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 Gubbels, Peter Martin 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 ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
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
Original Record: 1.0104751 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0104751.txt
Citation
1.0104751.ris

Full Text

THE ADOPTION AMD REJECTION OF INNOVATIONS BY DAIRYMEN I N THE LOWER FRASER VALLEY  by PETER MARTIN GUBBE3L5 B.S.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f 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 I N AGRICULTURE  i n t h e Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o t h e required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1966  In presenting t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study,  I f u r t h e r agree that permission., f o r extensive  copying of t h i s  t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representatives.  I t i s understood that copying  or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permission.  Department of The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada  ii ABSTRACT T h i s study a n a l y s e s t h e a d o p t i o n and r e j e c t i o n o f some d a i r y farm i n n o v a t i o n s by Lower F r a s e r V a l l e y d a i r y men.  I t a l s o a n a l y s e s use o f i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s , l e n g t h  o f t i m e spent i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s , r e a s o n s f o r d e l a y i n proceeding through t h e adoption process, reasons f o r r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e o f i n n o v a t i o n s , and dairymand 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 t h e 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 o f t h e Lower F r a s e r 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 t h e e a r l i e r  adopters  t o have l a r g e farms, a h i g h p r o d u c t i o n p e r cow, l e s s t h a n 20 y e a r s f a r m i n g e x p e r i e n c e , a h i g h farm p l u s o f f - f a r m employment income, l a r g e numbers o f d a i r y young s t o c k , o f f i c e v i s i t s with 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 c o u r s e s a t v o c a t i o n a l s c h o o l s , 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 t h e e a r l i e r and l a t e r a d o p t e r s r e g a r d i n g age, y e a r s o f s c h o o l completed, s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , t e n u r e , s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , use o f h i r e d l a b o u r and p l a c e o f b i r t h . A number o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s had had no c o n t a c t o f 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  t o t h e i n t e r v i e w b u t on t h e average each respondent used 2.53  types of contact.  iii Mien c l a s s i f i e d by t h e n a t u r e o f t h e a c t i v i t y , t h e most used s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n were p e r s o n a l , 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 g r o u p . When c l a s s i f i e d by o r i g i n , t h e most t o l e a s t used were p e r s o n a l , commercial,  sources  government and f a r m 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 t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s were used f o r t h e two groups o f i n n o v a t i o n s d i f f e r e d . On t h e average each respondent was unaware o f 2.19 o f t h e 10 i n n o v a t i o n s and c o n t i n u i n g i n t h e a d o p t i o n f o r 1.57*  process  R e j e c t i o n had o c c u r r e d f o r an average o f 4»3#»  a d o p t i o n f o r 1.66 and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e f o r 0.20 o f t h e 10 innovations. Almost h a l f t h e 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 a t t h e awareness stage i n t h e a d o p t i o n From t h e l a g g a r d t o t h e e a r l y  process.  adopter-innovator  c a t e g o r y , 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 t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s , a d o p t i o n and discontinuance  increased.  S i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s made up more t h a n t w o - t h i r d s t h e reasons f o r delay i n proceeding through the adoption  pro-  c e s s b u t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n s made up more t h a n t w o - t h i r d s t h e r e a s o n s f o r r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n uance o f i n n o v a t i o n s . The r a t e o f r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e was h i g h e r and a d o p t i o n l o w e r when l e s s t h a n one y e a r was spent t h a n  iv when one o r more y e a r s was spent i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s . An a d o p t i o n tendency s c o r e was d e r i v e d and compared w i t h t h e a d o p t i o n s c o r e b u t i t c o u l d n o t be determined t h a t use o f one o r t h e o t h e r was a more u s e f u l way o f i d e n t i f y i n g d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e r e s p o n d e n t s .  V  TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Abstract  i  L i s t o f Tables  i  ix  L i s t of Figures  xviii  Acknowledgement  ••• x i x  CHAPTER I.  1  INTRODUCTION  1  The Lower F r a s e r V a l l e y  II.  The M i l k I n d u s t r y A c t  .4  A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension  5  Purposes o f t h e Study  6  L i t e r a t u r e Review  6 22  METHODOLOGY The Sample  22  The I n t e r v i e w Schedule  24  Procedure  •  A n a l y s i s o f t h e Data  28 •  P l a n o f t h e Study III.  30 31  CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE  32  Individual Characteristics  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 C o n t a c t ...  42  Community P e r c e p t i o n  45  vi CHAPTER IV.  PAGE ADOPTER CATEGORIES  47  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f t h e Respondents i n t o Adopter C a t e g o r i e s  47  A n a l y s i s o f t h e D i f f e r e n c e s Among t h e  V.  Adopter Categories  50  SOURCES OF INFORMATION  57  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f the Sources o f Information I n f o r m a t i o n Source Use by Stage i n t h e Adoption Process  57 60  I n f o r m a t i o n Source Use by A d o p t e r C a t e g o r y .  66  Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n Sources by Stage and A d o p t e r Category  72  Use o f I n d i v i d u a l Sources o f I n f o r m a t i o n ..  74  S o u r c e s o f I n f o r m a t i o n Used f o r t h e Innovations VI.  •  ADOPTION AND NON-ADOPTION OF THE INNOVATIONS. P r o g r e s s Toward I n n o v a t i o n A d o p t i o n Length o f Time Spent i n t h e A d o p t i o n Process Reasons f o r D e l a y i n P r o c e e d i n g Through the Adoption Process The I n n o v a t i o n Response S t a t e o f t h e Respondents Reasons f o r R e j e c t i o n and D i s c o n t i n u a n c e of Innovations  77 86 86 90 92 97 103  vii CHAPTER VII.  PAGE ADOPTION TENDENCY  1 0 9  D e r i v a t i o n o f t h e A d o p t i o n Tendency Score . 1 0 9 Comparison o f t h e D i f f e r e n c e s Between t h e A d o p t e r C a t e g o r i e s and t h e A d o p t e r Tendency C a t e g o r i e s  1 1 4  A D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e D i f f e r e n c e s Among t h e A d o p t e r Tendency C a t e g o r i e s  1 1 7  P a r t i a l C o r r e l a t i o n o f Socio-Economic Characteristics  1 2 1  E f f i c a c y o f t h e A d o p t i o n Tendency Score ... 1 2 3 VIII.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  1 2 4  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e Sample and Adopter C a t e g o r i e s  1 2 4  Sources o f I n f o r m a t i o n  1 3 1  The A d o p t i o n and Non-Adoption o f t h e Innovations A d o p t i o n Tendency  1 3 5 1 4 1  BIBLIOGRAPHY  1 4 4  viii APPENDIX APPENDIX  APPENDIX  I . The I n t e r v i e w Schedule w i t h Simple Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n s Added I I . B i v a r i a t e T a b l e s o f t h e Socio-Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Versus Adopter C a t e g o r i e s and A d o p t e r Tendency C a t e g o r i e s f o r Which S i g n i f i c a n t C h i - s q u a r e V a l u e s Were O b t a i n e d I I I . A. B.  C. APPENDIX  1  17  P e r c e n t a g e Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n Sources  32  z V a l u e s f o r t h e D i f f e r e n t i a l Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n S o u r c e s Between Adopter Categories  39  Distribution of Individual I n f o r m a t i o n S o u r c e s .............  50  IV. Detailed Analysis of the Innovation Response S t a t e s  52  ix L I S T OF TABLES TABLE I.  II. III. IV. V. VI.  VII. VIII.  IX.  X.  XI.  XII. XIII.  PAGE Comparison o f t h e Sample and P o p u l a t i o n Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n s A c c o r d i n g t o S i z e o f D a i l y M i l k Quota by Use o f t h e C h i - s q u a r e Test  2 5  Partial Correlation Coefficients  3 3  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n o f 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  P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Respondents by E x t e n s i o n C o n t a c t Score  4 5  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f t h e Respondents i n t o Adopter C a t e g o r i e s •  4 9  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 A g a i n s t Two and Four A d o p t e r C a t e g o r i e s  5 1  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f Sources o f I n f o r m a t i o n  5 9  z Values f o r the Difference of Information Source Use Between S t a g e s i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s w i t h t h e Sources C l a s s i f i e d by Nature o f t h e A c t i v i t y  6 2  z Values f o r the D i f f e r e n c e of Information Source Use Between Stages i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s w i t h t h e Sources C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n .  6 5  z Values f o r the Difference of Information Source Use Between A d o p t e r C a t e g o r i e s w i t h t h e S o u r c e s C l a s s i f i e d by t h e Nature o f the A c t i v i t y  6 8  z Values f o r the Difference of Information Source Use Between A d o p t e r C a t e g o r i e s w i t h t h e Sources C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n  7 1  The F i v e Most F r e q u e n t l y Used S o u r c e s o f I n f o r m a t i o n by Stage i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s ..  7 6  The F i v e Most F r e q u e n t l y Used Sources o f I n f o r m a t i o n by A d o p t e r C a t e g o r y  7 7  X  TABLE XIV.  XV.  XVI. XVII. XVIII.  XIX.  XX.  XXI.  XXEI.  XXIII.  XXIV. XXV.  XXVI.  •PAGE P e r c e n t a g e Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n Sources byI n n o v a t i o n w i t h t h e Sources C l a s s i f i e d byNature o f t h e A c t i v i t y  80  P e r c e n t a g e Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n Sources byI n n o v a t i o n w i t h t h e Sources C l a s s i f i e d by Origin  82  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Information Sources by I n n o v a t i o n  8 4  T o t a l Number o f I n f o r m a t i o n Sources Used P e r I n n o v a t i o n and Respondent  8 5  P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Respondents each Stage i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s by Innovation  •••  8 8  P e r c e n t a g e o f Respondents a t each Stage by A d o p t e r Category f o r a l l I n n o v a t i o n s Combined  8 9  P e r c e n t a g e o f t h e Respondents Who Spent L e s s Than One Y e a r o r One o r More Y e a r s i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s by I n n o v a t i o n  9 0  Average number o f I n n o v a t i o n s f o r which L e s s Than One Y e a r and One o r More Y e a r s Was Spent i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s , by A d o p t e r Category  9 1  Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Reasons f o r D e l a y i n P r o c e e d i n g Through t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s f o r A l l t h e I n n o v a t i o n s Combined  9 5  P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Reasons f o r D e l a y i n P r o c e e d i n g Through t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s by A d o p t e r C a t e g o r y  9 6  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of the by I n n o v a t i o n Response S t a t e  9 &  at  Respondents  P e r c e n t a g e o f t h e Respondents C o n t i n u i n g w i t h t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s , by Stage f o r each Group o f I n n o v a t i o n s  9 9  Percentage o f t h e Respondents w h i c h had R e j e c t e d each Group o f I n n o v a t i o n s , by Stage i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s  100  xi TABLE XXVII.  XXVIII.  XXIX.  XXX.  XXXI.  XXXII. XXXIII. XXXIV.  XXXV.  XXXVI.  XXXVIIr  PAGE Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Respondents byAdopter Category and I n n o v a t i o n Response State  102  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Time Spent i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s by I n n o v a t i o n Response State ,  103  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Reasons f o r R e j e c t i o n and D i s c o n t i n u a n c e by I n n o v a t i o n Group  105  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Reasons f o r R e j e c t i o n and D i s c o n t i n u a n c e o f I n n o v a t i o n s by A d o p t e r Category  106  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Reasons f o r R e j e c t i o n and D i s c o n t i n u a n c e by I n n o v a t i o n Group and Time Spent i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s ..  107  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Reasons f o r R e j e c t i o n by Stage i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s ....  108  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f t h e Respondents i n t o A d o p t e r Tendency C a t e g o r i e s  112  Number o f Respondents i n each Category When C l a s s i f i e d by A d o p t i o n Score and A d o p t i o n Tendency Score  113  Comparison o f C h i - s q u a r e V a l u e s f o r B i v a r i a t e T a b l e s o f Socio-Economic Characteristics A g a i n s t Two A d o p t e r C a t e g o r i e s and Two A d o p t e r Tendency C a t e g o r i e s  115  Comparison o f C h i - s q u a r e V a l u e s f o r B i v a r i a t e T a b l e s o f Socio-Economic Characteristics A g a i n s t Four A d o p t e r C a t e g o r i e s and Four Adopter Tendency C a t e g o r i e s  116  Socio-Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Having Significant P a r t i a l Correlation Coefficients w i t h A d o p t i o n Score and A d o p t i o n Tendency Score  122  TABLE XXXVIII.  XXXIX. XL. XLI. XLII. XLIII. XLIV. XLV.  XLVI.  XLVII.  XLVIII.  XLIX. L. LI. LII.  LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDICES  xii PAGE  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n o f 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 S c h o o l byA d o p t e r Category  17  P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f D a i r y Farm Work Enjoyment by A d o p t e r C a t e g o r y  17  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Number o f Y e a r s Farming E x p e r i e n c e by A d o p t e r Category  18  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of T o t a l S i z e Farm by A d o p t e r Category  18  of  P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Average P r o d u c t i o n p e r Cow by A d o p t e r Category  19  P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Number o f Young D a i r y S t o c k R a i s e d by A d o p t e r Category  19  P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Amount o f Unpaid ( f a m i l y ) Labour by A d o p t e r Category  20  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n o f F a m i l y Farm P l u s Off-Farm Employment Income by A d o p t e r Category  20  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of 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 by A d o p t e r Category  21  P e r c e n t a g e 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 A d o p t e r C a t e g o r i e s ••••  21  P e r c e n t a g e 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 Four A d o p t e r C a t e g o r i e s  22  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Community Regard o f Laggards by Four A d o p t e r C a t e g o r i e s  22  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Community Regard of Laggards by Two A d o p t e r C a t e g o r i e s  23  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of M a r i t a l S t a t u s by A d o p t e r Tendency Category •  23  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of T o t a l Size Farm by A d o p t e r Tendency C a t e g o r y  24  of  xiii TABLE LIU. LIV.  LV.  LVI. LVII.  LVIII. LIX.  LX.  LXI.  LXII.  LXIII.  LXIV.  LXV.  PAGE P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Number o f A c r e s Devoted t o D a i r y i n g by A d o p t e r Category .......  24  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Size o f D a i l y M i l k Quota by Four A d o p t e r Tendency Categories  25  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S i z e o f D a i l y M i l k Quota by Two A d o p t e r Tendency Categories  25  P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Amount o f M i l k S o l d P e r Y e a r by A d o p t e r C a t e g o r y  26  P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Average M i l k P r o d u c t i o n P e r Cow by A d o p t e r Tendency Category  26  P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Breed o f D a i r y C a t t l e by A d o p t e r Tendency C a t e g o r y  27  P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Number o f Young D a i r y S t o c k R a i s e d by Four A d o p t e r Tendency Categories  27  P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Number o f Young D a i r y S t o c k R a i s e d by Two A d o p t e r Tendency Categories  28  P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f F a m i l y Farm P l u s Off-Farm Employment Income by A d o p t e r Tendency C a t e g o r y  28  P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Farm V a l u e as a Going Concern by A d o p t e r Tendency Category  29  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n o f 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 by Four A d o p t e r Tendency C a t e g o r i e s  29  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n o f 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 by Two A d o p t e r Tendency C a t e g o r i e s  30  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Attendance a t M e e t i n g s and F i e l d Days Sponsored by t h e D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r i s t by A d o p t e r Tendency Category  30  xiv TABLE LXVT.  LXVTI.  LXVIII.  LXIX.  LXX.  LXXI.  LXXII.  LXXIII.  LXXIV.  LXXV.  PAGE P e r c e n t a g e 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 Four A d o p t e r Tendency Categories  3 1  P e r c e n t a g e 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 A d o p t e r Tendency Categories  3 1  P e r c e n t a g e Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n Sources by Stage i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s W i t h t h e S o u r c e s C l a s s i f i e d by t h e Nature o f t h e Activity  3 2  P e r c e n t a g e Use of I n f o r m a t i o n Sources by Stage i n the A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s w i t h t h e Sources C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n •  3 2  P e r c e n t a g e Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n Sources by A d o p t e r Category W i t h t h e Sources C l a s s i f i e d by Nature o f t h e A c t i v i t y  3 3  P e r c e n t a g e Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n Sources by A d o p t e r Category W i t h t h e Sources C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n  3 3  P e r c e n t a g e Use of I n f o r m a t i o n S o u r c e s , C l a s s i f i e d as t o t h e Nature o f t h e A c t i v i t y , by A d o p t e r Category a t t h e Awareness Stage i n the Adoption Process  3 4  P e r c e n t a g e Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n S o u r c e s , C l a s s i f i e d as t o t h e Nature o f t h e A c t i v i t y , by A d o p t e r Category a t the I n t e r e s t Stage i n the Adoption Process  3 4  P e r c e n t a g e Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n S o u r c e s , C l a s s i f i e d as t o t h e Nature o f t h e A c t i v i t y , by A d o p t e r Category a t t h e E v a l u a t i o n Stage i n the Adoption Process  3 5  P e r c e n t a g e Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n S o u r c e s , C l a s s i f i e d as t o t h e Nature o f t h e A c t i v i t y , by A d o p t e r Category a t t h e T r i a l Stage i n the Adoption Process  3 5  XV  TABLE LXXVI.  LXXVII.  LXXVIII.  LXXXIX.  LXXX.  LXXXI.  LXXXII.  LXXXIII.  LXXXIV.  PAGE P e r c e n t a g e Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n S o u r c e s , C l a s s i f i e d as t o t h e Nature o f t h e A c t i v i t y , by A d o p t e r Category a t t h e A d o p t i o n Stage i n the A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s  3 6  P e r c e n t a g e Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n S o u r c e s , C l a s s i f i e d as t o O r i g i n , by A d o p t e r Category a t t h e Awareness Stage i n t h e A d o p t i o n Process  3 6  P e r c e n t a g e Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n S o u r c e s , C l a s s i f i e d as t o O r i g i n , by A d o p t e r Category a t t h e I n t e r e s t Stage i n t h e A d o p t i o n Process ..  3 7  P e r c e n t a g e Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n S o u r c e s , C l a s s i f i e d as t o O r i g i n , by A d o p t e r Category a t t h e E v a l u a t i o n Stage i n t h e A d o p t i o n Process  3 7  P e r c e n t a g e Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n S o u r c e s , C l a s s i f i e d as t o O r i g i n , by A d o p t e r Category a t t h e T r i a l Stage i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s ....  3 8  P e r c e n t a g e Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n S o u r c e s , C l a s s i f i e d as t o O r i g i n , by A d o p t e r Category a t t h e A d o p t i o n Stage i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s .  3 8  z V a l u e s f o r t h e D i f f e r e n t i a l Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n Sources Between A d o p t e r C a t e g o r i e s a t t h e Awareness Stage i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s W i t h t h e S o u r c e s C l a s s i f i e d by Nature o f t h e A c t i v i t y •  40  z V a l u e s f o r t h e D i f f e r e n t i a l Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n Sources Between A d o p t e r C a t e g o r i e s a t t h e I n t e r e s t Stage i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s W i t h t h e S o u r c e s C l a s s i f i e d by Nature o f t h e A c t i v i t y  41  z V a l u e s f o r t h e D i f f e r e n t i a l Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n Sources Between A d o p t e r C a t e g o r i e s a t t h e E v a l u a t i o n Stage i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s W i t h t h e S o u r c e s C l a s s i f i e d by Nature o f t h e A c t i v i t y  i+2  xv i TABLE LXXXV.  LXXXVI.  LXXXVII.  LXXXVIII.  LXXXIX.  XC.  XCI.  XCII.  XCIII. XCIV.  PAGE z V a l u e s f o r t h e D i f f e r e n t i a l Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n Sources Between A d o p t e r C a t e g o r i e s a t t h e T r i a l Stage i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s W i t h t h e Sources C l a s s i f i e d by Nature o f the A c t i v i t y  4 3  z V a l u e s f o r t h e D i f f e r e n t i a l Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n S o u r c e s Between A d o p t e r C a t e g o r i e s a t t h e A d o p t i o n Stage i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s W i t h t h e Sources C l a s s i f i e d by Nature o f the A c t i v i t y  4 4  z V a l u e s f o r t h e D i f f e r e n t i a l Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n Sources Between A d o p t e r C a t e g o r i e s a t t h e Awareness Stage i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s W i t h t h e S o u r c e s C l a s s i f i e d by Origin  4 5  z V a l u e s f o r t h e D i f f e r e n t i a l Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n Sources Between A d o p t e r C a t e g o r i e s a t the I n t e r e s t Stage i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s W i t h t h e Sources C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n  4 6  z V a l u e s f o r t h e D i f f e r e n t i a l Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n S o u r c e s Between A d o p t e r C a t e g o r i e s a t the E v a l u a t i o n Stage i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s W i t h t h e Sources C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n  4 7  z V a l u e s f o r t h e D i f f e r e n t i a l Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n S o u r c e s between A d o p t e r C a t e g o r i e s a t the T r i a l Stage i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s W i t h the S o u r c e s C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n  4 8  z V a l u e s f o r t h e D i f f e r e n t i a l Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n S o u r c e s Between A d o p t e r C a t e g o r i e s a t the A d o p t i o n Stage i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s W i t h t h e S o u r c e s C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n  4 9  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n o f I n d i v i d u a l I n f o r m a t i o n Sources by Stage i n t h e A d o p t i o n Process  50  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n o f I n d i v i d u a l I n f o r m a t i o n S o u r c e s by A d o p t e r C a t e g o r y  51  P e r c e n t a g e o f t h e Respondents Which Was C o n t i n u i n g W i t h t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s , by I n n o v a t i o n and Stage i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s ..  52  xvii TABLE XCV.  XCVI. XCVII.  PAGE P e r c e n t a g e o f t h e Respondents Which Had R e j e c t e d t h e I n n o v a t i o n s , by I n n o v a t i o n and Stage i n the A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s P e r c e n t a g e o f Each A d o p t e r Category Which Unaware o f t h e I n d i v i d u a l I n n o v a t i o n s  5 3 Was  5 4  P e r c e n t a g e o f Each A d o p t e r 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  P e r c e n t a g e o f Each A d o p t e r Category Which Had Rejected the Innovations  5 6  XCIX.  P e r c e n t a g e o f Each A d o p t e r Category Which Had Adopted t h e I n n o v a t i o n s  5 7  C.  P e r c e n t a g e o f Each A d o p t e r Category Which Had D i s c o n t i n u e d Use o f t h e I n n o v a t i o n s  58  XCVIII.  CI.  CII.  CIII.  CIV.  CV.  P e r c e n t a g e o f Respondents Which Had Spent L e s s Than One Y e a r i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s , by I n n o v a t i o n Response S t a t e and I n d i v i d u a l Innovation • •  5 9  P e r c e n t a g e o f t h e Respondents Which Had Spent One o r More Y e a r s i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s , by I n n o v a t i o n Response S t a t e and I n d i v i d u a l Innovation  6 0  P e r c e n t a g e Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Reasons f o r R e j e c t i o n and D i s c o n t i n u a n c e by Innovation  6 1  P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Reasons f o r R e j e c t i o n and D i s c o n t i n u a n c e f o r t h e Ten I n n o v a t i o n s by A d o p t e r Category  6 2  P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Reasons f o r R e j e c t i o n and D i s c o n t i n u a n c e o f t h e Innov a t i o n s by t h e Time Spent i n t h e A d o p t i o n Process  6 3  xviii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.  2.  3.  4.  PAGE P e r c e n t a g e Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n Sources by Stage i n the Adoption Process With the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by t h e Nature o f t h e A c t i v i t y  61  P e r c e n t a g e Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n Sources by Stage i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s W i t h t h e Sources C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n  64  P e r c e n t a g e Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n Sources by Adopter C a t e g o r y W i t h t h e S o u r c e s C l a s s i f i e d by Nature o f t h e A c t i v i t y  67  P e r c e n t a g e Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n Sources by Adopter C a t e g o r y W i t h t h e S o u r c e s C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n  70  xix 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 t h e h e l p o f t h e many people who made t h i s s t u d y p o s s i b l e . Members o f t h e B r i t i s h Columbia and Canada D e p a r t ments o f A g r i c u l t u r e gave h e l p f u l a d v i c e e s p e c i a l l y a t the i n i t i a l stages o f t h e 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 s c h e d u l e s i n o r d e r t o p r o 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 t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics Research C o u n c i l o f Canada and from Mr. and Mrs. J . F i t t e r e r was g r e a t l y a p p r e c i a t e d . Throughout t h e study members o f t h e F a c u l t y o f A g r i c u l t u r e c o n t r i b u t e d many v a l u a b l e s u g g e s t i o n s . The w r i t e r i s d e e p l y i n d e b t e d t o h i s w i f e f o r h e r a s s i s t a n c e i n c h e c k i n g t h e d a t a and f o r h e r c o n s t a n t encouragement. Frank M i l l e r d p r o v i d e d i n v a l u a b l e a s s i s t a n c e by p r e p a r i n g computer programs t o p r o c e s s t h e d a t a . G r e a t e s t a p p r e c i a t i o n i s due D r . C. V e r n e r f o r h i s p a t i e n t d i r e c t i o n o f 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 f i n e s t and most intensive dairy farm areas i n 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,  t h i s number had dropped to 1671.  During the same  period of time there was a small increase i n 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 i n the extreme southwest corner of the Mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia.  It  extends from the estuary of the Fraser River at the S t r a i t of Georgia on the west, eastward f o r 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 International Boundary.  The average width i s about 25 miles  and the approximate area i s 2500 square miles.  In I 9 6 I the  Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s reported the t o t a l area of  E.L. Menzie, 0 . Klassen and F. Van Andel, Dairy Farm Management Manual. Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., 1957, p. 2. X  2 a l l farms as 274,588 acres of which 198,458 acres, o r 72.27 per cent, were c l a s s i f i e d as improved l a n d . The V a l l e y has an extensive amount of f l a t t o r o l l i n g land ranging from s e a - l e v e l t o e l e v a t i o n s of 1000 f e e t o r more.  The bulk o f 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 l o w - l y i n g areas and brown podsols i n the uplands.  In a d d i t i o n t o these, there are s c a t t e r e d areas  of peat and muck s o i l s . A marine climate c h a r a c t e r i z e s the region with v a r i a t i o n s o c c u r r i n g due t o aspect, e l e v a t i o n 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 J u l y and August temperature being about 63 F. and t h a t G  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 t o 230 days i n d i f f e r e n t p a r t s o f the V a l l e y .  The  mean annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n ranges from 37 inches at the western end t o over 80 inches at the eastern end.  About  two-thirds of the r a i n f a l l occurs from October t o March. J u l y and August are the d r i e s t months w i t h an average of l e s s than 2 inches r a i n f a l l each month so t h a t 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 t o be obtained.  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. 432  3 The climatic and s o i l conditions have been favourable to a wide range of a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprises and have helped make t h i s the most important a g r i c u l t u r a l area i n the Province. Dairy, poultry, vegetable, special h o r t i c u l t u r e , f u r farm, small f r u i t and other enterprises i n the Valley accounted for  49*2 per cent of the 1961 P r o v i n c i a l farm cash income.3  Dairying, however, i s the p r i n c i p a l a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprise i n the Valley and accounted f o r almost 28 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s , or 70.9 per cent of the 1961 dairy cash income of the Province. In addition to having favourable environmental  con-  d i t i o n s , large urban markets f o r milk and milk products are close by. The t o t a l population f o r the region i n 1961 was  907,531 of which 772,998 was c l a s s i f i e d as urban, 107,511 as r u r a l non-farm and  27,022 as r u r a l farm.4  A  number of small  c i t i e s , towns and v i l l a g e s serve the farm population. these are: Langley  Chilliwack (with a  Among  1961 population of 8259),  (2365), Mission City (3251) and Abbotsford (888). During the past few years, industry has been a t t r a c t i n g  many farm workers out of agriculture by o f f e r i n g a shorter work week and higher wages.  As a r e s u l t of t h i s competition,  ^ B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Agriculture, Inventory of Agriculture i n B r i t i s h Columbia. (Fifteenth B.C. Natural Resources Conference} undated mimeo, p. 6. 1961  ^Canada, Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Census of Canada - Population. Queen's Printer, Ottawa, 1962. (Catalogue  92-543) p. 7 - 54.  4  farm wages have r i s e n considerably.  Average wages (without  board) f o r male farm help i n B r i t i s h Columbia have increased from $133* per month i n May  1955 to  August 1965 - a 92.5$ increase.5  $256.  per month i n  In order to reduce pro-  duction costs, the dairy farmers have been forced to adopt many labour saving p r a c t i c e s .  II.  THE MILK INDUSTRY ACT  The Milk Industry Act of 1956 provides f o r measures of control i n production, processing and marketing of a l l milk sold f o r human consumption i n the Province.  Since i t s  regulations i n regard to standards of production were s t r i c t e r 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 f o r each farm. A producer received one price f o r h i s quota milk and a lower price f o r the milk produced i n excess of h i s quota.  Since  quota increases were based on the amount of excess milk produced, the adoption of innovations by many dairymen was oriented to greater e f f i c i e n c y and increased production. In the f a l l of 1961, however, the Milk Board found i t  5Canada, Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Farm Wages i n Canada ( l ) , Queen's Printer, Ottawa, 1957 and 1965. (Catalogue 21-002) p. 2.  5  necessary to r e s t r i c t the supply of milk f o r the f l u i d trade i n Vancouver Milkshed by reducing quotas by 35 per cent. In addition, quotas were t i e d 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 " f r e e z i n g " the quotas, as the amount of excess milk produced had effect on quota increases.  little  I t i s l i k e l y that the adoption  of innovations f o r increased production was thereby deterred. This may have been p a r t l y o f f s e t i n 1 9 6 2 when the Milk Board eased the r e s t r i c t i o n s on quota t r a n s f e r s by making the quotas themselves negotiable.  This gave farmers who  wished  to expand production quickly, the p o s s i b i l i t y of doing so.  III.  AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION  Most of the a g r i c u l t u r a l extension f o r dairy farmers i n the Lower Fraser Valley i s carried out by the four d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t s who  are employed by the A g r i c u l t u r a l  Development and Extension Branch of the B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Agriculture and stationed at Cloverdale, Abbotsford, Mission and Chilliwack.  The d i s t r i c t a g r i -  c u l t u r i s t s serve the farmers by conducting educational a c 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 d i s t r i b u t i n g 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 f a c t o r s that are associated with innovativeness among the dairy farmers of the Lower Fraser V a l l e y .  In addition i t investigated the  length of time spent i n the adoption process; innovation rejection and discontinuance; the reasons f o r delay i n proceeding through the adoption process, r e j e c t i o n and discontinuance; and the extent of contact between the dairymen and the d i s t r i c t  V.  agriculturist.  