages for the e a r l i e r adopters were larger than for the l a t e r ones. Generally, the larger acreages are i n the early majority category and the smaller ones i n the laggard category. Value of enterprise One of the most d i s t i n c t d i s t r i b u t i o n s i s i n the c l a s s i  f i c a t i o n of enterprise value by adopter category. Most of the enterprises of greatest value are operated by innovators and early adopters and most of the least valuable enterprises are operated by laggards. A l l of the other c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s by value follow the same pattern. Tenure Two i n t e r e s t i n g relationships are apparent i n the tenure status of the operators. The largest number of part owners and part renters are i n the innovator and early adopter category while a l l of the laggards completely own t h e i r orchards. The early majority and late majority categories follow intermediate d i s t r i b u t i o n s . 48 Relationship of non-agriculture income to ag r i c u l t u r e income Generally, e a r l i e r adopters have less income from sources other than a g r i c u l t u r e than do the l a t e r adopters. For the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s h a l f as much or less income from other sources and no income from other sources there are greater percentages of the e a r l i e r adopters than the l a t e r adopters. For every other c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , from less than but greater than h a l f as much income from other sources to twice as much or greater income from other sources, the reverse i s true, with greater percentages of the slower adopters than the fa s t e r ones. Sales value of orchard products There i s a d i s t i n c t c o r r e l a t i o n of value of sales with adoption. The majority of the laggards have less than $1200 i n sales of orchard products while the majority of innovators and early adopters have $5000u to $9999 i n sal e s . The early majority and l a t e majority categories are i n intermediate positions. Personal reaction to the T.V. Chautauqua The median reaction to the T.V. chautauqua i s the same for a l l respondents. However, there i s a s l i g h t difference i n the weighted average of the reaction toward the chautauqua with the e a r l i e r adopters f e e l i n g more favourable towards the chau tauqua than the l a t e r ones. 49 I I I . REGRESSION AND CORRELATION ANALYSES OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES A multiple regression of several independent variables was c a r r i e d out on adoption percentage. The re s u l t s are shown i n Table VII. Table VII MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF SELECTED INDEPENDENT VARIABLES ON ADOPTION PERCENTAGE Variable Regression F name c o e f f i c i e n t r a t i o Education 0.9265 3.1996 Enjoyment o f orcharding 5.7182 2.5973 Organizations belonged to -1.5164 0.2825 Organizations attended 1.6442 0.3530 Organizations contributed to f i n a n c i a l l y 0.8299 1.9349 Years i n orcharding 0.1670 0.6907 Size of orchard, i n acres -0.1167 1.2088 Value of enterprise 0.0002 2.5881 Relation of non-ag.income to ag.income 1.3715 2.5191 Sales value of orchard products 0.0009 5.0128 C o e f f i c i e n t of determination: 0.246 NOTE: Underlined value indicates a high degree of association. Using the F r a t i o to tes t the n u l l hypothesis that there i s no c o r r e l a t i o n between the dependent v a r i a b l e (percentage adoption) and the selected independent v a r i a b l e s , sales value i s the only independent variable highly associated at the .05 50 l e v e l . When sales value by i t s e l f i s regressed against adop t i o n percentage, a c o e f f i c i e n t of determination of .143 i s obtained. This means that 14.3 per cent of the v a r i a t i o n i n adoption percentage may be explained by v a r i a t i o n i n sales value. Another possible analysis i s through the use of p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s which measure the strength of the cor r e l a t i o n between one independent and one dependent v a r i a b l e while the effects of a l l other independent variables are held constant. The re s u l t s are shown i n Table VIII, which indicates that only two independent v a r i a b l e s , sales value and enjoyment of orcharding, have a high degree of association with adoption percentage. 51 Table VIII PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN SELECTED VARIABLES AND ADOPTION PERCENTAGES P a r t i a l Variable Name Correlation C o e f f i c i e n t Age -.0077 Education . 1502 Enjoyment of orcharding .1252 Organizations belonged to -.0204 Organizations attended .0651 Organizations contributed to f i n a n c i a l l y .1089 Committees belonged to -.0490 Offices of organizations held -.0347 Years i n agricul t u r e .0319 Years i n orcharding .0759 Years on present orchard -.0330 Size of enterprise -.1389 Acres i n orchard -.0469 Value o f enterprise .1545 Relation of non-ag. income to ag. income .1254 Sales value of orchard products .1931 Willingness of community to adopt .0576 Community regard of adopters .0473 Community regard o f laggards -.0595 NOTE: Underlined values indicate high degree of association. For the tests of s i g n i f i c a n c e a n u l l hypothesis of no c o r r e l a t i o n was used with a .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . CHAPTER V SOURCES OF INFORMATION Sources of information have been analysed under several categories; source use by stages i n the adoption process, source use by adopter categories, and source use for each of the s p e c i f i e d innovations. I. DEFINITION OF CLASSIFICATIONS For purposes of analysis, the sources of information were c l a s s i f i e d i n three ways: by type, method, and contact. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by type was ca r r i e d out on the basis of what kind of organization was responsible f o r the information and to whom the information was made a v a i l a b l e . The general scheme of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n on the basis of the source type may be summarized as follows: Mass media: produced by a g r i c u l t u r a l or non-agricul t u r a l organizations and available to the general public or a generalized segment of i t as d i s t i n c t from d i s  crete or s p e c i f i c a l l y defined groups of the population. A g r i c u l t u r a l agencies: sources sponsored by organiza tions primarily concerned with a g r i c u l t u r e and available almost exclusively to farmers. 53 Commercial; those sources sponsored by organizations with which the farmer has business transactions. Informal; sources of information not produced by any organization and mainly avai l a b l e to the farmer on an i n d i v i d u a l basis. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by method i s pr i m a r i l y on the basis of the s i z e of the group to which the information source i s directed. D e f i n i t i o n s of the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are: Mass: sources o f information which contact large numbers of farmers at any one time. Group: sources which deal with more than one but less than the majority of farmers at one time. Individual: sources which deal with orchardists i n d i v i d u a l l y . The t h i r d method of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , by the degree of contact with the orchardist, i s given below. Impersonal: sources which do not involve a large amount of d i r e c t , face-to-face contact between the communicator and communication receiver. Personal: sources which depend on d i r e c t , face-to-face contact between communicator and communication receiver, and i n which the receiver can extensively question the communicator. A complete c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the sources of information used i s shown i n Table IX. 54 Table IX CLASSIFICATION OF SOURCES OF INFORMATION Source of Information C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by: Type Method Contact Magazines M M I Newspapers M M I Radio M M I Te l e v i s i o n M M I B.C. Dept.of Agriculture Publications M M I Federal Dept. o f Agriculture Pub. M M I T.V. Chautauqua M M I D i s t r i c t h a l l chautauqua A G I D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t discussion groups A G P A g r i c . meeting and Adult Educ.courses A G I Vocational a g r i c u l t u r e courses A G P University courses i n agricult u r e A G P F i e l d days A G I Summerland research s t a t i o n A I P Co-operatives C I P U.B.C. A I P B.C. Tree F r u i t s Limited C I P B.C. F r u i t Growers' Association A I P Packing houses C I P Foreign t r a v e l I I P Salesmen or dealers C I P D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t A I P Employees I I P Vocational a g r i c u l t u r e teacher A I P Neighbours I I P Other orchardists I I P Relatives I I P KEY Tyj>e M: mass media A: a g r i c u l t . agencies C: commercial I: informal Method M: mass G: group I: i n d i v i d u a l Contact P: personal I: impersonal 55 I I . SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED BY STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS Using the three c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of information sources, comparisons were made of the use of sources between the stages i n the adoption process f o r a l l respondents and f o r each adopter category. S i g n i f i c a n t differences i n source use between the stages i n the adoption process are noted f o r a l l respondents and a l l adopter categories when sources o f information are c l a s s i f i e d by type or method. For the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by degree of contact only laggards do not show a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n t h e i r sources used between adoption stages. The percentage breakdowns f o r these comparisons are given i n Appendix I I , S i g n i f i c a n t relationships are shown by the c h i square values i n Table X. The c h i squares s i g n i f y the differences i n source use through the d i f f e r e n t stages i n the adoption process for a l l respondents and each adopter category. A s i g n i f i c a n t c h i square shows that any differences i n use of sources of information between the stages i n the adoption process i s not due to chance. Chi square values which are not s i g n i f i c a n t indicate chance v a r i a t i o n s . I f we r e f e r to Figures 1 to 3 which are simply graphs of tables i n Appendix I I , the c h i square values indicate whether 56 Table X CHI SQUARE VALUES FOR COMPARISONS OF SOURCE OF INFORMATION USED BY STAGES IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS Adopter Category C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of information sources by: Type Method Contact A l l respondents 167.694 200.118 137.369 Innovators and early adopters 61.489 45.149 30.663 Early majority 211.839 100.888 56.131 Late majority 149.792 67.563 58.275 Laggards 25.705 23,371 4.807 NOTE: Underlined values are s i g n i f i c a n t . The c h i square tests were carr i e d out using the n u l l hypothesis of no d i f f e r  ences i n the use of sources of information between the stages i n the adoption process f o r each adopter category and a .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . or not the slopes o f the l i n e s are s i g n i f i c a n t . Detailed analyses are given below. Source use by type There i s a decline i n the use mass media between the awareness and i n t e r e s t stages with a s l i g h t increase, for most adopter categories, at the t r i a l stage. A g r i c u l t u r a l agencies generally increase i n importance between the awareness and the i n t e r e s t stages but show a tendency to decline i n importance during adoption. L i t t l e v a r i a t i o n over the stages i n the adoption F IGURE O N E Percentage use of information source types by stages in the adoption process K E Y Al l Respondents Innovators and Early Adopters Early Majority Late Majority Laggards 40 30 20 10 INFORMAL 20 10 COMMERC IAL * 60 50 40 30 20 10 A G R I C U L T U R A L A G E N C I E S SO 40 30 20 10 MASS MEDIA 0 I «- -f- -+- 1— Tria l Awareness Interest Evaluation S T A G E IN T H E ADOPT ION P R O C E S S Adoption 58 FIGURE 2 Percentage use of Information source methods by stage In the adoption process KEY All Respondents Innovators and Early Adopters Early Ma|orlty Late Majority Laggards 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 INDIVIDUAL 20 10 GROUP 60 50 40 30 20 10 MASS Awareness Interest Evaluation Trial STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS Adoption FIGURE 3 Percentage use by degree of contact of information sources by stages in the adoption process KEY All Respondents Innovators and Early Adopters Early Majority Late Majority Laggards 80 70 60 50 . - 40 30 20 10 59 IMPERSONAL 100 90 80 • 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 PERSONAL Awareness Interest Evaluation Trial STAGE IN T H E ADOPTION PROCESS Adoption 60 process i s shown by commercial sources. However, they are s l i g h t l y less important at the awareness stage than at most other stages. Informal sources of information increase i n importance up to the evaluation stage, decrease between the evaluation and t r i a l stages and increase again for the adoption stage. A decline i n the importance of mass media from awareness to evaluation i s observed. There i s , however, an increase i n the percentage use of mass media from the evaluation to the t r i a l stage but a decline a f t e r that. Group sources of i n f o r  mation generally increase from awareness to i n t e r e s t , decline to evaluation and t r i a l and increase at adoption. Individual sources of information are, o v e r a l l , the most important at a l l stages i n the adoption process. Their impor tance increases sharply from awareness to evaluation and decreases, but at a lesser rate, from evaluation to adoption. Source use by degree of contact An increasing importance of personal sources up to the evaluation stage i s observed. Between evaluation and adoption a s l i g h t decrease i n the o v e r a l l percentage use of personal sources i s noted. The reverse s i t u a t i o n i s true f o r impersonal sources of information* Their percentage use declines sharply 61 between adoption and evaluation and increases s l i g h t l y between evaluation and adoption. These trends are true for a l l adopter categories except laggards who do not show any s i g n i f i c a n t percentage changes i n t h e i r use of personal o r impersonal sources o f information between stages i n the adoption process. Individual sources of information The d i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t s are the most important sources of information at a l l stages i n the adoption process.*" Their influence ranged from nineteen per cent of a l l sources used at theawareness stage to thirty-one per cent at the u i a l stage. Other orchardists were among the top f i v e sources at the i n t e r e s t , evaluation, t r i a l , and adoption stages. Their percentages ranged from f i f t e e n to twenty three. The Summerland research s t a t i o n was among the top f i v e sources f o r a l l f i v e stages. I t was most important at the evaluation stage (t h i r t e e n per cent) and least important at the adoption stage ( f i v e per cent). Table XI shows the f i v e most popular i n d i v i d u a l sources of information at each stage i n the adoption process. Since the d i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t s c a r r i e d out the interviews, there i s a d e f i n i t e p o s s i b i l i t y of a bias i n t h e i r favour on the part of the respondents. 