Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The adoption and rejection of innovations by dairymen in the Lower Fraser Valley 1966

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1966_A4 G8.pdf [ 12.86MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0104751.json
JSON-LD: 1.0104751+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0104751.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0104751+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0104751+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0104751+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0104751.ris

Full Text

THE ADOPTION AMD REJECTION OF INNOVATIONS BY DAIRYMEN IN THE LOWER FRASER VALLEY by PETER MARTIN GUBBE3L5 B.S.A., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1962 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 t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the re q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1966 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study, I further agree that permission., for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada i i ABSTRACT This study analyses the adoption and r e j e c t i o n of some d a i r y farm innovations by Lower Fraser V a l l e y d a i r y - men. I t a l s o analyses use of inf o r m a t i o n sources, l e n g t h of time spent i n the adoption process, reasons f o r delay i n proceeding through the adoption process, reasons f o r r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance of inn o v a t i o n s , and dairyman- d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t contact. Data f o r the a n a l y s i s were c o l l e c t e d by i n t e r v i e w i n g a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample of the Lower Fraser V a l l e y d a i r y - men. There was a d i s t i n c t tendency f o r the e a r l i e r adopters to have l a r g e farms, a high production per cow, l e s s than 20 years farming experience, a high farm p l u s o f f - f a r m employment income, l a r g e numbers of d a i r y young stock, o f f i c e v i s i t s w i t h the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t , a g r i c u l t u r e courses at v o c a t i o n a l schools, and enjoyment from d a i r y i n g . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the e a r l i e r and l a t e r adopters regarding age, years of school completed, s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , tenure, s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , use of h i r e d labour and place of b i r t h . A number of the respondents had had no contact of any type w i t h the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t i n the year previous to the i n t e r v i e w but on the average each respondent used 2.53 types of contact. i i i Mien c l a s s i f i e d by the nature of the a c t i v i t y , the most used sources of inf o r m a t i o n were personal, f o l l o w e d by i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l , mass and i n s t r u c t i o n a l group. When c l a s s i f i e d by o r i g i n , the most t o l e a s t used sources were personal, commercial, government and farm o r g a n i z a t i o n . The p r o p o r t i o n s i n which the in f o r m a t i o n sources were used f o r the two groups of innovations d i f f e r e d . On the average each respondent was unaware of 2.19 of the 10 innovations and contin u i n g i n the adoption process f o r 1.57* R e j e c t i o n had occurred f o r an average of 4»3#» adoption f o r 1.66 and discontinuance f o r 0.20 of the 10 in n o v a t i o n s . Almost h a l f the d e c i s i o n s t o r e j e c t i n n o v a t i o n s were made at the awareness stage i n the adoption process. From the laggard t o the e a r l y adopter-innovator category, unawareness and r e j e c t i o n decreased w h i l e con- t i n u a t i o n i n the adoption process, adoption and discontinuance i n c r e a s e d . S i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s made up more than t w o - t h i r d s the reasons f o r delay i n proceeding through the adoption pro- cess but c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the innovations made up more than t w o - t h i r d s the reasons f o r r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n - uance of in n o v a t i o n s . The r a t e of r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance was higher and adoption lower when l e s s than one year was spent than i v when one or more years was spent i n the adoption process. An adoption tendency score was derived and compared w i t h the adoption score but i t could not be determined t h a t use of one or the other was a more u s e f u l way of i d e n t i f y i n g d i f f e r e n c e s among the respondents. V TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Ab s t r a c t i i L i s t of Tables i x L i s t of Figures x v i i i Acknowledgement ••• x i x CHAPTER I . INTRODUCTION 1 The Lower F r a s e r V a l l e y 1 The M i l k Industry Act .4 A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension 5 Purposes of the Study 6 L i t e r a t u r e Review 6 I I . METHODOLOGY 22 The Sample 22 The Interview Schedule 24 Procedure • 28 A n a l y s i s of the Data • 30 P l a n of the Study 31 I I I . CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE 32 I n d i v i d u a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 32 Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 37 D a i r y m a n - D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r i s t Contact ... 42 Community Pe r c e p t i o n 45 v i CHAPTER PAGE IV. ADOPTER CATEGORIES 47 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the Respondents i n t o Adopter Categories 47 A n a l y s i s of the D i f f e r e n c e s Among the Adopter Categories 50 V. SOURCES OF INFORMATION 57 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the Sources of Information 57 Information Source Use by Stage i n the Adoption Process 60 Information Source Use by Adopter Category. 66 Use of Information Sources by Stage and Adopter Category 72 Use of I n d i v i d u a l Sources of Information .. 74 Sources of Information Used f o r the Innovations • 77 V I . ADOPTION AND NON-ADOPTION OF THE INNOVATIONS. 86 Progress Toward Innovation Adoption 86 Length of Time Spent i n the Adoption Process 90 Reasons f o r Delay i n Proceeding Through the Adoption Process 92 The Innovation Response State of the Respondents 97 Reasons f o r R e j e c t i o n and Discontinuance of Innovations 103 v i i CHAPTER PAGE V I I . ADOPTION TENDENCY 1 0 9 D e r i v a t i o n of the Adoption Tendency Score . 1 0 9 Comparison of the D i f f e r e n c e s Between the Adopter Categories and the Adopter Tendency Categories 1 1 4 A D e s c r i p t i o n of the D i f f e r e n c e s Among the Adopter Tendency Categories 1 1 7 P a r t i a l C o r r e l a t i o n of Socio-Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 1 2 1 E f f i c a c y of the Adoption Tendency Score ... 1 2 3 V I I I . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1 2 4 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Sample and Adopter Categories 1 2 4 Sources of Information 1 3 1 The Adoption and Non-Adoption of the Innovations 1 3 5 Adoption Tendency 1 4 1 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 4 4 v i i i APPENDIX I . The Interv i e w Schedule w i t h Simple Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n s Added 1 APPENDIX I I . B i v a r i a t e Tables of the Socio-Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Versus Adopter Categories and Adopter Tendency Categories f o r Which S i g n i f i c a n t Chi-square Values Were Obtained 17 APPENDIX I I I . A. Percentage Use of Information Sources 32 B. z Values f o r the D i f f e r e n t i a l Use of Information Sources Between Adopter Categories 3 9 C. D i s t r i b u t i o n of I n d i v i d u a l Information Sources ............. 50 APPENDIX IV. D e t a i l e d A n a l y s i s of the Innovation Response States 52 i x LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I . Comparison of the Sample and Population Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n s According t o S i z e of D a i l y M i l k Quota by Use of the Chi-square Test 2 5 I I . 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 3 3 I I I . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of D a i r y m a n - D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r i s t Contact • 4 3 IV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Extension Contact Score 4 5 V. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the Respondents i n t o Adopter Categories • 4 9 V I . Chi-square Values f o r B i v a r i a t e Tables of Socio-Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Against Two and Four Adopter Categories 5 1 V I I . C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Sources of Information 5 9 V I I I . z Values f o r the D i f f e r e n c e of Information Source Use Between Stages i n the Adoption Process with the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by Nature of the A c t i v i t y 6 2 IX. z Values f o r the D i f f e r e n c e of Information Source Use Between Stages i n the Adoption Process w i t h the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n . 6 5 X. z Values f o r the D i f f e r e n c e of Information Source Use Between Adopter Categories w i t h the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by the Nature of the A c t i v i t y 6 8 X I . z Values f o r the D i f f e r e n c e of Information Source Use Between Adopter Categories w i t h the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n 7 1 X I I . The Fi v e Most Frequently Used Sources of Information by Stage i n the Adoption Process .. 7 6 X I I I . The Fi v e Most Frequently Used Sources of Information by Adopter Category 7 7 X TABLE •PAGE XIV. Percentage Use of Information Sources by- Innovation w i t h the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by- Nature of the A c t i v i t y 80 XV. Percentage Use of Information Sources by- Innovation w i t h the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n 82 XVI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Information Sources by Innovation 8 4 XVII. T o t a l Number of Information Sources Used Per Innovation and Respondent 8 5 X V I I I . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents at each Stage i n the Adoption Process by Innovation ••• 8 8 XIX. Percentage of Respondents at each Stage by Adopter Category f o r a l l Innovations Combined 8 9 XX. Percentage of the Respondents Who Spent Less Than One Year or One or More Years i n the Adoption Process by Innovation 9 0 XXI. Average number of Innovations f o r which Less Than One Year and One or More Years Was Spent i n the Adoption Process, by Adopter Category 9 1 XXEI. Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reasons f o r Delay i n Proceeding Through the Adoption Process f o r A l l the Innovations Combined 9 5 X X I I I . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reasons f o r Delay i n Proceeding Through the Adoption Process by Adopter Category 9 6 XXIV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Respondents by Innovation Response State 9 & XXV. Percentage of the Respondents Continuing w i t h the Adoption Process, by Stage f o r each Group of Innovations 9 9 XXVI. Percentage of the Respondents which had Rejected each Group of Innovations, by Stage i n the Adoption Process 100 x i TABLE PAGE XXVII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by- Adopter Category and Innovation Response State 102 XXVIII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Time Spent i n the Adoption Process by Innovation Response State , 103 XXIX. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reasons f o r R e j e c t i o n and Discontinuance by Innovation Group 105 XXX. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reasons f o r R e j e c t i o n and Discontinuance of Innovations by Adopter Category 106 XXXI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reasons f o r R e j e c t i o n and Discontinuance by Innovation Group and Time Spent i n the Adoption Process .. 107 XXXII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reasons f o r R e j e c t i o n by Stage i n the Adoption Process .... 108 XXXIII. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the Respondents i n t o Adopter Tendency Categories 112 XXXIV. Number of Respondents i n each Category When C l a s s i f i e d by Adoption Score and Adoption Tendency Score 113 XXXV. Comparison of Chi-square Values f o r B i v a r i a t e Tables of Socio-Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Against Two Adopter Categories and Two Adopter Tendency Categories 115 XXXVI. Comparison of Chi-square Values f o r B i v a r i a t e Tables of Socio-Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Against Four Adopter Categories and Four Adopter Tendency Categories 116 X X X V I I r Socio-Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Having S i g n i f i c a n t 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 w i t h Adoption Score and Adoption Tendency Score 122 x i i LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDICES TABLE PAGE XXXVIII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of A g r i c u l t u r e Courses Taken i n V o c a t i o n a l School by- Adopter Category 17 XXXIX. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Dairy Farm Work Enjoyment by Adopter Category 17 XL. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Number of Years Farming Experience by Adopter Category 18 XL I . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of T o t a l S i z e of Farm by Adopter Category 18 X L I I . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Average Production per Cow by Adopter Category 19 X L I I I . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Number of Young Dairy Stock Raised by Adopter Category 19 XLIV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Amount of Unpaid (family) Labour by Adopter Category 20 XLV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Family Farm P l u s Off-Farm Employment Income by Adopter Category 20 XLVI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of V i s i t s to the D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r i s t s O f f i c e by Adopter Category 21 XLVII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Community W i l l i n g n e s s t o Adopt New D a i r y Farm P r a c t i c e s by Two Adopter Categories •••• 21 X L V I I I . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Community W i l l i n g n e s s t o Adopt New D a i r y Farm P r a c t i c e s by Four Adopter Categories 22 XLIX. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Community Regard of Laggards by Four Adopter Categories 22 L. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Community Regard of Laggards by Two Adopter Categories 23 L I . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of M a r i t a l Status by Adopter Tendency Category • 23 L I I . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of T o t a l S i z e of Farm by Adopter Tendency Category 24 x i i i TABLE PAGE L I U . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Number of Acres Devoted t o D a i r y i n g by Adopter Category ....... 24 LIV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of S i z e of D a i l y M i l k Quota by Four Adopter Tendency Categories 25 LV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of S i z e of D a i l y M i l k Quota by Two Adopter Tendency Categories 25 LVI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Amount of M i l k S o l d Per Year by Adopter Category 26 L V I I . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Average M i l k Production Per Cow by Adopter Tendency Category 26 L V I I I . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Breed of D a i r y C a t t l e by Adopter Tendency Category 27 LIX. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Number of Young Dairy Stock Raised by Four Adopter Tendency Categories 27 LX. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Number of Young Dairy Stock Raised by Two Adopter Tendency Categories 28 LX I . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Family Farm P l u s Off-Farm Employment Income by Adopter Tendency Category 28 L X I I . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Farm Value as a Going Concern by Adopter Tendency Category 29 L X I I I . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of V i s i t s to the D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r i s t s O f f i c e by Four Adopter Tendency Categories 29 LXIV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of V i s i t s to the D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r i s t ' s O f f i c e by Two Adopter Tendency Categories 30 LXV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Attendance at Meetings and F i e l d Days Sponsored by the D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r i s t by Adopter Tendency Category 30 x i v TABLE PAGE LXVT. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Community W i l l i n g n e s s to Adopt New D a i r y Farm P r a c t i c e s by Four Adopter Tendency Categories 3 1 LXVTI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Community W i l l i n g n e s s t o Adopt New Dairy Farm P r a c t i c e s by Two Adopter Tendency Categories 3 1 L X V I I I . Percentage Use of Information Sources by Stage i n the Adoption Process With the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by the Nature of the A c t i v i t y 3 2 LXIX. Percentage Use of Information Sources by Stage i n the Adoption Process w i t h the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n • 3 2 LXX. Percentage Use of Information Sources by Adopter Category With the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by Nature of the A c t i v i t y 3 3 LXXI. Percentage Use of Information Sources by Adopter Category With the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n 3 3 LXXII. Percentage Use of Information Sources, C l a s s i f i e d as t o the Nature of the A c t i v i t y , by Adopter Category at the Awareness Stage i n the Adoption Process 3 4 L X X I I I . Percentage Use of Information Sources, C l a s s i f i e d as t o the Nature of the A c t i v i t y , by Adopter Category at the I n t e r e s t Stage i n the Adoption Process 3 4 LXXIV. Percentage Use of Information Sources, C l a s s i f i e d as to the Nature of the A c t i v i t y , by Adopter Category at the E v a l u a t i o n Stage i n the Adoption Process 3 5 LXXV. Percentage Use of Information Sources, C l a s s i f i e d as t o the Nature of the A c t i v i t y , by Adopter Category at the T r i a l Stage i n the Adoption Process 3 5 X V TABLE PAGE LXXVI. Percentage Use of Information Sources, C l a s s i f i e d as t o the Nature of the A c t i v i t y , by Adopter Category at the Adoption Stage i n the Adoption Process 3 6 LXXVII. Percentage Use of Information Sources, C l a s s i f i e d as t o O r i g i n , by Adopter Category at the Awareness Stage i n the Adoption Process 3 6 LXXVIII. Percentage Use of Information Sources, C l a s s i f i e d as to O r i g i n , by Adopter Category at the I n t e r e s t Stage i n the Adoption Process .. 3 7 LXXXIX. Percentage Use of Information Sources, C l a s s i f i e d as t o O r i g i n , by Adopter Category at the E v a l u a t i o n Stage i n the Adoption Process 3 7 LXXX. Percentage Use of Information Sources, C l a s s i f i e d as t o O r i g i n , by Adopter Category at the T r i a l Stage i n the Adoption Process .... 3 8 LXXXI. Percentage Use of Information Sources, C l a s s i f i e d as t o O r i g i n , by Adopter Category at the Adoption Stage i n the Adoption Process . 3 8 LXXXII. z Values f o r the D i f f e r e n t i a l Use of I n f o r - mation Sources Between Adopter Categories at the Awareness Stage i n the Adoption Process With the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by Nature of the A c t i v i t y • 40 LXXXIII. z Values f o r the D i f f e r e n t i a l Use of I n f o r - mation Sources Between Adopter Categories at the I n t e r e s t Stage i n the Adoption Process With the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by Nature of the A c t i v i t y 41 LXXXIV. z Values f o r the D i f f e r e n t i a l Use of I n f o r - mation Sources Between Adopter Categories at the E v a l u a t i o n Stage i n the Adoption Process With the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by Nature of the A c t i v i t y i+2 xv i TABLE PAGE LXXXV. z Values f o r the D i f f e r e n t i a l Use of I n f o r - mation Sources Between Adopter Categories at the T r i a l Stage i n the Adoption Process With the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by Nature of the A c t i v i t y 4 3 LXXXVI. z Values f o r the D i f f e r e n t i a l Use of I n f o r - mation Sources Between Adopter Categories at the Adoption Stage i n the Adoption Process With the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by Nature of the A c t i v i t y 4 4 LXXXVII. z Values f o r the D i f f e r e n t i a l Use of I n f o r - mation Sources Between Adopter Categories at the Awareness Stage i n the Adoption Process With the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n 4 5 LXXXVIII. z Values f o r the D i f f e r e n t i a l Use of I n f o r - mation Sources Between Adopter Categories at the I n t e r e s t Stage i n the Adoption Process With the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n 4 6 LXXXIX. z Values f o r the D i f f e r e n t i a l Use of I n f o r - mation Sources Between Adopter Categories at the E v a l u a t i o n Stage i n the Adoption Process With the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n 4 7 XC. z Values f o r the D i f f e r e n t i a l Use of I n f o r - mation Sources between Adopter Categories at the T r i a l Stage i n the Adoption Process With the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n 4 8 XCI. z Values f o r the D i f f e r e n t i a l Use of I n f o r - mation Sources Between Adopter Categories at the Adoption Stage i n the Adoption Process With the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n 4 9 XCII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of I n d i v i d u a l I n f o r - mation Sources by Stage i n the Adoption Process 50 X C I I I . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of I n d i v i d u a l Information Sources by Adopter Category 51 XCIV. Percentage of the Respondents Which Was Continuing With the Adoption Process, by Innovation and Stage i n the Adoption Process .. 52 x v i i TABLE PAGE XCV. Percentage of the Respondents Which Had Rejected the Innovations, by Innovation and Stage i n the Adoption Process 5 3 XCVI. Percentage of Each Adopter Category Which Was Unaware of the I n d i v i d u a l Innovations 5 4 XCVII. Percentage of Each Adopter Category Which Was Continuing With the Adoption Process f o r the I n d i v i d u a l Innovations 5 5 XCVIII. Percentage of Each Adopter Category Which Had Rejected the Innovations 5 6 XCIX. Percentage of Each Adopter Category Which Had Adopted the Innovations 5 7 C. Percentage of Each Adopter Category Which Had Discontinued Use of the Innovations 58 CI. Percentage of Respondents Which Had Spent Less Than One Year i n the Adoption Process, by Innovation Response State and I n d i v i d u a l Innovation • • 5 9 C I I . Percentage of the Respondents Which Had Spent One or More Years i n the Adoption Process, by Innovation Response State and I n d i v i d u a l Innovation 6 0 C I I I . Percentage Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reasons f o r R e j e c t i o n and Discontinuance by Innovation 6 1 CIV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reasons f o r R e j e c t i o n and Discontinuance f o r the Ten Innovations by Adopter Category 6 2 CV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reasons f o r R e j e c t i o n and Discontinuance of the Inno- v a t i o n s by the Time Spent i n the Adoption Process 6 3 x v i i i LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Percentage Use of Information Sources by Stage i n the Adoption Process With the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by the Nature of the A c t i v i t y 61 2. Percentage Use of Information Sources by Stage i n the Adoption Process With the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n 64 3. Percentage Use of Information Sources by Adopter Category With the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by Nature of the A c t i v i t y 67 4 . Percentage Use of Information Sources by Adopter Category With the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n 70 x i x ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The w r i t e r acknowledges w i t h a p p r e c i a t i o n the help of the many people who made t h i s study p o s s i b l e . Members of the B r i t i s h Columbia and Canada Depart- ments of A g r i c u l t u r e gave h e l p f u l advice e s p e c i a l l y at the i n i t i a l stages of the study. The one hundred dairymen deserve s p e c i a l thanks f o r i n t e r r u p t i n g t h e i r work schedules i n order to pro- vide the data f o r t h i s study. The f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e from the A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics Research C o u n c i l of Canada and from Mr. and Mrs. J . F i t t e r e r was g r e a t l y appreciated. Throughout the study members of the F a c u l t y of A g r i c u l t u r e c o n t r i b u t e d many valuable suggestions. The w r i t e r i s deeply indebted t o h i s w i f e f o r her as s i s t a n c e i n checking the data and f o r her constant encouragement. Frank M i l l e r d provided i n v a l u a b l e a s s i s t a n c e by preparing computer programs t o process the data. Greatest a p p r e c i a t i o n i s due Dr. C. Verner f o r h i s p a t i e n t d i r e c t i o n of t h i s study from i t s i n c e p t i o n to i t s completion, CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION I, THE LOWER FRASER VALLEY The Lower Fraser Valley i s one of the finest and most intensive dairy farm areas in Canada. During the past ten years, sweeping changes have occurred i n i t s dairy industry. On December 31» 1955, there were 3632 primary producers licensed by the Milk Board i n the Vancouver area.-*- By March 1, 1965, this number had dropped to 1671. During the same period of time there was a small increase in the number of dairy cows and the annual milk production increased by 15 percent to 470,163,000 pounds. The Lower Fraser Valley i s located in the extreme southwest corner of the Mainland of British Columbia. It extends from the estuary of the Fraser River at the Strait of Georgia on the west, eastward for a distance of about 100 miles to Hope at the entrance to the Fraser Canyon. The area i s bounded on the north by the Coast Mountains, on the east by the Cascades and on the south by the Inter- national Boundary. The average width i s about 25 miles and the approximate area i s 2500 square miles. In I96I the Dominion Bureau of Statistics reported the total area of XE.L. Menzie, 0 . Klassen and F. Van Andel, Dairy Farm Management Manual. Department of Agricultural Economics, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., 1957, p. 2. 2 a l l farms as 274,588 acres of which 198,458 acres, or 72.27 per cent, were c l a s s i f i e d as improved land. The Valley has an extensive amount of f l a t to r o l l i n g land ranging from sea-level to elevations of 1000 feet or more. The bulk of the s o i l s are broadly c l a s s i f i e d as a l l u v i a l i n the low-lying areas and brown podsols i n the uplands. In addition to these, there are scattered areas of peat and muck s o i l s . A marine climate characterizes the region with variations occurring due to aspect, elevation and distance from the S t r a i t of Georgia. The mean annual range of temperature i s approximately 27 degrees Fahrenheit, the mean July and August temperature being about 63 GF. and that of January and February 37°F.2 The f r o s t - f r e e period, during which the temperature remains above 32°F., ranges from 175 to 230 days i n d i f f e r e n t parts of the Valley. The mean annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n ranges from 37 inches at the western end to over 80 inches at the eastern end. About two-thirds of the r a i n f a l l occurs from October to March. July and August are the d r i e s t months with an average of l e s s than 2 inches r a i n f a l l each month so that i r r i g a t i o n i s necessary f o r most crops during the growing season i f good y i e l d s are to be obtained. 2 B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Lands and Forests, The Lower Coast B u l l e t i n Area - B u l l e t i n Area No. 3. Queen»s P r i n t e r , V i c t o r i a , 1959* p. 43- 3 The climatic and s o i l conditions have been favourable to a wide range of agricultural enterprises and have helped make this the most important agricultural area in the Province. Dairy, poultry, vegetable, special horticulture, fur farm, small f r u i t and other enterprises in the Valley accounted for 49*2 per cent of the 1961 Provincial farm cash income.3 Dairying, however, i s the principal agricultural enterprise in the Valley and accounted for almost 28 million dollars, or 70.9 per cent of the 1961 dairy cash income of the Province. In addition to having favourable environmental con- ditions, large urban markets for milk and milk products are close by. The total population for the region in 1961 was 907,531 of which 772,998 was classified as urban, 107,511 as rural non-farm and 27,022 as rural farm.4 A number of small ci t i e s , towns and villages serve the farm population. Among these are: Chilliwack (with a 1961 population of 8259), Langley (2365), Mission City (3251) and Abbotsford (888). During the past few years, industry has been attracting many farm workers out of agriculture by offering a shorter work week and higher wages. As a result of this competition, ^British Columbia, Department of Agriculture, Inventory of Agriculture in British Columbia. (Fifteenth B.C. Natural Resources Conference} undated mimeo, p. 6. ^Canada, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Census of Canada 1961 - Population. Queen's Printer, Ottawa, 1962. (Catalogue 92-543) p. 7 - 54. 4 farm wages have risen considerably. Average wages (without board) for male farm help in British Columbia have increased from $133* per month in May 1955 to $256. per month i n August 1965 - a 92.5$ increase.5 In order to reduce pro- duction costs, the dairy farmers have been forced to adopt many labour saving practices. I I . THE MILK INDUSTRY ACT The Milk Industry Act of 1956 provides for measures of control in production, processing and marketing of a l l milk sold for human consumption in the Province. Since i t s regulations in regard to standards of production were stricter and more stringently enforced than former Acts, many dairy farms were forced to cease operation. Another great change brought about by the Act was the control of the milk supply by means of a quota system for each farm. A producer received one price for his quota milk and a lower price for the milk produced in excess of his quota. Since quota increases were based on the amount of excess milk produced, the adoption of innovations by many dairymen was oriented to greater efficiency and increased production. In the f a l l of 1961, however, the Milk Board found i t 5Canada, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Farm Wages in Canada ( l ) , Queen's Printer, Ottawa, 1957 and 1965. (Catalogue 21-002) p. 2. 5 necessary to restrict the supply of milk for the f l u i d trade in Vancouver Milkshed by reducing quotas by 35 per cent. In addition, quotas were tied to f l u i d milk u t i l i z a t i o n rather than to the amount of excess quota milk produced. This had the effect of what the dairymen termed "freezing" the quotas, as the amount of excess milk produced had l i t t l e effect on quota increases. It i s l i k e l y that the adoption of innovations for increased production was thereby deterred. This may have been partly offset in 1962 when the Milk Board eased the restrictions on quota transfers by making the quotas themselves negotiable. This gave farmers who wished to expand production quickly, the possibility of doing so. III. AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION Most of the agricultural extension for dairy farmers in the Lower Fraser Valley i s carried out by the four d i s t r i c t agriculturists who are employed by the Agricultural Development and Extension Branch of the British Columbia Department of Agriculture and stationed at Cloverdale, Abbotsford, Mission and Chilliwack. The d i s t r i c t agri- culturists serve the farmers by conducting educational ac t i v i t i e s related to a wide variety of farm matters. The Canada Department of Agriculture Experimental Farm at Agassiz makes a contribution to the Dairy industry primarily by conducting research, however, some extension 6 i s carried on by preparing and distributing a quarterly publication, Research Review and by providing information to farmers who v i s i t the establishment. IV. PURPOSES OF THE STUDY This study sought to determine the factors that are associated with innovativeness among the dairy farmers of the Lower Fraser Valley. In addition i t investigated the length of time spent in the adoption process; innovation rejection and discontinuance; the reasons for delay in proceeding through the adoption process, rejection and discontinuance; and the extent of contact between the dairymen and the d i s t r i c t agriculturist. V. LITERATURE REVIEW The pattern of behaviour whereby an individual adopts an innovation i s very complex. Before the adoption process even begins, factors are present which w i l l affect not only the decision to reject or adopt but also the rate of adoption. These factors include characteristics of the individual and his perception of the situation into which the innovation w i l l have to f i t . Throughout the adoption process, two additional factors: sources of information and character- i s t i c s of the innovation, influence the decision to reject 7 or adopt and the r a t e of adoption. Each of these f a c t o r s i n t e r a c t s w i t h others and each i s a c t u a l l y a complex of f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g the adoption process. D e f i n i t i o n s Throughout the study the f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n s by Rogers 0 are used: An i n n o v a t i o n i s an i d e a perceived as new by the i n d i v i d u a l . Adoption i s a d e c i s i o n t o continue f u l l use of an i n n o v a t i o n . The adoption process i s a mental process through which 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 in n o v a t i o n to f i n a l adoption. A S o c i a l system i s a pop u l a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l s who are f u n c t i o n a l l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and engaged i n c o l l e c t i v e problem-solving behaviour. Rate o f adoption i s the r e l a t i v e speed w i t h which an in n o v a t i o n i s adopted by members of a s o c i a l system. Innovativeness i s the degree t o which 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 adopting new ideas than other members of h i s s o c i a l system. Adopter c a t e g o r i e s are the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of i n d i v - i d u a l s w i t h i n a s o c i a l system on the b a s i s of i n n o v a t i v e n e s s . °E.M. Rogers, D i f f u s i o n o f Innovations, The Free Press of Glencoe, New York, 1962, pp. 12 - 20. 8 Stages i n the Adoption Process People do not o r d i n a r i l y adopt an innovation immediately upon becoming aware of i t s existence. The adoption of an innovation involves a mental process made up of a series of stages. Beal et a l . ^ concluded that the concept of stages i s v a l i d from the evidence that they appeared meaningful to the adopters and that the adopters were aware that they did go through a series of stages as they progressed toward adoption. The stages which have gained acceptance by adoption research workers are as follows: !• awareness - the i n d i v i d u a l gains f i r s t knowledge about the innovation but lacks complete information about i t . 2 . i n t e r e s t - the active seeking of extensive and detailed information about the innovation. 3 * evaluation - the i n d i v i d u a l mentally applies the innovation i n h i s present and anticipated future s i t u a t i o n and decides whether or not to t r y i t . 4 * t r i a l - the tentative t r y i n g out of the innovation, often on a small scale, to determine i t s u t i l i t y i n a s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n . 5 » adoption - the decision to continue f u l l use of the innovation. 7G.M. Beal, E.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 . 2 2 , no. 2 (June 1 9 5 7 ) , pp. 166-168. 9 Rogers** indicates that this breakdown i s consistent with the nature of the phenomena, congruent with previous research findings and potentially useful for practical applications. He points out that there are not necessarily only five stages in the adoption process but that at the present time there seem to be five main functions involved and each of these i s assigned a stage. Innovativeness Innovativeness i s a continuous dimension in that individuals adopt a new idea at different times. When plotted over time, adoption of an innovation by a social system tends to conform to the bell-shaped curve. Therefore, i t i s possible to classify adopters in terms of standard units. In the past a variety of adopter category systems and t i t l e s were used in research but the system developed by Rogers^ seems to have won considerable acceptance. He partitioned the adopters into five categories from the f i r s t to the last to adopt as follows: 1. innovators - 2.5 per cent 2. early adopters - 13*5 per cent 3. early majority - 34*0 per cent 4« late majority - 34*0 per cent 5. laggards - 16.0 per cent &E.M. Rogers, op. c i t . . p. 79* 9lbid. pp. 161-163. 10 with these categories i t i s possible to compare adopters on the basis of innovativeness. The dominant values given to each category by Rogers-^ are: innovators, venturesome; early adopters, respectful; early majority, deliberate; late majority, skeptical; and laggards, traditional. The earlier adopters tend to have larger farms, higher incomes, more specialized operations and more cosmopolite relation- ships than the later adopters. Sources of Information Many sources of information on innovations are available to farmers but use of them varies in relation to the stage in the adoption process that the farmer i s in, his adopter category and the characteristics of the innovation• Sources of information have been categorized in a variety of ways. The basis on which some categories have been established are as follows: personal and impersonal; localite and cosmopolite; and mass media, agricultural agencies, commercial sources and informal sources. Beal and Rogers-1"1- have combined two methods of categorization to form six categories: mass media-impersonal, agricultural 10E.M. Rogers, op. c i t . p. 1 9 2 . 