LITERATURE REVIEW  The pattern of behaviour whereby an i n d i v i d u a l adopts an innovation i s very complex.  Before the adoption  process  even begins, f a c t o r s are present which w i l l a f f e c t not only the decision to reject or adopt but also the rate of adoption. These f a c t o r s include 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 and h i s perception of the s i t u a t i o n into which the innovation w i l l have to f i t .  Throughout the adoption process, two  additional f a c t o r s : sources of information and characteri s t i c s of the innovation, influence the decision to r e j e c t  7 o r adopt and t h e r a t e o f a d o p t i o n . Each o f t h e s e f a c t o r s i n t e r a c t s w i t h o t h e r s and each i s a c t u a l l y a complex o f factors a f f e c t i n g the adoption process. Definitions Throughout t h e s t u d y t h e 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 p e r c e i v e d as new by t h e  individual. A d o p t i o n i s a d e c i s i o n t o c o n t i n u e f u l l use o f an innovation. The a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s i s a m e n t a l p r o c e s s t h r o u g h which an i n d i v i d u a l p a s s e s f r o m f i r s t h e a r i n g about an innovation to f i n a l adoption. A S o c i a l system i s a p o p 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 a d o p t i o n i s t h e r e l a t i v e speed w i t h which an i n n o v a t i o n i s adopted by members o f a s o c i a l system. I n n o v a t i v e n e s s i s t h e degree t o w h i c h an i n d i v i d u a l i s r e l a t i v e l y e a r l i e r i n a d o p t i n g new i d e a s t h a n o t h e r members o f h i s s o c i a l system. Adopter categories are the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f 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 t h e b a s i s o f 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 I n n o v a t i o n s , The F r e e P r e s s o f Glencoe, New Y o r k , 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 o f i t s e x i s t e n c e .  The adoption o f an  innovation i n v o l v e s a mental process made up o f a s e r i e s o f stages.  Beal et a l . ^ concluded t h a t the concept o f stages  i s v a l i d from the evidence t h a t they appeared meaningful t o the adopters and t h a t the adopters were aware t h a t they d i d go through a s e r i e s o f stages as they progressed toward adoption.  The stages which have gained acceptance by  adoption research workers are as f o l l o w s : !•  awareness - the i n d i v i d u a l gains f i r s t knowledge about the innovation but l a c k s complete information about i t .  2.  i n t e r e s t - the a c t i v e seeking o f extensive and d e t a i l e d information about the i n n o v a t i o n .  3*  e v a l u a t i o n - the i n d i v i d u a l mentally a p p l i e s the innovation i n h i s present and a n t i c i p a t e d f u t u r e s i t u a t i o n and decides whether o r not t o t r y i t .  4*  t r i a l - the t e n t a t i v e t r y i n g out o f the i n n o v a t i o n , often on a small s c a l e , t o determine i t s u t i l i t y in a specific situation.  5»  adoption - the d e c i s i o n t o continue f u l l use o f the i n n o v a t i o n .  7G.M. B e a l , E.M. Rogers, and J.M. Bohlen, " V a l i d i t y o f the Concept o f 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 t h i s breakdown i s consistent with the nature of the phenomena, congruent with previous research findings and p o t e n t i a l l y useful f o r p r a c t i c a l applications. He points out that there are not necessarily only f i v e stages i n the adoption process but that at the present time there seem to be f i v e main functions involved and each of these i s assigned a stage. Innovativeness Innovativeness i s a continuous dimension i n that individuals adopt a new idea at d i f f e r e n t times.  When  plotted over time, adoption of an innovation by a s o c i a l system tends to conform to the bell-shaped curve.  Therefore,  i t i s possible to c l a s s i f y adopters i n terms of standard units.  In the past a v a r i e t y of adopter category systems  and t i t l e s were used i n research but the system developed by Rogers^ seems to have won  considerable acceptance.  He  partitioned the adopters into f i v e categories from the f i r s t to the l a s t to adopt as f o l l o w s : 1.  innovators - 2.5  2.  early adopters - 13*5  3.  early majority -  34*0  per cent  4«  l a t e majority -  34*0  per cent  5.  laggards - 16.0  &E.M.  per cent per cent  per cent  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, r e s p e c t f u l ; early majority, deliberate; l a t e majority, skeptical; and laggards, t r a d i t i o n a l .  The  e a r l i e r adopters tend to have l a r g e r farms, higher incomes, more specialized operations and more cosmopolite  relation-  ships than the l a t e r adopters. Sources of Information Many sources of information on innovations are available to farmers but use of them v a r i e s i n r e l a t i o n to the stage i n the adoption process that the farmer i s i n , h i s adopter category and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the innovation• Sources of information have been categorized i n a variety of ways.  The basis on which some categories have  been established are as follows:  personal and  impersonal;  l o c a l i t e and cosmopolite; and mass media, a g r i c u l t u r a l agencies, commercial sources and informal sources.  Beal  and Rogers " - have combined two methods of categorization -1  1  to form s i x categories:  10  mass media-impersonal, a g r i c u l t u r a l  E.M. Rogers, op. c i t . p.  192.  G.M. Beal and E.M. Rogers, The Adoption of Two Farm Practices i n a Central Iowa Community, Iowa State University, Ames, CEowa, June I960, (Special Report No. 2 6 ) p. 5» 1:L  11 agency-impersonal,  commercial-impersonal,  agricultural  agency-personal, commercial-personal and informal-personal* R o g e r s l makes the following generalizations which 2  are supported by many studies:  impersonal and cosmopolite  information sources are most important at the awareness stage and personal and l o c a l i t e sources are most important at the evaluation stage i n the adoption process. Lionberger^-3 indicates that at the awareness and i n t e r e s t stages, mass media i s most important; at the evaluation and t r i a l stages, f r i e n d s and neighbors are the most important; and at the adoption stage, f r i e n d s and neighbors are the most important f a c t o r i n continued use of the innovation. In regard to adopter categories and sources of information used, Rogers ^ o f f e r s four generalizations: 1  Impersonal sources of information are more important than personal sources f o r r e l a t i v e l y e a r l i e r adopters of innovations than f o r l a t e r adopters.  Cosmopolite sources  of information are more important than l o c a l i t e sources f o r r e l a t i v e l y e a r l i e r adopters than f o r l a t e r adopters. E a r l i e r adopters u t i l i z e a greater number of d i f f e r e n t information sources than do l a t e r adopters.  I^E.M. Rogers, D i f f u s i o n o f 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/f  E.M. Rogers, O P . c i t . pp. 179-182.  12  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Adopters and Their Farms The reason why  some farmers adopt innovations more  quickly than others r e l a t e s i n part to t h e i r personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s i t u a t i o n they f i n d themselves i n . Numerous studies have been conducted to i d e n t i f y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s related to innovativeness.  There i s general agreement that early adoption of  innovations, compared with l a t e adoption, i s associated with:  younger age, cosmopoliteness, a more favorable  f i n a n c i a l position, willingness to take r i s k s , more s p e c i a l ized operation, l a r g e r size of farm, greater amount of farm knowledge, use of hired labour, higher s o c i a l status and more s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n .  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 f o r other practices there was  no  s i g n i f i c a n t association with age. Researchers are not i n complete agreement as to the influence that family factors, ethnic o r i g i n , 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 s o c i a l status with innovativeness also found  •^C.R. Hoffer and D. Strangland, "Farmers* Attitudes and Values i n Relation to Adoption of Approved Practices i n Corn Growing", Rural Sociology, v o l . 23 (June 195^)» P» 5«  1 3  schooling to be related to innovativeness.  Since education  i s an aspect of s o c i a l status, i t was not known i f education was independently r e l a t e d .  Photiadis  l D  helped c l a r i f y the  issue by showing that when s o c i a l 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 d i f f e r e n t i a t e d farmers concerning s o c i a l and economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  I f , f o r example,  there was a choice between 8 and 12 years of education, higher socio-economic  status families would tend to have  t h e i r children complete 12 years.  Lionberger ? suggested 1  that the kind of schooling (e.g. vocational agriculture training) appears more important than the amount and also, that favorable orientation f o r acceptance of new may be gained outside the school-room.  practices  Verner and M i l l e r d - ^  studied several dimensions of education i n r e l a t i o n to innovativeness.  They found that educational l e v e l and high  school agriculture courses were not s i g n i f i c a n t i n terms of adopter categories but that u n i v e r s i t y courses i n agriculture  •*-J.D. Photiadis, ^Motivation, Contacts and Technological Change", Rural Sociology, v o l . 2 7 (December 1 9 6 2 ) , pp. 3 2 4 - 3 2 5 D  -^H.F. Lionberger, op. c i t . . pp. 1 7 and  97.  C . Verner and F.W. M i l l e r d , Adult Education and the Adoption of Innovations by Orchardists i n the Okanagan Valley 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 University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., i960. (Rural S o c i o l o g i c a l Monograph # 1 ) , pp. 7 3 and 7 4 * l 8  .  14 and adult education courses were s i g n i f i c a n t *  They propose  that recency of educational experience and relevance of the content to the p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l system are the important attributes of education. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Innovations The spread of an innovation i s not simply a matter of economic advantage.  Hoffer and Strangland ^ state that 1  the p r o f i t motive appears to be not enough to cause a l l farmers to adopt a p r a c t i c e .  Economic f a c t o r s may be of  greater importance i n a modern than a t r a d i t i o n a l s o c i a l system but adoption depends on how i n d i v i d u a l s perceive a l l aspects of the innovation.  Rogers  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of innovations:  20  gives f i v e d i f f e r e n t  r e l a t i v e advantage, the  degree to which an innovation i s superior to ideas i t supersedes; compatibility, the degree to which an innovation i s consistent with e x i s t i n g values and past experiences of the adopters; complexity, the degree to which an innovation i s r e l a t i v e l y d i f f i c u l t to understand and use;  divisibility,  the degree to which an innovation may be t r i e d on a l i m i t e d basis; and communicability, the degree to which the r e s u l t s  19cR. 20  Hoffer and D. Strangland, op. c i t . , p. 4*  E.M. Rogers, op. c i t . , pp.  124-133-  15 of an innovation may be d i f f u s e d t o o t h e r s .  These  c h 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, a f f e c t i t s r a t e 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  i n d i c a t e d t h a t poor  weather f o r curing hay r e s u l t e d i n a remarkable increase i n the proportion of farmers adopting the use of grass silage. Rate of Adoption The r e l a t i v e speed w i t h which an innovation i s adopted by members of a s o c i a l system v a r i e s considerably w i t h 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 r a t e of adoption o f an innovation i s  measured i n terms of the number of years taken f o r a c e r t a i n percentage of members i n a s o c i a l system t o adopt an innovation.  Many s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e t h a t the adoption o f a  new farm p r a c t i c e f o l l o w s a bell-shaped  curve over time.  On a cumulative b a s i s , 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 r a t e a t f i r s t , then a r a p i d r a t e  and f i n a l l y a decreasing r a t e of adoption. The r e l a t i v e importance of c o m p a t i b i l i t y and p r o f i t a b i l i t y (an aspect o f r e l a t i v e advantage) o f an innovation  Wilkening, Adoption o f Improved Farm P r a c t i c e s As Related t o Family Factors» U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, Madison, 1953* (Research B u l l e t i n 183) p. 13•  16 i n explaining the rate of adoption does not appear to be completely c l e a r .  In order to receive consideration by most  i n d i v i d u a l s , 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 f a c t o r influencing the rate of adoption i s the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t .  The greater the number  who have adopted an innovation the greater the i n t e r a c t i o n effect on those who have not adopted.  Therefore, the rate  of adoption i s related to the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t as measured by the cumulative per cent of adoption.  Rogers  22  states that i t i s through i n t e r a c t i o n with others that i n d i v i d u a l s i n a s o c i a l system i n t e r n a l i z e the r e l a t i v e advantage of an idea, as well as i t s other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Adoption Period The time elapsing from awareness of an innovation to adoption f o r an i n d i v i d u a l can be measured i n days, months or years.  Presumably use of mass media to diffuse ideas  should make a l l members of a s o c i a l 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. G.M. Beal and E.M. Rogers, The Adoption of Two Farm Practices i n a Central Iowa Community, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, June I960, (Special Report No. 26) p. 8. 23  17  show a nine year range i n reported times of awareness of 2-4-D  i n a Central Iowa Community.  This may be due to the  tendency f o r i n d i v i d u a l s to expose themselves to communi c a t i o n s which tend to agree with t h e i r existing conditions. Nonadopters often know about an innovation but they are not motivated to t r y i t or adopt i t .  That i s , awareness  occurs at a more rapid rate than does adoption.  Beal and  Rogers ^- found that there were 1 . 7 years between 1 0 per cent 2  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 d i f f e r e n t innovations.  For example, Rogers ^ states that 2  the average length of the adoption period f o r hybrid corn by 2 5 9 Iowa farmers was 9 « 0 years f o r 9 9 per cent adoption and the average length of the adoption period f o r Warfarin rat  poison by 1 0 4 Ohio farmers was 0 . 8 years f o r 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 f o r r e l a t i v e l y e a r l i e r adopters than f o r l a t e r adopters but the t r i a l to adoption period i s longer f o r r e l a t i v e l y e a r l i e r adopters than f o r the l a t e r adopters.  2  ^Loc. c i t .  25E.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 o f a community o r o f a s o c i a l system have an important  i n f l u e n c e on t h e r a t e o f a d o p t i o n o f a new  idea  because t h e norms a f f e c t t h e b e h a v i o r o f t h e members. community's norms e x i s t on a continuum between t h e extremes o r i d e a l t y p e s : t r a d i t i o n a l and modern.  A  two A  community w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l norms l a g s b e h i n d a community w i t h modern norms i n : c o s m o p o l i t e n e s s ,  education,  tech-  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.  Lionberger 6 2  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  i n n o v a t i v e n e s s 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 i n n o v 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 d i m e n s i o n can  be  a p p l i e d a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l as w e l l as on t h e community level.  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  Rejection  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  o c c u r a t t h e awareness, i n t e r e s t ,  e v a l u a t i o n o r t r i a l stage and may  be temporary o r permanent.  Change a g e n t s u s u a l l y recommend i n n o v a t i o n s on t h e b a s i s o f s c i e n t i f i c j u s t i f i c a t i o n but f a r m e r s do not a l w a y s use  this  b a s i s i n d e c i d i n g t o adopt o r not t o adopt an i n n o v a t i o n .  'H.F.  Lionberger,  op. c i t . , pp.  69-73  1 9  M c M i l l i o n ^ and S h e p p a r d  2 8  f o u n d t h a t r e a s o n s g i v e n 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 o f knowledge i n r e g a r d t o t h e v a l u e o f t h e p r a c t i c e .  Hoffer  and S t r a n g l a n d ^ i n d i c a t e d t h a t f a r m e r s * a t t i t u d e s and 2  values  were t h e most i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r s d e t e r r i n g use o f 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 o f farm o r c o s t o f t h e  innov-  ations also deterred adoption. There a r e 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 o f 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 t h e 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 r e a s o n s f o r r e j e c t i o n i s used i n each s t u d y . Innovation D i s c o n t i n u a n c e Discontinuance  i s a d e c i s i o n t o cease use o f an  innovation a f t e r p r e v i o u s l y adopting i t .  Thus, by  definition,  d i s c o n t i n u a n c e can o c c u r o n l y a f t e r t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s been completed.  The  has  d i f f u s i o n of superior innovations  f o r c e s d i s c o n t i n u a n c e o f o b s e l e t e p r a c t i c e s but d e c i s i o n s t o s t o p u s i n g an i n n o v a t i o n can a l s o be made on basis.  irrational  Of 12 f a r m 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,  M.B. M c M i l l i o n , The S o u r c e s o f I n f o r m a t i o n and F a c t o r s Which I n f l u e n c e Farmers i n A d o p t i n g Recommended P r a c t i c e s i n Two New Z e a l a n d C o u n t i e s . L i n c o l n C o l l e g e , U n i v e r s i t y o f New Z e a l a n d , 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. 1 9 ) , p. 3 1 . 27  ^D. Sheppard, " F a r m e r s ' Reasons f o r Not A d o p t i n g C o n t r o v e r s i a l Techniques i n G r a s s l a n d F a r m i n g " , J o u r n a l .of t h e B r i t i s h G r a s s l a n d S o c i e t y , v o l . 1 6 , no. 1, (March 1961J, p. 1 3 . 2  2  ? C •R. H o f f e r and D. S t r a n g l a n d , op. c i t . . p. 3 «  20 M i s s i s s i p p i by S i l v e r m a n and Bailey,3° between 1954 and 1957, f a r m e r s dropped one p r a c t i c e f o r e v e r y two t h a t t h e y  adopted.  Johnson and Van den Ban found t h a t d u r i n g a f i v e y e a r p e r i o d 176 W i s c o n s i n f a r m e r s made 2 6 6 a d o p t i o n s and 255 d i s c o n t i n uances o f 17 i n n o v a t i o n s . 3 1  There were i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t few  o f t h e s e d i s c o n t i n u a n c e s were caused by supersedence. above mentioned  The  s t u d i e s d i d n o t g a t h e r d a t a on r e a s o n s f o r  discontinuances. F a r m e r - E x t e n s i o n Agent C o n t a c t i n R e l a t i o n t o A d o p t e r A l a r g e number o f s t u d i e s show t h a t  Category  agricultural  e x t e n s i o n workers have more c o n t a c t w i t h h i g h e r - s t a t u s t h a n l o w e r - s t a t u s members o f a s o c i a l system and i t i s w e l l known that s o c i a l status i s p o s i t i v e l y related to innovativeness. I n r e f e r e n c e t o use o f a g r i c u l t u r a l a g e n c i e s a s s o u r c e s o f information, Lionberger^  2  s t a t e s t h a t e a r l y adopters maintain  c l o s e c o n t a c t , t h e m a j o r i t y g e n e r a l l y r e m a i n a l o o f and w i t h t h e l a g g a r d s , a g r i c u l t u r a l a g e n c i e s a r e v i r t u a l l y out o f t h e picture.  Rogers and Capener^-* found t h a t f a r m e r s who had  3 0 L . J . S i l v e r m a n and W.C. B a i l e y , Trends i n t h e A d o p t i o n 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 t e U n i v e r s i t y , A g r i c u l t u r a l E x p e r i m e n t 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 6 1 7 ) , p. 8. 31E.M. Rogers, op. c i t . . p. 90. 3 H . F . L i o n b e r g e r , op. c i t . . pp. 3 9 - 4 1 * 2  33E.M. Rogers and H.R. Capener, The County E x t e n s i o n 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 O h i o , June I 9 6 0 , ( B u l l e t i n 8 5 8 ) , pp. 24-25.  2 1  h i g h e r a d o p t i o n s c o r e s made s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r use o f t h e county e x t e n s i o n agent a s a source o f i n f o r m a t i o n . They showed t h e average number o f c o n t a c t s f o r each category as f o l l o w s :  innovators  2 . 6 7 ,  adopter  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 l a g g a r d s 1 . 3 5 • The  i n n o v a t o r s had l e s s c o n t a c t w i t h t h e county e x t e n s i o n  agent t h a n t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r s b u t t h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t i n n o v a t o r s secure much o f t h e i r  infor-  m a t i o n d i r e c t l y f r o m e x t e n s i o n s p e c i a l i s t s and from r e s e a r c h workers.  22 CHAPTER I I METHODOLOGY A f t e r completing t h e 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 o f t h e d a i r y f a r m e r s i n t h e 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 s c h e d u l e was p r e p a r e d  t o g a t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n on a d o p t i o n and n o n - a d o p t i o n o f i n n o v a t i o n s , sources o f 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 t a c t . The r e s p o n d e n t s making up t h e sample were t h e n i n t e r v i e w e d and t h e d a t a a n a l y s e d .  I.  THE SAMPLE  F o r t h e purpose o f t h i s s t u d y , d a i r y f a r m e r s a r e a l l t h o s e f a r m e r s who have m i l k quotas under t h e 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 f a r m e r s p r o d u c i n g and s e l l i n g m i l k f o r f l u i d  consumption.-*-  1965> when t h e sample was drawn, t h e M i l k Board c o n t a i n e d t h e names o f 1617 f a r m e r s .  I n May  list  By u s i n g T i p p e t t ' s  2  t a b l e s o f random numbers a 6.2 p e r cent sample (100 r e s p o n d e n t s ) was s e l e c t e d from t h e l i s t .  An a d d i t i o n a l  3 p e r cent sample o f a l t e r n a t i v e r e s p o n d e n t s was s e l e c t e d i n t h e same manner. ^-Excluded by t h i s d e f i n i t i o n a r e t h e managers o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l farms and a p p r o x i m a t e l y 224 non-quota h o l d i n g dairymen who s e l l m i l k f o r m a n u f a c t u r i n g 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 P r e s s , London, 1950.  2 3  The  sample i n t e r v i e w e d i n t h i s s t u d y was t e s t e d  a g a i n s t t h e M i l k Board l i s t t o determine  i f i t was r e p r e s -  e n t a t i v e o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n o f d a i r y f a r m e r s owning  quotas.  The M i l k Board l i s t had d a t a on t h e p o p u l a t i o n mean s i z e o f quota and t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n a c c o r d i n g to  quota s i z e .  statistical  T h e r e f o r e , i t was p o s s i b l e t o p e r f o r m two  tests.  The f i r s t t e s t concerned  t h e sample and p o p u l a t i o n  mean s i z e o f d a i l y m i l k quota w h i c h was pounds r e s p e c t i v e l y .  5 0 2 . 3  and  5 2 0 . 4  U s i n g a t e s t c o n c e r n i n g means, t h e  n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was advanced t h a t t h e sample mean was t h e same a s t h e p o p u l a t i o n mean a t t h e . 0 5 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e . - ^ The  z v a l u e o b t a i n e d was  - . 3 5 9 6 *  Therefore, the hypothesis  t h a t t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e sample and p o p u l a t i o n mean s i z e o f d a i l y m i l k quota was a c c e p t e d . The  second t e s t compared t h e sample f r e q u e n c y  d i s t r i b u t i o n , according t o the size of d a i l y milk with that of the population.  quota,  The c h i - s q u a r e t e s t was  c a r r i e d o u t u s i n g t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e r e was no d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e sample and p o p u l a t i o n f r e q u e n c y at t h e . 0 5 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .  distribution  Since the chi-square value  3The c r i t i c a l v a l u e s u s e d t o t e s t t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s were t o r e j e c t t h e h y p o t h e s i s i f z < - 1 . 9 6 o r z > 1 . 9 6 and a c c e p t t h e h y p o t h e s i s i f - 1 . 9 6 < z < 1 . 9 6 where x - u . s/ >J n~ (x" = sample mean, u = t h e p o p u l a t i o n mean, s = s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f t h e sample and n = t h e sample s i z e ) . a  24  of 10.183 was lower than the c r i t i c a l value of 12.592, there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the two sets of frequencies.  Table I gives more d e t a i l of the chi-square  calculations.  II.  THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE  The interview schedule was designed to obtain information on f a c t o r s 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 b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of each  section of the interview schedule follows. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Dairymen In t h i s section questions were asked to f i n d the respondent's age, marital status, number of children; educational l e v e l ; a g r i c u l t u r a l t r a i n i n g at high school, vocational school, u n i v e r s i t y and through adult education a c t i v i t i e s ; adult education i n subjects other than a g r i culture; dairy farm work enjoyment; number of years i n farming, i n dairying, and on the present farm; year of immigration,  ethnic o r i g i n and s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n .  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 i n 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  600 -  6 9 9  4  6 . 2  .7806  7 0 0  7 9 9  4  5 . 4  . 3 6 3 0  9 9 9  1 0  7 . 5  . 3 3 3 3  9  1 1 . 2  . 4 3 2 1  1 0 0  1 0 0 . 0  1 0 . 1 8 3 3  -  800 1 0 0 0  +  2 . 4 6 0 5  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Farms This section was devoted to determining t o t a l size of farm, improved acreage f o r 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 h i r e d and family labour, non-farm income, family farm plus non-farm employment income, and the farm value as a going concern. Dairyman-District A g r i c u l t u r i s t Contact Information was obtained on the most important ways i n which dairyman-district a g r i c u l t u r i s t contact occurs. Included were the following types of contacts: the o f f i c e 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 articles. The Community and Adoption Questions were used to determine each  respondent's  perception of the willingness of h i s community to adopt  new  dairy farm practices, h i s community's regard of innovators and h i s 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 i n 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 t h e s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n used i n r e g a r d t o each o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n s . Adoption of the Innovations T h i s s e c t i o n sought t o determine t h e stage i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s t o which t h e r e s p o n d e n t s had p r o g r e s s e d f o r each o f t e n i n n o v a t i o n s . A d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s were asked i n r e g a r d t o each i n n o v a t i o n t o f i n d out i f t h e  respondents  had r e j e c t e d t h e i n n o v a t i o n , d e l a y e d i n p r o c e e d i n g t h r o u g h 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 t h e s e o c c u r r e n c e s were r e c o r d e d .  As  mentioned  above, t h i s s e c t i o n a l s o d e t e r m i n e d t h e s o u r c e s o f i n f o r mation used f o r each i n n o v a t i o n . The i n n o v a t i o n s used i n t h i s s t u d y were s e l e c t e d from a l i s t o f more t h a n f o r t y which were suggested  by  farm s u p p l y 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 t h e g e n e r a l agreement by t h e d a i r y f a r m  specialists  t h a t t h e i n n o v a t i o n s were recommended and c o n s i d e r e d 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 f a r m i n g and t h a t t h e y had been i n t r o d u c e d w i t h i n t h e p a s t t e n y e a r s . The f o l l o w i n g t h r e e 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 included 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 e v e r y two weeks o r once e v e r y month; washing t h e udder o f 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 t o w e l s w h i c h 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 t h e  t e a t cups, between u s e on d i f f e r e n t cows, by r i n s i n g i n c l e a n w a t e r and t h e n d i p p i n g i n t o a s t e r i l i z i n g  solution.  O t h e r i n n o v a t i o n s used i n t h e 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 , s y s t e m a t i c w a r b l e f l y c o n t r o l f o r young s t o c k and b u l l s , heat lamps f o r weak c a l v e s o r f o r c a l v e s born d u r i n g v e r y c o l d weather, h e a t e d w a t e r bowls o r t a n k s , a b u l k b i n f o r c o n c e n t r a t e f e e d , a hay c o n d i t i o n e r and a hay d r y e r .  III.  PROCEDURE  P r e - t e s t o f t h e I n t e r v i e w Schedule F i v e d a i r y farmers l i v i n g i n the area but not i n c l u d e d i n e i t h e r t h e sample o r i n t h e l i s t o f a l t e r n a t i v e r e s p o n d e n t s were i n t e r v i e w e d t o t e s t t h e schedule enable t h e i n t e r v i e w e r t o g a i n experience  and t o  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 t h e schedule b e f o r e t h e 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 d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d  f r o m May 31st t o J u l y 6, 1965. extremely  Because t h e f a r m e r s were  busy w i t h s i l o f i l l i n g and h a y i n g between t h e i r  r e g u l a r m i l k i n g c h o r e s , i t was p o s s i b l e t o i n t e r v i e w o n l y a few r e s p o n d e n t s each day.  29 The f a r m e r s were approached d i r e c t l y f o r i n t e r viewing without  a t t e m p t i n g t o make a p p o i n t m e n t s b e f o r e h a n d .  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 t h e purpose o f t h e study and t o e n l i s t t h e i r  co-operation.  I f t h e y happened t o be t o o busy when t h e f i r s t v i s i t was made, an appointment was a r r a n g e d  f o r a l a t e r date.  In  c a s e s o f f a r m e r s n o t b e i n g home, r e p e a t v i s i t s were made u n t i l t h e respondent was c o n t a c t e d and i n t e r v i e w e d .  To  complete t h e 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 t h e f a r m was i n t e r v i e w e d . The  q u e s t i o n s were asked i n t h e same o r d e r and u s i n g t h e  same w o r d i n g a s g i v e n on t h e i n t e r v i e w s c h e d u l e . i o n a l l y , re-wording Data was r e c o r d e d view schedule  was n e c e s s a r y  to facilitate  Occasunderstanding.  i n t h e a p p r o p r i a t e p l a c e s on t h e i n t e r -  and checked f o r completeness a t t h e end o f  each i n t e r v i e w . Although  c o n s i d e r a b l e p e r s u a s i o n was n e c e s s a r y t o  e n l i s t t h e c o - o p e r a t i o n o f some o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s , none o f them r e f u s e d t o be i n t e r v i e w e d .  Four o f t h e respondents  i n t h e sample c o u l d n o t be i n t e r v i e w e d due t o moving from the area o r 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  r e s p o n d e n t s c o u l d n o t be i n t e r v i e w e d p r o p e r l y because o f language d i f f i c u l t i e s .  E i g h t names from t h e a l t e r n a t i v e  respondent l i s t were used i n p l a c e o f t h o s e o f t h e i n i t i a l sample who c o u l d n o t be i n t e r v i e w e d .  3 0  IV.  ANALYSIS OF THE DATA  A f t e r h a v i n g t h e i n t e r v i e w s c h e d u l e d a t a keypunched onto IBM c a r d s , i t was p r o c e s s e d by use o f t h e  7 0 4 0  Computer  at t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Computer C e n t e r . T e s t s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e were c a r r i e d out on t h e d a t a 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  f a r m e r s o r i f t h e y were due t o chance.  F o r each t e s t o f  s i g n i f i c a n c e , a n u l l h y p o t h e s i s o f no d i f f e r e n c e advanced u s i n g t h e . 0 5 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .  was  That i s , i f  we s t a t e t h a t t h e r e i s no d i f f e r e n c e between o b s e r v e d sample v a l u e s and a c o r r e s p o n d i n g p o p u l a t i o n  parameter,  t h e r e i s a f i v e p e r c e n t chance t h a t t h e r e i s a d i f f e r e n c e . The f o l l o w i n g t h r e e 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.  T h i s t e s t compares observed  frequency  v a l u e s w i t h expected f r e q u e n c y v a l u e s i n c o n t i n g e n c y t a b l e s . Partial Correlation.  T h i s t e s t measures s e p a r a t e l y  t h e 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  that  t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e o t h e r r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s are h e l d c o n s t a n t . D i f f e r e n c e between P r o p o r t i o n s .  T h i s t e s t i s used  t o d e c i d e i f t h e 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 o r whether i t may chance.  r e a s o n a b l y be a t t r i b u t e d t o  3 1  V. The  PLAN OF THE STUDY  sequence o f t h e r e m a i n i n g c h a p t e r s 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 t h e sample i n terms  o f t h e f r e q u e n c y 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  t h e a s s o c i a t i o n o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w i t h each o t h e r ; t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s and t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and  analysis  o f t h e use o f i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s ; t h e a n a l y s i s o f i n n o v a t i o n a d o p t i o n , r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e ; t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a d o p t i o n tendency c h a p t e r summarizing  c a t e g o r i e s and  and c o n c l u d i n g t h e s t u d y .  a  32 CHAPTER I I I CHARACTERISTICS OF I n f o r m a t i o n on  SAMPLE  socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which  p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h has o f i n n o v a t i o n s , was  THE  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a d o p t i o n and  o b t a i n e d f r o m each r e s p o n d e n t .  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  rejection The  descriptive  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 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , dairyman-district community p e r c e p t i o n . c a t e g o r i e s was  a g r i c u l t u r i s t contact  The  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n each of t h e s e  a n a l y s e d by d e r i v i n g a p e r  d i s t r i b u t i o n - * - and  The  cent frequency  by measuring t h e a s s o c i a t i o n  p a i r s o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h r o u g h the use correlation  and  of  between  partial  analysis. interview  s c h e d u l e , c o n t a i n e d i n Appendix I ,  g i v e s the f r e q u e n c y 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  T a b l e I I shows the p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n  I.  coefficients.  INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS  Adoption score.  A positive correlation  between a d o p t i o n s c o r e and enjoyment o f d a i r y i n g ,  the  following  existed  variables:  s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , number of  •'-Since t h e r e were e x a c t l y 100 r e s p o n d e n t s i n the sample, the number o f r e s p o n d e n t s 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 c e n t .  