62 Table THE FIVE MOST FREQUENTLY USED SOURCES OF INFORMATION ADOPTION Awareness Interest Evaluation Source % Use Source % Use Source % Use D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t . 19.02 D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t . 30.82 D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t . 29.10 Magazines 13.63 Other orchardists 15.72 Other orchardists 20.15 Summerland research s ta. 9.25 Summerland research sta.12.89 Summerland research s t a. 13.06 T.V. Chau tauqua 9.51 Neighbours 5.35 Salesmen & dealers 4.85 T.V. 7.97 Co-operatives 4.72 B.C.Dept.of Agric.Pub. 4.48 TOTAL 59.38 69.50 71.64 * Tie XI BY STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS 63 STAGE T r i a l Adoption Source % Use Source % Use D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t . 31.06 Other orchardists 20.83 Summerland research s t a . 11.74 Neighbours 6.44 Co-operatives 5.30 D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t . 29.03 Other orchardists 23.04 Neighbours 9.22 F i e l d days 5.99 Summerland ) research sta) 5.53 Relatives* ) 75.37 72.81 64 I I I . SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Comparisons were also made of the use of information sources between adopter categories for a l l stages i n the adop t i o n process and fo r each adoption stage. C l a s s i f y i n g i n f o r  mation sources by type re s u l t s i n s i g n i f i c a n t differences between adopter categories for a l l stages, awareness and eva lu a t i o n . By the method c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t differences are found for a l l stages, awareness, i n t e r e s t , and adoption, and when c l a s s i f y i n g by degree of contact, a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r  ence between adopter categories i s found only f o r a l l stages i n the adoption process. Detailed percentages breakdowns for these c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are given i n Appendix II and a summary of s i g n i f i c a n t relationships i n Table XII. The c h i squares show whether or not there are s i g n i f i  cant differences i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of information source use between the adopter categories f o r each stage and for a l l stages i n the adoption process. In r e l a t i o n to Figures 1 to 3, these c h i square values show the si g n i f i c a n c e of the distance between lines for each stage and for a l l stages i n the adoption process• Source Use by Type Between adopter categories, there i s less use of mass media by the e a r l i e r adopters than the l a t e r ones at a l l stages i n the adoption process; generally greater use of a g r i c u l t u r a l 65 Table XII CHI SQUARE VALUES FOR COMPARISONS OF SOURCES OF INFOR MATION USED BY ADOPTER CATEGORIES Stage i n the Adoption Process C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Information Sources by:  Type Method Contact A l l stages Awareness Interest Evaluation T r i a l Adoption h 45.161  29.003 10.814 18.598 9.842 15.303 15.495 8.841 14.341 5.133 3.996 13.771 9,Q81 2.808 7.255 5.622 1.936 4.108 NOTE: Underlined values are s i g n i f i c a n t . The c h i square tests were c a r r i e d out using the n u l l hypothesis of no d i f  ferences i n the use of information sources between the adopter categories at the given stage i n the adoption process and a .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . agencies by the e a r l i e r adopters; l i t t l e , i f any, difference i n the use of commercial sources by adopter categories; and no o v e r a l l trend between adopter categories f o r informal sources. At the awareness stage, laggards are the greatest percentage users of informal sources followed, i n order, by the l a t e major i t y innovators and early adopters, and the early majority. At the evaluation stage the greatest users of informal sources are 66 the innovators and early adopters followed, i n order, by the laggards, late majority, and early majority. Source use by method By adopter categories mass method sources are most used by the l a t e r adopters and lea s t by the e a r l i e r adopters. The reverse i s true f o r i n d i v i d u a l method sources of information. At most of the stages of adoption, they are l e a s t used by the laggards and most used by the innovators and early adopters. An i n t e r e s t i n g phenomenon i s noted among the laggards. At the awareness stage, they do not follow the normal trend but instead use mass method sources, the second l e a s t , and i n d i v i d u a l method sources, the most of a l l adopter categories. Source use by degree of contact Generally, there i s a greater use of personal sources and a lesser use of impersonal sources by the e a r l i e r adopters than the l a t e r ones. Individual sources of information The d i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t ranked f i r s t with a l l cate gories except laggards. The Summerland research s t a t i o n ranked second with both the innovators and early adopters and early majority categories but f a i l e d to place i n the f i r s t f i v e with the two slower adopter categories. Other orchardists were im portant i n a l l categories but were most important to the late 67 majority and laggards. In f a c t , with the laggards other or chardists ranked f i r s t . Also, only i n this category did neigh bours rank i n the f i r s t f i v e sources of information. The tendency shown i s for e a r l i e r adopters to go to the source of the innovation ( i . e . , Summerland research station) while l a t e r adopters r e l y more on orchardists who have previous .knowledge of the innovation or are i n the process of adopting i t . The f i v e most popular sources of information f o r each adopter cate gory are shown i n Table XIII.Ic Table XIII THE FIVE MOST POPULAR SOURCES OF INFORMATION BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Innovators and early adopters Early jraa^Jority ADOPTER CATEGORY Late majority Laggards Source % Use Source % Use Source % Use Source %Use D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t . 15.9 D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t . 23.4 D i s t r i c t horticult.18.2 Other orchar d i s t s 18.1 Summerland research s t a t i o n 15.6 Summerland research s t a t i o n 13.2 Other orchar d i s t s 17.7 D i s t r i c t 1 7 ft h o r t i c u l t . , 0 Other orchar d i s t s 12.6 Other orchar d i s t s 12.3 Magazines 10.1 Neigh bours 8.1 Magazines 11.1 TV Chau tauqua 7.9 TV chau tauqua 7.7 TV 7.1 TV chau tauqua 9.9 Magazines 7.1 B.C.Dept. of A g r i c . Pub. 6.3 Magazines 7.1 TOTAL 65.1 63.8 60.0 58.3 68 IV. SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED FOR THE SPECIFIED INNOVATIONS Sources of information used by the respondents i n working towards adoption of the s p e c i f i e d innovations were c l a s s i f i e d and analysed. For the pre-chautauqua innovations, s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r  ences between innovations were obtained f o r a l l three c l a s s i  f i c a t i o n s . By type, the most obvious i r r e g u l a r i t i e s are less use of mass media f o r low-volume sprayers and less use of commercial sources and informal sources f o r hardy frame works than the average. For low-volume sprayers, using the method c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , there i s less use of mass and group method sources and more use of i n d i v i d u a l sources than the average. The reverse i s true f o r hardy frame works which are associated with more mass and group methods and less i n d i v i d u a l methods than the average. The same sort of tendency i s evident i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by degree of contact between the communicator and communication receiver. Dwarfing root stalks and power take-off sprayers follow c l o s e l y the average percentage-distribution of a p p r o x i  mately s i x t y per cent use of personal sources and f o r t y per cent use of impersonal sources. However, low-volume sprayers use more personal and less impersonal sources than the average 69 while hardy frame works use less personal and more impersonal contacts than the average. Only the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of sources by type exhibits a s i g n i f i c a n t c h i square value for the innovations introduced or stressed on the 1964 T.V. Chautauqua. Mass media are used more and a g r i c u l t u r a l agencies less than the average f o r four-way spraying. Commercial sources are used more than the average for moristan/morocide and not at a l l f o r c e n t r a l leader pruning. Informal sources are used less than the average f o r moristan/ morocide. Table XIV shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n s of source c l a s s i f i c a  tions and the c h i square values f o r these d i s t r i b u t i o n . The most popular i n d i v i d u a l sources of information were also tabulated f o r each innovation. Of i n t e r e s t i s the fact that the d i s t r i c t h a l l chautauqua plays an important part i n three of the four pre-chautauqua innovations. Also, salesmen and dealers are important i n the two innovations concerned with sprayers. These are the two innovations where new or modified equipment i s necessary and presumably the equipment manufacturers would have a large i n t e r e s t i n having these (innovations adopted. The T.V. Chautauqua was, needless to say, the most important sing l e source of information for a l l innovations introduced or stressed on the 1964 T.V. Chautauqua. B.C. Dep-70 Table PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION CLASSIFICATION OF SOURCES BY Innovation Mass Media % TYPE Agr i c . Agencies % Comm e r c i a l % In formal Total % % Pre-chautauqua innovations Dwarfing Root Stocks 28.5 43.0 9.4 19.1 100.0 Low-vol. sprayers 19.4 42.5 11.5 26.6 100.0 Hardy frame works 32.6 51.9 3.9 11.6 100.0 Power take-off sprayers 25.8 40.3 12.4 21.5 100.0 Average 26.6 44.5 9.2 19.7 100.0 Chi square value 37.422 Chautauqua innovations Four-way spraying 71.2 14.7 2.7 11.4 100.0 Use of moristan/morocide 63.3 22.6 7.3 6.8 100.0 Central leader pruning 63.6 21.2 0.0 15.2 100.0 Average Chi square value 66.5 19.1 3.9 10.4 100.0 18.674 Overall t o t a l 39.5 36.3 7.5 17.0 100.0 Overall Chi square value 256.750 NOTE: Underlined values are s i g n i f i c a n t . The n u l l hypotheses used f o r comparisons within each source c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was that there was no difference i n source use between inno vations at a .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . 71 XIV OF SOURCE USE BY INNOVATION METHOD CONTACT Mass Group Individual Total Personal Impersonal Total % % % % % % % 28.5 16.8 54.7 100.0 55.3 44.7 100.0 19.4 11.9 68.8 100.0 69.2 30.8 100.0 32.3 21.7 46.0 100.0 48.1 51.9 100.0 25.8 15.1 59.1 100.0 59.1 40.9 100.0 26.5 16.4 57.1 100.0 57.9 42.1 100.0 27.408 23.353 71.2 4.9 23.9 100.0 27.2 72.8 100.0 61.1 6.6 32.3 100.0 33.3 66.7 100.0 67.0 9.2 23.9 100.0 26.7 73.7 100.0 66.5 6.5 27.0 100.0 29.3 70.7 100.0 6.093 2.230 39.4 13.2 47.4 100.0 48.7 51.6 100.0 251.541 123.281 72 Table THE FIVE MOST USED SOURCES OF INFORMATION PRE-CHAUTAUQUA A l l Pre-chautauqua Dwarfing Low-volume innovations root stocks sprayers Source % Use Source % Use Source % Use Other Other Other orchardists 15.4 orchardists 14.7 orchardists 21.3 Summerland Summerland research s ta. 13.8 Magainzes 12.3 research s ta. 17.8 D i s t r i c t D i s t r i c t D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t . 13.0 h o r t i c u l t . 12.3 h o r t i c u l t . 11.9 Magazines 10.8 Summerland Salesmen & research s t a . 11.7 dealers 9.9 D i s t r i c t h a l l D i s t r i c t h a l l chautauqua 10.2 chautauqua 11.3 Magazines 7.5 Total 63.2 62.3 68.4 * Tie XV FOR THE PREICHAUTAUQUA INNOVATIONS INNOVATIONS Hardy frame Power take-off works sprayers Source % Use Source % Use D i s t r i c t Other h o r t i c u l t . 18.5 orchardists 17.7 Magazines 14.2 Summerland research s t a. 15.1 D i s t r i c t h a l l Salesmen & chautauqua 13.3 dealers 12.4 Summerland D i s t r i c t h a l l research s t a. 11.2 chautauqua 9.1 Other Magazines ) orchardists 8.2 D i s t r i c t ) 8.6 h o r t i c u l t . * ) 65.3 62.9 74 Table THE FIVE MOST USED SOURCES OF INFORMATION CHAUTAUQUA A l l Innovations A l l Chautauqua Four-way innovations spraying Source % Use Source % Use Source % Use TV Chautauqua 12.9 TV Chautauqua 32.0 TV Chautauqua 36.4 Other Magazines 13.7 Magazines 14.7 orchardists 12.8 D i s t r i c t D i s t r i c t D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t . 11.9 h o r t i c u l t . 9.8 h o r t i c u l t . 8.2 Magazines 11.7 B.C.Dept.of Other Agric.Pub. 9.1 orchardists 7.6 Summerland Other B.C.Dept.of research s ta. 10.0 orchardists 7.2 Agric.Pub. 6.0 Total 59.3 71.7 72.8 * Tie XVI OVERALL AND FOR THE CHAUTAUQUA INNOVATIONS INNOVATIONS Moris tan/ Central Leader morocide pruning Source % Use Source % Use TV Chautauqua. 30.5 TV Chautauqua 26.5 14.1 Magazines 15.2 B.C.Dept.of Agric.Pub. D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t . 13.6 Magazines 11.9 Salesmen & dealers 5.7 Other orchardists Federal Dept. of Agric.Pub. 11.1 Ag.mtg.& Adult Educ.courses D i s t . h o r t i c u l t . * B.C.Dept.of A.Pub. 8.1 6.1 75.7 66.7 76 artment of Agriculture publications ranked among the f i r s t f i v e f o r chautauqua innovations but did not do so for the pre- chautauqua innovations. A detailed analysis of the most popular sources by innovation i s given i n Tables XV and XVI. V. MOST USED SOURCES OF INFORMATION OVERALL Taking a l l the possible categories under which sources of information were gathered, stages i n the adoption process, pre-chautauqua innovations, and chautauqua innovations, the ten most popular information sources were obtained. The re s u l t s are i n Table XVII. Table XVII THE MOST USED SOURCES OF INFORMATION OVERALL Per Cent D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t 16.9 Other orchardists 13.7 Summerland research s t a t i o n 9.8 T.V. Chautauqua 9.4 Magazines 9.0 B.C. Department of Agriculture Publications 4.8 Salesmen and dealers 4.3 Neighbours 4.2 D i s t r i c t h a l l chautauqua 4.0 Co-operatives 4.0 Total 80.1 CHAPTER VI THE INNOVATIONS Each respondent was asked to indicate the stage i n the adoption process he had reached i n working towards adoption of each of the sp e c i f i e d innovations. Comparisons were made be tween the d i s t r i b u t i o n s of respondents' stages f o r each of the pre-chautauqua innovations (innovations introduced within f i v e years p r i o r to the 1964 T.V. Chautauqua) and chautauqua inno vations (new innovations stressed on the 1964 T.V. Chautauqua) and also between the d i s t r i b u t i o n s of stages f o r each adopter category by innovation. I. THE PRE-CHAUTAUQUA INNOVATIONS Examining the d i s t r i b u t i o n of respondents' stages over a l l stages i n the adoption process, there are several features worth noting. Sixteen per cent of respondents are not aware of hardy frame works or a i r - b l a s t sprayers operating through power take-off from the tractor.''" This compares with only two There i s a possible source of er r o r here i n that a non-answer was taken as i n d i c a t i n g the respondent was not aware of the innovation. However, a non-answer could also mean that the respondent was not asked or did not answer the question. Respondents of this type were, hopefully, a l l eliminated. In any case, * the possible error i s not more than 2 per cent (per cent of respondents giving a non-answer f o r the adoption of dwarfing root stocks). 