1:LG.M. Beal and E.M. Rogers, The Adoption of Two Farm Practices in a Central Iowa Community, Iowa State University, Ames, CEowa, June I960, (Special Report No. 2 6 ) p. 5» 11 agency-impersonal, commercial-impersonal, agricultural agency-personal, commercial-personal and informal-personal* Rogersl 2 makes the following generalizations which are supported by many studies: impersonal and cosmopolite information sources are most important at the awareness stage and personal and localite sources are most important at the evaluation stage in the adoption process. Lionberger^-3 indicates that at the awareness and interest stages, mass media i s most important; at the evaluation and t r i a l stages, friends and neighbors are the most important; and at the adoption stage, friends and neighbors are the most important factor in continued use of the innovation. In regard to adopter categories and sources of information used, Rogers 1^ offers four generalizations: Impersonal sources of information are more important than personal sources for relatively earlier adopters of innovations than for later adopters. Cosmopolite sources of information are more important than locali t e sources for relatively earlier adopters than for later adopters. Earlier adopters u t i l i z e a greater number of different information sources than do later adopters. I^E.M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press of Glencoe, New York, 1962, pp. 99-102. ^H.F. Lionberger, Adoption of New Ideas and Practices. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, I960, pp. 25-32. 1/fE.M. Rogers, OP. c i t . pp. 179-182. Characteristics of Adopters and Their Farms 12 The reason why some farmers adopt innovations more quickly than others relates in part to their personal characteristics and the characteristics of the situation they find themselves i n . Numerous studies have been conducted to identify characteristics related to innovative- ness. There i s general agreement that early adoption of innovations, compared with late adoption, i s associated with: younger age, cosmopoliteness, a more favorable financial position, willingness to take risks, more special- ized operation, larger size of farm, greater amount of farm knowledge, use of hired labour, higher social status and more social participation. Exceptions to the above occur. For example, a study by Hoffer and Strangland-^ showed that age was negatively associated with the adoption of certain improved practices and for other practices there was no significant association with age. Researchers are not in complete agreement as to the influence that family factors, ethnic origin, length of farming experience, non-farm employment, tenure and years of schooling have on adoption of innovations. In regard to years of schooling, many studies that related social status with innovativeness also found •^C.R. Hoffer and D. Strangland, "Farmers* Attitudes and Values in Relation to Adoption of Approved Practices in Corn Growing", Rural Sociology, vol. 23 (June 195^)» P» 5« 1 3 schooling to be related to innovativeness. Since education i s an aspect of social status, i t was not known i f education was independently related. Photiadis l D helped c l a r i f y the issue by showing that when social and economic variables were controlled, adoption of farm practices was not related to years of formal education. He stated that years of early formal education differentiated farmers concerning social and economic characteristics. If, for example, there was a choice between 8 and 12 years of education, higher socio-economic status families would tend to have their children complete 12 years. Lionberger 1? suggested that the kind of schooling (e.g. vocational agriculture training) appears more important than the amount and also, that favorable orientation for acceptance of new practices may be gained outside the school-room. Verner and Millerd-^ studied several dimensions of education in relation to innovativeness. They found that educational level and high school agriculture courses were not significant in terms of adopter categories but that university courses in agriculture •*-DJ.D. Photiadis, ̂ Motivation, Contacts and Technological Change", Rural Sociology, vol. 2 7 (December 1 9 6 2 ) , pp. 3 2 4 - 3 2 5 . -^H.F. Lionberger, op. c i t . . pp. 1 7 and 9 7 . l 8 C . Verner and F.W. Millerd, Adult Education and the Adoption of Innovations by Orchardists in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia. Department of Agricultural Economics, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., i960. (Rural Sociological Monograph # 1 ) , pp. 7 3 and 7 4 * 14 and adult education courses were significant* They propose that recency of educational experience and relevance of the content to the particular social system are the important attributes of education. Characteristics of Innovations The spread of an innovation i s not simply a matter of economic advantage. Hoffer and Strangland 1^ state that the profit motive appears to be not enough to cause a l l farmers to adopt a practice. Economic factors may be of greater importance i n a modern than a traditional social system but adoption depends on how individuals perceive a l l aspects of the innovation. Rogers 2 0 gives five different characteristics of innovations: relative advantage, the degree to which an innovation i s superior to ideas i t super- sedes; compatibility, the degree to which an innovation i s consistent with existing values and past experiences of the adopters; complexity, the degree to which an innovation i s relatively d i f f i c u l t to understand and use; d i v i s i b i l i t y , the degree to which an innovation may be tried on a limited basis; and communicability, the degree to which the results 19cR. Hoffer and D. Strangland, op. c i t . , p. 4* 20E.M. Rogers, op. c i t . , pp. 124-133- 15 of an innovation may be diffused to others. These ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of an innovation, as perceived by members of a s o c i a l system, af f e c t i t s rate of adoption. The r e l a t i v e advantage of an innovation may be emphasized by a c r i s i s . Wilkening 2^- indicated that poor weather f o r curing hay resulted i n a remarkable increase i n the proportion of farmers adopting the use of grass si l a g e . Rate of Adoption The r e l a t i v e speed with which an innovation i s adopted by members of a s o c i a l system varies considerably with the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the innovation, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n d i v i d u a l s , the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t and the s o c i a l system norms. The rate of adoption of an innovation i s measured i n terms of the number of years taken f o r a ce r t a i n percentage of members i n a s o c i a l system to adopt an innovation. Many studies indicate that the adoption of a new farm practice follows a bell-shaped curve over time. On a cumulative basis, t h i s type o f ^ d i s t r i b u t i o n i s "S" shaped. There i s a slow rate at f i r s t , then a rapid rate and f i n a l l y a decreasing rate of adoption. The r e l a t i v e importance of compatibility and p r o f i t - a b i l i t y (an aspect of r e l a t i v e advantage) of an innovation Wilkening, Adoption of Improved Farm Practices - As Related to Family Factors» University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1953* (Research B u l l e t i n 183) p. 13• 16 in explaining the rate of adoption does not appear to be completely clear. In order to receive consideration by most individuals, innovations must be perceived as economically profitable. However, there seems to be agreement on the fact that both p r o f i t a b i l i t y and compatibility are key variables influencing the rate of adoption. Another important factor influencing the rate of adoption i s the interaction effect. The greater the number who have adopted an innovation the greater the interaction effect on those who have not adopted. Therefore, the rate of adoption i s related to the interaction effect as measured by the cumulative per cent of adoption. Rogers 2 2 states that i t i s through interaction with others that individuals in a social system internalize the relative advantage of an idea, as well as i t s other characteristics. Adoption Period The time elapsing from awareness of an innovation to adoption for an individual can be measured in days, months or years. Presumably use of mass media to diffuse ideas should make a l l members of a social system become aware of new ideas at about the same time. However, Beal and Rogers 2^ E.M. Rogers, op. c i t . . p. 142. 23G.M. Beal and E.M. Rogers, The Adoption of Two Farm Practices in a Central Iowa Community, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, June I960, (Special Report No. 26) p. 8. 17 show a nine year range in reported times of awareness of 2 - 4 - D in a Central Iowa Community. This may be due to the tendency for individuals to expose themselves to commun- ications which tend to agree with their existing conditions. Nonadopters often know about an innovation but they are not motivated to try i t or adopt i t . That i s , awareness occurs at a more rapid rate than does adoption. Beal and Rogers2^- found that there were 1 . 7 years between 1 0 per cent awareness and 1 0 per cent adoption, but 3 . 1 years between 9 2 per cent awareness and 9 2 per cent adoption of 2 - 4 - D by Central Iowa farmers. The length of the adoption period varies with different innovations. For example, Rogers 2^ states that the average length of the adoption period for hybrid corn by 2 5 9 Iowa farmers was 9 « 0 years for 9 9 per cent adoption and the average length of the adoption period for Warfarin rat poison by 1 0 4 Ohio farmers was 0 . 8 years for 7 8 per cent adoption• A number of studies show that the awareness to t r i a l period i s longer than the t r i a l to adoption period. Also the awareness to t r i a l period i s shorter for relatively earlier adopters than for later adopters but the t r i a l to adoption period i s longer for relatively earlier adopters than for the later adopters. 2^Loc. c i t . 2 5 E . M . Rogers, op. c i t . . p. 1 0 5 . 18 T r a d i t i o n a l and Modern Norms Norms of a community or of a s o c i a l system have an important i n f l u e n c e on the r a t e of adoption of a new i d e a because the norms a f f e c t the behavior of the members. A community's norms e x i s t on a continuum between the two extremes or i d e a l types: t r a d i t i o n a l and modern. A community w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l norms l a g s behind a community w i t h modern norms i n : cosmopoliteness, education, t e c h - n o l o g i c a l development, economic r a t i o n a l i t y and a b i l i t y t o empathize. L i o n b e r g e r 2 6 i n d i c a t e s t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l ' s innovativeness v a r i e s d i r e c t l y w i t h h i s s o c i a l system norms on innov a t i v e n e s s . The t r a d i t i o n a l - m o d e r n dimension can be a p p l i e d at the i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l as w e l l as on the community l e v e l . Innovativeness of i n d i v i d u a l s i s r e l a t e d t o a modern o r i e n t a t i o n . Innovation R e j e c t i o n R e j e c t i o n i s a d e c i s i o n not t o adopt an i n n o v a t i o n . The r e j e c t i o n may occur at the awareness, i n t e r e s t , e v a l u a t i o n or t r i a l stage and may be temporary or permanent. Change agents u s u a l l y recommend i n n o v a t i o n s on the b a s i s of s c i e n t i f i c j u s t i f i c a t i o n but farmers do not always use t h i s b a s i s i n d e c i d i n g t o adopt or not t o adopt an i n n o v a t i o n . 'H.F. Lionberger, op. c i t . , pp. 6 9 - 7 3 1 9 M c M i l l i o n ^ and S h e p p a r d 2 8 found t h a t reasons given by farmers f o r r e j e c t i n g p r a c t i c e s q u i t e commonly showed a d e f i n i t e l a c k of knowledge i n regard t o the value of the p r a c t i c e . H o f f e r and S t r a n g l a n d 2 ^ i n d i c a t e d t h a t farmers* a t t i t u d e s and values were the most important f a c t o r s d e t e r r i n g use of i n n o v a t i o n s but t h a t f a c t o r s such as s i z e of farm or cost of the innov- a t i o n s a l s o deterred adoption. There are r e l a t i v e l y few s t u d i e s d e a l i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y w i t h r e j e c t i o n of i n n o v a t i o n s and i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o compare the f i n d i n g s because a d i f f e r e n t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f reasons f o r r e j e c t i o n i s used i n each study. Innovation Discontinuance Discontinuance i s a d e c i s i o n to cease use of an i n n o v a t i o n a f t e r p r e v i o u s l y adopting i t . Thus, by d e f i n i t i o n , discontinuance can occur only a f t e r the adoption process has been completed. The d i f f u s i o n o f s u p e r i o r i n n o v a t i o n s f o r c e s discontinuance of obselete p r a c t i c e s but d e c i s i o n s to stop u s i n g an i n n o v a t i o n can a l s o be made on i r r a t i o n a l b a s i s . Of 12 farm p r a c t i c e s s t u d i e d i n A l c o r n County, 2 7M.B. M c M i l l i o n , The Sources of Information and F a c t o r s Which Influence Farmers i n Adopting Recommended P r a c t i c e s i n Two New Zealand Counties. L i n c o l n C o l l e g e , U n i v e r s i t y of New Zealand, J u l y I960, ( T e c h n i c a l P u b l i c a t i o n No. 19), p. 3 1 . 2^D. Sheppard, "Farmers' Reasons f o r Not Adopting Contro- v e r s i a l Techniques i n Grassland Farming", J o u r n a l .of the B r i t i s h Grassland S o c i e t y , v o l . 1 6 , no. 1, (March 1961J, p. 1 3 . 2?C •R. Hoffer and D. Strangland, op. c i t . . p. 3 « 20 M i s s i s s i p p i by Silverman and Bailey,3° between 1954 and 1957, farmers dropped one p r a c t i c e f o r every two t h a t they adopted. Johnson and Van den Ban found t h a t during a f i v e year p e r i o d 176 Wisconsin farmers made 2 6 6 adoptions and 255 d i s c o n t i n - uances of 17 innovations.31 There were i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t few of these discontinuances were caused by supersedence. The above mentioned s t u d i e s d i d not gather data on reasons f o r discontinuances. Farmer-Extension Agent Contact i n R e l a t i o n to Adopter Category A l a r g e number of s t u d i e s show t h a t a g r i c u l t u r a l extension workers have more contact w i t h h i g h e r - s t a t u s than l o w e r - s t a t u s members of a s o c i a l system and i t i s w e l l known th a t s o c i a l s t a t u s i s p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o in n o v a t i v e n e s s . I n reference t o use of a g r i c u l t u r a l agencies as sources of i n f o r m a t i o n , L i o n b e r g e r ^ 2 s t a t e s t h a t e a r l y adopters maintain cl o s e contact, the m a j o r i t y g e n e r a l l y remain a l o o f and w i t h the laggards, a g r i c u l t u r a l agencies are v i r t u a l l y out of the p i c t u r e . Rogers and Capener^-* found t h a t farmers who had 3 0 L . J . Silverman and W.C. B a i l e y , Trends i n the Adoption o f Recommended Farm P r a c t i c e s - A l c o r n County. M i s s i s s i p p i . 1954-1957. M i s s i s s i p p i S t a te U n i v e r s i t y , A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n , M i s s i s s i p p i , A p r i l 1961, ( B u l l e t i n 617), p. 8. 31E.M. Rogers, op. c i t . . p. 90. 3 2H.F. Lionberger, op. c i t . . pp. 39-41* 33E.M. Rogers and H.R. Capener, The County Extension Agent and H i s C o n s t i t u e n t s . Ohio A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n , Wooster Ohio, June I960, ( B u l l e t i n 858), pp. 24-25. 2 1 higher adoption scores made s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r use of the county extension agent as a source of i n f o r m a t i o n . They showed the average number of contacts f o r each adopter category as f o l l o w s : innovators 2 . 6 7 , e a r l y adopters 3 * 6 4 , e a r l y m a j o r i t y 2 . 5 7 , l a t e m a j o r i t y 2 . 2 5 and laggards 1 . 3 5 • The innovators had l e s s contact w i t h the county extension agent than the e a r l y adopters but t h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the hypothesis t h a t innovators secure much of t h e i r i n f o r - mation d i r e c t l y from extension s p e c i a l i s t s and from research workers. 22 CHAPTER I I METHODOLOGY A f t e r completing the l i t e r a t u r e review, a r e p r e s - e n t a t i v e sample of the d a i r y farmers i n the Lower F r a s e r V a l l e y was drawn. Then an i n t e r v i e w schedule was prepared to gather i n f o r m a t i o n on adoption and non-adoption o f inn o v a t i o n s , sources of i n f o r m a t i o n used, socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and d a i r y m a n - d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t c o n tact. The respondents making up the sample were then i n t e r v i e w e d and the data analysed. I . THE SAMPLE For the purpose of t h i s study, d a i r y farmers are a l l those farmers who have m i l k quotas under the B r i t i s h Columbia M i l k Board r e g u l a t i o n s , t h a t i s , a l l farmers producing and s e l l i n g m i l k f o r f l u i d consumption.-*- In May 1965> when the sample was drawn, the M i l k Board l i s t contained the names of 1617 farmers. By usi n g T i p p e t t ' s 2 t a b l e s of random numbers a 6.2 per cent sample (100 respondents) was s e l e c t e d from the l i s t . An a d d i t i o n a l 3 per cent sample of a l t e r n a t i v e respondents was s e l e c t e d i n the same manner. ^-Excluded by t h i s d e f i n i t i o n are the managers of i n s t i t u t i o n a l farms and approximately 224 non-quota h o l d i n g dairymen who s e l l m i l k f o r manufacturing purposes o n l y . 2L.H.C. T i p p e t t , No. XV Random Sampling Numbers, Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, London, 1950. 2 3 The sample i n t e r v i e w e d i n t h i s study was t e s t e d against the M i l k Board l i s t t o determine i f i t was rep r e s - e n t a t i v e of the pop u l a t i o n of d a i r y farmers owning quotas. The M i l k Board l i s t had data on the po p u l a t i o n mean s i z e of quota and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the p o p u l a t i o n according t o quota s i z e . Therefore, i t was p o s s i b l e t o perform two s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s . The f i r s t t e s t concerned the sample and population mean s i z e of d a i l y m i l k quota which was 5 0 2 . 3 and 5 2 0 . 4 pounds r e s p e c t i v e l y . Using a t e s t concerning means, the n u l l hypothesis was advanced t h a t the sample mean was the same as the po p u l a t i o n mean a t the . 0 5 l e v e l of si g n i f i c a n c e . - ^ The z value obtained was - . 3 5 9 6 * Therefore, the hypothesis t h a t there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the sample and p o p u l a t i o n mean s i z e of d a i l y m i l k quota was accepted. The second t e s t compared the sample frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n , according t o the s i z e of d a i l y m i l k quota, w i t h t h a t of the p o p u l a t i o n . The chi-square t e s t was c a r r i e d out usi n g the n u l l hypothesis t h a t there was no d i f f e r e n c e i n the sample and pop u l a t i o n frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n at the . 0 5 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Since the chi-square value 3The c r i t i c a l values used t o t e s t the n u l l hypothesis were t o r e j e c t the hypothesis i f z < - 1 . 9 6 o r z> 1 . 9 6 and accept the hypothesis i f - 1 . 9 6 < z < 1 . 9 6 where a x - u . s/ >J n~ (x" = sample mean, u = the p o p u l a t i o n mean, s = standard d e v i a t i o n o f the sample and n = the sample s i z e ) . 24 of 10.183 was lower than the c r i t i c a l value of 12.592, there was no significant difference in the two sets of frequencies. Table I gives more detail of the chi-square calculations. I I . THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE The interview schedule was designed to obtain information on factors which previous research has found related to the adoption of innovations, as well as, factors which were possibly related to the adoption of dairy farm innovations. A brief description of each section of the interview schedule follows. Characteristics of the Dairymen In this section questions were asked to find the respondent's age, marital status, number of children; educational level; agricultural training at high school, vocational school, university and through adult education a c t i v i t i e s ; adult education in subjects other than agri- culture; dairy farm work enjoyment; number of years in farming, in dairying, and on the present farm; year of immigration, ethnic origin and social participation. 2 5 Table I COMPARISON OF THE SAMPLE AND POPULATION FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS ACCORDING TO SIZE OF DAILY MILK QUOTA BY USE OF THE CHI-SQUARE TEST Size of Daily Milk Quota in Pounds Sample (n) Population (e) (n - e ) 2 e % 1 - 1 9 9 2 3 2 0 . 1 .4184 2 0 0 - 2 9 9 1 9 1 6 . 2 .4840 300 - 3 9 9 2 0 1 3 . 7 2 . 8 9 7 0 4 0 0 - 4 9 9 7 1 1 . 1 1 . 5 1 4 4 5 0 0 - 5 9 9 4 8 . 6 2 . 4 6 0 5 600 - 6 9 9 4 6 . 2 .7806 7 0 0 - 7 9 9 4 5 . 4 . 3 6 3 0 800 - 9 9 9 1 0 7 . 5 . 3 3 3 3 1 0 0 0 + 9 1 1 . 2 . 4 3 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 1 8 3 3 Characteristics of the Farms This section was devoted to determining total size of farm, improved acreage for dairying and non-dairying enterprises, tenure, size of milk quota, number of milking 26 cows, amount of milk sold, average production per cow. breed of the dairy herd, type of breeding, number of young stock raised, farm and non-farm work, amount of hired and family labour, non-farm income, family farm plus non-farm employment income, and the farm value as a going concern. Dairyman-District Agriculturist Contact Information was obtained on the most important ways in which dairyman-district agriculturist contact occurs. Included were the following types of contacts: the office v i s i t , telephone c a l l , farm v i s i t , meetings and f i e l d days, mailed information, radio announcements, and newspaper art i c l e s . The Community and Adoption Questions were used to determine each respondent's perception of the willingness of his community to adopt new dairy farm practices, his community's regard of innovators and his community's regard of laggards. Sources of Information Two parts of the interview schedule dealt with sources of information. A separate section sought to determine which sources of information were found to be most useful at each stage in the adoption process without 27 reference t o s p e c i f i c innovation?. Included i n the adoption s e c t i o n was a p a r t t o determine the sources of i n f o r m a t i o n used i n regard t o each of the i n n o v a t i o n s . Adoption o f the Innovations This s e c t i o n sought t o determine the stage i n the adoption process t o which the respondents had progressed f o r each of t e n i n n o v a t i o n s . A d d i t i o n a l questions were asked i n regard t o each i n n o v a t i o n t o f i n d out i f the respondents had r e j e c t e d the i n n o v a t i o n , delayed i n proceeding through the adoption process or d i s c o n t i n u e d u s i n g the i n n o v a t i o n . Reasons f o r these occurrences were recorded. As mentioned above, t h i s s e c t i o n a l s o determined the sources of i n f o r - mation used f o r each i n n o v a t i o n . The innovations used i n t h i s study were s e l e c t e d from a l i s t of more than f o r t y which were suggested by farm supply d e a l e r s and d a i r y farm s p e c i a l i s t s i n c l u d i n g the f o u r d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t s . The b a s i s f o r s e l e c t i o n was the general agreement by the d a i r y farm s p e c i a l i s t s t h a t the innovations were recommended and considered e s s e n t i a l f o r s u c c e s s f u l d a i r y farming and t h a t they had been introduced w i t h i n the past ten y e a r s . The f o l l o w i n g three m a s t i t i s c o n t r o l p r a c t i c e s were in c l u d e d i n the study: r e g u l a r t e s t i n g f o r m a s t i t i s at i n t e r v a l s such as once a week, once every two weeks or once every month; washing the udder of each cow w i t h a 28 separate s t e r i l i z e d c l o t h o r w i t h paper towels which were dipped i n t o a s t e r i l i z i n g s o l u t i o n ; and s t e r i l i z i n g the t e a t cups, between use on d i f f e r e n t cows, by r i n s i n g i n clean water and then d i p p i n g i n t o a s t e r i l i z i n g s o l u t i o n . Other innovations used i n the study were: i n s e c t i c i d e impregnated cords f o r f l y c o n t r o l , systematic warble f l y c o n t r o l f o r young stock and b u l l s , heat lamps f o r weak calves o r f o r calves born d u r i n g very c o l d weather, heated water bowls or tanks, a bulk b i n f o r concentrate feed, a hay c o n d i t i o n e r and a hay dr y e r . I I I . PROCEDURE P r e - t e s t o f the Interview Schedule F i v e d a i r y farmers l i v i n g i n the area but not in c l u d e d i n e i t h e r the sample or i n the l i s t of a l t e r n a t i v e respondents were int e r v i e w e d t o t e s t the schedule and t o enable the i n t e r v i e w e r t o gain experience i n i t s use. As a r e s u l t o f t h i s t e s t , a few improvements were made i n the schedule before the f i n a l form was p r i n t e d . Interviewing; The i n t e r v i e w i n g was conducted dur i n g the p e r i o d from May 31st t o J u l y 6, 1965. Because the farmers were extremely busy w i t h s i l o f i l l i n g and haying between t h e i r r e g u l a r m i l k i n g chores, i t was p o s s i b l e t o i n t e r v i e w only a few respondents each day. 29 The farmers were approached d i r e c t l y f o r i n t e r - viewing without attempting t o make appointments beforehand. By c o n t a c t i n g them i n t h i s way. i t was p o s s i b l e t o e x p l a i n the purpose of the study and t o e n l i s t t h e i r co-operation. I f they happened t o be too busy when the f i r s t v i s i t was made, an appointment was arranged f o r a l a t e r date. In cases of farmers not being home, repeat v i s i t s were made u n t i l the respondent was contacted and i n t e r v i e w e d . To complete the 100 i n t e r v i e w s , 194 farm v i s i t s were r e q u i r e d . The main d e c i s i o n maker on the farm was i n t e r v i e w e d . The questions were asked i n the same order and usi n g the same wording as given on the i n t e r v i e w schedule. Occas- i o n a l l y , re-wording was necessary t o f a c i l i t a t e understanding. Data was recorded i n the appropriate p l a c e s on the i n t e r - view schedule and checked f o r completeness at the end of each i n t e r v i e w . Although considerable persuasion was necessary t o e n l i s t the co-operation of some of the respondents, none of them refused t o be i n t e r v i e w e d . Four of the respondents i n the sample could not be in t e r v i e w e d due t o moving from the area or being i n h o s p i t a l . I n a d d i t i o n , f o u r immigrant respondents could not be in t e r v i e w e d p r o p e r l y because of language d i f f i c u l t i e s . E i g h t names from the a l t e r n a t i v e respondent l i s t were used i n place of those of the i n i t i a l sample who could not be i n t e r v i e w e d . 3 0 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA A f t e r having the i n t e r v i e w schedule data keypunched onto IBM cards, i t was processed by use of the 7 0 4 0 Computer at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Computer Center. Tests of s i g n i f i c a n c e were c a r r i e d out on the data t o determine i f r e l a t i o n s h i p s were t r u e f o r a l l d a i r y farmers or i f they were due t o chance. For each t e s t of s i g n i f i c a n c e , a n u l l hypothesis o f no d i f f e r e n c e was advanced u s i n g the . 0 5 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . That i s , i f we s t a t e t h a t there i s no d i f f e r e n c e between observed sample values and a corresponding p o p u l a t i o n parameter, there i s a f i v e percent chance t h a t there i s a d i f f e r e n c e . The f o l l o w i n g three s t a t i s t i c a l methods were used to t e s t f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e : Chi-square. This t e s t compares observed frequency values with expected frequency values i n contingency t a b l e s . P a r t i a l C o r r e l a t i o n . T h i s t e s t measures s e p a r a t e l y the r e l a t i o n s h i p between two v a r i a b l e s i n such a way t h a t the e f f e c t s of the other r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s are h e l d constant. D i f f e r e n c e between P r o p o r t i o n s . This t e s t i s used to decide i f the d i f f e r e n c e between two p r o p o r t i o n s i s s i g n i f i c a n t or whether i t may reasonably be a t t r i b u t e d t o chance. 3 1 V. PLAN OF THE STUDY The sequence of the remaining chapters i n t h i s study i s as f o l l o w s : d e s c r i p t i o n o f the sample i n terms of the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and the a s s o c i a t i o n o f the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w i t h each other; the establishment of adopter c a t e g o r i e s and the a n a l y s i s of t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and a n a l y s i s of the use of i n f o r m a t i o n sources; the a n a l y s i s o f i n n o v a t i o n adoption, r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance; the establishment of adoption tendency c a t e g o r i e s and a chapter summarizing and concluding the study. 32 CHAPTER I I I CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE Information on socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which previous research has a s s o c i a t e d w i t h adoption and r e j e c t i o n of i n n o v a t i o n s , was obtained from each respondent. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were grouped i n t o f o u r d e s c r i p t i v e c a t e g o r i e s : i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , economic ch a r a c t e r - i s t i c s , d a i r y m a n - d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t contact and community p e r c e p t i o n . The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n each of these c a t e g o r i e s was analysed by d e r i v i n g a per cent frequency distribution-*- and by measuring the a s s o c i a t i o n between p a i r s of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s through the use of p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s . The i n t e r v i e w schedule, contained i n Appendix I , g i v e s the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and Table I I shows 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 s . I . INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS Adoption score. A p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n e x i s t e d between adoption score and the f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s : enjoyment of d a i r y i n g , s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , number of •'-Since there were e x a c t l y 100 respondents i n the sample, the number of respondents i n each c l a s s f o r a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s the per cent. Adoption score Age Number o f c h i l d r e n E d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l Enjoyment of d a i r y i n g ; Tears of farming experience Years of d a i r y i n g experience Years on the present farm Year of immigration S o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n T o t a l s i z e of farm i n acres Improved acres devoted t o d a i r y i n g Improved acres f o r non-dairying e n t e r p r i s e s Tenure . "... Size of d a i l y m i l k quota Number o f cows i n the d a i r y herd Amount of m i l k s o l d Average production per cow Number of young d a i r y stock r a i s e d Amount of of f - f a r m work Amount of h i r e d labour used Amount of unpaid (family) l a b o u r used Income from other farm e n t e r p r i s e s Non-farm income Family farm p l u s o f f - f a r m employment income Farm value as a going concern V i s i t s t o d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t ' s o f f i c e Telephone c a l l s t o d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t Farm v i s i t s by d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t D i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t meetings and f i e l d days M a i l from d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t Radio announcements by d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t Newspaper a r t i c l e s by d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t a o • H -P © O O TJ O < 03 1 1.000 2 -.114 3 -.210 4 .102 5 .220 6 .124 7 .045 8 - .2Jtl 9 -.091 10 •216 11 -.134 12 .010 13 .097 14 .163 15 -.028 16 -.120 17 .064 18 -.047 19 •JtQO 20 -.143 21 -.082 22 -.009 23 -.291 24 .155 25 .223 26 .023 27 •2it6 28 .122 29 -.222 30 .053 31 .115 32 .076 33 -.069 © bO o a © u u 0) TJ 43 H S - H !•§ H 05 C O • H -P ctJH O CD 3 > •a © O 43 c bo © c • O - H G rt W T J bO bO •P C c c • H ry i ese  • H u <+H © CtJ Pk o TJ © «H C O • © O © <H C 4 3 *H o © •P (0 U •H U © 03 k G rt p. U © o rt a © X 01 - >-» © Ye ar  fa rm  1.000 -.020 1.000 • --.230 .169 .041 1.000 -.101 .472 1.000 .021 .042 .013 .332 - .135 1.000 -.054 -.101 .086 -.010 .259 .132 -.100 -.032 .222 .050 .031 -.030 .122 -.152 .010 .102 .165 .053 -.158 .089 -.090 -.031 .052 .112 -.123 -.122 -.063 -.051 .091 -.013 -.057 -.143 .060 .022 .054 .174 .006 .043 -.129 .016 -.159 • .023 -.020 .073 -.087 .321 -.103 .058 -.274 .025 -.089 -.232 -.070 .209 -.103 .321 -.093 .194 -.085 -.122 -.143 -.032 - 2 2 1 .224 -.047 -.070 -.017 .064 -.124 -.100 .147 .173 -.119 -.051 .054 -m .094 -.147 .147 .026 -.011 .051 -.007 -.066 - .151 .093 .086 .066 .092 -.015 -.120 -.105 -.017 -.032 .047 .032 -.097 .139 .086 .051 .092 .261 -.043 -.187 .148 .153 .093 .003 -.128 .107 -.165 .007 -.230 .280 -.142 .009 -.115 .048^ .014 .002 •205. .082 .026 .005 G o •H H u o u rt © 1.000 -.154 .023 -.070 .066 -.082 .120 -.086 .090 .007 .209 .121 -.146 .145 -.113 -.064 -.058 -.057 .207 -.016 -.141 .058 .032 .023 -.123 a o • H 43 rt Pk • H O • H t rt p. r H rt • H O O CO 1.000 -.005 .008 -.146 -.165 .257 -.092 -.064 -.061 -.117 -.006 .085 .208 •Ho .117 -.148 .127 .112 -.238 .127 .005 .082 .133 -.177 o © N •H 03 rt o O 43 T J © 43 O > © 03 © U o rt T J b 0 © G B « f H T J bO G '•rt h al l T J 1 G 0 G 0 <H 03 © O CO rt © 03 T J *H © U > P , O © © s a c H i © © 1.000 .559 1.000 .020 -.222 1.000 -.174 -.079 -.260 1.000 .014 .162 .029 .009 .108 -.270 -.024 -.018 -.178 .180 -.211 -.166 -.049 -.112 .141 .052 .129 .243 -.130 .033 -.014 -.132 -.157 .044 .277 .282 .233 .197 .143 -.037 .079 .255 .094 -.095 .m .089 .154 -.034 .102 -.077 -.017 .110 .166 .009 .158 .048 .485 .325 .136 .014 .279 -.001 .042 -.091 -.109 -.056 -.098 -.203 -.163 .049 -.129 .189 .044 .057 -.030 .164 .148 .200 -.180 .201 .153 .H5 .198 -.211 -.076 —057 rt 43 O g< M r H • H S >» H •H rt T J o © N • H 03 1.000 .069 .194 ..028 .000 ..061 ..076 • .201 -.114 •126 .301 ..187 .141 .157 -.061 -.132 ..140 .136 © 43 rt T J © 43 43 03 I O «H o u © 43 3 T J rH O 03 r H •H 6 <H O T J .© 03 • H rt 0 O 0 O 43 u 03 © p« >» U G •H 0 rt • H •3 43 hO O c T J rJ O . 0 U >> «H -© ; O rt :;: u © © > - 3 1.000 .042 -.165 .155 .004 -.126 .187 -.053 -.060 .091 .011 .003 -.054 .250 .063 ^.144 1.000 .077 -.168 -.135 .200 -.008 -.122 .116 -.186 -.026 .258 -.014 -.111 •004 *©42 2 o g rt 1 <^ «H o <H O - 43 c o 1.000 .272 .092 -.100 .m .023 ..098 .002 -.103 -.050 .182 .046 - » i '2i T J © 03 u o r H T J © o 43 a o 1.000 -.241 -.033 -.107 -.132 .038 -.088 .039 .190 .148 -.172 - .161 •144 xJ © 03 d I rt H H T J rt o 1.000 -.088 -.077 .138 -.069 -.045 .107 -.042 .086 -.212 - . 155 .262 © © © u o. u © 43 c © rt © 43 43 9 o u © c 1.000 .006 .222 -.111 •I2i .367 -.275 -.059 .052 .046 -.158 © B o o C rt I c o 1.000 -.019 -.046 -.081 -.002 .069 .010 -.179 -.067 »135 © u o o a • H © O r H s © I «H «H o 03 r H P . rt «H • > » r H 1.000 -.129 -.193 -.023 .290 -.074 .120 .002 .009 c u © o c o o bO • H o bo « 03 rt © H rt > rt Pl4 33 Table I I PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS NOTE: The un d e r l i n e d c o e f f i c i e n t s show a h i g h degree o f a s s o c i a t i o n . A s i g n i f i c a n c e t e s t f o r r was c a r r i e d out u s i n g the n u l l hypothesis of no c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h a .05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e . The t e s t i s based on the assumption t h a t under the n u l l hypothesis of no c o r r e l a t i o n , the sampling d i s t r i - b u t i o n of the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t can be approximated, c l o s e l y w i t h a normal curve having the mean 0 and the standard d e v i a t i o n l / / n - 1 where n s the sample s i z e . Therefore, the c r i t e r i o n i s t o r e j e c t the n u l l hypothesis i f i * < -I .96/ J n - 1 or r > I . 9 6 /y n - 1 ( i . e . i f 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 i s l e s s than -.197 or gr e a t e r than .197). © : o • H - <H P <H o o • H U O 4 3 - 03 43 • H © T J - H U O 3 43 43 © ^ 4 i O • H - H W Is • H hO > rt © 43 43 03 P H O 3 P 43 r H © 0 r H O O bO rt © J3 4? o o © 43 r H © © ' H EH T J 43 O • H J-i 43 © • H T J >s 43 43 © W - H +3 £ • H S © 43 11 O E ^ U U rt bO rt 1.000 .027 1.000 -.051 .271 1.000 .026 •140. •4£2 .045 -.094 .002 -.046 -.119 .106 -.036 -.114 -.042 -.054 .234 .022 © bO (3 •H 43 © © S •H 43 O © •H >» rt bOTJ 0 5 X J P r H O © •H *H b C H M T J • H C Q rt 43 03 • H U 43 r H O • H >U bO rt 43 o •ri U 43 03 * H TJ S O U «H rt 1.000 -.036 .146 .029 -.154 43 o •H 18 • H T J S» 43 W © © rt W B-ri O JH C! =3 J3 43 rtrtj o o •H - H TJ J-t rt fao P4 rt 43 o 43 w • H T J >» 4 3 © © r H a • H 43 43 U © rt-H © 43 CUrH rt 3 PH O W - H ? JH © bO s rt 1.000 .380 .158". -.28/ 1.000 -.256 • I S 1.000 •i28 1.000 34 young d a i r y stock r a i s e d , f a m i l y farm p l u s o f f - f a r m employment income and v i s i t s t o the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t ' s o f f i c e . T h i s means t h a t h i g h adoption scores are a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h i g h values of the f i v e v a r i a b l e s . On the other hand, there was a negative c o r r e l a t i o n between adoption score and number of c h i l d r e n , the number of years on the present farm, income from other farm e n t e r p r i s e s and farm v i s i t s by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t . That i s , a high adoption score was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h low values of these v a r i a b l e s . The p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n between adoption score and one type of d a i r y m a n - d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t contact and the negative a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h another type seems unusual. A p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n i s t h a t dairymen who are high adopters go t o the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t , whereas, low adopters wait f o r the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t t o come t o them. Age. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of the respondents according t o age was skewed toward the o l d e s t age groups. T h i r t y were more than f i f t y - f o u r years of age w h i l e only 14 were under t h i r t y - f i v e . The median was i n the 45 t o 54 age groups. A p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n e x i s t e d between age and the number of years of farming experience, the year of immig- r a t i o n and the amount of h i r e d labour used. Education. F i f t y - n i n e respondents had completed 5 t o 8 years i n sc h o o l , only 2 had completed s e n i o r m a t r i c - u l a t i o n and 1 had a u n i v e r s i t y degree. Ten respondents had 35 taken a g r i c u l t u r e courses i n h i g h school, 12 had taken v o c a t i o n a l school a g r i c u l t u r e courses and 28 had taken a d u l t education courses i n a g r i c u l t u r e . None of the respondents had taken a g r i c u l t u r e courses at u n i v e r s i t y . Dairymen w i t h a h i g h l e v e l of education tended t o have extensive s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n and a small amount of farming experience. This i s shown by l e v e l of education having a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n and a negative c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h the number of years of farming experience. En.iovment of d a i r y i n g . The respondents were asked i f they enjoyed d a i r y i n g . S i x t y answered yes, very much, 14 i n d i c a t e d not at a l l , and the remainder s a i d t h a t they enjoyed d a i r y i n g o c c a s i o n a l l y . More enjoyment from d a i r y i n g was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a greater production per cow and w i t h r e n t i n g r a t h e r than owning the farm. Enjoyment of d a i r y i n g has a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h the amount of o f f - f a r m work but a negative c o r r e l a t i o n with non-farm income. Farming and d a i r y i n g experience. The m a j o r i t y of the respondents had a considerable amount of farming and d a i r y i n g experience. Seventy-five had been farming twenty years or more and 54 had been d a i r y i n g twenty years or more. The longer a dairyman had been farming, the more d a i r y i n g experience and the more farm v i s i t s by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t he was l i k e l y t o have. On the other 36 hand, dairymen w i t h l o n g farming experience tended t o r a i s e few d a i r y young stock. There was a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the number of years d a i r y i n g experience and the number of years on the present farm. The number of years d a i r y i n g experience was n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o the amount of h i r e d l a b o u r used and t o read i n g m a i l sent by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t . Years on the present farm. S o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , the number of young d a i r y stock r a i s e d , the amount of h i r e d labour used and reading m a i l sent by the d i s t r i c t a g r i - c u l t u r i s t had a p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h the number of years on the present farm. A negative a s s o c i a t i o n e x i s t e d between average production per cow and the number of years on the present farm. Immigration. F i f t y - e i g h t of the respondents were immigrants. About o n e - t h i r d of these a r r i v e d i n Canada before 1945* Almost one-quarter (23) o f the respondents were immigrants from the Netherlands. S o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The m a j o r i t y of the respond- ents had a low score on the modified Chapin S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n S c a l e . 2 The median score was i n the 9 t o 16 c l a s s . 2The Chapin S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale a l l o c a t e s a score of 1 f o r an o r g a n i z a t i o n mnmbership, 2 f o r attendance, 3 f o r a c o n t r i b u t i o n , 4 f o r a committee membership and 5 f o r h o l d i n g an o f f i c e . The Scale was modified by f i n d i n g the average score f o r the past three years r a t h e r than t a k i n g the score f o r the past year o n l y . To be counted as an o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r the purposes of t h i s study, the 37 Greater s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l a r g e r s i z e of d a i l y m i l k quota, a l a r g e r amount of unpaid (family) labour used and income from o t h e r farm e n t e r p r i s e s . Negatively a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n was the number of telephone c a l l s t o the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t . I I . ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS Farm s i z e . The median t o t a l s i z e of farm was i n the 40 t o 69 acre c l a s s . The median amount of improved la n d ^ devoted t o d a i r y i n g was i n the same c l a s s . T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t most of the respondents' l a n d was improved and devoted t o d a i r y i n g . Though not found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h adoption score, the number of improved acres devoted t o d a i r y i n g was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a l a r g e number of v a r i a b l e s . In a p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n were: the number of young d a i r y stock r a i s e d , amount of h i r e d labour used, dairyman v i s i t s t o the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t ' s o f f i c e and l i s t e n i n g t o r a d i o announcements by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t . A negative a s s o c i a t i o n e x i s t e d between the number of improved o r g a n i z a t i o n had t o conduct more than one meeting per year. A l s o , church membership, attendance and c o n t r i b u t i o n were not i n c l u d e d i n the score but p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n s p e c i a l clubs o r a s s o c i a t i o n s w i t h i n a church was. 3lmproved l a n d i n c l u d e s area under crops, l a n d worked and seeded f o r pasture, roads and barnyards. 38 acres devoted t o d a i r y i n g and the number of acres devoted t o non-dairying, the number of cows i n the d a i r y herd, farm v i s i t s by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t and the reading of newspaper a r t i c l e s w r i t t e n by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t . I t i s s u r p r i s i n g t o f i n d t h a t as the number of acres devoted t o d a i r y i n g i n c r e a s e s , the number of cows i n the d a i r y herd decreases. T h i s seems t o i n d i c a t e t h a t farmers w i t h a small amount of improved l a n d f o r t h e i r d a i r y e n t e r - p r i s e concentrate t h e i r l a bour on a l a r g e number of cows and buy most of the feed r e q u i r e d . On the other hand, farmers w i t h a l a r g e amount of improved l a n d devoted t o t h e i r d a i r y e n t e r p r i s e spend more of t h e i r time growing feed f o r t h e i r cows and consequently they are able t o handle a smaller m i l k i n g herd. I n a d d i t i o n , the farms w i t h more l a n d devoted t o d a i r y i n g tend t o have more d a i r y young stock which may use a considerable amount of t h e i r l a n d and time. Improved l a n d f o r non-da i r y i n g . Only 18 o f the respondents had improved l a n d devoted t o non-dairying e n t e r p r i s e s . However, there was a p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n between the number of improved acres f o r non-dairying and the f o l l o w i n g : the amount of h i r e d labour used, income from other farm e n t e r p r i s e s , and the farm value as a going concern. The number of improved acres devoted t o non- d a i r y i n g was n e g a t i v e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the amount of m i l k s o l d and w i t h owning the whole farm or p a r t of i t . 39 Tenure. The m a j o r i t y (68) o f the respondents owned t h e i r farms, 10 rented the whole farm and 21 owned part and rented the remainder. Only one respondent was a h i r e d manager. Owning the whole farm o r part of i t had a p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h the amount of labour h i r e d , the amount of unpaid ( f a m i l y ) labour used, reading m a i l from the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t and the farm value as a going concern. Herd S i z e and m i l k p r o d u c t i o n . Many of the herds were small and, correspondingly, the quotas and amount of m i l k s o l d were low. The median number of cows i n the m i l k i n g herd was i n the 20 t o 29 c l a s s . T h i r t y - t h r e e respondents had fewer than 20 cows and only 2 had more than 100. The median d a i l y m i l k quota was i n the 300 t o 399 c l a s s and the median amount of m i l k s o l d was i n the 200,000 t o 299,999 c l a s s . Three respondents s o l d over 1 m i l l i o n pounds of m i l k d u r i n g 1964* The average m i l k production per cow was high, the median being i n the 9,500 t o 10,999 c l a s s . Only 13 respondents reported an average production of l e s s than 8,000 pounds per cow w h i l e 10 had an average production above 12,499 pounds. Dairymen having a l a r g e d a i l y m i l k quota a l s o tended t o s e l l a l a r g e amount of m i l k , t o have a hig h f a m i l y farm p l u s o f f - f a r m employment income and t o have a high farm value as a going concern. T h e i r income from other farm e n t e r p r i s e s tended t o be low. 40 The number of cows i n the d a i r y herd was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o more v a r i a b l e s than any other, even though i t was not r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o adoption score. The f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s had a p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h the number of cows i n the d a i r y herd; amount of m i l k s o l d , number of d a i r y young stock r a i s e d , amount of h i r e d labour used, f a m i l y farm p l u s o f f - f a r m employment income, m a i l from the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t and r a d i o announcements by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t . A negative a s s o c i a t i o n e x i s t e d between the number of cows i n the d a i r y herd and average production per cow, the amount of o f f - f a r m work, income from other farm e n t e r p r i s e s , attendance at meetings and f i e l d days sponsored by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t and reading newspaper a r t i c l e s w r i t t e n by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t • The l a r g e r the amount of m i l k s o l d the gr e a t e r t h e : average production per cow, income from other farm enter- p r i s e s and attendance at meetings and f i e l d days sponsored by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t . Farm l a b o u r . Seventy-eight respondents d i d not have any o f f - f a r m employment^ and only 5 were employed t h r e e - f o u r t h s t o almost f u l l time o f f t h e i r farms. F o r t y respondents d i d not h i r e any labour f o r t h e i r d a i r y ^Off-farm employment was work f o r which payment was r e c e i v e d . Therefore, exchange work between neighbors and f r i e n d s was not considered o f f - f a r m employment. 41 e n t e r p r i s e , 15 employed one or more men f u l l time, or the e q u i v a l e n t , ^ and the remainder engaged seasonal workers o n l y . T h i r t y farms d i d not use any unpaid ( f a m i l y ) labour but 33 used more than the equivalent of one-half year of unpaid l a b o u r . A p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n e x i s t e d between o f f - f a r m employment and amount of h i r e d labour used, non-farm income and f a m i l y farm p l u s o f f - f a r m employment income. I t seems t h a t farmers who wish t o seek o f f - f a r m employment h i r e l a bour t o do t h e i r farm work o r they f i n d t h a t they have excess labour which i s used f o r o f f - f a r m employment. The amount of h i r e d l a bour used was n e g a t i v e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the amount of unpaid ( f a m i l y ) l a b o u r . Income. Most of the respondents had s p e c i a l i z e d d a i r y o p e r a t i o n s . Only 18 r e c e i v e d income from farm e n t e r p r i s e s other than d a i r y i n g . S i x t y - e i g h t d i d not r e c e i v e any non-farm income and 8 had a non-farm income equal t o , or g r e a t e r than, t h e i r farm income. The median f a m i l y farm income 0 p l u s income from o f f - f a r m employment was i n the #2,500 t o $3*499 c l a s s . F o r t y - t h r e e r e p o r t e d t h e i r incomes t o be below t h i s c l a s s and only 10 i n d i c a t e d ^Many of the dairymen employed s e v e r a l workers f o r v a r i o u s lengths o f time during the year. The employment peri o d s of these workers was added t o give the eq u i v a l e n t i n terms of one worker employed f o r an extended p e r i o d of time. °Family farm income i s the gross farm income minus cash expenses. 42 f a m i l y farm p l u s o f f - f a r m employment incomes of more than $5,499. There was a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between income from other farm e n t e r p r i s e s and f a m i l y farm p l u s o f f - f a r m employ- ment income, v i s i t s t o the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t ' s o f f i c e and telephone c a l l s t o the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t . A negative a s s o c i a t i o n was found between farm v i s i t s by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t and income from other farm e n t e r p r i s e s . Farm value as a going concern. The median value the dairymen would pay t o own and operate t h e i r farms was i n the 149,950 t o 79,949 c l a s s . ? Three farms were valued at l e s s than $24,949 and nine were more than $150,950. I I I . DAIRYMAN-DISTRICT AGRICULTURIST CONTACT The number of contacts which each respondent had w i t h the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t , d u r i n g the year preceding the i n t e r v i e w , was obtained. There was more contact between the dairymen and the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t through mass media than through personal contact. The type of contact which had the highest frequency of use was m a i l from the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t . However, 'Farms near i n d u s t r i a l and urban centers tend t o have an i n f l a t e d v a l u e , whereas, farms removed from these centers tend t o have a lower market value even though they may be eq u a l l y p r o d u c t i v e . Since i t was d e s i r a b l e t o have a common measure of farm v a l u e , the respondents were asked the value of t h e i r farms as going concerns. 43 only t w o - t h i r d s of the dairymen i n d i c a t e d t h a t they had t h i s type o f contact. Farm v i s i t s by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t and dairymen attendance at meetings and f i e l d days sponsored by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t were the l e a s t used types of contact. Only 15 per cent of the dairymen had contact w i t h t h e i r d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t through each of these c o n t a c t s . The percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r each type of contact i s given i n Table I I I . Table I I I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF DAIRYMAN-DISTRICT AGRICULTURIST CONTACT Respondents Respondents Type of Contact who used the who d i d not contact use the contact V i s i t s t o the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t ' s o f f i c e 1o 25 1o 75 Telephone c a l l s t o the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t 27 73 Farm v i s i t s by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t 15 35 Attendance at meetings and f i e l d days sponsored by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t 15 35 M a i l from the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t 66 34 Radio announcements by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t 47 53 Newspaper a r t i c l e s by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t 55 45 44 There were a number of s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s among the d i f f e r e n t types of d a i r y m a n - d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t c ontact. For example, v i s i t s t o the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t ' s o f f i c e were a s s o c i a t e d p o s i t i v e l y w i t h telephone c a l l s t o , and farm v i s i t s by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t , as w e l l as, the reading of newspaper a r t i c l e s by the d i s t r i c t a g r i - c u l t u r i s t . There were a l s o strong p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n s between the f o l l o w i n g p a i r s of v a r i a b l e s : telephone c a l l s t o and farm v i s i t s by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t ; newspaper a r t i c l e s and r a d i o announcements by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t ; reading m a i l and newspaper a r t i c l e s w r i t t e n by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t ; and a t t e n d i n g d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t meetings and f i e l d days and reading m a i l from the d i s t r i c t a g r i - c u l t u r i s t . •An extension contact s c a l e , as e s t a b l i s h e d by Rogers and Capener,^ was used to measure the number of types of contact each respondent had w i t h h i s d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t . I t was found t h a t 12 respondents had no contact of any type and none of the respondents had a l l seven types of contact. On the average each respondent had 2.53 types of contact. The average number of contacts per adopter category were as f o l l o w s : laggard 1.55, l a t e m a j o r i t y 2 .69, e a r l y m a j o r i t y 2.80 and e a r l y adopter-innovator 2.88. -E.M. Rogers and H.R. Capener, The County Extension Agent and His C o n s t i t u e n t s . Ohio A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n , Wooster, Ohio, June i960, (Research B u l l e t i n 858) p. 14* 45 The d i s t r i b u t i o n of respondents by extension contact score i s shown i n Table IV. Table IV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY EXTENSION CONTACT SCORE Extension Contact Score Respondents 0 12 1 15 2 24 3 21 4 17 5 7 6 4 7 0 T o t a l 100 IV. COMMUNITY PERCEPTION The m a j o r i t y of the respondents f e l t t h a t t h e i r community was f a v o r a b l y disposed t o the adoption of new farm p r a c t i c e s . F i f t y - s e v e n i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e i r community was w i l l i n g t o adopt new d a i r y farm p r a c t i c e s 46 and only 11 f e l t t h a t t h e i r community was not very w i l l i n g . When asked how t h e i r community regarded those who t r y many new p r a c t i c e s , 44 r e p l i e d t h a t t h e i r community regarded them f a v o r a b l y and 5 i n d i c a t e d unfavorably. Most of the respondents f e l t t h a t t h e i r community regarded those who were slow t o adopt new farm p r a c t i c e s w i t h no f e e l i n g , however, 34 f e l t t h a t the community regarded them unfavor- a b l y . 47 CHAPTER IV ADOPTER CATEGORIES There was a wide range i n adoption and progress toward adoption of the t e n innovations by the respondents. Adopter c a t e g o r i e s were e s t a b l i s h e d so t h a t comparisons could be drawn among the respondents. The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among the adopter c a t e g o r i e s was accomplished through the use of Chi-square a n a l y s i s . I . CLASSIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS INTO ADOPTER CATEGORIES In order t o c l a s s i f y the respondents i n t o adopter c a t e g o r i e s , an adoption score was d e r i v e d f o r each respondent. The procedure used was t o a l l o c a t e a score f o r the stage i n the adoption process reached by the respondent f o r each i n n o v a t i o n . The scores a l l o c a t e d were as f o l l o w s : 0 f o r not being aware of the i n n o v a t i o n , 1 f o r awareness, 2 f o r i n t e r e s t , 3 f o r e v a l u a t i o n , 4 f o r t r i a l , and 5 f o r adoption. The scores which the respondent obtained f o r each of the innovations were added t o i n d i c a t e h i s o v e r a l l progress toward the adoption of the t e n i n - novations. I f a respondent adopted a l l ten i n n o v a t i o n s , h i s innovativeness score would be 50. The minimum o b t a i n - able score was 0 i f a respondent was not aware of any of the i n n o v a t i o n s . The range of innovativeness scores f o r the sample was from 6 t o 41. 43 Once the innovativeness scores were e s t a b l i s h e d , they were d i v i d e d i n t o c a t e g o r i e s on the b a s i s of standard u n i t s as proposed by Rogers.1 The mean score was 22.44 and the standard d e v i a t i o n 7.33• With these two s t a t i s t i c s the respondents were d i v i d e d i n t o standard u n i t i n t e r v a l s which represent the adopter c a t e g o r i e s . The c a t e g o r i e s and the c l a s s l i m i t s of the i n t e r v a l s were as f o l l o w s : l aggard - l e s s than the mean minus one standard d e v i a t i o n (0 t o 15), l a t e m a j o r i t y - the mean minus one standard d e v i a t i o n t o the mean (16 t o 22), e a r l y m a j o r i t y - the mean t o the mean p l u s one standard d e v i a t i o n , e a r l y adopter - the mean p l u s one standard A d e v i a t i o n t o the mean pl u s two standard d e v i a t i o n s (30 to 37) and innovator - g r e a t e r than the mean p l u s two standard d e v i a t i o n s (33 or more). Since there was only one respond- ent i n the innovator category, the e a r l y adopter and innovator category were combined and r e f e r r e d t o as the e a r l y adopter-innovator category. By using the Chi-square t e s t i t was found t h a t the d i s t r i b u t i o n of adoption scores approximated the normal curve. Table V g i v e s the observed and expected frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of the respondents i n the adopter c a t e g o r i e s as w e l l as the chi-square v a l u e . E.M. Rogers, D i f f u s i o n o f Innovations, The Free Press of Glencoe, New York, 1962, pp. 161-163. 49 Table V CLASSIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS INTO ADOPTER CATEGORIES Adopter Category C l a s s Number of Number of respondents (n - e)' bound- standard i n each category a r i e s d e v i a t i o n s e from the mean Expected (normal curve) frequency (e) Observed (sample) frequency (n) E a r l y adopter- innovator 29.77 +1 15.74 16 .004 E a r l y m a j o r i t y 22.44 0 34.13 35 .022 Late m a j o r i t y 15.11 - 1 34.13 29 .771 Laggard 15.74 20 1.153 Chi-square value 1.950 NOTE: The n u l l hypothesis t h a t the sample frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n approximated the normal curve d i s t r i b u t i o n was t e s t e d at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . The hypothesis was accepted s i n c e the obtained Chi-square value was below the c r i t i c a l value of 3.841. 50 I I . ANALYSIS OF THE DIFFERENCES AMONG THE ADOPTER CATEGORIES B i v a r i a t e t a b l e s of two and f o u r adopter c a t e g o r i e s against each socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c were e s t a b l i s h e d . The use of two c a t e g o r i e s , i n a d d i t i o n t o the f o u r , enabled comparisons t o be drawn between the l a t e r and e a r l i e r adopters. In forming the l a t e r adopter category, the laggards and l a t e m a j o r i t y were combined. The e a r l i e r adopter category was made up of the e a r l y m a j o r i t y and the e a r l y adopter-innovators. Since some c e l l s i n the o r i g i n a l b i v a r i a t e t a b l e s were zero o r very low, i t was necessary t o combine c l a s s e s o f data t o e l i m i n a t e the zero c e l l s and t o reduce t o 20 per cent or fewer the number of c e l l s having values of one t o f i v e before proceeding w i t h the a n a l y s i s . The Chi-square t e s t was then conducted on each of the t a b l e s . The r e s u l t s are shown i n Table V I . Appendix I I contains the b i v a r i a t e t a b l e s f o r which s i g n i f i c a n t Chi-square values were obtained. 51 Table VI CHI-SQUARE VALUES FOR BIVARIATE TABLES OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AGAINST TWO AND FOUR ADOPTER CATEGORIES - •- • • - Chi-square value Socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c Using 2 Using 4 Adopter Adopter Categories Categories Age 5.U0 3.786 Ma r i t a l status I . 9 6 I 3 . 1 9 0 Number of children 1 . 9 3 6 4.233 Educational l e v e l 3-038 4.921 Agriculture courses i n high school O . 3 6 O 2 - 9 0 3 Agriculture courses i n vocational school 0.005 8.631 Adult courses i n agriculture 1 . 4 6 9 2.824 Adult courses i n other subjects 0 . 0 3 1 0.093 Enjoyment o f l d a i r y i n g 9.091 6.831 Number of years farming experience 5.882 5*716 Number of years dairying experience 2.336 1.713 Number of years on present farm 3*686 8.017 Year of immigration 0*428 5*313 Ethnic o r i g i n 0 . 0 3 2 8.215 Social p a r t i c i p a t i o n 3*420 3*451 Total size of farm 1.866 9.441 Number of acres devoted to dairying 2.910 8 .311 Number of acres devoted to non- dairying enterprises 0.377 1.788 Tenure 1 . 3 2 1 2 . 4 3 5 Size of d a i l y milk quota 5*681 7 . 5 5 2 Number of cows i n the milking herd 4*794 8.O0O Amount of milk sold 4 . 4 6 5 7 . 6 4 4 Average production per cow 2.196 8.312 Breed of dairy c a t t l e 1.147 4*076 Number of dairy young stock raised 9*690* 9*984 Amount of farm and off-farm work 0.142 0.747 Amount of hired labour 2.219 0.068 Amount of unpaid (family) labour 4 * 3 0 1 14*062 Income from other farm enterprises 0.377 1.738 Income from off-farm sources 1 . 3 0 1 0.892 Family farm plus off-farm employment income 4.965 11.030 CONTINUED NEXT PAGE NOTE: The 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 class proportions between adopter categories was used at the . 0 5 l e v e l of signif i c a n c e . ^ S i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l . 52 Table VI (continued) CHI-SQUARE VALUES FOR BIVARIATE TABLES OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AGAINST TWO AND FOUR ADOPTER CATEGORIES Chi-square value Socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c Using 2 Using 4 Adopter Adopter Categories Categories Farm value as a going concern 2.266 6.574 V i s i t s t o d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t ' s o f f i c e 3-355 6.221 Telephone c a l l s t o the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t 0.336 2.081 Farm v i s i t s by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t 0.038 2.495 Attendance at meetings and f i e l d days sponsored by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t 3.522 4.003 M a i l from the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t 2.061 6.296 Radio announcements by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t 1.056 2.915 Newspaper a r t i c l e s by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t 3.221 1.317 Community w i l l i n g n e s s t o adopt 3.183 new d a i r y farm p r a c t i c e s H .193 1 Community regard of innovators I.O64 2.130, Community regard of laggards 7.910 12.138* NOTE: The underlined values are s i g n i f i c a n t . A n u l l hypothesis of no d i f f e r e n c e i n c l a s s p r o p o r t i o n s between adopter c a t e g o r i e s was used at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . ^ S i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l . Comments on each socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c having a s i g n i f i c a n t chi-square value are given below i n the order i n which they appear i n Table V I . To s i m p l i f y 53 comparison of the d i f f e r e n c e s between adopter c a t e g o r i e s , percentages r a t h e r than absolute values are used. A g r i c u l t u r e Courses at V o c a t i o n a l School Thirty-one per cent of the respondents i n the e a r l y adopter - innovator category had taken a g r i c u l t u r e courses at a v o c a t i o n a l school compared w i t h 15 per cent i n the laggard category. I t was s u r p r i s i n g t o f i n d , however, t h a t the percentage of laggards who had taken a g r i c u l t u r e courses at v o c a t i o n a l school was higher than f o r the l a t e m a j o r i t y and e a r l y m a j o r i t y c a t e g o r i e s . D a i r y Farm Work Enjoyment The e a r l i e r adopters enjoyed d a i r y i n g more than the l a t e r adopters and only 4 per cent of the e a r l i e r adopters d i d not enjoy d a i r y i n g at a l l compared w i t h 25 per cent of the l a t e r adopters. Number of Years Farming Experience The l a t e r adopters had more farming experience than the e a r l i e r adopters. More than twice as many e a r l i e r adopters had fewer than 20 years farming experience than the l a t e r adopters. T o t a l S i z e of Farm E i g h t y per cent of the laggard category had fewer than 70 acres compared w i t h o n l y 38 per cent i n the e a r l y adopter - innovator category. However, more of the e a r l y m a j o r i t y had fewer than 70 acres than the l a t e m a j o r i t y . 54 Average Production Per Cow F i f t y per cent of the e a r l y adopter - innovator category had an average production per cow of l e s s than 11,000 pounds and 50 per cent had an average production per cow of 11,000 pounds or more. This shows a great c o n t r a s t w i t h the laggard category which has 90 per cent w i t h an average production o f l e s s than 11,000 pounds per cow and 10 per cent w i t h 11,000 pounds or more. Number of Da i r y Young; Stock Raised The e a r l i e r adopters r a i s e d more d a i r y young stock than the l a t e r adopters. This i s shown by almost three times as many e a r l i e r adopters r a i s i n g 20 or more d a i r y young stock than the l a t e r adopters. Amount of Unpaid (Family) Labour F o r t y per cent of the laggard category d i d not use any unpaid ( f a m i l y ) labour compared w i t h 13 per cent of the e a r l y adopter and innovator category. The percentage i n both c a t e g o r i e s u s i n g more than one-half year of unpaid labour was about the same, but 50 per cent of the e a r l y adopter - innovator category used l e s s than one-half year of unpaid labour compared w i t h 20 per cent of the laggard category. Use of unpaid labour by the e a r l y m a j o r i t y was almost the same as use by the laggard category, i n s t e a d of being more l i k e the e a r l y adopter and innovator category. Family Farm and Off-Farm Employment Income The l a t e m a j o r i t y , e a r l y m a j o r i t y and e a r l y adopter - innovator c a t e g o r i e s were almost the same i n regard t o 55 f a m i l y farm and o f f - f a r m employment income. About o n e - t h i r d of each category had l e s s than $2500 and t w o - t h i r d s had $2500 or more income. This contrasted w i t h the laggard category which had t h r e e - f o u r t h s i n the low income c l a s s and one-quarter i n the high income c l a s s . V i s i t s t o the D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r i s t ' s O f f i c e Twice as many e a r l i e r adopters made one or more v i s i t s t o the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t ' s o f f i c e as the l a t e r adopters. The per cents were 33 and 16 r e s p e c t i v e l y . Community W i l l i n g n e s s t o Adopt New Da i r y Farm P r a c t i c e s More of the e a r l i e r than the l a t e r adopters f e l t t h a t t h e i r community was w i l l i n g to adopt new d a i r y farm p r a c t i c e s . F i f t y - s i x per cent of the e a r l y adopter- innovator category f e l t t h a t t h e i r community was w i l l i n g t o adopt new d a i r y farm p r a c t i c e s . Only 25 per cent of the laggard category f e l t t h i s way. I t was i n t e r e s t i n g t o f i n d t h a t 77 per cent of the e a r l y m a j o r i t y f e l t t h a t t h e i r community was w i l l i n g t o adopt compared w i t h 56 per cent of the e a r l y adopter - innovator category. Community Regard of Laggard More than twice as many of the e a r l i e r adopters f e l t t h a t t h e i r community regarded laggards unfavorably as compared with the l a t e r adopters. When f o u r adopter c a t e g o r i e s were considered, o n l y 10 per cent of the laggard category f e l t t h a t t h e i r community regarded laggards 5 6 unfavorably compared w i t h 3 1 per cent of the e a r l y adopter- innovator category and 5 4 P e r cent of the e a r l y m a j o r i t y category. 57 CHAPTER V SOURCES OF INFORMATION In the f i r s t s e c t i o n o f t ] i i s chapter a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system f o r the sources of i n f o r m a t i o n i s e s t a b l i s h e d t o serve as a b a s i s f o r a n a l y s i s . Succeeding s e c t i o n s are devoted t o the d i f f e r e n t i a l use of the in f o r m a t i o n sources by: stage i n the adoption process, adopter category, stage and adopter category, i n d i v i d u a l source and by i n n o v a t i o n . I . CLASSIFICATION OF THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION Two approaches t o the a n a l y s i s of the sources of in f o r m a t i o n were used. The f i r s t approach was according t o the nature of the a c t i v i t y w i t h which the source i s i d e n t i f i e d and the second was according t o the o r i g i n of the source. The c a t e g o r i e s , used w i t h the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the sources of i n f o r m a t i o n by nature of the a c t i v i t y , are as f o l l o w s : P e r s o n a l : The sources which i n v o l v e d i r e c t f a c e - t o - f a c e communication between the communicator and the r e c e i v e r enabling the r e c e i v e r t o question the communicator, and a l s o the sources which depend e n t i r e l y on the i n d i v i d u a l ' s observations. Mass: The sources which are a v a i l a b l e t o l a r g e numbers of i n d i v i d u a l s at any one time, having np; p r o v i s i o n f o r two-way communication. 53 I n s t r u c t i o n a l Group: these sources are educational a c t i v i t i e s i n v o l v i n g a number of i n d i v i d u a l s s i m u l - taneously. I n d i v i d u a l I n s t r u c t i o n a l : the sources t h a t conduct e d u c a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s f o r one person at a time. The second c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of sources of i n f o r m a t i o n , by o r i g i n of the source, i s given below. Government: the sources of i n f o r m a t i o n which are provided by the f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l governments. Commercial: the sources which i n v o l v e personal contact w i t h business agents as w e l l as the impersonal sources provided by business agencies. Farm O r g a n i z a t i o n : the sources sponsored by farm o r g a n i z a t i o n s . P e r s o n a l : t h i s category i s i d e n t i c a l w i t h the personal category used i n the f i r s t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . I n the f i r s t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i t i d e n t i f i e s the nature of the a c t i v i t y ( i . e . personal contact) w i t h which i t i s a s s o c i a t e d and i n the second c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i t i d e n t i f i e s the o r i g i n of the sources. Table V I I shows the category i n which each source of i n f o r m a t i o n i s placed f o r both c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems. Not a l l the i n f o r m a t i o n sources which were on the i n t e r v i e w schedule l i s t were used by the respondents. The ones t h a t were e l i m i n a t e d due t o not being used were: u n i v e r s i t y courses i n a g r i c u l t u r e , employees, Veterans Land 59 Table V I I CLASSIFICATION OF SOURCES OF INFORMATION Sources of Information C l a s s i f i c a t i o n bv Nature O r i g i n of the A c t i v i t y General farm magazines M C S p e c i a l d a i r y magazines M C B.C. Department of A g r i c u l t u r e p u b l i c a t i o n s M G Canada Department of A g r i c u l t u r e p u b l i c a t i o n s M G Radio M C T e l e v i s i o n M C Newspapers M C A g r i c u l t u r e f i e l d days IG G A g r i c u l t u r e meetings and a d u l t education courses IG G V o c a t i o n a l a g r i c u l t u r e courses IG G Farm Or g a n i z a t i o n meetings IG FO D i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t I I G V e t e r i n a r i a n I I C D a i r y Herd Improvement A s s o c i a t i o n s u p e r v i s o r I I FO Salesmen or deal e r s I I C V i s i t t o experimental farm I I G M i l k Vendor f i e l d man I I C Neighbors or f r i e n d s P P Wife, c h i l d r e n o r r e l a t i v e s P P Observation of other farms P P Foreign t r a v e l P P Own experience P P KEY Nature of the A c t i v i t y O r i g i n P: personal P: personal M: mass G; government IG: i n s t r u c t i o n a l group C: commercial I I : i n d i v i d u a l FO: farm i n s t r u c t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n 60 Act r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , Farm C r e d i t Corporation and v i s i t s t o the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. In a d d i t i o n , only a small amount of use was made of Mainland Dairyman's A s s o c i a t i o n meetings, F r a s e r V a l l e y M i l k Producers Assoc- i a t i o n meetings and l i v e s t o c k o r g a n i z a t i o n meetings. Therefore, these sources of in f o r m a t i o n were grouped together and c a l l e d farm o r g a n i z a t i o n meetings. I I . INFORMATION SOURCE USE BY STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS There was considerable d i f f e r e n c e i n source use between stages i n the adoption process f o r both c l a s s i f - i c a t i o n systems. An a n a l y s i s of the v a r i a t i o n i n source use f o r each c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s given below. Source Use by Nature of the A c t i v i t y At the awareness stage mass sources were most important, at the i n t e r e s t stage i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l and p e r s o n a l sources were about e q u a l l y important and f o r the remaining stages i n the adoption process personal sources were most important. Mass and i n s t r u c t i o n a l group sources accounted f o r l e s s than 9 per cent of the sources used from the i n t e r e s t t o t r i a l stage and were not used at the adoption stage. Personal and i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l sources accounted f o r more than 91 per cent of the sources used from the i n t e r e s t t o t r i a l stage and made up 100 per cent of the sources used at the adoption stage. F i g u r e 1, which i s a graph of Table LXVIII i n Appendix I I I , i l l u s t r a t e s the d i f f e r e n c e s i n source use by stage i n the adoption process, when the sources are c l a s s i f i e d by the nature of the a c t i v i t y . 61 Figure 1 PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BY STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY 100 T Awareness I n t e r e s t E v a l u a t i o n T r i a l Adoption KEY Personal Mass I n s t r u c t i o n a l Group I n d i v i d u a l I n s t r u c t i o n a l • Tests of s i g n i f i c a n c e of the d i f f e r e n c e between two pr o p o r t i o n s were conducted t o determine i f the v a r i a t i o n i n source use between stages was s i g n i f i c a n t . The r e s u l t s , given i n Table V I I I , show th a t many of the v a r i a t i o n s were s i g n i f i c a n t , t h a t i s , they could not reasonably be a t t r i b u t e d t o chance. 62 Table V I I I z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENCE OF INFORMATION SOURCE USE BETWEEN STAGES IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY • ' Stage I n t e r e s t E v a l u a t i o n T r i a l Adoption Personal Awareness -2.95 x I n t e r e s t E v a l u a t i o n T r i a l Mass Awarene s s 7.66* I n t e r e s t E v a l u a t i o n T r i a l I n s t r u c t i o n a l Group Awareness 1.10 I n t e r e s t E v a l u a t i o n T r i a l I n d i v i d u a l I n s t r u c t i o n a l Awareness I n t e r e s t E v a l u a t i o n T r i a l -5.12* -8.14 -5JL5_2 x ,x;: 3.16* 0.39 1.74 0.73 0.06 5.13* -5 . 