33  <  03  © bO  0) TJ 43 H S  -H  !•§  -P  ctJH  O CD 3 >  •a ©  43  c bo ©c  •O-H G rt W TJ  c  •H CtJ TJ © O <H C  <+H © o «H C O ©  o •©H 03 k U© rt a © X >-» ©  *H  U U© (0  rt p.  Adoption score Age Number o f c h i l d r e n Educational l e v e l Enjoyment o f d a i r y i n g ; Tears o f farming experience Years o f d a i r y i n g experience Y e a r s on t h e p r e s e n t farm Year o f i m m i g r a t i o n Social participation T o t a l s i z e o f farm i n a c r e s Improved a c r e s devoted t o d a i r y i n g Improved a c r e s f o r n o n - d a i r y i n g e n t e r p r i s e s Tenure . "... S i z e o f d a i l y m i l k quota Number o f cows i n t h e d a i r y h e r d Amount o f m i l k s o l d Average p r o d u c t i o n p e r cow Number o f young d a i r y s t o c k r a i s e d Amount o f o f f - f a r m work Amount o f h i r e d l a b o u r used Amount o f u n p a i d ( f a m i l y ) l a b o u r used Income from o t h e r farm e n t e r p r i s e s Non-farm income F a m i l y farm p l u s o f f - f a r m employment income Farm v a l u e a s a g o i n g concern Visits to district agriculturist's office 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 m e e t i n g s 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  1 2 3 4 5  6  7 8 9 10 11 12 13  14  15  16  17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  1.000 -.114 -.210 .102 .220 .124 .045 -.2Jtl -.091 •216  -.134 .010 .097 .163 -.028 -.120 .064 -.047  •JtQO  -.143 -.082 -.009  -.291 .155 .223  .023 •2it6 .122  -.222  .053  .115 .076  -.069  -  1.000  -.020 -.230 .169  .021 -.054 .259  .050 .010 .089 -.123 -.013 .054 .016  -.087 .025 -.103  -.122  -.047 -.100 .054 .026  -.151 -.015 .047 .051 .148  .107  -.142 .002  1.000 .041 -.101 .042 -.101 .132 .031 .102 -.090 -.122  -.057 .174 -.159  .321 -.089 .321  -.143 -.070  -m .147  -.011 .093  -.120  .032 .092 .153 -.165 .009 •205.  •  1.000  .472  .013  .086  -.100 -.030 .165 -.031 -.063 -.143 .006  • .023  -.103  -.232  -.093 -.032 -.017 .173 .094 .051 .086 -.105  -.097  .261  .093  .007 -.115 .082  •P  c  u Pk • © 43  G  o  •H  H  u  G o 01  o u  rt ©  TJ © 43 O > ©  •H 43  rt  Pk •H O •H  t  •P  O 43  a o  rt p.  rH  rt  •H  O  O CO  o ©  N •H 03  rt o  03 ©  U o rt  TJ b0  © G  .058  -.070 .194 -221  .064 -.119 -.147 -.007 .066 -.017  .139 -.043 .003  -.230 .048^  .026  h  1.000 -.010 .222 -.152 -.158  .112 .091 .022 -.129 .073  -.274 .209 -.085 .224 -.124  -.051 .147 -.066  .092  -.032 .086 -.187  -.128 .280 .014 .005  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  rt  G 0 G  •Ho  .117 -.148 .127 .112 -.238 .127  .005 .082  .133  -.177  1.000 .559 .020 -.174 .014 .108 -.178 -.049 .129 -.014 .277 .143 .094  g<  0  M rH •H  <H 03  S  ©  -.034  -.017 .158  .014 .042  -.098 .189  -.030  -.180 .198  >» H •H  03 T J *H  ©> UP , ©  rt  TJ  ©  c©  o ©  N •H 03  rt TJ © 43 43  03  .282 -.037 -.095 .102 .110 .048 .279 -.091 -.203 -.163 .164 .201 -.211  .029 -.024  -.211 .141  -.130 -.157  .233 .079 .m  .089 .166 .485 -.001 -.109  .049 .044 .148  .153  -.076  1.000  .009  -.018 -.166 .052  .033 .044 .197 .255  .154 -.077 .009 .325 .136 -.056 -.129 .057 .200  .H5 —057  rH  IO  «H  <H O  ©  3  1.000 -.260  TJ  rH •H  o u  O O 43 03  0 0  O 03  43  1.000 -.222 -.079 .162 -.270 .180 -.112 .243 -.132  03  rt  d  43 O  s a Hi © 1.000 -.005 .008 -.146 -.165 .257 -.092 -.064 -.061 -.117 -.006 .085 .208  03 •H  43  6  u ©  p«  >»  U •H  G 0  rt  •H 43 O  •3  hO  crJ  TJ O  U ©  ;  rt ©  >  :;:  TJ  ©  03  2  o  g rt  >>  1 <^ «H  «H O  <H O-  .0  u © -3  u o  c o  rt H H  TJ ©  TJ  1.000  .301  -.053  .141 .157 -.061 -.132 ..140 .136  s ©  © 43 43  o  o u  © c  .194 ..028 .000 ..061 ..076 • .201 -.114  ..187  c ©  9  o a o  O rH  © 43  .042  -.165 .155 .004  -.126  .187  -.060 .091 .011  .003 -.054  .250 .063  ^.144  c  u  I «H «H  © B  o o C  rt I  c  o  o  03 rH P.  rt «H •>»  rH  bO •H  o  «  -.168 -.135  .200 -.008 -.122 .116 -.186  -.026  .258 -.014 -.111 •004 *©42  .272  .092 -.100 .m  .023 ..098 .002 -.103 -.050 .182 .046 -»i'2i  1.000  -.241  -.033 -.107 -.132  .038 -.088  .039 .190 .148 -.172 -.161 •144  1.000  -.088 -.077  .138 -.069 -.045  .107 -.042 .086 -.212  -.155  .262  1.000 .006  .222  -.111  •I2i  .367 -.275  -.059 .052 .046 -.158  o •H -  03  rt ©  H rt  >  P  <H <H  o o U O  •H  4303 43 •H © TJ -H O 43 © 4i •H W •H  U 3  43 ^ O -H Is hO  > rt 1.000 -.019 -.046 -.081 -.002 .069 .010 -.179 -.067 »135  1.000  -.129 -.193 -.023  .290 -.074 .120 .002 .009  1.000 .027 -.051  .026  .045 -.046 -.036 -.054  1.000 .271 •140.  -.094  -.119 -.114 .234  © 43 43 03  43  O  H  •H  © 0  43 © •H TJ  P  O 3 P 43 rH rH O  O bO  rt  © J3 4?  o o © rH © EH  43 © 'H TJ  43  bO (3 •H 43 © ©  © :  Pl4  1.000  ©  bo  rt  1.000 .077  NOTE: The u n 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 association. 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 o u t u s i n g t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s o f 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 t h e assumption t h a t under t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s o f no c o r r e l a t i o n , t h e s a m p l i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e 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 h a v i n g t h e mean 0 and t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n l / / n - 1 where n t h e sample s i z e . T h e r e f o r e , t h e c r i t e r i o n i s t o r e j e c t t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s 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 t h a n -.197 o r g r e a t e r t h a n .197). s  © o  o o  rt rt  43  ©  u o. u  c  rH  o  43  I  PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS  •H  © © ©  1.000 .069  •126  u o o a  xJ ©  .©  ©  TJ 1  O  ©  TJ  rt ©  fHTJ  1.000 .332 -.135 -.032 .122 .053 .052 -.051 .060 .043 -.020  Table I I  G  '•rt  O CO  B «  -  bO  all  O O TJ O  bO  bO C •H  O  ese  -P ©  H 05 C O •H  Year farm  o a © uu  •H  ryi  a o  03  •H  U  43 rH  S  J-i •H  >s 43 43 © W -H +3 £ •H S © 43  11O E  ^  UU  rt bO rt  43 O © • H >»  rt  bOTJ XJ P rH O © •H *H bCH M TJ •H C 0 5  Q rt  1.000 •4£2 .002 .106 -.042 .022  1.000 -.036 .146 .029 -.154  43 o •H  18  O •H >U bO rt  •H TJ  43 o •ri  W  43  ©  *H  ©  U 03  TJ S O  U  «H  rt  43 o 43 w •H TJ  S» 43  >»  43  © © rH  rt W B-ri O JH C! =3 J3 43 rtrtj  o o  •H - H TJ J-t  rt fao  P4 rt  1.000 .380 .158". -.28/  1.000 -.256 •IS  1.000  •i28  a  •H 43 43  U © rt-H  © 43 CUrH  rt 3  PH W ? ©  O -H JH bO  s rt  1.000  34  young d a i r y s t o c k 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 t h e d i s t r i c t office.  agriculturist's  T h i s means t h a t h i g h a d o p t i o n s c o r e s a r e a s s o c i a t e d  with high values of the f i v e v a r i a b l e s .  On t h e o t h e r hand,  t h e r e was a n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between a d o p t i o n s c o r e and number o f c h i l d r e n , t h e number o f y e a r s on t h e p r e s e n t  farm,  income f r o m o t h e r farm e n t e r p r i s e s and f a r m v i s i t s by t h e district agriculturist.  That i s , a h i g h a d o p t i o n  was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l o w v a l u e s o f t h e s e  score  variables.  The p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n between a d o p t i o n s c o r e and one t y p e o f 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 t a c t and t h e n e g a t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h another t y p e seems u n u s u a l . 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 a r e h i g h a d o p t e r s go t o t h e d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t , whereas, l o w a d o p t e r s w a i t f o r t h e 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 o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s  t o age was skewed toward t h e o l d e s t age groups.  according Thirty  were more t h a n f i f t y - f o u r y e a r s o f age w h i l e o n l y 1 4 were under t h i r t y - f i v e .  The median was i n t h e 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 t h e number o f y e a r s o f f a r m i n g e x p e r i e n c e , t h e y e a r o f i m m i g r a t i o n and t h e amount o f h i r e d l a b o u r u s e d . Education.  F i f t y - n i n e respondents  had completed 5  t o 8 y e a r s i n s c h o o l , o n l y 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 d e g r e e .  Ten respondents had  35 t a k e n a g r i c u l t u r e c o u r s e s i n h i g h s c h o o l , 12 had  taken  vocational  taken  s c h o o l a g r i c u l t u r e c o u r s e s and 28 had  a d u l t education courses i n a g r i c u l t u r e . respondents  None o f t h e  had t a k e n a g r i c u l t u r e c o u r s e s a t 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 o f e d u c a t i o n tended  to  have e x t e n s i v e s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n and a s m a l l amount o f farming experience.  T h i s i s shown by l e v e l o f e d u c a t i o n  having a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n with s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n and a n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h the number o f y e a r s o f farming  experience. En.iovment o f d a i r y i n g .  i f t h e y enjoyed d a i r y i n g .  The r e s p o n d e n t s were asked  S i x t y answered y e s , v e r y much,  14 i n d i c a t e d not a t a l l , and t h e remainder s a i d t h a t t h e y enjoyed d a i r y i n g  occasionally.  More enjoyment from d a i r y i n g was  associated with a  g r e a t e r p r o d u c t i o n p e r cow and w i t h r e n t i n g r a t h e r t h a n owning t h e f a r m .  Enjoyment o f 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 t h e amount o f o f f - f a r m work but a n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h non-farm income. Farming and d a i r y i n g e x p e r i e n c e . the respondents  The m a j o r i t y o f  had a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount o f f a r m i n g  dairying experience.  and  S e v e n t y - f i v e had been f a r m i n g twenty  y e a r s o r more and 54 had been d a i r y i n g t w e n t y y e a r s o r more. The l o n g e r a dairyman had been f a r m i n g , t h e more d a i r y i n g e x p e r i e n c e and t h e more farm v i s i t s by t h e 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 o t h e r  36 hand, dairymen w i t h l o n g f a r m i n g e x p e r i e n c e tended t o r a i s e few d a i r y young s t o c k . There was a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e number of y e a r s d a i r y i n g e x p e r i e n c e and t h e number o f y e a r s on the present farm.  The number o f y e a r s d a i r y i n g e x p e r i e n c e  was n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o t h e amount o f h i r e d l a b o u r used and t o r e a d i n g m a i l sent by t h e d i s t r i c t Y e a r s on t h e p r e s e n t f a r m .  agriculturist.  Social participation,  t h e number o f young d a i r y s t o c k r a i s e d , t h e amount o f h i r e d l a b o u r used and r e a d i n g m a i l sent by t h e d i s t r i c t  agri-  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 t h e number o f y e a r s on t h e p r e s e n t f a r m .  A negative association existed  between average p r o d u c t i o n p e r cow and t h e number o f y e a r s on t h e p r e s e n t f a r m . Immigration. immigrants. before  1945*  F i f t y - e i g h t o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s were  About o n e - t h i r d o f t h e s e a r r i v e d i n Canada Almost o n e - q u a r t e r  (23)  o f the respondents  were i m m i g r a n t s from t h e N e t h e r l a n d s . Social participation.  The m a j o r i t y o f t h e r e s p o n d -  e n t s had a low s c o r e on t h e m o d i f i e d Chapin Participation Scale.  2  Social  The median s c o r e was i n t h e 9 t o 16  class. T h e 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 a l l o c a t e s a s c o r e o f 1 f o r an o r g a n i z a t i o n mnmbership, 2 f o r a t t e n d a n c e , 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 S c a l e was m o d i f i e d by f i n d i n g t h e average s c o r e f o r t h e p a s t t h r e e y e a r s r a t h e r t h a n t a k i n g t h e s c o r e f o r t h e p a s t y e a r o n l y . To be counted as an o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r t h e purposes o f t h i s s t u d y , t h e 2  37 G r e a t e r 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  with  l a r g e r s i z e o f d a i l y m i l k q u o t a , a l a r g e r amount o f u n p a i d ( f a m i l y ) l a b o u r 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 t h e  number o f t e l e p h o n e c a l l s t o t h e d i s t r i c t  II. Farm s i z e .  agriculturist.  ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS The median t o t a l s i z e o f f a r m was i n  t h e 40 t o 69 a c r e c l a s s .  The median amount o f improved  l a n d ^ d e v o t e d t o d a i r y i n g was i n t h e same c l a s s .  This  i n d i c a t e s t h a t most o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ' l a n d was improved and d e v o t e d t o d a i r y i n g . Though n o t f o u n d t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y  associated  w i t h a d o p t i o n s c o r e , t h e number o f improved a c r e s 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 o f v a r i a b l e s . I n a p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n were: t h e number o f young d a i r y s t o c k r a i s e d , amount o f h i r e d l a b o u r u s e d , dairyman v i s i t s t o t h e 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 t h e d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t .  A  n e g a t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n e x i s t e d between t h e number o f improved  o r g a n i z a t i o n had t o conduct more t h a n one m e e t i n g p e r y e a r . A l s o , c h u r c h membership, a t t e n d a n c e 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 t h e s c o r e b u t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n s p e c i a l c l u b s o r a s s o c i a t i o n s w i t h i n a church was. and  3lmproved l a n d i n c l u d e s a r e a under c r o p s , l a n d worked seeded f o r p a s t u r e , r o a d s and b a r n y a r d s .  38 a c r e s d e v o t e d t o d a i r y i n g and t h e number o f a c r e s d e v o t e d t o n o n - d a i r y i n g , t h e number o f cows i n t h e d a i r y h e r d , f a r m v i s i t s by t h e d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t and t h e r e a d i n g o f newspaper a r t i c l e s w r i t t e n by t h e d i s t r i c t  agriculturist.  I t i s s u r p r i s i n g t o f i n d t h a t a s t h e number o f a c r e s devoted t o d a i r y i n g i n c r e a s e s , t h e number o f cows i n t h e 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 s m a l l amount o f 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 c o n c e n t r a t e t h e i r l a b o u r on a l a r g e number o f cows and buy most o f t h e f e e d r e q u i r e d .  On t h e o t h e r hand,  f a r m e r s w i t h a l a r g e amount o f improved l a n d d e v o t e d t o t h e i r d a i r y e n t e r p r i s e spend more o f t h e i r time g r o w i n g f e e d f o r t h e i r cows and c o n s e q u e n t l y handle a s m a l l e r m i l k i n g herd.  they are able t o  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 t e n d t o have more d a i r y young s t o c k w h i c h may use a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount o f t h e i r l a n d and time. Improved l a n d f o r n o n - d a i r y i n g .  Only 18 o f t h e  r e s p o n d e n t s had improved l a n d devoted t o n o n - d a i r y i n g enterprises.  However, t h e r e was a p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n  between t h e number o f improved a c r e s f o r n o n - d a i r y i n g and t h e f o l l o w i n g : t h e amount o f h i r e d l a b o u r used, income from o t h e r farm e n t e r p r i s e s , and t h e f a r m v a l u e as a g o i n g concern.  The number o f improved a c r e s 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 t h e amount o f m i l k s o l d and w i t h owning t h e whole farm o r p a r t o f i t .  39 Tenure.  The m a j o r i t y (68)  o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s owned  t h e i r f a r m s , 10 r e n t e d t h e whole farm and 21 owned p a r t and r e n t e d t h e r e m a i n d e r .  O n l y one respondent was a  h i r e d manager. Owning t h e whole farm o r p a r t o f 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 t h e amount o f l a b o u r h i r e d , t h e amount o f u n p a i d ( f a m i l y ) l a b o u r u s e d , r e a d i n g m a i l from t h e d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t and t h e f a r m v a l u e a s a g o i n g concern. Herd S i z e and m i l k p r o d u c t i o n .  Many o f t h e h e r d s  were s m a l l and, c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , t h e quotas and amount o f m i l k s o l d were l o w .  The median number o f cows i n t h e  m i l k i n g h e r d was i n t h e 20 t o 29 c l a s s .  Thirty-three  r e s p o n d e n t s had f e w e r t h a n 20 cows and o n l y 2 had more t h a n 100. 399  c l a s s and t h e median amount o f m i l k s o l d was i n t h e  200,000 1  The median d a i l y m i l k quota was i n t h e 300 t o  to  299,999  class.  Three r e s p o n d e n t s s o l d o v e r  m i l l i o n pounds o f m i l k d u r i n g  1964*  The average m i l k  p r o d u c t i o n p e r cow was h i g h , t h e median b e i n g i n t h e  9,500  to  10,999  class.  Only  13  average p r o d u c t i o n o f l e s s t h a n  10  r e s p o n d e n t s r e p o r t e d an  8,000  had an average p r o d u c t i o n above  pounds p e r cow w h i l e  12,499  pounds.  Dairymen h a v i n g a l a r g e d a i l y m i l k q u o t a a l s o tended t o s e l l a l a r g e amount o f m i l k , t o have a h i g h f a m i l y f a r m p l u s o f f - f a r m employment income and t o have a h i g h farm v a l u e as a g o i n g c o n c e r n .  T h e i r income from o t h e r f a r m  e n t e r p r i s e s tended t o be l o w .  40 The number o f cows i n t h e d a i r y h e r d was r e l a t e d t o more v a r i a b l e s t h a n any o t h e r ,  significantly  even though i t  was n o t r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o a d o p t i o n s c o r e .  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 t h e number o f cows i n t h e d a i r y h e r d ;  amount o f m i l k  sold,  number o f d a i r y young s t o c k r a i s e d , amount o f h i r e d l a b o u r 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 t h e 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  existed  between t h e number o f cows i n t h e d a i r y h e r d and average p r o d u c t i o n p e r cow, t h e amount o f o f f - f a r m work, income from o t h e r farm e n t e r p r i s e s , a t t e n d a n c e a t m e e t i n g s and f i e l d days sponsored by t h e d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t and r e a d i n g newspaper a r t i c l e s w r i t t e n by t h e d i s t r i c t agriculturist• The l a r g e r t h e amount o f m i l k s o l d t h e g r e a t e r t h e : average p r o d u c t i o n p e r cow, income from o t h e r f a r m  enter-  p r i s e s and a t t e n d a n c e a t m e e t i n g s and f i e l d days sponsored by t h e d i s t r i c t  agriculturist.  Farm l a b o u r . any o f f - f a r m  S e v e n t y - e i g h t r e s p o n d e n t s d i d n o t have  employment^ and o n l y 5 were employed t h r e e -  f o u r t h s t o almost f u l l t i m e o f f t h e i r f a r m s .  Forty  r e s p o n d e n t s d i d n o t h i r e any l a b o u r f o r t h e i r  dairy  ^ O f f - f a r m employment was work f o r which payment was received. T h e r e f o r e , exchange work between n e i g h b o r s and f r i e n d s was n o t c o n s i d e r e d o f f - f a r m employment.  41 e n t e r p r i s e , 15 employed one o r more men  f u l l time, or the  e q u i v a l e n t , ^ and t h e remainder engaged s e a s o n a l w o r k e r s only.  T h i r t y farms d i d not use any u n p a i d ( f a m i l y ) l a b o u r  but 33 used more t h a n t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f o n e - h a l f y e a r o f unpaid labour. 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 o f h i r e d l a b o u r used,  non-farm  income and f a m i l y f a r m p l u s o f f - f a r m employment income. I t seems t h a t f a r m e r s who w i s h t o seek o f f - f a r m employment h i r e l a b o u r t o do t h e i r f a r m work o r t h e y f i n d t h a t t h e y have e x c e s s l a b o u r w h i c h i s used f o r o f f - f a r m employment. The amount o f h i r e d l a b o u r used was  negatively  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e amount o f u n p a i d ( f a m i l y ) l a b o u r . Income.  Most o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s had  dairy operations.  specialized  O n l y 18 r e c e i v e d income from f a r m  enterprises 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 e q u a l t o , o r g r e a t e r t h a n , t h e i r f a r m income. f a m i l y farm income was i n t h e  #2,500  0  to  income  The median  p l u s income from o f f - f a r m employment  $3*499  class.  Forty-three reported  t h e i r incomes t o be below t h i s c l a s s and o n l y 10  indicated  ^Many o f t h e dairymen employed s e v e r a l w o r k e r s f o r v a r i o u s l e n g t h s o f t i m e d u r i n g t h e y e a r . The employment p e r i o d s o f t h e s e w o r k e r s was added t o g i v e t h e e q u i v a l e n t i n terms o f one worker employed f o r an extended p e r i o d o f time. °Family farm income i s t h e g r o s s f a r m income minus c a s h expenses.  42 f a m i l y f a r m p l u s o f f - f a r m employment incomes o f more t h a n  $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 o t h e r f a r m e n t e r p r i s e s and f a m i l y f a r m p l u s o f f - f a r m employment income, v i s i t s t o t h e d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t ' s and t e l e p h o n e c a l l s t o t h e d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t .  office A  n e g a t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n was f o u n d between f a r m v i s i t s by t h e d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t and income from o t h e r f a r m e n t e r p r i s e s . Farm v a l u e a s a g o i n g c o n c e r n .  The median v a l u e t h e  dairymen would pay t o own and o p e r a t e t h e i r f a r m s was i n the  149,950  l e s s than  t o 79,949 c l a s s . ?  $24,949  III.  Three farms were v a l u e d a t  and n i n e were more t h a n  $150,950.  DAIRYMAN-DISTRICT AGRICULTURIST CONTACT  The number o f c o n t a c t s 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 , during the year preceding the  i n t e r v i e w , was o b t a i n e d . There was more c o n t a c t between the  dairymen and t h e d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t t h r o u g h mass  media t h a n t h r o u g h p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t . The t y p e o f c o n t a c t w h i c h had t h e h i g h e s t f r e q u e n c y o f use was m a i l from t h e d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t .  However,  'Farms n e a r i n d u s t r i a l and urban c e n t e r s t e n d t o have an i n f l a t e d v a l u e , whereas, farms removed from t h e s e c e n t e r s t e n d t o have a l o w e r market v a l u e even though t h e y may be e q u a l l y p r o d u c t i v e . S i n c e i t was d e s i r a b l e t o have a common measure o f f a r m v a l u e , t h e r e s p o n d e n t s were asked t h e v a l u e o f t h e i r farms a s g o i n g c o n c e r n s .  43 o n l y t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e dairymen i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y had t h i s type o f c o n t a c t .  Farm v i s i t s by t h e d i s t r i c t  agriculturist  and dairymen a t t e n d a n c e a t meetings and f i e l d days sponsored by t h e d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t were t h e l e a s t used t y p e s o f contact.  O n l y 15 p e r c e n t o f t h e dairymen had c o n t a c t 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 t h r o u g h each o f t h e s e c o n t a c t s . The p e r c e n t a g e d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r each t y p e o f c o n t a c t i s given i n Table I I I .  Table I I I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF DAIRYMAN-DISTRICT AGRICULTURIST CONTACT Respondents who used t h e contact  Type o f C o n t a c t  Respondents who d i d n o t use t h e contact  1o  1o  25  75  Telephone c a l l s t o t h e d i s t r i c t agriculturist  27  73  Farm v i s i t s by t h e d i s t r i c t agriculturist  15  35  15 66  35 34  Radio announcements by t h e d i s t r i c t agriculturist  47  53  Newspaper a r t i c l e s by t h e d i s t r i c t agriculturist  55  45  V i s i t s t o the d i s t r i c t agriculturist's office  A t t e n d a n c e a t m e e t i n g s and f i e l d days sponsored by t h e d i s t r i c t agriculturist M a i l from the d i s t r i c t  agriculturist  44 There were a number o f 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 contact.  F o r example, v i s i t s t o t h e d i s t r i c t  agriculturist'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 t e l e p h o n e  c a l l s to,  and f a r m v i s i t s by t h e 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, t h e r e a d i n g o f newspaper a r t i c l e s by t h e d i s t r i c t a g r i culturist.  There were a l s o s t r o n g p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n s  between t h e f o l l o w i n g p a i r s o f v a r i a b l e s : t e l e p h o n e  calls  t o and farm v i s i t s by t h e 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 t h e d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t ; r e a d i n g m a i l and newspaper a r t i c l e s w r i t t e n by t h e 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 m e e t i n g s and f i e l d days and r e a d i n g m a i l from t h e d i s t r i c t a g r i culturist. •An  e x t e n s i o n c o n t a c t s c a l e , as e s t a b l i s h e d by Rogers  and Capener,^ was  used t o measure t h e number o f t y p e s  of  c o n t a c t 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  f o u n d t h a t 12 r e s p o n d e n t s had no c o n t a c t o f any  and none o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s had a l l seven t y p e s o f On t h e average each respondent had 2.53 The  contact.  types of contact.  average number o f c o n t a c t s per a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y were as  f o l l o w s : l a g g a r d 1.55, 2.80  type  l a t e m a j o r i t y 2.69,  and e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r  early majority  2.88.  -E.M. Rogers and H.R. Capener, The County E x t e n s i o n 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, O h i o , 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 o f r e s p o n d e n t s by e x t e n s i o n c o n t a c t s c o r e i s shown i n T a b l e I V .  Table IV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY EXTENSION CONTACT SCORE  E x t e n s i o n C o n t a c t Score  Respondents  0  12  1  15  2  24  3  21  4  17  5  7  6  4  7  0 Total  IV.  100  COMMUNITY PERCEPTION  The m a j o r i t y o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s f e l t t h a t  their  community was f a v o r a b l y d i s p o s e d t o t h e a d o p t i o n o f new farm p r a c t i c e s .  Fifty-seven indicated that  their  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 o n l y 11 f e l t t h a t t h e i r community was n o t v e r y w i l l i n g . When asked how t h e i r community r e g a r d e d t h o s e 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 r e g a r d e d them f a v o r a b l y and 5 i n d i c a t e d u n f a v o r a b l y . Most o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s f e l t t h a t t h e i r community r e g a r d e d t h o s e who were slow t o adopt new f a r m 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 t h e community r e g a r d e d them u n f a v o r ably.  47 CHAPTER IV ADOPTER CATEGORIES There was a wide range i n a d o p t i o n and p r o g r e s s toward a d o p t i o n o f t h e t e n i n n o v a t i o n s by t h e r e s p o n d e n t s . 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 c o u l d be drawn among t h e r e s p o n d e n t s .  comparisons  The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  o f s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s was a c c o m p l i s h e d t h r o u g h t h e use o f C h i - s q u a r e  analysis.  I . CLASSIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS INTO ADOPTER CATEGORIES In order t o c l a s s i f y t h e respondents  into  adopter  c a t e g o r i e s , an a d o p t i o n s c o r e 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 s c o r e  f o r t h e stage i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s reached by t h e respondent as f o l l o w s :  f o r each i n n o v a t i o n .  The s c o r e s a l l o c a t e d were  0 f o r n o t b e i n g aware o f t h e 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 a d o p t i o n .  The s c o r e s which t h e respondent  o b t a i n e d f o r each o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n s were added t o i n d i c a t e h i s o v e r a l l p r o g r e s s toward t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e t e n i n novations.  I f a respondent  adopted  a l lten innovations,  h i s i n n o v a t i v e n e s s s c o r e would be 50.  The minimum o b t a i n -  a b l e s c o r e was 0 i f a respondent was n o t aware o f any o f the innovations.  The range o f i n n o v a t i v e n e s s s c o r e s f o r  t h e sample was from 6 t o 41.  43 Once t h e i n n o v a t i v e n e s s s c o r e s were e s t a b l i s h e d , t h e y were d i v i d e d i n t o c a t e g o r i e s on t h e b a s i s o f s t a n d a r d u n i t s as proposed  by Rogers.1  The mean s c o r e was  22.44 and t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n  7.33• W i t h t h e s e two s t a t i s t i c s t h e 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 t h e adopter c a t e g o r i e s .  The c a t e g o r i e s and t h e c l a s s l i m i t s  o f t h e i n t e r v a l s were a s f o l l o w s :  l a g g a r d - l e s s than t h e  mean minus one s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n (0 t o 15),  late majority -  t h e mean minus one s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n t o t h e mean (16 t o 22), e a r l y m a j o r i t y - t h e mean t o t h e mean p l u s one s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n , e a r l y a d o p t e r - t h e mean p l u s one s t a n d a r d A  d e v i a t i o n t o t h e mean p l u s two s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s (30 t o 37) and i n n o v a t o r - g r e a t e r t h a n t h e mean p l u s two s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s (33 o r more).  S i n c e t h e r e was o n l y one respond-  ent i n t h e i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r y , t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r and i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r y were combined and r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e early adopter-innovator  category.  By u s i n g t h e C h i - s q u a r e t e s t i t was found t h a t t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f a d o p t i o n s c o r e s approximated curve.  t h e normal  Table V g i v e s t h e observed and expected  d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e respondents  frequency  i n the adopter c a t e g o r i e s  as w e l l as t h e c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e .  E.M. Rogers, D i f f u s i o n o f I n n o v a t i o n s , The F r e e P r e s s o f Glencoe, New Y o r k , 1962, pp. 161-163.  49  Table V CLASSIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS INTO ADOPTER CATEGORIES  Adopter Category  C l a s s Number o f Number o f r e s p o n d e n t s bound- s t a n d a r d i n each c a t e g o r y aries deviations from t h e mean Expected Observed (sample) (normal frequency curve) frequency (e)  Early adopterinnovator Early majority Late majority Laggard  29.77  +1  22.44  0  15.11  -1  e  (n)  15.74  16  .004  34.13  35  .022  34.13  29  .771  15.74  20  1.153  value  1.950  Chi-square  NOTE:  (n - e ) '  The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e sample f r e q u e n c y d i s t r i b u t i o n approximated t h e normal curve d i s t r i b u t i o n was t e s t e d a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e . The h y p o t h e s i s was a c c e p t e d s i n c e t h e o b t a i n e d C h i - s q u a r e v a l u e was below t h e c r i t i c a l v a l u e o f 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 o f two and f o u r a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s a g a i n s t 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 o f two c a t e g o r i e s , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e f o u r , e n a b l e d comparisons adopters.  t o be drawn between t h e l a t e r and e a r l i e r I n forming the l a t e r adopter category, the  l a g g a r d s and l a t e m a j o r i t y were combined.  The e a r l i e r  a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y was made up o f t h e e a r l y m a j o r i t y and t h e early adopter-innovators. S i n c e some c e l l s i n t h e o r i g i n a l b i v a r i a t e t a b l e s were z e r o o r v e r y l o w , i t was n e c e s s a r y t o combine c l a s s e s o f d a t a t o e l i m i n a t e t h e z e r o c e l l s and t o reduce t o 20 p e r cent o r fewer t h e number o f c e l l s h a v i n g v a l u e s o f one t o f i v e before proceeding w i t h the a n a l y s i s .  The C h i - s q u a r e  t e s t was t h e n conducted  on each o f t h e t a b l e s .  The r e s u l t s  a r e shown i n Table V I .  Appendix I I c o n t a i n s t h e 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 C h i - s q u a r e v a l u e s were obtained.  51 Table VI CHI-SQUARE VALUES FOR BIVARIATE TABLES OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AGAINST TWO AND FOUR ADOPTER CATEGORIES - •-  Socio-economic  •  • -  characteristic  Age Marital status Number o f c h i l d r e n Educational l e v e l A g r i c u l t u r e courses i n h i g h school 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 Adult courses i n a g r i c u l t u r e Adult courses i n other s u b j e c t s Enjoyment o f l d a i r y i n g Number o f years farming experience Number of years d a i r y i n g experience Number o f years on present farm Year of immigration Ethnic o r i g i n Social participation T o t a l s i z e o f farm Number of acres devoted t o d a i r y i n g Number o f acres devoted t o nondairying enterprises Tenure Size o f d a i l y m i l k quota Number of cows i n the m i l k i n g herd Amount o f m i l k s o l d Average production per cow Breed of d a i r y c a t t l e Number of d a i r y young stock r a i s e d Amount o f farm and o f f - f a r m work Amount o f h i r e d labour Amount o f unpaid ( f a m i l y ) labour Income from other farm e n t e r p r i s e s Income from o f f - f a r m sources Family farm p l u s o f f - f a r m employment income  Chi-square value Using 2 Using 4 Adopter Adopter Categories Categories 5.U0 I . 9 6 I  1 . 9 3 6 3-038 O.36O  0.005 1 . 4 6 9 0 . 0 3 1 9.091 5.882 2.336 3*686 0*428  3.786 3 . 1 9 0  4.233 4.921 2 - 9 0 3  3*420 1.866 2.910  8.631 2.824 0.093 6.831 5*716 1.713 8.017 5*313 8.215 3*451 9.441 8.311  0.377  1.788  0 . 0 3 2  1 . 3 2 1  5*681 4*794  4 . 4 6 5  2.196 1.147 9*690* 0.142 2.219 4 * 3 0 1  0.377 1 . 3 0 1  2 . 4 3 5  7 . 5 5 2  8.O0O  7 . 6 4 4  8.312 4*076 9*984 0.747 0.068 14*062 1.738 0.892  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 o f no d i f f e r e n c e i n c l a s s proportions between adopter c a t e g o r i e s was used at the . 0 5 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 a t 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  Socio-economic  characteristic  Chi-square value Using 2 Using 4 Adopter Adopter Categories Categories  Farm v a l u e a s a g o i n g concern Visits to district agriculturist's office Telephone c a l l s t o t h e d i s t r i c t agriculturist Farm v i s i t s by t h e d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i st Attendance a t m e e t i n g s and f i e l d days sponsored by t h e d i s t r i c t agriculturist M a i l from t h e d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t Radio announcements by t h e district agriculturist Newspaper a r t i c l e s by t h e district agriculturist 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 Community r e g a r d o f i n n o v a t o r s Community r e g a r d o f l a g g a r d s  2.266  6.574  3-355  6.221  0.336  2.081  0.038  2.495  3.522 2.061  6.296  1.056  2.915  3.221  1.317  3.183  H.193  I.O64 7.910  4.003  1  2.130, 12.138*  NOTE: The u n d e r l i n e d v a l u e s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t . A n u l l h y p o t h e s i s o f 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 a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s was u s e d a t t h e .05 l e v e l of significance. ^ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l .  