78 per cent who are not aware of dwarfing root stocks. At the awareness, i n t e r e s t , and evaluation stages, power take-off sprayers show a larger percentage of respondents than the aver age. The other innovations are r e l a t i v e l y close to the average fo r each of these three stages i n the adoption process. Some i n t e r e s t i n g facts are apparent at the t t i a l stage. This i s the l e a s t used stage f o r a l l innovations except dwarfing root stocks. There appears to be a r e l a t i o n s h i p between the d i v i s i b i l i t y of an innovation and the number of respondents who are at the t r i a l stage for that innovation at any one time. Dwarfing root stocks and hardy frame works, innovations which may be adopted gradually or i n small amounts, are the innovations with the largest percentage of respondents at the t r i a l stage. On the other hand, low volume a i r - b l a s t sprayers and power take-off sprayers which are usually adopted on a once and f o r a l l basis have very few respondents at the t r i a l stage. At the adoption stage, there i s a wide discrepancy between the percentage of respondents adopting low-volume, a i r - b l a s t sprayers ( s i x t y per cent) and those adopting power take-off sprayers (twenty-five per cent). However, the per cent of res pondents adopting dwarfing root stocks and hardy frame works are very s i m i l a r . While the adoption of one of these l a s t two innovations does not mean the necessary adoption of the other, 79 they are usually very c l o s e l y associated i n the o r c h a r d i s t s mind and involve the same s p e c i a l area of orcharding. Table XVIII gives a d e t a i l e d analysis of the adoption of the pre- chautauqua innovations. Table XVIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTIONS OF ADOPTION STAGES FOR THE PRE-CHAUTAUQUA INNOVATIONS Stage i n the:,_ta^pt&o^ not aware aware ness • i n t e r  est evalu a t i o n t r i a l adop t i o n Total Dwarfing root stocks % 2.1 7. 12.4 % 12.4 % 8.3 % 13.8 % 51.0 % 100.0 Low-volume sprayers 14.8 11.7 6.9 13.1 3.4 60.0 100.0 Hardy frame works 15.9 17.2 4.1 9.0 4.1 49.7 100.0 Power take-off sprayers 15.9 24.8 13.1 19.3 2.1 24.8 100.0 Average 9.7 16.6 9.1 12.4 5.9 46.4 100.0 Chi square value: 85.666 NOTE: The underlined value i s s i g n i f i c a n t . The c h i square test was c a r r i e d out using the n u l l hypothesis of no differences i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of adoption stages between innovations at a .01 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . 80 II . THE CHAUTAUQUA INNOVATIONS Since the chautauqua innovations are of more recent o r i g i n there are na t u r a l l y fewer respondents at the adoption stage than for any of the pre-chautauqua innovations. Four-way spraying and moristan/morocide roughly p a r a l l e l each other i n th e i r percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n s of adoption stages, although there are a greater number of respondents having adopted four-way spraying than moristan/morocide and more respondents are at the i n t e r e s t stage f o r moristan/morocide than f o r four- way spraying. The innovation, pruning for a c e n t r a l leader, showed the most deviations from the average with more respondents not 2 aware and less at the i n t e r e s t and evaluation stages. Once again, the t r i a l stage had the lowest.percentage of respondents. A detailed analysis of the adoption of the chautauqua innova tions i s given i n Table XIX. I I I . COMPARISONS BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES An analysis of the differences between adopter categor i e s i n the adoption of each innovation was c a r r i e d out. For every innovation, the largest percentage of any adopter category The same type of error i s possible here as noted i n footnote 1. 81 Table XIX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTIONS OF ADOPTION STAGES FOR THE CHAUTAUQUA INNOVATIONS Stage i n the Adoption Process Innovation 0 1 2 3 4 5 not aware- i n t e r - evalu- t r i a l adop- Total aware ness est a t i o n t i o n • x x x x x x—yjr Four-way spraying 9.6 44.0 12.8 16.0 0.0 17.6 100.0 Use of moristan and morocide 11.7 38.3 22.5 14.2 1.7 11.7 100.0 Central leader pruning 31.7 47.1 4.8 2.9 1.9 11.5 100.0 Average 16.9 43.0 13.8 11.5 1.1 13.8 100.0 Chi square value: 47.322 NOTE: The underlined value i s s i g n i f i c a n t . The c h i square test was carr i e d out using the n u l l hypothesis of no difference i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of adoption stages between innovations at a .01 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . having adopted the innovation belongs to the innovators and early adopters. Conversely, f o r a l l innovations except one, the smallest percentage of any adopter category having adopted the innovation belongs to the laggards. The early majority and lat e majority categories follow this trend f o r a l l innovations but one. This indicates that adoption may be considered a generalized t r a i t . That i s , orchardists adopting one inno v a t i o n w i l l probably adopt most innovations. Orchardists w i l l 82 also consistently f a i l to adopt innovations as indicated by the low adoption percentages of laggards. Examining the pre-chautauqua innovations, an inverse trend i s apparent at the not aware and awareness stages. A l l of the innovators and early adopters are at l e a s t aware of the innovation while up to seventy per cent of the laggards are not aware of hardy frame works. For a l l pre-chautauqua innovations, the largest percentages at the awareness stage are associated with the laggards and the lowest percentages with the innovators and early adopters. The above two trends of the pre-chautauqua innovations are not as d i s t i n c t with the chautauqua innovations. A l l of the innovators and early adopters are aware of the innovations while the largest percentage not aware of each innovation are the laggards. However, at the awareness stage, there are d i s  crepancies between the innovations. Laggards are the largest percent only aware of four-way spraying and the l a t e majority the largest per cent aware of moristan/morocide. For c e n t r a l leader pruning, the least adopted of any innovation, innovators and early adopters, the early majority, and the late majority have approximately the same percentages at the awareness stage. Appendix III contains complete percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n s of the stages i n the adoption process by adopter category for each innovation. CHAPTER VII THE 1964 T.V. CHAUTAUQUA A three-fold analysis of the effectiveness of the 1964 T.V. Chautauqua was c a r r i e d out: (1) an analysis of those watching, (2) a comparison of the proportion of respondents watching the 1964 T.V. Chautauqua with the proportion attending other educational courses, and (3) an analysis of the respon dents' comprehension of the program. I., ANALYSIS OF THOSE WATCHING THE 1964 T.V. CHAUTAUQUA D i s t r i c t H a l l Chautauqua vs. T.V. Chautauqua Most respondents (92.4 per cent ) owned an operating t e l e v i s i o n receiver and thus were able to watch the 1964 T.V. Chautauqua. However, only 60.7 per cent of the orchardists i n  terviewed watched at lea s t part of the 1964 T.V. Chautauqua. This compares with 63.4 of the respondents who attended the chautauqua when i t was held i n d i s t r i c t h a l l s . The difference between the percentages i s not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . * That i s , we cannot conclude from the sample that more orchardists attended the chautauqua i n d i s t r i c t h a l l s than watched i t on T.V. *The n u l l hypothesis used was that there was no d i f f e r  ence between the proportion who attended the d i s t r i c t h a l l chautauqua and the proportion watching the T.V. chautauqua. A .05 l e v e l of si g n i f i c a n c e was used. 84 By cross-tabulation, 46.2 per cent of the respondents watched the T.V. chautauqua and also attended the d i s t r i c t h a l l chautauqua. Fourteen and one-half perecent watched the T.V. chautauqua only, 17.2 per cent attended the d i s t r i c t h a l l chautauqua only, and 22.1 per cent did not bother with either s t y l e of chautauqua. Examining the percentages of respondents attending various combinations of chautauquas reveals several trends. A d e f i n i t e c o r r e l a t i o n between adoption score and attendance at chautauquas i s noted. More of the innovators and early adopters attended both chautauquas than any other adopter category. Also, more of the laggards than any other adopter category did not bother with eit h e r s t y l e of chautauqua. Laggards were the only adopter category to have a greater percentage watching the T.V. chautauqua than attending the d i s t r i c t h a l l chautauqua. Table XX shows the r e s u l t s i n more d e t a i l . Davs watched The differences between the percentages o f respondents watching the T.V. chautauqua by day are not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g - 2 n i f i c a n t . A c h i square value of .652 was obtained using a .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e and the n u l l hypothesis that there were no differences i n the proportion of respondents watching each pro gram. 85 Percentages of respondents watching T.V. Chautauqua by day DAY Per Cent Monday 51.4 Tuesday 53.0 Wednesday 50.7 Thursday 51.3 Friday 47.5 Table XX DISTRIBUTIONS OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY ATTENDING VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF CHAUTAUQUAS Innovation Chautauquas and early Early Late Lag- Total adopters majority Majority gards Both 80.0 % 59.3 % 30.4 % 10.0 % 46.2 Attending d i s t r i c t h a l l chautauqua only 5.0 15.3 26.1 15.0 17.2 Watching 1964 T.V. chautauqua only 0.0 10.2 19.6 30.0 14.5 Neither 15.0 15.3 23.9 45.0 22.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Chi square value: 33.985 NOTE: The underlined value i s s i g n i f i c a n t . A .05 l e v e l of sig n i f i c a n c e was used with the n u l l hypothesis of no differences i n proportions between adopter categories. 86 Length of time watched Most respondents watching the chautauqua at least one day watched the whole program. Time watched percentages f o r a l l respondents who watched any of the T.V. Chautauqua Time Per cent 1.5 hours 89.8 1.0 - 1.5 hours 5.7 15 - 1.0 hour 3.4 • 5 hour or less 1.1 T o t a l 100.0 Respondents' opinion of the T.V. Chautauqua The weighted average of the respondents' personal f e e l i n g about the T.V. Chautauqua was found to l i e closest to statement 3 (I hope we have another one next year). The median was statement 4 ( I t has provided the kind of information I can use i n my orchard). Of the respondents who had an opinion, 94.6 per cent thought the time of year that the chautauqua was held was s u i t  able; 68.7 per cent found the time of day su i t a b l e , and 88.5 per cent stated that the length was su i t a b l e . Reasons f o r not watching the 1964 T.V. Chautauqua A v a r i e t y of reasons were given by respondents who did not watch the T.V. chautauqua. The most common was that the 87 respondent was working at the time the program was being aired. Reasons for not watching the 1964 T.V. Chautauqua Reason Number of Percent of t o t a l Respondents respondents not watchins No T. V. set 5 8.8 Working at the time 32 56.1 Not aware of program 1 1.8 Out of town 3 5.3 111 or i n h o s p i t a l 2 3.5 Did not need information 1 1.8 Busy i n the orchard 2 3.5 Other 2 3.5 No reasons given 9 15.8 Total 57 100.0 I I . ATTENDANCE AT OTHER EDUCATIONAL GATHERINGS FOR RESPONDENTS ATTENDING VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF CHAUTAUQUAS Comparison of respondents on the basis of t h e i r atten dance and/or viewing of various combinations of chautauquas with t h e i r attendance at other educational courses yie l d s some s i g  n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s . No s i g n i f i c a n t differences are apparent between percen tages of respondents attending agricu l t u r e courses i n high school and adult courses i n agriculture when respondents are c l a s s i f i e d on the basis of t h e i r attendance or viewing of the chautauquas. However, s i g n i f i c a n t l y more respondents who participated i n both chautauquas attended ag r i c u l t u r e courses at u n i v e r s i t y than 88 the average. Respondents attending the d i s t r i c t h a l l chau- tauquas only also attend many more adult courses i n subjects other than agriculture than do most respondents. The t h i r d s i g n i f i c a n t difference i s with the d i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t discussion groups. Here, respondents taking part i n both styles of chautauqua attend more frequently and respondents taking part i n neither s t y l e of chautauqua less frequently than the average. Thus, attendance at educational gatherings appears to be a generalized t r a i t of c e r t a i n respondents. Complete per centages are shown i n Table XXI. I I I . COMPREHENSION OF THE T. V. CHAUTAUQUA For t y - f i v e true-false questions were asked on the content of the 1964 T.V. Chautauqua. With f i v e one and one-half hour programs, three questions were based on each haIf-hour or, nine questions per program. I t was thus possible to tes t compre hension by program and by program segment. The assumption i s made that a l l questions were of equal d i f f i c u l t y . Comparisons between programs Higher than average scores were obtained on the questions dealing with the subjects of the Monday and Wednesday programs. A lower than average score was obtained f o r the Tuesday ques-89 Table XXI ATTENDANCE AT OTHER EDUCATIONAL GATHERINGS VERSUS ATTENDANCE AT THE CHAUTAUQUAS PERCENT ATTENDING Chautauquas attended or viewed Both % 13.8 D i s t r i c t h a l l chautauqua only 12.0 1964 T.V. chautauqua only 19.0 Neither 15.6 % 14.8 4.8 0.0 0.0 % 14.3 16.7 10.5 9.4 % 30.2 78.2 38.1 32.3 D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l discus. Agriculture Courses Adult Courses High Univer- i n i n other School s i t y a g r i c . subjects S r o u P s % 85.1 64.0 52.4 28.1 Average 14.7 7.7 13.0 39.9 64.1 Chi square value: .515 8.516 .680 17.300 31.972 NOTE; Underlined values are s i g n i f i c a n t . The n u l l hypothesis used was there were no differences i n attendance at each course, etc. between the respondents c l a s s i f i e d on the basis of t h e i r attendance or viewing of the chautauquas. A .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e was used. 90 tions and approximately average scores for the Thursday and Friday programs. 