2 2 * - 2 U Z 3.23* 3.65 K 2t01 1.23 2.13 1.23 0.64 1.35 -3.93* -10.12* - Z L Z i * -2*31* -5.76* 3.30* 2.44 1.80 0.34 2.42 1.62 1.10 0.63 2.11 6.76* 2.06 NOTE: The underlined values are s i g n i f i c a n t . The t e s t of s i g n i f i c a n c e of the d i f f e r e n c e between two propo r t i o n s was used w i t h the n u l l hypothesis t h a t there was no d i f f e r e n c e i n the use of a source between stages at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . The c r i t e r i o n used t o t e s t the n u l l hypothesis was t o r e j e c t i t i f z< - 1 . 9 6 or z> 1 . 9 6 and accept i t i f -1 .96< z £1 .96 where 63 z = x-̂  _ X 2 ( * i * per cent use of a source n i n2 at one stage, X2= per cent use of the same source at another p ( l - p) I • 1 n i n2 stage, n s 100 per cent and p = x l * x 2 n i + n 2 xThese z values are s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l . That i s , the c r i t i c a l values used t o t e s t the n u l l hypothesis were: r e j e c t the hypothesis i f z< -2.58 or z> 2.58 and accept i t i f -2.£8£ z <2.58. Source use by o r i g i n At the awareness stage commercial sources were most important, and from the i n t e r e s t t o adoption stage greatest use was made of personal sources. Very l i t t l e use was made of farm o r g a n i z a t i o n sources. Government sources r e c e i v e d t h e i r highest use at the i n t e r e s t stage.and d e c l i n e d i n use t o the adoption stage. Figure 2, which i s a graph of Table M I X i n Appendix I I I , i l l u s t r a t e s the v a r i a t i o n i n source use by stage i n the adoption process when the sources are c l a s s i f i e d by o r i g i n . 64 Figure 2 PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BY STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN ioor i t r , • , . , 1 i \ Awareness I n t e r e s t E v a l u a t i o n T r i a l Adoption KEY Personal Government Commercial • Farm O r g a n i z a t i o n .... The r e s u l t s of s i g n i f i c a n c e of the d i f f e r e n c e between two pr o p o r t i o n s t e s t s f o r source use between stages i n the adoption process, are given i n Table IX. 65 Table IX z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENCE OF INFORMATION SOURCE USE BETWEEN STAGES IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN Stage ; I n t e r e s t E v a l u a t i o n T r i a l Adoption Personal Awareness -2.95* -8.14* -5.22* -10.12* I n t e r e s t -5.52* -2.37 -7.75* E v a l u a t i o n 3.28* -2.85* T r i a l -5.76* Government Awareness -2.38 0.51 O.53 1.67 I n t e r e s t 2.85* 2.88* 3.87* E v a l u a t i o n 0.03 1.19 T r i a l ' 1.16 Commercial Awareness 4.41* 7.88* 4.61* 9.44* I n t e r e s t 3.92* 0.21 5.97* E v a l u a t i o n -3.73* 2.84* T r i a l 5.80* Farm O r g a n i z a t i o n Awareness 0.91 1.39 1.39 1.39 I n t e r e s t 0.71 0.71 0.71 E v a l u a t i o n 0.00 0.00 T r i a l 0.00 NOTE: The un d e r l i n e d values are s i g n i f i c a n t . For a more d e t a i l e d e x p l a n a t i o n see the note f o l l o w i n g Table V I I I . * S i g n i f i c a n t a t the .01 l e v e l . 66 I I I . INFORMATION SOURCE USE BY ADOPTER CATEGORY JSach adopter category was the same i n regard t o the r e l a t i v e importance of the sources of i n f o r m a t i o n under each c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system. C l a s s i f i e d by the nature of the a c t i v i t y , the sources of i n f o r m a t i o n from most t o l e a s t used were: p e r s o n a l , i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l , mass and i n s t r u c t i o n a l group. When c l a s s i f i e d by o r i g i n , the sources from most t o l e a s t used were: p e r s o n a l , commercial, government and farm o r g a n i z a t i o n . A d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of the v a r i a t i o n i n source use by adopter category f o r each c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system i s given below. Source Use by Nature of the A c t i v i t y The v a r i a t i o n i n source use by adopter category was not l a r g e . There was a gradual decrease of about 11 per cent i n personal source use from the laggard t o the e a r l y adopter-innovator category. The laggard category used about 6 per cent l e s s i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l sources than the other c a t e g o r i e s . Mass sources were used l e a s t by the e a r l y m a j o r i t y and most by the e a r l y adopter-innovator category but the d i f f e r e n c e was only s l i g h t l y more than 2 per cent. Use of i n s t r u c t i o n a l group sources was extremely low f o r a l l c a t e g o r i e s but was highest f o r the e a r l y adopter- innovator category. The v a r i a t i o n i n source use by adopter category i s i l l u s t r a t e d by Figure 3 which i s a graph of Table LXX i n Appendix I I I . 67 Figure 3 PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BY ADOPTER CATEGORY WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY 70 60 " 50 • 40 •• 30 •• 20 •• 10 • Laggard Late E a r l y M a j o r i t y M a j o r i t y E a r l y Adopter- Innovator KEY Personal I n d i v i d u a l I n s t r u c t i o n a l • Mass I n s t r u c t i o n a l Group Tests of s i g n i f i c a n c e of the d i f f e r e n c e between two pro p o r t i o n s were conducted t o determine i f the v a r i a t i o n i n source use between adopter c a t e g o r i e s was s i g n i f i c a n t . The r e s u l t s , given i n Table X, show tha t none of the v a r i a t i o n s i n source use are s i g n i f i c a n t . 68 Table X z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENCE OF INFORMATION SOURCE USE BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY Adopter category Personal Laggard Late m a j o r i t y E a r l y m a j o r i t y Mass Laggard Late m a j o r i t y E a r l y m a j o r i t y I n s t r u c t i o n a l Group Laggard Late m a j o r i t y E a r l y m a j o r i t y I n d i v i d u a l I n s t r u c t i o n a l Laggard Late m a j o r i t y E a r l y m a j o r i t y Late E a r l y E a r l y m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter- innovator 0.86 -0.04 0.56 -1.17 1.10 0.24 0.08 0.11 -0.09 -O.65 •1.33 -0.16 1.55 0.69 0.45 -0.35 -0.31 -0.42 -0.53 -1.07 -0.44 -1.30 -0.13 0.03 NOTE: None of the values are s i g n i f i c a n t . For a d e t a i l e d explanation of the t e s t and n u l l hypothesis see the note f o l l o w i n g Table V I I I . 69 Source use by o r i g i n A l a r g e amount of use was made of personal sources but very l i t t l e of farm o r g a n i z a t i o n s * However, both these sources d e c l i n e d i n use from the laggard t o the e a r l y adopter and innovator category. Use of commercial sources was almost the same f o r a l l the c a t e g o r i e s . Only government sources showed considerable v a r i a t i o n i n use. For these sources there was a s e q u e n t i a l increase from the laggard t o the e a r l y adopter and innovator category. The laggard category made l e s s than h a l f as much use of government sources as the e a r l y adopter-innovator category. Figure 4, which i s a graph of t a b l e LXXI i n Appendix I I I , i l l u s t r a t e s the v a r i a t i o n i n source use by adopter category. 70 Figure 4 PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BY ADOPTER CATEGORY WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN 70- 6 0 " 50 • 40 - 3 0 " 20- 10 •• Laggard Late E a r l y E a r l y Adopter- M a j o r i t y M a j o r i t y Innovator KEY Personal Government Commercial — Farm Organization Tests of s i g n i f i c a n c e of the d i f f e r e n c e between two propo r t i o n s were conducted t o determine i f the v a r i a t i o n i n source use between adopter categories was s i g n i f i c a n t . The r e s u l t s , given i n Table X I , show t h a t only one of the values i s s i g n i f i c a n t . T h i s value i s deriv e d from the d i f f e r e n c e between the p r o p o r t i o n of the laggard category and the e a r l y adopter-innovator category u s i n g government sources. Table XI z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENCE OF INFORMATION SOURCE USE BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN Adopter category Personal Laggard Late m a j o r i t y E a r l y m a j o r i t y Commercial Laggard Late m a j o r i t y E a r l y m a j o r i t y Government Laggard Late m a j o r i t y E a r l y m a j o r i t y Farm Or g a n i z a t i o n Laggard Late m a j o r i t y E a r l y m a j o r i t y Late E a r l y E a r l y m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter- innovator 0.36 -0.26 -1.19 0.30 1.10 0.24 •0.02 0.24 -1.92 •0.75 0.48 0.18 1.55 0.69 0.45 -0.24 0.02 -0.23 -1.10 -0.35 0.57 0.29 0.11 NOTE: The un d e r l i n e d value i s s i g n i f i c a n t . For a more d e t a i l e d explanation see the note f o l l o w i n g Table V I I I . 72 IV. USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BY STAGE AND ADOPTER CATEGORY A sm a l l p r o p o r t i o n of the v a r i a t i o n s of i n f o r m a t i o n source use between adopter c a t e g o r i e s at each stage i n the adoption process were s i g n i f i c a n t . These are described below under each c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n sources. Complete t a b l e s of percentage i n f o r m a t i o n source use by adopter category at each stage, as w e l l as the z values, are given i n Appendix I I I . Information sources by nature of the a c t i v i t y Awareness. None of the d i f f e r e n c e s i n source use by adopter category were s i g n i f i c a n t at t h i s stage. I n t e r e s t . S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n personal source use e x i s t e d between the laggard and e a r l y adopter-innovator category and between the laggard and e a r l y m a j o r i t y category. I n both these cases the la g g a r d category used more personal sources than the other c a t e g o r i e s . I n regard to the use of i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l sources, the e a r l y adopter-innovator category used a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r number than the laggard category. E v a l u a t i o n . The e a r l y m a j o r i t y used fewer personal sources at t h i s stage than the laggards or l a t e m a j o r i t y . On the other hand, the e a r l y m a j o r i t y used a s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e r number of mass sources than the laggards. T r i a l . The laggards used personal sources t o a grea t e r extent and i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l sources t o a 73 l e s s e r extent than the l a t e m a j o r i t y and e a r l y adopter- innovator c a t e g o r i e s . Adoption. D i f f e r e n t i a l use of i n f o r m a t i o n sources by adopter category was not s i g n i f i c a n t at t h i s stage. Information sources by o r i g i n Awareness. The use of government sources was s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s f o r the laggards than f o r the e a r l y m a j o r i t y or the e a r l y adopter-innovator category. E v a l u a t i o n . The e a r l y m a j o r i t y made almost three times as much use.of government sources but l e s s use of personal sourees than the laggards and l a t e m a j o r i t y . A much g r e a t e r use of commercial sources was made by the e a r l y m a j o r i t y than by the e a r l y adopter-innovator category. T r i a l . The e a r l y adopter-innovator category used a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r number of government and commercial sources, but a l e s s e r number of personal sources, than the laggard category. The l a t e m a j o r i t y used more commercial, but fewer personal sources, than the laggard category. Adoption. V a r i a t i o n s of i n f o r m a t i o n source use between adopter c a t e g o r i e s was not s i g n i f i c a n t at t h i s stage i n the adoption process. Percentage O v e r a l l Use of Each Information Source When c l a s s i f i e d by nature of the a c t i v i t y and use at a l l stages and adopter c a t e g o r i e s combined, the percentage use of each source was: ,55.0, personal; 25.1, i n d i v i d u a l 74 i n s t r u c t i o n a l ; 17•4, mass and 2.5, i n s t r u c t i o n a l group. When u s i n g the same base, the percentage use of each source by o r i g i n was: 55*0, p e r s o n a l ; 32.3, commercial; 12.1, government and 0.6 farm o r g a n i z a t i o n . V. USE OF INDIVIDUAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION The f i v e most used i n d i v i d u a l sources of i n f o r m a t i o n i n order of importance were: neighbors and f r i e n d s , obser- v a t i o n o f other farms, salesmen and d e a l e r s , own experience and general farm magazines. The use of the i n d i v i d u a l sources of i n f o r m a t i o n , f i r s t of a l l by stage i n the adoption process and then by adopter category, i s considered below. Bv Stage At the awareness stage general farm magazines were the most used source of i n f o r m a t i o n , f o l l o w e d by s p e c i a l d a i r y magazines, f r i e n d s and neighbors, o b s e r v a t i o n o f other farms and r a d i o . At the i n t e r e s t , e v a l u a t i o n and t r i a l stages the most used sources were neighbors and f r i e n d s , o b s e r v a t i o n of other farms, and salesmen and d e a l e r s i n t h a t order. Also among the top f i v e most used sources at these stages were: d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t , own experience, m i l k vendor f i e l d man and v i s i t s t o the Agassiz Experimental Farm. At the adoption stage, from most to l e a s t used sources were: own experience, neighbors and 75 f r i e n d s , observation of other farms, d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t , and w i f e , c h i l d r e n and r e l a t i v e s . Table X I I shows the f i v e most used i n d i v i d u a l sources of i n f o r m a t i o n at each stage i n the adoption process. Appendix I I I gives the complete t a b l e . By Adopter Category The three main i n d i v i d u a l sources of i n f o r m a t i o n , neighbors and f r i e n d s , observation of other farms and salesmen and d e a l e r s , were used i n the same sequence by- each adopter category. The laggard category made only about o n e - t h i r d as much use of the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t and one-half as much use of v i s i t s t o the Agassiz Experimental Farm as the e a r l y adopter-innovator category. On the other hand, the laggard category made more use of the m i l k vendor f i e l d man, and w i f e , c h i l d r e n and r e l a t i v e s than the e a r l y adopter-innovator category. Table X I I I shows the f i v e most used i n d i v i d u a l sources of i n f o r m a t i o n by adopter category. Appendix I I I g i v e s the complete t a b l e of i n d i v i d u a l source use by adopter category. 76 Table X I I THE FIVE MOST FREQUENTLY USED SOURCES OF INFORMATION BY STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS ADOPTION STAGE Awareness I n t e r e s t E v a l u a t i o n T r i a l Adoption A l l stages combined % fo % % % General farm magazines Neighbors and f r i e n d s Neighbors Neighbors and and f r i e n d s f r i e n d s Own Exper- ience Neighbors and f r i e n d s 21.9 22.a 3a.2 30.0 52.7 24.5 S p e c i a l Dairy- magazines Obser- v a t i o n of other farms Obser- v a t i o n of other farms Obser- v a t i o n of other farms Neighbors and f r i e n d s Obser- v a t i o n of other farms 16.9 19.6 35-5 29.0 23.7 20.9 Neighbors and f r i e n d s Salesmen and d e a l e r s Salesmen and dealers Salesmen and d e a l e r s Obser- v a t i o n of other farms Salesmen and dea l e r s 14.3 17.0 6.3 26.9 17.2 11.6 Obser- v a t i o n o f other farms D i s t r i c t A g r i - c u l t u r i st Own exper- ience D i s t r i c t a g r i - c u l t u r i s t D i s t r i c t a g r i - c u l t u r i s t Own experience 9-3 14.1 6.0 6.2 2.7 7 .7 Radio M i l k vendor f i e l d man D i s t r i c t a g r i - c u l t u r i s t V i s i t s t o exper- imental farm Wife, c h i l d r e n or r e l a t - i v e s General farm magazines a.a 5.a 4*4 1.7 1.6 6.9 TOTAL 71.2 79.3 90.4 93.8 95-9 71.6 77 Table X I I I THE FIVE MOST FREQUENTLY USED SOURCES OF INFORMATION BY ADOPTER CATEGORY SOURCE • CATEGORY Laggard Late E a r l y E a r l y M a j o r i t y M a j o r i t y Adopter- Innovator Neighbors and f r i e n d s 27.6 25.9 23.5 20.8 Observation of other farms 22.6 20.7 21.3 18.2 Salesmen and d e a l e r s 11.1 11.8 11.4 12.3 Own experience 8.6 7.1 9.3 General farm magazines 7.2 6.8 D i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i st 7.1 7.6 Own experience or general farm magazines* 7*0 *Both these sources have the same frequency of use f o r the e a r l y m a j o r i t y . V I . SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED FOR THE INNOVATIONS The i n n o v a t i o n s were d i v i d e d i n t o two groups and com- parisons made of the i n f o r m a t i o n sources used f o r each group. I n a d d i t i o n a d e s c r i p t i o n i s given of i n d i v i d u a l source use f o r each s p e c i f i c i n n o v a t i o n . D i v i s i o n of the Innovations i n t o Two Groups Using the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n given by Lionberger-*- as a I H . F . Lionberger, Adoption of New Ideas and P r a c t i c e s , The Iowa State U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , Ames, Iowa. I960. 78 guide, the ten innovations were d i v i d e d i n t o two groups. The f i r s t group was made up of the f o l l o w i n g i n n o v a t i o n s : r e g u l a r t e s t i n g f o r m a s t i t i s , washing the udder of each cow w i t h a separate s t e r i l i z e d c l o t h or w i t h paper towels, s t e r i l i z i n g the t e a t cup c l u s t e r , use of i n s e c t i c i d e impregnated cords and the use of systemic warble f l y c o n t r o l . The second group of i n n o v a t i o n s i n c l u d e d use o f : heat lamps f o r c a l v e s , heated water bowls or tanks, a bulk b i n , a hay c o n d i t i o n e r and a hay d r y e r . 2 An o u t l i n e of the d i f f e r e n c e s between the two groups of i n n ovations i s as f o l l o w s : Group One Group Two Adoption i n v o l v e s a change Adoption i n v o l v e s a change i n e x i s t i n g operations w i t h t o new techniques or or without a change i n o p e r a t i o n s , m a t e r i a l s or equipment. R e l a t i v e l y inexpensive. R e l a t i v e l y expensive. R e s u l t s of adoption not R e s u l t s of adoption r e a d i l y r e a d i l y observable. observable. R e l a t i v e l y easy t o t r y on a R e l a t i v e l y d i f f i c u l t t o t r y on small s c a l e and easy t o a small s c a l e and d i f f i c u l t t o r e t r a c t an adoption d e c i s i o n , r e t r a c t an adoption d e c i s i o n . Although adoption of a bulk b i n i n v o l v e s a change i n e x i s t i n g o perations r a t h e r than a new technique, and heat lamps are~ r e l a t i v e l y easy t o t r y , these two innovations belong t o group two because most of t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are the same as those of group two. 2 F o r a more complete d e s c r i p t i o n of each i n n o v a t i o n see s e c t i o n I I o f chapter IT. 79 Sources C l a s s i f i e d by Nature of the A c t i v i t y With two exceptions, the most t o l e a s t used sources of in f o r m a t i o n f o r the group one innovations were; mass, i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l , personal and i n s t r u c t i o n a l group. One of the exceptions occurred i n the case of r e g u l a r t e s t i n g f o r m a s t i t i s f o r which i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l sources were used t o a g r e a t e r extent than mass sources. In the second exception personal sources were used t o a greater extent than i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l sources f o r progress toward adoption of i n s e c t i c i d e cords. With only one exception, the most t o l e a s t used sources of i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the group two inn o v a t i o n s were: p e r s o n a l , mass, i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l and i n s t r u c t i o n a l group. The one exception occurred i n regard t o heated water bowls f o r which more mass than personal sources were used. When the sources of in f o r m a t i o n used i n r e l a t i o n t o the t e n inn o v a t i o n s were combined, i t was found t h a t the mass sources were most e x t e n s i v e l y used f o l l o w e d by personal, i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l and i n s t r u c t i o n a l group. The percentage use of each source by i n n o v a t i o n i s given i n Table XIV so t h a t the trends and exceptions can be seen i n more d e t a i l . 80 Table XIV PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BY INNOVATION WITH THE 'SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY INNOVATION SOURCE Personal Mass I n d i v i d u a l I n s t r u c - T o t a l i n s t r u c - t i o n a l Group One % % t i o n a l % group % $ T e s t i n g f o r m a s t i t i s 21.5 34.5 40.3 3.7 100 Use of paper towels or separate c l o t h 22.7 50.0 25.8 1.5 100 S t e r i l i z i n g t e a t cup c l u s t e r 25.8 41.9 27.4 4.9 100 Use of i n s e c t i c i d e impregnated cords 31.7 41.9 26.4 0.0 100 Use of systemic warble f l y c o n t r o l H . 5 61.3 19.4 4 . 8 100 Group Two Use of heat lamps f o r c a l v e s 47.4 47.0 4.9 0.7 100 Use of heated water bowls or tanks 35.3 56.6 7.6 0.5 100 Use of a bulk b i n 46.5 30.3 23.2 0.0 100 Use of a hay c o n d i t i o n e r 47.8 35.2 15 .8 1.2 100 Use of a hay dryer 44.1 41.0 13.2 1.7 100 Sources f o r a l l the inn o v a t i o n s combined 37-9 41.7 19.0 1.4 100 NOTE; For a more complete d e s c r i p t i o n of each i n n o v a t i o n see S e c t i o n I I of Chapter I I . si Sources C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n With one minor exception, the most t o l e a s t used sources of inf o r m a t i o n f o r each i n n o v a t i o n were: commercial, pe r s o n a l , government and farm o r g a n i z a t i o n . D i f f e r e n c e s i n source use f o r the two groups of in n o v a t i o n s d i d e x i s t , however. Commercial sources were about three times more important than personal sources f o r the group one in n o v a t i o n s , whereas, commercial sources were g e n e r a l l y only s l i g h t l y more important than personal sources f o r the group two in n o v a t i o n s . V i r t u a l l y no use of farm o r g a n i z a t i o n sources was made f o r the group two inno v a t i o n s but a small amount of use of these sources was made f o r the group one i n n o v a t i o n s . With two exceptions, g r e a t e r u t i l i z a t i o n was made of govern- ment sources f o r the group one than the group two i n n o v a t i o n s . The exceptions were a small amount of government source use f o r i n s e c t i c i d e impregnated cords and a r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e amount f o r the hay d r y e r . The percentage use of each source by in n o v a t i o n i s given i n Table XV. 82 Table XV PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BY INNOVATION WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN INNOVATION SOURCE Perso n a l Com- Govern- Farm T o t a l m e r c i a l ment Organ- i z a t i o n Group One % % % % T e s t i n g f o r m a s t i t i s 21.5 73.3 3.1 2.1 100 Use of paper towels or separate c l o t h 22.7 71.7 4.6 1.0 100 S t e r i l i z i n g t e a t cup c l u s t e r 25.8 67.8 4.0 2.4 100 Use of i n s e c t i c i d e impregnated cords 31.7 66.5 0.6 1.2 100 Use of systemic warble f l y c o n t r o l 14.5 80 .7 3.2 1.6 100 Group Two Use of heat lamps f o r c a lves 47.4 50.5 2.1 0.0 100 Use of heated water bowls or tanks 35.4 62.6 2.0 0.0 100 Use of a bulk b i n 46.5 52.6 0.9 0.0 100 Use of a hay c o n d i t i o n e r 47.8 50.7 1.5 0.0 100 Use of a hay dryer 44.1 51.2 4.4 0.3 100 Sources f o r a l l the i n n o v a t i o n s combined 37.9 59.0 2.5 0.6 100 NOTE: For a more complete d e s c r i p t i o n of each i n n o v a t i o n see S e c t i o n I I of Chapter I I . 83 Use of I n d i v i d u a l Information Sources by Innovation General farm magazines were the most used i n d i v i d u a l source of i n f o r m a t i o n f o l l o w e d by neighbors and f r i e n d s , s p e c i a l d a i r y magazines, observation of other farms, and salesmen and d e a l e r s . These f i v e sources accounted f o r more than 85 per cent of the i n f o r m a t i o n sources used f o r the ten i n n o v a t i o n s . There was a considerable d i f f e r e n c e of i n f o r m a t i o n source u t i l i z a t i o n f o r the v a r i o u s types of i n n o v a t i o n s . For example, the m i l k vendor f i e l d man was very important f o r the f i r s t three ( m a s t i t i s c o n t r o l ) i n n o v a t i o n s but t h i s source was of no importance f o r the group two mechanical i n n o v a t i o n s . General farm magazines tended t o be used more f o r the group two than the group one innovations but the opposite was t r u e f o r the s p e c i a l d a i r y magazines. Neighbors and f r i e n d s and observation o f other farms were much l e s s used f o r the group one than the group two i n n o v a t i o n s . No d e f i n i t e t r e n d i n the use of salesmen and d e a l e r s as sources of i n f o r m a t i o n could be seen. Table XVI g i v e s the percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n of a l l i n f o r m a t i o n sources by i n n o v a t i o n . There was a s t r i k i n g d i f f e r e n c e between the t o t a l number of i n f o r m a t i o n sources used f o r the group one and the group two i n n o v a t i o n s . Table XVII shows t h a t almost twice as many sources were used per respondent f o r the group two as f o r the group one i n n o v a t i o n s . Table PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION GROUP ONE INNOVATIONS Test i n g Paper S t e r i l - I n s e c t i - Systemic f o r towels i z i n g cide warble m a s t i t i s or t e s t cords f l y separate cups c o n t r o l c l o t h % % % General farm 16.0 magazines 9.4 16.9 23.3 32.3 Neighbors and f r i e n d s 12.0 17.0 17.8 18.6 8.1 S p e c i a l d a i r y magazines 24.1 32.0 25.0 15.6 24.2 Observation of other farms 4.2 5.2 4.8 12.6 1.6 Salesmen and dea l e r s 2.6 3.1 6.5 22.7 11.3 M i l k vendor f i e l d man 22.0 16.0 13.7 1.8 3.2 V e t e r i n a r i a n 14.7 2.6 5.7 0.6 4.9 Wife, c h i l d r e n and r e l a t i v e s 3.2 0.5 3.2 0.6 3.2 Newspapers 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.8 1.6 V i s i t s to E x p e r i - mental Farm 0.0 2.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 Radio 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.6 3.2 Own experience 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A g r i c u l t u r a l organ- i z a t i o n meetings 1.6 0.5 2.4 0.0 1.6 Foreign t r a v e l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 A g r i c u l t u r a l meetings and ad u l t education 1.6 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.6 V o c a t i o n a l a g r i c u l t u r e courses 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.6 D i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A g r i c u l t u r a l f i e l d days 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 D.H.I.A. supervisor 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.2 0.0 B.C. Dept. of A g r i - c u l t u r e p u b l i c a t i o n s 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 T e l e v i s i o n 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Canada Dept. of A g r i - c u l t u r e p u b l i c a t i o n s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T o t a l * 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 84 XVI SOURCES BY INNOVATION GROUP TWO INNOVATIONS Heat Heated Bulk Hay Hay T o t a l lamps water b i n C o n d i t i o n e r dryer use f o r f o r bowls a l l i n n o v a t i o n s c a l v e s or tanks % % % % fo % 25.6 32.8 19.3 21.8 30.9 22.7 24.2 19.2 22.7 23.9 24.4 20.5 19.7 21.2 10.1 10.7 6.4 16.8 20.7 15.2 22.0 21.2 17.3 15.1 2.5 5.6 22.0 15.5 10.2 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 4*4 1.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.8 0.5 0.9 0.9 2.0 1.5 1.4 2.0 0.6 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.5 0.3 0.3 2.4 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.9 1.7 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.3 1.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 85 Table XVII TOTAL NUMBER OF INFORMATION SOURCES USED PER INNOVATION AND RESPONDENT Innovation T o t a l number of Number of sources sources used used per respondent Group One T e s t i n g f o r m a s t i t i s 191 Use of paper towels or separate c l o t h 194 S t e r i l i z i n g t e a t cup c l u s t e r 124 Use of i n s e c t i c i d e impregnated cords 167 Use of systemic warble f l y c o n t r o l 62 Average 148 Group Two Use o f heat lamps f o r c a l v e s 285 Use of heated water bowls o r tanks 198 Use of a bulk b i n 327 Use of a hay c o n d i t i o n e r 335 Use o f a hay dry e r 295 Average 288 1.91 1.94 1.24 1.67 .62 I .48 2.85 1.98 3.27 3.35 ____ 2.88 86 CHAPTER VI ADOPTION AND NON-ADOPTION OF THE INNOVATIONS For each of the ten innovations the respondents were asked the l a s t stage they had reached, the l e n g t h of time spent i n the adoption process and the main reason f o r spend- i n g more than two years i n the process. In a d d i t i o n they were asked t h e i r i n n o v a t i o n response s t a t e and the reason f o r r e j e c t i n g or d i s c o n t i n u i n g the i n n o v a t i o n . This data was analysed u s i n g the two groups of inn o v a t i o n s and the f o u r adopter c a t e g o r i e s . I . PROGRESS TOWARD INNOVATION ADOPTION There was greater unawareness than adoption of the in n o v a t i o n s . On the average each respondent was not aware of 2.19 o f the t e n in n o v a t i o n s and had adopted 1.86. For the other stages i n the adoption process each respondent was at the awareness stage f o r 2.51 i n n o v a t i o n s , i n t e r e s t f o r 0.30, e v a l u a t i o n f o r 2.53 and at the t r i a l stage f o r 0.61. This seems t o i n d i c a t e t h a t l e s s time was spent at the i n t e r e s t and t r i a l stages than at the awareness and e v a l u a t i o n stages. The range of adoption was from zero f o r systemic warble f l y c o n t r o l t o 46 per cent adoption of bulk b i n s . None of the respondents were unaware of the hay dryer but 73 per cent were not aware of systemic warble f l y c o n t r o l . 37 The r a t e of unawareness was much higher f o r the group one than the group two i n n o v a t i o n s . The number of respondents at the t r i a l stage was higher f o r the group one than the group two i n n o v a t i o n s , but the number of respondents at the awareness, i n t e r e s t , e v a l u a t i o n and adoption stages was higher f o r the group two than the group one i n n o v a t i o n s . Table X V I I I g i v e s the percentage of the respondents at each stage i n the adoption process by i n n o v a t i o n . 88 Table X V I I I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS AT EACH STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS BY INNOVATION Innovation ;_ Stage Not aware Aware- ness I n t e r - est E v a l - u a t i o n T r i a l Adop- t i o n Tota! Group One % % % % $ 1o Regular t e s t i n g f o r m a s t i t i s 25 11 1 21 2 40 100 Paper towels o r separate c l o t h s 13 43 0 22 18 4 100 S t e r i l i z i n g t e a t cup c l u s t e r 48 18 0 10 13 11 100 I n s e c t i c i d e im- pregnated cords 31 23 4 17 16 9 100 Systemic warble f l y c o n t r o l 73 14 4 8 1 0 100 Average 38.0 21.8 1.8 15 .6 10.0 12.8 100. Group Two Heat lamps 10 31 1 17 4 37 100 Heated water bowls or tanks 16 55 2 20 0 7 100 Bulk b i n s 1 10 2 40 1 46 100 Hay c o n d i t i o n e r 2 13 5 44 6 30 100 Hay dryer 0 33 11 54 0 2 100 Average 5.8 28.4 4.2 35.0 2.2 24.4 100 Groups One and Two Average 21.9 25.1 3.0 25-3 6.1 18 .6 100 8$ On the average the percentage of respondents i n each adopter category unaware of the innovations was as f o l l o w s : laggard, 38.0; l a t e m a j o r i t y , 24.8; e a r l y m a j o r i t y 16.9 and e a r l y adopter-innovator, 7.5 • The same t r e n d occurred at the awareness and i n t e r e s t stages. For the e v a l u a t i o n , t r i a l and adoption stages, the opposite t r e n d occurred. For example, the percentage of each adopter category at the adoption stage was as f o l l o w s : laggard, 4»5; l a t e m a j o r i t y , 14»5; e a r l y m a j o r i t y , 22.3; and e a r l y adopter-innovator, 35*6. Table XIX shows the i n c r e a s i n g progress toward adoption o f the innov- a t i o n s from the laggard t o the e a r l y adopter-innovator category. Table XIX PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS AT EACH STAGE BY ADOPTER CATEGORY FOR ALL THE INNOVATIONS COMBINED Stage Reached Adopter Category Laggard Late M a j o r i t y E a r l y M a j o r i t y E a r l y Adopter- Innovator Not aware % 38.0 % 24.8 % 16.9 % 7.5 Awareness 35.5 30.7 21.4 10.0 I n t e r e s t 4.0 2.8 2.9 2.5 E v a l u a t i o n 16.5 23.4 28.3 33.1 T r i a l 1.5 3.3 8.2 11.3 Adoption 4.5 14.5 22.3 35.6 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 90 I I . LENGTH OF TIME SPENT IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS D i f f e r e n c e s i n l e n g t h of time spent i n the adoption process e x i s t e d between the two groups of i n n o v a t i o n s . For the f i r s t group the m a j o r i t y of the respondents spent l e s s than one year and f o r the second group the m a j o r i t y spent one or more years i n the adoption process. Table XX shows the l e n g t h of time spent i n the adoption process by i n n o v a t i o n . Table XX PERCENTAGE OF THE RESPONDENTS WHO SPENT LESS THAN ONE YEAR OR ONE OR MORE YEARS IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS BY INNOVATION Did not Time spent i n the Innovation enter adoption process adoption Less than One or T o t a l process one year more years Group One fo fo fo % Regular t e s t i n g f o r 26 m a s t i t i s 25 49 100 Paper towels or 62 separate c l o t h s 13 25 100 S t e r i l i z i n g t e a t cup 48 c l u s t e r 40 12 100 I n s e c t i c i d e impregnated 36 cords 31 33 100 Systemic warble f l y c o n t r o l 73 7 20 100 Average 38.0 38.2 23.8 100.0 Group Two Heat lamps 10 41 - 49 100 Heated water bowls or tanks 16 58 26 100 Bulk b i n s 1 30 69 100 Hay c o n d i t i o n e r 2 17 81 100 Hay d r y e r 0 26 74 100 Average 5.8 34.4 59.8 100.0 Groups One and Two Average 21.9 36.3 41.8 100.0 91 On the average the laggard category remained i n the adoption process l e s s than one year f o r more innovations than the other c a t e g o r i e s . On the other hand the e a r l y adopter-innovator category remained i n the adoption process one or more years f o r more inn o v a t i o n s than the other c a t e g o r i e s . Table XXI shows the trends among the adopter c a t e g o r i e s i n regard t o the number of innovations f o r which l e s s than one year and one or more years were spent i n the adoption process. Table XXI AVERAGE NUMBER OF INNOVATIONS FOR WHICH LESS THAN ONE YEAR AND ONE OR MORE YEARS WAS SPENT IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS, BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter Category Time spent i n the adoption process Laggard Late m a j o r i t y E a r l y m a j o r i t y E a r l y adopter & innovator Less than one year 5.32 4.91 4.40 4.19 One or more years 4.68 5.09 5.60 5.81 T o t a l number of innovations 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 NOTE: The average number of respondents i n each adopter category who had entered the adoption process was used as the b a s i s f o r determining the f i g u r e s given i n t h i s t a b l e . 92 I I I . REASONS FOR DELAY IN PROCEEDING THROUGH THE ADOPTION PROCESS A delay i n proceeding through the adoption process occurred i f a respondent spent more than two years^ i n the adoption process f o r an i n n o v a t i o n . When a delay occurred, a question was asked t o determine the reason which the respondent perceived t o be the most important cause of h i s delay. The exact reason as given by the respondent was recorded at the time of the i n t e r v i e w but i t was c l a s s i f i e d a f t e r a l l the i n t e r v i e w s had been completed. This made i t p o s s i b l e t o examine a l l the reasons at one time and c l a s s i f y them i n a c o n s i s t e n t manner. The reasons f o r delay i n proceeding through the adoption process were c l a s s i f i e d by c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the in n o v a t i o n and by s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s . The s p e c i f i c i n n o v a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c o n s i s t e d of those given by Rogers. 2 These are l i s t e d below along w i t h the type of reasons t h a t each would i n c l u d e . R e l a t i v e advantage - i n c l u d e d any reason which i n d i c a t e d t h a t the respondent f e l t t h a t the inn o v a t i o n was not su p e r i o r o r had no advantage compared w i t h a present p r a c t i c e . l A two year p e r i o d was e s t a b l i s h e d as a c r i t e r i o n f o r delay because i t was f e l t t h a t the m a j o r i t y of the respondents could complete the adoption process f o r most in n o v a t i o n s i n t h i s l e n g t h of time. 2 E •M. Rogers, D i f f u s i o n of Innovations. The Free Press of Glencoe, New York, 1962, pp. 124 - 134. 93 C o m p a t i b i l i t y - the inn o v a t i o n was not c o n s i s t e n t with the values or the past experience of the respondent. Complexity - the inn o v a t i o n was too d i f f i c u l t t o understand and use. D i v i s i b i l i t y - the inn o v a t i o n could not be t r i e d on a l i m i t e d b a s i s . Communicabilitv - the r e s u l t s of using the i n n o v a t i o n could not be seen e a s i l y . The s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s , along w i t h a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n , are as f o l l o w s : S i t u a t i o n not appropriate - environmental or management f a c t o r s were such t h a t the in n o v a t i o n d i d not apply to the respondent's farm. Scale of operation too small - the phase of the farm operation having t o do w i t h the in n o v a t i o n was not l a r g e enough t o make the adoption of the i n n o v a t i o n worthwhile. I n s u f f i c i e n t c a p i t a l - progress toward adoption of the inn o v a t i o n was delayed by l a c k of money. Other s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s - reasons not covered by the above c l a s s e s . Some examples are: the respondent became aware of an inn o v a t i o n a lo n g time ago but could not adopt i t because he was not operat i n g h i s own farm u n t i l r e c e n t l y , and i n some cases, respondents had t o wait u n t i l the dea l e r s had the i n n o v a t i o n i n stock before they were able t o adopt i t . The reasons were c l a s s i f i e d as the respondents perceived them even though i t was p o s s i b l e t h a t the perceived and a c t u a l reasons were d i f f e r e n t . I t was found t h a t the t o t a l number of reasons f o r delay i n proceeding through the adoption process was q u i t e low. This occurred because the c r i t e r i o n f o r delay was 94 s t i p u l a t e d as more than two years spent i n the adoption process.3 The adoption process took more than two years f o r about two of the t e n i n n o v a t i o n s . A n a l y s i s of the data showed t h a t s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s were more f r e q u e n t l y given as reasons f o r delay i n proceed- i n g through the adoption process than c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n n o v a t i o n . The most important reasons f o r delay were: other s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s which accounted f o r 35 «9 per cent of the reasons, i n s u f f i c i e n t c a p i t a l 18.6, communicability 17•9, s c a l e of operation too small 12.2, and r e l a t i v e advantage 10.9 per cent. None of the respondents i n d i c a t e d complexity or d i v i s i b i l i t y as reasons f o r delay. The frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n i s given i n Table X X I I . 