Comments on each socio-economic having a s i g n i f i c a n t  characteristic  c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e a r e g i v e n below i n  t h e o r d e r i n which t h e y appear i n Table V I . To  simplify  53 comparison o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between a d o p t e r 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 a t V o c a t i o n a l S c h o o l T h i r t y - o n e p e r cent o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s i n t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r y had t a k e n a g r i c u l t u r e c o u r s e s at a v o c a t i o n a l s c h o o l compared w i t h 15 p e r c e n t i n t h e 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 t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f l a g g a r d s who had t a k e n a g r i c u l t u r e c o u r s e s a t v o c a t i o n a l s c h o o l was h i g h e r t h a n f o r t h e 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 a d o p t e r s e n j o y e d d a i r y i n g more t h a n t h e l a t e r a d o p t e r s and o n l y 4 p e r cent o f t h e e a r l i e r a d o p t e r s d i d n o t e n j o y d a i r y i n g a t a l l compared w i t h 25 p e r cent o f the l a t e r adopters. Number o f Y e a r s Farming E x p e r i e n c e The l a t e r a d o p t e r s had more f a r m i n g e x p e r i e n c e t h a n the e a r l i e r adopters.  More t h a n t w i c e as many e a r l i e r  a d o p t e r s had f e w e r t h a n 20 y e a r s f a r m i n g e x p e r i e n c e t h a n the l a t e r adopters. T o t a l S i z e o f Farm E i g h t y p e r c e n t o f t h e l a g g a r d c a t e g o r y had f e w e r t h a n 70 a c r e s compared w i t h o n l y 38 p e r cent i n t h e e a r l y adopter - innovator category.  However, more o f t h e e a r l y  m a j o r i t y had f e w e r t h a n 70 a c r e s t h a n t h e l a t e m a j o r i t y .  54 Average P r o d u c t i o n P e r Cow F i f t y per cent o f the e a r l y adopter - i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r y had an average p r o d u c t i o n p e r cow o f l e s s  than  11,000 pounds and 50 p e r cent had an average p r o d u c t i o n p e r cow o f 11,000 pounds o r more.  T h i s shows a g r e a t  c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e l a g g a r d c a t e g o r y w h i c h h a s 90 p e r cent w i t h an average p r o d u c t i o n o f l e s s t h a n 11,000 pounds p e r cow and 10 p e r c e n t w i t h 11,000 pounds o r more. Number o f D a i r y Young; S t o c k  Raised  The e a r l i e r a d o p t e r s r a i s e d more d a i r y young s t o c k than the l a t e r adopters.  T h i s i s shown by almost t h r e e  t i m e s a s many e a r l i e r a d o p t e r s r a i s i n g 20 o r more d a i r y young s t o c k t h a n t h e l a t e r  adopters.  Amount o f Unpaid ( F a m i l y ) L a b o u r F o r t y p e r c e n t o f t h e l a g g a r d c a t e g o r y d i d n o t use any u n p a i d  ( f a m i l y ) l a b o u r compared w i t h 13 p e r cent o f  t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r and i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r y .  The p e r c e n t a g e  i n b o t h c a t e g o r i e s u s i n g more t h a n o n e - h a l f y e a r o f u n p a i d l a b o u r was about t h e same, b u t 50 p e r cent o f t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r y used l e s s t h a n o n e - h a l f  year  o f u n p a i d l a b o u r compared w i t h 20 p e r cent o f t h e l a g g a r d category.  Use o f u n p a i d l a b o u r by t h e e a r l y m a j o r i t y was  a l m o s t t h e same a s u s e by t h e l a g g a r d c a t e g o r y , i n s t e a d o f b e i n g more l i k e t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r and i n n o v a t o r  category.  F a m i l y Farm and O f f - F a r m 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 i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r i e s were almost t h e same i n r e g a r d t o  55 f a m i l y farm and o f f - f a r m employment income. o f each c a t e g o r y had l e s s t h a n  $2500  o r more income.  $2500  About o n e - t h i r d  and t w o - t h i r d s had  This contrasted with the laggard  c a t e g o r y which had t h r e e - f o u r t h s i n t h e l o w income c l a s s and o n e - q u a r t e r i n t h e h i g h 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  Office  Twice a s many e a r l i e r a d o p t e r s made one o r 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 p e r c e n t s 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 D a i r y Farm P r a c t i c e s More o f t h e e a r l i e r t h a n t h e l a t e r a d o p t e r s  felt  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 practices.  F i f t y - s i x p e r cent o f t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r -  i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r y f e l t t h a t t h e i r community was w i l l i n g Only 25 p e r cent o f  t o adopt new d a i r y farm p r a c t i c e s . t h e l a g g a r d c a t e g o r y 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 p e r cent o f t h e 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 p e r cent o f t h e e a r l y adopter - i n n o v a t o r category. Community Regard o f Laggard More t h a n t w i c e as many o f t h e e a r l i e r a d o p t e r s  felt  t h a t t h e i r community r e g a r d e d l a g g a r d s u n f a v o r a b l y as compared w i t h t h e l a t e r a d o p t e r s .  When f o u r a d o p t e r  c a t e g o r i e s were c o n s i d e r e d , o n l y 10 p e r cent o f t h e l a g g a r d c a t e g o r y f e l t t h a t t h e i r community r e g a r d e d  laggards  56  u n f a v o r a b l y compared w i t h 3 1 p e r cent o f the e a r l y i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r y and 5 4 P category.  e r  adopter-  cent o f t h e e a r l y m a j o r i t y  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 t h e s o u r c e s o f 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 a s 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 t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l use o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n by: s t a g e i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s , a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y , and a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y ,  I.  sources stage  i n d i v i d u a l source and by i n n o v a t i o n .  CLASSIFICATION OF THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION  Two approaches t o t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n were u s e d .  The f i r s t approach was a c c o r d i n g  t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e a c t i v i t y w i t h which t h e s o u r c e i s identified  and t h e second was a c c o r d i n g t o t h e o r i g i n o f  the source.  The c a t e g o r i e s , used w i t h t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  o f t h e s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n by n a t u r e o f t h e a c t i v i t y , are a s f o l l o w s : Personal:  The s o u r c e s 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 t h e 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 t h e s o u r c e s which depend entirely Mass:  on t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s o b s e r v a t i o n s .  The s o u r c e s which a r e a v a i l a b l e t o l a r g e  numbers o f i n d i v i d u a l s a t any one t i m e , h a v i n g 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 e d u c a t i o n a l  a c t i v i t i e s i n v o l v i n g a number o f i n d i v i d u a l s s i m u l taneously. Individual Instructional:  the sources that  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 p e r s o n a t a t i m e . The second c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n , by o r i g i n o f t h e s o u r c e , i s g i v e n below. Government:  t h e s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n which are  p r o v i d e d by t h e f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l governments. Commercial:  t h e s o u r c e s which i n v o l v e p e r s o n a l  c o n t a c t w i t h b u s i n e s s agents as w e l l as t h e i m p e r s o n a l s o u r c e s p r o v i d e d by b u s i n e s s a g e n c i e s . Farm O r g a n i z a t i o n :  t h e s o u r c e s sponsored by farm  organizations. Personal:  t h i s category i s i d e n t i c a l w i t h the p e r s o n a l  c a t e g o r y used i n t h e f i r s t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .  In the  first  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 . p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t ) w i t h which i t i s a s s o c i a t e d and i n t h e 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 t h e o r i g i n o f t h e s o u r c e s . T a b l e V I I shows t h e c a t e g o r y i n which each source o f i n f o r m a t i o n i s p l a c e d f o r both c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  systems.  Not a l l t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s which were on t h e i n t e r v i e w s c h e d u l e l i s t were used by t h e r e s p o n d e n t s .  The  ones t h a t were e l i m i n a t e d due t o not b e i n g used were: u n i v e r s i t y c o u r s e s i n a g r i c u l t u r e , employees,  V e t e r a n s Land  59 Table V I I CLASSIFICATION OF SOURCES OF INFORMATION  Sources o f Information  G e n e r a l farm magazines S p e c i a l d a i r y magazines B.C. Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e publications Canada Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e publications Radio Television Newspapers A g r i c u l t u r e f i e l d days A g r i c u l t u r e m e e t i n g s and a d u l 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 Farm O r g a n i z a t i o n m e e t i n g s District agriculturist Veterinarian D a i r y Herd Improvement A s s o c i a t i o n supervisor Salesmen o r d e a l e r s V i s i t t o e x p e r i m e n t a l farm M i l k Vendor f i e l d man Neighbors o r f r i e n d s Wife, children o r r e l a t i v e s O b s e r v a t i o n o f o t h e r farms Foreign t r a v e l Own e x p e r i e n c e  KEY  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n bv Origin Nature of the Activity M M  C C  M  G  M M M M IG  G C C C G  IG IG IG II II  G G FO G C  II II II II P P P P P  FO C G C P P P P P  Nature o f t h e A c t i v i t y  Origin  P: M: IG: II:  P: G; C: FO:  personal mass i n s t r u c t i o n a l group individual instructional  personal government commercial farm organization  60 A c t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , Farm C r e d i t C o r p o r a t i o n and v i s i t s t o t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia.  In addition, only a  s m a l l amount o f use was made o f M a i n l a n d 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 Associ 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 m e e t i n g s . T h e r e f o r e , t h e s e s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n were grouped t o g e t h e r and c a l l e d farm o r g a n i z a t i o n m e e t i n g s . I I . INFORMATION SOURCE USE BY STAGE I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS There was c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e i n source use between s t a g e s i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s f o r both i c a t i o n systems.  classif-  An a n a l y s i s o f t h e 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 g i v e n below. Source Use by Nature o f t h e A c t i v i t y A t t h e awareness stage mass s o u r c e s were most i m p o r t a n t , a t t h e 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 s o u r c e s were about e q u a l l y i m p o r t a n t and f o r the remaining stages i n t h e adoption process p e r s o n a l s o u r c e s were most i m p o r t a n t .  Mass and i n s t r u c t i o n a l group  s o u r c e s accounted f o r l e s s t h a n 9 p e r cent o f t h e s o u r c e s used from t h e i n t e r e s t t o t r i a l stage and were n o t used a t the adoption stage.  P e r s o n a l and i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l  s o u r c e s accounted f o r more t h a n 91 p e r cent o f t h e s o u r c e s used from t h e i n t e r e s t t o t r i a l stage and made up 100 p e r cent o f t h e s o u r c e s used a t t h e a d o p t i o n s t a g e . which i s a graph o f T a b l e L X V I I I i n Appendix I I I ,  F i g u r e 1, illustrates  t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n source use by stage i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s , when t h e s o u r c e s a r e c l a s s i f i e d by t h e n a t u r e o f t h e a c t i v i t y .  61 Figure 1 PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BY STAGE I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY 100 T  Awareness I n t e r e s t  KEY  Evaluation  Trial  Adoption  Personal  Mass  I n s t r u c t i o n a l Group  Individual Instructional  Tests of significance of the difference  between two  p r o p o r t i o n s were conducted t o determine i f t h e v a r i a t i o n i n source use between s t a g e s was s i g n i f i c a n t .  The r e s u l t s ,  g i v e n i n Table V I I I , show t h a t many o f t h e 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 , t h e y c o u l d n o t r e a s o n a b l y 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 I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY • ' Interest  Stage Evaluation Trial  Adoption  Personal Awareness  -2.95  x  Interest  -8.14 x  -5.22*  -5JL5_2,x;:  -2UZ  -ZLZi*  3.23*  Evaluation  -10.12*  -2*31* -5.76*  Trial Mass Awarene s s  7.66*  Interest  3.16*  3.65  0.39  2t01  2.44  1.23  1.80  Evaluation  K  3.30*  0.34  Trial I n s t r u c t i o n a l Group Awareness  1.10  Interest  1.74  2.13  2.42  0.73  1.23  1.62  0.64  1.10  Evaluation  0.63  Trial Individual Instructional Awareness Interest Evaluation  -5.12*  0.06 5.13*  2.11  1.35 -3.93*  6.76* 2.06  Trial NOTE: The u n d e r l i n e d v a l u e s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t . The t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e between two p r o p o r t i o n s was used w i t h t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e r e was no d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e use o f a source between s t a g e s a t the .05 l e v e l o f 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 t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was t o r e j e c t i t i f z < - 1 . 9 6 o r z > 1 . 9 6 and a c c e p t i t i f - 1 . 9 6 < z £ 1 . 9 6 where  63 x-^ _ X 2 z =  ni  n2  ( * i * p e r cent use o f a source a t one s t a g e , X2= p e r cent use o f t h e same source a t a n o t h e r  p ( l - p) I • 1 n i n2  s t a g e , n 100 p e r cent and p = l* 2 ni + n s  x  x  2  T h e s e z v a l u e s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l . That i s , t h e c r i t i c a l v a l u e s used t o t e s t t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s were: r e j e c t t h e h y p o t h e s i s i f z < -2.58 o r z > 2.58 and a c c e p t i t i f -2.£8£ z <2.58.  x  Source use by o r i g i n A t t h e awareness stage commercial  s o u r c e s were most  i m p o r t a n t , and from t h e i n t e r e s t t o a d o p t i o n stage g r e a t e s t use was made o f p e r s o n a l s o u r c e s . o f farm o r g a n i z a t i o n s o u r c e s .  Government s o u r c e s r e c e i v e d  t h e i r h i g h e s t use a t t h e i n t e r e s t use t o t h e a d o p t i o n s t a g e .  Very l i t t l e use was made  stage.and d e c l i n e d i n  F i g u r e 2, which i s a graph o f  Table M I X i n Appendix I I I , i l l u s t r a t e s t h e v a r i a t i o n i n source use by stage i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s when t h e s o u r c e s a r e 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 I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN  ioor  i  t  Awareness  KEY  r  , • , .  1  Interest Evaluation  Personal Commercial  ,  i  Trial  \  Adoption  Government •  Farm O r g a n i z a t i o n ....  The r e s u l t s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e between two p r o p o r t i o n s t e s t s f o r source use between s t a g e s i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s , a r e g i v e n i n Table I X .  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  ;  Interest  Evaluation  Trial  -2.95*  -8.14*  -5.22*  -5.52*  -2.37  Adoption  Personal Awareness Interest Evaluation  3.28*  Trial  -10.12* -7.75* -2.85* -5.76*  Government Awareness  -2.38  Interest  0.51  O.53  1.67  2.85*  2.88*  3.87*  0.03  1.19  Evaluation Trial  '  1.16  Commercial Awareness  4.41*  Interest  7.88*  4.61*  9.44*  3.92*  0.21  5.97*  -3.73*  2.84*  Evaluation Trial Farm  5.80*  Organization  Awareness Interest  0.91  1.39  1.39  1.39  0.71  0.71  0.71  0.00  0.00  Evaluation Trial NOTE:  0.00  The u n d e r l i n e d v a l u e s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t . F o r a more d e t a i l e d e x p l a n a t i o n see t h e n o t e 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 t h e .01 l e v e l .  66 III.  INFORMATION SOURCE USE BY ADOPTER CATEGORY  JSach a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y was t h e same i n r e g a r d t o t h e r e l a t i v e importance  o f t h e s o u r c e s o f 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 t h e n a t u r e o f  t h e a c t i v i t y , t h e s o u r c e s o f 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 , t h e  s o u r c e s 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 o f t h e v a r i a t i o n i n source u s e by a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y f o r each c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system i s g i v e n below. Source Use by Nature o f t h e A c t i v i t y The v a r i a t i o n i n source u s e by a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y was not l a r g e .  There was a g r a d u a l decrease o f about 11 p e r  cent i n p e r s o n a l source use from t h e l a g g a r d t o t h e e a r l y adopter-innovator category.  The l a g g a r d c a t e g o r y used  about 6 p e r 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 s o u r c e s t h a n t h e o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s . Mass s o u r c e s were used l e a s t by t h e e a r l y m a j o r i t y and most by t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r y b u t t h e d i f f e r e n c e was o n l y s l i g h t l y more t h a n 2 per cent.  Use o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l group s o u r c e s was e x t r e m e l y  low f o r a l l c a t e g o r i e s b u t was h i g h e s t f o r t h e e a r l y innovator category.  adopter-  The v a r i a t i o n i n source u s e by a d o p t e r  c a t e g o r y i s i l l u s t r a t e d by F i g u r e 3 w h i c h i s a graph o f T a b l e LXX i n A p p e n d i x 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  KEY  Late Majority  Early Majority  E a r l y AdopterInnovator  Personal Individual Instructional Mass I n s t r u c t i o n a l Group  •  Tests of significance of the difference  between two  p r o p o r t i o n s were conducted t o determine i f t h e v a r i a t i o n i n source use between a d o p t e r 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 , g i v e n i n Table X, show t h a t none o f t h e v a r i a t i o n s i n source use a r e 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 Late Early Early majority majority adopterinnovator  Personal Laggard Late  0.86  1.10 0.24  1.55 0.69 0.45  -0.04  0.08  -0.35 -0.31 -0.42  majority  Early majority Mass Laggard Late  majority  0.11  Early majority I n s t r u c t i o n a l Group Laggard Late  0.56  majority  -0.09 -O.65  Early majority  -0.53 -1.07 -0.44  Individual Instructional Laggard Late  majority  Early majority  NOTE:  -1.17  •1.33 -0.16  -1.30 -0.13 0.03  None o f t h e v a l u e s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t . F o r a d e t a i l e d e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e t e s t and n u l l h y p o t h e s i s see t h e 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 o f use was made o f p e r s o n a l s o u r c e s but v e r y l i t t l e o f farm o r g a n i z a t i o n s * However, b o t h t h e s e s o u r c e s d e c l i n e d i n use from t h e l a g g a r d t o t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r and i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r y .  Use o f commercial  s o u r c e s was almost t h e same f o r a l l t h e c a t e g o r i e s .  Only  government s o u r c e s showed c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n i n u s e . F o r t h e s e s o u r c e s t h e r e was a s e q u e n t i a l i n c r e a s e from t h e l a g g a r d t o t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r and i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r y .  The  l a g g a r d c a t e g o r y made l e s s t h a n h a l f a s much use o f government s o u r c e s a s t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r y . F i g u r e 4, which i s a graph o f t a b l e LXXI i n A p p e n d i x I I I , i l l u s t r a t e s t h e v a r i a t i o n i n source use by a d o p t e r  category.  70 Figure 4 PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BY ADOPTER CATEGORY WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN  7060" 50 • 40 30" 20-  10 •• Laggard  KEY  Late Majority  Early Majority  E a r l y AdopterInnovator  Personal  Commercial  Government  Farm O r g a n i z a t i o n  —  T e s t s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e between two p r o p o r t i o n s were conducted t o determine i f t h e v a r i a t i o n i n source use between a d o p t e r 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 , g i v e n i n T a b l e X I , show t h a t o n l y one o f t h e values i s s i g n i f i c a n t .  T h i s v a l u e i s d e r i v e d from t h e  d i f f e r e n c e between t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e l a g g a r d and t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r sources.  category  c a t e g o r y u s i n g government  Table XI z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENCE OF INFORMATION SOURCE USE BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN  Personal Laggard Late majority Early majority  Adopter category Late Early Early majority majority adopterinnovator 0.36  1.10 0.24  1.55 0.69 0.45  Commercial Laggard Late  -0.26  majority  •0.02 0.24  Early majority  -0.24 0.02 -0.23  Government Laggard Late  -1.19  majority  -1.92 •0.75  Early majority  -1.10 -0.35  Farm O r g a n i z a t i o n Laggard Late  majority  Early majority  NOTE:  0.30  0.48  0.57  0.18  0.29 0.11  The u n d e r l i n e d v a l u e i s s i g n i f i c a n t . F o r a more d e t a i l e d e x p l a n a t i o n see t h e n o t e f o l l o w i n g Table V I I I .  72 I V . USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BY STAGE AND ADOPTER CATEGORY A small proportion of the variations of information source use between a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s a t each stage i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s were s i g n i f i c a n t .  These a r e d e s c r i b e d  below under each c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s . Complete t a b l e s o f percentage  i n f o r m a t i o n source use by  a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y a t each s t a g e , as w e l l a s t h e z v a l u e s , are g i v e n i n Appendix I I I . I n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s by n a t u r e o f t h e a c t i v i t y Awareness.  None o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n source use  by a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y were s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h i s s t a g e . Interest.  S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r s o n a l source  use e x i s t e d between t h e l a g g a r d and e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r y and between t h e l a g g a r d and e a r l y m a j o r i t y category.  I n b o t h t h e s e c a s e s t h e l a g g a r d c a t e g o r y used  more p e r s o n a l s o u r c e s t h a n t h e o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s . I n r e g a r d t o t h e use o f i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l s o u r c e s , t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r y used a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r number t h a n t h e l a g g a r d c a t e g o r y . Evaluation.  The e a r l y m a j o r i t y used fewer p e r s o n a l  s o u r c e s a t t h i s stage t h a n t h e l a g g a r d s o r l a t e m a j o r i t y . On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e 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 o f mass s o u r c e s than t h e l a g g a r d s . Trial.  The l a g g a r d s used p e r s o n a l s o u r c e s t o a  g r e a t e r e x t e n t and i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l s o u r c e s t o a  73 l e s s e r e x t e n t t h a n t h e l a t e m a j o r i t y and e a r l y  adopter-  innovator categories. Adoption.  D i f f e r e n t i a l use o f i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s  by a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h i s s t a g e . I n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s by o r i g i n Awareness.  The use o f government s o u r c e s 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 majority o r the e a r l y adopter-innovator category. Evaluation.  The e a r l y m a j o r i t y made almost t h r e e  t i m e s a s much u s e . o f government s o u r c e s b u t l e s s use o f p e r s o n a l s o u r e e s t h a n t h e l a g g a r d s and l a t e m a j o r i t y . A much g r e a t e r use o f commercial  s o u r c e s was made by t h e  e a r l y m a j o r i t y t h a n by t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r y . Trial.  The e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r y used a  s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r number o f government and  commercial  s o u r c e s , b u t a l e s s e r number o f p e r s o n a l s o u r c e s , t h a n t h e laggard category.  The l a t e m a j o r i t y used more  commercial,  but fewer p e r s o n a l s o u r c e s , t h a n t h e l a g g a r d c a t e g o r y . Adoption.  V a r i a t i o n s o f i n f o r m a t i o n source use  between a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h i s stage i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s . P e r c e n t a g e O v e r a l l Use o f Each I n f o r m a t i o n Source When c l a s s i f i e d by n a t u r e o f t h e a c t i v i t y and use a t a l l s t a g e s and a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s combined, t h e p e r c e n t a g e use o f each source was: ,55.0, p e r s o n a l ; 25.1, i n d i v i d u a l  74 mass and 2.5,  i n s t r u c t i o n a l ; 17•4,  instructional  group.  When u s i n g t h e same base, t h e p e r c e n t a g e use o f each by o r i g i n was:  55*0,  government and 0.6  V.  personal;  32.3,  commercial;  source  12.1,  farm o r g a n i z a t i o n .  USE OF INDIVIDUAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION  The f i v e most used i n d i v i d u a l s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n o r d e r o f importance were:  n e i g h b o r s and f r i e n d s ,  v a t i o n o f o t h e r f a r m s , salesmen and g e n e r a l farm magazines.  and d e a l e r s , own  The use o f t h e  obser-  experience  individual  s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n , f i r s t o f a l l by stage i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s and t h e n by a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y , i s c o n s i d e r e d below. Bv  Stage A t t h e awareness stage g e n e r a l farm magazines were  t h e most used source o f i n f o r m a t i o n , f o l l o w e d by  special  d a i r y magazines, f r i e n d s and n e i g h b o r s , o b s e r v a t i o n o f o t h e r farms and r a d i o .  A t t h e i n t e r e s t , e v a l u a t i o n and  t r i a l s t a g e s t h e most used s o u r c e s were n e i g h b o r s  and  f r i e n d s , o b s e r v a t i o n o f o t h e r farms, and salesmen  and  dealers i n that order.  A l s o among t h e t o p f i v e most used  s o u r c e s a t t h e s e s t a g e s were: d i s t r i c t e x p e r i e n c e , m i l k vendor f i e l d man E x p e r i m e n t a l Farm.  agriculturist,  own  and v i s i t s t o t h e A g a s s i z  A t the a d o p t i o n s t a g e , from most t o  l e a s t used s o u r c e s were: own  experience, neighbors  and  75 f r i e n d s , o b s e r v a t i o n o f o t h e r farms, d i s t r i c t and w i f e , c h i l d r e n and  agriculturist,  relatives.  T a b l e X I I shows t h e 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 a t each stage i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s . Appendix I I I g i v e s t h e complete By A d o p t e r  table.  Category  The t h r e e main i n d i v i d u a l s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n , n e i g h b o r s and f r i e n d s , o b s e r v a t i o n o f o t h e r f a r m s and salesmen and d e a l e r s , were used i n t h e same sequence byeach a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y .  The l a g g a r d c a t e g o r y made o n l y  about o n e - t h i r d as much use o f t h e d i s t r i c t  agriculturist  and o n e - h a l f as much use o f v i s i t s t o t h e A g a s s i z E x p e r i m e n t a l Farm as t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r y . On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e l a g g a r d c a t e g o r y made more use o f t h e 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  relatives  than the e a r l y adopter-innovator category. T a b l e X I I I shows t h e f i v e most used i n d i v i d u a l s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n by a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y . g i v e s t h e complete adopter  category.  Appendix I I I  t a b l e o f i n d i v i d u a l source use  by  76 Table X I I THE FIVE MOST FREQUENTLY USED SOURCES OF INFORMATION BY STAGE I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS ADOPTION STAGE Awareness I n t e r e s t E v a l u a t i o n  %  fo  Trial  Adoption  %  %  Neighbors Neighbors Neighbors Own General farm and Experand and magazines f r i e n d s ience friends friends  21.9  22.a  ObserSpecial Dairyvation magazines o f o t h e r farms  16.9  19.6  Neighbors Salesmen and and dealers friends  14.3 Observation of other farms  9-3 Radio  a.a  17.0  3a.2 Observation of other farms  35-5 Salesmen and dealers  6.3  District Own Agriexperc u l t u r i st ience  14.1  6.0  30.0 Observation of other farms  29.0 Salesmen and dealers  26.9  4*4  % Neighbors and friends 24.5  N e i g h b o r s Obserand vation of other friends farms  23.7 Observation of other farms  17.2  20.9 Salesmen and dealers  11.6  District District Own agriagriexperience culturist culturist  6.2  Milk District Visits to vendor agriexperf i e l d man c u l t u r i s t i m e n t a l farm 5.a  52.7  A l l stages combined  2.7  7.7  Wife, General c h i l d r e n farm o r r e l a t - magazines ives  1.7  1.6  6.9  93.8  95-9  71.6  TOTAL  71.2  79.3  90.4  77  Table X I I I THE FIVE MOST FREQUENTLY USED SOURCES OF INFORMATION BY ADOPTER CATEGORY SOURCE  • Laggard  CATEGORY Late Early Majority Majority  Early AdopterInnovator  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 e x p e r i e n c e  8.6  7.1  G e n e r a l farm magazines  7.2  6.8  9.3  D i s tr i ct a g r i c u l t u r i s t  7.1  Own e x p e r i e n c e o r g e n e r a l farm magazines*  7*0  7.6  * B o t h t h e s e s o u r c e s have t h e same f r e q u e n c y o f use f o r t h e early majority.  VI.  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-  p a r i s o n s made o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s 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 g i v e n o f 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 o f t h e I n n o v a t i o n s i n t o Two Groups U s i n g t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n g i v e n by Lionberger-*- a s a  I H . F . L i o n b e r g e r , A d o p t i o n o f New I d e a s and P r a c t i c e s , The Iowa S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , Ames, Iowa. I 9 6 0 .  78 g u i d e , t h e t e n 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.  The f i r s t group was made up o f t h e 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 t h e udder o f each  cow  w i t h a s e p a r a t e s t e r i l i z e d c l o t h o r w i t h paper t o w e l s , s t e r i l i z i n g t h e t e a t cup c l u s t e r , use o f i n s e c t i c i d e impregnated  c o r d s and t h e use o f s y s t e m i c w a r b l e f l y c o n t r o l .  The  second group o f i n n o v a t i o n s i n c l u d e d use o f : heat lamps  for  c a l v e s , h e a t e d w a t e r bowls o r t a n k s , a b u l k 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 o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e two  groups  of i n n o v a t i o n s i s as f o l l o w s : Group One  Group  Two  A d o p t i o n i n v o l v e s a change i n e x i s t i n g operations with o r w i t h o u t a change i n m a t e r i a l s o r equipment.  A d o p t i o n i n v o l v e s a change t o new t e c h n i q u e s o r operations,  R e l a t i v e l y inexpensive.  Relatively  R e s u l t s of adoption not r e a d i l y observable.  R e s u l t s of adoption r e a d i l y observable.  expensive.  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 s m a l l s c a l e and easy t o a s m a l l 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 a d o p t i o n d e c i s i o n , r e t r a c t an a d o p t i o n d e c i s i o n . A l t h o u g h a d o p t i o n o f a b u l k b i n i n v o l v e s a change i n e x i s t i n g o p e r a t i o n s r a t h e r t h a n a new  t e c h n i q u e , and  heat  lamps are~ r e l a t i v e l y easy t o t r y , t h e s e two i n n o v a t i o n s b e l o n g t o group two because most o f t h e i r  characteristics  a r e t h e same as t h o s e o f group two.  F o r a more complete d e s c r i p t i o n o f each i n n o v a t i o n see s e c t i o n I I of chapter IT. 2  79  S o u r c e s C l a s s i f i e d by Nature o f t h e A c t i v i t y W i t h two e x c e p t i o n s , t h e most t o l e a s t used s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h e group one i n n o v a t i o n s 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 , p e r s o n a l and i n s t r u c t i o n a l group. One o f t h e e x c e p t i o n s o c c u r r e d i n t h e case o f 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  instructional  sources were used t o a g r e a t e r e x t e n t t h a n mass  sources.  I n t h e second e x c e p t i o n p e r s o n a l sources were used t o a g r e a t e r 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 o f i n s e c t i c i d e  cords.  W i t h o n l y one e x c e p t i o n , t h e most t o l e a s t u s e d  sources  o f i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h e group two i n n 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 e x c e p t i o n o c c u r r e d i n r e g a r d t o h e a t e d w a t e r b o w l s f o r which more mass t h a n p e r s o n a l sources were u s e d . When t h e s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n used i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e t e n i n n o v a t i o n s were combined, i t was found t h a t t h e 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 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 and i n s t r u c t i o n a l group. The p e r c e n t a g e use o f each source by i n n o v a t i o n i s g i v e n i n T a b l e XIV so t h a t t h e t r e n d s and e x c e p t i o n s can be seen i n more d e t a i l .  80 T a b l e XIV PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BY INNOVATION WITH THE 'SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY INNOVATION P e r s o n a l Mass  SOURCE Individual Instruc- Total instructional group tional  %  %  %  %  $  Testing f o r mastitis  21.5  34.5  40.3  3.7  100  Use o f p a p e r t o w e l s 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 teat cup c l u s t e r  25.8  41.9  27.4  4.9  100  Use o f i n s e c t i c i d e impregnated c o r d s  31.7  41.9  26.4  0.0  100  Use o f s y s t e m i c warble f l y c o n t r o l  H.5  61.3  19.4  4.8  100  47.4  47.0  4.9  0.7  100  56.6  7.6  Use o f a b u l k b i n  35.3 46.5  30.3  23.2  0.5 0.0  100 100  Use o f a hay conditioner  47.8  15.8  1.2  Use o f a hay d r y e r  44.1  35.2 41.0  13.2  1.7  100 100  Sources f o r a l l t h e i n n o v a t i o n s combined  37-9  41.7  19.0  1.4  100  Group One  Group Two Use o f h e a t lamps for calves Use o f h e a t e d water bowls o r t a n k s  NOTE;  F o r a more complete d e s c r i p t i o n o f each i n n o v a t i o n see S e c t i o n I I o f Chapter I I .  