3 Mean score by program Day Mean Score Monday 5.63 Tuesday 4.82 Wednesday 5.60 Thursday 5.37 Friday 5.28 Average 5.34 Comparisons between program segments S i g n i f i c a n t differences between program segment means were obtained f o r a l l programs. For three programs (Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday), the highest average scores are obtained on questions based on the f i r s t half-hour of the program. On Monday, the highest scores were for questions based on the second half-hour of the program, while for Tuesday, the highest scores were fo r questions based on the l a s t half-hour of the program. More s p e c i f i c data i s contained i n Table XXII. Comparisons between those watching and those not watching the  1964 T.V. Chautauqua Friday was the only program i n which there was a s i g n i f i  cant difference between the mean scores of those watching and -^Significant differences were found between means. The F test gave 4.064 using the n u l l hypothesis of no difference be tween means and a .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . 91 Table XXII MEAN SCORE BY PROGRAM SEGMENT Program segment Program F i r s t % hour Second % hour Third % hour F value Monday 1.64 2.01 1.91 5,434 Tuesday 1.50 1.47 1.85 7.242 Wednesday 2.24 1.54 1.82 17.076 Thursday 2.39 1.34 1.64 56.316 Friday 1.98 1.61 1.70 6,236 NOTE: Underlined values are s i g n i f i c a n t . A n u l l hypothesis of no difference between means was used at a .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . those not watching the program for the questions based on the content of the program. Overall there was also a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the mean scores of those watching and-ithose not watching the program. In both of these cases, the average score f o r the respondents watching the program was higher than the average score for the respondents not watching the program. The actual mean scores are shown i n Table XXIII. Table XXIII COMPARISONS OVERALL AND BY PROGRAM BETWEEN MEAN SCORES FOR RESPONDENTS WATCHING AND NOT WATCHING THE T.V.CHAUTAUQUA Mean score for respondents Program Watching Not Watching F value Monday 5.99 5.77 0.353 Tuesday 5.08 4.36 2.765 Wednesday 5.63 6.29 2.158 Thursday 5.41 5.15 0.371 Friday 5.68 4.89 4.349 Overall 32.92 25.94 27t363 NOTE: Underlined values are s i g n i f i c a n t . A .05 l e v e l of sig n i f i c a n c e was used. A n u l l hypothesis of no d i f f e r  ence i n score between those watching and those not watching was used. Comparisons between adopter categories There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t trend of higher scores f o r e a r l i e r adopters as shown by the following table: Mean Scores by Adopter Category Adopter Category Mean Score Innovators and early adopters 34.88 Early majority 32.75 Late majority 27.54 Laggards 24.41 S i g n i f i c a n t differences were found between means. A s i g n i f i c a n t F value of 9.947 was calculated using the n u l l hypothesis of no differences between the means of the adopter 93 Comparisons of lengths of time watched There was no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p found between the score of respondents and the average length of time they watched the chautauqua program. categories and a .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Also, a c o r r e l a  t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of .3663 between the true-false score of respondents and t h e i r percentage adoption of selected inno vations was found. The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was tested and found to be s i g n i f i c a n t using the n u l l hypothesis of no cor r e l a t i o n and a .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . CHAPTER VIII SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND LIMITATIONS This study analyzed the adoption of some innovations by Okanagan orchardists. Many adoption studies have been carried out i n the United States and other countries but none i n Canada. Consequently, a considerable body of l i t e r a t u r e on the theory of the d i f f u s i o n and adoption of technological innovations has been established. Comparisons between the findings of other studies and thi s study were made. The 1964 T.V. Chautauqua, produced by the H o r t i c u l t u r a l Branch of the B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Agriculture for Okanagan Val l e y orchardists, was also evaluated. This t e l e  vised chautauqua replaced an e a r l i e r version of chautauqua which was held i n d i s t r i c t h a l l s throughout the Okanagan Valley. A sample of Okanagan V a l l e y orchardists was interviewed i n order to obtain the data necessary to f u l f i l l the purposes of the study. Data were co l l e c t e d on personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the respondents, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the respondents' orchards, sources of information used by respon-95 dents at each stage i n the adoption process and i n working towards the adoption of s p e c i f i c innovations, the respondents' stage of adoption for a number of s p e c i f i c innovations, the respondents' reactions to the 1964 T.V. Chautauqua, and the res pondents' comprehension of the 1964 T.V. Chautauqua. Correlations between the various c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the respondents yielded some ill u m i n a t i n g r e s u l t s and several are worth mentioning. Respondents with higher educational levels belong to more organizations but attended l e s s , were newer entrants to a g r i c u l t u r e , and had more non-agricultural income than the less-educated respondents. F r u i t growers s e l l i n g the highest value of orchard products participated more i n organi zations, were older, and had been orchardists longer than those with smaller sales. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of the respondents on the basis of t h e i r innovativeness was found to approximate a normal curve and thus the respondents could be divided into adopter categories on the basis of t h e i r p o s i t i o n on the normal d i s t r i  bution. Several s i g n i f i c a n t differences between these adopter categories were found. The more rapid adopters are more ac t i v e educationally and enjoy orcharding more than the slower adopters. E a r l i e r adopters also (on the average) have been i n orcharding longer. However, there i s a large group of them who have been orchardists for less than f i v e years. These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have also been found i n an American s e t t i n g . 96 Ninety per cent of the innovators and early adopters were f u l l - t i m e orchardists and early adopters generally earn most of t h e i r income from a g r i c u l t u r e . This c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i s i n d i r e c t c o n f l i c t with previous findings. The e a r l i e r adopters also had larger orchards, sold a greater amount of orchard products and had more valuable orchards. These findings generally coincide with other studies. The tenure status of the adopter categories was relevant. Most of the innovators and early adopters owned part and also rented part of t h e i r orchard, while a l l of the laggards com p l e t e l y owned t h e i r orchard. American studies have found com plete ownership of the farm to be associated with innovativeness. The sources of information used by respondents i n the adoption of innovations are a function of the stage i n the adoption process, the p a r t i c u l a r innovation, and the adopter category i n which the respondent f a l l s . C l a s s i f y i n g i n f o r  mation sources by type, mass media are the most important at the awareness stage, but decline towards adoption. A g r i c u l t u r a l agencies increase to the most important type from the awareness stage to the i n t e r e s t stage but decline s l i g h t l y between t r i a l and adoption. Other studies have found a g r i c u l t u r a l agencies to decrease i n importance from awareness onwards. Commercial sources generaly show l i t t l e change over the stages i n the adoption process while informal sources increase i n importance 97 as a respondent works towards adoption. Using a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of sources of information by method, mass and i n d i v i d u a l sources are of approximately equal importance at awareness but diverge at other stages i n the adoption process. Individual sources increase i n importance up to evaluation and decline s l i g h t l y thereafter. The opposite i s true f o r mass method sources. Group sources are of low importance at a l l stages i n the adoption process. Personal and impersonal sources were of equal importance at the awareness stage but also diverged i n l a t e r stages with impersonal sources d e c l i n i n g up to the evaluation stage and personal sources following the opposite trend. The above trends, except f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l agencies, are i n agreement with pre vious work. For the s p e c i f i e d innovations, the only apparent pattern was greater use of commercial sources of information f o r c e r t a i n commercially-produced innovations such as sprayers and sprays. Findings f o r source use by the adopter categories are somewhat contradictory to some p r i o r studies. There i s less use of mass media, more use of a g r i c u l t u r a l agencies, less use of commercial sources, and less use of informal sources by the e a r l i e r adopters than the l a t e r ones. Other studies have found more use of mass media and commercial sources by the e a r l i e r adopters. E a r l i e r adopters also use more group and less i n d i -98 v i d u a l sources, c l a s s i f i e d on the basis of method. When c l a s s i f y i n g sources of information on the basis of the degree of contact between communicator and communication receiver, e a r l i e r adopters were found to use more personal sources of information than l a t e r adopters. There i s evidence of a two-step d i f f u s i o n of technolo g i c a l information with the l a t e r adopter categories using other orchardists (most l i k e l y the e a r l i e r adopters) more than the f i r s t two adopter categories. There were found to be differences i n the o v e r a l l adop t i o n rate of the innovations. The most obvious reason f o r this i s the d i f f e r e n t lengths of times that the innovations have been made avail a b l e to the orchardists. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the innovation also played a part i n i t s adoption. Large inno vations or those which were not d i v i s i b l e , had a low percentage of respondents at the t r i a l stage. The factor of congruency was important i n the s i m i l a r percentage adoptions of dwarfing root stocks and hardy frame works, which are usually associated i n the orchardist»s mind. Innovativeness was found to be a general c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of c e r t a i n respondents. Orchardists who adopt one innovation w i l l consistently do so while others w i l l consistently f a i l to adopt innovations. Thus, with a few exceptions, 99 and"the g e n e r a l body o f a d o p t i o n t h e o r y c a n be a p p l i e d t o a C a n a d i a n s e t t i n g . Most o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s who watched th e chautauqua watched i t f u l l - t i m e and r e a c t e d f a v o u r a b l y t o i t . Most a l s o t h o u g h t t h a t t h e t i m e o f y e a r , time o f day, and l e n g t h o f the chautauqua were s u i t a b l e . A t t e n d a n c e a t o r w a t c h i n g o f chautauquas appears t o be p a r t o f a g e n e r a l i z e d t r a i t towards a t t e n d i n g e d u c a t i o n a l g a t h e r i n g s . A t r u e - f a l s e t e s t , w h i c h appears to be a v a l i d e s t i  m ator o f comprehension o f an e d u c a t i o n a l program, showed the b e s t comprehension, by program, f o r Monday and Wednesday and by program segment, f o r t h e f i r s t h a l f - h o u r . A l s o , t h o s e w a t c h i n g t h e programs o b t a i n e d a h i g h e r s c o r e t h a n t h o s e n o t w a t c h i n g and t h e t r u e - f a l s e s c o r e was p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h a d o p t i o n . A l t h o u g h the T.V. Chautauqua d i d n o t r e a c h more o r c h a r  d i s t s o v e r a l l t h a n t h e d i s t r i c t h a l l c hautauqua, i t was watched by more o f t h e l a g g a r d s and c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d more s u c c e s s f u l f r o m t h i s p o i n t o f v i e w . S i n c e l a g g a r d s use fewer a g r i c u l t u r a l a g e n c i e s t h a n most o r c h a r d i s t s , t h e T.V. Chautauqua has p r o b a b l y r e a c h e d a new c l i e n t e l e f o r t h e e x t e n s i o n s e r v i c e . The l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h i s s t u d y a r e p r i m a r i l y i n the q u a l i t y o f t h e d a t a . F i r s t l y , a sample o f o r c h a r d i s t s was used 100 to estimate population parameters. Consequently, a l l r e l a  tionships had to be tested f o r si g n i f i c a n c e and many r e l a t i o n s which probably were true f o r the population could not be v e r i  f i e d because of the limited sample s i z e . Second, a l i s t of orchardists compiled i n 1960 was used as the population from which the sample was chosen. This l i s t would not represent the population of orchardists as of A p r i l 1964 (the time when the data were gathered) since orchardists who had established them selves since 1960 would not be included and thus would not have a chance of being chosen for the sample. Thirdly, s i x d i f f e r  ent interviewers were used i n gathering the data which led to some lack of uniformity i n inte r p r e t i n g the questions and the respondents' answers. B I B L I O G R A P H Y 102 I. MANUSCRIPT SOURCES A. O f f i c i a l Reports Carter, A. C. Report on the 1963 Televised Chautauoua. Unpublished. B.C. Department of Agriculture, H o r t i c u l t u r a l Branch, June 1963. B. Correspondence Fisher, D. V. Lett e r to the writer. 7 Febru ary 1964. Morton, W. F. Letter to the writer. 17 Febru ary 1964. Oswell, M. G. Lett e r to the writer. 17 February 1964. Proverbs, M. D. Lett e r to the writer. 10 February 1964. Smith, John A. Le t t e r to the writer. 11 Febru ary 1964. Sutherland, D. J . Letter to the writer. 14 February 1964. Swales, J . E. Letter to the writer. 21 February 1964. Watt, A. W. Letter to the writer. 11 February 1964. C. Thesis Welch, John M. An Evaluation of Three Adult  Education Methods f o r Disseminating  Trade Information to Missouri Restau  rant Operators. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, F l o r i d a State University, 1961. 103 I I . PRINTED SOURCES A. Government Publications B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Agr i c u l t u r e , Climate of B r i t i s h Columbia. Report  for 1963, V i c t o r i a , n.d. B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Agriculture, H o r t i c u l t u r a l Branch. Orchard Survey  of the Okanagan Vall e y 1960, undated, mimeo. B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Agr i c u l t u r e , Markets and S t a t i s t i c s Branch. A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a t i s t i c s Report 1963. undated, mimeo. B. General Works Fisher, R. A. and Frank Yates. S t a t i s t i c a l  Tables for B i o l o g i c a l . A g r i c u l t u r a l . and Medical Research. London, Ol i v e r and Boyd, 1948. Freund, J . E. and William, F. J . Modern  Business S t a t i s t i c s . - Englewood C l i f f s , Prentice-Hall, 1958. Lionberger, H. F. Adoption of New Ideas and Practices. Ames, Iowa State University Press, 1960. M i l l s , F. C. S t a t i s t i c a l Methods. New York, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1955. Rogers, E. M. D i f f u s i o n of Innovations. New York, Free Press, 1962. S a l l i t z , C. M. Jahoda, M. Deutsch, and S. W. Cook. Research Methods i n S o c i a l Relations. New York, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1962. 