3lf the time had been s t i p u l a t e d as more than one year spent i n the adoption process, the number of responses f o r a n a l y s i s would have been h i g h e r . 95 Table XXII FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF REASONS FOR DELAY IN PROCEEDING THROUGH THE ADOPTION PROCESS FOR ALL. THE INNOVATIONS COMBINED Reason Frequency % By C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Innovation R e l a t i v e advantage 10 .9 C o m p a t i b i l i t y 1 .9 Complexity 0.0 D i v i s i b i l i t y 0.0 Communicability 17.9 Su b t o t a l 30.7 By S i t u a t i o n a l F a c t o r s S i t u a t i o n not appropriate 2.6 Scale of operation too small 12.2 I n s u f f i c i e n t c a p i t a l 18 .6 Other s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s • 35*9 S u b t o t a l 69.3 T o t a l f o r both groups of reasons 100.0 The r a t i o between c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n n o v a t i o n and s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s as reasons f o r delay i n proceeding through the adoption process was d i f f e r e n t f o r the adopter c a t e g o r i e s . The r a t i o s of reasons by category are: laggard 1:1.1, l a t e m a j o r i t y 1:2.1, e a r l y m a j o r i t y 1:2.7 and e a r l y adopter-innovator 1:2.6. This i n d i c a t e s t h a t c h a r a c t e r - i s t i c s of the i n n o v a t i o n and s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s are about 96 e q u a l l y important f o r the laggard category but s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s are more than twice as important as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n n o v a t i o n f o r the e a r l y adopter-innovator category. The average number of innovations f o r which delay occurred was a l s o d i f f e r e n t f o r the adopter c a t e g o r i e s . On the average the laggards delayed f o r 0.8 of the ten innov- a t i o n s , the l a t e m a j o r i t y f o r 1.6, the e a r l y m a j o r i t y f o r 1.8 and the e a r l y adopter-innovators f o r 2.0 o f the ten in n o v a t i o n s . Table X X I I I gives the percentage frequency of the reasons f o r delay by adopter category. Table X X I I I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF REASONS FOR DELAY IN PROCEEDING THROUGH THE ADOPTION PROCESS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Reason Adopter Category T o t a l Laggard Late E a r l y E a r l y m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter- innovator % % % % 1o By c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the in n o v a t i o n 46.7 32.6 37.0 28.1 30.8 By s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s 53-3 67.4 73.0 71.9 69.2 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Average number of 1.6 i n n o v a t i o n s f o r 0.8 1.8 2.0 1.6 which respondents delayed 97 IV. THE INNOVATION RESPONSE STATE OF THE RESPONDENTS Innovation response s t a t e r e f e r s t o the respondents* present p o s i t i o n i n regard t o an i n n o v a t i o n . The f i v e response s t a t e s are: unawareness, c o n t i n u a t i o n i n the adoption process, r e j e c t i o n , adoption, and discontinuance. I t was found t h a t the number of respondents c o n t i n u i n g i n the adoption process, r e j e c t i n g i n n o v a t i o n s or adopting them was lower f o r the f i r s t than the second group of in n o v a t i o n s . However, unawareness and discontinuance was higher i n the f i r s t than the second group. On the average, out of the t e n in n o v a t i o n s , each respondent was not aware of 2.19, c o n t i n u i n g i n the adoption process f o r 1.57, r e j e c t e d 4«38> adopted 1.66 and dis c o n t i n u e d use of 0.20 i n n o v a t i o n s . The highest r a t e of r e j e c t i o n occurred f o r use of s t e r i l i z e d paper towels or separate c l o t h s f o r washing the udder of each cow before m i l k i n g and the highest r a t e of discontinuance occurred w i t h r e g u l a r t e s t i n g f o r m a s t i t i s . The range of con t i n u i n g w i t h the adoption process was from zero, f o r s t e r i l i z i n g the t e a t cup c l u s t e r , t o 36.0 per cent f o r the hay d r y e r . Table XXIV gives the percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n by inn o v a t i o n response s t a t e and i n n o v a t i o n . 98 Table XXIV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESPONDENTS BY INNOVATION RESPONSE STAJEE Innovation Innovation Response State Not C o n t i n - Rejec- Adop- Discon- T o t a l Aware uing t i o n t i o n tinuance the adoption process Group One % % % 1o % Regular t e s t i n g f o r m a s t i t i s 25 2 33 29 11 100 Paper towels or separate c l o t h 13 3 80 4 0 100 S t e r i l i z i n g t e a t cup c l u s t e r 48 0 41 7 4 100 I n s e c t i c i d e im- pregnated cords 31 33 27 9 0 100 Systemic warble f l y c o n t r o l 73 20 7 0 0 100 Average 38.0 11.6 37.6 9.3 3.0 100 Group Two Heat lamps f o r c a l v e s 10 4 49 36 1 100 Heated water bowls or tanks 16 13 64 4 3 100 Bftlk b i n s 1 18 35 45 1 100 Hay c o n d i t i o n e r 2 28 40 30 0 100 Hay dryer 0 36 62 2 0 100 Average 5.8 19.8 50.0 23.4 1.0 100 Average f o r the ten i n n ovations 21.9 15.7 43.8 16.6 2.0 100 Average number of in n o v a t i o n s per respondent 2.19 1.57 4-38 1.66 0.20 10 99 Innovation Response State by Stage When c o n s i d e r i n g c o n t i n u a t i o n of the adoption process f o r a l l i n n o v a t i o n s , more than h a l f the respondents were at the e v a l u a t i o n stage, about one-fourth were at the awareness stage and the smallest number was at the t r i a l stage. Con- t i n u a t i o n i n the adoption process by stage d i f f e r e d f o r the two groups of i n n o v a t i o n s . For the group one in n o v a t i o n s , the l a r g e s t number con t i n u i n g w i t h the adoption process was at the awareness stage and f o r the group two in n o v a t i o n s , the l a r g e s t number was at the e v a l u a t i o n stage. Table XXV gi v e s the percentage of respondents at each stage i n the adoption process f o r the two groups of i n n o v a t i o n s . Appendix IV g i v e s t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n by i n d i v i d u a l i n n o v a t i o n . Table XXV PERCENTAGE OF THE RESPONDENTS CONTINUING WITH THE ADOPTION PROCESS, BY STAGE FOR EACH GROUP OF INNOVATIONS Innovation Group - - • Stage Aware- I n t e r - E v a l - T r i a l Adop- T o t a l ness est u a t i o n t i o n % % fo % fo % Group One 44 • 8 13.8 29.3 12.1 mm 100.0 Group Two 12.1 18.2 64.7 4.0 mm 100.0 Average 24.2 16.6 52.2 7.0 _ 100.0 100 In regard t o i n n o v a t i o n r e j e c t i o n , 48.6 per cent occurred at the awareness stage, 0.9 at i n t e r e s t , 39*1 at ev a l u a t i o n and 11.4 per cent at the t r i a l stage. When comparing the two groups of inn o v a t i o n s , the r a t e of r e j e c t i o n at the awareness, i n t e r e s t and e v a l u a t i o n stages was higher f o r the group two than the group one i n n o v a t i o n s . However, at the t r i a l stage the r a t e of r e j e c t i o n of the group one inno v a t i o n s was more than ei g h t times t h a t f o r the group two i n n o v a t i o n s . Table XXVI gives r e j e c t i o n by stage i n the adoption process f o r each group of i n n o v a t i o n s . Appendix IV g i v e s t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n by i n d i v i d u a l i n n o v a t i o n . Table XXVI PERCENTAGE OF THE RESPONDENTS WHO HAD REJECTED EACH GROUP OF INNOVATIONS, BY STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS Innovation Group •- Stage Aware- I n t e r - E v a l - T r i a l Adop- T o t a l ness est u a t i o n t i o n % % % % Group One 44.2 0.5 32.4 22.9 - 100.0 Group Two 52.0 1.2 44.0 2.8 - 100.0 Average 48.6 0.9 39.1 11.4 100.0 Innovation Response s t a t e by Adopter Category There was a decrease i n unawareness from the laggard t o the e a r l y adopter-innovator category, the r a t e of 101 unawareness f o r the laggard category being more than f i v e times g r e a t e r than t h a t f o r the e a r l y adopter-innovator category. The laggard category had the lowest r a t e of c o n t i n - u a t i o n i n the adoption process and the e a r l y adopter-innovator category the h i g h e s t . The l a t e and e a r l y m a j o r i t y c a t e g o r i e s were about the same f o r c o n t i n u a t i o n i n the adoption process. The range of r e j e c t i o n among the adopter c a t e g o r i e s was only 6.7 per cent w i t h the laggards having the highest r a t e and the early-adopter innovators the lowest. There was an i n c r e a s i n g adoption t r e n d from the laggard t o the e a r l y adopter-innovator category, adoption being seven times greater f o r the e a r l y adopter-innovator than the laggard category. The r a t e of discontinuance was very low. However, the e a r l y adopter-innovator category had a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h r a t e compared w i t h the other c a t e g o r i e s . The above data i s shown i n Table XXVII. Appendix IV giv e s the percentage frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r each in n o v a t i o n response s t a t e by in n o v a t i o n and adopter category. 102 Table XXVII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND INNOVATION RESPONSE STATE Innovation Response Adopter Category Laggard Late E a r l y E a r l y m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter- innovator % % % Unaware 38.0 24.8 16.9 7.5 Continuing w i t h the 16.6 16.0 18.1 adoption process 12.0 R e j e c t i o n 45.5 44.1 44.8 33.8 Adoption 4.0 13.8 20 .9 23.1 Discontinuance 0.5 0.7 1.4 7.5 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Innovation Response State by Time Spent i n the Adoption Process Considerable v a r i a t i o n e x i s t e d i n time spent i n the adoption process f o r the i n n o v a t i o n response s t a t e s . For those c o n t i n u i n g w i t h the adoption process, more than 90 per cent had spent one or more years i n the adoption process. About t w o - t h i r d s of the r e j e c t i o n occurred a f t e r the r e s - pondents had spent l e s s than one year i n the adoption process. On the other hand, about t w o - t h i r d s of the adoption occurred a f t e r the respondents had spent one or more years i n the adoption process. This i n d i c a t e s t h a t on the average a 103 d e c i s i o n t o r e j e c t was made i n a shorter time than a d e c i s i o n t o adopt. Discontinuance was f o u r times higher when l e s s than one year was spent than when one or more years was spent i n the adoption process. Table XXVIII i n d i c a t e s the v a r i a t i o n i n time spent i n the adoption process f o r the i n n o v a t i o n response s t a t e s . Table XCIV i n Appendix IV gives t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n by i n d i v i d u a l i n n o v a t i o n . Table XXVIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TIME SPENT IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS BY INNOVATION RESPONSE STATE Innovation Response Time Spent i n the Adoption Process State Less than one year One or more vears T o t a l .% % % Continuing w i t h the 7.6 adoption process 92 .4 100.0 R e j e c t i o n 64*4 35.6 100.0 Adoption 31.9 68.1 100.0 Discontinuance 80.0 20.0 100.0 V. REASONS FOR REJECTION AND DISCONTINUANCE OF INNOVATIONS The reasons f o r r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance of innovations were c l a s s i f i e d i n the same manner as those f o r delay i n proceeding through the adoption process. 104 For a l l t e n innovations 68.8 per cent of the reasons f o r r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance were due t o the cha r a c t e r - 0 i s t i c s of the in n o v a t i o n and 31»2 per cent were due t o s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s . Extreme d i f f e r e n c e s occurred between the two groups of i n n o v a t i o n s . I n the f i r s t group ch a r a c t e r - i s t i c s of the i n n o v a t i o n accounted f o r 98 per cent of the reasons given f o r r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance w h i l e s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s accounted f o r only 2 per cent. With the second group of in n o v a t i o n s , s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s accounted f o r 54«5 per cent of the reasons compared w i t h c h a r a c t e r - i s t i c s of the i n n o v a t i o n which made up 45 »5 per cent. More than 95 per cent of the reasons given f o r r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance of the group one innovations were a t t r i b - uted t o r e l a t i v e advantage. For the second group of inn o v a t i o n s , r e l a t i v e advantage was a l s o the most important but i t made up only 41•2 per cent of the reasons. The other important reasons f o r r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance of group two i n n o v a t i o n s were: s i t u a t i o n not appropriate which accounted f o r 24*7 per cent, and s c a l e of oper a t i o n too small which accounted f o r 29»0 per cent of the reasons. Not c i t e d by any of the respondents as reasons f o r r e j e c t i n g and d i s - c o n t i n u i n g were: d i v i s i b i l i t y , communicability and i n s u f f i c i e n t c a p i t a l . Table XXIX g i v e s the percentage frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of reasons by i n n o v a t i o n group. The frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of reasons f o r r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance i s presented by s p e c i f i c i n n o v a t i o n i n Table XCV of Appendix IV. 105 Table XXIX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF REASONS FOR REJECTION AND DISCONTINUANCE BY INNOVATION GROUP Reason Group One innovations Group Two innovations A l l i n n o v a t i o n s By c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n n o v a t i o n $ % R e l a t i v e advantage 95.5 41.2 65.3 C o m p a t i b i l i t y 1.5 2.7 2.2 Complexity 1.0 1.6 1.3 D i v i s i b i l i t y 0.0 0.0 0.0 Communicability 0.0 0.0 0.0 T o t a l 98.0 45.5 68.8 By s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s S i t u a t i o n not appropriate 0.5 24.7 14.0 Scale of operation too small 0.0 29.0 16.1 I n s u f f i c i e n t c a p i t a l 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s 1.5 0.8 1.1 T o t a l 2.0 54-5 31.2 T o t a l of a l l reasons 100.0 100.0 100.0 106 The p r o p o r t i o n of reasons f o r r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n - uance due t o c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the inn o v a t i o n and s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s v a r i e d among the adopter c a t e g o r i e s . S i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s as reasons f o r r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance were used almost twice as o f t e n by the laggard as by the e a r l y adopter- innovator category. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the in n o v a t i o n as reasons f o r r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance were used t o a g r e a t e r extent by the e a r l y adopter-innovator than by the laggard category. There was no d i f f e r e n c e i n the p r o p o r t i o n of reasons f o r r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance given by the l a t e and e a r l y m a j o r i t y . The percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n of reasons f o r r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance of inn o v a t i o n s by adopter category i s given i n Table XXX. The percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n by each s p e c i f i c reason and adopter category i s given i n Table CIV of Appendix IV. Table XXX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF REASONS FOR REJECTION AND DISCONTINUANCE OF INNOVATIONS BI ADOPTER CATEGORY Reason Adopter Category Laggard Late E a r l y E a r l y m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter- innovator % % fo C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n n o v a t i o n 62.0 68.5 68.5 78.4 S i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s 38.0 31.5 31.5 21.6 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 107 Reasons given f o r the r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance of innovations was analysed by i n n o v a t i o n group and by time spent i n the adoption process. For the group one i n n o v a t i o n s , almost 70 per cent were r e j e c t e d or d i s c o n t i n u e d due t o char- a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n n o v a t i o n i n l e s s than one year and 28.1 per cent i n one or more y e a r s . The r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n - uance by s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s was only 2 per cent, a l l of which occurred i n l e s s than one year. In c o n t r a s t , group two innov- a t i o n s had the highest r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance by s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s w i t h 33•7 per cent o c c u r r i n g i n l e s s than one year and 20.8 per cent i n one or more y e a r s . Only 25-9 per cent were r e j e c t e d or d i s c o n t i n u e d i n l e s s than one year and 19-6 per cent i n one or more years because of the c h a r a c t - e r i s t i c s of the i n n o v a t i o n . Table XXXI shows the percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n by reason and time spent i n the adoption process. Table CV i n Appendix IV g i v e s the d i s t r i b u t i o n by i n d i v i d u a l i n n o v a t i o n . Table XXXI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF REASONS FOR REJECTION AND DISCONTINUANCE BY INNOVATION GROUP AND TIME SPENT IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of S i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s i n n o v a t i o n Less than One or more Less than One or more T o t a l year years one year years Group one i n n o v a t i o n s 69.9 Group two innovations 25*9 19.6 33.7 20.8 100.0 108 Only 1.4 per cent of the reasons given f o r r e j e c t i o n due t o s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s occurred at the t r i a l stage, whereas, 16.1 per cent of the reasons given f o r r e j e c t i o n due t o c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the in n o v a t i o n occurred at t h i s stage. Innovations which were r e j e c t e d due t o s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s tended t o be r e j e c t e d before the t r i a l stage. This i n d i c a t e s t h a t the respondents were b e t t e r able t o evaluate t h e i r s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s than the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the inn o v a t i o n which cause r e j e c t i o n . The above data i s shown i n Table XXXII. Table XXXII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF REASONS FOR REJECTION BY STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS Reasons f o r Stage r e j e c t i o n Aware- ness I n t e r - E v a l - est u a t i o n T r i a l T o t a l % fo fo % fo C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n n o v a t i o n 43.3 1.0 36.6 16.1 100.0 S i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s 53.6 0.7 44.3 1.4 100.0 CHAPTER V I I ADOPTION TENDENCY The propensity of a respondent t o become aware of an in n o v a t i o n and then proceed through the adoption process before making a d e c i s i o n i s r e f e r r e d t o as adoption tendency. Using the data on in n o v a t i o n response s t a t e as w e l l as stage reached i n the adoption process f o r the i n n o v a t i o n s , an adoption tendency score was d e r i v e d f o r each respondent. T h i s score was used as a b a s i s f o r the sepa r a t i o n of the respondents i n t o adopter tendency c a t e g o r i e s . A n a l y s i s of the d i f f e r e n c e s between the adopter c a t e g o r i e s and the adopter tendency c a t e g o r i e s was then conducted. I . DERIVATION OF THE ADOPTION TENDENCY SCORE The adoption tendency score d i f f e r s from the adoption score i n t h a t the respondents were p e n a l i z e d f o r not f i n d i n g out about i n n o v a t i o n s and f o r r e j e c t i n g them too e a r l y i n the adoption process. On the other hand, a bonus was given f o r completing the e v a l u a t i o n stage f o r i n n o v a t i o n s which cannot be t r i e d without adopting them and f o r completing the t r i a l stage f o r innovations which were r e l a t i v e l y easy t o t r y . Rogersi i n d i c a t e d t h a t one cause of unawareness of l E •M. Rogers, D i f f u s i o n of Innovations. The Free Press of Glencoe, New York, 1962, pp. 109, 110 and 224 t o 226. 110 innovations was s e l e c t i v e exposure and s e l e c t i v e r e t e n t i o n . A l l t e n i n n o v a t i o n s had been introduced t o the d a i r y farmers through the mass media at l e a s t s e v e r a l years before the i n t e r v i e w s were conducted. Therefore, i t can be assumed t h a t s e l e c t i v e exposure and s e l e c t i v e r e t e n t i o n played a l a r g e part i n the i n n o v a t i o n unawareness reporte d by the respondents. For each i n n o v a t i o n unawareness, the respondent was given a score of -5. A negative score was a l s o given f o r r e j e c t i n g an i n n o v a t i o n i r r a t i o n a l l y . I f a respondent d i d not proceed t o the t r i a l stage f o r an i n n o v a t i o n which was inexpensive and could be t r i e d e a s i l y , h i s adoption behavior was con- s i d e r e d t o be i r r a t i o n a l . The scores a l l o c a t e d f o r r e j a c t i o n of an e a s i l y t r i e d i n n o v a t i o n were as f o l l o w s : -5 at the awareness stage, -3 at the i n t e r e s t stage, and -1 at the e v a l u a t i o n stage. Two i n n o v a t i o n s , heated water bowls or heated tanks and the hay dryer, could not be t r i e d without adopting them. R e j e c t i o n o f each of these at the e v a l u a t i o n stage was not considered t o be n e c e s s a r i l y i r r a t i o n a l so a score of +5 was a l l o c a t e d . A score of +5 was given f o r r e j e c t i o n o f any i n n o v a t i o n at the t r i a l stage. I f a respondent were co n t i n u i n g i n the adoption process, the scores a l l o c a t e d were as f o l l o w s : +1, f o r awareness, +2 f o r i n t e r e s t , +3 f o r e v a l u a t i o n , +4 f o r t r i a l and +5 f o r adoption. A score of +5 was a l s o given f o r the d i s c o n t i n - uance of an i n n o v a t i o n . I l l The maximum obtainable score was +50 and the minimum -50. The range f o r the sample was -46 t o +43* To f a c i l i t a t e a n a l y s i s , however, the s c a l e was converted t o a completely p o s i t i v e one. ( i . e . the o r i g i n a l -50 was equated w i t h a score of 1 and the o r i g i n a l +50 w i t h a score of 101). The range on the new scale was from 5 t o 94. The mean adopter tendency score was 45.68 and the standard d e v i a t i o n 18.01. Using these two s t a t i s t i c s , the respondents were d i v i d e d i n t o standard u n i t i n t e r v a l s which represent adopter tendency c a t e g o r i e s . The ca t e g o r i e s and c l a s s l i m i t s of the i n t e r v a l s were as f o l l o w s : laggard - l e s s than the mean minus one standard d e v i a t i o n (0 t o 27), l a t e m a j o r i t y - the mean minus one standard d e v i a t i o n t o the mean (28 t o 45), e a r l y m a j o r i t y - the mean t o the mean p l u s one standard d e v i a t i o n (46 t o 63), e a r l y adopter - the mean p l u s one standard d e v i a t i o n t o the mean p l u s two standard d e v i a t i o n s (64 t o 81) and innovator - g r e a t e r than the mean pl u s two standard d e v i a t i o n s (82 or more). The e a r l y adopter and innovator c a t e g o r i e s were combined and r e f e r r e d t o as the e a r l y adopter-innovator category because there was only one respondent i n the innovator category. Use of the Chi-square t e s t showed t h a t the d i s t r i b u t i o n of adoption tendency scores approximated the normal curve. Table XXXIII g i v e s the observed and expected frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of the respondents i n the adopter c a t e g o r i e s as w e l l as the Chi-square v a l u e . 112 Table XXXIII CLASSIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS INTO ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORIES Adopter category C l a s s Number of bound- standard a r i e s d e v i a t i o n s from the mean Number of respondents (n - e ) 2 i n each category Expected Observed (normal (sample) curve) frequency frequency (e) (n) E a r l y adopter- innov a t o r 63.69 E a r l y m a j o r i t y Late m a j o r i t y Laggard 45.68' 27.67 4-1 0 - 1 15.74 34.13 18 32 34.13 34 15.74 16 .325 .133 .001 .005 Chi-square value .464 NOTE: The n u l l hypothesis t h a t the sample frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n approximated the normal curve d i s t r i b u t i o n was t e s t e d at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . The hypothesis was accepted since the obtained chi-square value was below the c r i t i c a l value of 3.841. In r e - c l a s s i f y i n g the respondents from the adopter c a t e g o r i e s t o the adopter tendency c a t e g o r i e s , i t was found 113 t h a t 28 were c l a s s i f i e d i n d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s . For example, a respondent i n the laggard category on the b a s i s of adopter score, may have s h i f t e d t o the l a t e m a j o r i t y category on the b a s i s of the adopter tendency score. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of respondents i n the ca t e g o r i e s according t o the adoption tendency score conformed more c l o s e l y to the normal curve than the d i s t r i b u t i o n by adoption s c o r e . 2 The changes i n the number of respondents i n each category i s shown i n Table XXXIV. Table XXXIV NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS IN EACH CATEGORY WHEN CLASSIFIED BY ADOPTION SCORE AND ADOPTION TENDENCY SCORE Category Number of respondents i n each category on the b a s i s o f : Adoption score Adoption tendency score Laggard 20 16 Late m a j o r i t y 29 34 E a r l y m a j o r i t y 35 32 E a r l y adopter-innovator 16 18 T o t a l 100 100 *The Chi-square values f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n of respond- ents i n the adopter tendency c a t e g o r i e s was much lower than t h a t f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n of respondents i n the adopter c a t e g o r i e s . 114 I I . COMPARISON OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ADOPTER CATEGORIES AND THE ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORIES Chi-square values f o r b i v a r i a t e t a b l e s of two and f o u r adopter tendency c a t e g o r i e s against each socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c were determined. The s i g n i f i c a n t values obtained were compared w i t h those f o r the two and f o u r adopter categories.-^ The b i v a r i a t e t a b l e s of socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a gainst f o u r adopter c a t e g o r i e s produced only 7 s i g n i f i c a n t Chi-square values compared w i t h 11 f o r the f o u r adopter tendency c a t e g o r i e s . Four of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s had C h i - square values which were s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h both c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . Three c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s had s i g n i f i c a n t values against adopter category only and 7 against adopter tendency category o n l y . The number of s i g n i f i c a n t Chi-square values f o r the two adopter c a t e g o r i e s against the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s was 6 compared w i t h 7 f o r the two adopter tendency c a t e g o r i e s . Three of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s had Chi-square values which were s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h both c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , 3 bad s i g n i f i c a n t values w i t h adopter category only and 4 against adopter tendency category o n l y . Chi-square values f o r b i v a r i a t e t a b l e s of s o c i o - economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s against the adopter c a t e g o r i e s and the adopter tendency c a t e g o r i e s are given i n Tables XXXV and XXXVI. 3Information on the Chi-square values f o r the two and f o u r adopter c a t e g o r i e s i s contained i n S e c t i o n I I o f Chapter IV. 115 Table XXXV COMPARISON OF CHI-SQUARE VALUES FOR BIVARIATE TABLES OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AGAINST TWO ADOPTER CATEGORIES AND TWO ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORIES Socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Two adopter ca t e g o r i e s Ijwo adopter tendency ca t e g o r i e s M a r i t a l s t a t u s 1.691 4.000 Enjoyment of d a i r y i n g 9.091 5.638 Number of years farming experience 5.882 2.647 S i z e of d a i l y m i l k quota 5.681 6.044 Amount of m i l k s o l d per year 4.465 6.656 Number of young d a i r y stock r a i s e d 9.690* 7.660 V i s i t s t o the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t ' s o f f i c e 2-355 4.320 Attendance at meetings and f i e l d days sponsored by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t 3.522 3 . 3 « Community w i l l i n g n e s s t o adopt new d a i r y farm p r a c t i c e s 8.183 4-937 Community regard of laggards 7.910 0.713 NOTE: The u n d e r l i n e d values are s i g n i f i c a n t . A n u l l hypothesis of no d i f f e r e n c e i n c l a s s p r o p o r t i o n s between cate g o r i e s was used at the .05 and .01 l e v e l s of s i g n i f i c a n c e . S i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l . 116 Table XXXVI COMPARISON OF CHI-SQUARE VALUES FOR BIVARIATE TABLES OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AGAINST FOUR ADOPTER CATEGORIES AND FOUR ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORIES Socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c Four adopter c a t e g o r i e s Four adopter tendency c a t e g o r i e s A g r i c u l t u r e courses i n v o c a t i o n a l school a .631 6.636 T o t a l s i z e of farm 9 . 4 4 1 11 .187 Number of acres devoted t o d a i r y i n g a.311 12.337* S i z e of d a i l y m i l k quota 7.552 1 0 . 8 5 1 Amount of m i l k s o l d 7.644 10 .267 Average m i l k production per cow a.312 1 1 . 9 2 0 * greed of d a i r y c a t t l e 4.076 10.3?3 Number of young d a i r y stock r a i s e d 9.984 10.599 Amount of unpaid f a m i l y labour 14.062 3 . 8 9 1 Family farm and of f - f a r m employment income 11.080 1 5 . 6 7 7 * Farm value as a going concern 6.574 9.510 V i s i t s t o the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t s o f f i c e 6.221 a . 113 Community w i l l i n g n e s s t o adopt new d a i r y farm p r a c t i c e s 14.193* 1 3 . 8 4 2 * Community regard of laggards 12 .138* 3 .934 NOTE: The underlined values are s i g n i f i c a n t . A n u l l hypo- t h e s i s of no d i f f e r e n c e i n c l a s s proportions between ca t e g o r i e s was used at the .05 and .01 l e v e l s of s i g n i f i c a n c e . M S i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l . 117 Although some socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have s i g n i f i c a n t Chi-square values w i t h both c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , many have s i g n i f i c a n t v alues w i t h one c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and not the oth e r . This i n d i c a t e s t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s r e s u l t e d when the two ways of c l a s s i f y i n g the respondents were used. The f a c t t h a t more b i v a r i a t e t a b l e s of socio-economic f a c t o r s against adopter tendency c a t e g o r i e s had s i g n i f i c a n t Chi-square values compared w i t h the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s against the adopter c a t e g o r i e s , suggest t h a t the use of the adopter tendency c a t e g o r i e s are more e f f i c i e n t i n showing up d i f f e r - ences among the respondents. I l l A DESCRIPTION OF THE DIFFERENCES AMONG THE ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORIES Each b i v a r i a t e t a b l e of a socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c against two and f o u r adopter tendency c a t e g o r i e s , having a s i g n i f i c a n t Chi-square v a l u e , i s contained i n Appendix I I and described below. To s i m p l i f y comparison o f the d i f f e r - ences between the adopter tendency c a t e g o r i e s , percentages r a t h e r than absolute values are used. M a r i t a l S t a t u s The s i n g l e respondents tended t o be slow i n adopting new d a i r y farm p r a c t i c e s . Four times as many of them were i n the l a t e r adopter category as the e a r l i e r adopter category. 118 Farm Acreage Seventy-five per cent of the laggard category had a t o t a l farm s i z e of fewer than 70 acres compared w i t h 27«8 per cent of the e a r l y adopter-innovator category. However, a l a r g e r per cent of the e a r l y than the l a t e m a j o r i t y had fewer than 70 acr e s . Almost 90 per cent of the e a r l y adopter-innovator category had 40 acres o r more devoted t o d a i r y i n g compared w i t h 31*2 per cent of the laggard category. A l a r g e r percentage of the l a t e than the e a r l y m a j o r i t y had 40 acres or more devoted t o d a i r y i n g . S i z e of D a i l y M i l k Quota The median s i z e of d a i l y m i l k quota was i n the 200 t o 399 pound c l a s s f o r the l a t e r adopters and i n the 400 pounds or more c l a s s f o r the e a r l i e r adopters. When c o n s i d e r i n g f o u r adopter c a t e g o r i e s , more than three times as many of the e a r l y adopter-innovators as the laggards had a d a i l y m i l k quota of 300 pounds or more. A l a r g e r percentage of the l a t e than the e a r l y m a j o r i t y had quotas of l e s s than 300 pounds. Amount of M i l k Sold Per Year The percentage of the respondents i n each category s e l l i n g 200,000 pounds or more m i l k per year increased from the laggard t o the e a r l y adopter-innovator category. When con s i d e r i n g two adopter tendency c a t e g o r i e s , more than h a l f the l a t e r adopters s o l d l e s s than 200,000 pounds per year 119 w h i l e h a l f the e a r l i e r adopters s o l d more than 300,000 pounds of m i l k per year. Average Production Per Cow More than t w o - t h i r d s of the laggards had an average production per cow of l e s s than 9500 pounds compared w i t h fewer than one-quarter of the early-adopter i n n o v a t o r s . The average m i l k production per cow f o r the l a t e and e a r l y m a j o r i t y was almost the same. Breed of D a i r y C a t t l e The e a r l y m a j o r i t y had the l a r g e s t percentage owning H o l s t e i n and predominantly H o l s t e i n herds f o l l o w e d by the l a t e m a j o r i t y , e a r l y adopter-innovator and laggard c a t e g o r i e s . F i f t y per cent of the laggards had non-Holsteins or pre- dominantly non-Holsteins compared w i t h 12.5 per cent of the e a r l y m a j o r i t y . Number of D a i r y Young Stock Raised More than twice as many e a r l i e r than l a t e r adopters r a i s e d 20 or more young d a i r y stock. The percentage of the respondents i n each of the f o u r c a t e g o r i e s r a i s i n g 10 or more young d a i r y stock was as f o l l o w s : laggard 31*2, l a t e m a j o r i t y 47.1, e a r l y m a j o r i t y 59*4 and e a r l y adopter-innovator 83.3. Family Farm and Off-Farm Employment Income More than 87.5 per cent of the laggards had f a m i l y farm p l u s o f f - f a r m employment incomes of l e s s than #2500 compared wi t h 31.3 per cent of the e a r l y m a j o r i t y . A s l i g h t l y higher percentage of the e a r l y adopter-innovator category had l e s s than $2500 than the e a r l y and l a t e m a j o r i t y c a t e g o r i e s . 120 Farm Value as a Going Concern More of the e a r l y m a j o r i t y than the l a t e m a j o r i t y had farm values of l e s s than $49,950. About 62.5 per cent of the laggards had farms valued at l e s s than $49,950 as going concerns compared w i t h 16.7 per cent of the e a r l y adopter- innovator category. V i s i t s t o the D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r i s t s O f f i c e Twice as many e a r l i e r adopters as l a t e r adopters made one or more v i s i t s t o the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t s o f f i c e d u r i n g the past year. Comparing the f o u r c a t e g o r i e s , i t was found t h a t none o f the laggards v i s i t e d the d i s t r i c t a g r i - c u l t u r i s t s o f f i c e compared w i t h 37*5 per cent of the e a r l y adopters, 27.8 per cent of the e a r l y adopter-innovators and 23*5 per cent of the l a t e m a j o r i t y . Attendance at Meetings and F i e l d Days Sponsored by the D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r i s t Ninety-two per cent of the l a t e r adopters d i d not attend any meetings or f i e l d days sponsored by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t during the past year compared w i t h 78 per cent of the e a r l i e r adopters. Community W i l l i n g n e s s t o Adopt New D a i r y Farm P r a c t i c e s Only 18 .8 per cent of the laggard category f e l t t h a t t h e i r community was w i l l i n g t o adopt new d a i r y farm p r a c t i c e s compared w i t h 75*0 per cent of the e a r l y m a j o r i t y , 58.8 per cent of the l a t e m a j o r i t y and 55.6 per cent of the e a r l y 121 adopter-innovator. When u s i n g two adopter tendency c a t e g o r i e s , more of- the e a r l i e r than the l a t e r adopters f e l t t h a t t h e i r community was w i l l i n g t o adopt new d a i r y farm p r a c t i c e s . IV. PARTIAL CORRELATION OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS P a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s was c a r r i e d out on a l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which could be q u a n t i f i e d as i n Chapter I I I except t h a t the dependent v a r i a b l e was the adoption tendency score r a t h e r than the adoption score. I t was found t h a t only f i v e socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were a s s o c i a t e d s i g n i f - i c a n t l y w i t h the adoption tendency score compared w i t h nine a s s o c i a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h the adoption score. Four c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were a s s o c i a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h both adoption tendency score and the adoption score. These were: enjoyment of d a i r y i n g , the number of young d a i r y stock r a i s e d , and v i s i t s t o the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t ' s o f f i c e which had p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n s and farm v i s i t s by the d i s t r i c t a g r i - c u l t u r i s t which had a negative a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h both scores. S o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n and f a m i l y farm p l u s o f f - f a r m employment income each had a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h adoption score but not w i t h the adoption tendency score. The number of c h i l d r e n , years on the present farm and income from other farm e n t e r p r i s e s each had a s i g n i f i c a n t negative assoc- i a t i o n w i t h adoption score but not w i t h adoption tendency score. The only c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a s s o c i a t e d w i t h adoption 122 tendency score and not wi t h adoption score was the amount of h i r e d labour used which had a negative a s s o c i a t i o n . Table XXXVII gi v e s the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s having s i g n i f i c a n t 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 w i t h adoption score and adoption tendency score. Table XXXVII SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS HAVING SIGNIFICANT PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS WITH ADOPTION SCORE AND ADOPTION TENDENCY SCORE Socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c Adoption score Adoption tendency score Enjoyment of d a i r y i n g .220 .247 S o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n .216 - Number of young d a i r y stock r a i s e d .400 .310 Family farm p l u s o f f - f a r m employment income .233 - V i s i t s t o the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t s o f f i c e .246 .205 Number of c h i l d r e n -.210 - Years on present farm -.243 mm Income from other farm e n t e r p r i s e s - .291 - Farm v i s i t s by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t -.299 -.260 Amount of h i r e d labour used - - .221 Since the p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n t e s t measures the a s s o c i a t i o n of p a i r s of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w h i l e the i n f l u e n c e of a l l the others i s c o n t r o l l e d , the a s s o c i a t i o n s of independent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s was almost i d e n t i c a l when the dependent v a r i a b l e was adoption score and adoption tendency score. V. EFFICACY OF THE ADOPTION TENDENCY SCORE I t could not be determined i f the adoption tendency score was or was not a more u s e f u l way of i d e n t i f y i n g d i f f e r e n c e s among the respondents than the adoption score. Fewer s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n s e x i s t e d between, s o c i o - economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and adoption tendency score than between the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and adoption score. However, more of the b i v a r i a t e t a b l e s of socio-economic f a c t o r s a gainst the adopter tendency c a t e g o r i e s had s i g n i f i c a n t Chi-square values than the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a g a i n s t the adopter c a t e g o r i e s . 