si S o u r c e s C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n W i t h one minor e x c e p t i o n , t h e most t o l e a s t  used  s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n f o r each i n n o v a t i o n were: c o m m e r c i a l , p e r s o n a l , government and farm o r g a n i z a t i o n .  Differences i n  source u s e f o r t h e two groups o f i n n o v a t i o n s d i d e x i s t , however.  Commercial  s o u r c e s were about t h r e e t i m e s more  i m p o r t a n t t h a n p e r s o n a l s o u r c e s f o r t h e group one i n n o v a t i o n s , whereas, commercial s o u r c e s were g e n e r a l l y o n l y s l i g h t l y more i m p o r t a n t t h a n p e r s o n a l s o u r c e s f o r t h e group two innovations.  V i r t u a l l y no use o f f a r m o r g a n i z a t i o n s o u r c e s  was made f o r t h e group two i n n o v a t i o n s b u t a s m a l l amount o f use o f t h e s e s o u r c e s was made f o r t h e group one i n n o v a t i o n s . W i t h two e x c e p t i o n s , g r e a t e r u t i l i z a t i o n was made o f g o v e r n ment s o u r c e s f o r t h e group one t h a n t h e group two i n n o v a t i o n s . The e x c e p t i o n s were a s m a l l amount o f government source use for insecticide  impregnated c o r d s and a r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e  amount f o r t h e hay d r y e r . The percentage use o f each source by i n n o v a t i o n i s g i v e n i n T a b l e XV.  82 T a b l e XV PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BY INNOVATION WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN INNOVATION  Group One  SOURCE P e r s o n a l ComGovern- Farm Total m e r c i a l ment Organization  %  %  %  %  Testing f o r mastitis  21.5  73.3  3.1  2.1  100  Use o f paper t o w e l s 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 teat cup c l u s t e r  25.8  67.8  4.0  2.4  100  Use o f i n s e c t i c i d e impregnated c o r d s  31.7  66.5  0.6  1.2  100  Use o f s y s t e m i c warble f l y c o n t r o l  14.5  80.7  3.2  1.6  100  47.4  50.5  2.1  0.0  100  Use o f a b u l k b i n  35.4 46.5  62.6 52.6  2.0 0.9  0.0 0.0  100 100  Use o f a hay conditioner  47.8  Use o f a hay d r y e r  44.1  50.7 51.2  1.5 4.4  0.0 0.3  100 100  Sources f o r a l l the innovations combined  37.9  59.0  2.5  0.6  100  Group Two Use o f h e a t lamps for calves Use o f h e a t e d water bowls o r t a n k s  NOTE:  F o r a more complete d e s c r i p t i o n o f each i n n o v a t i o n see S e c t i o n I I o f C h a p t e r I I .  83 Use o f I n d i v i d u a l I n f o r m a t i o n S o u r c e s by  Innovation  G e n e r a l farm magazines were t h e most used i n d i v i d u a l source o f i n f o r m a t i o n f o l l o w e d by n e i g h b o r s  and  friends,  s p e c i a l d a i r y magazines, o b s e r v a t i o n o f o t h e r f a r m s , salesmen and d e a l e r s .  and  These f i v e s o u r c e s accounted f o r more  t h a n 85 p e r cent o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n sources used f o r t h e t e n innovations. There was  a considerable difference of information  source u t i l i z a t i o n f o r t h e v a r i o u s t y p e s o f i n n o v a t i o n s . F o r example, t h e m i l k vendor f i e l d man  was  very important  t h e f i r s t t h r e e ( 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 was  for source  o f no i m p o r t a n c e f o r t h e group two m e c h a n i c a l i n n o v a t i o n s .  G e n e r a l farm magazines tended t o be used more f o r t h e group two t h a n t h e group one  i n n o v a t i o n s but t h e o p p o s i t e was  f o r t h e s p e c i a l d a i r y magazines.  N e i g h b o r s and f r i e n d s  true and  o b s e r v a t i o n o f o t h e r farms were much l e s s used f o r t h e group one t h a n t h e 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 t h e  use o f salesmen and d e a l e r s as s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n c o u l d be  seen. T a b l e XVI g i v e s t h e p e r c e n t a g e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f 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 t h e  number o f i n f o r m a t i o n sources used f o r t h e group one group two i n n o v a t i o n s .  total and  T a b l e X V I I shows t h a t a l m o s t t w i c e  many s o u r c e s were u s e d p e r respondent f o r t h e group two f o r t h e group one  the  innovations.  as  as  Table PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION GROUP ONE INNOVATIONS T e s t i n g Paper S t e r i l - Insectifor towels izing cide cords m a s t i t i s or test s e p a r a t e cups cloth  % G e n e r a l farm magazines 9.4 Neighbors and f r i e n d s 12.0 Special dairy magazines 24.1 Observation o f o t h e r farms 4.2 Salesmen and d e a l e r s 2.6 M i l k vendor f i e l d man 22.0 Veterinarian 14.7 W i f e , c h i l d r e n and relatives 3.2 Newspapers 0.5 V i s i t s to Experimental Farm 0.0 Radio 0.0 Own e x p e r i e n c e 2.1 A g r i c u l t u r a l organi z a t i o n meetings 1.6 Foreign t r a v e l 0.0 A g r i c u l t u r a l meetings and a d u l t e d u c a t i o n 1.6 Vocational agriculture courses 0.5 D i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t 0.5 A g r i c u l t u r a l f i e l d days 0.0 D.H.I.A. s u p e r v i s o r 0.5 B.C. Dept. o f A g r i culture publications 0.5 Television 0.0 Canada Dept. o f A g r i culture publications 0.0 Total  *  100.0  Systemic warble fly control  %  %  16.0 17.0  16.9 17.8  23.3 18.6  32.3 8.1  32.0  25.0  15.6  24.2  5.2 3.1 16.0 2.6  4.8 6.5 13.7 5.7  12.6 22.7 1.8 0.6  1.6 11.3 3.2 4.9  0.5 0.5  3.2 0.0  0.6 1.8  3.2 1.6  2.6 1.5 0.0  1.6 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.6 0.0  0.0 3.2 0.0  0.5 0.0  2.4 0.0  0.0 0.0  1.6 1.6  0.5  0.8  0.0  1.6  0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5  0.8 0.0 0.8 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2  1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0  0.6 0.0  0.0 0.0  0.0 100.0  0.0 100.0  0.0 100.0  0.0 100.0  84  XVI SOURCES BY INNOVATION GROUP TWO INNOVATIONS Heat Heated Bulk Hay lamps water bin Conditioner for bowls calves or tanks  Hay dryer  Total use f o r a l l innovations  %  %  %  %  fo  %  25.6 24.2  32.8 19.2  19.3 22.7  21.8 23.9  30.9 24.4  22.7 20.5  19.7  21.2  10.1  10.7  6.4  16.8  20.7 2.5 0.0 1.1  15.2 5.6 0.0 0.5  22.0 22.0 0.3 0.0  21.2 15.5 0.0 0.0  17.3  10.2 0.0 0.0  15.1 10.8 4*4 2.2  1.8 1.4  0.5 2.0  0.9 0.6  0.9 1.8  2.0 1.4  1.5 1.2  1.4 0.3 0.3  1.5 0.5 0.5  0.3 0.3 0.6  0.3 0.9 0.6  2.4 1.7 0.0  1.0 0.8 0.4  0.0 0.3  0.0 0.0  0.0 0.3  0.0 1.2  0.3 0.3  0.4 0.4  0.0  0.5  0.0  0.0  0.3  0.4  0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0  0.7 0.7 0.3 0.0  0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2  0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0  0.0 0.7  0.1 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  T o t a l number o f s o u r c e s used  Innovation  Number o f s o u r c e s used p e r respondent  Group One Testing f o r mastitis  191  1.91  Use o f paper t o w e l s or s e p a r a t e c l o t h S t e r i l i z i n g teat cup c l u s t e r  194  1.94  124  1.24  Use o f i n s e c t i c i d e impregnated c o r d s  167  1.67  Use o f s y s t e m i c warble f l y c o n t r o l  62  Average  148  .62 I.48  Group Two  2.85  Use o f heat lamps for calves Use o f h e a t e d  285 water  1.98  bowls o r t a n k s  198  3.27  Use o f a b u l k b i n  327  3.35  Use o f a hay c o n d i t i o n e r  335  ____  Use o f a hay d r y e r  295  2.88  Average  288  86  CHAPTER V I ADOPTION AND NON-ADOPTION OF THE INNOVATIONS F o r each o f t h e t e n i n n o v a t i o n s t h e r e s p o n d e n t s were asked t h e l a s t stage t h e y had r e a c h e d , t h e l e n g t h o f t i m e spent i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s and t h e main r e a s o n f o r spending  more t h a n two y e a r s i n t h e p r o c e s s .  I n 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 t h e r e a s o n f o r r e j e c t i n g o r d i s c o n t i n u i n g t h e i n n o v a t i o n . T h i s d a t a was a n a l y s e d u s i n g t h e two groups o f i n n o v a t i o n s and t h e f o u r adopter c a t e g o r i e s .  I.  PROGRESS TOWARD INNOVATION ADOPTION  There was g r e a t e r unawareness t h a n a d o p t i o n o f t h e innovations. of  2.19  On t h e average each respondent was n o t aware  o f t h e t e n i n n o v a t i o n s and had adopted 1.86.  For  t h e o t h e r s t a g e s i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s each respondent at  t h e awareness stage f o r 2.51  0.30,  e v a l u a t i o n f o r 2.53  was  innovations, interest f o r  and a t t h e t r i a l stage f o r 0.61.  T h i s seems t o i n d i c a t e t h a t l e s s t i m e was spent a t t h e i n t e r e s t and t r i a l s t a g e s t h a n a t t h e awareness and e v a l u a t i o n stages. The range o f a d o p t i o n was from z e r o f o r s y s t e m i c w a r b l e f l y c o n t r o l t o 46 p e r cent a d o p t i o n o f b u l k b i n s . None o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s were unaware o f t h e hay d r y e r b u t 73 p e r cent were n o t aware o f s y s t e m i c w a r b l e f l y c o n t r o l .  37 The r a t e o f unawareness was much h i g h e r f o r t h e group one t h a n t h e group two i n n o v a t i o n s . The number o f r e s p o n d e n t s a t t h e t r i a l s t a g e was h i g h e r f o r t h e group one t h a n t h e group two i n n o v a t i o n s , b u t t h e number o f r e s p o n d e n t s a t t h e awareness, i n t e r e s t , e v a l u a t i o n and a d o p t i o n s t a g e s was h i g h e r f o r t h e group two t h a n t h e group one i n n o v a t i o n s . Table X V I I I g i v e s t h e percentage o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s a t each stage i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s by i n n o v a t i o n .  88 Table X V I I I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS AT EACH STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS BY INNOVATION Innovation Not aware Group One  ;_ Stage Aware- I n t e r - E v a l - T r i a l Adop- Tota! tion est uation ness  %  %  %  %  $  1o  Regular t e s t i n g for mastitis Paper towels o r separate c l o t h s  25  11  1  21  2  40  100  13  43  0  22  18  4  100  S t e r i l i z i n g teat 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 impregnated cords  31  23  4  17  16  9  100  73 38.0  14 21.8  4 1.8  15.6  0 12.8  100 100.  10  31  1  17  4  37  100  16  2  20  0  7  100  2  40  1  100 100  Systemic warble f l y control Average  8  1 10.0  Group Two Heat  lamps  Heated water bowls o r t a n k s Bulk b i n s  1  55 10  Hay  2  13  5  44  6  46 30  0  33  11  54  0  2  100  5.8  28.4  4.2  35.0  2.2  24.4  100  21.9  25.1  3.0  25-3  6.1  18.6  100  conditioner  Hay d r y e r Average Groups One and Two Average  8$ On t h e average t h e percentage  o f respondents  i n each  a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y unaware o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n s was as f o l l o w s : l a g g a r d , 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 a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r , 7.5 •  The same t r e n d o c c u r r e d a t t h e  awareness and i n t e r e s t s t a g e s .  F o r t h e e v a l u a t i o n , t r i a l and  adoption stages, the opposite trend occurred. the p e r c e n t a g e  o f each a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y a t t h e a d o p t i o n  was as f o l l o w s : l a g g a r d , 4»5;  22.3;  majority,  F o r example,  l a t e m a j o r i t y , 14»5;  and e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r ,  35*6.  stage  early Table XIX  shows t h e i n c r e a s i n g p r o g r e s s toward a d o p t i o n o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n s from t h e l a g g a r d t o t h e 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 Laggard  Not aware Awareness Interest Evaluation Trial Adoption Total  Adopter Late Majority  Category Early Majority  Early AdopterInnovator  % 38.0 35.5 4.0 16.5 1.5 4.5  % 24.8 30.7 2.8 23.4 3.3 14.5  % 16.9 21.4 2.9 28.3 8.2 22.3  % 7.5 10.0 2.5 33.1 11.3 35.6  100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  90 II.  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 o f t i m e spent i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s e x i s t e d between t h e two groups o f i n n o v a t i o n s . F o r t h e f i r s t group t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s spent l e s s t h a n one y e a r and f o r t h e second group t h e m a j o r i t y spent one o r more y e a r s i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s . Table XX shows t h e l e n g t h o f t i m e spent i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s by i n n o v a t i o n . T a b l e XX PERCENTAGE OF THE RESPONDENTS WHO SPENT LESS THAN ONE YEAR OR ONE OR MORE YEARS I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS BY INNOVATION Innovation Group One Regular t e s t i n g f o r mastitis Paper t o w e l s o r separate c l o t h s S t e r i l i z i n g t e a t cup cluster I n s e c t i c i d e impregnated cords S y s t e m i c warble f l y control Average Group Two Heat lamps Heated w a t e r b o w l s or tanks Bulk bins Hay c o n d i t i o n e r Hay d r y e r Average Groups One and Two Average  Time spent i n t h e Did not enter adoption process a d o p t i o n L e s s t h a n One o r Total p r o c e s s one y e a r more y e a r s fo  fo  fo  %  25  49  26  100  13  62  25  100  48  40  12  100  31  33  36  100  73 38.0  7 38.2  20 23.8  100 100.0  10  41  49  100  16 1 2 0 5.8  58 30 17  26  34.4  69 81 74 59.8  100 100 100 100 100.0  21.9  36.3  41.8  100.0  26  -  91 On t h e average t h e l a g g a r d c a t e g o r y remained i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s l e s s t h a n one y e a r f o r more i n n o v a t i o n s than t h e other c a t e g o r i e s .  On t h e o t h e r hand t h e e a r l y  a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r y remained i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s one o r more y e a r s f o r more i n n o v a t i o n s t h a n t h e o t h e r categories. Table XXI shows t h e t r e n d s among t h e a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s i n r e g a r d t o t h e number o f i n n o v a t i o n s f o r w h i c h l e s s t h a n one y e a r and one o r more y e a r s were spent i n t h e a d o p t i o n process.  Table XXI AVERAGE NUMBER OF INNOVATIONS FOR WHICH LESS THAN ONE YEAR AND ONE OR MORE YEARS WAS SPENT I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS, BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter C a t e g o r y Early Late majority majority  Time spent i n t h e adoption process  Laggard  L e s s t h a n one y e a r  5.32  4.91  4.40  4.19  One o r more y e a r s  4.68  5.09  5.60  5.81  10.00  10.00  T o t a l number o f innovations NOTE:  10.00  Early adopter & innovator  10.00  The average number o f r e s p o n d e n t s i n each a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y who had e n t e r e d t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s was used as t h e b a s i s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g t h e f i g u r e s g i v e n in this table.  92 III.  REASONS FOR DELAY I N PROCEEDING THROUGH THE ADOPTION PROCESS  A delay i n proceeding through the adoption process o c c u r r e d i f a respondent spent more t h a n two y e a r s ^ i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s f o r an i n n o v a t i o n .  When a d e l a y o c c u r r e d ,  a q u e s t i o n was asked t o determine t h e r e a s o n w h i c h t h e respondent p e r c e i v e d t o be t h e most i m p o r t a n t cause o f h i s delay.  The e x a c t r e a s o n a s g i v e n by t h e respondent was  r e c o r d e d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e i n t e r v i e w b u t i t was c l a s s i f i e d a f t e r a l l t h e i n t e r v i e w s had been completed.  T h i s made i t  p o s s i b l e t o examine a l l t h e r e a s o n s a t one t i m e 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 r e a s o n s f o r d e l a y i n p r o c e e d i n g t h r o u g h t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s 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 o f t h e i n 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  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c o n s i s t e d o f t h o s e g i v e n by R o g e r s .  innovation  2  These  a r e l i s t e d below a l o n g w i t h t h e t y p e o f r e a s o n s t h a t each would  include. R e l a t i v e advantage - i n c l u d e d any r e a s o n which i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e respondent f e l t t h a t t h e i n n o v a t i o n was n o t s u p e r i o r o r had no advantage compared w i t h a p r e s e n t p r a c t i c e .  l A two y e a r 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 d e l a y because i t was f e l t t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s c o u l d complete t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s f o r most i n n o v a t i o n s i n t h i s length of time. E •M. Rogers, D i f f u s i o n o f I n n o v a t i o n s . The F r e e P r e s s o f Glencoe, New Y o r k , 1962, pp. 124 - 134. 2  93 C o m p a t i b i l i t y - t h e i n n o v a t i o n was n o t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the values o r t h e past experience o f the respondent. C o m p l e x i t y - t h e i n n o v a t i o n was t o o d i f f i c u l t t o u n d e r s t a n d and u s e . D i v i s i b i l i t y - t h e i n n o v a t i o n c o u l d n o t be t r i e d on a limited basis. Communicabilitv - the r e s u l t s o f using the i n n o v a t i o n c o u l d n o t 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 with a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n ,  are a s f o l l o w s : S i t u a t i o n n o t a p p r o p r i a t e - e n v i r o n m e n t a l o r management f a c t o r s were such t h a t t h e i n n o v a t i o n d i d n o t a p p l y t o the respondent's farm. S c a l e o f o p e r a t i o n t o o s m a l l - t h e phase o f t h e farm o p e r a t i o n h a v i n g t o do w i t h t h e i n n o v a t i o n was n o t l a r g e enough t o make t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e 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 - p r o g r e s s toward a d o p t i o n o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n was d e l a y e d by l a c k o f money. O t h e r s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s - r e a s o n s n o t covered by t h e above c l a s s e s . Some examples a r e : t h e respondent became aware o f an i n n o v a t i o n a l o n g t i m e ago b u t c o u l d n o t adopt i t because he was n o t o p e r a t 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 c a s e s , r e s p o n d e n t s had t o w a i t u n t i l t h e d e a l e r s had t h e i n n o v a t i o n i n s t o c k b e f o r e t h e y were a b l e t o adopt i t . The r e a s o n s were c l a s s i f i e d a s t h e r e s p o n d e n t s p e r c e i v e d them even though i t was p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e p e r c e i v e d and a c t u a l r e a s o n s were d i f f e r e n t . I t was found t h a t t h e t o t a l number o f r e a s o n s f o r delay i n proceeding low.  t h r o u g h t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s was q u i t e  T h i s o c c u r r e d because t h e c r i t e r i o n f o r d e l a y was  94 stipulated  as more t h a n two y e a r s spent i n t h e a d o p t i o n  process.3 The a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s t o o k more t h a n two y e a r s f o r about two o f t h e t e n i n n o v a t i o n s . A n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a showed t h a t s i t u a t i o n a l  factors  were more f r e q u e n t l y g i v e n as r e a s o n s f o r d e l a y i n p r o c e e d ing through the adoption process than c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n . The most i m p o r t a n t r e a s o n s f o r d e l a y were: o t h e r s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s w h i c h accounted f o r 35 «9 p e r cent of t h e r e a s o n s , i n s u f f i c i e n t c a p i t a l 18.6, c o m m u n i c a b i l i t y 17•9,  s c a l e o f o p e r a t i o n t o o s m a l l 12.2, and r e l a t i v e  advantage 10.9 p e r c e n t .  None o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s  c o m p l e x i t y o r d i v i s i b i l i t y as r e a s o n s f o r d e l a y .  indicated 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 t h e t i m e had been s t i p u l a t e d a s more t h a n one y e a r spent i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s , t h e number o f r e s p o n s e s 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 I N 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 o f t h e I n n o v a t i o n R e l a t i v e advantage  10.9  Compatibility  1.9  Complexity  0.0  Divisibility  0.0  Communicability  17.9 Subtotal  30.7  By S i t u a t i o n a l F a c t o r s 2.6  S i t u a t i o n not appropriate Scale of operation too small  12.2  Insufficient capital  18.6  Other s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s  • Subtotal  T o t a l f o r both groups o f r e a s o n s  35*9 69.3 100.0  The r a t i o between c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e 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 a s r e a s o n s f o r d e l a y i n p r o c e e d i n g t h r o u g h t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s was d i f f e r e n t f o r t h e a d o p t e r categories.  The r a t i o s o f r e a s o n s by c a t e g o r y a r e : l a g g a r d  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 a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r 1:2.6.  This indicates that character-  i s t i c s o f t h e 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 a r e about  96 equally 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 a r e more t h a n t w i c e a s i m p o r t a n t a s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the innovation f o r the e a r l y adopter-innovator category. The average number o f i n n o v a t i o n s f o r which d e l a y o c c u r r e d was a l s o d i f f e r e n t f o r t h e a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s .  On  t h e average t h e l a g g a r d s d e l a y e d f o r 0.8 o f t h e t e n i n n o v a t i o n s , t h e l a t e m a j o r i t y f o r 1.6, t h e e a r l y m a j o r i t y f o r 1.8 and t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r s f o r 2.0 o f t h e t e n innovations. Table X X I I I g i v e s t h e percentage f r e q u e n c y o f t h e r e a s o n s f o r d e l a y by a d o p t e r  category.  Table X X I I I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF REASONS FOR DELAY I N PROCEEDING THROUGH THE ADOPTION PROCESS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Reason  By c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the innovation By s i t u a t i o n a l factors Total Average number o f innovations f o r which r e s p o n d e n t s delayed  Adopter Category Total Laggard L a t e Early Early majority m a j o r i t y adopterinnovator  %  %  %  %  1o  46.7  32.6  37.0  28.1  30.8  53-3 100.0  67.4 100.0  73.0 100.0  71.9 100.0  69.2 100.0  0.8  1.6  1.8  2.0  1.6  97 IV.  THE INNOVATION RESPONSE STATE OF THE RESPONDENTS I n n o v a t i o n response s t a t e r e f e r s t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t s *  p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n i n r e g a r d 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 a r e : unawareness, c o n t i n u a t i o n i n t h e adoption  p r o c e s s , r e j e c t i o n , a d o p t i o n , and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e .  I t was found t h a t t h e number o f r e s p o n d e n t s c o n t i n u i n g i n the adoption process,  r e j e c t i n g innovations o r adopting  them was l o w e r f o r t h e f i r s t t h a n t h e second group o f innovations.  However, unawareness and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e  h i g h e r i n t h e f i r s t t h a n t h e second group.  was  On t h e a v e r a g e ,  out o f t h e t e n i n n o v a t i o n s , each respondent was n o t aware o f 2.19,  continuing i n t h e adoption process f o r  rejected  4«38>  adopted  1.66  1.57,  and d i s c o n t i n u e d use o f 0.20  innovations. The h i g h e s t r a t e o f r e j e c t i o n o c c u r r e d f o r use o f s t e r i l i z e d paper t o w e l s o r separate  c l o t h s f o r washing  t h e udder o f each cow b e f o r e m i l k i n g and t h e h i g h e s t of discontinuance  rate  occurred with regular t e s t i n g f o r m a s t i t i s .  The range o f c o n t i n u i n g w i t h t h e a d o p t i o n  p r o c e s s was f r o m  z e r o , f o r s t e r i l i z i n g t h e t e a t cup c l u s t e r , t o 36.0 p e r cent f o r t h e hay d r y e r . T a b l e XXIV g i v e s t h e p e r c e n t a g e d i s t r i b u t i o n by i n n 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 T a b l e XXIV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESPONDENTS BY INNOVATION RESPONSE STAJEE Innovation  Group One Regular t e s t i n g for mastitis Paper towels or separate c l o t h S t e r i l i z i n g teat cup c l u s t e r I n s e c t i c i d e impregnated cords S y s t e m i c warble f l y control Average Group Two Heat lamps f o r calves Heated water bowls or t a n k s Bftlk b i n s Hay c o n d i t i o n e r Hay  dryer Average  Average f o r the ten innovations A v e r a g e number o f innovations per respondent  I n n o v a t i o n Response S t a t e Not C o n t i n - R e j e c - Adop- D i s c o n - T o t a l Aware u i n g tion tion tinuance the adoption process  %  %  %  1o  %  25  2  33  29  11  100  13  3  80  4  0  100  48  0  41  7  4  100  31  33  27  9  0  100  73 38.0  20 11.6  7 37.6  0 9.3  0 3.0  100 100  10  4  49  36  1  100  16 1 2 0 5.8  13 18 28 36 19.8  64 35 62 50.0  4 45 30 2 23.4  3 1 0 0 1.0  100 100 100 100 100  21.9  15.7  43.8  16.6  2.0  100  0.20  10  2.19  1.57  40  4-38  1.66  99 I n n o v a t i o n Response S t a t e 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 o f t h e a d o p t i o n  process  f o r a l l i n n o v a t i o n s , more t h a n h a l f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s were a t t h e e v a l u a t i o n s t a g e , about o n e - f o u r t h were a t t h e awareness s t a g e and t h e s m a l l e s t number was a t t h e t r i a l  stage.  Con-  t i n u a t i o n i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s by stage d i f f e r e d f o r t h e two  groups o f i n n o v a t i o n s .  F o r t h e group one i n n o v a t i o n s ,  t h e l a r g e s t number c o n t i n u i n g w i t h t h e a d o p t i o n  p r o c e s s was  a t t h e awareness stage and f o r t h e group two i n n o v a t i o n s , t h e l a r g e s t number was a t t h e e v a l u a t i o n s t a g e .  Table XXV  g i v e s t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f r e s p o n d e n t s a t each s t a g e i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s f o r t h e two groups o f 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 .  T a b l e XXV PERCENTAGE OF THE RESPONDENTS CONTINUING WITH THE ADOPTION PROCESS, BY STAGE FOR EACH GROUP OF INNOVATIONS Innovation Group  -- • Aware- I n t e r est ness  18.2  29.3 64.7  % 12.1 4.0  16.6  52.2  7.0  % 13.8  Group Two  % 44 • 8 12.1  Average  24.2  Group One  Stage EvalTrial uation fo  Adoption fo mm  mm  _  Total  % 100.0 100.0 100.0  100 I n r e g a r d t o i n n o v a t i o n r e j e c t i o n , 48.6 p e r cent o c c u r r e d a t t h e awareness s t a g e , 0.9 a t i n t e r e s t , 39*1 a t e v a l u a t i o n and 11.4 p e r cent a t t h e t r i a l s t a g e .  When  comparing t h e two groups o f i n n o v a t i o n s , t h e r a t e o f r e j e c t i o n a t t h e awareness, i n t e r e s t and e v a l u a t i o n  stages  was h i g h e r f o r t h e group two t h a n t h e group one i n n o v a t i o n s . However, a t t h e t r i a l stage t h e r a t e o f r e j e c t i o n o f t h e group one i n n o v a t i o n s was more t h a n e i g h t t i m e s t h a t f o r t h e group two i n n o v a t i o n s .  T a b l e XXVI g i v e s r e j e c t i o n by stage  i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s f o r each group o f i n n o v a t i o n s . Appendix I V 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 .  T a b l e XXVI PERCENTAGE OF THE RESPONDENTS WHO HAD REJECTED EACH GROUP OF INNOVATIONS, BY STAGE I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS Innovation Group  •Awareness  Stage Inter- Evalest uation  Trial  Group Two  % 44.2 52.0  % 0.5 1.2  % 32.4 44.0  22.9 2.8  Average  48.6  0.9  39.1  11.4  Group One  %  Adoption  -  Total  100.0 100.0 100.0  I n n o v a t i o n Response s t a t e by A d o p t e r C a t e g o r y There was a d e c r e a s e i n unawareness f r o m t h e l a g g a r d to  the e a r l y adopter-innovator  category, the r a t e o f  101 unawareness f o r t h e l a g g a r d c a t e g o r y b e i n g more t h a n 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 l a g g a r d c a t e g o r y had t h e l o w e s t r a t e o f c o n t i n u a t i o n i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s and t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r 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 t h e same f o r c o n t i n u a t i o n i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s . The range o f r e j e c t i o n among t h e a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s was o n l y 6.7 p e r cent w i t h t h e l a g g a r d s h a v i n g t h e h i g h e s t r a t e and t h e e a r l y - a d o p t e r i n n o v a t o r s t h e l o w e s t . There was an i n c r e a s i n g a d o p t i o n t r e n d from t h e laggard t o the e a r l y adopter-innovator category, adoption b e i n g seven t i m e s g r e a t e r f o r t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r than t h e laggard category. The r a t e o f d i s c o n t i n u a n c e was v e r y l o w .  However,  t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r y 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 t h e o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s . The above d a t a i s shown i n T a b l e X X V I I .  Appendix I V  g i v e s t h e p e r c e n t a g e f r e q u e n c y d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r each i n n o v a t i o n response s t a t e by i n n o v a t i o n and a d o p t e r  category.  102 T a b l e XXVII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND INNOVATION RESPONSE STATE I n n o v a t i o n Response Laggard  A d o p t e r Category Late Early Early m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopterinnovator  % Unaware  38.0  24.8  % 16.9  %  Continuing with the adoption process  12.0  16.6  16.0  18.1  Rejection  45.5  44.1  44.8  33.8  7.5  Adoption  4.0  13.8  20.9  23.1  Discontinuance  0.5  0.7  1.4  7.5  100.0  Total  100.0  100.0  100.0  I n n o v a t i o n Response S t a t e by Time Spent i n t h e A d o p t i o n  Process  C o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n e x i s t e d i n t i m e spent i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s f o r t h e i n n o v a t i o n response  states.  For  t h o s e c o n t i n u i n g w i t h t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s , more t h a n 90 p e r cent had spent one o r more y e a r s i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s . About t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e r e j e c t i o n o c c u r r e d a f t e r t h e r e s pondents had spent l e s s t h a n one y e a r i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s . On t h e o t h e r hand, about t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e a d o p t i o n o c c u r r e d a f t e r t h e r e s p o n d e n t s had spent one o r more y e a r s i n t h e adoption process.  T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t on t h e average a  103 d e c i s i o n t o r e j e c t was made i n a s h o r t e r t i m e t h a n a d e c i s i o n t o adopt.  D i s c o n t i n u a n c e was f o u r t i m e s h i g h e r when l e s s  t h a n one y e a r was spent t h a n when one o r more y e a r s was spent i n the adoption process. Table X X V I I I i n d i c a t e s t h e v a r i a t i o n i n t i m e spent i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s f o r t h e i n n o v a t i o n response  states.  T a b l e XCIV i n Appendix I V 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 innovation.  Table XXVIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TIME SPENT IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS BY INNOVATION RESPONSE STATE I n n o v a t i o n Response State  Continuing with the adoption process  Time Spent i n t h e A d o p t i o n P r o c e s s Less than one y e a r .%  One o r more v e a r s %  Total %  7.6  92.4  100.0  Rejection  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 r e a s o n s f o r r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e o f  i n n o v a t i o n s were c l a s s i f i e d i n t h e same manner as t h o s e f o r delay i n proceeding through the adoption process.  104 F o r a l l t e n i n n o v a t i o n s 68.8 p e r cent o f t h e r e a s o n s f o r r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e were due t o t h e c h a r a c t e r 0  i s t i c s o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n and 31»2 situational factors.  p e r cent were due t o  Extreme d i f f e r e n c e s o c c u r r e d between  the two groups o f i n n o v a t i o n s .  I n t h e f i r s t group c h a r a c t e r -  i s t i c s o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n accounted f o r 98 p e r cent o f t h e r e a s o n s g i v e n f o r r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e w h i l e situational factors  accounted f o r o n l y 2 p e r c e n t .  second group o f i n 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 for  54«5  With the  accounted  p e r cent o f t h e r e a s o n s compared w i t h c h a r a c t e r -  i s t i c s o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n which made up 45 »5 p e r c e n t . More t h a n 95 p e r cent o f t h e r e a s o n s g i v e n f o r r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e o f t h e group one i n n o v a t i o n s were a t t r i b u t e d t o r e l a t i v e advantage.  F o r t h e second group o f  i n n o v a t i o n s , r e l a t i v e advantage was a l s o t h e most  important  but i t made up o n l y 41•2 p e r cent o f t h e r e a s o n s .  The o t h e r  i m p o r t a n t r e a s o n s f o r r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e o f group two i n n o v a t i o n s were: s i t u a t i o n n o t a p p r o p r i a t e w h i c h accounted f o r  24*7  w h i c h accounted f o r  p e r c e n t , and s c a l e o f o p e r a t i o n t o o s m a l l  29»0  p e r cent o f t h e r e a s o n s .  Not c i t e d  by any o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s as r e a s o n s 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 , c o m m u n i c a b i l i t y and insufficient capital. Table XXIX g i v e s t h e p e r c e n t a g e f r e q u e n c y o f r e a s o n s by i n n o v a t i o n group.  The f r e q u e n c y  distribution  distribution  o f r e a s o n s f o r r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e i s p r e s e n t e d by s p e c i f i c i n n o v a t i o n i n Table XCV o f Appendix I V .  105 T a b l e XXIX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF REASONS FOR REJECTION AND DISCONTINUANCE BY INNOVATION GROUP  Group One innovations  Reason  Group Two innovations  $  %  95.5  41.2  All innovations  By c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the i n n o v a t i o n Relative  advantage  65.3  2.7  2.2  Complexity  1.5 1.0  1.6  Divisibility  0.0  0.0  1.3 0.0  Communicability  0.0  0.0  0.0  Compatibility  98.0  45.5  68.8  0.5  24.7  14.0  Scale of operation too small  0.0  29.0  16.1  Insufficient  0.0  0.0  0.0  1.5  0.8  1.1  Total By s i t u a t i o n a l  factors  S i t u a t i o n not appropriate  capital  Other s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s Total T o t a l o f a l l reasons  2.0 100.0  54-5  31.2  100.0  100.0  106 The p r o p o r t i o n o f r e a s o n s 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 o f t h e 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 v a r i e d among t h e a d o p t e r  categories.  Situational  f a c t o r s as r e a s o n s f o r r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e were used almost t w i c e a s o f t e n by t h e l a g g a r d as by t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r innovator category.  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the i n n o v a t i o n as  r e a s o n s f o r r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e were used t o a g r e a t e r e x t e n t by t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r t h a n by t h e l a g g a r d category.  There was no d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f r e a s o n s  f o r r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e g i v e n by t h e l a t e and e a r l y majority.  