104 Tippett, L. E. C. Random Sampling Numbers, London, Cambridge University Press, 1950. (University College, University of London Tracts for Computers No.XV). C. S p e c i f i c Works A b e l l , Helen C. The Exchange of Farming Information. Ottawa, Canada. Depart ment of Agriculture, Marketing Service, Economics D i v i s i o n , August 1953. Alexander, Frank D., Richard E. Eschler and Joseph C. D e l l , J r . "A F i e l d Experiment i n D i f f u s i o n of Knowledge of Dairy C a t t l e Feeding Through a T.V. School". Rural  Sociology, v o l . 28, no. 4 (December 1963), pp. 400-404. Anderson, W. A. S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n of Rural  Non-farm Adults. Ithaca, Cornell Uni v e r s i t y A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, May 1958 ( B u l l e t i n 928). Bailey, Wilfred C. and E l l e n S. Bryant. Adoption  of Homemaking Practices i n Alcorn County. M i s s i s s i p p i . State College, M i s s i s s i p p i State University - A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, June 1962 (Progress Report i n Sociology and Rural L i f e No. 25.) Beal, George M. and Everett M. Rogers. The Adoption of Two Farm Practices i n a Central  Iowa Community. Ames, A g r i c u l t u r a l and Home Economics Experiment Stations, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, June 1961. (Special Report No. 26.) Beal, George M., Everett M. Rogers, and Joe M. Bohlen. " V a l i d i t y of the Concept of Stages i n the Adoption Process". Rural Sociology, v o l . 22, no. 2 (June 1957), pp. 166 - 168. 105 Bradner, Lowell and Kearl Braynt. "Evaluation fo r Congruence as a Factor i n the Adoption rate of Innovations". Rural Sociology. v o l . 29, no. 3 (September 1964), pp. 288-303. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Research Department. Audience P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the F i r s t T.V. 'Short Course' i n Canada. Ottawa, mimeo. May 1, 1962. Copp, James H. Personal and S o c i a l Factors Associated with the Adoption of Recom  mended Farm Practices Among Cattlemen. Manhattan, A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, Kansas State College of A g r i  culture and Applied Science, September 1956. (Technical B u l l e t i n 83.) F l i e g e l , Frederick C. "Traditionalism i n the Farm Family and Technological Change". Rural Sociology, v o l . 27, no. 1 (March 1962), pp. 70 - 76. G i l l i s , W i l l i e Mae. The Adoption of Recommended  Farm Practices i n Alcorn County and i t s Relationship to Other Variables. State College, M i s s i s s i p p i State University A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, August 1958. (Progress Reports i n Sociology and Rural L i f e No. 5.) Hoffer, Charles R. and Dale Strangland. Farmers'  Reaction to new Practices. East Lansing, Michigan State University, A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, February 1958. (Technical B u l l e t i n 264.) Lionberger, H. F. and C. M. Coughenour. S o c i a l Structure and D i f f u s i o n of Farm Innovations. Columbia, A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, University of Missouri, A p r i l 1957. (Research B u l l e t i n 631.) 1G6 March, C, Paul and A. Lee Coleman. Communication and the Adoption of  Recommended Farm Pract i c e s . Lexington, Agricultural-Experiment Station, University of Kentucky, November 1954. (Progress Report 22.) Mason, Robert G. "The Use of Information Sources i n the Proeess of Adoption." Rural Socio- logy, v o l . 29, no. 1 (March 1964), pp. 4 0 - 5 2 . Nielson, James and C. F. B i t t n e r . Farm Practice  Adoption i n Michigan. East Lansing, A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, Michigan State University, January 1958. (Techni c a l B u l l e t i n 263.) Parish, Ross. "Innovation and Enterprise i n Wheat Farming". Review of Marketing and  A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, v o l . 22, no. 3 (September 1954), pp. 189 - 218. Richter, Joseph J . The Emerging Pattern of B.C. Agriculture. V i c t o r i a , F i f t e e n t h B r i t i s h Columbia Natural Resources Conferences, 1964. Silverman, L e s l i e J . and Wilfred C. Bailey. Trends i n the Adoption of Recommended  Farm Practices. State College, M i s s i s s i p p i State University, A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, A p r i l 1961. ( B u l l e t i n 617.) Subcommittee on the D i f f u s i o n and Adoption of Farm Practices, The Rural S o c i o l o g i c a l Society. S o c i o l o g i c a l Research on the  D i f f u s i o n and Adoption of Farm Practices. Lexington, Kentucky A g r i c u l t u r a l Experi mental Station, June 1952. Wilening, Eugene A. Adoption of Improved Farm  Practices as Related to Family Factors. Madison, University of Wisconsin, December 1953, (Research B u l l e t i n 183.) Wilkening, E. A., Joan T u l l y and Hartley Tresser. "Communication and Acceptance of Recommended Farm Practices Among Dairy Farmers of Northern V i c t o r i a . " Rural Sociology, v o l . 27, no. 2 (June 1962), pp. 116 - 198. APPENDIX I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTIONS OF SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 109 Table XXIV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF AGE FOR ALL RESPONDENTS Age Per cent ( years ) of respondents less than 20 0. 20 - 24 0.7 25 - 34 9.7 35 - 44 24.1 45 - 54 26.9 (median category) 55 - 64 23.4 65 and over 15.2 Table XXV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF EDUCATION FOR ALL RESPONDENTS Educational Level Per cent of respondents less than 5 years 6.9 5 - 8 years 27.8 9 - 1 1 years 28.4 (median category) Junior matriculation 19.4 Senior matriculation 9.7 University degree 4.9 University graduate work 2.8 Table XXVI MISCELLANEOUS SOCIOECONOMIC DATA Data Result Respondents attending agriculture courses i n high school % 14.7 Respondents attending adult courses i n subjects other than agricu l t u r e 40.0 Respondents subscribing to at lea s t one l o c a l newspaper 90.0 Respondents re g u l a r l y receiving at least one farm magazine other than 'Country L i f e ' . 84.6 Respondents having a t e l e v i s i o n set i n working order 92.4 Table :XXVII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ATTENDANCE AT UNIVERSITY COURSES IN AGRICULTURE BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Attendance at agricult u r e Adopter Category courses at University Yes No Total % Innovators, early adopters and early majority 12.7 % 87.3 % 100.0 Late majority and laggards 1.7 98.3 100.0 A l l respondents 7.7 92.3 100.0 I l l Table XXVIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ATTENDANCE AT ADULT COURSES IN AGRICULTURE BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Attendance at adult courses Adopter Category i n agr i c u l t u r e Total Yes No % 7. % Innovators and early adopters 42.0 58.0 100.0 Early majority 7.4 92.6 100.0 Late majority 7.1 92.9 100.0 Laggards 13.0 87.0 100.0 A l l respondents 13.1 86.9 100.0 112 Table XXIX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ATTENDANCE AT DISTRICT HALL CHAUTAUQUA BY ADOPTER CATEGORY A , . „ . Attendance at D i s t r i c t Adopter Category ^ c h a u t a u q u a T o t a l Yes No % % % Innovators and early adopters 85.0 15.0 100.0 Early majority 74.6 25.4 100.0 Late majority 56.5 43.5 100.0 Laggards 25.0 75.0 100.0 A l l respondents 63.4 36.6 100.0 Table XXX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ATTENDANCE AT DISTRICT HORTICULTURIST DISCUSSION GROUPS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter Category Attendance at D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t Discussion Groups Yes No Total Innovators and early adopters % 90.0 % 10.0 % 100.0 Early majority 74.6 25.4 100.0 Late majority 60.5 39.5 100.0 Laggards 21.7 78.3 100.0 A l l respondents 64.1 35.9 100.0 113 Table XXXI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ENJOYMENT OF ORCHARDING BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter Category Degree of eniovment: very occasion- much a l l y not at a l l Total Innovators and early adopters % 95.0 % 5.0 % 0.0 % 100.0 E a r l y majority 79.7 18.6 1.7 100.0 Late majority 83.7 16.3 0.0 100.0 Laggards 56.5 39.1 4.4 100.0 A l l respondents 79.3 19.3 1.4 100.0 114 Table XXXII DISTRIBUTION OF THE NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS BELONGED TO FOR ALL RESPONDENTS Number of organizations* Per cent of a l l belonged to respondents 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 45.5 19.3 (median category) 15.2 9.0 6.2 2.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 * excluding a church (per se) and the B. C. F r u i t Growers' Association. Table XXXIII DISTRIBUTION OF THE NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDED AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR FOR ALL RESPONDENTS Number of organizations* attended Per cent of a l l respondents 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 44.8 19.3(median category) 15.2 9.0 4.8 3.4 2.8 0.7 * excluding a church (per se) and the B.C. F r u i t Growers' Association. Table XXXIV DISTRIBUTION OF THE NUMBER OF ORGANIZATION CONTRIBUTED TO FINANCIALLY FOR ALL RESPONDENTS Number of organizations Per cent of a l l contributed to respondents 0 39.3 1 15.9(median category) 2 14.5 3 6.9 4 3.4 5 4.1 6 6.2 7 0.7 8 5.5 9 0.0 10 2.1 11 0.0 12 0.7 20 0.7 116 Table XXXV DISTRIBUTION OF THE NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBER SHIPS FOR ALL RESPONDENTS Number of committee Per cent of a l l memberships respondents 0 70.3 1 13.8 2 8.3 3 3.4 4 3.4 5 0.7 (median category) 117 Table XXXVI DISTRIBUTION OF THE NUMBER OF OFFICES HELD FOR ALL RESPONDENTS Number of Offices Held Per cent of a l l respondents 0 74.5 (median category) 1 14.5 2 8.3 3 2.1 4 0.7 Table XXXVII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF YEARS IN AGRICULTURE FOR ALL RESPONDENTS Years i n the agriculture Per cent of a l l industry respondents less than 5 2.1 5 - 9 5.5 10 - 19 24.1 20 or more 68.3 (median category) 118 Table XXXVIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF YEARS IN ORCHARDING BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Years as an orchardist Adopter category Less than 5 5 - 9 10 -19 20 or over Total Innovators and early adopters % 10.0 % 15.0 % 30.0 % 45.0 % 100.0 Earl y majority 5.1 13.6 20.3 61.0 100.0 Late majority 9.3 16.3 34.9 39.5 100.0 Laggards 13.0 13.0 52.2 21.7 100.0 A l l respondents 8.3 14.5 31.0 46.2 100.0 Table XXXIX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF YEARS ON PRESENT ORCHARD BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Years on present orchard Adopter category Less than 1 2 - 4 5 - 9 10-19 20 or over Total Innovators, early % % % % % % adopters and early majority 1.2 15.2 17.7 32.9 32.9 100.0 Late majority and laggards 7.6 19.7 13.6 43.9 15.1 100.0 A l l respondents 4.1 17.2 15.9 37.9 24.8 100.0 1 1 9 Table XL PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ACRES IN ORCHARD BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter Category less than 3 3 - 9 1 0 - 1 9 0 JUA1 V J 2 0 - 3 9 4 0 - 5 4 • 5 5 - 6 9 1 8 0 7 0 - 1 7 9 + Total Innovators and % % % % 7. 7. 7o 7. 7o early adopters 5 . 0 1 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 2 5 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 Early majority 0 . 0 2 8 . 8 2 8 * 8 3 3 . 9 5 . 1 1 . 7 0 . 0 1 . 7 1 0 0 . 0 Late majority 9 . 3 4 1 . 9 4 . 7 2 . 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 Laggards 2 6 . 1 5 6 . 5 4 . 4 1 3 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 A l l respondents 7 . 6 3 4 . 5 3 J j j L 2 0 . 7 2 . 8 0 . 7 0 . 0 0 . 7 1 0 0 . 0 Table XLI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ENTERPRISE VALUE BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Value of enterprise i n d o l l a r s :  Adopter Category under 4 9 5 0 - 9 9 5 0 - 1 4 9 5 0 - 2 4 9 5 0 - 4 9 9 5 0 - Total 4 9 5 0 9 9 4 9 1 4 9 4 9 2 4 9 4 9 4 9 9 4 9 or over Innovators and 7» 7. 7o 7o 7» 7» 7» early adopters 5 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 5 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 Early majority 0 . 0 1 . 8 8 . 8 3 5 . 1 3 1 . 6 2 2 . 8 1 0 0 . 0 Late majority 0 . 0 2 . 3 1 6 . 3 4 6 . 5 2 3 . 3 1 1 . 6 1 0 0 . 0 Laggards 0 . 0 8 . 7 1 7 . 4 4 3 . 5 2 1 . 7 8 . 7 1 0 0 . 0 A l l respondents 0 . 7 2 . 8 1 1 . 2 3 8 . 0 2 7 . 6 1 9 . 6 1 0 0 . 0 NOTE: The median categories are underlined. 120 Table XLII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF OCCUPATION BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter category r a- Part-time orcharding and part-time:£ 3 VJ c 15 <5 •'-6 i 5 "5 i) VJ oj W rt 0 ui C y 3" f 0 o ^ T o t a l Innovators % % % % % % % % % % and early 90.0 0. 0. 10.0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 100.0 adopters Early majority 69.5 8.5 5.1 3.4 1.7 1.7 1.7 6.8 1.7 100.0 Late majority 51.2 9.3 7.0 7.0 4.7 4.7 4.7 9.3 2.3 100.0 Laggards 30.4 21.7 8.7 0. 17.4 0. 8.7 4.4 8.7 100.0 A l l 60.7 9.7 5.5 4.8 4.8 2.1 3.5 6.2 2.8 100.0 respondents NOTE: The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of part-time occupations i s based on Canada, Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Occupational  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Manual. Census of Canada, 1961. Table XLIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SIZE OF ENTERPRISE BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Size of enterprise i n acres Adopter category less than 70- 180 3 3-9 10-19 20-39 40-54 55-69 179 + Total Innovators,early adopters and . „ early majority * Late majority and laggards 13.6 Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol lo lo to lo lo to to to 19.0 31.6 35.4 2.5 2.5 1.3 6.3 100.0 31.8 25.8 21.2 3.0 0.0 1.5 3.0 100.0 A l l respondents 6.9 24.8 29.0 29.0 2.8 1.4 1.4 1.8 100.0 NOTE: The median categories are underlined. 121 Table XLIV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TENURE BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Tenure of decision maker Adopter Category Rents Rents part and Owns Manager Total only owns part Only Innovators and % % % % % early adopters 0.0 25.0 75.0 0.0 100.0 Early majority 1.7 8.7 89.8 0.0 100.0 Late majority 4.7 2.3 90.7 2.3 100.0 Laggards 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 A l l respondents 2.1 7.6 89.7 0.7 100.0 Table XLV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS OF AGRI CULTURE AND NON-AGRICULTURE INCOME BY ADOPTER"CATEGORY kei a t i o n o l other income to ag. income no income h a l f as less Equal Grtr. Twice Adopter Category other much or than to but as Total sources less but less much g r t r . than or than twice grtr;. h a l f as as much much % % % % % % % Innovators,early adopters and early majority 60.7 15.2 1.3 5.6 3.8 13.9 100.0 Late majority and laggards 46.1 1.5 4.6 9.2 4.6 33.8 100.0 A l l respondents 54.1 9.0 2.8 6.9 4.2 23.0 100.0 122 Table XLVIV. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF VALUE OF ORCHARD PRODUCTS SOLD BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Value of orchard products sold i n 1962: Adopter category less $1200 than to $1200 $2499 $2500 to $3749 $3750 to $4999 $5000 to $9999 $10000 $15000 $25,_ . . to to 000 T o t a l $14999 $24999 + Innovators and early adopters '% 5.0 7. 0. % 0. % 15.0 % 55.0 % 15.0 7. 