124 CHAPTER VIII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study analyses the adoption and re j e c t i o n of certain farm innovations by Lower Fraser Valley dairymen. In addition, i t analyses the use of information sources, length of time spent i n the adoption process, reasons f o r delay, r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance of innovations, and dairyman-district a g r i c u l t u r i s t contact. Data f o r the above analysis were collected from a representative sample of the dairymen by personal interview. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of the respondents* adoption scores, which were derived by measuring progress toward adoption f o r each innovation, approximated the normal curve. From t h i s , i t was possible to divide the respondents into adopter categories and analyse the differences occurring among these. I . CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE AND ADOPTER CATEGORIES The median age of the respondents was i n the 45 to 54 age grouping and there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference among the adopter categories with respect to age d i s t r i - bution. This finding does not support the generalization by Rogers that " e a r l i e r adopters are younger i n age than l a t e r adopters".However, i t i s consistent with the l E •M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press! of Glencoe, New York, 1962, p. 313. 125 2 r o l e of age i n adoption found by Verner and M i l l e r d . The m a j o r i t y of the respondents reported 8 or l e s s years of school completed. A higher l e v e l of formal education was found t o be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h extensive s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n and w i t h l e s s experience i n farming. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n years of school completed were found among the adopter c a t e g o r i e s , however, a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found w i t h respect to a g r i c u l t u r e courses taken at v o c a t i o n a l schools. A l a r g e r percentage of those i n the category e a r l y adopter-innovator had taken these courses than was found i n any of the other adopter c a t e g o r i e s . This f i n d i n g supports the contention of Verner and M i l l e r d ^ t h a t the d i r e c t relevance of the content of an educational experience t o a given group's primary concerns i s a c r u c i a l a t t r i b u t e of education. Enjoyment of d a i r y i n g was found to be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h greater production per cow and a l s o w i t h r e n t i n g r a t h e r than owning a l l or p a r t of the farm. A s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher percentage of the e a r l i e r than the l a t e r adopterslenjoyed d a i r y i n g . T h i s f i n d i n g i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t of Verner and M i l l e r d 4 i n t h e i r study of Okanagan o r c h a r d i s t s . A d i f f e r e n c e 2C. Verner and F.W. M i l l e r d , Adult Education and the Adoption of Innovations by O r c h a r d i s t s i n the Okanagan V a l l e y o f B r i t i s h Columbia! Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., 1966 ( R u r a l S o c i o l o g i c a l Monograph #1) pp. 73 and 74 • 3Ibid., p. 74. ^ I b i d . , p. 19. 126 d i d e x i s t between the o r c h a r d i s t s and dairymen, however. Verner and M i l l e r d - * found t h a t 79 • 3 per cent of the orchard- i s t s enjoyed orcharding very much and only 1.4 per cent d i d not enjoy i t at a l l . The r e s p e c t i v e f i g u r e s f o r the d a i r y - men were 60 and 14 per cent. The m a j o r i t y of the respondents had twenty or more years of farming and d a i r y i n g experience. For the number of years on the present farm, the median category was 10 t o 19 years. A s i g n i f i c a n t l y s m a l l e r percentage of e a r l i e r adopters than l a t e r adopters had twenty or more years farming exper- i e n c e . Verner and M i l l e r d 0 found t h a t the e a r l i e r adopters had more orcharding experience than the l a t e r adopters. More than h a l f the respondents were immigrants and about 40 per cent of these were from the Netherlands. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e among the adopter c a t e g o r i e s i n regard t o whether the respondents were born i n Canada, i n the Netherlands o r i n other c o u n t r i e s . No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n e x i s t e d among the adopter c a t e g o r i e s . This i s at variance w i t h L i o n b e r g e r f s statement t h a t the e a r l y adopters p a r t i c - i p a t e more i n formal a s s o c i a t i o n s than l a t e adopters.7 More s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n was found t o be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a l a r g e r 5_,oc. c i t . 6 C . Verner and F.W. M i l l e r d , op. c i t . , pp. 19-. and 20. 7H.F. Lionberger, Adoption of New Ideas and P r a c t i c e s . Iowa State U n i v e r s i t y Press, Ames, Iowa, I960, pp. 38-4Q. 127 d a i l y m i l k quota, w i t h more unpaid ( f a m i l y ) labour and w i t h income from other farm e n t e r p r i s e s . A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n t o t a l s i z e of farm was found t o e x i s t among the adopter c a t e g o r i e s . The e a r l i e r adopters operated the l a r g e s t farms and the l a t e r adopters the s m a l l e s t . This i s i n agreement w i t h most adoption s t u d i e s . As the number of improved acres devoted to d a i r y i n g decreased, the number of cows i n the d a i r y herd i n c r e a s e d . This seems t o i n d i c a t e a tendency toward f e e d - l o t type d a i r y o p e rations. In a d d i t i o n , s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i n d a i r y i n g was shown by the f a c t t h a t more than f o u r - f i f t h s of the respond- ents had no improved l a n d devoted t o non-dairying e n t e r p r i s e s . There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e among the adopter cat e g o r i e s i n regard t o e i t h e r the number of improved acres devoted t o non-dairying e n t e r p r i s e s nor income from non- d a i r y i n g e n t e r p r i s e s . Thus, the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n by Rogers 0 t h a t e a r l i e r adopters have more s p e c i a l i z e d operations than l a t e r adopters could not be supported. Most of the respondents owned t h e i r farms. Ownership i n whole or i n part was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a l a r g e r amount of h i r e d and unpaid ( f a m i l y ) labour used as w e l l as w i t h a higher farm v a l u e . The adopter c a t e g o r i e s , however, d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y w ith respect t o e i t h e r tenure or the E.M. Rogers, op. c i t . p. 313 128 amount of h i r e d labour used. Most adoption s t u d i e s have found t h a t the e a r l i e r adopters own t h e i r farms which i s not the case i n t h i s study. The median number of cows i n the m i l k i n g herd was low and t h i s was p o s i t i v e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h many other v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d i n g among the most important of these the amount of f a m i l y farm p l u s o f f - f a r m employment income. C r o s s f i e l d and Woodward^ i n t h e i r study of Fraser V a l l e y d a i r y farm organ- i z a t i o n a l s o found a p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n between the number of cows and the dairymen's income. A negative a s s o c i a t i o n e x i s t e d between the number of cows i n the d a i r y herd and the average production per cow, o f f - f a r m work and income from other farm e n t e r p r i s e s . A s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e r percentage of the e a r l i e r adopters had a high production per cow and r a i s e d more young d a i r y stock than the l a t e r adopters. More than t h r e e - f o u r t h s of the respondents d i d not have any o f f - f a r m employment. Greater o f f - f a r m employment was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h use of more h i r e d labour and higher non- farm and f a m i l y farm incomes. More than t w o - t h i r d s of the respondents d i d not r e c e i v e any non-farm income. The median f a m i l y farm p l u s o f f - f a r m employment income was i n the $2,500 t o $3,499 c l a s s . There was a p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n between f a m i l y farm p l u s o f f - f a r m employment income and the number of 9D.c. C r o s s f i e l d and E.D. Woodward, Dairy Farm Organiz- a t i o n i n the Fraser V a l l e y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1961. Canada Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , Economics D i v i s i o n , Vancouver, B.C., 1962, p. 17. 129 c h i l d r e n , s i z e of d a i l y m i l k quota, amount of m i l k s o l d , number of young d a i r y stock r a i s e d , amount of o f f - f a r m work and income from other farm e n t e r p r i s e s . A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e among the adopter c a t e g o r i e s e x i s t e d i n regard to f a m i l y farm p l u s o f f - f a r m employment income. The m a j o r i t y of the laggard category had an income of l e s s than $2,$00 while the m a j o r i t y i n the other c a t e g o r i e s had an income higher than $2,500. Twelve per cent of the respondents had no contact of any type w i t h the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t but on the average each respondent had 2.53 types of contact w i t h the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t i n the year previous t o the i n t e r v i e w . The average number of types of contact compares f a v o r a b l y w i t h the 2.41 types of contact w i t h the extension agent reported by Rogers and Capener 1 0 i n t h e i r Ohio study but i t should be kept i n mind t h a t the value of each contact was not compared. The range i n the number of types of contact between the laggard and e a r l y adopter-innovator c a t e g o r i e s was 1.33 compared wi t h 1.81 recorded by Rogers and Capener.^ A s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher percentage of the e a r l i e r than the l a t e r adopters made v i s i t s t o the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t ' s l^E.M. Rogers and H.R. Capener, The County Extension Agent and H i s C o n s t i t u e n t s , Ohio A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n , Wooster, Ohio, June I960, ( B u l l e t i n 858), p. 14. I b i d . , p. 25 130 o f f i c e . For the other types of contact, however, there were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among the adopter c a t e g o r i e s . The most f r e q u e n t l y used type of d a i r y m a n - d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t contact was m a i l from the d i s t r i c t a g r i - c u l t u r i s t , however, only t w o - t h i r d s of the respondents had t h i s type of contact. This i n d i c a t e s t h a t about o n e - t h i r d of the dairymen were not on the m a i l i n g l i s t s of the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t s and, t h e r e f o r e , could not be contacted d i r e c t l y by them. This i n a b i l i t y t o contact a l a r g e segment of the d a i r y operator population d i r e c t l y may have been a c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r f o r the low frequency of attendance at meetings and f i e l d days sponsored by the d i s t r i c t a g r i - c u l t u r i s t s . A high adoption score was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h more v i s i t s t o the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t s o f f i c e but fewer farm v i s i t s by the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t . A p o s s i b l e explanation i s that the high adopters go t o the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t f o r informat i o n while the low adopters wait f o r the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t t o come t o them. Adoption score was a l s o a s s o c i a t e d p o s i t i v e l y w i t h enjoyment of d a i r y i n g , s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , the number of young d a i r y stock r a i s e d and f a m i l y farm p l u s o f f - f a r m employment income. On the other hand, there was a negative a s s o c i a t i o n between adoption score and the number of c h i l d r e n , the number of years on the present farm and income from other farm e n t e r p r i s e s . 131 The m a j o r i t y of the respondents f e l t t h a t t h e i r community was f a v o r a b l y disposed t o the adoption of new d a i r y farm p r a c t i c e s , n e v e r t h e l e s s , s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d among the adopter c a t e g o r i e s . More of the e a r l i e r than the l a t e r adopters f e l t t hat t h e i r community was w i l l i n g t o adopt new p r a c t i c e s and more than twice the percentage of the e a r l i e r than the l a t e r adopters f e l t t h a t t h e i r community regarded laggards unfavorably. A higher percentage of the e a r l y m a j o r i t y than the e a r l y adopter-innovator category f e l t t h a t t h e i r community was w i l l i n g t o adopt new p r a c t i c e s and regarded laggards unfavorably. This may i n d i c a t e t h a t the e a r l y adopter-innovators, who have a cosmopolite o r i e n t a t i o n , may be l e s s concerned w i t h or more t o l e r a n t of members of t h e i r own communities than the e a r l y m a j o r i t y . I I . SOURCES OF INFORMATION An a n a l y s i s of the i n f o r m a t i o n sources used by the respondents i n the adoption of innovations was conducted u s i n g two c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems. The f i r s t of these grouped the sources according t o the nature of the a c t i v i t y w i t h which each could be i d e n t i f i e d and included the f o l l o w i n g c a t e g o r i e s : p e r s o n a l , mass, i n s t r u c t i o n a l group and i n d i v - i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l sources. The second grouped the sources according to o r i g i n and the c a t e g o r i e s were: government, 132 commercial, farm o r g a n i z a t i o n and pe r s o n a l . With the i n c r e a s i n g development of a d u l t education a c t i v i t i e s f o r s p e c i f i c s o c i a l systems, these i n f o r m a t i o n source c a t e g o r i e s w i l l l i k e l y become more important, however, at the present time i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o compare t h i s w i t h other s t u d i e s which used d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s . When c l a s s i f i e d by the nature of the a c t i v i t y , mass sources were most important at the awareness stage, i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l sources were s l i g h t l y more important than personal sources at the i n t e r e s t stage, and f o r the remaining stages i n the adoption process, personal sources were most important. Lionberger-*- 2 considered mass sources t o be most important at the i n t e r e s t stage but i n t h i s study mass sources amounted t o a very small percentage of the sources used at t h i s stage. Verner and M i l l e r d ^ a l s o found mass sources t o have a lower frequency of use than other sources at the i n t e r e s t stage. When c l a s s i f i e d by o r i g i n , commercial sources were most important at the awareness stage. From the i n t e r e s t t o the adoption stage the greatest use was made of personal sources w i t h very l i t t l e use made of farm o r g a n i z a t i o n sources. Government sources r e c e i v e d t h e i r highest use at the i n t e r e s t stage and d e c l i n e d i n use t o the adoption stage. 12H.F. Lionberger, op. c i t . , pp. 26 and 32. 13c. Verner and F.W. M i l l e r d , op. c i t . . pp. 3#-41. 133 Almost h a l f of the d i f f e r e n c e s i n source use between stages were found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t , however, there were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n use of farm o r g a n i z a t i o n sources between stages and but few s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the use of i n s t r u c t i o n a l group sources between stages. The r e l a t i v e importance of in f o r m a t i o n sources under each c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system was the same f o r each adopter category. "When c l a s s i f i e d by the nature of the a c t i v i t y , the most t o l e a s t used sources were personal, i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l , mass and i n s t r u c t i o n a l group. When c l a s s i f i e d by o r i g i n , the most to l e a s t used sources were personal, commercial, government and farm o r g a n i z a t i o n . Though the r e l a t i v e importance of inf o r m a t i o n sources was the same f o r each adopter category, there were d i f f e r e n c e among the adopter c a t e g o r i e s but only one of these d i f f e r e n c e was found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t . The laggard category used s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer government sources than the e a r l y adopter innovator category. Few of the v a r i a t i o n s i n inf o r m a t i o n source use between adopter c a t e g o r i e s at the i n d i v i d u a l stages i n the adoption process were s i g n i f i c a n t . Some of the most important s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n s are: the laggards used fewer i n s t r u c t i o n a l i n d i v i d u a l sources at the i n t e r e s t stage than the e a r l y adopter-innovator; the e a r l y m a j o r i t y used more mass sources at the e v a l u a t i o n stage than the laggards; the e a r l y m a j o r i t y and the e a r l y adopter-innovators made more 134 use of government sources at the awareness and i n t e r e s t stages than the laggards and g r e a t e r use was made of commercial sources at the e v a l u a t i o n stage by the e a r l y m a j o r i t y than by the e a r l y adopter-innovators. The f i v e most used i n d i v i d u a l sources of i n f o r m a t i o n , i n order of importance, were: neighbors and f r i e n d s , obser- v a t i o n of other farms, salesmen and d e a l e r s , own experience and general farm magazines. The d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t was not among the top f i v e most used sources f o r the dairymen i n t h i s study when the adopter c a t e g o r i e s were considered toge t h e r . However, when c o n s i d e r i n g i n d i v i d u a l c a t e g o r i e s , the d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t was the f o u r t h most used source f o r the e a r l y m a j o r i t y and the f i f t h most used source f o r the e a r l y adopter-innovators. This d i f f e r s markedly from Verner and M i l l e r d ' s ^ * f i n d i n g t h a t the d i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t was the most used source by the o r c h a r d i s t s . The most important i n d i v i d u a l sources at each stage were as f o l l o w s : general farm magazines at the awareness stage; neighbors and f r i e n d s from the i n t e r e s t t o the t r i a l stages; and the i n d i v i d u a l ' s own experience at the adoption stage. The in n o v a t i o n s were d i v i d e d i n t o a most fa v o r a b l e and a l e a s t f a v o r a b l e group on the b a s i s of the amount of change re q u i r e d as a r e s u l t of adopting the i n n o v a t i o n s . Such C. Verner and F.W. M i l l e r d , op. c i t . . pp. 43 and 47 135 change might i n v o l v e expense, ease of t r i a l and ease w i t h which the r e s u l t s could be observed and s i m i l a r f a c t o r s . For the most fav o r a b l e group of i n n o v a t i o n s , mass sources were used most f o l l o w e d by i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l , p e r s o n a l , and i n s t r u c t i o n a l group sources i n t h a t order. For the l e a s t f a v o r a b l e group of i n n o v a t i o n s , personal sources were most used f o l l o w e d by mass, i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l and f i n a l l y i n s t r u c t i o n a l group sources. When the sources were c l a s s - i f i e d by o r i g i n , the r e l a t i v e importance of the sources was the same f o r both groups of i n n o v a t i o n s . Commercial sources were most used f o l l o w e d by personal, government, and then farm o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Almost twice as many in f o r m a t i o n sources were used by the respondents f o r the group two as f o r the group one i n n o v a t i o n s . T h i s was l i k e l y due t o the respondents seeking more i n f o r m a t i o n f o r i n n o v a t i o n s which were d i f f i c u l t t o t r y , expensive and i n v o l v e d changes to new techniques or operations which would be r e l a t i v e l y permanent. I I I . THE ADOPTION AND NON-ADOPTION OF THE INNOVATIONS There were more dairymen who were not aware of the ten i n n o v a t i o n s than there were adopters of them. T h i s unawareness of i n d i v i d u a l i n novations ranged from zero t o 75 per cent while adoption ranged from zero t o 46 per cent. These d i f f e r e n c e s between unawareness and adoption of 136 i n d i v i d u a l i n n o v a t i o n s were caused by many f a c t o r s such as the time of i n t r o d u c t i o n and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n n o v a t i o n s . Systemic warble f l y c o n t r o l which was the most r e c e n t l y introduced i n n o v a t i o n considered i n t h i s study, f o r example, showed the highest r a t e of unawareness and no adoptions. Change agents have attached considerable import- ance t o the three m a s t i t i s c o n t r o l innovations and each of these was introduced more than f i v e years ago, however, the high r a t e of unawareness found f o r these i n n o v a t i o n s would seem to i n d i c a t e inadequate programs to promote t h e i r adoption. Unawareness of an i n n o v a t i o n was found s i x times more of t e n among the innovations i n group one than among the group two i n n o v a t i o n s and the adoption of group one i n n o v a t i o n s was only about h a l f t h a t of those from group two. Since both the number of sources of i n f o r m a t i o n used and the adoption r a t e were about twice as high f o r the group two as f o r the group one i n n o v a t i o n s , R o g e r s s t a t e m e n t t h a t a high r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between exposure t o a new i d e a and adoption of the i d e a , i s supported. Since the group one i n n o v a t i o n s were much e a s i e r t o use on a t r i a l b a s i s , a much higher percentage of the respondents were at the t r i a l stage f o r these innovations 15 E.M. Rogers, op. c i t . , p. 104. 137 than f o r the group two i n n o v a t i o n s . Less time was spent i n the adoption process f o r the group one than the group two innovations and the l a t e r adopters spent l e s s time i n the adoption process than the e a r l i e r adopters. I t could be assumed t h a t l e s s time was spent at the i n t e r e s t and t r i a l stages because r e l a t i v e l y few respondents were at these stages compared w i t h the other stages i n the adoption process. The reasons given by dairymen f o r spending more than two years i n the adoption process were c l a s s i f i e d by the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n n o v a t i o n s ( i . e r e l a t i v e advantage, c o m p a t i b i l i t y , complexity, d i v i s i b i l i t y and communicability) and by s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s ( i . e . not appropriate, s c a l e of operation too s m a l l , i n s u f f i c i e n t c a p i t a l and o t h e r s ) . S i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s c o n s t i t u t e d more than t w o - t h i r d s of the reasons given f o r delay i n proceeding through the adoption process. The f i v e most f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d i n d i v i d u a l reasons f o r delay were: other s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s , i n s u f f i c i e n t c a p i t a l , communicability, s c a l e of operation too small and r e l a t i v e advantage. Furthermore, s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s were c i t e d more f r e q u e n t l y as reasons f o r delay by the l a t e r adopters than by the e a r l i e r adopters. An a n a l y s i s of the i n n o v a t i o n response s t a t e showed t h a t on the average each respondent was not aware of 2.19 of the 10 i n n o v a t i o n s ; was c o n t i n u i n g i n the adoption process f o r 1.57; r e j e c t e d 4«38; adopted 1.66; and d i s - continued use of 0.20 i n n o v a t i o n s . Continuing i n the 138 adoption process, r e j e c t i o n , and adoption were lower, w h i l e unawareness and discontinuance were higher f o r the group one than the group two i n n o v a t i o n s . As expected, the i n d i v i d u a l i n n o v a t i o n s d i f f e r e d w i d e l y w i t h respect t o the number of respondents at each i n n o v a t i o n response s t a t e . The l a r g e s t number of respondents conti n u i n g i n the adoption process f o r the group one innovations was at the awareness stage and f o r the group two innovations at the e v a l u a t i o n stage. This seems to i n d i c a t e t h a t the character- i s t i c s of the group one innovations were l e s s able to s t i m u l a t e the respondents to continue i n the adoption process than those of group two. One of the most important r e s u l t s of t h i s study r e l a t e d t o the r e j e c t i o n of an i n n o v a t i o n . Almost h a l f of the r e j e c t i o n s occurred at the awareness stage. Thus, almost h a l f of the d e c i s i o n s not t o adopt an i n n o v a t i o n were made at the time the i n d i v i d u a l obtained h i s f i r s t knowledge of the i n n o v a t i o n . This suggests t h a t the sources of i n f o r m a t i o n designed t o create awareness and t o s t i m u l a t e i n t e r e s t i n an i n n o v a t i o n f a i l e d t o motivate dairymen t o continue i n the adoption process. I t a l s o r e f l e c t s the need f o r i n t e n s i v e e d u c a t i o n a l programs designed to ensure a more r a t i o n a l approach t o the adoption process. With both groups of innovations the highest r a t e of r e j e c t i o n occurred at the awareness stage and the lowest at the i n t e r e s t stage. The group two innovations had a 1 3 9 h i g h e r r e j e c t i o n r a t e at the e v a l u a t i o n stage and a much lower r e j e c t i o n r a t e at the t r i a l stage than d i d the group one i n n o v a t i o n s . This could be a n t i c i p a t e d s ince the group two in n o v a t i o n s were much more d i f f i c u l t t o t r y than were the group one i n n o v a t i o n s . There were d e f i n i t e trends among the adopter cate- g o r i e s i n regard t o i n n o v a t i o n response s t a t e . Unawareness and r e j e c t i o n decreased w h i l e c o n t i n u a t i o n i n the adoption process, adoption, and discontinuance increased from the laggard t o the e a r l y adopter-innovator category. On the average a d e c i s i o n t o r e j e c t was made i n a sho r t e r time than a d e c i s i o n t o adopt an i n n o v a t i o n . About tw o - t h i r d s of the r e j e c t i o n s occurred a f t e r the respondents had spent l e s s than one year and about t w o - t h i r d s of the adoptions occurred a f t e r they had spent one or more years i n the adoption process. Discontinuance was f o u r times higher when l e s s than one year was spent than when one or more years was spent i n the adoption process. About tw o - t h i r d s of the reasons f o r r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance were due t o the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the inn o v a t i o n and o n e - t h i r d t o s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s while the reasons f o r delay i n proceeding through the adoption process were j u s t the opposite. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t while i n s u f f i c i e n t c a p i t a l and communicability were not given as reasons f o r r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance, they were very important reasons f o r delay. 140 The two groups of i n n o v a t i o n s d i f f e r e d sharply i n regard t o reasons f o r r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n n o v a t i o n accounted f o r almost a l l the reasons f o r r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance of the group one i n n o v a t i o n s , but made up l e s s than h a l f the reasons f o r the group two i n n o v a t i o n s . R e l a t i v e advantage accounted f o r almost a l l the reasons f o r r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance among the group one i n n o v a t i o n s . The e x t r a amount of labour (an aspect of r e l a t i v e advantage) r e q u i r e d f o r the three m a s t i t i s c o n t r o l i n n o v a t i o n s may have been one of the main reasons f o r t h e i r high r a t e of r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance. This was c i t e d by F l i e g e l and Kivlin-*-6 who s t a t e d t h a t saving time was more c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o the r a t e of adoption than any other f a c t o r i n v o l v i n g economic advantage. Even though change agents may agree t h a t the adoption of the three m a s t i t i s c o n t r o l i n n o v a t i o n s w i l l be more p r o f i t a b l e i n the long fun than the immediate saving of time, many farmers w i l l t r y t o solve t h e i r l a bour problems before they w i l l adopt these i n n o v a t i o n s . On the other hand, many dairymen who had s u f f i c i e n t labour probably gave r e l a t i v e advantage as the reason f o r r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance of the three innovations when the a c t u a l reason was communic- a b i l i t y . This i s so because these innovations have the 1 D F . C . F l i e g e l and'J.E. K i v l i n , D i f f e r e n c e s Among Improved Farm P r a c t i c e s as Related t o Rates of Adoption, A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y Park, Pennsylvania, ( B u l l e t i n 691), 1962, p. 13. 141 f o l l o w i n g a d d i t i o n a l disadvantageous c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : they have t o be used f o r a r e l a t i v e l y l o n g time i n the proper manner before the r e s u l t s of use can be observed and even a f t e r l o n g use the r e s u l t s are not always r e a d i l y observable. A f t e r r e l a t i v e advantage, the most important reasons f o r r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance of the group two i n n o v a t i o n s were: s c a l e of o p e r a t i o n too small and s i t u a t i o n not a p p r o p r i a t e . From the laggard t o the e a r l y adopter-innovator category, reasons f o r r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance due t o c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n n o v a t i o n increased while reasons due t o s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s decreased. More than ten times the number of r e j e c t i o n s at the t r i a l stage were due t o c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n n o v a t i o n than t o s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s . This seems to i n d i c a t e t h a t the respondents were able t o evaluate t h e i r s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s b e t t e r than they were the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n n o v a t i o n which caused r e j e c t i o n . Thus, they d i d not t r y many innovations which e v e n t u a l l y would have to be r e j e c t e d because of s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s . IV. ADOPTION TENDENCY Adoption tendency - the propensity of a respondent to become aware of an i n n o v a t i o n and then proceed through the adoption process before making a d e c i s i o n - was analysed 142 to see i f i t would i d e n t i f y d i f f e r e n c e s among respondents. Adoption tendency scores d i f f e r e d from adoption scores i n tha t the respondents were p e n a l i z e d f o r not f i n d i n g out about the innovations and f o r r e j e c t i n g them too e a r l y i n the adoption process, however, a bonus was given f o r completing e i t h e r the e v a l u a t i o n o r t r i a l stages. On r e c l a s s i f y i n g the respondents from the o r i g i n a l adopter c a t e g o r i e s i n t o the adopter tendency c a t e g o r i e s , 28 were moved t o d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s . The r e s u l t i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n of respondents according t o the adoption tendency score conformed more c l o s e l y t o the normal curve than d i d the o r i g i n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n by adoption score. B i v a r i a t e t a b l e s of socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s against f o u r adopter c a t e g o r i e s produced seven s i g n i f i c a n t chi-square values compared w i t h eleven f o r the f o u r adopter tendency c a t e g o r i e s . The number of s i g n i f i c a n t chi-square values f o r the two adopter ca t e g o r i e s against the s o c i o - economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s was s i x compared w i t h seven f o r the two adopter tendency c a t e g o r i e s . Some of the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s had chi-square values which were s i g n i f i c a n t f o r both c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s w h i l e some were s i g n i f i c a n t f o r e i t h e r one c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o r the other. Since more b i v a r i a t e t a b l e s of socio-economic f a c t o r s against the adopter tendency ca t e g o r i e s have s i g n i f i c a n t chi-square values than the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 143 against the adopter c a t e g o r i e s , and since a p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s of a l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which could be q u a n t i f i e d revealed t h a t only f i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were as s o c i a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h the adoption tendency score compared to nine w i t h the adoption score, i t cannot be stat e d p o s i t i v e l y whether or not the adoption tendency score i s a more u s e f u l way of d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g among the respondents than the adoption score. B I B L I O G R A P H Y 144 A. Theses M i l l e r d , Frank W. An A n a l y s i s of the Adoption of Innovations by Okanagan O r c h a r d i s t s . M.S.A. Thes i s . The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. 1965. Walker, Hugh V.H. An Economic A n a l y s i s of Tech- n o l o g i c a l Progress on Dairy Farms i n the Lower Fraser V a l l e y * B r i t i s h Columbia. M.S.A. Thes i s . The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. 1962. B. Government P u b l i c a t i o n s B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , Marketing 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 r i t i s h Columbia, Department of A g r i c u l t u r e . Inventory of A g r i c u l t u r e i n B r i t i s h Columbia. ( F i f t e e n t h B.C. N a t u r a l Resources Conference). undated mimeo. B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Lands and F o r e s t s . The Lower Coast B u l l e t i n Area - B u l l e t i n Area No. 3 . Queen's P r i n t e r , V i c t o r i a , B.C., 1959. Canada, Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . Census of Canada 1961: - P o p u l a t i o n . Queen's P r i n t e r , Ottawa, 1962. (Catalogue 92 - 543). Canada, Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . Farm Wages i n Canada (1). Queen's P r i n t e r , Ottawa, 1957 and 1965. (Catalogue No. 21 - 002) United States of America, Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Farm P r a c t i c e s A s s o c i a t e d w i t h Rate of Adoption". Extension Research and T r a i n i n g . Research Summary No. 80. Federal Extension S e r v i c e , Washington, D.C., February 1963. 