The p e r c e n t a g e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e a s o n s f o r r e j e c t i o n  and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e o f i n n o v a t i o n s by adopter i n Table XXX.  category i s given  The p e r c e n t a g e d i s t r i b u t i o n by each s p e c i f i c  r e a s o n and a d o p t e r  c a t e g o r y i s g i v e n i n Table CIV o f A p p e n d i x  IV.  Table XXX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF REASONS FOR REJECTION AND DISCONTINUANCE OF INNOVATIONS B I ADOPTER CATEGORY Reason  Adopter Laggard  Category  Late Early Early m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopterinnovator  %  %  Characteristics of the innovation  62.0  68.5  68.5  Situational factors  38.0  31.5  31.5  78.4 21.6  100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  Total  fo  107 Reasons g i v e n f o r t h e r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e o f i n n o v a t i o n s was  a n a l y s e d by i n n o v a t i o n group and by t i m e  i n the adoption process.  spent  F o r t h e group one i n n o v a t i o n s ,  almost 70 p e r cent were r e j e c t e d o r d i s c o n t i n u e d due t o c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n i n l e s s t h a n one y e a r and p e r cent i n one o r more y e a r s .  The r e j e c t i o n and  28.1  discontin-  uance by s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s was o n l y 2 p e r c e n t , a l l o f w h i c h o c c u r r e d i n l e s s t h a n one y e a r .  I n c o n t r a s t , group two  innov-  a t i o n s had t h e h i g h e s t r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e 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 p e r cent o c c u r r i n g i n l e s s t h a n one y e a r and 20.8 p e r cent i n one o r more y e a r s .  Only  p e r cent were r e j e c t e d o r d i s c o n t i n u e d i n l e s s than one  25-9 year  and 19-6 p e r cent i n one o r more y e a r s because o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n . Table XXXI shows t h e  percentage  d i s t r i b u t i o n by r e a s o n and t i m e spent i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s . T a b l e CV i n A p p e n d i x IV g i v e s t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n by  individual  innovation. T a b l e 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 innovation L e s s t h a n One o r more year years Group one innovations Group two innovations  Situational factors L e s s t h a n One o r more T o t a l one y e a r y e a r s  69.9 25*9  19.6  33.7  20.8  100.0  108 O n l y 1.4 p e r cent o f t h e r e a s o n s g i v e n 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 o c c u r r e d a t t h e t r i a l  stage,  whereas, 16.1 p e r cent o f t h e r e a s o n s g i v e n 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 o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n o c c u r r e d a t t h i s stage.  I n n o v a t i o n s w h i c h 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 b e f o r e t h e t r i a l  stage.  This  i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t s were b e t t e r a b l e t o e v a l u a t e 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 i n n o v a t i o n w h i c h cause r e j e c t i o n . i n Table  The above d a t a i s shown  XXXII.  Table X X X I I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF REASONS FOR REJECTION BY STAGE I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS Reasons f o r rejection  Stage Awareness  %  Interest fo  Evaluation fo  Trial  %  Total fo  Characteristics of the innovation  43.3  1.0  36.6  16.1  100.0  Situational factors  53.6  0.7  44.3  1.4  100.0  CHAPTER V I I ADOPTION TENDENCY The p r o p e n s i t y o f a respondent  t o become aware o f an  i n n o v a t i o n and t h e n proceed t h r o u g h t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s b e f o r e making a d e c i s i o n i s r e f e r r e d t o as a d o p t i o n  tendency.  U s i n g t h e d a t a on i n n o v a t i o n response s t a t e a s w e l l a s s t a g e r e a c h e d i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s f o r t h e i n n o v a t i o n s , an a d o p t i o n tendency  score was d e r i v e d f o r each  respondent.  T h i s s c o r e was used as a b a s i s f o r t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f t h e respondents  i n t o a d o p t e r tendency  categories. Analysis of  t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s and t h e a d o p t e r tendency  I.  c a t e g o r i e s was t h e n  conducted.  DERIVATION OF THE ADOPTION TENDENCY SCORE  The a d o p t i o n tendency  s c o r e d i f f e r s from t h e a d o p t i o n  s c o r e i n t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t s were p e n a l i z e d f o r n o t 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 t o o e a r l y i n the adoption process.  On t h e o t h e r hand, a bonus was g i v e n  f o r c o m p l e t i n g t h e 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 w h i c h cannot be t r i e d w i t h o u t a d o p t i n g them and f o r c o m p l e t i n g t h e t r i a l stage f o r i n n o v a t i o n s w h i c h were r e l a t i v e l y easy t o t r y . R o g e r s i i n d i c a t e d t h a t one cause o f unawareness o f l E •M. Rogers, D i f f u s i o n o f I n n o v a t i o n s . The Free P r e s s o f Glencoe, New York, 1962, pp. 109, 110 and 224 t o 226.  110 i n n o v a t i o n s 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 i n t r o d u c e d t o t h e d a i r y f a r m e r s t h r o u g h t h e mass media a t l e a s t s e v e r a l y e a r s b e f o r e t h e i n t e r v i e w s were conducted.  T h e r e f o r e , 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 p l a y e d a l a r g e p a r t i n t h e i n n o v a t i o n unawareness r e p o r t e d by t h e respondents. was  F o r each i n n o v a t i o n unawareness, t h e respondent  g i v e n a s c o r e o f -5. A n e g a t i v e s c o r e was  innovation i r r a t i o n a l l y . to the t r i a l  a l s o g i v e n f o r r e j e c t i n g an  I f a respondent d i d not  stage f o r an i n n o v a t i o n which was  proceed  inexpensive  and c o u l d be t r i e d e a s i l y , h i s a d o p t i o n b e h a v i o r was s i d e r e d t o be i r r a t i o n a l .  The  con-  scores a l l o c a t e d f o r r e j a c t i o n  o f 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 a t t h e awareness s t a g e , -3 a t t h e i n t e r e s t s t a g e , and -1 a t t h e evaluation stage.  Two  i n n o v a t i o n s , heated w a t e r bowls o r  heated t a n k s and t h e hay d r y e r , c o u l d not be t r i e d a d o p t i n g them.  without  R e j e c t i o n o f each o f t h e s e a t t h e e v a l u a t i o n  stage was n o t c o n s i d e r e d 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 s c o r e o f +5 was  allocated.  A s c o r e o f +5 was  r e j e c t i o n o f any i n n o v a t i o n a t t h e t r i a l  given f o r  stage.  I f a respondent were c o n t i n u i n g i n the a d o p t i o n  process,  t h e s c o r e s 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 s c o r e o f +5 was a l s o g i v e n f o r t h e d i s c o n t i n -  uance o f an i n n o v a t i o n .  Ill The maximum o b t a i n a b l e s c o r e was +50 and t h e minimum  -50.  The range f o r t h e sample was  -46  to  +43*  To f a c i l i t a t e  a n a l y s i s , however, t h e s c a l e was c o n v e r t e d t o a c o m p l e t e l y p o s i t i v e one.  ( i . e . t h e o r i g i n a l -50 was equated w i t h a  s c o r e o f 1 and t h e o r i g i n a l +50 w i t h a s c o r e o f 101).  The  range on t h e new s c a l e was from 5 t o 94. The mean a d o p t e r tendency s c o r e was 45.68 and t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n 18.01. respondents  U s i n g t h e s e two s t a t i s t i c s , t h e  were d i v i d e d i n t o s t a n d a r d u n i t i n t e r v a l s w h i c h  r e p r e s e n t a d o p t e r tendency c a t e g o r i e s .  The c a t e g o r i e s and  c l a s s l i m i t s o f t h e i n t e r v a l s were as f o l l o w s : l a g g a r d l e s s t h a n t h e mean minus one s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n (0 t o 2 7 ) , l a t e m a j o r i t y - t h e mean minus one s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n t o t h e mean (28 t o 45), one  e a r l y m a j o r i t y - t h e mean t o t h e mean p l u s  s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n (46 t o 63),  e a r l y a d o p t e r - t h e mean  p l u s one s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n t o t h e mean p l u s two s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s (64 t o 81) and i n n o v a t o r - g r e a t e r t h a n t h e mean p l u s two s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s (82 o r more).  The e a r l y  adopter  and i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r i e s were combined and r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r y because t h e r e was o n l y one respondent i n t h e innovator category. Use o f t h e C h i - s q u a r e t e s t showed t h a t t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f a d o p t i o n tendency s c o r e s approximated  t h e normal c u r v e .  Table X X X I I I g i v e s t h e observed and e x p e c t e d d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e respondents as w e l l a s t h e C h i - s q u a r e  frequency  i n t h e adopter c a t e g o r i e s  value.  112 Table X X X I I I CLASSIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS INTO ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORIES  Adopter category  C l a s s Number o f bound- s t a n d a r d aries deviations from t h e mean  Number o f r e s p o n d e n t s i n each c a t e g o r y Expected Observed (normal (sample) curve) frequency frequency (e)  Early adopterinnovator Early majority  63.69 45.68'  4-1  0  Late majority Laggard  27.67  -1  (n - e )  (n)  15.74  18  .325  34.13  32  .133  34.13  34  .001  15.74  16  .005  Chi-square value NOTE:  .464  The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e sample f r e q u e n c y d i s t r i b u t i o n approximated t h e normal curve d i s t r i b u t i o n was t e s t e d a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e . The h y p o t h e s i s was a c c e p t e d s i n c e t h e o b t a i n e d c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e was below t h e c r i t i c a l v a l u e o f 3.841.  I n r e - c l a s s i f y i n g t h e r e s p o n d e n t s from t h e a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s t o t h e a d o p t e r tendency c a t e g o r i e s , i t was found  2  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 .  F o r example,  a respondent i n t h e l a g g a r d c a t e g o r y on t h e b a s i s o f a d o p t e r s c o r e , may have s h i f t e d t o t h e l a t e m a j o r i t y c a t e g o r y on t h e b a s i s o f t h e a d o p t e r tendency s c o r e . The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s i n t h e c a t e g o r i e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e a d o p t i o n tendency s c o r e conformed more c l o s e l y t o t h e normal curve t h a n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n by a d o p t i o n score.  The changes i n t h e number o f r e s p o n d e n t s i n each  2  c a t e g o r y i s shown i n Table XXXIV.  T a b l e XXXIV NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS I N EACH CATEGORY WHEN CLASSIFIED BY ADOPTION SCORE AND ADOPTION TENDENCY SCORE Category  Number o f r e s p o n d e n t s i n each c a t e g o r y on t h e b a s i s o f : A d o p t i o n s c o r e A d o p t i o n tendency score  Laggard  20  16  Late majority  29  34  Early majority  35  32  Early adopter-innovator  16  18  100  100  Total  *The C h i - s q u a r e v a l u e s f o r t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s i n t h e a d o p t e r tendency c a t e g o r i e s was much l o w e r t h a n t h a t f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f respondents i n t h e adopter categories.  114 II.  COMPARISON OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ADOPTER CATEGORIES AND THE ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORIES C h i - s q u a r e v a l u e s f o r b i v a r i a t e t a b l e s o f two and f o u r  a d o p t e r tendency c a t e g o r i e s a g a i n s t each socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c were d e t e r m i n e d .  The s i g n i f i c a n t v a l u e s  o b t a i n e d were compared w i t h t h o s e f o r t h e two and f o u r a d o p t e r categories.-^ The b i v a r i a t e t a b l e s o f socio-economic  characteristics  a g a i n s t f o u r a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s produced o n l y 7 s i g n i f i c a n t C h i - s q u a r e v a l u e s compared w i t h 11 f o r t h e f o u r a d o p t e r tendency c a t e g o r i e s .  Four o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  had C h i -  square v a l u e s which were s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h b o t h 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 v a l u e s a g a i n s t a d o p t e r  c a t e g o r y o n l y and 7 a g a i n s t a d o p t e r tendency c a t e g o r y o n l y . The number o f s i g n i f i c a n t C h i - s q u a r e v a l u e s f o r t h e two a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s a g a i n s t t h e socio-economic  characteristics  was 6 compared w i t h 7 f o r t h e two a d o p t e r tendency Three o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  categories.  had C h i - s q u a r e v a l u e s w h i c h were  s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h b o t h 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 v a l u e s w i t h a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y o n l y and 4 a g a i n s t a d o p t e r tendency c a t e g o r y 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 o f s o c i o economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  a g a i n s t t h e a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s and  t h e a d o p t e r tendency c a t e g o r i e s a r e g i v e n i n T a b l e s XXXV and XXXVI. 3 I n f o r m a t i o n on t h e C h i - s q u a r e v a l u e s f o r t h e two and f o u r a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s i s c o n t a i n e d i n S e c t i o n I I o f Chapter I V .  115 T a b l e XXXV COMPARISON OF CHI-SQUARE VALUES FOR BIVARIATE TABLES OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AGAINST TWO ADOPTER CATEGORIES AND TWO ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORIES  Two adopter categories  Socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  Ijwo adopter tendency categories  1.691  4.000  Enjoyment o f d a i r y i n g  9.091  5.638  Number o f y e a r s f a r m i n g e x p e r i e n c e  5.882  2.647  Size of d a i l y milk  5.681  6.044  6.656  Number o f young d a i r y s t o c k r a i s e d  4.465 9.690*  V i s i t s t o the d i s t r i c t agriculturist's office  2-355  4.320  A t t e n d a n c e a t m e e t i n g s and f i e l d days sponsored by t h e district agriculturist  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 r e g a r d o f l a g g a r d s  7.910  0.713  Marital  status  Amount o f m i l k  NOTE:  quota  sold per year  7.660  The u n d e r l i n e d v a l u e s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t . A n u l l h y p o t h e s i s o f 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 c a t e g o r i e s was used a t t h e .05 and .01 levels of significance. S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01  level.  116 T a b l e XXXVI COMPARISON OF CHI-SQUARE VALUES FOR BIVARIATE TABLES OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AGAINST FOUR ADOPTER CATEGORIES AND FOUR ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORIES  Four adopter categories  Four adopter tendency categories  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  9.441  11.187  Number o f a c r e s devoted t o d a i r y i n g  a.311  12.337*  Size of d a i l y milk  7.552  10.851  7.644  10.267  Average m i l k p r o d u c t i o n p e r cow  a.312  11.920*  greed of d a i r y c a t t l e  4.076  10.3?3  Number o f young d a i r y s t o c k r a i s e d  9.984  10.599  14.062  3.891  11.080  15.677*  Farm v a l u e as a g o i n g c o n c e r n  6.574  9.510  V i s i t s t o the d i s t r i c t agriculturists office  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*  13.842*  Community r e g a r d o f l a g g a r d s  12.138*  3.934  Socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  Amount o f m i l k  quota  sold  Amount o f u n p a i d f a m i l y  labour  F a m i l y farm and o f f - f a r m employment income  NOTE:  The u n d e r l i n e d v a l u e s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t . A n u l l hypot h e s i s o f 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 c a t e g o r i e s was used a t t h e .05 and .01 l e v e l s o f significance. M  S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01  level.  117 A l t h o u g h 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 a l u e s w i t h one c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and n o t the o t h e r .  T h i s 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 t h e  two ways o f c l a s s i f y i n g t h e r e s p o n d e n t s were u s e d .  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 o f socio-economic f a c t o r s a g a i n s t a d o p t e r tendency c a t e g o r i e s had s i g n i f i c a n t C h i - s q u a r e v a l u e s compared w i t h t h e socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a g a i n s t t h e a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s , suggest t h a t t h e use o f t h e a d o p t e r tendency c a t e g o r i e s a r e more e f f i c i e n t i n showing up d i f f e r ences among t h e r e s p o n d e n t s .  Ill  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 o f a socio-economic  characteristic  a g a i n s t two and f o u r a d o p t e r tendency c a t e g o r i e s , h a v i n g a s i g n i f i c a n t C h i - s q u a r e v a l u e , i s c o n t a i n e d i n Appendix I I and d e s c r i b e d below.  To s i m p l i f y comparison o f t h e d i f f e r -  ences between t h e a d o p t e r tendency c a t e g o r i e s ,  percentages  r a t h e r t h a n a b s o l u t e v a l u e s a r e used. Marital Status The s i n g l e r e s p o n d e n t s tended t o be slow i n a d o p t i n g new d a i r y f a r m p r a c t i c e s .  Four t i m e s as many o f them were  i n t h e l a t e r a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y as t h e e a r l i e r a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y .  118 Farm Acreage S e v e n t y - f i v e p e r cent o f t h e l a g g a r d c a t e g o r y had a t o t a l farm s i z e o f fewer t h a n  70  a c r e s compared w i t h  p e r cent o f t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r y .  27«8  However,  a l a r g e r p e r cent o f t h e e a r l y t h a n t h e l a t e m a j o r i t y had fewer t h a n 70 a c r e s . Almost 90 p e r cent o f t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r y had 40 a c r e s o r more devoted t o d a i r y i n g compared w i t h 31*2 percentage  p e r cent o f t h e l a g g a r d c a t e g o r y .  A larger  o f t h e l a t e t h a n t h e e a r l y m a j o r i t y had 40 a c r e s  o r more devoted t o d a i r y i n g . S i z e o f D a i l y M i l k Quota The median s i z e o f d a i l y m i l k quota was i n t h e 200 t o 399 pound c l a s s f o r t h e l a t e r a d o p t e r s and i n t h e 400 o r more c l a s s f o r t h e e a r l i e r a d o p t e r s .  pounds  When c o n s i d e r i n g  f o u r a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s , more t h a n t h r e e t i m e s as many o f t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r s as t h e l a g g a r d s had a d a i l y m i l k quota o f 300 pounds o r more.  A l a r g e r percentage o f t h e l a t e  t h a n t h e e a r l y m a j o r i t y had quotas o f l e s s t h a n 300 pounds. Amount o f M i l k S o l d P e r Y e a r The percentage selling  200,000  o f the respondents  i n each c a t e g o r y  pounds o r more m i l k p e r y e a r i n c r e a s e d from  the laggard t o the e a r l y adopter-innovator category. c o n s i d e r i n g two a d o p t e r tendency the l a t e r adopters s o l d l e s s than  When  c a t e g o r i e s , more t h a n h a l f  200,000  pounds p e r y e a r  119 w h i l e h a l f t h e e a r l i e r a d o p t e r s s o l d more t h a n  300,000  pounds  of m i l k per year. Average P r o d u c t i o n P e r Cow More t h a n t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e l a g g a r d s had an average p r o d u c t i o n p e r cow o f l e s s t h a n  9500  pounds compared w i t h  fewer t h a n o n e - q u a r t e r o f t h e e a r l y - a d o p t e r i n n o v a t o r s .  The  average m i l k p r o d u c t i o n p e r cow f o r t h e l a t e and e a r l y m a j o r i t y was almost t h e same. Breed o f 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 t h e l a r g e s t percentage owning H o l s t e i n and p r e d o m i n a n t l y H o l s t e i n h e r d s f o l l o w e d by t h e l a t e m a j o r i t y , e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r and l a g g a r d c a t e g o r i e s . F i f t y p e r cent o f t h e l a g g a r d s had n o n - H o l s t e i n s o r p r e d o m i n a n t l y n o n - H o l s t e i n s compared w i t h 12.5  p e r cent o f t h e  early majority. Number o f D a i r y Young S t o c k R a i s e d More t h a n t w i c e as many e a r l i e r t h a n l a t e r r a i s e d 20 o r more young d a i r y s t o c k . respondents  The percentage  of the  i n each o f t h e f o u r c a t e g o r i e s r a i s i n g 10 o r more  young d a i r y s t o c k was as f o l l o w s : l a g g a r d 31*2,  47.1,  adopters  early majority  59*4  late majority  and e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r  83.3.  F a m i l y Farm and Off-Farm Employment Income More t h a n 87.5  p e r cent o f t h e l a g g a r d s had f a m i l y farm  p l u s o f f - f a r m employment incomes o f l e s s t h a n w i t h 31.3 percentage than  $2500  p e r cent o f t h e e a r l y m a j o r i t y .  #2500  compared  A s l i g h t l y higher  o f t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r y had l e s s t h a n t h e 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 V a l u e as a Going Concern More o f t h e e a r l y m a j o r i t y t h a n t h e l a t e m a j o r i t y had farm v a l u e s o f l e s s t h a n  $49,950.  About  l a g g a r d s had farms v a l u e d a t l e s s t h a n  62.5  p e r cent o f t h e  $49,950  as g o i n g  c o n c e r n s compared w i t h 16.7 p e r cent o f t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r 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  Office  Twice as many e a r l i e r a d o p t e r s as l a t e r a d o p t e r s made one o r more v i s i t s t o t h e d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t s during the past year.  office  Comparing t h e 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 t h e l a g g a r d s v i s i t e d t h e d i s t r i c t c u l t u r i s t s o f f i c e compared w i t h  37*5  agri-  per cent o f t h e e a r l y  a d o p t e r s , 27.8 p e r cent o f t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r s and  23*5  p e r cent o f t h e l a t e m a j o r i t y .  A t t e n d a n c e a t M e e t i n g s and F i e l d Days Sponsored  by t h e D i s t r i c t  Agriculturist Ninety-two p e r cent o f t h e l a t e r a d o p t e r s d i d n o t a t t e n d any meetings o r f i e l d days sponsored by t h e 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 t h e p a s t y e a r compared w i t h 78 p e r cent of t h e 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 1 8 . 8 p e r cent o f t h e l a g g a r d c a t e g o r 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 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 t h e e a r l y m a j o r i t y ,  58.8  c e n t o f t h e l a t e m a j o r i t y and 55.6 p e r cent o f t h e e a r l y  per  121 adopter-innovator.  When u s i n g two a d o p t e r tendency c a t e g o r i e s ,  more of- t h e e a r l i e r t h a n t h e l a t e r a d o p t e r s community was w i l l i n g t o adopt new  f e l t that t h e i r  d a i r y farm p r a c t i c e s .  I V . 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 c o u l d be q u a n t i f i e d as i n Chapter I I I except t h a t t h e dependent v a r i a b l e was  the adoption  score r a t h e r t h a n the a d o p t i o n  I t was  score.  tendency  found t h a t o n l y  f i v e s o c i o - e c o n o m i c 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 t h e a d o p t i o n tendency s c o r e compared w i t h 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 a d o p t i o n  score.  nine  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 b o t h a d o p t i o n tendency score and t h e a d o p t i o n  score.  These were:  enjoyment o f d a i r y i n g , t h e number of young d a i r y s t o c k r a i s e d , and v i s i t s t o t h e 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 w h i c h 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 t h e d i s t r i c t  had  agri-  c u l t u r i s t w h i c h had a n e g a t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h b o t h s c o r e s . 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  s c o r e but not w i t h t h e a d o p t i o n tendency s c o r e .  The  number o f c h i l d r e n , y e a r s on the p r e s e n t farm and income from o t h e r f a r m 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 n e g a t i v e i a t i o n with adoption score.  The  s c o r e but not w i t h a d o p t i o n  only c h a r a c t e r i s t i c associated with  assoc-  tendency adoption  122 tendency s c o r e and n o t w i t h a d o p t i o n score was t h e amount o f h i r e d l a b o u r used w h i c h had a n e g a t i v e  association.  Table XXXVII g i v e s t h e socio-economic  characteristics  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 a d o p t i o n s c o r e and a d o p t i o n tendency s c o r e .  T a b l e XXXVII SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS HAVING SIGNIFICANT PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS WITH ADOPTION SCORE AND ADOPTION TENDENCY SCORE Socio-economic  characteristic  Adoption score  Enjoyment o f d a i r y i n g  .220  Social  .216  participation  Number o f young d a i r y  stock  raised  .400  F a m i l y 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 office  .246  Adoption tendency score  .247  -  .310  .205  Number o f c h i l d r e n  -.210  -  Y e a r s on p r e s e n t  -.243  mm  farm  Income from o t h e r farm e n t e r p r i s e s  -.291  -  Farm v i s i t s by t h e d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t  -.299  -.260  Amount o f h i r e d l a b o u r used  -  -.221  S i n c e t h e p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n t e s t measures t h e association  of pairs of characteristics while the influence  of a l l t h e others i s c o n t r o l l e d , t h e a s s o c i a t i o n s o f independent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s was a l m o s t i d e n t i c a l when t h e dependent v a r i a b l e was a d o p t i o n s c o r e and a d o p t i o n tendency score.  V.  EFFICACY OF THE ADOPTION TENDENCY SCORE  I t c o u l d n o t be determined i f t h e a d o p t i o n tendency s c o r e was o r was n o t a more u s e f u l way o f i d e n t i f y i n g differences  among t h e r e s p o n d e n t s t h a n t h e a d o p t i o n s c o r e .  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 a d o p t i o n tendency s c o r e t h a n between t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a d o p t i o n s c o r e . more o f t h e b i v a r i a t e t a b l e s o f socio-economic  However, factors  a g a i n s t t h e a d o p t e r tendency c a t e g o r i e s had s i g n i f i c a n t C h i - s q u a r e v a l u e s t h a n t h e socio-economic against the adopter  categories.  characteristics  124 CHAPTER V I I I SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study analyses the adoption and r e j e c t i o n of c e r t a i n farm innovations by Lower Fraser V a l l e y dairymen. I n a d d i t i o n , i t analyses the use o f 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 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.  Data f o r the  above a n a l y s i s were c o l l e c t e d from a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample of the dairymen by personal i n t e r v i e w . The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the respondents*  adoption scores,  which were d e r i v e d by measuring progress toward adoption f o r each i n n o v a t i o n , approximated the normal curve. i t was p o s s i b l e t o d i v i d e the respondents i n t o  From t h i s , adopter  categories and analyse the d i f f e r e n c e s o c c u r r i n g among these.  I.  CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE AND ADOPTER CATEGORIES The median age o f the respondents was i n the 45 t o  54 age grouping and 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 categories with respect t o age d i s t r i bution.  This f i n d i n g does not support the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n  by Rogers t h a t " e a r l i e r adopters are younger i n age than l a t e r a d o p t e r s " . H o w e v e r , i t i s consistent with the l E •M. Rogers, D i f f u s i o n of Innovations, The Free P r e s s ! of Glencoe, New York, 1962, p. 313.  125 r o l e o f age i n a d o p t i o n found by V e r n e r and The m a j o r i t y o f t h e respondents y e a r s o f s c h o o l completed.  Millerd.  2  reported 8 or l e s s  A higher l e v e l of formal  e d u c a t i o n was found t o be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h e x t e n s i v e 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 e x p e r i e n c e i n f a r m i n g .  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 y e a r s o f s c h o o l completed were found among t h e 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 r e s p e c t t o 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.  of those  A l a r g e r percentage  i n the c a t e g o r y e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r had t a k e n c o u r s e s t h a n was  these  found i n any o f t h e o t h e r a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s .  T h i s f i n d i n g s u p p o r t s t h e c o n t e n t i o n o f V e r n e r and  Millerd^  t h a t t h e d i r e c t r e l e v a n c e o f t h e content o f an e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e t o a g i v e n group's p r i m a r y c o n c e r n s 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 t o be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h g r e a t e r p r o d u c t i o n 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 o r p a r t of the f a r m .  A s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher  percentage  o f t h e e a r l i e r t h a n the l a t e r  adopterslenjoyed  dairying.  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 V e r n e r  and  M i l l e r d 4 i n t h e i r study o f Okanagan o r c h a r d i s t s . A d i f f e r e n c e C . Verner and F.W. M i l l e r d , A d u l t E d u c a t i o n and t h e A d o p t i o n o f I n n o v a t i o n s by O r c h a r d i s t s i n t h e Okanagan V a l l e y o f B r i t i s h Columbia! Department o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, The U n i v e r s i t y o f 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 • 2  3 I b i d . , p.  74.  ^ I b i d . , p.  19.  126  d i d e x i s t between t h e o r c h a r d i s t s and dairymen,  however.  V e r n e r and M i l l e r d - * found t h a t 79 • 3 p e r cent o f t h e o r c h a r d i s t s enjoyed o r c h a r d i n g v e r y much and o n l y 1.4 p e r cent d i d not e n j o y i t a t a l l . The r e s p e c t i v e f i g u r e s f o r t h e d a i r y men were 60 and 14 p e r c e n t . The m a j o r i t y o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s had twenty o r more y e a r s o f f a r m i n g and d a i r y i n g e x p e r i e n c e .  F o r t h e number o f  y e a r s on t h e p r e s e n t farm, t h e median c a t e g o r y 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 o f e a r l i e r a d o p t e r s  t h a n l a t e r a d o p t e r s had twenty o r more y e a r s f a r m i n g e x p e r ience.  V e r n e r and M i l l e r d  0  found t h a t t h e e a r l i e r a d o p t e r s  had more o r c h a r d i n g e x p e r i e n c e t h a n t h e l a t e r a d o p t e r s . More t h a n h a l f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s were immigrants and about 40 p e r cent o f t h e s e were from t h e N e t h e r l a n d 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 t h e a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s i n r e g a r d t o whether t h e r e s p o n d e n t s were b o r n 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  participation  e x i s t e d among t h e a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s . T h i s i s a t v a r i a n c e w i t h L i o n b e r g e r s statement t h a t t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r s f  partic-  i p a t e more i n f o r m a l a s s o c i a t i o n s t h a n l a t e a d o p t e r s . 7 social participation  More  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 . V e r n e r and F.W.  M i l l e r d , op. c i t . , pp. 19-. and 20.  7H.F. L i o n b e r g e r , A d o p t i o n o f New Ideas and P r a c t i c e s . Iowa S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , Ames, Iowa, I960, pp. 38-4Q.  127 d a i l y m i l k quota, w i t h more u n p a i d ( f a m i l y ) l a b o u r and w i t h income from o t h e r 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 o f farm was found t o e x i s t among t h e a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s .  The e a r l i e r  a d o p t e r s o p e r a t e d t h e l a r g e s t farms and t h e l a t e r a d o p t e r s the s m a l l e s t .  T h i s i s i n agreement w i t h most a d o p t i o n  studies. As t h e number o f improved a c r e s devoted t o d a i r y i n g d e c r e a s e d , t h e number o f cows i n t h e d a i r y h e r d i n c r e a s e d . T h i s seems t o i n d i c a t e a tendency toward f e e d - l o t t y p e d a i r y operations.  I n 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 t h e f a c t t h a t more t h a n f o u r - f i f t h s o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s had no improved l a n d devoted t o n o n - d a i r y i n g 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 t h e a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s i n r e g a r d t o e i t h e r t h e number o f improved  acres  devoted t o n o n - d a i r y i n g e n t e r p r i s e s n o r income from nondairying enterprises.  Thus, t h e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n by R o g e r s  0  t h a t e a r l i e r a d o p t e r s have more s p e c i a l i z e d o p e r a t i o n s t h a n l a t e r a d o p t e r s c o u l d n o t be s u p p o r t e d . Most o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s owned t h e i r f a r m s .  Ownership  i n whole o r i n p a r t was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a l a r g e r amount o f h i r e d and u n p a i d ( f a m i l y ) l a b o u r used as w e l l a s w i t h a h i g h e r farm v a l u e .  The a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s , however, d i d n o t  d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y with respect t o e i t h e r tenure o r the  E.M. Rogers, op. c i t . p. 313  128 amount o f h i r e d l a b o u r u s e d .  Most a d o p t i o n s t u d i e s have  found t h a t the e a r l i e r a d o p t e r s own  t h e i r f a r m s which i s not  the case i n t h i s s t u d y . The median number o f cows i n the m i l k i n g herd was and t h i s was  low  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 o t h e r v a r i a b l e s  i n c l u d i n g among t h e most i m p o r t a n t o f t h e s e t h e amount o f 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 o f F r a s e r V a l l e y d a i r y farm o r g a n 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 o f cows and the dairymen's income.  A negative association  e x i s t e d between the number of cows i n the d a i r y h e r d and average p r o d u c t i o n  per cow,  o f f - f a r m work and  the  income f r o m  o t h e r 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 p e r c e n t a g e of  t h e e a r l i e r a d o p t e r s had  a high production  p e r cow  and  raised  more young d a i r y s t o c k t h a n the l a t e r a d o p t e r s . More t h a n t h r e e - f o u r t h s have any o f f - f a r m employment. was  o f the r e s p o n d e n t s d i d  G r e a t e r o f f - f a r m employment  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h use o f more h i r e d l a b o u r and h i g h e r  farm and f a m i l y farm incomes.  More t h a n t w o - t h i r d s  r e s p o n d e n t s d i d not r e c e i v e any non-farm income. f a m i l y farm p l u s o f f - f a r m employment income was to  not  $3,499  class.  