10.0 7. 0. 7. 100.0 Early majority 6.8 10.2 11.9 13.6 32.2 10.2 11.9 3.4 100.0 Late majority 23.8 23.8 16.7 2.4 28.6 0. 4.8 0. 100.0 Laggards 47.8 13.0 26.1 8.7 4.4 0. 0. 0. 100.0 A l l respondents 18.1 13.2 13.9 9.7 29.8 6.2 7.6 1.4 100.0 NOTE: The median categories are underlined. Table XLVII DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES FOR WILLINGNESS OF COMMUNITY TO ADOPT NEW FARM PRACTICES Willingness of community to adopt new farm practices Per cent of respon dents answering W i l l i n g about average not very w i l l i n g 65.3 29.2 5.6 122 Table XLVIII DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES FOR COMMUNITY REGARD OF PEOPLE WHO TRY MANY NEW PRACTICES Community regard of people who t r y new practices Per cent of respondents answering Favourable No f e e l i n g Not favourable 72.5 22.5 4.9 Table XLIX DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES FOR COMMUNITY REGARD OF PEOPLE WHO ARE SLOW IN ADOPTING NEW PRACTICES Community regard of people slow to adopt new practices Per cent of respondents answering Favourable No f e e l i n g Not favourable 4.3 63.1 32.6 123 Table L PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONAL REACTION TO THE T. V. CHAUTAUQUA "BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter Category Statement describing reaction Innovators, Late to T.V. Chautauqua early major adopters i t y A l l and early and respon majority laggards dents (1) I t was one of the most % % % rewarding experiences I 3.4 0. 2.2 have ever had (2) I t was exactly what I wanted 6.8 0. 4.5 (3) i hope we can have another one next year 27.1 43.3 32.6 (4) I t has provided the kind of information I can use i n my 37_3 10.0 28.1 orchard (5) I t has helped me personally 8.5 13.3 10.0 (6) I t has solved some problems 6.8 3.3 5.6 for me (7) I think i t served i t s purpose 5.1 23.3 5.6 (8) I t has some merits 3.4 3.3 3.4 (9) i t was neither very good nor very poor 0. 0. 0. (10) I was midly disappointed 0. 0. 0. (11) i t was f a i r 0. • 3.3 1.1 (12) i t was not exactly what I needed 1.7 0. 1.1 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 Weighted average 2.87 3.13 2.98 NOTE: The median categories are underlined. APPENDIX II DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF SOURCES OF INFORMATION 125 Table SOURCE USE BY STAGES IN THE ADOPTION CLASSIFICATION OF T Y P E - Stage i n the Adoption Process Mass Media Agric. Agencies Commer c i a l Infor mal Total Awareness % 44.3 % 37.3 % 6.1 % 12.3 % 100.0 Interest 14.8 50.3 10.7 24.2 100.0 Evaluation 10.8 48.9 9.7 30.6 100.0 T r i a l 14.0 47.4 10.2 28.4 100.0 Adoption 10.6 42.4 8.3 38.7 100.0 Average 21.2 44.9 8.9 25.1 100.0 Table SOURCE USE BY STAGES IN THE ADOPTION CLASSIFICATION OF T Y P E . , Stage i n the Mass Adoption Process Media Agric. Agencies (Jommer- i n t o r - c i a l mal Total Awareness 36.2 % 50.0 % 1.7 % 12.0 % 100.0 Interest 4.3 58.7 8.7 28.2 100.0 Evaluation 5 » 4 45.9 5.4 43.2 100.0 T r i a l 5.4 62.2 10.8 21.6 100.0 Adoption 0.0 48.1 7.4 44.4 100.0 Average 13.2 43.0 15.6 27.3 100.0 126 PROCESS FOR ALL RESPONDENTS c i SOURCES BY; r n KT T A r T MM E ' T H 0 EL , li £*T*B ^ - i r . o v &-r-' \Lndi>'" •i—a!"Ti • Imper- Mass Group v i d u a l T o t a l P e r s o n a l s o n a l T o t a l % % % % 44.5 6.4 49.1 100.0 51.7 48.3 100.0 14.6 10.. 0 75.4 100.0 78.0 22.0 100.0 9.7 5.4 84.9 100.0 84.3 15.7 100.0 14.0 3.4 82.6 100.0 83.0 17.1 100.0 10.6 12.4 77.0 100.0 82.5 17.5 100.0 20.8 7.3 71.9 100.0 73.7 26.4 100.0 L I I PROCESS FOR INNOVATORS AND EARLY ADOPTERS SOURCES BY: M E T- H 0 D C 0 N T A-C T. ; rf'- /** V-'-' Mass Group i n d i v i  d u a l T o t a l P e r s o n a l Imper s o n a l T o t a l % 36.2 % 12.1 % 51.7 % 100.0 % 56.9 % 43.1 % 100.0 4.3 15.2 80.4 100.0 89.1 10.9 100.0 5.4 2.7 91.9 100.0 91.9 8.1 100.0 5.4 5.4 89.2 100.0 89.2 10.8 100.0 0.0 7.4 92.6 100.0 92.6 7.4 100.0 13.2 9.3 77.6 100.0 81.0 19.0 100.0 Table SOURCE USE BY STAGES IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS CLASSIFICATION Stage i n the Adoption Process T Y P E Mass Media Agric. Agencies Commer c i a l Infor mal Total Awareness % 43.2 % 45.1 % 419 7, 6.8 % 100.0 Interest 13.0 54.3 10.9 21.7 100.0 Evaluation 7.6 56.6 13.6 22.0 100.0 T r i a l 13.8 49.5 11.9 29.8 100.0 Adoption 8.2 51.8 9.4 30.6 100.0 Average 19.4 44.4 16.5 19.6 100.0 Table SOURCE USE BY STAGES IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS CLASSIFICATION Stage i n the Adoption Process T Y P E Mass Media Agric. Agencies Commer* c i a l Infor mal Total Awareness % 52.1 % * 25.2 % 7.6 % 15.1 7. 100.0 Interest 18.1 43.6 11.7 26.6 100.0 Evaluation 13.6 44.4 7.4 34.6 100.0 T r i a l 15.7 43.4 7.2 33.7 100.0 Adoption 12.2 33.8 6.8 47.3 100.0 Average 24.8 30.6 14.9 29.7 100.0 128 LIII FOR THE EARLY MAJORITY M OF SOURCES BY: E 1 H O D C O N T A C T Mass jGroup Individual Total Personal Impersonal Total % 43.8 '% 6.9 % 49.4 % 100.0 % 51.9 % 48.1 % 100.0 12.8 7.8 79.4 100.0 77.9 22.1 100.0 7..6 7.6 84.7 100.0 86.1 13.9 100.0 13 ..8 2.8 83.5 100.0 83.5 16.5 100.0 8.2 18.8 72.9 100.0 80.0 20.0 100.0 19.4 8.16 72.43 100.0 73.4 26.6 100.0 LIV;V FOR THE LATE MAJORITY OF SOURCES BY: M E I H O D Total C O N T A C T Mass _ Group Individual Personal Impersonal Total % 52.-1 % 4.2 % 43.7 % 100.0 % 46.2 % 53.8 % 100.0 18.1 7.4 74.5 100.0 78.1 21.9 100.0 13.6 4.9 81.5 100.0 83.5 16.5 100.0 15.7 3.6 80.7 100.0 81.9 18.1 100.0 12.2 811 79.7 100.0 85.1 14.9 100.0 24.8 5.5 69.6 100.0 72.8 27.2 100.0 129 Table SOURCE USE BY STAGES IN THE ADOPTION CLASSIFICATION OF Stage i n the Adoption Process Mass Media Agric. Commer- Agencies c i a l Informal Total Awareness % 38.5 % 26.9 % 11.5 % 23.1 % 100.0 Interest 25.0 42.5 10.0 22.5 100.0 Evaluation 21.9 34.4 6.3 37.3 100.0 T r i a l 20.0 34.3 11.4 34.3 100.0 Adoption 22.6 32.6 9.7 35.5 100.0 Average 26.8 29.5 14.2 29.5 100.0 130 LV „ PROCESS FOR THE LAGGARDS SOURCES BY: M E T H 0 D C O N T A C T Mass Group Individual Total Personal Impersonal Total % 38.5 % 53.8 % 57.7 % 100.0 % 57.7 % 42.3 % 100.0 25.0 , 17.5 57.5 100.0 65.0 35.0 100.0 11.3 3.2 85.5 100.0 71.9 28.1 100.0 20.0 2.9 77.1 100.0 77.1 22.9 100.0 22.6 9.7 67.7 100.0 74.2 25.8 100.0 ?.€s 6.8 70.0 100.0 67.9 32.1 100.0 131 Table SOURCE USE BY ADOPTER CATEGORIES FOR ALL STAGES IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF Adopter Category Mass Media Agric. Agencies Commercial Informal!, Total Innovators and early adopters % 13.2 % 43.9 % 15.6 % 27.3 % 100.0 Early majority 19.4 44.4 16.5 19.6 100.0 Late majority 24.8 30.6 14.9 29.7 100.0 Laggards 26.8 29.5 14.2 29.5 100.0 Average 21.2 38.1 15.6 25.1 100.0 Table SOURCE USE BY ADOPTER CATEGORIES FOR THE AWARENESS Adopter Category CLASSIFICATION OF T Y P E Mass Agr i c . Media Agencies Commercial Informal Total % % Innovators and early adopters 36.2 50.0 1.7 12.1 100.0 Early majority 43.2 45.1 4.9 6.8 100.0 Late majority 52.1 25.2 7.6 15.1 100.0 Laggards 38.5 26.9 11.5 23.1 100.0 Average 44.2 37.3 6.1 12.3. 100.0 132 LVI ADOPTION PROCESS SOURCES BY: M E T H 0 D C O N T A C T Mass Group Individual Total Personal Impersonal Total % % % % % % % 13.2 9.3 77.6 100.0 81.0 19.0 100.0 19.4 8.2 72.4 100.0 73.4 26.6 100.0 24.8 5.5 69.6 100.0 72.8 27.2 100.0 23.2 6.8 70.0 100.0 76.9 32.1 100.0 20.8 7.3 71.9 100.0 73.6 26.4 100.0 LVII STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS SOURCES BY: M E T H O D C O N T A C T Mass Group Individual Total Personal Impersonal Total % 36.2 % 12.1 % 51.7 % 100.0 % 56.9 % 43.1 % 100.0 43.8 6.9 49.4 100.0 51.9 48.1 100.0 52.1 4.2 43.7 100.0 46.2 53.8 100.0 38.5 3.8 57.7 100.0 57.7 42.3 100.0 .44.5 6.4 49.1 100.0 51.7 48.3 100.0 Table SOURCE USE BY ADOPTER CATEGORIES FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF T Y P E Adopter Mass Category Media Agric. Agencies Commercial Informal Total % Innovators and % % % 7 , early adopters 4.3 58.7 8.7 28.3 100.0 Early majority 13.0 54.3 10.9 21.7 100.0 Late majority 18.1 43.6 11.7 26.6 100.0 Laggards 25.0 42.5 10.0 22.5 100.0 Average 14.8 50.3 10.7 24.2 100.0 Table SOURCE USE BY ADOPTER CATEGORIES FOR THE Adopter Category CLASSIFICATION OF T Y P E Mass Agric. Median Agencies Commercial Informal Total 7 . 7 . 7e Innovators and earl y adopters 5.4 45.9 5.4 43.2 100.0. Earl y majority 7.6 56.8 13.8 22.0 100.0 Late majority 13.6 44.4 7.4 34.6 100.0 Laggards 21.9 34.4 6.3 37.5 100.0 Average 10.8 48.9 9.7 30.6 100.0 134 LVIII INTEREST STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS M E SOURCES T_H 0 D BY: C O N T A C T Mass Group Individual Total Personal Impersonal Total % 4.3 7o 15.2 % 80.4 7o 100.0 7. 89.1 7» 10.9 7o 100.0 12.8 7.8 79.4 100.0 77.9 22.1 .100.0 18.1 7.4 74.5 loo.b 78.1 21.9 100.0 25.0 17.5 57.5 100.0 65.0 35.0 100.0 14.6 10.0 75.4 100.0 78.0 22.0 100.0 LIX EVALUATION STAGE IN ' IHE ADOPTION PROCESS M E SOURCES T H 0 D BY: C O N T A C T Mass Group Individual Total Personal Impersonal Total % 5.4 % _ 2.7 % 91.9 % 100.0 7o 91.9 7o 8.1 7» 100.0 7.6 _7.6 84.7 100.0 86.1 13.9 100.0 13.6 >.9 81.5 100.0 83.5 16.5 100.0 11.3 .3.2 85.5 100.0 71.9 28.1 100.0 9.7 ,5.4 84.9 100.0 84.3 "'• 15.7 100.0 135 Table SOURCE USE BY ADOPTER CATEGORIES FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF T Y P E . - , Adopter Mass Agric. Category Media Agencies Commercial Informal Total Innovators and % % % % early adopters 5.4 62.2 10.8 21.6 100.0 Earl y majority 13.8 49.5 11.9 ' 24.8 100.0 Late majority 15.7 43.4 7.2 33.7 100.0 Laggards 20.0 34.3 11.4 34.3 100.0 Average 14.0 47.3 10.2 47.3 100.0 Table SOURCE USE BY ADOPTER CATEGORIES FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF T Y P E Adopter Mass Category Media Agric. Agencies Commercial Informal Total Innovators and early adopters % 0.0 % 48.1 % 7.4 44.4 % 100.0 Early majority 8.2 51.8 9.4 30.6 100.0 Late majority 12.1 33.8 6.8 47.3 100.0 Laggards 22.6 32.3 9.7 35.5 100.0 Average 10.6 42.4 8.3 38.7 100.0 136 LX TRIAL STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS SOURCES BY: M E T H 0 D c ON T A C T Mass Group Individual Total Personal Impersonal Total % .5.4 % 5.4 % 89.2 % 100.0 % 89.2 % 10.8 % 100.0 13.8 2.8 83.5 100.0 83.5 16.5 100.0 15.7 3.6 80.7 100.0 81.9 18.1 100.0 .20.0 2.9 77.1 100.0 77.1 22.9 100.0 14.0 3.4 82.6 100.0 83.0 17.0 100.0 LXI ADOPTION STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS SOURCES BY: M E T H 0 D C O N T A C T Mass Group Individual T o t a l Personal Impersonal Total % 0.0 % 7.4 % 92.6 % 100.0 % 92.6 % 7.4 % 100.0 8.2 18.8 72.9 100.0 80.0 20.0 100.0 12.2 8.1 79.7 100.0 85.1 14.9 100.0 22.6 9.7 67.7 100.0 74.2 25.8 100.0 10.6 12.4 77.0 100.0 82.5 17.5 100.0 137 Table LXII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SOURCE USE FOR THE INTEREST STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter Category Inno- Source of Information vators and Early Late early major- major- Lag adopters i t y i t y gards Total Newspapers % 0. % 0.7 % 0. % 2.5 % 0.6 Magazines 2.2 2.9 6.4 5.0 4.1 Radio 0. 2.2 2.1 2.5 1.9 T.V. 0. 0. 1.1 5.0 0.9 T.V. Chautauqua 2.2 0.7 0. 2.5 0.9 Summerland research s t a t i o n 21.7 13.8 10.6 5.0 12.9 D i s t r i c t h a l l chautauqua 0. 1.4 1.1 0. 0.9 D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t discussion groups 2.2 2.2 0. 2.5 1.6 Agriculture meeting and adult education courses 6.5 1.4 3.2 7.5 3.5 Salesmen and dealers 6.5 2.2 3.2 5.0 3.5 D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t 28.3 34.8 28.7 25.0 30.8 Employees 0. 0. 0. 2.5 0.3 Vocational a g r i c u l t u r e teacher 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Neighbours 2.2 5.8 5.3 7.5 5.3 Other orchardJists 21.7 11.6 20.2 12.5 15.7 Relatives 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. F i e l d days 0. 0.7 0. 2.5 0.6 Packing houses 0. 1.4 1.1 0. 0.9 Go-operative 2.2 5.1 5.3 5.0 4.7 U.B.C. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Vocational agriculture courses 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Foreign 2.2 0. 0. 0. 6.3 University courses i n agr i c . 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. B.C. Department of Agri c u l t u r e publications 0. 4.3 5.3 7.5 4.4 Canada Dept. of A g r i c u l t . Publications 0. 2.2 2.1 0. 1.6 B.C. Tree F r u i t s 0. 2.2 2.1 0. 1.6 B.C. F r u i t Growers Assn. 2.2 4.3 1.1 0. 2.5 Total 100 .0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 138 Table LXIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF OVERALL SOURCE USE BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter Category Inno vators Source of Information and Early Late early major> - major • Lag adopters i t y i t y gards Total Newspapers % 0.2 % 1.1 % 1.1 % 2.3 % 1.1 Magazines 11.1 7.1 10.1 7.1 8.6 Radio 2.1 1.5 2.4 2.3 1.9 T.V. 1.9 2.3 3.3 7.1 3.0 T.V. Chautauqua 9.9 7.9 7.7 6.8 8.0 Summerland research s t a t i o n 15.6 13.2 5.6 3.2 10.3 D i s t r i c t h a l l chautauqua 5.1 4.8 3.1 1.3 4.0 D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t discussion groups 1.7 1.3 1.3 0.3 1.2 Agriculture meeting and adult education courses 5.1 3.0 2.5 2.6 3.2 Salesmen and dealers 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.9 4.6 D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t 15.8 22.4 18.2 17.8 20.0 Employees 0.2 0. 0.1 1.6 0.2 Vocational agric u l t u r e teacher 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Neighbours 3.2 3.9 5.5 8.1 4.7 Other orchardists 12.6 12.3 17.7 18.1 14.5 Relatives 1.1 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.8 F i e l d days 0.9 1.3 0.6 2.3 1.1 Packing houses 0. 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 Co-operative 0.9 2.8 2.7 3.9 2.6 U.B.C. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Vocational a g r i c . courses 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Foreign 1.9 0.1 0. 0. 0.3 University courses i n agr i c . 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. B.C.Dept.of Ag r i c . Pub. 2.1 4.3 6.3 5.2 4.6 Canada Dept.of Agric.Pub. 1.9 2.8 3.9 1.9 2.9 B.C. Tree F r u i t s 0. 1.2 0.7 0. 0.7 B.C.Fruit Growers Assn. 1.9 1.4 1.5 1.9 1.6 Total 100.0 100.0 : LOO.O 100.0 100.0 139 Table tXIV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SOURCE USE FOR THE AWARENESS STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter Category Inno vators Source of Information and E a r l y Late early major- major Lag adopters i t y i t y gards Total Newspapers % 1.7 7. 2.5 7o 2.5 7o 4.0 % 2.6 Magazines 13.8 13.0 16.0 10.0 13.6 Radio 5.2 3.1 7.6 6.0 5.1 T.V. 1.7 8.0 10.9 8.0 8.0 T.V. Chautauqua 10.3 11.1 8.4 6.0 9.5 Summerland research s t a t i o n 10.3 11.3 5.9 6.0 9.3 D i s t r i c t h a l l chautauqua 3.4 2.5 0. 0. 1.5 D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t discussion groups 5.2 1.9 2.5 0. 2.3 Agr i c u l t u r e meeting and 4.0 adult education groups 3.4 1.9 0.8 2.1 Salesmen and dealers 0. 0.6 3.4 4.0 2.1 D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t 20.7 22.2 14.3 18.0 19.0 Employees 0. 0. 0. 2.0 0.3 Vocational a g r i c . teacher 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Neighbours 3.4 2.5 5.9 6.0 4.1 Other orchardists 6.9 4.3 8.4 14.0 7.2 Relatives 0. 0. 0.8 2.0 0.5 F i e l d days 0. 0.6 0.8 0. 0.5 Packing houses 0. 0. 0. 2.0 0.3 Co-operative 1.7 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.3 U.B.C. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Vocational a g r i c . courses 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Foreign 1.7 0. 0. 0. 0.3 University courses i n a g r i c . 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. B.C. Dept.of Agric.Pub. 1.7 3.7 4.2 6.0 3.9 Canada Dept.of Agric.Pub. 1.7 1.9 2.5 0. 1.8 B.C. Tree F r u i t s 0. 1.9 1.7 0. 1.3 B.C. F r u i t Growers Assn. 6.9 3.7 0.8 0. 