145 C. General Works Clyne, J.V. Report of the B r i t i s h Columbia Royal Commission on M i l k , 1954-1955. Queen's P r i n t e r , V i c t o r i a , B.C. 1955. C r o s s f i e l d , D.C. and Woodward, E.D. Dair y Farm Org a n i z a t i o n i n the Fraser V a l l e y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1961. Canada Department of A g r i - c u l t u r e , Economics D i v i s i o n , Vancouver, B.C. 1962. Freund, John E. and W i l l i a m s , Frank J . Modern Business S t a t i s t i c s . P r e n t i c e - H a l l Inc., Englewood C l i f f s , N.J. 1958. Lionberger, Herbert F. Adoption of New Ideas and P r a c t i c e s . The Iowa State U n i v e r s i t y Press, Ames, Iowa. I960. Menzie, E.L., Klassen, 0. and Van Andel, F. D a i r y Farm Management Manual. Department of A g r i - c u l t u r a l Economics, The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. 1957. Rogers, E v e r e t t M. D i f f u s i o n of Innovations. The Free Press of Glencoe, New York. 1962. S e l l i t z , C ; Jahodo, M.; Deutsch, M. and Cook, S.W. Research Methods i n S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s . H o l t , Rinehart and Winston, New York. 1962. T i p p e t t , L.H.C. Random Sampling Numbers. Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, London. 1950. [ U n i v e r s i t y C o l l e g e , U n i v e r s i t y of London T r a c t s f o r Computers No. XV). D. S p e c i f i c Works A b e l l , Helen C ; Larson, Olaf F. and Dickerson, E l i z a b e t h R. Communication of A g r i c u l t u r a l Information i n a South-Central New York County New York State College of A g r i c u l t u r e , C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y , I t h a c a , New York, January 1957. (Department of R u r a l Sociology Mimeographed B u l l e t i n No. 49) 146 A b e l l , Helen C. Decision-Making on the Farm* Economics D i v i s i o n , Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , Ottawa, 1961. Alexander, Frank D.; E s c h l e r , Richard E. and D e l l , Joseph D. 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 TV School." R u r a l Sociology. 28: 4OO-4O4, 1963. B e a l , George M.; Rogers, E v e r e t t M. and Bohlen, Joe M. " V a l i d i t y of the Concept of Stages i n the Adoption Process." Rural Sociology. 22: 166-168, 1957. B e a l , George M. and Rogers, E v e r e t t M. The Adoption of Two Farm P r a c t i c e s i n a C e n t r a l Iowa Com- munity . Department of Economics and Sociology, Iowa State U n i v e r s i t y , Ames, Iowa. I960. ( S p e c i a l Report No. 26) Copp, James H. Personal and S o c i a l F a c t o r s A s s o c i a t e d With the Adoption of Recommended Farm P r a c t i c e s Among Cattlemen. A g r i c u l t u r e Experiment S t a t i o n , Kansas State College of A g r i c u l t u r e and A p p l i e d Science, Manhattan, 1956. (Technical B u l l e t i n 83) D i l l o n , John L. and Heady, E a r l 0 . Theories of Choice i n R e l a t i o n to Farmer D e c i s i o n s . A g r i - c u l t u r e and Home Economics Experiment S t a t i o n , Iowa State U n i v e r s i t y , Ames, Iowa, i 9 6 0 . (Research B u l l e t i n 485) E l i e g e l , F r e d e r i c k C. and K i v l i n , Joseph E. D i f f e r e n c e s Among Improved Farm P r a c t i c e s as Related t o Rates of Adoption. A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y Park, . Pennsylvania, 1962. ( B u l l e t i n 691) G i l l i s , W i l l i e Mae. The Adoption of Recommended Farm P r a c t i c e s i n A l c o r n County and i t s R e l a t i o n s h i p t o Other V a r i a b l e s . A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n , M i s s i s s i p p i State U n i v e r s i t y , 1958. ( P r e l i m i n a r y Reports i n Sociology and Rural L i f e Number 5) Havens, A.E. A Review of Fac t o r s Related t o Innovativene s s . Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics and R u r a l S o c i o l o g y , Ohio A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n , Columbus, 1962. (Mimeograph B u l l e t i n A.E. 329) 147 Havens, A.E. " I n c r e a s i n g the E f f e c t i v e n e s s of P r e d i c t i n g Innovativeness." R u r a l Sociology. 30: 150-165, 1965. Hess, C.V. and M i l l e r , L.F. Some Per s o n a l . Economic and S o c i o l o g i c a l F a c t o r s I n f l u e n c i n g Dairymen's A c t i o n s and Success. College of A g r i c u l t u r e , The Pennsylvania State U n i v e r s i t y , A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n , Pennsylvania, 1954* ( B u l l e t i n 577) H o f f e r , Charles R. Acceptance of Approved Farming P r a c t i c e s Among Farmers of Dutch Descent. Michigan State C o l l e g e , A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n , East Lansing, 1942. ( S p e c i a l B u l l e t i n 316) Hoffer, Charles R. and Strangland, Dale. "Farmers' A t t i t u d e s and Values i n R e l a t i o n t o Adoption of Approved P r a c t i c e s i n Corn Growing." Rur a l Sociology. 23:112-120, 1958. March, C. P a u l and Coleman, A. Lee. Communication and the Adoption of Recommended Farm P r a c t i c e s . A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Kentucky, Lexington, 1954* (Progress Report 22) Mason, Robert G. "The Use of Information Sources i n the Process of Adoption." R u r a l Sociology. 29: 40-52, 1964. M c M i l l i o n , M a r t i n B. The Sources of Information and F a c t o r s Which Influence Farmers i n Adopting Recommended P r a c t i c e s i n Two New Zealand Counties. L i n c o l n C o l l e g e , U n i v e r s i t y of New Zealand, i960. ( T e c h n i c a l P u b l i c a t i o n No. 19) N i e l s o n , James and B i t t n e r , R.F. Farm"Practice Adoption i n Michigan. A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n , Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y , East Lansing, 1958. (Technical B u l l e t i n 263) North C e n t r a l R u r a l Sociology Subcommittee. The D i f f u s i o n Process. Cooperative Extension S e r v i c e , Iowa State U n i v e r s i t y , Ames, Iowa, 1962. ( S p e c i a l Report No. 18) 1 4 8 North C e n t r a l Rural Sociology Subcommittee. How Farm People Accept New Ideas. Co-operative Extension S e r v i c e , Iowa State U n i v e r s i t y , Ames, Iowa, 1 9 6 2 . ( S p e c i a l Report No. 1 5 ) P h o t i a d i s , John D. " M o t i v a t i o n , Contacts and Technological Change." R u r a l Sociology. 2 7 : 3 1 6 - 3 2 6 , 1 9 6 2 . Rogers, E v e r e t t M. and Capenef, Harold R. The County Extension Agent and H i s C o n s t i t u e n t s . Ohio A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n , Wooster, Ohio, I960. (Research B u l l e t i n 8 5 8 ) Sheppard, D. "Farmers* Reasons f o r Not Adopting C o n t r o v e r s i a l Techniques i n Grassland Farming." J o u r n a l of the B r i t i s h Grassland S o c i e t y . 16: 6 - 1 3 , 1961. Silverman, L e s l i e J . and B a i l e y , W i l f r e d C. Trends i n the Adoption of Recommended Farm P r a c t i c e s - A l c o r n County. M i s s i s s i p p i ! 1954-1957. M i s s i s s i p p i State U n i v e r s i t y , A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n , M i s s i s s i p p i , 1 9 6 1 . ( B u l l e t i n 6 1 7 ) Subcommittee on the D i f f u s i o n and Adoption of Farm P r a c t i c e s , The R u r a l S o c i o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y . 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 P r a c t i c e s . Kentucky A g r i - c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n , Lexington, 1 9 5 2 . Verner, C. and M i l l e r d , F.W. Adult Education and the Adoption of Innovations by O r c h a r d i s t s i n the Okanagan V a l l e y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., 1 9 6 6 . (Rural S o c i o l o g i c a l Monograph # 1 ) W i l k e n i n g , Eugene A. Adoption of Improved Farm P r a c t i c e s - As Related t o Family F a c t o r s . U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1 9 5 3 . (Research B u l l e t i n 1 8 3 ) W i l k e n i n g , Eugene A.; T u l l y , Joan, and Presser, H a r t l y . "Communication and Acceptance of Recommended Farm P r a c t i c e s Among Da i r y Fanners of Northern V i c t o r i a . " R u r a l Sociology. 2 7 : I I 6 - 1 9 7 , 1 9 6 2 . 149 W i l s o n , Meredith C. and Gal l u p , Gladys. Extension Teaching Methods and Other Factors That In f l u e n c e Adoption of A g r i c u l t u r a l and Home Economics P r a c t i c e s . U.S. Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , Federal Extension S e r v i c e , 1955* (Extension S e r v i c e C i r c u l a r 495) APPENDIX I THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE WITH SIMPLE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS ADDED INTERVIEW SCHEDULE THE RATE OF ADOPTION OF DAIRY FARM INNOVATIONS IN THE LOWER FRASER VALLEY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Respondent's Name: Address: Telephone Number: Record of V i s i t s : 1st 2nd 3rd Respondent's Code Number Date Time Comments Notes: 1 INTRODUCTION H e l l o , I'm from the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. I am conducting a survey of the d a i r y farmers i n the Lower Fr a s e r V a l l e y , and I would l i k e t o ask some questions about y o u r s e l f and about your farm. A l l i n f o r m a t i o n that you give me w i l l be s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l , and w i l l be used f o r s t a t i s t i c a l summaries onl y . A. TO BEGIN, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT YOURSELF. 1. What i s your age? Column Code Frequency 1. under 20 1. 1 0 2. 20-24 2 1 3. 25-34 3 13 4. 35-44 4 23 5. 45-54 5 33 6. 55-64 6 26 7. 65 or over 7 l± 2. What i s your m a r i t a l s t a t u s 100 1. s i n g l e 2. 1 10 2. married 2 88 3. widowed 3 2 4. separated 4 0 5. divorced 5 0 100 3• How many c h i l d r e n do you have? 1. none 3* 1 4 2. 1-2 2 30 3- 3-4 3 28 4* 5 or more 4 28 90 4. What was the highest year you completed i n school? 1. l e s s than 5 4 1 2. 5 - 8 2 3. 9 - 11 3 4. h i g h school diploma (grade 12) 4 5. s e n i o r m a t r i c u l a t i o n 5 6. u n i v e r s i t y degree 6 7» u n i v e r s i t y graduate work 7 5. Have you taken any a g r i c u l t u r e courses i n high school? ' 1. yes 5 1 10 2. no 2 100 6. Have you taken any a g r i c u l t u r e courses at a v o c a t i o n a l school? 1. yes 6 1 12 2. no 2 88 100 2 7* Have you taken any a g r i c u l t u r e courses at u n i v e r s i t y ? 1. yes 2. no 8. Have you taken any a d u l t education courses i n a g r i c u l t u r e ? 1. yes 2. no 9. Have you taken any a d u l t education courses i n other subjects? 1. yes 2. no Do you enjoy your work as a dairyman? 1. Yes, very much 2. O c c a s i o n a l l y 3. not at a l l Column 7 8 10. 10 11. How many years have you been working i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l i n d u s t r y ? 1. fewer than 5 ; 11 2. 5 - 9 3. 1 0 - 1 9 4. 20 or more 12. How many years have you been a dairyman? 1. fewer than 5 12 2. 5 - 9 3. 1 0 - 1 9 4« 20 or more 13. How many years have you been on your present farm? 1. l e s s than 1 2. 2 - 4 . 3 . 5 - 9 4. 10 - 19 5. 20 or more 14. Were you born i n Canada? I f no, when d i d you immigrate t o Canada? 1. born i n Canada 2. immigrated before 1945 3. 1946-1950 4. 1951-1955 5. 1956-1957 6. 1958-1959 7. 1960-1961 8. 1962-1963 9. 1964-1965 13 14 Code Frequency 1 0 2 100 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 21 4 ill 100 1 5 2 6 3 35 4 54 100 1 4 2 14 3 20 4 25 5 37 100 1 42 2 22 3 13 4 22 5 0 6 0 7 1 8 0 9 0 100 3 15. Where were you born? 1. B r i t i s h I s l e s 2. Germany 3. Denmark, Norway or Sweden 4. Netherlands 5. France 6. Ukraine 7. I t a l y 8. Other 16. S o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n score. 1. no score 2. 1 - 4 3 . 5 - 8 4. 9 - 1 6 5. 17-24 6. 25 - 50 7* more than 50 Column Code Frequency 15 16 1 2 2 16 3 4 4 23 5 0 6 0 7 1 8 12 "53- 1 1 2 15 3 31 4 28 5 12 6 11 7 2 100 SOCIAL PARTICIPATION SCORE ORGANIZ- 1964 1 MEMBER- SHIP 2 ATTEND- ANCE CONTRIB-U T I O N , COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP OFFICES HELD 1963 1962 TOT AL S I _ ___ ' [ GRAND TOTAL = 7 3 -> PARTICIPATION SCORE 4 B. NEXT, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK ABOUT YOUR FARM. 17. What i s the t o t a l s i z e of Column Code Frequency your farm i n acres? 1. under 10 17 1 0 2. 10 - 39 2 27 3. 40 - 69 3 33 4. 70 - 99 4 lg 5. 100 - 129 5 8 6. 130- 179 6 6 7. 180 - 239 7 5 8. 240 - 399 8 1 9. 400 and over 9 2 18. How many improved acres are 100 devoted t o d a i r y i n g ? 1. under 10 18 1 1 2. 1 0 - 3 9 2 38 3. 40 - 69 3 34 4. 7 0 - 9 9 4 13 5. 100 - 129 5 5 6. 130 - 179 6 6 7. 180 - 239 7 0 8. 240 - 399 8 2 9. 400 and over 9 1 19.. How many improved acres are devoted 100 t o n on-dairying e n t e r p r i s e s ? 1. n i l 19 1 82 2. under 10 2 10 3. 10 - 39 3 5 4. 40 - 69 4 3 5. 70 - 99 5 0 6. 100 - 129 6 0 7. 130 - 179 7 0 8. 180 - 239 8 0 9. 240 and over 9 0 20. Do you own t h i s farm, own part and 100 rent p a r t , or rent i t e n t i r e l y ? 1. own 20 1 68 2. own more than h a l f and 2 13 rent the remainder 3. rent more than h a l f and 3 8 own the remainder 4. rent i t e n t i r e l y 4 10 5. manager 5 1 21. What s i z e of d a i l y m i l k quota d i d you have 100 l a s t year ( A p r i l 1, 1964 t o March 31)? 1. under 100 l b . 21 1 0 2. 100 - 199 2 24 3. 200 - 299 3 17 4. 3°0 - 399 4 19 5. 400 - 599 5 13 6. 600 - 799 6 9 7. 800 - 1,099 7 11 8. 1,100 - 1,999 8 4 9. more than 2000 l b . 9 1 100 5 22. What was the average s i z e of your m i l k i n g herd (dry cows and m i l k i n g cows) d u r i n g 1964? Column Code Frequency 1. fewer than 10 22 2. 1 0 - 1 9 3. 20 - 29 4- 30 - 39 5- 40 - 49 6. 50 - 59 7. 60 - 79 8. 80 - 100 9. more than 100 23. How much m i l k d i d you s e l l d u r i n g 1964? 1. l e s s than 30,000 l b . 23 2. 30,000 - 99,999 3. 100,000 - 199,999 4. 200,000 - 299,999 5. 300,000 - 399,999 6. 400,000 - 499,999 7. 500,000 - 699,999 8. 700,000 - 999,999 9. more than 1,000,000 l b . 24. What was the average m i l k production per cow f o r your herd i n 1964? 1. below 7,000 l b . * 24 2. 7000 - 7999 3. 8,000 - 9,499 4. 9,500 - 10,999 5. 11,000 - 12,499 6. 12,500 - 13,999 7. 14,000 - 15,499 8. 15,500 - 16,999 9. more than 17,000 l b . 25. What breed of c a t t l e do you have f o r your m i l k i n g herd? 1. H o l s t e i n 25 2. predominantly H o l s t e i n 3. A y r s h i r e 4. predominantly A y r s h i r e 5. Guernsey 6. predominantly Guernsey 7. Jersey 8. predominantly Jersey 9. other 26. What type of breeding do you use f o r your d a i r y herd? 1. a r t i f i c i a l i nsemination 26 2. a r t i f i c i a l i nsemination and b u l l 3. b u l l 1 2 2 31 3 36 4 15 5 8 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 2 100 1 0 2 9 3 34 4 19 5 17 6 12 7 3 8 3 9 2. 100 1 6 2 7 3 19 4 31 5 27 6 9 7 1 8 0 9 0 100 1 33 2 46 3 0 4 3 5 4 6 7 7 6 8 1 9 100 1 87 2 11 3 2 100 27. How many young stock ( d a i r y breeds only) d i d you r a i s e d u r i n g I964? _ 1» none fewer than 10 Column Code Frequency 27 2. 3. 10 - 19 4. 20 - 29 5. 30 - 39 6. 40 - 49 7. 50 - 59 a . 60 - 79 9. 80 or more 23. Did you work o f f your farm l a s t year? I f yes, how d i d the amount of time spent working o f f your farm compare w i t h the amount of time spent working on your farm? 1. no o f f farm work 2. l e s s than i o f f farm, more than | on farm 3. I t o s l i g h t l y l e s s than | o f f farm; I t o s l i g h t l y more than i on farm 4. i t o s l i g h t l y l e s s than % o f f farm: i t o s l i g h t l y more than £ on farm 5. 5 t o almost f u l l time o f f farm: I or l e s s time spent on farm 29* I f you worked o f f your farm l a s t year, what was your occupation? 1. farm l a b o r e r or farm custom worker 29 ( a g r i c u l t u r a l occupation) 2. managerial 3. p r e f e s s i o n a l or t e c h n i c a l 4. c l e r i c a l or s a l e s 5. s e r v i c e , r e c r e a t i o n , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n or communication 6. logger, fisherman, miner or r e l a t e d occupation 7. craftsman, production, process or r e l a t e d occupation 30. How much la b o u r was h i r e d (excluding operator or manager) f o r the d a i r y e n t e r p r i s e during 1964? 1. n i l 30 1 - 4 weeks 5 - 1 3 14 - 26 27 - 52 53 - 78 79 - 104 156 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. a . 105 - 9. more than 156 weeks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 100 78 14 2 1 100 10 2 0 0 3 0 —2 22 43 26 7 2 7 9 1 3 2 100 2. 3. Column 31. How much unpaid ( f a m i l y ) l a b o r was used f o r the d a i r y e n t e r p r i s e during 1964? _ 1. n i l 31 1-4 weeks . 5-13 4. 14-26 5. 27-52 6. 53-73 7. 79-104 8. 105-156 9. more than 156 weeks 32. Did you r e c e i v e income from other farm e n t e r p r i s e s besides your d a i r y e n t e r p r i s e l a s t year? I f so, how d i d the income from the other e n t e r p r i s e s r e l a t e to your d a i r y income? 1. no income from other farm e n t e r p r i s e s 32 2. h a l f as much or l e s s 3- l e s s than, but gr e a t e r than h a l f as much 4« equal to 5» g r e a t e r , but l e s s than twice as much 6. twice as much or g r e a t e r 33« Did you r e c e i v e income from sources other than your farm e n t e r p r i s e ( s ) l a s t year? I f so, how i s t h i s income r e l a t e d t o your income from the farm e n t e r p r i s e ( s ) ? 7 Code Frequency 1. 2. 3. no income from other sources h a l f as much or l e s s l e s s than, but gr e a t e r than h a l f as much equal t o gre a t e r , but l e s s than twice as much twice as much or gr e a t e r 34« In what range would your 1964 t o t a l f a m i l y farm income (gross income minus cash expenses) p l u s income from o f f farm 33 4. 5. 6 . 1 30 2 5 3 10 4 22 5 29 6 2 7 2 8 0 9 0 100 1 82 2 14 3 1 4 :,1 5 2 6 0 100 1 68 2 21 3 4 5 6 employment f a l l ? 1. l e s s than $1,500 34 1 2. 1,500 - 2,499 2 3. 2,500 - 3,499 3 4. 3,500 - 5,499 4 5. 5,500 - 7,499 5 6. 7,500 - 9,499 6 7. 9,500 - 11,499 7 8. 11,500 - 13,499 8 9. $13,500 or more 9 2 3 1 100 35• What would you pay to own and 8 Column Code Frequency 1. l e s s than $14,950 35 1 0 2. 14,950 - 24,949 2 3 3. 24,950 - 49,949 3 32 4. 49,950 - 79,949 4 35 5. 79,950 - 99,949 6. 99,950 - 120,949 5 12 6 4 7. 120,950 - 150,949 7 5 8. more than $150,950 8 100 C. NOW I WOULD LIKE TO ASK ABOUT YOUR CONTACT WITH THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURIST 36. Have you v i s i t e d your d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t i n h i s o f f i c e during the past year? 36 1. no 1 75 2. once 2 12 3 . 2 - 3 times 3 13 4. 4 - 5 times 4 0 5. more than 5 times 5 0 37. Have you consulted your d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t about a farm matter 100 over the telephone during the past year? 73 1. no 37 1 2. once 2 13 3 . 2 - 3 times 3 12 4. 4 - 5 times 4 2 5. more than 5 times 5 0 38. Did your d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t v i s i t you 100 d u r i n g the past year about a farm matter? 1. no 38 1 35 2. once 2 10 3 . 2 - 3 times 3 4 4. 4 - 5 times 4 1 5. more than 5 times 5 0 39. Have you attended l o c a l meetings or f i e l d days sponsored by the d i s t r i c t 100 a g r i c u l t u r i s t during the past year? 85 1. no 39 1 2. one 2 6 3 . 2 - 3 3 3 4. 4 - 5 4 2 5. more than 5 5 4. 40. Did you read c i r c u l a r l e t t e r s , mailed announcements, o r b u l l e t i n s from your 100 d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t during the past year? 1. no 40 1 34 2. one 2 5 3 . 2 - 3 3 36 4. 4 - 5 4 12 5. more than 5 5 Ico 9 Column Code Frequency 41. Have you l i s t e n e d t o r a d i o announcements by your d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t during the past year? 1. no 41 1 53 2. one 2 2 3. 2 - 3 3 11 4. 4 - 5 4 7 5. more than 5 5 27 42. Did you read any newspaper a r t i c l e s 100 w r i t t e n by your d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t during the past year? 1. no 42 1 45 2. one 2 0 3- 2 - 3 3 22 4. 4 - 5 4 14 5. more than 5 5 19 100 D. I NOW HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT' YOUR COMMUNITY 43« How w i l l i n g i s t h i s community to adopt new d a i r y farm p r a c t i c e s ? 1. w i l l i n g 43 2. about average 3« not very w i l l i n g 44* How does t h i s community regard people who t r y many new farm p r a c t i c e s ? 1. f a v o r a b l y 44 2. no f e e l i n g 3. unfavorably 45* How does t h i s community regard people who are slow i n adopting new farm p r a c t i c e s ? 1. f a v o r a b l y 45 2. no f e e l i n g 3. unfavorably E. THE NEXT QUESTIONS WILL DEAL WITH SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT IMPROVED PRACTICES. (Hand the respondent the l i s t of sources of information) On t h i s card are a number of sources of i n f o r m a t i o n where you might l e a r n about improved d a i r y farm p r a c t i c e s . In answering the next few questions, I want you t o g i v e me the numbers or the l e t t e r s of the sources of i n f o r m a t i o n which apply. 46. to 51. What source or sources have 46 you found t o be most u s e f u l i n f i n d i n g 47 out about new or improved p r a c t i c e s 48 which can apply p r o f i t a b l y on your 49 d a i r y farm? 50 51 1 57 2 32 3 11 100 1 44 2 51 3 100 1 2 2 64 3 -24. 100 52. to 57• When you have found an item about a new or improved p r a c t i c e which i n t e r e s t s you, t o which source or sources do you go f o r f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n on how you can p o s s i b l y apply i t 52. on your d a i r y farm? -W» 54- 55. 56. 57. 58. to 63. When you have r e c e i v e d i n f o r m a t i o n on a new or improved p r a c t i c e , which source or sources do you use t o help you evaluate the in f o r m a t i o n acquired i n the l i g h t of e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s 58. i n t o which the p r a c t i c e would have t o f i t ? 59• 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. t o 69. A f t e r you have weighed the in f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e , what source or sources do you use i n f i n d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on how t o apply the 64. p r a c t i c e ? 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. t o 75• When you have found out how to apply the p r a c t i c e s , which source or sources do you use i n d e c i d i n g whether or not to adopt 70. the p r a c t i c e ? 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 11 77, 78 and 79• Respondent's number 77. 73. 79. 80. Data card number 80. F. INFORMATION ON DAIRY FARM PRACTICES To complete the i n t e r v i e w , I would l i k e t o ask some questions i n regard t o the d a i r y farm p r a c t i c e s t h a t are l i s t e d on the back of the sources of in f o r m a t i o n card. 12 Are you aware of t h i s p r a c t i c e ? become aware of i t ? a) b) C) d) _ I f yes, when d i d you _ e) I What progress have you made i n regard t o t h i s p r a c t i c e ? (Enter adoption score appropriate f o r the respondent's stage i n the adoption process.) 1. not aware 2. awareness 3» i n t e r e s t 4» e v a l u a t i o n 5. t r i a l 6. adoption I I You became aware of t h i s p r a c t i c e i n . What was the lengt h of time between awareness and the stage reached i n the adoption process? 1. l e s s than one year 4« three years 7» s i x years 2. one year 5. four years 8. seven years 3. two years 6. f i v e years 9. more than seven years I I I What reason would you give f o r spending more than two years t r y i n g to decide whether or not t o adopt t h i s p r a c t i c e ? a) . l\ e) C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the reason f o r a delay of more than two years between awareness and the stage reached i n regard to t h i s p r a c t i c e . 6. s i t u a t i o n not appropriate 7» scale of operation too small 8. i n s u f f i c i e n t c a p i t a l 9. other s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s 5. communicability. IV Which of the f o l l o w i n g describes your p o s i t i o n i n regard to t h i s p r a c t i c e ? 1. continuing w i t h the adoption process 3» adoption 2. r e j e c t i o n 4- discontinuance V. What reason would you give f o r r e j e c t i n g or d i s c o n t i n u i n g t h i s p r a c t i c e ? § 1 c d e) C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the reason f o r r e j e c t i n g or d i s c o n t i n u i n g t h i s p r a c t i c e . 1. r e l a t i v e advantage 6. s i t u a t i o n not appropriate 2. c o m p a t a b i l i t y 7. scale of operation too small 3. complexity 8. i n s u f f i c i e n t c a p i t a l 4. d i v i s i b i l i t y 9« other s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s 5« communicability V I . Look at the sources of in f o r m a t i o n on the card and t e l l me the numbers or l e t t e r s of the sources of in f o r m a t i o n that you used i n r e l a t i o n t o t h i s p r a c t i c e . 1. r e l a t i v e advantage 2. c o m p a t a b i l i t y complexity d i v i s i b i l i t y 3. 4. 13 a) Regular b) Use of paper c) s t e r i l i z i n g d) i n s e c t i c i d e e) systemic t e s t i n g f o r towels or sep- t e a t cup impregnated warble f l y m a s t i t i s arate c l o t h c l u s t e r cords c o n t r o l START DATA CARD NUMBER 2 I 1. 1 25 11. 1 13 21. 1 4a 31. 1 31 41. 1 73 2 11 2 43 2 18 2 23 2 14 3 1 3 0 3 0 3 4 3 4 4 21 4 22 4 10 4 17 4 a 5 2 5 18 5 13 5 16 5 1 6 40 6 4 6 11 6 9 6 0 I I 2. 1 49 12. 1 62 22. 1 40 32. 1 33 42. 1 7 2 11 2 11 2 9 2 11 2 3 3 7 3 11 3 2 3 15 3 5 4 2 4 1 4 0 4 4 4 2 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 5 5 1 6 4 6 2 6 1 6 1 6 6 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 1 8 1 8 0 a 0 8 0 a 0 9 1 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 2 I I I 3. 1 0 13- 1 0 23. 1 0 33. 1 4 43. 1 4 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 3 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 5 2 5 0 5 0 5 1 5 3 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 8 0 8 0 a 0 a 0 8 0 9 6 9 3 9 1 9 5 9 2 IV 4. 1 2 14. 1 3 24. 1 0 34. 1 33 44* 1 20 2 33 2 80 2 41 2 27 2 7 3 29 3 4 3 7 3 9 3 0 4 11 4 0 4 4 4 0 4 0 V 5. 1 42 15- 1 80 25. 1 44 35. 1 23 45. 1 5 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 2 3 2 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 6 0 6 0 6 1 6 0 6 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 8 0 8 0 a 0 a 0 8 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 3 9 0 VI 6. 16. 26. 36. 46. 7. 17. 27. 37. 47. 8. 18. 28. 38. 48. 9. 19. 29. 39. 49. 10. 20. 30. 40. 50. 14 Are you aware of t h i s p r a c t i c e ? I f yes, when d i d you become aware of i t ? a) b) c) d) e) I What progress have you made i n regard t o t h i s p r a c t i c e ? (Enter adoption score appropriate f o r the respondent's stage i n the adoption process.) 1. not aware 2. awareness 3. i n t e r e s t 4» ev a l u a t i o n 5. t r i a l 6. adoption I I You became aware of t h i s p r a c t i c e i n • What was the l e n g t h of time between awareness and the stage reached i n the adoption process? 1. l e s s than one year 4» three years 7« s i x years 2. one year 5« f o u r years 8. s i v e n years 3. two years 6. f i v e years 9» more than seven years I I I What reason would you give f o r spending more than two years t r y i n g t o decide whether or not t o adopt t h i s p r a c t i c e ? s l — c) zzz~~ZZZIZIIIZZIZZZIZZIZIZZZZZIZZ: e) - C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the reason f o r a delay of more than two years between awareness and the stage reached i n regard t o t h i s p r a c t i c e . 1. r e l a t i v e advantage 6. s i t u a t i o n not appropriate 2. c o m p a t a b i l i t y 7» scale of operation too small 3» complexity 8. i n s u f f i c i e n t c a p i t a l 4. d i v i s i b i l i t y 9» other s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s 5. communicability IV Which of the f o l l o w i n g d escribes your p o s i t i o n i n regard t o t h i s p r a c t i c e ? 1. c o n t i n u i n g w i t h the adoption process 3» adoption 2. r e j e c t i o n 4» discontinuance V What reason would you give f o r r e j e c t i n g or d i s c o n t i n u i n g t h i s p r a c t i c e ? S i c, .1 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the reason f o r r e j e c t i n g or d i s c o n t i n u i n g t h i s p r a c t i c e ? 1. r e l a t i v e advantage 6. s i t u a t i o n not appropriate 2. c o m p a t a b i l i t y 7* scale of operation too small 3. complexity 8. i n s u f f i c i e n t c a p i t a l 4. d i v i s i b i l i t y 9« other s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s 5. communicability VI Look at the sources of in f o r m a t i o n on the card and t e l l me the numbers or l e t t e r s of the sources of i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t you used i n r e l a t i o n t o t h i s p r a c t i c e . 15 f ) heat g) heated water h) bulk lamps bowls or tanks b i n s I 51. I I 52 I I I 53 IV 54. VI 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. i ) hay j ) hay co n d i t i o n e r dryer 21. START DATA CARD NUMBER 3 1 10 61. 1 16 1. 1 1 11. 1 2 2 31 2 55 2 10 2 13 3 1 3 2 3 2 3 5 4 17 4 20 4 40 4 44 5 4 5 0 5 1 5 6 6 37 6 7 6 46 6 30 1 41 62. 1 58 2. 1 30 12. 1 17 2 28 2 8 2 17 2 19 3 3 3 7 3 12 3 33 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 8 5 2 5 2 5 4 5 7 6 1 6 3 6 18 6 7 7 0 7 0 7 1 7 4 8 0 8 0 8 2 8 1 9 11 9 3 9 11 9 2 1 1 63. 1 0 3. 1 4 13. 1 3 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 5 1 5 3 5 1 5 8 6 0 6 0 6 2 6 2 7 0 7 0 7 10 7 5 8 0 8 4 8 9 8 8 9 16 64. 9 4 9 14 9 3 1 4 1 13 4. 1 18 14. 1 27 2 49 2 64 2 35 2 40 3 36 3 4 3 45 3 30 4 1 65. 4 3 4 1 4 0 1 43 1 19 5. 1 10 15. 1 11 2 6 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 1 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 6 1 6 48 6 2 6 6 7 0 7 0 7 23 7 22 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 9 0 66. 9 0 9 6. 1 16. 9 0 67. 7. 17. 68. 8. 18. 69. 9. 19. 70. 10. 20. Respondent's number 77. 78. 79. Data card No. 80. 23. 1 0 2 33 3 11 4 54 5 0 6 2 1 26 2 21 3 29 4 12 5 2 6 3 7 0 8 0 9 7 1 1 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 9 6 0 7 4 8 8 9 2 1 36 2 62 3 2 4 0 1 22 2 1 3 3 4 0 5 0 6 6 7 29 8 0 9 1 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Respondent's number 77. 78. 79. Data card No. 80. 16 SOURCES OF INFORMATION 1. General farm magazines., , . . . _ ( 2. "Special, dairy'magazines , 1 3. B r i t i s h Columbia Department of A g r i c u l t u r e - p u b l i c a t i o n s 4^ Federal Department of A g r i c u l t u r e p u b l i c a t i o n s ^ "5• Radio a .'• '- \ \ ' • . * 6. T e l e v i s i o n ^ 7.. Newspapers • '•' . ; 8. A g r i c u l t u r e ' f i e l d days „ ) ,•.' • 9« A g r i c u l t u r e meetings and adul t education courses V o c a t i o n a l a g r i c u l t u r e courses ' L : ( J . U n i v e r s i t y courses i n a g r i c u l t u r e K. Mainland Dairyman*s A s s o c i a t i o n meetings V ^ L. F r a s e r V a l l e y M i l k Producers A s s o c i a t i o n meetings M.' L i v e s t o c k o r g a n i z a t i o n meetings ." N. D i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t 0. V e t e r i n a r i a n P. D a i r y Herd "Improvement A s s o c i a t i o n supervisor ^ Q. Neighbors or f r i e n d s j . c ; v R. Wife, c h i l d r e n or r e l a t i v e s • S. Salesmen or de a l e r s T. Employees U. Veterans Land Act r e p r e s e n t a t i v e V. Farm C r e d i t Corporation W. V i s i t t o experimental farm or t o the U n i v e r s i t y of B.C. X. Observation of other farms Y. Foreign t r a v e l or p u b l i c a t i o n s Z. Own experience A. M i l k vendor f i e l d man DAIRY FARM PRACTICES a) Regular t e s t i n g f o r m a s t i t i s - use-of the Whiteside* : Test or the C a l i f o r n i a Test f o r each, cow at r e g u l a r , i n t e r v a l s such as once every"two*weeks or"once every .: L .month. ..,'.-.:> b) Washing the: udder: of; each cow w i t h ^ . s eparate s t e r i l i z e d c l o t h or w i t h paper towels which have been dipped i n t o a c h l o r i n e or iosan s o l u t i o n . c) S t e r i l i z i n g the t e a t cup c l u s t e r between use on d i f f e r e n t cows using the f o l l o w i n g procedure: remove t e a t cups from a cow, r i n s e the cups i n clean water, d i p the cups i n t o hot water (180 degrees F.) or c h l o r i n e "solution and then place the t e a t cup. c l u s t e r on the.next-jcpw". d) Use of i n s e c t i c i d e impregnated :cords f o r f l y • c o n t r o l i n the d a i r y barn or i n feed storage barns. e) Use of systemic warble f l y c o n t r o l f o r young stock and b u l l s . ' • f ) Use of heat lamps f o r weak cal v e s or f o r calves, born duri n g very c o l d weather. " ' g) Use of e l e c t r i c a l l y heated water bowls or tanks, hj Use.of bulk b i n s f o r concentrate feed. i ) Use of a hay c o n d i t i o n e r (Crusher). j ) Use of a hay d r y e r . J APPENDIX I I BIVARIATE TABLES OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS VERSUS ADOPTER CATEGORIES AND ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORIES FOR WHICH SIGNIFICANT CHI-SQUARE VALUES WERE OBTAINED 17 Table XXXVIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURE COURSES TAKEN IN VOCATIONAL SCHOOL BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter category- A g r i c u l t u r e courses taken i n v o c a t i o n a l school Yes No T o t a l % % % Laggard 15.0 85.O 100.0 Late majority- 10.3 89.7 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y 2.9 97.1 100.0 E a r l y adopter- innovator 31.3 68.7 100.0 A l l respondents 12.0 88.0 100.0 Table XXXIX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF DAIRY FARM WORK ENJOYMENT BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter category D a i r y farm work enjoyment Yes, very O c c a s i o n a l l y Not at T o t a l much a l l Laggard and l a t e m a j o r i t y fo 55.1 fo 20.4 fo 24.5 fo 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y and e a r l y adopter- innovator 64.7 31.4 3.9 100.0 A l l respondents 60 .0 26.0 14.0 100.0 i d Table XL PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF YEARS FARMING EXPERIENCE BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter category Number of vears farming; experience Fewer than 20 years T o t a l 20 years or more % % fo Laggard and l a t e 85.7 m a j o r i t y 14.3 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y and e a r l y 64.7 100.0 adopter-innovator 35.3 A l l respondents 25.0 75.0 100.0 Table XLI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL SIZE OF FARM BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter category T o t a l s i z e of farm Fewer than 70 acres T o t a l 70 acres or more % fo fo Laggard 80.0 20.0 100.0 Late m a j o r i t y 48.3 51.7 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y 68.6 31.4 100.0 E a r l y adopter-innovator 37-5 62.$ 100.0 A l l respondents 60.0 40.0 100.0 19 Table XLII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE PRODUCTION PER COW BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter category Average production per cow Less than 11,000 pounds 11,000 pounds or more T o t a l % fo fo Laggard 90.0 10.0 100.0 Late m a j o r i t y 55-2 44.8 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y 60 .0 40.0 100.0 E a r l y adopter-innovator 50.0 50 .0 100.0 A l l respondents 63.0 37.0 100.0 Table X L I I I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF YOUNG DAIRY STOCK RAISED BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter category Number of voung d a i r y stock r a i s e d Fewer than 10 10 t o 19 20 or more T o t a l % fo fo fo Laggard and l a t e m a j o r i t y 57.1 28.6 14.3 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y and e a r l y adopter- innovator 33.3 25.5 41.2 100.0 A l l respondents 45.0 27.0 28.0 100.0 20 Table XLIV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF AMOUNT OF UNPAID (FAMILY) LABOUR BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter category Amount of unpaid (family) labour T o t a l N i l Less than 27 weeks 27 weeks or more % * fo fo Laggard 40.0 20.0 40.0 100.0 Late m a j o r i t y 20.7 58.6 20.7 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y 40 .0 22.9 37.1 100.0 E a r l y adopter- innovator 12.5 50.0 37.5 100.0 A l l respondents 30.0 37.0 33.0 100.0 Table XLV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILY FARM PLUS OFF-FARM EMPLOYMENT INCOME BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter category Family farm p l u s o f f - f a r m employment income T o t a l Less than |2,500 $2,500 or more % % % Laggard 75.0 25.0 100.0 Late m a j o r i t y 31.0 69.0 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y 40.0 60.0 100.0 E a r l y adopter-innovator 31.3 68.7 100.0 A l l respondents 43 57 100.0 21 Table XLVI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF VISITS TO THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURIST'S ; OFFICE BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter category V i s i t s t o the d i s t r i c t T o t a l a g r i c u l t u r i s t ' s o f f i c e No v i s i t s One or more v i s i t s % $ Laggard and l a t e m a j o r i t y 33.7 16.3 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y and e a r l y adopter-innovator 66.7 33-3 100.0 A l l respondents 75.0 25.0 100.0 Table XLVII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITY WILLINGNESS TO ADOPT NEW DAIRY FARM PRACTICES BY TWO ADOPTER CATEGORIES Adopter category Community w i l l i n g n e s s t o adopt new d a i r y farm p r a c t i c e s T o t a l W i l l i n g About average Not very w i l l i n g % % % fo Laggard and l a t e m a j o r i t y 42.9 40.8 16.3 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y and e a r l y adopter- innovator 70.6 23-5 5.9 100.0 A l l respondents 57.0 32.0 11.0 100.0 22 Table XLVIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITY WILLINGNESS TO ADOPT NEW DAIRY FARM PRACTICES BY FOUR ADOPTER CATEGORIES Adopter category Community w i l l i n g n e s s t o adopt Hew d a i r y farm p r a c t i c e s T o t a l W i l l i n g About average or not very w i l l i n g fo fo Laggard 25.0 75.0 100.0 Late m a j o r i t y 55.2 44.8 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y 77.1 22.9 100.0 E a r l y adopter-innovator 56.3 43.7 100.0 A l l respondents 57.0 43-0 100.0 Table XLIX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITY REGARD OF LAGGARDS BY FOUR ADOPTER CATEGORIES Adopter category Community regard of laggards T o t a l Favorably or no f e e l i n g Unfavorably fo % fo Laggard 90.0 10.0 100.0 Late m a j o r i t y 72.4 27 .6 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y 45.7 54.3 100.0 E a r l y adopter-innovator 68.7 31.3 100.0 A l l respondents 66.0 34.0 100.0 23 Table L PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITY REGARD OF LAGGARDS BY TWO ADOPTER CATEGORIES Adopter category Community regard of laggards Total Favorably or no feeling Unfavorably % % % Laggards and late majority 79.6 20.4 100.0 Early majority and early adopter- innovator 52.9 47.1 100.0 A l l respondents 66.0 34.0 100.0 Table LI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF MARITAL STATUS BY ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORY Adopter tendency Marital Single status Married or widowed Total Laggard and late majority 16.0 84.0 100.0 Early majority and early adopter innovator 4.0 96.0 100.0 A l l respondents 10.0 90.0 100.0 24 Table L I I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL SIZE.OF FARM BY ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORY Adopter tendency- category T o t a l s i z e Fewer than 70 acres of farm 70 acres oi? more T o t a l fo fo fo Laggard 75.0 25.0 100.0 Late m a j o r i t y 58.8 41.2 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y 71.9 28 .1 100.0 E a r l y adopter-innovator 27.8 72 .2 100.0 A l l respondents 60.0 40.0 100.0 Table L I U PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF ACRES DEVOTED TO DAIRYING BY ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORY Adopter tendency category Number of d a i r v i n s Fewer than 40 acres acres devoted to 40 acres or more T o t a l fo fo fo Laggard 68.8 31.2 100.0 Late m a j o r i t y 35.3 64.7 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y 43.8 56.2 100.0 E a r l y adopter-innovator 11.1 38.9 100.0 A l l respondents 39.0 61.0 100.0 25 Table LIV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SIZE OF DAILY. MILK QUOTA BY FOUR ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORIES Adopter tendency category S i z e of d a i l v m i l k quota Less than 300 pounds 300 pounds or more T o t a l 1o % Laggard 75.0 25.0 100.0 Late majority- a . 