There was  of  The i n the  nonthe  median  $2,500  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  9 .c. C r o s s f i e l d and E.D. Woodward, D a i r y Farm O r g a n i z a t i o n i n the F r a s e r V a l l e y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1961. Canada Department o f 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. D  129 c h i l d r e n , s i z e o f d a i l y m i l k quota, amount o f m i l k s o l d , number o f young d a i r y s t o c k r a i s e d , amount o f o f f - f a r m work and income from o t h e r farm e n t e r p r i s e s . A  significant  d i f f e r e n c e among the a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s e x i s t e d i n r e g a r d t o 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 t h e l a g g a r d c a t e g o r y had an income o f l e s s t h a n  $2,$00  w h i l e t h e m a j o r i t y i n t h e o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s had  income h i g h e r t h a n  an  $2,500.  Twelve p e r cent o f the r e s p o n d e n t s  had no c o n t a c t o f  any t y p e w i t h t h e d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t but on t h e average each respondent had 2.53  types of contact w i t h the  district  a g r i c u l t u r i s t i n t h e y e a r p r e v i o u s t o the i n t e r v i e w .  The  average number o f t y p e s o f c o n t a c t compares f a v o r a b l y w i t h t h e 2.41  t y p e s o f c o n t a c t w i t h t h e e x t e n s i o n agent r e p o r t e d  by Rogers and C a p e n e r  1 0  i n t h e i r Ohio study but i t s h o u l d be  k e p t i n mind t h a t t h e v a l u e o f each c o n t a c t was not compared. The range i n the number o f t y p e s o f c o n t a c t between t h e l a g g a r d and e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r i e s was 1.33 1.81  r e c o r d e d by Rogers and  compared w i t h  Capener.^  A s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r percentage  of the e a r l i e r  t h e l a t e r a d o p t e r s made v i s i t s t o t h e d i s t r i c t  than  agriculturist's  l^E.M. Rogers and H.R. Capener, The County E x t e n s i o n 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  office.  F o r t h e o t h e r t y p e s o f c o n t a c t , however, t h e r e 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 t h e a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s .  The most f r e q u e n t l y used t y p e o f d a i r y m a n - d i s t r i c t agriculturist  c o n t a c t was m a i l from t h e d i s t r i c t  agri-  c u l t u r i s t , however, o n l y t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e respondents t h i s type o f contact.  had  T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t about o n e - t h i r d  o f t h e dairymen were n o t on t h e m a i l i n g l i s t s o f t h e 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 , c o u l d n o t be c o n t a c t e d d i r e c t l y by them.  T h i s i n a b i l i t y t o c o n t a c t a l a r g e segment  o f t h e d a i r y o p e r a t o r p o p u l a t i o n 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 t h e low f r e q u e n c y o f attendance m e e t i n g s and f i e l d days sponsored by t h e d i s t r i c t  at  agri-  culturists. A h i g h a d o p t i o n s c o r e was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h more 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 but f e w e r farm  visits  by t h e d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t .  A possible explanation i s  t h a t t h e h i g h a d o p t e r s go t o t h e d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t f o r i n f o r m a t i o n w h i l e t h e low a d o p t e r s w a i t f o r t h e 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  s c o r e 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 o f d a i r y i n g ,  social  p a r t i c i p a t i o n , t h e number o f young d a i r y s t o c k 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 t h e o t h e r  hand, t h e r e was a n e g a t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n between a d o p t i o n  score  and t h e number o f c h i l d r e n , t h e number o f y e a r s on t h e p r e s e n t farm and income from o t h e r farm e n t e r p r i s e s .  131 The m a j o r i t y o f t h e respondents community was  f e l t that their  f a v o r a b l y d i s p o s e d t o the a d o p t i o n o f  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 t h e a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s . More o f t h e e a r l i e r t h a n t h e l a t e r a d o p t e r s f e l t t h a t t h e i r community was t o adopt new  willing  p r a c t i c e s and more t h a n t w i c e t h e percentage  of  t h e e a r l i e r t h a n t h e l a t e r a d o p t e r s f e l t t h a t t h e i r community regarded laggards unfavorably.  A h i g h e r percentage  of the  e a r l y m a j o r i t y t h a n the e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r c a t e g o r y t h a t t h e i r community was w i l l i n g t o adopt new regarded laggards unfavorably. e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r s , who may  be l e s s concerned  t h e i r own  T h i s may  felt  p r a c t i c e s and  i n d i c a t e t h a t the  have a c o s m o p o l i t e  orientation,  w i t h o r more t o l e r a n t o f members o f  communities t h a n the e a r l y m a j o r i t y .  II.  SOURCES OF INFORMATION  An a n a l y s i s o f the i n f o r m a t i o n sources used by the respondents  i n t h e a d o p t i o n o f i n n o v a t i o n s was  u s i n g two c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems.  conducted  The f i r s t o f t h e s e grouped  t h e s o u r c e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e n a t u r e o f the a c t i v i t y w i t h w h i c h each c o u l d be i d e n t i f i e d and i n c l u d e d t h e 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 idual instructional  sources.  The  second grouped the  indivsources  a c c o r d i n g t o 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 p e r s o n a l . W i t h t h e i n c r e a s i n g development o f a d u l t e d u c a t i o n 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, t h e s e 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 i m p o r t a n t , however, a t t h e p r e s e n t t i m e i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o compare t h i s w i t h o t h e r s t u d i e s w h i c h 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 t h e n a t u r e o f t h e a c t i v i t y , mass s o u r c e s were most i m p o r t a n t a t t h e awareness s t a g e , individual instructional  s o u r c e s were s l i g h t l y more  important than p e r s o n a l sources a t t h e i n t e r e s t  s t a g e , and  f o r the remaining stages i n the adoption process, personal s o u r c e s were most i m p o r t a n t .  Lionberger-*- c o n s i d e r e d mass 2  s o u r c e s t o be most i m p o r t a n t a t t h e i n t e r e s t  stage b u t i n  t h i s s t u d y mass s o u r c e s amounted t o a v e r y s m a l l percentage o f t h e s o u r c e s used a t t h i s s t a g e .  V e r n e r and M i l l e r d ^  a l s o found mass s o u r c e s t o have a l o w e r f r e q u e n c y o f 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 s o u r c e s were most i m p o r t a n t a t t h e awareness s t a g e .  From t h e i n t e r e s t t o  t h e a d o p t i o n stage t h e g r e a t e s t use was made o f p e r s o n a l s o u r c e s w i t h v e r y l i t t l e use made o f farm o r g a n i z a t i o n sources.  Government s o u r c e s r e c e i v e d t h e i r h i g h e s t use a t  the i n t e r e s t  stage and d e c l i n e d i n use t o t h e a d o p t i o n s t a g e .  1 H.F. L i o n b e r g e r , op. c i t . , pp. 26 and 32. 2  13c. V e r n e r and F.W. M i l l e r d , op. c i t . . pp. 3#-41.  133 Almost h a l f o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n source use between s t a g e s were found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t , however, t h e r e 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 o f f a r m o r g a n i z a t i o n s o u r c e s between s t a g e s and b u t 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 t h e use o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l group sources between s t a g e s . The r e l a t i v e importance o f i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s under each c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system was t h e same f o r each a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y . "When c l a s s i f i e d by t h e n a t u r e o f t h e a c t i v i t y , t h e most t o l e a s t used s o u r c e s 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 ,  t h e most t o l e a s t used s o u r c e s 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 . Though t h e r e l a t i v e importance o f i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s was t h e same f o r each a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y , t h e r e were d i f f e r e n c e among t h e a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s but o n l y one o f t h e s e 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 l a g g a r d c a t e g o r y used  s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer government s o u r c e s t h a n t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r innovator category. Few o f t h e v a r i a t i o n s i n i n f o r m a t i o n source use between a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l s t a g e s i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s were s i g n i f i c a n t .  Some o f t h e most  i m p o r t a n t s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n s a r e : t h e l a g g a r d s 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 s o u r c e s a t t h e i n t e r e s t  stage  t h a n t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r ; t h e e a r l y m a j o r i t y used more mass s o u r c e s a t t h e e v a l u a t i o n s t a g e t h a n t h e l a g g a r d s ; t h e e a r l y m a j o r i t y and t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r s made more  134 use o f government s o u r c e s a t t h e awareness and i n t e r e s t  stages  t h a n t h e l a g g a r d s and g r e a t e r use was made o f commercial s o u r c e s a t t h e e v a l u a t i o n stage by t h e e a r l y m a j o r i t y t h a n by t h e e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r s . The f i v e most used i n d i v i d u a l s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n , i n o r d e r o f i m p o r t a n c e , were: n e i g h b o r s and f r i e n d s , o b s e r v a t i o n o f o t h e r f a r m s , salesmen and d e a l e r s , own e x p e r i e n c e and g e n e r a l 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 t h e t o p f i v e most used s o u r c e s f o r t h e dairymen i n t h i s s t u d y when t h e a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s were c o n s i d e r e d together.  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 ,  t h e d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t was t h e f o u r t h most used  source  f o r t h e e a r l y m a j o r i t y and t h e f i f t h most used source f o r t h e early adopter-innovators.  T h i s d i f f e r s markedly from V e r n e r  and M i l l e r d ' s ^ * f i n d i n g t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t h o r t i c u l t u r i s t was t h e most used source by t h e o r c h a r d i s t s . The most i m p o r t a n t i n d i v i d u a l s o u r c e s a t each  stage  were a s f o l l o w s : g e n e r a l f a r m magazines a t t h e awareness s t a g e ; n e i g h b o r s and f r i e n d s from t h e i n t e r e s t t o t h e t r i a l s t a g e s ; and t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s own e x p e r i e n c e a t t h e a d o p t i o n stage. The i n n o v a t i o n s were d i v i d e d i n t o a most f a 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 t h e b a s i s o f t h e amount o f change r e q u i r e d as a r e s u l t o f a d o p t i n g t h e i n n o v a t i o n s . Such  C. V e r n e r 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 o f t r i a l and ease w i t h which t h e r e s u l t s c o u l d be observed and s i m i l a r f a c t o r s . For t h e most f a v o r a b l e group o f 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 , and i n s t r u c t i o n a l group sources i n t h a t o r d e r .  personal,  For the  least  f a v o r a b l e group o f i n n o v a t i o n s , p e r s o n a l 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  finally  i n s t r u c t i o n a l group s o u r c e s .  class-  When t h e sources were  i f i e d by o r i g i n , the r e l a t i v e importance o f t h e s o u r c e s the same f o r b o t h groups o f i n n o v a t i o n s .  Commercial  were most used f o l l o w e d by p e r s o n a l , government, and  was  sources then  farm o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Almost t w i c e as many i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s were u s e d by t h e r e s p o n d e n t s f o r t h e group two as f o r t h e group innovations.  T h i s was  one  l i k e l y due t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t s  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 w h i c h were d i f f i c u l t t o try,  expensive  and i n v o l v e d changes t o new  techniques  or  o p e r a t i o n s w h i c h would be r e l a t i v e l y permanent.  III.  THE ADOPTION AND  NON-ADOPTION OF THE  There were more dairymen who  INNOVATIONS  were not aware o f t h e  t e n i n n o v a t i o n s t h a n t h e r e were a d o p t e r s  o f them.  This  unawareness o f i n d i v i d u a l i n n o v a t i o n s ranged from zero t o 75 p e r cent w h i l e a d o p t i o n ranged f r o m zero t o 46 p e r These d i f f e r e n c e s between unawareness and a d o p t i o n  of  cent.  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 t i m e o f i n t r o d u c t i o n and t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e innovations.  Systemic w a r b l e f l y c o n t r o l w h i c h was t h e 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 t h e h i g h e s t r a t e o f unawareness and adoptions.  no  Change agents have a t t a c h e d c o n s i d e r a b l e  import-  ance t o t h e t h r e e 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 and each o f t h e s e was  i n t r o d u c e d more t h a n f i v e y e a r s ago, however, t h e  h i g h r a t e o f unawareness found f o r t h e s e i n n o v a t i o n s would seem t o i n d i c a t e inadequate  programs t o promote t h e i r  adoption. Unawareness o f an i n n o v a t i o n was found s i x t i m e s more o f t e n among t h e i n n o v a t i o n s i n group one t h a n among the group two i n n o v a t i o n s and t h e a d o p t i o n o f group i n n o v a t i o n s was two.  one  o n l y about h a l f t h a t o f t h o s e from group  S i n c e b o t h t h e number o f s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n used  and t h e a d o p t i o n r a t e were about t w i c e as h i g h f o r t h e group two  as f o r t h e 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 h i g h 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 a d o p t i o n o f t h e i d e a , i s s u p p o r t e d . S i n c e t h e 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 h i g h e r p e r c e n t a g e o f the r e s p o n d e n t s were a t the t r i a l stage f o r t h e s e  15 E.M.  Rogers, op. c i t . ,  p.  104.  innovations  137 t h a n f o r t h e group two i n n o v a t i o n s . L e s s time was  spent i n  t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s f o r t h e group one t h a n t h e group  two  i n n o v a t i o n s and t h e l a t e r a d o p t e r s spent l e s s time i n t h e adoption process than the e a r l i e r adopters. assumed t h a t l e s s t i m e was  I t c o u l d be  spent a t t h e i n t e r e s t  and  trial  s t a g e s because r e l a t i v e l y few r e s p o n d e n t s were a t t h e s e s t a g e s compared w i t h t h e o t h e r s t a g e s i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s . The r e a s o n s g i v e n by dairymen f o r spending more t h a n two y e a r s i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s were c l a s s i f i e d by t h e characteristics compatibility,  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 l e x i t y , d i v i s i b i l i t y and c o m m u n i c a b i l i t y )  and by s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s ( i . e . not a p p r o p r i a t e , s c a l e o f o p e r a t i o n t o o 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 Situational  others).  f a c t o r s c o n s t i t u t e d more t h a n t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e  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  f o r d e l a y were: o t h e r s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s ,  reasons  insufficient  c a p i t a l , c o m m u n i c a b i l i t y , s c a l e o f o p e r a t i o n t o o s m a l l 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 r e a s o n s f o r d e l a y by t h e l a t e r a d o p t e r s t h a n by t h e e a r l i e r a d o p t e r s . An a n a l y s i s o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n response s t a t e showed t h a t on t h e average each respondent was not aware o f o f t h e 10 i n n o v a t i o n s ; was p r o c e s s f o r 1.57;  c o n t i n u i n g i n the adoption  r e j e c t e d 4«38; adopted 1.66;  c o n t i n u e d use o f 0.20  2.19  and  dis-  i n n o v a t i o n s . Continuing i n the  138 a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s , r e j e c t i o n , and a d o p t i o n were l o w e r ,  while  unawareness and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e were h i g h e r f o r the group t h a n t h e group two i n n o v a t i o n s .  As e x p e c t e d ,  the  one  individual  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 r e s p e c t t o t h e number o f r e s p o n d e n t s a t 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 r e s p o n d e n t s c o n t i n u i n g i n t h e  a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s f o r t h e group one  i n n o v a t i o n s was  awareness stage and f o r t h e group two e v a l u a t i o n stage.  innovations at the  T h i s seems t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e  i s t i c s o f t h e group one  character-  i n n o v a t i o n s were l e s s a b l e t o  s t i m u l a t e t h e r e s p o n d e n t s t o c o n t i n u e i n the p r o c e s s t h a n t h o s e of group One  at the  adoption  two.  o f the most i m p o r t a n t  r e s u l t s of t h i s  r e l a t e d t o t h e r e j e c t i o n o f an i n n o v a t i o n .  study  Almost h a l f of  t h e r e j e c t i o n s o c c u r r e d a t t h e awareness s t a g e .  Thus,  almost h a l f o f t h e 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 a t t h e t i m e t h e i n d i v i d u a l o b t a i n e d h i s f i r s t knowledge o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n . of i n f o r m a t i o n designed  T h i s suggests t h a t the  sources  t o c r e a t e 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 m o t i v a t e continue i n the adoption process.  dairymen t o  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 d e s i g n e d a more r a t i o n a l approach t o the a d o p t i o n  t o ensure  process.  W i t h b o t h groups o f i n n o v a t i o n s t h e h i g h e s t r a t e o f r e j e c t i o n o c c u r r e d a t the awareness stage and t h e at the i n t e r e s t stage.  The group two  lowest  i n n o v a t i o n s had  a  139  h i g h e r r e j e c t i o n r a t e a t t h e 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 a t the t r i a l one i n n o v a t i o n s .  stage t h a n d i d t h e group  T h i s c o u l d be a n t i c i p a t e d  s i n c e t h e group  two i n 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 t h a n were t h e group one i n n o v a t i o n s . There were d e f i n i t e t r e n d s among t h e a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s i n r e g a r d t o i n n o v a t i o n response  state.  Unawareness  and r e j e c t i o n d e c r e a s e d w h i l e c o n t i n u a t i o n i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s , a d o p t i o n , and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e i n c r e a s e d from t h e laggard t o the early adopter-innovator category. On t h e average a d e c i s i o n t o r e j e c t was made i n a s h o r t e r t i m e t h a n a d e c i s i o n t o adopt an i n n o v a t i o n . About t w o - t h i r d s o f 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 t h a n one y e a r and about t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e a d o p t i o n s o c c u r r e d a f t e r t h e y had spent one o r more y e a r s i n the adoption process.  D i s c o n t i n u a n c e was f o u r t i m e s  h i g h e r when l e s s t h a n one y e a r was spent t h a n when one o r more y e a r s was spent i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s . About t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e r e a s o n s f o r r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e were due t o t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e i n n 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 w h i l e t h e reasons f o r delay i n proceeding through t h e adoption process were j u s t t h e o p p o s i t e .  I t i s interesting that while  i n s u f f i c i e n t c a p i t a l and c o m m u n i c a b i l i t y were n o t g i v e n a s r e a s o n s f o r r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e , t h e y were v e r y important reasons f o r d e l a y .  140 The two groups o f i n n o v a t i o n s d i f f e r e d s h a r p l y i n r e g a r d t o r e a s o n s f o r r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e .  The  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n accounted f o r almost a l l the r e a s o n s f o r r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e o f the group one i n n o v a t i o n s , but made up l e s s t h a n h a l f t h e r e a s o n s f o r the group two i n n o v a t i o n s . for  R e l a t i v e advantage accounted  almost a l l t h e r e a s o n s f o r r e j e c t i o n and  among t h e group one i n n o v a t i o n s .  The  discontinuance  e x t r a amount o f l a b o u r  (an a s p e c t o f r e l a t i v e advantage) r e q u i r e d f o r t h e t h r e e 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 o f t h e main  r e a s o n s f o r t h e i r h i g h r a t e o f r e j e c t i o n and T h i s was  c i t e d by F l i e g e l and Kivlin-*-6 h o w  discontinuance.  stated that  s a v i n g time was more c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o the r a t e o f t h a n any o t h e r f a c t o r i n v o l v i n g economic advantage. though change a g e n t s may  adoption Even  agree t h a t t h e a d o p t i o n o f the  t h r e e 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 t h e l o n g f u n t h a n t h e immediate s a v i n g o f t i m e , many f a r m e r s w i l l t r y t o s o l v e t h e i r l a b o u r problems b e f o r e w i l l adopt t h e s e i n n o v a t i o n s . dairymen who  had  they  On t h e o t h e r hand, many  s u f f i c i e n t l a b o u r p r o b a b l y gave r e l a t i v e  advantage as t h e r e a s o n f o r r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e the t h r e e i n n o v a t i o n s when t h e a c t u a l reason was ability.  communic-  T h i s i s so because t h e s e i n n o v a t i o n s have t h e  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 R e l a t e d t o Rates o f A d o p t i o n , 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 P a r k , P e n n s y l v a n i a , ( B u l l e t i n 691), 1962, p. 13. 1 D  of  141 following  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 :  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 t h e manner b e f o r e t h e r e s u l t s o f use can be observed  they  proper and  a f t e r l o n g use t h e r e s u l t s are not always r e a d i l y  even  observable.  A f t e r r e l a t i v e advantage, t h e most i m p o r t a n t r e a s o n s f o r r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e o f t h e group two  innovations  were: s c a l e o f o p e r a t i o n too s m a l l and s i t u a t i o n not appropriate. From t h e l a g g a r d t o the e a r l y  adopter-innovator  c a t e g o r y , r e a s o n s f o r r e j e c t i o n and d i s c o n t i n u a n c e due  to  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the i n n o v a t i o n i n c r e a s e d w h i l e r e a s o n s due t o s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s  decreased.  More t h a n t e n t i m e s t h e number o f 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 o f t h e 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 .  T h i s seems t o i n d i c a t e  that  the r e s p o n d e n t s were a b l e t o e v a l u a t e 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 t h a n t h e y were t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n which caused r e j e c t i o n .  Thus, t h e y d i d not t r y  many i n n o v a t i o n s which e v e n t u a l l y would have t o be because o f s i t u a t i o n a l  IV.  rejected  factors.  ADOPTION TENDENCY  A d o p t i o n tendency - the p r o p e n s i t y o f a respondent t o become aware o f an i n n o v a t i o n and t h e n p r o c e e d the a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s b e f o r e making a d e c i s i o n  - was  through analysed  142 t o 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 r e s p o n d e n t s . A d o p t i o n tendency s c o r e s d i f f e r e d from a d o p t i o n s c o r e s i n t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t s were p e n a l i z e d f o r n o t f i n d i n g out about t h e 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 t o o e a r l y i n the  a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s , however, a bonus was g i v e n f o r  completing e i t h e r the evaluation o r t r i a l stages.  On  r e c l a s s i f y i n g t h e r e s p o n d e n t s from t h e o r i g i n a l a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s i n t o t h e a d o p t e r 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  categories.  The r e s u l t i n g  distribution  of r e s p o n d e n t s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e a d o p t i o n tendency s c o r e conformed more c l o s e l y t o t h e normal curve t h a n d i d t h e o r i g i n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n by a d o p t i o n s c o r e . Bivariate  t a b l e s o f socio-economic  characteristics  a g a i n s t f o u r a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s produced seven  significant  c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e s compared w i t h e l e v e n f o r t h e f o u r a d o p t e r tendency c a t e g o r i e s .  The number o f s i g n i f i c a n t c h i - s q u a r e  v a l u e s f o r t h e two a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s a g a i n s t t h e 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 t h e two a d o p t e r tendency c a t e g o r i e s .  Some o f t h e socio-economic  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s had c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e s w h i c h were s i g n i f i c a n t f o r b o t h 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 t h e o t h e r . S i n c e more b i v a r i a t e  t a b l e s o f socio-economic f a c t o r s  a g a i n s t t h e a d o p t e r tendency c a t e g o r i e s have s i g n i f i c a n t c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e s t h a n t h e socio-economic  characteristics  143 a g a i n s t t h e a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s , and s i n c e 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 o f a l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which c o u l d be q u a n t i f i e d r e v e a l e d t h a t o n l y f i v e 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 t h e a d o p t i o n tendency compared t o n i n e w i t h t h e a d o p t i o n  score  s c o r e , i t cannot be  s t a t e d p o s i t i v e l y whether o r n o t t h e a d o p t i o n  tendency  score i s a more u s e f u l way o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g among t h e 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 o f t h e A d o p t i o n o f I n n o v a t i o n s by Okanagan O r c h a r d i s t s . M.S.A. T h e s i s . The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. 1965. W a l k e r , Hugh V.H. An Economic A n a l y s i s o f Techn o l o g i c a l P r o g r e s s on D a i r y Farms i n t h e Lower F r a s e r V a l l e y * B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . M.S.A. T h e s i s . The U n i v e r s i t y o f 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 o f A g r i c u l t u r e , M a r k e t i n g 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 o f A g r i c u l t u r e . I n v e n t o r y o f 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 C o n f e r e n c e ) . undated mimeo. B r i t i s h Columbia, Department o f Lands and F o r e s t s . The Lower Coast B u l l e t i n A r e a - B u l l e t i n A r e a 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 o f S t a t i s t i c s . Census o f Canada 1961: - P o p u l a t i o n . Queen's P r i n t e r , Ottawa, 1962. ( C a t a l o g u e 92 - 543). Canada, Dominion Bureau o f 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. ( C a t a l o g u e No. 21 - 002) U n i t e d S t a t e s o f A m e r i c a , Department o f 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 o f 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 o f A d o p t i o n " . E x t e n s i o n Research and Training. R e s e a r c h Summary No. 80. F e d e r a l E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e , Washington, D.C., F e b r u a r y 1963.  145 C.  G e n e r a l Works C l y n e , J.V. Report o f t h e B r i t i s h Columbia R o y a l 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. D a i r y Farm Organization i n the Fraser V a l l e y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1961. Canada Department o f 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. L i o n b e r g e r , H e r b e r t F. A d o p t i o n o f New I d e a s and P r a c t i c e s . The Iowa S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , Ames, Iowa. I960. M e n z i e , E.L., K l a s s e n , 0. and Van A n d e l , F. D a i r y Farm Management Manual. Department o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, The U n i v e r s i t y o f 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 o f I n n o v a t i o n s . F r e e P r e s s o f G l e n c o e , New Y o r k . 1962.  The  S e l l i t z , C ; Jahodo, M.; D e u t s c h , 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 , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , New Y o r k . 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 P r e s s , London. 1950. [University C o l l e g e , U n i v e r s i t y o f London T r a c t s f o r Computers No. X V ) .  D.  S p e c i f i c Works A b e l l , H e l e n C ; L a r s o n , O l a f F. and D i c k e r s o n , E l i z a b e t h R. Communication o f A g r i c u l t u r a l I n f o r m a t i o n i n a S o u t h - C e n t r a l New York County New York S t a t e C o l l e g e o f 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 Y o r k , January 1957. (Department o f R u r a l S o c i o l o g y Mimeographed B u l l e t i n No. 49)  146 A b e l l , Helen C. D e c i s i o n - M a k i n g on t h e Farm* Economics D i v i s i o n , Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e , Ottawa, 1961. A l e x a n d e r , Frank D.; E s c h l e r , R i c h a r d 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 o f Knowledge o f D a i r y C a t t l e Feeding Through a TV S c h o o l . " R u r a l S o c i o l o g y . 28: 4OO-4O4, 1963. B e a l , George M.; Rogers, E v e r e t t M. and B o h l e n , Joe M. " V a l i d i t y o f t h e Concept o f Stages i n t h e Adoption Process." R u r a l S o c i o l o g y . 22: 166-168,  1957.  B e a l , George M. and Rogers, E v e r e t t M. The A d o p t i o n o f Two Farm P r a c t i c e s i n a C e n t r a l Iowa Community . Department o f Economics and S o c i o l o g y , Iowa S t a t e 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. P e r s o n a l and S o c i a l F a c t o r s A s s o c i a t e d W i t h t h e A d o p t i o n o f Recommended Farm P r a c t i c e s Among C a t t l e m e n . A g r i c u l t u r e Experiment S t a t i o n , Kansas S t a t e C o l l e g e o f A g r i c u l t u r e and A p p l i e d S c i e n c e , Manhattan, 1956. ( T e c h n i c a l B u l l e t i n 83) D i l l o n , John L. and Heady, E a r l 0 . T h e o r i e s o f Choice i n R e l a t i o n t o 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 S t a t e 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 a s R e l a t e d t o Rates o f A d o p t i o n . Agricultural Experiment S t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y P a r k , . P e n n s y l v a n i a , 1962. ( B u l l e t i n 691) G i l l i s , W i l l i e Mae. The A d o p t i o n o f 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 S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1958. ( P r e l i m i n a r y R e p o r t s i n S o c i o l o g y and R u r a l L i f e Number 5) Havens, A.E. A Review o f F a c t o r s R e l a t e d t o I n n o v a t i v e n e s s . Department o f 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 o f P r e d i c t i n g Innovativeness." Rural Sociology. 30: 150-165, 1965. Hess, C.V. and M i l l e r , L.F. Some P e r 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 S u c c e s s . College of A g r i c u l t u r e , The P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e 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 , P e n n s y l v a n i a , 1954* ( B u l l e t i n 577) H o f f e r , C h a r l e s R. Acceptance o f Approved Farming P r a c t i c e s Among Farmers o f Dutch D e s c e n t . M i c h i g a n S t a t e 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 , E a s t L a n s i n g , 1942. (Special Bulletin 316) H o f f e r , C h a r l e s R. and S t r a n g l a n d , D a l e . "Farmers' A t t i t u d e s and V a l u e s i n R e l a t i o n t o A d o p t i o n o f Approved P r a c t i c e s i n Corn Growing." R u r a l S o c i o l o g y . 23:112-120, 1958. March, C. P a u l and Coleman, A. L e e . Communication and t h e A d o p t i o n o f 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 o f Kentucky, L e x i n g t o n , 1954* ( P r o g r e s s Report 22) Mason, Robert G. "The Use o f I n f o r m a t i o n 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 S o u r c e s o f I n f o r m a t i o n and F a c t o r s Which I n f l u e n c e Farmers i n A d o p t i n g Recommended P r a c t i c e s i n Two New Z e a l a n d C o u n t i e s . L i n c o l n C o l l e g e , U n i v e r s i t y o f New Z e a l a n d , 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 A d o p t i o n i n M i c h i g a n . A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n , Department o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , E a s t L a n s i n g , 1958. (Technical B u l l e t i n 263) N o r t h C e n t r a l R u r a l S o c i o l o g y Subcommittee. The D i f f u s i o n Process. Cooperative Extension S e r v i c e , Iowa S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Ames, Iowa, ( S p e c i a l Report No. 18)  1962.  1 4 8  N o r t h C e n t r a l R u r a l S o c i o l o g y Subcommittee. How Farm P e o p l e A c c e p t New I d e a s . Co-operative E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e , Iowa S t a t e 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 , C o n t a c t s and T e c h n o l o g i c a l Change." R u r a l S o c i o l o g y . 2 7 :  3 1 6 - 3 2 6 ,  1 9 6 2 .  Rogers, E v e r e t t M. and Capenef, H a r o l d R. The County E x t e n s i o n 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, I 9 6 0 . (Research B u l l e t i n 8 5 8 ) Sheppard, D. "Farmers* Reasons f o r Not A d o p t i n g C o n t r o v e r s i a l Techniques i n G r a s s l a n d Farming." Journal of the B r i t i s h Grassland Society. 16: 6 - 1 3 , 1961. S i l v e r m a n , 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 t h e A d o p t i o n 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 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 . (Bulletin 6 1 7 ) Subcommittee on t h e D i f f u s i o n and A d o p t i o n o f 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 R e s e a r c h on t h e D i f f u s i o n and A d o p t i o n o f 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 , L e x i n g t o n , 1 9 5 2 . V e r n e r , C. and M i l l e r d , F.W. A d u l t E d u c a t i o n and t h e A d o p t i o n o f I n n o v a t i o n s by O r c h a r d i s t s i n t h e Okanagan V a l l e y o f B r i t i s h Columbia . Department o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, The U n i v e r s i t y o f 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 ) W i l k e n i n g , Eugene A. A d o p t i o n o f Improved Farm P r a c t i c e s - As R e l a t e d t o F a m i l y F a c t o r s . U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s i n , Madison, W i s c o n s i n , 1953. (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 P r e s s e r , H a r t l y . "Communication and A c c e p t a n c e o f Recommended Farm P r a c t i c e s Among D a i r y Fanners o f N o r t h e r n V i c t o r i a . " Rural Sociology. 