2.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 140 Table LXV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SOURCE USE FOR THE EVALUATION STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter Category Inno vation Source of Information and Early Late early major • major Lag ~«. ^ ~ adopter i t y i t y gards Toti Newspapers % 0. % 0. % 0. % 3.1 % 0.4 Magazines 2.7 0.9 0. 3.1 1.1 Radio 0. 0.9 1.2 3.1 1.1 T.V. 2.7 0. 1.2 6.3 1.5 T.V. Chautauqua 0. 0.9 0. 3.1 0.7 Summerland research s t a t i o n 21.6 16.1 7.4 6.3 13.1 D i s t r i c t h a l l chautauqua 0. 2.5 0. 0. 1.1 D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t discussion groups 0. 2.5 0. 0. 1.1 Agri c u l t u r e meeting and 3.4 adult education courses 2.7 2.5 4.9 3.1 Salesmen and dealers 6.5 5.9 3.7 3.1 4.9 D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t 21.6 32.2 30.9 21.9 29.1 Employees 2.7 0. 0. 3.1 0.7 Vocational a g r i c . teacher 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Neighbours 10.8 5.9 8.6 12.5 8.2 Other orchardists 24.3 15.3 24.7 21.9 20.1 Relatives 2.7 0.8 1.2 0. 1.1 F i e l d days 0. 0. 0. 3.1 0.4 Packing houses 0. 0.8 0. 0. 0.4 Co-operative 0. 5.1 3.7 3.1 3.7 U.B.C. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Vocational a g r i c . courses 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Foreign 2.7 0. 0. 0. 0.4 University courses i n agr i c . 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. B.C.Dept.of Agric. Pub. 0. 4.2 7.4 3.1 4.5 Canada Dept.of Agric. Pub. 0. 0.8 3.7 0. 1.5 B.C. Tree F r u i t s 0. 1.7 0. 0. 0.7 B.C. F r u i t Growers Assn. 0. 0.8 1.2 0. 0.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 141 Table LXVI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SOURCE USE FOR THE TRIAL STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter Category Inno Source of Information vators and Early Late early major> - major - Lag adopters i t y i t y gards Total Newspapers % 0. % 0. % 0. % 2.9 % 0.4 Magazines 2.7 2.7 4.8 2.9 3.4 Radio 2.7 1.8 0. 2.9 1.5 T.V. 0. 0. 1.2 5.7 1.1 T.V. Chautauqua 0. 0.9 1.2 2.9 1.1 Summerland research s t a t i o n 24.3 13.8 7.2 2.9 11.7 D i s t r i c t h a l l chautauqua 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t discussion groups 0. 0. 1.2 0. 0.4 Agriculture meeting and adult education courses 2.7 0.9 2.4 0. 1.5 Salesmen and dealers 8.1 3.7 2.4 5.7 4.2 D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t 29.7 33.0 30.1 28.6 31.1 Employees 0. 0. 0. 2.9 0.4 Vocational a g r i c . teacher 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Neighbours 2.7 6.4 7.2 8.6 6.4 Other orchardists 18.9 16.5 26.5 22.9 20.8 Relatives 0. 0.9 0. 0. 0.4 F i e l d days 2.7 1.8 0. 2.9 1.5 Packing houses 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Co-operative 2.7 6.4 4.8 5.7 5.3 U.B.C. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Vocational agric.courses 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Foreign 0. 0.9 0. 0. 0. University courses i n a g r i c . 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. B.C.Dept.of Agric. Pub. 0. 4.6 6.0 2.9 4.2 Canada Dept.of Agric.Pub. 0. 3.7) 2.4 0. 2.3 B.C. Tree F r u i t s 0. 1.8 0. 0. 0.8 B.C. F r u i t Growers Assn. 2.7 0. 2.4 0. 1.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 142 Table LXVII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SOURCE USE FOR THE ADOPTION STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Source of Information Adopter Category Inno vators and Ea r l y Late early major- major- Lag- adopters i t y i t y gards Total Newspapers 0. 0. 0. 3.2 0.5 Magazines 0. 0. 2.7 3.2 1.4 Radio 0. 0. 0. 3.2 0.5 T.V. 0. 0. 0. 3.2 0.5 T.V. Chautauqua 0. 1.2 1.4 3.2 1.4 Summerland research s t a t i o n 14.8 7.1 2.7 0. 5.5 D i s t r i c t h a l l chautauqua 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t discussion groups 0. 0. 1.4 0. 0.5 Agri c u l t u r e meeting and adult education courses 0. 1.2 1.4 0. 0.9 Salesmen and dealers 7.4 0. 2.7 3.2 2.3 D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t 25.9 32.9 25.7 29.0 29.0 Employees 0. 0. 1.4 3.2 0.9 Vocational a g r i c . teacher 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Neighbours 11.1 5.9 12.2 9.7 9.2 Other orchardists 22.2 21.2 27.0 19.4 23.0 Relatives 11.1 3.5 6.8 3.2 5.5 F i e l d days 7.4 10.6 1.4 3.2 6.0 Packing houses 0. 1.2 0. 0. 0.5 Co-operative 0. 7.1 4.1 6.5 5.1 U.B.C. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Vocational a g r i c . courses 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Foreign 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. University courses i n ag r i c . 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. B.C. Dept.of Agric. Pub. 0. 2.4 4.1 3.2 3.7 Canada Dept.of Agric.Pub. 0. 2.4 2.7 0. 1.8 B.C. Tree F r u i t s 0. 1.2 0. 0. 0.5 B.C. F r u i t Growers Assn. 0. 0. 1.4 0. 0.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 143 Table LXVIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SOURCE USE FOR THE PRE-CHAUTAUQUA INNOVATIONS Source of Information I n n o v a t i o n Uwar- LOW h a r d y Power f i n g v o l . frame t a k e - r o o t s p r a y - works o f f s t o c k s e r s s p r a y e r s A l l Pre- chau- tauqua innova- tions Newspapers % 0.7 % 0.8 % 1.3 % 0. % 0.7 Magazines 12.3 7.5 14.2 8.6 10.8 Radio 0. 0.4 1.7 0.5 0.6 T.V. 2.7 2.4 0.9 5.9 2.8 T.V. Chautauqua 4.7 1.6 3.9 5.4 3.8 Summerland research s t a t i o n 11.7 17.8 11.2 15.1 13.8 D i s t r i c t h a l l chautauqua 11.3 6.7 13.3 9.1 10.2 D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t discussion groups 0.3 0.4 1.7 0. 0.6 Agriculture meeting and 4.4 adult education courses 4.7 3.2 6.0 3.8 Salesmen and dealers 6.3 9.9 2.1 12.4 7.4 D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t 12.3 11.9 18.5 8.6 13.0 Employees 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Vocational a g r i c . teachers 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Neighbours 4.0 5.1 2.6 3.2 3.8 Other orchardists 14.7 21.3 8.2 17.7 15.4 Relatives 0. 0. 0.4 0. 0.1 F i e l d days 0.3 1.6 0. 2.2 0.9 Packing houses 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Co-operative 2.3 1.2 0.9 0. 1.2 U.B.C. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Vocational a g r i c . courses 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Foreign 0.3 0. 0.4 0.5 0.3 University courses i n ag r i c . 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. B.C.Dept.of Agric. Pub. 3.0 2.8 5.2 1.6 3.2 Canada Dept.of Agric. Pub. 5.0 4.0 5.6 3.8 4.6 B.C. Tree F r u i t s 0.7 0.4 0.9 0. 0.5 B.C. F r u i t Growers Assn. 2.7 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 144 Table LXIX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SOURCE USE FOR THE CHAUTAUQUA INNOVATIONS AND ALL INNOVATIONS Innovation Four Moristan Chaut - A l l way and Central auqua inno- Source of Information spray Mo ro Leader inno- va- ing cide pruning vatiohs tions Newspapers % 2.7 % 0.6 % 3.0 % 2.0 % 1.1 Magazines 14.7 11.9 15.2 13.7 11.7 Radio 5.4 2.8 1.0 3.5 1.5 T.V. 5.4 1.7 4.0 3.7 3.1 T.V. Chautauqua 36.4 30.5 26.3 32.0 12.8 Summerland research s t a t i o n 0. 2.3 5.1 1.0 10.0 D i s t r i c t h a l l chautauqua 0. 0.6 3.0 0.9 7.2 D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t discussion groups 3.3 2.8 0. 1.4 1.2 Agriculture meeting and adult education courses 1.6 2.8 6.1 3.0 4.0 Salesmen and dealers 1.6 5.7 0. 2.8 5.9 D i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t 8.2 13.6 6.1 9.8 11.9 Employees 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Vocational a g r i c . teacher 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Neighbours 2.2 1.1 1.0 1.5 3.1 Other orchardists 7.6 4.5 11.1 7.2 12.8 Relatives 1.6 0.6 1.0 1.1 0.4 F i e l d days 0. 0. 1.0 0.2 0.7 Packing houses 0. 0.6 0. 0.2 0.1 Co-operative 0.5: 1.1 0. 0.7 1.0 U.B.C. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Vocational a g r i c . courses 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Foreign 0. 0.6 2.0 0.7 0.4 University courses i n ag r i c . 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. B.C.Dept.of Agric. Pub. 6.0 14.1 6.1 9.1 5.1 Canada Dept.of Agric. Pub. 0.5 1.7 8.1 2.6 4.0 B.C. Tree F r u i t s 0.5 0. 0. 0.2 0.4 B.C. F r u i t Growers Assn. 1.6 0.6 0. 0.9 1.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 APPENDIX III DISTRIBUTION OF STAGES IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS BY INNOVATION 146 Table LXX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ADOPTION STAGES FOR DWARFING ROOT STOCKS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Stage i n the adoption process , , 0 1 2 3 4 5 Adopter category ^ A „ a r e _ I n t e _ _ E v a l u a . aware ness est t i o n T r i a l t ion Total Innovators and % % % % % % early adopters 0. 0. o. 0. 15.0 85.0 100.8 Early majority 0. 1.7 10.2 11.9 17.0 59.3 100.0 Late majority o. 11.6 20.9 7.0 14.0 46.5 100.0 Laggards 13.0 52.2 13.0 8.7 4.4 8.7 100.0 Table LXXI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ADOPTION STAGES FOR LOW VOLUME SPRAYERS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Stage i n the adoption process Adopter category 0 1 Not Aware- 2 Inter 3 Evalua 4 5 Adop aware ness est tion T r i a l t i o n Total Innovators and % % % % % % % early adopters 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 100.0 100.0 E a r l y majority 0. 0. 1.7 13.6 3.4 81.4 100.0 Late majority 7.0 18.6 16.3 18.6 4.7 39.9 100.0 Laggards 17.4 39.1 8.7 13.0 4.4 17.4 100.0 147 Table LXXII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ADOPTION STAGES FOR HARDY FRAME WORKS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Stage i n the adoption process 0 1 2 3 4 5 Adopter category N q C Aware- Inter- Evalu- Adop- aware ness est ation T r i a l t i o n Total Innovators and % % % % % % , % early adopters 0. 5.0 0. 10.0 5.0 80.0 100.0 Early majority 0. 15.3 3.4 11.9 5.1 64.4 100.0 Late majority 16.3 20.9 9.3 9.3 4.7 39.5 100.0 Laggards 69.6 26.1 0. 0. 0. 4.4 100.0 Table LXXIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ADOPTION STAGES FOR POWER TAKE-OFF SPRAYERS Stage i n the adoption process Adopter Category ° o t A w a r e _ 4 ^ aware ness est a t i o n T r i a l t i o n Total Innovators and % % % % % % % early adopters 0. 10.0 5.0 75.0 0. 60.0 100.0 Early majority 6.8 20.3 13.6 22.0 5.1 32.2 100.0 Late majority 18.6 32.6 23.3 18.6 0. 7.0 100.0 Laggards 47.8 34.8 0. 8.7 0. 8.7 100.0 148 Table LXXIV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ADOPTION STAGES FOR FOUR-WAY SPRAYING BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Stage i n the adoption process Adopter category ^ A w a r e _ 4 ^ aware ness est a t i o n T r i a l t i o n Total Innovators and % % % % % % % early adopters 0. 10.5 15.8 26.3 0. 47.4 100.0 Early majority 9.1 40.0 14.6 20.0 0. 16.4 100.0 Late majority 11.4 40.0 14.6 20.0 0. 8.6 100.0 Laggards 18.8 62.5 12.5 0. 0. 6.3 100.0 Table LXXV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ADOPTION STAGES FOR MORISTAN AND MOROCTDE BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Stage i n the adoption process 0 1 9 U. 5 Adopter Category " A A ^ fc % , * . j v e J Not Aware- Inter- Evalu- Adop- aware ness est a t i o n T r i a l t i o n Total % % % % % % % Innovators and early adopters 0. 15.8 21.1 31.6 0. 31.6 100.0 Early majority 3.7 33.3 33.3 14.8 1.9 13.0 100.0 Late majority 15.2 57.6 12.1 9.1 3.0 3.0 100.0 Laggards 50.0 42.9 7.1 0. 0. 0. 100.0 149 Table LXXVI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ADOPTION STAGES FOR CENTRAL LEADER'PRUNING BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Stage i n the adoption process Adopter category 0 1 2 3 4 5 Not Aware- Inter- Evalu- Adop- aware ness est a t i o n T r i a l t i o n Total Innovators and % % % % % % early adopters 0. 44.4 0. 11.1 5.6 38.9 100.0 Early majority 28.3 54.4 6.5 2.2 2.2 6.5 100.0 Late majority 38.7 51.6 3.2 0. 0. 6.5 100.0 Laggards 88.9 0. 11.1 o. 0. 0. 100.0 APPENDIX IV A. PROGRAM OF THE 1964 T.V. CHAUTAUQUA B. INTERVIEW SCHEDULE USED A. PROGRAM OF THE 1964 T. V. CHAUTAUQUA the Fruit Growers 1964 Sunrise Chautauqua on CHBC - T. T H E F R U I T G R O W E R S ' 1964 S U N R I S E C H A U T A U Q U A on C H B C - T V Sponsored and produced by the British Columbia Department of Agriculture in co-operation with the Canada Department of Agri culture, British Columbia Tree Fruits Ltd., Barkwills Ltd., Osoyoos Co-operative Growers, Northwest Wholesale Inc. of Wenatchee, the B.C.F.G.A. and several of its grower members, and television sta tion CHBC-TV. The time: 8.30 to 10 a.m. The place: At home. The dates: January 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31, 1964. A. PROGRAM OF THE 1964 T, V. CHAUTAUQUA The 1963 television broadcasts met with a most favourable re sponse. This series is again being offered through television on CHBC-TV. The programmes are designed to cover the most pressing orchard problems, especially pest control, planting, and harvesting. If any points are missed, growers may phone questions in and they will be dealt with on the last day, Friday, January 31. The Chautauqua Committee wishes to express its appreciation to those participating. In many cases they are taking part at con siderable inconvenience to themselves. Chautauqua Chairman: Mr. John A. Smith. Director of Production: Mr. R. M. Wilson. PROGRAMME MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 8.30 A . M . Pest Control MODERATOR : Mr. J. C. Arrand. PANEL : Mr. A. D. McMechan, Mr. R. Downing, Dr. D. L. Mcin tosh, Mr. J. E. Swales. TOPICS : Insect and mite resistance, air blast sprayers, insect and disease control in the dormant and pre-pink periods. TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 8.30 A . M . Pest Control MODERATOR : Mr. J. C. Arrand. PANEL : Dr. M . D. Proverbs, Dr. L. E. Lopatecki, Mr. A. Watt, Mr. R. Downing. TOPICS : Continuation of insect and disease control in the pre-pink and pink periods and proceeding through blossom and husk fall, summer and fall periods. A. PROGRAM OF THE 1964 T. V. CHAUTAUQUA * WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 8.30 A . M . - . _ Apple Maturity and Harvest Peach Maturity and Harvest MODERATOR : Mr. John A. Smith. PANEL ON APPLES : Mr. Noble O . Law, Mr. H . J. Van Ackeren, Mr. J. C. Clarke. .. TOPICS : Maturity, errors in harvesting, desired qualities, picking procedures, results of harvesting research in Washington. PANEL ON PEACHES : Mr. D. Sutherland, Mr. E. Tait, Mr. W. Dell, Mr. H. J. Barkwill. TOPICS : Maturity, cullage, varieties, packing-house and cannery peaches, orchard methods. THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 8.30 A . M . What to Plant MODERATOR : W. F. Morton. PANEL : Mr. D. C. Stevenson, Mr. W. D. Christie, Dr. D. Heinicke, Dr. D. V. Fisher. TOPICS : Marketing and varieties, certified budwood, rootstocks, frames, hardiness. FRIDAY, JANUARY 31, 8.30 A . M . Questions and Answers M O D E R A T O R : Mr. M . G. Oswell. PANEL : Mr. W. F. Morton, Dr. D. V. Fisher, Dr. D. L. Mcintosh, Mr. J. C. Arrand, Mr. H . J. Van Ackeren, Mr. K. Williams, Mr. R. Downing. TOPIC : This panel will deal with questions phoned or sent in. Orchardists are asked to phone questions in to CHBC-TV. An endeavour will be made to answer all questions on Friday, Janu ary 31. Phone questions to CHBC-TV (phone 762-4535) on Friday, January 31. B. INTERVIEW SCHEDULE USED INTRODUCTION Hello, I'm from the British Columbia Department of Agriculture. We're conducting a survey.of orchardists in the Okanagan Valley, and I would like to ask you some ques tions about yourself and your orchard. A l l information you give me will be strictly confidential, and will be used for statistical summaries only. A.. T O S T A R T , I'D LIKE T O ASK A FEW QUESTIONS A B O U T Y O U R S E L F . 