2 58.8 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y 34.4 65.6 100.0 E a r l y adopter-innovator 22.2 77.8 100.0 A l l respondents 41.0 59.0 100.0 Table LV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SIZE OF DAILY MILK QUOTA BY TWO ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORIES Adopter tendency S i z e of d a i l v m i l k quota T o t a l category Less than 200 to 399 400 pounds 200 pounds pounds or more % % fo fo Laggard and l a t e m a j o r i t y 28.0 44.0 28.0 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y and e a r l y adopter-innovator 20.0 28.0 52.0 100.0 A l l respondents 24.0 36.0 40.0 100.0 26 Table LVI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF AMOUNT OF MILK SOLD PER YEAR BY ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORY Adopter tendency- Amount of m i l k s o l d per vear T o t a l category Less than 200,000 t o 300,000 200,000 299,999 pounds pounds pounds or more % fo fo % Laggard and l a t e 26.0 m a j o r i t y 54.0 20.0 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y and e a r l y adopter- 18.0 innovator 32.0 50.0 100.0 A l l respondents 43.0 19.0 38.0 100.0 Table LVII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE MILK PRODUCTION PER COW BY ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORY Adopter tendency category Average m i l k production per cow Less than 9,500 pounds 9,500 pounds or more T o t a l % % % Laggard 68.8 31.2 100.0 Late m a j o r i t y 26.5 73.5 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y 25.0 75.0 100.0 E a r l y adopter-innovator 22.2 77 .8 100.0 A l l respondents 32.0 68.0 100.0 Table L V I I I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF BREED OF DAIRY CATTLE BY ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORY Adopter tendency category Breed of d a i r y c a t t l e H o l s t e i n and Non-Hoistein predominantly and predominantly H o l s t e i n non-Holstein T o t a l fo % Laggard 50.0 50.0 100.0 Late m a j o r i t y 85.3 14.7 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y 87.5 12.5 100.0 E a r l y adopter- 77.8 innovator 22.2 100.0 A l l respondents 79-0 21.0 100.0 Table LIX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF YOUNG DAIRY STOCK RAISED BY FOUR ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORIES Adopter tendency category Number of young r a i s e d Fewer than 10 d a i r y stock 10 or more T o t a l fo fo fo Laggard 68.8 31.2 100.0 Late m a j o r i t y 52.9 47.1 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y 40.6 59.4 100.0 E a r l y adopter- innovator 16.7 83.3 100.0 A l l respondents 45.0 55.0 100.0 28 Table LX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF YOUNG DAIRY STOCK RAISED BY TWO ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORIES Adopter tendency- category Number of young d a i r y stock r a i s e d T o t a l Fewer than 10 10 t o 19 20 or more % % % % Laggard and l a t e m a j o r i t y 58.0 24.0 18.0 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y and e a r l y adopter-innovator 32.0 30.0 38.0 100.0 A l l respondents 45.0 27.0 28.0 100.0 Table LXC PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILY FARM PLUS OFF-FARM EMPLOYMENT INCOME BY ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORY Adopter tendency category Family farm p l u s o f f farm employment income T o t a l Less than $2,500 |2,500 or more % fo % Laggard 87.5 12.5 100.0 Late m a j o r i t y 35.3 64.7 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y 31.3 68.7 100.0 E a r l y adopter-innovator 38.9 61.1 100.0 A l l respondents 43.0 57.0 100.0 29 Table L X I I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM VALUE AS A GOING CONCERN BY ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORY Adopter tendency Farm value as a going concern T o t a l category Less than 149,950 or $49,950 more % fo fo Laggard 62.5 37.5 100.0 Late m a j o r i t y 26.5 73.5 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y 40.6 59.4 100.0 E a r l y adopter- 16.7 83.3 innovator 100.0 A l l respondents 35.0 65.0 100.0 Table L X I I I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF VISITS TO THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURIST'S OFFICE BY FOUR ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORIES Adopter tendency Number of • v i s i t s to the T o t a l category d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t s o f f i c e d uring the past year No v i s i t s One or more v i s i t s % fo fo fo Laggard 100.0 0.0 100.0 Late m a j o r i t y 76.5 23.5 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y 62.5 37.5 100.0 E a r l y adopter- 27.3 innovator 72.2 100.0 A l l respondents 75.0 25.0 100.0 30 Table fflV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF VISITS TO THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURIST'S OFFICE BY TWO ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORIES Adopter tendency Number of v i s i t s t o the T o t a l category d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t ' s o f f i c e d u r i n g the past year No v i s i t s One or more v i s i t s fo % fo Laggard and l a t e m a j o r i t y 84.0 16.0 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y and e a r l y adopter- innovator 66.0 34.0 100.0 A l l respondents 75.0 25.0 100.0 Table LXV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS AND FIELD DAYS SPONSORED BY THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURIST BY ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORY Adopter tendency Attendance at meetings and f i e l d T o t a l category days None attended One or more attended % fo % Laggard and l a t e m a j o r i t y 92.0 8.0 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y and e a r l y adopter- innovator 78.0 22.0 100.0 A l l respondents 85.O 15.0 100.0 31 Table LXVI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITY WILLINGNESS TO ADOPT NEW DAIRY FARM PRACTICES BY FOUR ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORIES Adopter tendency category Communitv w i l l i n g n e s s to T o t a l adopt new d a i r y farm p r a c t i c e s W i l l i n g About average or not very w i l l i n g % % % Laggard 18 .8 81 .2 100.0 Late m a j o r i t y 58.8 41.2 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y 75.0 25.0 100.0 E a r l y adopter-innovator 55.6 44*4 100.0 A l l respondents 57.0 43.0 100.0 Table LXVII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITY WILLINGNESS TO ADOPT NEW DAIRY FARM PRACTICES BY TWO ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORIES Adopter tendency category Community w i l l i n g n e s s t o T o t a l adopt new d a i r y farm p r a c t i c e s W i l l i n g About average or not very w i l l i n g Laggard and l a t e m a j o r i t y % 46.6 % 54.0 fo 100.0 E a r l y m a j o r i t y and e a r l y adopter-innovator 68.0 32.0 100.0 A l l respondents 57.0 43.0 100.0 APPENDIX I I I A. PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES B. z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES C. DISTRIBUTION OF INDIVIDUAL INFORMATION SOURCES 32 A. PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES Table LXVIII PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BY STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY Source Stage • Aware- I n t e r - E v a l - T r i a l Adop- Average ness est u a t i o n t i o n fo % fo % fo fo P e r s o n a l 25.1 45.0 82.5 61.7 95.2 61.9 Mass 55.8 5.8 3.2 0.7 0.0 13.1 I n s t r u c t i o n a l group 5.7 2.6 1.2 0.4 0.0 2.0 I n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l 13.4 46.6 13.1 37.2 4.8 23.0 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table LXIX PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BY STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN Source Stage Aware- I n t e r - E v a l - T r i a l Adop- Average ness est u a t i o n t i o n fo fo fo fo % % P e r s o n a l 25.1 45.0 82.5 61.7 95.2 61.9 Government 10.5 23.1 8.4 8.3 4.3 10.9 Commercial 62.5 31.4 9.1 30.0 0.5 26.7 Farm o r g a n i z a t i o n 1.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 33 Table LXX PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BY ADOPTER CATEGORY WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY Source 3 Adopter category Laggard Late E a r l y E a r l y m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter- innovator % fo fo fo Average % P e r s o n a l 61.3 55.3 53.6 50.4 55.2 Mass 17.2 17.4 16.8 19.1 17.6 I n s t r u c t i o n a l group 2.5 1.4 2.7 3.8 2.6 I n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l 19.0 25-9 26.9 26.7 24.6 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table LXXI PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BY ADOPTER CATEGORY WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN Source Adopter category Laggard Late E a r l y E a r l y Average m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter- innovator fo fo fo fo fo Personal 61.3 55.3 53.6 50.4 55.2 Government 6.1 10.8 14-3 16.1 11.8 Commercial 31.5 33.2 31.6 33.1 32.4 Farm o r g a n i z a t i o n 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.6 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table LXXII PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES, CLASSIFIED AS TO THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY, BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AT THE KWARENESS STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS Source Adopter category- Laggard Late E a r l y E a r l y Average m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter- innovator fo fo fo % Personal 25.0 25.4 27.5 18.5 24.1 Mass 57.5 55.3 51.9 64.6 57.3 I n s t r u c t i o n a l group 5.0 3.5 6.2 9.2 6.0 I n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l 12.5 15.8 14 .4 7.7 12.6 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table LXXIII PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES, CLASSIFIED AS TO THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY, BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AT THE INTEREST STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS Source Adopter category Laggard Late E a r l y E a r l y Average m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter- innovator % % fo fo fo Personal 56.3 47.7 39.9 41.3 46.3 Mass 3.1 8.4 5.9 3.5 5.2 I n s t r u c t i o n a l group 3.1 0.9 3.2 3.5 2.7 I n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l 37.5 43.0 51.0 51.7 45.8 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 35 Table LXXIV PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES, CLASSIFIED AS TO THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY, BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AT THE EVALUATION STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS Source Adopter category- Laggard Late E a r l y E a r l y Average m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter- innovator fo % % fo fo P e r s o n a l 87.2 86.8 75.8 86.5 84.1 Mass 0.0 2.9 5.0 2.7 2.7 I n s t r u c t i o n a l Group 2.1 1.5 1.0 0.0 l . _ I n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l 10.7 8.8 18.2 10.8 12.1 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table LXXV PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES, CLASSIFIED AS TO THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY, BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AT THE TRIAL STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS Source Adopter category Laggard Late E a r l y E a r l y Average m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter- innovator fo fo fo fo fo Personal 76.4 55.6 63.8 51.0 61.7 Mass 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.5 I n s t r u c t i o n a l group 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.5 I n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l 23.6 44 *4 34.3 46.9 37.3 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 36 Table LXXVI PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES, CLASSIFIED AS TO THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY, BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AT THE ADOPTION STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS Source Adopter category Laggard Late E a r l y E a r l y m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter- innovator Average $ % fo fo Personal 97.0 92.7 95 .8 96.3 95.4 Mass 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I n s t r u c t i o n a l group 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l 3-0 7.3 4.2 3.7 4.6 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table LXXVII PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION j SOURCES, CLASSIFIED AS TO ORIGIN, BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AT THE AWARENESS STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS Source Adopter category Laggard Late E a r l y E a r l y m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter- innovator Average fo fo % fo fo Government 3.7 8.8 13.8 13 .8 10.0 Commercial 68.8 63.2 57.5 66.2 63.9 Farm o r g a n i z a t i o n 2.5 2.6 1.2 1.5 2.0 Personal 25.0 25.4 27.5 18.5 24.1 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 37 Table LXXVIII PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES, CLASSIFIED AS TO ORIGIN, BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AT THE INTEREST STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS Source Adopter category Laggard Late E a r l y E a r l y m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter- innovator Average % % fo fo fo Government 14.1 20.5 26.1 29.3 22.5 Commercial 28.1 31.8 33.3 29.3 30.6 Farm o r g a n i z a t i o n 1.6 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.6 P e r s o n a l 56.2 47.7 39.9 41.4 46.3 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table LXXXIX PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION i SOURCES, CLASSIFIED AS TO ORIGIN, BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AT THE EVALUATION STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS Source Adopter category Laggard Late E a r l y E a r l y m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter- innovator Average fo % fo fo % Government 4.3 4.4 12.1 10.8 7.9 Commercial 8.5 8.8 12.1 2.7 8.0 Farm o r g a n i z a t i o n 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P e r s o n a l 87.2 86.8 75.8 86.5 84.I T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 38 Table LXXX PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES, CLASSIFIED AS TO ORIGIN, BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AT THE TRIAL STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS Source Adopter category Laggard Late E a r l y E a r l y m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter- innovator Average % % % % % Government 3.6 9-9 6.7 14.3 8.6 Commercial 20.0 34-5 29-5 34.7 29-7 Farm o r g a n i z a t i o n 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Personal 76.4 55.6 63.8 51.0 61.7 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table LXXXI PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES, CLASSIFIED AS TO ORIGIN, BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AT THE ADOPTION STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS Source Adopter category Laggard Late E a r l y E a r l y Average m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter- innovator % fo fo fo fo Government 3.0 5-5 4.2 3.7 4.1 Commercial 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 Farm o r g a n i z a t i o n 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P e r s o n a l 97.0 92.7 95.3 96.3 95.4 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 39 B. z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES NOTE: 1. The t a b l e s i n t h i s s e c t i o n give the z values f o r data given i n Tables t o i n s e c t i o n A. 2. The und e r l i n e d values are s i g n i f i c a n t . The t e s t of s i g n i f i c a n c e of the d i f f e r e n c e between two pr o p o r t i o n s was used w i t h the n u l l hypothesis t h a t there was no d i f f e r e n c e i n the use of an inf o r m a t i o n source between adopter c a t e g o r i e s at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . The c r i t e r i o n used t o t e s t the n u l l hypothesis was to r e j e c t i t i f z -I . 9 6 or z I . 9 6 and t o accept i t i f -1.96 z I . 9 6 where: *1 - n i n2 z = p ( l - p ) 1- 1_ n l n 2 ( x i • percentage use of an in f o r m a t i o n source by one adopter category, x 2 • percentage use of the same source by a d i f f e r e n t adopter category, n = 100 per cent and „, p = £Ei ^2 n i n2 3 . An 11 x " s i g n i f i e s t h a t the z value i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l . That i s , the c r i t i c a l values used t o t e s t the n u l l hypothesis were: r e j e c t the hypothesis i f z -2.58 or z 2.58 and accept i t i f -2.58 z 2.58. 4. Negative z values show t h a t the adopter category l i s t e d i n the row has a lower percentage use of an in f o r m a t i o n source than the adopter category l i s t e d i n the column. 5. Blanks i n the t a b l e s i n d i c a t e t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n source was not used by e i t h e r of the c a t e g o r i e s concerned. 40 Table LXXXII z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES AT THE AWARENESS STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY Source Adopter Category , Adopter Category Late E a r l y E a r l y m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter- innovator PERSONAL laggard - 0 . 0 6 5 1 - 0 . 4 0 1 8 1.1141 l a t e m a j o r i t y - 0 . 3 3 6 7 1 . 1 7 8 8 e a r l y m a j o r i t y 1 . 5 1 2 2 MASS laggard 0 . 3 1 3 7 0 . 7 9 5 5 - 1 . 0 2 9 5 l a t e m a j o r i t y 0 . 4 8 2 1 - 1.3421 e a r l y m a j o r i t y - 1 . 8 2 1 0 INSTRUCTIONAL GROUP laggard 0 . 5 2 5 8 - O . 3 6 9 I - I . I 5 6 4 l a t e m a j o r i t y - 0 . 8 8 8 7 - I . 6 5 2 8 e a r l y m a j o r i t y - 0 . 7 9 5 7 INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTIONAL laggard - 0 . 6 6 9 5 - O . 3 9 3 8 1 . 1 2 6 4 l a t e m a j o r i t y 0.2765 1 . 7 7 8 7 e a r l y m a j o r i t y 1.5111 41 Table LXXXIII z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES AT THE INTEREST STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY Source Adopter Category Adopter Category Late m a j o r i t y E a r l y m a j o r i t y E a r l y adopter- innovator PERSONAL laggard l a t e m a j o r i t y e a r l y m a j o r i t y 1.2172 2.3210 1.1117 2.1219 0.9106 -0.2016 MASS laggard l a t e m a j o r i t y e a r l y m a j o r i t y -1.6099 -0.9551 0.6861 -0.1583 1.4647 0.8019 INSTRUCTIONAL GROUP laggard l a t e m a j o r i t y e a r l y m a j o r i t y 1.1112 -0.0405 -1.1477 -0.1583 -1.2534 -0.1179 INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTIONAL laggard l a t e m a j o r i t y e a r l y m a j o r i t y -0.7930 -1.9219 -1.1334 -2.0200 -1.2321 -0.0990 42 Table LXXXIV z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES AT THE EVALUATION STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY Source Adopter Category Adopter Category Late m a j o r i t y E a r l y m a j o r i t y I a r l y adopter- innovator PERSONAL laggard l a t e m a j o r i t y e a r l y m a j o r i t y 0.0841 2.0760 1.9949 O.I465 0.0624 -1.9345 MASS laggard l a t e m a j o r i t y e a r l y m a j o r i t y -1.7154 -2.2646 -0.7624 -I.6544 0.0857 O.8453 INSTRUCTIONAL GROUP laggard l a t e m a j o r i t y e a r l y m a j o r i t y 0.3191 0.6297 0.3132 1.4568 1.2294 1.0025 INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTIONAL laggard l a t e m a j o r i t y e a r l y m a j o r i t y 0.4529 -1.5084 -1.9451 -0.0228 -0.4757 1.4861 43 Table LXXXV z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES AT THE TRIAL STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY Source Adopter Category Adopter Category Late m a j o r i t y E a r l y m a j o r i t y E a r l y adopter- innovator PERSONAL laggard l a t e m a j o r i t y e a r l y m a j o r i t y 3.1048* 1.9461 -1.1821 3.7350* 0.6520 1.8304 MASS laggard l a t e m a j o r i t y e a r l y m a j o r i t y - -1.3850 -1.3850 mm 1.3850 INSTRUCTIONAL GROUP laggard l a t e m a j o r i t y e a r l y m a j o r i t y - - -1.4568 -1.4568 -1.456a INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTIONAL laggard l a t e m a j o r i t y e a r l y m a j o r i t y -3.104s* -1.6683 I.4619 -3.4436* -0.3549 -1.8143 44 Table LXXXVI z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES AT THE ADOPTION STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY Source Adopter Category Adopter Category- Late E a r l y E a r l y m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter- innovator PERSONAL laggard 1.3757 0.4555 0.2751 l a t e m a j o r i t y -0.9416 -1.1166 e a r l y m a j o r i t y -0.1815 MASS laggard - -l a t e m a j o r i t y - - e a r l y m a j o r i t y — INSTRUCTIONAL GROUP laggard - l a t e m a j o r i t y - - e a r l y m a j o r i t y - INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTIONAL laggard -1.3757 -0.4555 -0.2751 l a t e m a j o r i t y 0.9416 1.1166 e a r l y m a j o r i t y 0.1815 4 5 Table LXXXVIII z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES AT THE AWARENESS STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN Source Adopter Category Adopter Category Late E a r l y E a r l y m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter- innovator GOVERNMENT COMMERCIAL laggard l a t e m a j o r i t y e a r l y m a j o r i t y laggard l a t e m a j o r i t y e a r l y m a j o r i t y FARM ORGANIZATION PERSONAL laggard l a t e m a j o r i t y e a r l y m a j o r i t y laggard l a t e m a j o r i t y e a r l y m a j o r i t y - 1 . 4 8 9 8 0 . 8 3 5 9 -0.0449 - 0 . 0 6 5 1 -2.5275 -1.1167 I . 6 5 6 4 0 . 8 2 3 9 0 . 6 8 2 2 0 . 7 2 5 1 - O . 4 O I 8 - 0 . 3 3 6 7 __52 - l . ne - 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 3 9 2 5 - 0 . 4 4 3 9 - 1 . 2 6 6 4 0 . 5 0 5 1 0 . 5 4 8 9 - 0 . 1 8 3 8 1 . 1 1 4 1 1 . 1 7 8 8 1 . 5 1 2 2 46 Table LXXXVIII z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES AT THE INTEREST STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN Source Adopter Category Adopter Category Late m a j o r i t y E a r l y m a j o r i t y E a r l y adopter- innovator GOVERNMENT laggard l a t e m a j o r i t y e a r l y m a j o r i t y - I . I 9 6 4 -2.1174 - 0 . 9 3 6 7 -2.6075 - 1 . 4 3 9 0 - O . 5 O 5 6 COMMERCIAL laggard l a t e m a j o r i t y e a r l y m a j o r i t y - 0 . 5 7 1 2 - 0 . 7 9 7 2 - O . 2 2 6 4 - 0 . 1 8 7 6 O . 3 8 3 8 0 . 6 1 0 0 FARM ORGANIZATION laggard l a t e m a j o r i t y e a r l y m a j o r i t y 1 . 2 7 0 0 0 . 5 9 6 9 - 0 . 8 3 8 1 1 . 2 7 0 0 O . 8 3 8 I PERSONAL laggard l a t e m a j o r i t y e a r l y m a j o r i t y 1.2030 2.?069 1 . 1 1 1 7 2.0936 0 . 8 9 6 3 - 0 . 2 1 5 9 47 Table. LXXXIX z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES AT THE EVALUATION STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN Source Adopter Gategory Adopter Category- Late E a r l y E a r l y m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter- innovator GOVERNMENT laggard - 0 . 0 3 4 7 -2.0103 -1.7397 l a t e m a j o r i t y -1.9790. - 1 . 7 0 7 7 e a r l y m a j o r i t y 0.2887 COMMERCIAL laggard -0.0755 - 0 . 8 3 7 5 1 . 7 8 3 7 l a t e m a j o r i t y -0.7628 1.8528 e a r l y m a j o r i t y 2.5392 FARM ORGANIZATION laggard - - - l a t e m a j o r i t y - - e a r l y m a j o r i t y - PERSONAL laggard 0.0841 2 . 0 7 6 0 O . I 4 6 5 l a t e m a j o r i t y 1.9949. 0 . 0 6 2 4 e a r l y m a j o r i t y - 1 . 9 3 4 5 48 Table XC z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES AT THE TRIAL STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN Source Adopter Category Adopter Category Late E a r l y E a r l y m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter- innovator GOVERNMENT laggard -1.7756 -0.9918 -2.6504* l a t e m a j o r i t y 0.8202 -0.9540 e a r l y m a j o r i t y -1.7530 COMMERCIAL laggard -2.3028 -1.5566 -2.3319 l a t e m a j o r i t y 0.7579 -0.0297 e a r l y m a j o r i t y -0.7876 FARM ORGANIZATION laggard - • - - l a t e m a j o r i t y - - e a r l y m a j o r i t y - PERSONAL 3.1048* 3.7350* laggard 1.9461 l a t e m a j o r i t y -1.1821 0.6520 e a r l y m a j o r i t y 1.8304 49 Table XCI z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES AT THE ADOPTION STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN Source Adopter Category Adopter Category GOVERNMENT laggard l a t e m a j o r i t y e a r l y m a j o r i t y Late m a j o r i t y -0.8763 E a r l y maj o r i t y -0.4555 0.4279 E a r l y adopter- innovator -0.2751 0.6076 0.1815 COMMERCIAL laggard l a t e m a j o r i t y e a r l y m a j o r i t y -1.3477 1.3477 1.3477 FARM ORGANIZATION laggard l a t e m a j o r i t y e a r l y m a j o r i t y - - - PERSONAL laggard l a t e m a j o r i t y e a r l y m a j o r i t y 1.3757 0.4555 -0.9416 0.2751 -1.1166 -0.1815 C. DISTRIBUTION OF INDIVIDUAL INFORMATION SOURCES Table XCII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF INDIVIDUAL INFORMATION SOURCES BY STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS Information Stage source Aware- I n t e r - E v a l - T r i a l Adop- O v e r a l l ness est u a t i o n t i o n use fo fo fo fo fo fo Neighbors or f r i e n d s 14.3 22.8 38.2 30.0 23.7 24.5 Observation o f other farms 9.3 19.6 35-5 29.0 17.2 20.9 Salesmen or d e a l e r s 4.1 17.0 6.3 26.9 0.5 11.6 Own experience 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.4 52.7 7-7 General farm magazines 21.9 2.3 1.2 0.7 0.0 6.9 D i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t 1.0 14.1 4.4 6.2 2.7 6.0 S p e c i a l d a i r y magazines 16.9 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 5.1 V i s i t s t o exper- imental farm 3.8 5.0 2.0 1.7 1.6 3.1 Radio 8.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 M i l k vendor f i e l d man 1.7 5.8 0.0 1.4 0.0 2.2 V e t e r i n a r i a n 1.9 4.4 0.4 1.0 0.0 1.9 Wife, c h i l d r e n or r e l a t i v e s 1.0 1.6 2.8 1.4 1.6 1.6 A g r i c u l t u r a l meet- ings and ad u l t 2.6 education courses 1.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.3 T e l e v i s i o n 4.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 Newspapers 2.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 B.C. Dept. of A g r i - c u l t u r e p u b l i c a t i o n s 0.7 1.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.7 A g r i c u l t u r a l f i e l d days 1.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.7 Foreign t r a v e l 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 A g r i c u l t u r a l organ- i z a t i o n meetings 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 D.H.I.A. sup e r v i s o r 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 V o c a t i o n a l a g r i - c u l t u r e courses 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Canada Dept. of A g r i c u l t u r e p u b l i c a t i o n s 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100. c 51 Table XCIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF INDIVIDUAL INFORMATION SOURCES BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Information Adopter category- source Laggard Late E a r l y E a r l y O v e r a l l m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter- use innovator Neighbors o r 27.6 f r i e n d s 25.9 23.5 20.8 24.5 Observation of other farms 22.6 20.7 21.3 18 .2 20.9 Salesmen or dea l e r s 11.1 11.8 11.4 12.3 11.6 Own experience 8 .6 7.1 7.0 9.3 7.7 General farm magazines 7.2 6.8 7.0 6.8 6.9 D i s t r i c t 6.0 a g r i c u l t u r i s t 2.5 5.9 7.1 7.6 S p e c i a l d a i r y 4.6 magazines 5.4 5.9 4.7 5.1 V i s i t t o Exper. 3.6 Farm 1.8 2.8 4.2 3.1 Radio 2.5 1.6 2.7 3.4 2.5 M i l k vendor f i e l d man 2.5 2.7 2.4 0.4 2.2 V e t e r i n a r i a n 1.1 2.1 2.0 2.1 1.9 Wife, childnen or r e l a t i v e s 2.2 1.4 1.7 0.9 1.6 A g r i c . meetings and a d u l t education courses 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 T e l e v i s i o n 1.4 1.4 0.8 1.7 1.2 Newspapers 0.4 0.9 0.7 1.7 0.8 B.C. Dept. of 0.8 A g r i c . pub. 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.7 A g r i c . f i e l d days 0.0 0.2 0.8 1.7 0.7 Foreign t r a v e l 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.3 0.4 A g r i c . o r g a n i z a t i o n meetings 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.3 D.H.I.A. sup e r v i s o r 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.3 V o c a t i o n a l a g r i c . courses 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.2 Canada Dept. of A g r i c . pub. 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 APPENDIX IV DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE INNOVATION RESPONSE STATES 52 Table XCIV PERCENTAGE OF THE RESPONDENTS WHICH WAS CONTINUING WITH THE ADOPTION PROCESS, BY INNOVATION AND STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS Innovation Stage Aware- I n t e r - E v a l - T r i a l Adop- T o t a l ness est wation t i o n Regular t e s t i n g f o r m a s t i t i s % 0 fo 0 fo 2 % 0 fo • fo 2 Paper towels or separate c l o t h 2 0 1 0 - ;:' 3 S t e r i l i z i n g the te a t cup c l u s t e r 0 0 0 0 Q 0 I n s e c t i c i d e im- pregnated cords 14 4 9 6 - 33 Systemic warble f l y c o n t r o l 10 4 5 1 - 20 Heat lamps f o r calves 2 0 2 0 - 4 Heated water bowls or tanks 3 1 9 0 - 13 Bulk b i n s 0 2 15 1 - 18 Hay c o n d i t i o n e r 0 4 21 3 - 28 Hay dry/er 7 11 18 0 - 36 Average 3.8 2 .6 8.2 l . i mm 15.7 53 Table XCV PERCENTAGE OF THE RESPONDENTS WHICH HAD REJECTED THE INNOVATIONS, BY INNOVATION AND STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS Innovation Stage Aware- ness I n t e r - E v a l - est u a t i o n T r i a l Adop- t i o n T o t a l Regular t e s t i n g f o r m a s t i t i s % 11 fo 1 fo 19 fo 2 fo 33 Paper towels or separate c l o t h s 41 0 21 18 - 80 S t e r i l i z i n g the te a t cup c l u s t e r 18 0 10 13 - 41 I n s e c t i c i d e im- pregnated cords 9 0 8 10 - 27 Systemic warble f l y c o n t r o l 4 0 3 0 — 7 Heat lamps f o r calves 29 1 15 4 — 49 Heated water bowls or tanks 52 1 11 0 — 64 Bulk b i n s 10 0 25 0 - 35 Hay c o n d i t i o n e r 13 1 23 3 - 40 Hay dryer 26 0 36 0 - 62 Average 21.3 0.4 17.1 5.0 - 43.8 54 Table XCVI PERCENTAGE OF EACH ADOPTER CATEGORY WHICH WAS UNAWARE OF THE INDIVIDUAL INNOVATIONS Innovation Adopter Category Laggard Late E a r l y E a r l y m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter-innovator _ _ _ _ Regular t e s t i n g f o r m a s t i t i s 75.0 17.2 11.4 6.3 Paper towels or separate c l o t h s 30.0 13.8 5.7 6.3 S t e r i l i z i n g the t e a t cup c l u s t e r 65.0 58.6 48.6 6.3 I n s e c t i c i d e impreg- nated cords 50.0 41.4 17.1 18 .8 Systemic warble f l y c o n t r o l 85.0 75.9 82 .9 31.3 Heat lamps f o r calves 35.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 Heated water bowls or tanks 35.0 24.1 2.9 6.3 Bulk b i n s 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 Hay c o n d i t i o n e r 5.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 Hay dryer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average 38.0 24.8 16.9 7.5 55 Table XCVII PERCENTAGE OF EACH ADOPTER CATEGORY WHICH WAS CONTINUING WITH THE ADOPTION PROCESS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL INNOVATIONS Innovation Adopter Category Laggard Late E a r l y E a r l y m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopter-innovator _ _ _ _ Regular t e s t i n g f o r m a s t i t i s 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 Paper towels or separate c l o t h s 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 S t e r i l i z i n g the t e a t cup c l u s t e r 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I n s e c t i c i d e im- pregnated cords 35.0 31.0 34.3 31.3 Systemic warble f l y c o n t r o l 10.0 17 .2 14.3 50.0 Heat lamps f o r calves 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 Heated water bowls or tanks 5.0 10.3 17.1 18.8 Bulk b i n s 20.0 20.7 17.1 12.5 Hay c o n d i t i o n e r 30.0 27.6 28 .6 25.0 Hay dryer 20.0 41.4 37.1 43.8 Average 12.0 16.5 16.0 18 .1 56 Table XCVIII PERCENTAGE OF EACH ADOPTER CATEGORY WHICH HAD REJECTED THE INNOVATIONS Innovation Adopter Category Laggard Late E a r l y m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y E a r l y adopter- innovator Regular t e s t i n g f o r m a s t i t i s 10.0 % 48.3 fo 37.1 % 25.0 Paper towels or separate c l o t h s 70.0 69.0 38.6 93.8 S t e r i l i z i n g the t e a t cup c l u s t e r 30.0 41.4 42 .9 50.0 I n s e c t i c i d e im- pregnated cords 15.0 20.7 34.3 37.5 Systemic warble f l y c o n t r o l 5.0 6.9 2.9 18.8 Heat lamps f o r calves 65.0 69.O 37.1 18.8 Heated water bowls or tanks 55.0 62.1 77.1 50.0 Bulk b i n s 60.0 31.0 28.6 25.0 Hay c o n d i t i o n e r 65.O 34.5 37.1 25.0 Hay dryer 80.0 58.6 62 .9 43.8 Average 45.5 44.2 44 .9 38.8 57 Table XCIX PERCENTAGE OF EACH ADOPTER CATEGORY WHICH HAD ADOPTED THE INNOVATIONS Innovation Adopter Category Laggard Late E a r l y m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y E a r l y adopter- innovator Regular t e s t i n g f o r m a s t i t i s 1° 10.0 24.1 37.1 % 43.8 Paper towels or separate c l o t h s 0.0 6.9 5.7 0.0 S t e r i l i z i n g the t e a t cup c l u s t e r 5.0 0.0 8.6 18.8 I n s e c t i c i d e im- pregnated cords 0.0 6.9 14-3 12.5 Systemic warble f l y c o n t r o l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Heat lamps f o r calves 0.0 20.7 51.4 75.0 Heated water bowls or tanks 5.0 0.0 2.9 12.5 Bulk b i n s 20.0 44* 8 54.3 56.3 Hay c o n d i t i o n e r 0.0 34-5 34-3 50.0 Hay dryer 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 Average 4.0 13.8 20.9 28.1 5S Table C PERCENTAGE OF EACH ADOPTER CATEGORY WHICH HAD DISCONTINUED USE OF THE INNOVATIONS Innovation Adopter Category Laggard Late E a r l y m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y E a r l y adopter- innovator Regular t e s t i n g f o r m a s t i t i s 5.0 fo 3-4 % H.3 fo 25.0 Paper towels or separate c l o t h s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 S t e r i l i z i n g the t e a t cup c l u s t e r 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 I n s e c t i c i d e im- pregnated cords 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Systemic warble f l y c o n t r o l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Heat lamps f o r calves Heated water bowls or tanks 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 6.3 12.5 Bulk b i n s 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 Hay c o n d i t i o n e r 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hay dryer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average 0.5 0.7 1.4 7.5 59 Table CI PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHICH HAD SPENT LESS THAN ONE YEAR IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS, BY INNOVATION RESPONSE STATE AND INDIVIDUAL INNOVATION Innovation Innovation Response State Continu- i n g the adoption process Rejected the inno- v a t i o n Adopted the inno- v a t i o n Discon- t i n u e d use of the in n o v a t i o n % % % % Regular t e s t i n g f o r m a s t i t i s 0.0 21.0 19.0 9.0 Paper towels or separate c l o t h s 0.0 60.0 2.0 0.0 S t e r i l i z i n g the t e a t cup c l u s t e r 0.0 30.0 6.0 4.0 I n s e c t i c i d e im- pregnated cords 10.0 16.0 7.0 0.0 Systemic warble f l y c o n t r o l 1.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 Heat lamps f o r calves 0.0 34.0 7.0 0.0 Heated water bowls or tanks 1.0 54.0 0.0 3-0 Bulk b i n s 0.0 21.0 9.0 0.0 Hay c o n d i t i o n e r 0.0 14.0 3.0 0.0 Hay dryer 0.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 Average 1.2 28 .2 5-3 1.6 60 Table CII PERCENTAGE OF THE RESPONDENTS WHICH HAD SPENT ONE OR MORE YEARS IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS, BY INNOVATION RESPONSE STATE AND INDIVIDUAL INNOVATION Innovation Innovation Response State Continu- Rejected i n g the the inno- adoption v a t i o n process Adopted the inno- v a t i o n Discon- t i n u e d use of the inn o v a t i o n Regular t e s t i n g f o r m a s t i t i s % 2.0 % 12.0 10 10.0 * . 2.0 Paper towels or separate c l o t h s 3.0 20.0 2.0 0.0 S t e r i l i z i n g the t e a t cup c l u s t e r 0.0 11.0 1.0 0.0 I n s e c t i c i d e im- pregnated cords 23.0 11.0 2.0 0.0 Systemic warble f l y c o n t r o l 19.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Heat lamps f o r c a l v e s 4.0 15.0 29.0 1.0 Heated water bowls or tanks 12.0 10.0 4.0 0.0 Bulk b i n s 18.0 14.0 36.0 1.0 Hay c o n d i t i o n e r 28.0 26.0 27.0 0.0 Hay dryer 36.0 36.0 2.0 0.0 Average 14-5 15.6 11.3 0.4 61 Table CUT PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF REASONS FOR REJECTION AND DISCONTINUANCE BY INNOVATION Innovation R e j e c t i o n due t o : D i s c ont inuan c e due t o : T o t a l Character- i s t i c s of the inno- v a t i o n S i t u a - t i o n a l f a c t o r s Character- i s t i c s of the inno- v a t i o n S i t u a - t i o n a l f a c t o r s % % % % % Regular t e s t i n g f o r m a s t i t i s 75.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 100.0 Paper towels or separate c l o t h s 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 S t e r i l i z i n g the t e a t cup c l u s t e r 88.9 2.2 8.9 0.0 100.0 I n s e c t i c i d e im- pregnated cords 88.9 11.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Systemic warble f l y c o n t r o l 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Heat lamps f o r calv e s 96.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 100.0 Heated water bowls or tanks 28.3 67.2 0.0 4.5 100.0 Bulk b i n s 25.0 72.2 2.8 0.0 100.0 Hay c o n d i t i o n e r 30.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Hay dryer 41.9 58.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 62 Table CIV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF REASONS FOR REJECTION AND DISCONTINUANCE FOR THE TEN INNOVATIONS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Reason Adopter Category Laggard % Late m a j o r i t y % E a r l y m a j o r i t y % E a r l y adopter- innovator % R e l a t i v e advantage 60.9 62.3 64.2 78.4 C o m p a t i b i l i t y 1.1 3.9 2.5 0.0 Complexity 0.0 2.3 1.9 0.0 D i v i s i b i l i t y 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Communicability 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 S i t u a t i o n not appropriate 13.0 14.6 14.8 12.2 Scale of oper- a t i o n too small 23.9 14.6 16.0 9.4 I n s u f f i c i e n t c a p i t a l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s 1.1 2.3 0.6 0.0 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 63 Table CV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF REASONS FOR REJECTION AND DISCONTINUANCE OF THE INNOVATIONS BY TIME SPENT IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS Innovation C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s S i t u a t i o n a l T o t a l of the i n n o v a t i o n f a c t o r s Less than One or Less than One or one year more years one year more years Regular t e s t i n g f o r m a s t i t i s fo '68.2 % 31.8 fo 0.0 fo 0.0 % 100.0 Paper towels or separate c l o t h s 75.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 S t e r i l i z i n g the t e a t cup c l u s t e r 73*3 24.5 2.2 0.0 100.0 I n s e c t i c i d e impregnated cords 48.2 40.7 11.1 0.0 100.0 Systemic warble f l y c o n t r o l 85-7 14-3 0.0 0.0 100.0 Heat lamps f o r c a lves 66.0 32.0 2.0 0.0 100.0 Heated water bowls or tanks 21.0 7.4 64.2 7.4 100.0 Bulk b i n s 16.7 11.1 41.7 30.5 100.0 Hay c o n d i t i o n e r 30.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Hay dryer 14.5 27.4 27.4 30.7 100.0

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
Malaysia 1 0
China 1 13
United States 1 0
City Views Downloads
Kuala Lumpur 1 0
Beijing 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

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

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items