1. What is your age? 1. less than 20 1. 1 2. 20 - 24 2 3. 25 - 34 3 4. 35 - 44 (circle one) 4 5. 45 - 54 5 6. 55 - 64 . 6 7. 65 or over . 7 2. What is the highest year you finished in school? 1. less than 5 2. 1 2. 5 - 8 2 3. 9 - 11 3 4. high school diploma (grade 12) (circle one) 4 5. senior matriculation 5 6. university degree 6 7. university graduate work 7 3. Have you taken any agriculture courses? - in high school? 1. yes 3. 1 2. no 2 - at university? 1. yes 4. 1 2. no 2 4. Have you taken any adult courses? - in agriculture 1. yes 5. 1 2. no 2 - in other subjects 1. yes 6. 1 2. no 2 5. Did you attend the Orchardists' Chautauqua when it was held regularly in district halls? 1. yes 7. 1 2. no 2 Do you attend discussion groups with your district horticulturist and other orchardists? 1. yes 8. 1 2. no 2 7. Do you enjoy your work as an orchardist? 1. very much 9. 1 2. occasionally 2 3. not at all 3 8. Do you subscribe to a local newspaper or newspapers? 1. yes 10. 1 2. no 2 9. Do you regularly receive any farm magazines or magazines other than "Country Li fe"? 1. yes 11. 1 2. no 2 10. Mow many organizations do you belong to? 12,13. 11. How many organizations do you attend at least once a year? 14,15. 12; To how many organizations do you make a contribution for support? 16,17. 13. How many committees of these organizations do you belong to? 18,19. 14. How many offices of these organizations do you hold? 20,21. 15. How many years have you been working in the agricultural industry? 1. less than 5 22. 1 2. 5 - 9 2 3. 10-19 3 4. 20 or over 4 16. How many years have you been an orchardist? 1. less than 5 23. 1 2. 5 - 9 2 3- 10 - 19 3 4. 20 or over 4 17. How many years have you been on the present orchard? 1. less than 1 24. 1 2. 2 - «t - 2 3. 5 - 9 3 4. 10-19 4 5. 20 or over ' 5 18. Is fruit-growing your full-time or part-time occupation? (if full time, circle 1) 25. 1 If part-time, what is your full-time occupation? 2 3 4 5 6 B. N E X T , I'D LIKE TO ASK A B O U T YOUR ORCHARD: What is the total size of this enterprise, in acres? 1. less than 3 26. 1 2. 3 - 9 2 3. 10-19 3 4. 20 - 39 4 5. 40 - 54 5 6. 55 - 69 6 7. 70 - 179 '7 8. 180 or more 8 2. How many acres do you have in orchard? 1. less than 3 27. 1 2. 3 - 9 2 3. 10 - 19 3 4. 20 - 39 4 5. 40 - 54 5 6. 55 - 69 6 7. 70 - 179 7 8. 180 or more 8 3. What would you pay for this enterprise to own and operate it? 1. under $4950 28. 1 2. $4950 - $9949 2 3. $9950 - $14,949 -3 4. $14,950 - $24,949 4 5. $24,950 - $49,949 5 6. $49,950 - or over 6 4. Do you rent this orchard, own part and rent part of it, or own it entirely? 1. rent , 29. 1 2. both ( . . . . . acres owned, acres rented) 2 3. own 3 5. Do you have income from sources other than your orchard and farming operations? If so, how is this income related to your income from agriculture? 1. no income from other sources 30. 1 2. half as much or less 2 3. less than, but greater than half as much 3 4. equal to 4 5. greater, but less than twice as much 5 6. twice as much or greater 6 6. What was your total value of orchard products sold in 1962? 1. nil • . . 31. 1 2. less than $1200 2 3. $1200 - $2499 3 4. $2500 - $3749 4 5. $3750 - $4999 5 6. $5000 - $9999 6 7. $10,000 - S14.999 7 8. 515,000 - 524,999 8 9. $25,000 and over- 9 I NOW H A V E S E V E R A L QUESTIONS A B O U T YOUR COMMUNITY: How willing is this community to adopt new farm practices? 1. willing 2. about average 3. not very willing How does this community regard people who try many new practices? 1. favourable 2. no feeling 3. not favourable How does this community regard people who are slow in adopting new orchard practices? 1. favourable 2. no feeling 3. not favourable (HAND RESPONDENT B L U E CARD): On side one of this card you will see a number of sources of possible information about improved orchard practices. In answering the next few questions, I want you to give me the number or numbers only of the source or sources which best answer the questions, (enter num bers in right-hand margin). What source or sources have you found to be most useful in finding out about new or improved practices which you can apply profitably in-your orchard? When you have found an item about a new or improved practice which interests you, to which source or sources do you go for further infor mation on how you can possibly apply it in your orchard? When you have received information on a new or improved practice, which source or sources do you use to help you evaluate the informa tion acquired in the light of the existing conditions into which the practice would have to fit? After you have weighed the information available, what source or sour ces do you use in finding information on how to apply the practice? When you have found out how to apply the practice, which source or- sources do you use in deciding whether or not to adopt the practice? I will now read to you some orchard practices recommended in the past few years. I want you to tell me whether you are aware of each of these practices. If so, what progress, if any, have you made towards the adoption of each. Also, what sources of information have you used in working towards the adoption of each of these practices. Stage of Adoption Awareness Interest Evaluation Score 1 2 Trial Adoption Definition The first knowledge about a new practice The active seeking of extensive and de tailed information about the idea to deter mine its ,possible usefulness and applic ability Weighing and sifting the acquired informa tion and evidence in the light of the exist ing conditions into which the practice would have to fit The tentative trying out of the practice, accompanied by acquisition of information on how to do it The full-scale integration of the practice into the on-going operation Recommended Practices and Sources of Information (In the right-hand margin opposite each practice, enter the appropriate score. F n f the number(s) of the source(s) of information in the right-hand margin also) Dwarfing root stocks: Sources of information used: 65. 66,67. 68,69. 70,71. Bulk bin handling of fruit during harvest: Sources of information used: (START D A T A C A R D NO. 2) 1,2. 3,4. 5,6. Low volume air-blast sprayers: 7. Sources of information used: 8,9. 10,11. 12,13. Certified nursery stock: 14. Sources of information used: 15,16. 17,18. 19,20. Hardy frame works: 21. Sources of information used: 22,23. 24,25. 26,27. Air-blast sprayers operating through power take-off from the tractors; 28. Sources of information used: 29,30. 31,32. 33,34. F I N A L L Y , A T E W QUESTIONS y^BOUT T H E R E C E N T T . V . C H A U T A U Q U A : Do you have a television set in working order? 1. yes 35. 1 2. no 2 Did you watch this year's T . V . Chautauqua? 1. yes 36. 1 2. no 2 If no, why not? (If " n o " answer to. question 2, omit questions 4, 5, 6 & 8) On which days did you watch the program? Monday 1. yes 37. 1 2. no 2 Tuesday 1. yes 38. 1 2. no 2 Wednesday 1. yes 39. 1 2. no 2 Thursday 1. yes 40. 1 2. no 2 Friday 1. yes 41. 1 2. no 2 .For how long each day: 1. all 42. 1 2. at least one hour 2 3. at least one-half hour 3 4. less than one-half hour 4 Who regularly watched the program with you? 1. nobody 43. 1 2. family member 2 3. employee 3 4. other orchardist 4 5. partner 5 6. other 6 7. I will now name several orchard practices recommended very recently. I want you to tell me if you are aware of these practices and what progress, if anv, vou have made towards their adoption. Also, what sources of information have you used in working towards adoption of each of these practices? Stage of Adoption Awareness Interest Evaluation Trial Adoption Score 1 2 Definition The first knowledge about a new practice The active seeking of extensive and de tailed information about the idea to deter mine its possible usefulness and applic ation Weighing and sifting the acquired informa tion and evidence in the light of the exist ing conditions into which the practice would have to fit The tentative trying out of the practice, accompanied by acquisition of information on how to do it The full-scale integration of the practice into the on-going operation Recommended Practices and Sources of Information (In the right-hand margin opposite each practice, enter the appropriate score. En ter the number(s)of the source(s)of information in the right-hand margin also). Four-way spraying for the control of San Jose scale: Sources of information used: 44. 45,46. 47,48. •49,50. Spraying of Urea and Zinc to control powdery mildew on young apple trees: Sources of information used: 51. 52,53. 54,55. 56,57. Use of Moristan and Morocide to control mites: Sources of information used: 58. 59,60. 61,62. 63,64. Use of fixed copper sprays for fire blight control: Sources of information used: 65. 66,67. 68,69. 70,71. Two by three planting pattern for dwarf apple trees: Sources of information used: 72. (START D A T A CARD NO. 3) 1,2 3,4. 5,6. Pruning for a central leader on semi-dwarf trees in a high-density planting: Sources of information used: Which of the statements on side two of the blue card most ac curately describes your personal Igaction^ to the T . V . Chautauqua? 7. 8,9. 10,11. 12,13. 14,15. (HAND RESPONDENT Y E L L O W CARD): 8. Which of these statements are true and which false? (circle 1 for true and 2 for false) 1 16. 1 Statement 16 31. 1 Statement 31 46. 1 2 2 2 2 17. 1 17 32. 1 32 47. 1 2 2 2 3 18. 1 18 33. ; 1 33 48. 1 2 2 2 4 19. 1 19 34. 1 34 49. 1 2 2 2 5 20. 1 20 35. 1 35 50. 1 2 2 2 6 21. 1 21 36. 1 36 51. 1 2 2 2 7 22. 1 22 37. 1 37 52. 1 2 2 2 8 23. 1 23 38. 1 38 53. 1 2 2 2 9 24. 1 24 39. 1 39 54. 1 2 2 2 10 25. 1 25 40. 1 40 55. 1 2 2 2 11 26. 1 26 41. 1 41 56. 1 2 2 2 12 27. 1 27 42. 1 42 57. 1 2 2 2 13 28. 1 28 43. 1 43 58. 1 2 2 2 14 29. 1 29 44. 1 44 59. 1 2 2 2 15 30. 1 30 45. 1 45 60. 1 2 2 2 10. Is the time of the year that the T.V.Chautauque is held suitable? 1. yes 2. no 61. 1 2 11. Is the time of day suitable? 1. yes 2. no 62. 1 2 12. Is the length of the program suitable? 1. yes 2. no 63. 1 2 13. Any other comments on the T . V . Chautauqua? (note any remarks on questions 10, 11 and 12) SIDE ONE SOURCES OF INFORMATION Number Source 01 Newspapers 02 Magazines 03 Radio 04 T . V . 05 T . V . Chautauqua 06 Summerland Research Station 07 Chautauqua in district halls 08 Discussion groups with district horticulturist 09 Agricultural meeting 10 Co-operative 11 University of B .C . 12 Vocational Agriculture Courses 13 Adult Education Courses 14 University courses in agriculture 15 B .C . Department or Agriculture publications 16 Federal Department of Agriculture publications 17 B .C. Tree Fruits Ltd. 18 B .C . Fruit Growers Association 19 Salesmen or dealers 20 District horticulturist 21 Employees 22 Vocational agriculture teacher 23 Neighbours 24 Other orchardists 25 Wife 26 Children 27 Other SIDE TWO S T A T E M E N T S DESCRIBING REACTION T O T . V . C H A U T A U Q U A 01 It was one of the most rewarding experiences I have every had. 02 It was exactly what I wanted. 03 I hope we can have another one next year. 04 It has provided the kind of information I can use in my orchard. 05 It has helped me personally. 06 It has solved some problems for me. 07 I think it served its purpose. 08 It has some merits. 09 It was fair. 10 It was neither very good nor very poor. 11 I was mildly disappointed. 12 It was not exactly what I needed. 13 It was too general. 14 I did not get any new ideas. 15 It didn't hold my interest. 16 It was much too superficial. 17. I was dissatisfied. 18 It was very poorly planned. 19 I didn't learn a thing. 20 It was a complete waste of time. T R U E OR F A L S E QUESTIONS 1. Collar rot infection only occurs when soil is above saturation point. 2. No chemical spray kills 100% of insects. !. "ion ' 3. When spraying, a grower should use as small a dosage as possible. 4. The air velocity in a concentrate sprayer should be less than 100 miles per hour. 5. Cyprex is an outstanding scab fungicide. 6. San Jose scale is controlled by spraying from two directions only. 7. When spraying from four directions, half as much insecticide must be used,as when spraying from two directions. 8. Dormant sprays have no effect against powdery mildew fungus. 9. Peach leaf curl can be controlled by spraying before the buds open. 10. The best time to control European Red mite is at the pink bud stage. 11. Brown Rot does not occur in all stone fruits. 12. Kelthane, when applied in the summer, is effective against European Red mite eggs. 13. Brown Rot occurs every year in the Okanagan Valley normally. 14. Copper sprays will prevent fireblight from spreading in a fruit tree. 15. Fireblight can be controlled in the summer by increasing the moisture level. 16. Morocide spr^y cannot be applied within 60 days of harvest. 17. The best time to use sprays in the control of mites is after they move to the outer parts of the tree. 18. Healthy, vigorous stone fruit trees encourage attack by borers. 19. The B . C . Tree. Fruits quality control program has been poorly accepted by the growers. 20. The pressure test is good for testing the storage life of an apple. 21. Apple picking should be done on the basis of fruit colour only. 22. The chief sign of maturity trouble in peaches is a high cullage rate. 23. The cullage rate on the Red Haven variety of peach has increased in the last two years. (True or False Questions cont'd) 24. New varieties of peaches hold little promise. 25. A normal size peach tends to flatten out under its own weight in the carton. 26. An oversize peach should be picked on the hard side. 27. A great deal of the cullage problem with peaches occurs during harvesting. 28. The planting of some varieties of peaches is recommended. 29. It is recommended that no further plantings of cherries be made. 30. Further plantings of the Red Delicious variety of apples are not recommended. 31. Smaller size trees increase the cost of production. 32. It is important economically to have varieties of nectarines that will ripen in August. 33. Trees are automatically certified after having been colour coded in the certified budwood scheme. 34. The shading effect which a tree has on itself is an unimportant factor in limiting production. 35. When first planting a site a grower should plant twice or three times the number of trees which he will need eventually. i 36. Standard size trees have less leaf area per acre than dwarf trees. 37. The pump pressure has a significant effect on the efficiency of spray machines. 38. The best time to start blossom thinning peaches is when the blossoms are first showing colour. 39. The shot-hole borer is encouraged by leaving prunings in the orchard. 40. There is room for more plums on the fresh market. 41. The future for crab-apples looks very promising. 42. The symptoms for boron deficiency and boron toxicity are quite different. 43. Spraying water at night will improve the colour of Macintosh apples. 44. Dormant spraying carried out four ways for San Jose scale will not control blister mite. 45. Wood shavings are not useful for conserving moisture aroung young trees. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 7 0
China 5 1
Canada 3 0
Japan 3 0
Poland 1 0
United Kingdom 1 0
Latvia 1 0
India 1 0
City Views Downloads
Ashburn 7 0
Tokyo 3 0
Unknown 3 7
Shenzhen 3 1
Kelowna 3 0
Ürümqi 1 0
Beijing 1 0
Bangalore 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093659/manifest

Comment

Related Items