2 7 : I I 6 - 1 9 7 , 1 9 6 2 .  149 W i l s o n , M e r e d i t h C. and G a l l u p , G l a d y s . Extension T e a c h i n g Methods and O t h e r F a c t o r s That I n f l u e n c e A d o p t i o n o f 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 o f A g r i c u l t u r e , F e d e r a l E x t e n s i o n 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:  Respondent's Code Number  Telephone Number: Record of V i s i t s : Date  1st 2nd 3rd  Notes:  Time  Comments  1 INTRODUCTION H e l l o , I'm from t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. I am c o n d u c t i n g a survey o f t h e d a i r y f a r m e r s i n t h e Lower F r a s e r V a l l e y , and I would l i k e t o ask some q u e s t i o n s about y o u r s e l f and about y o u r f a r m . A l l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t y o u g i v e 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 o n l y . A. TO BEGIN, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT YOURSELF. 1. What i s y o u r age? Column Code Frequency 1. under 20 1. 1 0  2. 20-24  3. 4. 5. 6.  2  25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64  7. 65 o r over 2. What i s y o u r m a r i t a l s t a t u s 1. s i n g l e 2. m a r r i e d 3. widowed 4. s e p a r a t e d 5. d i v o r c e d 3• How many c h i l d r e n do y o u have? 1. none  2. 1-2 3- 3-4  3 4 5 6 7  2.  3*  4* 5 o r more 4. What was t h e h i g h e s t y e a r you completed i n s c h o o l ? 1. l e s s t h a n 5  6. Have you t a k e n any a g r i c u l t u r e courses a t a v o c a t i o n a l school? 1. y e s 2. no  1  2 3 4  4  2. 5 - 8 3. 9 - 11  4. h i g h s c h o o l d i p l o m a (grade 12) 5. s e n i o r m a t r i c u l a t i o n 6. u n i v e r s i t y degree 7» u n i v e r s i t y graduate work 5. Have y o u t a k e n any a g r i c u l t u r e courses i n high school? ' 1. y e s 2. no  1 2 3 4 5  1  13 23 33 26  l± 100 10 88 2 0 0  100 4  30 28 28  90  1  2 3 4 5 6 7  5  6  1 2 1 2  10 100 12 88 100  2 7* Have you t a k e n any a g r i c u l t u r e Column courses a t u n i v e r s i t y ? 1. y e s 7 2. no 8. Have you t a k e n any a d u l t e d u c a t i o n courses i n a g r i c u l t u r e ? 8 1. y e s 2. no 9. Have you t a k e n any a d u l t e d u c a t i o n courses i n other subjects? 1. y e s 2. no 10. Do you e n j o y your work as a dairyman? 10 1. Y e s , v e r y much 2. O c c a s i o n a l l y 3. n o t a t a l l 11.  How many y e a r s have you been w o r k i n g i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l industry? 1. fewer t h a n 5 ;  2.  5 - 9  11  3. 1 0 - 1 9  4. 20 o r more How many y e a r s have you been a dairyman? 1. fewer t h a n 5  12.  2.  5 - 9  12  3. 1 0 - 1 9  4« 20 o r more  13.  How many y e a r s have you been on y o u r p r e s e n t farm? 1. l e s s t h a n 1  2. 2 - 4 .3. 5 - 9 4. 10 - 19  5. 20 o r more 14. Were you b o r n i n Canada? I f no, when d i d you immigrate t o Canada? 1. born i n Canada 2. immigrated b e f o r e 1945  3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.  1946-1950 1951-1955 1956-1957 1958-1959 1960-1961 1962-1963 1964-1965  Code  1  2  Frequency  0  100  1 2 1 2 1 2 3  1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4  13  1 2 3 4 5  14  1 2 3 4 5 6  7  8 9  1 3 21  ill 100 5  6  35 54 100  4 14 20 25 37 100 42 22 13 22 0 0 1 0 0 100  3 Column Code  15. Where were y o u born? 1. B r i t i s h I s l e s 2. Germany 3. Denmark, Norway o r Sweden 4. N e t h e r l a n d s 5. France 6. U k r a i n e 7. I t a l y 8. O t h e r 16. S o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n s c o r e . 1. no score  2. 1 - 4 3 . 5 - 8 4. 9 - 1 6 5. 17-24 6. 25 - 50  15  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  16  1 2 3 4 5 6 7  7* more t h a n 50  Frequency  2 16 4 23 0 0 1 12 "531 15 31 28 12 11 2 100  SOCIAL PARTICIPATION SCORE ORGANIZ-  1  MEMBERSHIP  2 ATTENDANCE  CONTRIBUTION,  COMMITTEE OFFICES MEMBERSHIP HELD  1964  1963  1962  I_  TOT AL S GRAND TOTAL =  ___ 7  3 ->  ' [ PARTICIPATION  SCORE  4 B. NEXT, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK ABOUT YOUR FARM. 17. What i s t h e t o t a l s i z e o f Column y o u r farm i n a c r e s ? 1. under 10 17  2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  10 - 39 40 - 69 70 - 99 100 - 129 130- 179 180 - 239 240 - 399  2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  10-39 40 - 69 70-99 100 - 129 130 - 179 180 - 239 240 - 399  9. 400 and o v e r 18. How many improved a c r e s a r e devoted t o d a i r y i n g ? 1. under 10  3. 10 - 39 4. 40 - 69 5. 70 - 99 6. 100 - 129 7. 130 - 179 8. 180 - 239  0 27  2 3 4 5 6 7 8  33 lg 8  6  5 1  9  18  19  9. 240 and o v e r 20. Do y o u own t h i s farm, own p a r t and rent part, o r rent i t e n t i r e l y ? 1. own 20 2. own more t h a n h a l f and r e n t t h e remainder 3 . r e n t more t h a n h a l f and own t h e remainder 4. r e n t i t e n t i r e l y 5. manager 21. What s i z e o f d a i l y m i l k quota d i d you have l a s t y e a r ( A p r i l 1, 1964 t o March 31)? 1. under 100 l b . 21  100 - 199 200 - 299 3°0 - 399 400 - 599 600 - 799 800 - 1,099 1,100 - 1,999 more t h a n 2000  1  2 100  1  1  2 3 4 5  38 34 13 5  7 8  0 2  6  9. 400 and o v e r 19.. How many improved a c r e s a r e devoted to non-dairying enterprises? 1. n i l 2. under 10  2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.  Code Frequency  lb.  6  9  1 100  1 2  82 10  9  0 100  1  68  3  8  4 5  10 1 100  3 4 5 6 7 8  5 3 0 0 0 0  2  13  1  2 3 4 5 7 8 9  0  6  24 17 19 13 9 11 4  1  100  5 22. What was t h e average s i z e o f y o u r m i l k i n g h e r d (dry cows and m i l k i n g cows) d u r i n g 1964? Column Code Frequency 1. fewer t h a n 10 22 1 2  2. 3. 456. 7. 8.  10-19 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 79 80 - 100  9. more t h a n 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 t h a n 30,000 l b . 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 t h a n 1,000,000 l b . 24. What was t h e average m i l k p r o d u c t i o n p e r cow f o r y o u r h e r d i n 1964? 1. below 7,000 l b . *  2. 7000 - 7999 3. 8,000 - 9,499  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  23  24  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 t h a n 17,000 l b . 25. What breed o f 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 2. p r e d o m i n a n t l y H o l s t e i n 3. A y r s h i r e 4. p r e d o m i n a n t l y A y r s h i r e 5. Guernsey 6. p r e d o m i n a n t l y Guernsey 7. J e r s e y 8. p r e d o m i n a n t l y J e r s e y 9. o t h e r 26. What t y p e o f b r e e d i n g do y o u use f o r your d a i r y herd? 1. a r t i f i c i a l i n s e m i n a t i o n 2. a r t i f i c i a l i n s e m i n a t i o n and b u l l 3. b u l l  25  26  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3  31 36 15 8 2 2 2 2 100 0 9 34 19 17 12 3 3  2.  100 6 7 19 31 27  9 1 0 0 100 33 46 0 3 4 7 6 1 100 87 11 2 100  27.  How many young s t o c k ( d a i r y breeds o n l y ) d i d y o u r a i s e d u r i n g I964? _ 1» none 2. fewer t h a n 10  3. 4. 5. 6. 7.  10 20 30 40 50  -  19 29 39 49 59 79  Column 27  a . 60 9. 80 o r more 23. D i d you work o f f y o u r f a r m l a s t y e a r ? I f y e s , how d i d t h e amount o f t i m e spent w o r k i n g o f f y o u r farm compare w i t h t h e amount o f t i m e spent w o r k i n g on y o u r farm? 1. no o f f farm work 2. l e s s t h a n i o f f f a r m , more t h a n | on farm 3. I t o s l i g h t l y l e s s t h a n | o f f farm; I t o s l i g h t l y more t h a n i on farm 4. i t o s l i g h t l y l e s s t h a n % o f f f a r m : i t o s l i g h t l y more t h a n £ on farm 5. 5 t o almost f u l l t i m e o f f f a r m : I o r l e s s time spent on farm 29* I f you worked o f f y o u r farm l a s t y e a r , what was your o c c u p a t i o n ? 1. farm l a b o r e r o r farm custom worker 29 ( a g r i c u l t u r a l occupation) 2. m a n a g e r i a l 3. p r e f e s s i o n a l o r t e c h n i c a l 4. c l e r i c a l o r 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 o r communication 6. l o g g e r , f i s h e r m a n , miner o r r e l a t e d occupation 7. c r a f t s m a n , p r o d u c t i o n , p r o c e s s o r related occupation 30. How much l a b o u r was h i r e d ( e x c l u d i n g o p e r a t o r o r manager) f o r t h e d a i r y e n t e r p r i s e d u r i n g 1964? 1. n i l 30 2. 1 - 4 weeks  3. 4. 5. 6. 7.  5-13 14 - 26 27 - 52 53 - 78 79 - 104 105 - 156  a. 9. more t h a n 156 weeks  Code Frequency  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9  100  1 2  78 14  3  2  4  1  5  2 3 4 5 6 7  100 10 2 0 0 3 0  —2  22  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9  43 26  7 2 7 9 1 3 2  100  7 31.  How much u n p a i d ( f a m i l y ) l a b o r was used f o r t h e d a i r y e n t e r p r i s e d u r i n g 1. n i l 2. 1-4 weeks  3. . 5-13 4. 14-26  5. 27-52 6. 53-73 7. 79-104  8. 105-156  Column Code Frequency  1964? _ 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  9. more t h a n 156 weeks 32. D i d you r e c e i v e income from o t h e r farm e n t e r p r i s e s besides your d a i r y enterprise l a s t y e a r ? I f so, how d i d t h e income from t h e o t h e r e n t e r p r i s e s r e l a t e t o y o u r d a i r y income? 1. no income from o t h e r farm e n t e r p r i s e s 32 2. h a l f a s much o r l e s s 3- l e s s t h a n , but g r e a t e r t h a n h a l f a s much 4« e q u a l t o 5» g r e a t e r , b u t l e s s t h a n t w i c e as much 6. t w i c e as much o r g r e a t e r 33« D i d you r e c e i v e income from s o u r c e s o t h e r t h a n y o u r f a r m e n t e r p r i s e ( s ) l a s t year? I f s o , how i s t h i s income r e l a t e d t o y o u r income from t h e farm e n t e r p r i s e ( s ) ? 1. no income from o t h e r s o u r c e s 33 2. h a l f as much o r l e s s 3. l e s s t h a n , but g r e a t e r t h a n h a l f as much 4. e q u a l t o 5. g r e a t e r , b u t l e s s t h a n t w i c e as much 6 . t w i c e as much o r g r e a t e r 34« I n what range would y o u r 1964 t o t a l f a m i l y f a r m income ( g r o s s income minus cash expenses) p l u s income from o f f f a r m employment f a l l ? 1. l e s s t h a n $1,500 34  2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.  1,500 - 2,499 2,500 - 3,499 3,500 - 5,499 5,500 - 7,499 7,500 - 9,499 9,500 - 11,499 11,500 - 13,499 $13,500 o r more  30 5 10 22 29 2 2 0 0 100  1 2 3 4 5 6  82 14 1 :,1 2 0 100  1 2  68 21  3 4 5 6  2 3 1  1  2  3 4 5 6 7 8 9  100  8 Column Code Frequency 35• What would y o u pay t o own and  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  $14,950 14,950 - 24,949 24,950 - 49,949 49,950 - 79,949 79,950 - 99,949 99,950 - - 120,949 120,950 150,949 more t h a n $150,950 l e s s than  35  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  C. NOW I WOULD L I K E TO ASK ABOUT YOUR CONTACT WITH THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURIST 36. Have y o u v i s i t e d y o u r 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 d u r i n g t h e past year? 36 1 1. no 2. once 2 3.2-3 times 3 4. 4 - 5 t i m e s 4 5. more t h a n 5 t i m e s 5 37. Have y o u c o n s u l t e d y o u r d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r i s t about a farm m a t t e r over t h e telephone d u r i n g t h e past year? 1. no 37 1 2. once 2 3.2-3 times 3 4. 4 - 5 t i m e s 4 5. more t h a n 5 t i m e s 5 38. D i d y o u r 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 d u r i n g t h e p a s t y e a r about a farm matter? 1. no 38 1 2. once 2 3.2-3 times 3 4. 4 - 5 t i m e s 4 5. more t h a n 5 t i m e s 5 39. Have y o u a t t e n d e d l o c a l meetings o r f i e l d days sponsored by t h e 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 t h e past year? 1. no 39 1 2. one 2  40.  0 3 32 35 12 4 5 100  75 12 13 0 0 100 73 13 12 2 0 100 35 10 4 1 0 100  3.2-3 4. 4 - 5  3 4 5  85 6 3 2 4. 100  3.2-3 4. 4 - 5  1 2 3 4 5  34 5 36 12 Ico  5. more t h a n 5 D i d you r e a d c i r c u l a r l e t t e r s , m a i l e d announcements, o r b u l l e t i n s from y o u r 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 t h e p a s t year? 1. no 40 2. one 5. more t h a n 5  9 41.  Have you l i s t e n e d t o r a d i o announcements by y o u r 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 t h e p a s t year? 1. no 2. one  Column Code  41  3. 2 - 3 4. 4 - 5  42.  5. more t h a n 5 D i d you r e a d any newspaper a r t i c l e s w r i t t e n by y o u r 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 2. one  1 2 3 4  Frequency  53 2 11 7  5  27 100  3- 2 - 3 4. 4 - 5  1 2 3 4  45 0 22 14  5. more t h a n 5  5  42  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 t o adopt new d a i r y f a r m p r a c t i c e s ? 1 57 1. w i l l i n g 43 2 32 2. about average 3 11 3« not v e r y w i l l i n g 100 44* How does t h i s community r e g a r d people who t r y many new farm p r a c t i c e s ? 1 44 1. f a v o r a b l y 44 2 51 2. no f e e l i n g 3 3. u n f a v o r a b l y 100 45* How does t h i s community r e g a r d people who a r e slow i n a d o p t i n g new farm p r a c t i c e s ? 1 2 1. f a v o r a b l y 45 2 64 2. no f e e l i n g -24. 3 3. u n f a v o r a b l y 100 E. THE NEXT QUESTIONS WILL DEAL WITH SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT IMPROVED PRACTICES. (Hand t h e respondent t h e l i s t o f s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n ) On t h i s c a r d are a number o f s o u r c e s o f 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 . I n answering t h e next few q u e s t i o n s , I want you t o g i v e me t h e numbers o r t h e l e t t e r s o f t h e s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n which apply. 46. t o 51. What source o r s o u r c e s 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 o r improved p r a c t i c e s 48 which can a p p l y p r o f i t a b l y on y o u r 49 d a i r y farm? 50  51  52. t o 57• When y o u have found an i t e m about a new o r improved p r a c t i c e w h i c h i n t e r e s t s you, t o which source o r s o u r c e s do y o u go f o r f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n on how y o u can p o s s i b l y a p p l y i t 52. on y o u r d a i r y farm? -W»  5455. 56. 57.  58. t o 63. When y o u have r e c e i v e d i n f o r m a t i o n on a new o r improved p r a c t i c e , which source o r sources do y o u use t o h e l p y o u e v a l u a t e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n acquired i n the l i g h t o f e x i s t i n g conditions 58. i n t o which t h e p r a c t i c e would have t o f i t ? 59•  64. t o 69. A f t e r you have weighed t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e , what source o r s o u r c e s do y o u 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 a p p l y t h e practice?  70. t o 75• When y o u have found o u t how t o a p p l y t h e p r a c t i c e s , which source o r s o u r c e s do you use i n d e c i d i n g whether o r n o t t o adopt the p r a c t i c e ?  60. 61. 62. 63.  64. 65.  66. 67. 68. 69.  70. 71.  72. 73. 74. 75.  11 77,  78 and 79•  Respondent's number  80. D a t a c a r d number F.  77. 73. 79. 80.  INFORMATION ON DAIRY FARM PRACTICES To complete t h e i n t e r v i e w , I would l i k e t o ask some q u e s t i o n s i n r e g a r d t o t h e d a i r y farm p r a c t i c e s t h a t a r e l i s t e d on t h e back o f t h e s o u r c e s o f information card.  12  I  II  III  Are you aware o f t h i s p r a c t i c e ? I f y e s , when d i d you become aware o f i t ? a) b) C) d) _ _ e) What p r o g r e s s have you made i n r e g a r d t o t h i s p r a c t i c e ? ( E n t e r a d o p t i o n s c o r e a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e respondent's stage i n t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s . ) 1. n o t 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. a d o p t i o n You became aware o f t h i s p r a c t i c e i n . What was t h e l e n g t h o f time between awareness and t h e stage reached i n the adoption process? 1. l e s s t h a n one y e a r 4« t h r e e y e a r s 7» s i x y e a r s 2. one y e a r 5. f o u r y e a r s 8. seven y e a r s 3. two y e a r s 6. f i v e y e a r s 9. more t h a n seven y e a r s What r e a s o n would you g i v e f o r spending more than two y e a r s t r y i n g t o d e c i d e whether o r n o t 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 o f t h e reason f o r a d e l a y o f more t h a n two y e a r s between awareness and t h e stage reached i n r e g a r d to 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 n o t a p p r o p r i a t e 2. c o m p a t a b i l i t y 7» s c a l e o f o p e r a t i o n t o o s m a l l 3. c o m p l e x i t y 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. o t h e r s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s 5. c o m m u n i c a b i l i t y . IV Which o f t h e f o l l o w i n g d e s c r i b e s y o u r p o s i t i o n i n r e g a r d to 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 t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s 3» a d o p t i o n 2. r e j e c t i o n 4- d i s c o n t i n u a n c e V. What r e a s o n would you g i v e f o r r e j e c t i n g o r d i s c o n t i n u i n g t h i s practice?  §1  VI.  c d e) C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f t h e reason f o r r e j e c t i n g o r d i s c o n t i n u i n g this practice. 1. r e l a t i v e advantage 6. s i t u a t i o n n o t a p p r o p r i a t e 2. c o m p a t a b i l i t y 7. s c a l e o f o p e r a t i o n t o o s m a l l 3. c o m p l e x i t y 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« o t h e r s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s 5« c o m m u n i c a b i l i t y Look a t t h e s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e c a r d and t e l l me t h e numbers o r l e t t e r s o f t h e s o u r c e s o f 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 .  13  I  II  III  IV  V  VI  a) R e g u l a r testing for mastitis START DATA CARD NUMBER 1. 1 25 2 11 1 3 4 21 2 5 6 40 2. 1 49 2 11 7 3 2 4 0 5 6 4 0 7 8 1 1 9 0 3. 1 2 0 0 3 0 4 2 5 6 0 0 7 8 0 6 9 1 2 4. 2 33 3 29 4 11 5. 1 42 0 2 2 3 0 4 0 5 6 0 0 7 0 8 0 9 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.  b) Use o f 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) s y s t e m i c t o w e l s o r sep- t e a t cup impregnated warble f l y arate cloth cluster cords control 2 11.  12.  13-  14.  15-  16. 17. 18. 19. 20.  1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  13  43 0 22 18 4  62  11 11 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 80 4 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  21.  22.  23.  24.  25.  26. 27. 28. 29.  30.  1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9  4a  18 0 10 13 11  40  9 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 41 7 4 44 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0  31.  32.  33.  34.  35.  36.  37. 38. 39.  40.  1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9  31 23 4 17  16  9 33 11  15  4 5 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 33 27 9 0 23 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3  41. 1 73 2 14 3 4 4 a 5 1 6 0 42. 1 7 2 3 3 5 4 2 5 1 6 6 7 1 a 0 9 2 43. 1 4 2 3 3 0 4 0 5 3 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 2 44* 1 20 2 7 3 0 4 0 45. 1 5 2 2 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0  46.  47. 48. 49. 50.  14  I  II  III  Are you aware o f t h i s p r a c t i c e ? I f y e s , when d i d you become aware o f i t ? a) b) c) d) e) What p r o g r e s s have you made i n r e g a r d t o t h i s p r a c t i c e ? ( E n t e r a d o p t i o n score a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e respondent's stage i n the adoption process.) 1. n o t 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. a d o p t i o n You became aware o f t h i s p r a c t i c e i n • What was t h e l e n g t h of time between awareness and t h e stage reached i n t h e a d o p t i o n process? 1. l e s s t h a n one y e a r 4» t h r e e y e a r s 7« s i x y e a r s 2. one y e a r 5« f o u r y e a r s 8. s i v e n y e a r s 3. two y e a r s 6. f i v e y e a r s 9» more than seven y e a r s What r e a s o n would you g i v e f o r spending more than two y e a r s t r y i n g t o d e c i d e whether o r n o t t o adopt t h i s p r a c t i c e ?  sl c)  IV  V  —  zzz~~ZZZIZIIIZZIZZZIZZIZIZZZZZIZZ:  e) C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f t h e r e a s o n f o r a d e l a y o f more t h a n two y e a r s between awareness and t h e stage reached i n r e g a r d 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 n o t a p p r o p r i a t e 2. c o m p a t a b i l i t y 7» s c a l e o f o p e r a t i o n t o o s m a l l 3» c o m p l e x i t y 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» o t h e r s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s 5. c o m m u n i c a b i l i t y Which o f t h e f o l l o w i n g d e s c r i b e s y o u r p o s i t i o n i n r e g a r d t o t h i s practice? 1. c o n t i n u i n g w i t h t h e a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s 3» a d o p t i o n 2. r e j e c t i o n 4» d i s c o n t i n u a n c e What r e a s o n would you g i v e f o r r e j e c t i n g o r d i s c o n t i n u i n g this practice?  Si .1 c,  VI  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f the reason f o r r e j e c t i n g o r d i s c o n t i n u i n g t h i s practice? 1. r e l a t i v e advantage 6. s i t u a t i o n n o t a p p r o p r i a t e 2. c o m p a t a b i l i t y 7* s c a l e o f o p e r a t i o n t o o s m a l l 3. c o m p l e x i t y 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« o t h e r s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s 5. c o m m u n i c a b i l i t y Look a t t h e s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e c a r d and t e l l me t h e numbers o r l e t t e r s o f t h e s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t you used in relation to this practice.  15 f ) heat lamps I  II  III  IV  VI  51. 1 2 3 4 5 6 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 54. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 56. 57. 58. 59. 60.  10 31 1 17 4 37 41 28 3 4 2 1 0 0 11 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 16 4 49 36 1 43 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0  g) h e a t e d w a t e r h) b u l k bowls o r t a n k s bins START DATA CARD NUMBER 3  i ) hay j ) hay conditioner dryer  62.  12.  61.  63.  64. 65.  66. 67. 68. 69. 70.  1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  16 55 2 20 0 7 58 8 7 3 2 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 4 13 64 4 3 19 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 0  Respondent's number  77. 78. 79.  Data c a r d No.  80.  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4. 1 2 3 4 5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.  1 10 2 40 1 46 30 17 12 4 4  11.  18  1 2 11 4 0 0 0 1 2 10 9 14  18  35 45 1 10 0 0 0 0 2 23 0 1  13.  14. 15.  16. 17. 18. 19. 20.  1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  2 21. 13 5 44 6 30 17  19 33 8 7 7 4 1 2 3 23. 0 0 0 8 2 5 8 3 27 40 30 0 11 0 1 0 0 6 22 0 0 26. 27. 28.  1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  0 33 11 54 0 2 26 21 29 12 2 3 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 9 0 4 8 2 36 62 2 0 22 1 3 0 0 6 29 0 1  29.  30.  Respondent's number  77. 78. 79.  Data c a r d No.  80.  16 SOURCES OF INFORMATION 1.  G e n e r a l farm magazines., ,  .. . _  2.  "Special, dairy'magazines  ,  3.  B r i t i s h Columbia Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e - p u b l i c a t i o n s  4^  F e d e r a l Department o f 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  1  .'•  a  (  '- \  ^  \ '• . *  6.  Television  ^  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 m e e t i n g s and a d u l t e d u c a t i o n c o u r s e s  • '•' .  ;  „  ) ,•.'  Vocational 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.  M a i n l a n d Dairyman*s A s s o c i a t i o n m e e t i n g s 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 m e e t i n g s  ( ^  ."  N.  District  agriculturist  0.  Veterinarian  P.  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  Q.  Neighbors o r f r i e n d s  R.  Wife, c h i l d r e n or r e l a t i v e s  S.  Salesmen o r d e a l e r s  T.  Employees  U.  V e t e r a n s Land A c t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  V.  Farm C r e d i t  W.  V i s i t t o e x p e r i m e n t a l farm o r t o t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B.C.  X.  O b s e r v a t i o n o f o t h e r farms  Y.  Foreign t r a v e l o r publications  Z.  Own e x p e r i e n c e  A.  M i l k vendor f i e l d man  j  .  c  ;  ^ v •  Corporation  DAIRY FARM PRACTICES a) .:  L  Regular t e s t i n g f o r m a s t i t i s - use-of the Whiteside* : T e s t o r t h e C a l i f o r n i a T e s t f o r each, cow a t r e g u l a r , i n t e r v a l s such as once every"two*weeks or"once e v e r y .month. ..,'.-.:>  b)  Washing the: udder: of; each cow w i t h ^ . s e p a r a t e s t e r i l i z e d c l o t h o r w i t h paper t o w e l s w h i c h have been d i p p e d i n t o a chlorine or iosan solution.  c)  S t e r i l i z i n g t h e 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 u s i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o c e d u r e : remove t e a t cups from a cow, r i n s e t h e cups i n c l e a n w a t e r , d i p t h e cups i n t o h o t water (180 degrees F.) o r c h l o r i n e " s o l u t i o n and t h e n p l a c e t h e t e a t cup. c l u s t e r on the.next-jcpw".  d)  Use o f i n s e c t i c i d e i m p r e g n a t e d :cords f o r f l y • c o n t r o l i n the d a i r y b a r n o r i n f e e d s t o r a g e b a r n s .  e)  Use o f s y s t e m i c w a r b l e f l y c o n t r o l f o r young s t o c k and bulls. ' •  f)  Use o f heat lamps f o r weak c a l v e s o r f o r calves, b o r n d u r i n g v e r y c o l d weather. " '  g)  Use o f e l e c t r i c a l l y h e a t e d w a t e r bowls o r t a n k s ,  hj  Use.of b u l k b i n s f o r c o n c e n t r a t e f e e d .  i)  Use o f a hay c o n d i t i o n e r  j)  Use o f a hay d r y e r .  J  (Crusher).  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 I N VOCATIONAL SCHOOL BY 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  A d o p t e r category-  Laggard L a t e majorityEarly majority E a r l y adopterinnovator All  respondents  Yes  No  Total  % 15.0 10.3 2.9  % 89.7 97.1  % 100.0 100.0 100.0  31.3 12.0  68.7 88.0  100.0 100.0  85.O  T a b l e XXXIX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF DAIRY FARM WORK ENJOYMENT BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter category  D a i r y f a r m work enjoyment Yes, v e r y O c c a s i o n a l l y Not a t T o t a l much a l l fo  fo  fo  fo  L a g g a r d and l a t e majority  55.1  20.4  24.5  100.0  E a r l y m a j o r i t y and early adopterinnovator  64.7  3.9  100.0  All  60.0  31.4 26.0  14.0  100.0  respondents  id T a b l e XL PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF YEARS FARMING EXPERIENCE BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter category  Number o f v e a r s farming; e x p e r i e n c e 20 y e a r s Fewer t h a n Total o r more 20 y e a r s  Laggard and l a t e majority E a r l y m a j o r i t y and e a r l y adopter-innovator All  respondents  %  %  14.3  85.7  100.0  35.3 25.0  64.7  100.0  75.0  100.0  fo  Table X L I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL SIZE OF FARM BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter category  Laggard Late majority Early majority Early All  adopter-innovator respondents  T o t a l s i z e o f farm Fewer t h a n Total 70 a c r e s o r more 70 a c r e s  % 80.0  fo  fo  48.3 68.6 37-5  20.0 51.7 31.4 62.$  100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0  60.0  40.0  100.0  19 Table XLII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE PRODUCTION PER  COW  BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Average p r o d u c t i o n p e r cow Total Less than 11,000 pounds 11,000 pounds o r more  Adopter category  Late majority  % 90.0 55-2  Early majority  60.0  10.0 44.8 40.0  Early adopter-innovator  50.0  50.0  100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0  All  63.0  37.0  100.0  Laggard  respondents  fo  fo  Table X L I I I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF YOUNG DAIRY STOCK RAISED BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter category  Number o f voung d a i r y stock r a i s e d Fewer 10 t o 19 20 o r t h a n 10 more  %  fo  fo  Total fo  L a g g a r d and l a t e majority  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 adopterinnovator  33.3  25.5  41.2  100.0  All  45.0  27.0  28.0  100.0  respondents  20 T a b l e XLIV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF AMOUNT OF UNPAID (FAMILY) LABOUR BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter category  Amount o f u n p a i d ( f a m i l y ) l a b o u r Nil Less than 27 weeks o r more 27 weeks  Total  Late majority  % 40.0 20.7  Early majority  40.0  20.0 58.6 22.9  E a r l y adopterinnovator  12.5  50.0  37.5  100.0  All  30.0  37.0  33.0  100.0  Laggard  respondents  *  fo  fo  40.0 20.7 37.1  100.0 100.0 100.0  Table XLV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILY FARM PLUS OFF-FARM EMPLOYMENT INCOME BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter category  F a m i l y farm p l u s o f f - f a r m employment income Less than  |2,500  Total  $2,500 o r  more  E a r l y adopter-innovator  % 75.0 31.0 40.0 31.3  % 25.0 69.0 60.0 68.7  % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0  All  43  57  100.0  Laggard Late majority Early majority  respondents  21 T a b l e 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 agriculturist's office No v i s i t s One o r more visits  %  Total  $  L a g g a r d and l a t e majority  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 f a r m p r a c t i c e s Willing About Not v e r y willing average  Total  %  %  %  L a g g a r d and l a t e majority  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 adopterinnovator  70.6 57.0  5.9 11.0  100.0  All  23-5 32.0  respondents  fo  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 Willing About average or n o t very willing fo  Early majority  25.0 55.2 77.1  Early adopter-innovator  56.3  75.0 44.8 22.9 43.7  All  57.0  43-0  Laggard Late majority  respondents  Total  fo  100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0  Table XLIX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITY REGARD OF LAGGARDS BY FOUR ADOPTER CATEGORIES Adopter  category  Community r e g a r d o f l a g g a r d s Favorably or Unfavorably no f e e l i n g fo  Early majority  90.0 72.4 45.7  E a r l y adopter-innovator All  Laggard Late majority  respondents  %  10.0  Total  fo  68.7  54.3 31.3  100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0  66.0  34.0  100.0  27.6  23 Table L PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITY REGARD OF LAGGARDS BY TWO ADOPTER CATEGORIES Adopter category  Community regard of laggards Favorably or Unfavorably no f e e l i n g  Total  Laggards and l a t e majority  %  %  %  79.6  20.4  100.0  E a r l y majority and early adopterinnovator  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  Laggard and l a t e majority Early majority and early adopter innovator A l l respondents  M a r i t a l status Single Married or widowed  Total  16.0  84.0  100.0  4.0  96.0  100.0  10.0  90.0  100.0  24 Table L I I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL SIZE.OF FARM BY ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORY Adopter tendencycategory  T o t a l s i z e o f farm Fewer t h a n 70 a c r e s 70 a c r e s oi? more fo  fo  Total  fo  Late majority  75.0 58.8  25.0 41.2  Early majority  71.9  E a r l y adopter-innovator  27.8  28.1 72.2  100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0  All  60.0  40.0  100.0  Laggard  respondents  Table L I U PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF ACRES DEVOTED TO DAIRYING BY ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORY A d o p t e r tendency category  Number o f a c r e s devoted t o dairvins 40 a c r e s o r Fewer t h a n 40 a c r e s more fo  Laggard Late majority Early majority Early All  adopter-innovator respondents  fo  Total  fo  68.8 35.3 43.8 11.1  31.2 64.7 56.2 38.9  100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0  39.0  61.0  100.0  25 Table L I V PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SIZE OF DAILY. MILK QUOTA BY FOUR ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORIES A d o p t e r tendency category  S i z e o f d a i l v m i l k quota Less than 300 pounds 300 pounds o r more 1o  Laggard  75.0  25.0  L a t e majority-  a.2  58.8  Early majority  34.4 22.2 41.0  65.6  Early adopter-innovator All  respondents  77.8 59.0  Total  % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0  T a b l e LV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SIZE OF DAILY MILK QUOTA BY TWO ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORIES A d o p t e r tendency category  S i z e o f d a i l v m i l k quota Less than 200 t o 399 400 pounds 200 pounds pounds o r more  Total  %  %  fo  Laggard and l a t e majority  28.0  44.0  28.0  100.0  Early majority and e a r l y adopter-innovator  20.0  28.0  52.0  100.0  All  24.0  36.0  40.0  100.0  respondents  fo  26 Table L V I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF AMOUNT OF MILK SOLD PER YEAR BY ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORY A d o p t e r tendencycategory  Amount o f m i l k s o l d p e r v e a r L e s s t h a n 200,000 t o 300,000 pounds 200,000 299,999 pounds pounds o r more  %  fo  fo  Total  %  L a g g a r d and l a t e majority  54.0  20.0  26.0  100.0  E a r l y m a j o r i t y and e a r l y adopterinnovator  32.0  18.0  50.0  100.0  A l l respondents  43.0  19.0  38.0  100.0  Table L V I I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE MILK PRODUCTION PER COW BY ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORY A d o p t e r tendency category  Average m i l k p r o d u c t i o n p e r cow Less than 9,500 pounds 9,500 pounds o r more  Total  %  %  31.2  100.0 100.0  Laggard  % 68.8  Late majority  26.5  Early majority  25.0  73.5 75.0  E a r l y adopter-innovator  22.2  77.8  100.0  All  32.0  68.0  100.0  respondents  100.0  Table L V I I I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF BREED OF DAIRY CATTLE BY ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORY A d o p t e r tendency category  Breed o f d a i r y c a t t l e Total H o l s t e i n and Non-Hoistein p r e d o m i n a n t l y and p r e d o m i n a n t l y Holstein non-Holstein fo  %  Early majority  50.0 85.3 87.5  50.0 14.7 12.5  100.0 100.0 100.0  E a r l y adopterinnovator  77.8  22.2  100.0  All  79-0  21.0  100.0  Laggard Late majority  respondents  Table L I X PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF YOUNG DAIRY STOCK RAISED BY FOUR ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORIES A d o p t e r tendency category  Number o f young d a i r y s t o c k raised Fewer t h a n 10 10 o r more  Total  fo  fo  Laggard  68.8  Late majority Early majority  52.9 40.6  31.2 47.1 59.4  100.0 100.0 100.0  E a r l y adopterinnovator  16.7  83.3  100.0  All  45.0  55.0  100.0  respondents  fo  28 Table LX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF YOUNG DAIRY STOCK RAISED BY TWO ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORIES A d o p t e r tendencycategory  Number o f young d a i r y s t o c k raised Fewer 10 t o 19 20 o r t h a n 10 more  Total  %  %  %  L a g g a r d and l a t e majority  58.0  24.0  18.0  100.0  E a r l y m a j o r i t y and early adopter-innovator  32.0  30.0  38.0  100.0  All  45.0  27.0  28.0  100.0  respondents  %  T a b l e LXC PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILY FARM PLUS OFF-FARM EMPLOYMENT INCOME BY ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORY A d o p t e r tendency category  F a m i l y farm p l u s o f f farm employment income Less than |2,500 o r $2,500 more  Total  %  fo  %  Laggard  87.5  12.5  100.0  Late majority  35.3  64.7  100.0  Early majority  31.3  68.7  100.0  Early 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 category  Farm v a l u e as a g o i n g concern L e s s than 149,950 o r more $49,950 fo  Total  fo  Early majority  % 62.5 26.5 40.6  37.5 73.5 59.4  100.0 100.0 100.0  E a r l y adopterinnovator  16.7  83.3  100.0  All  35.0  65.0  100.0  Laggard Late majority  respondents  Table L X I I I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF VISITS TO THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURIST'S OFFICE BY FOUR ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORIES A d o p t e r tendency category  Number o f v•i s i t s t o t h e district agriculturists office during t h e past year No v i s i t s One o r more v i s i t s %  Laggard Late majority Early majority E a r l y adopterinnovator All  respondents  fo  fo  Total  fo  100.0 76.5 62.5  0.0 23.5 37.5  100.0 100.0 100.0  72.2 75.0  27.3  100.0 100.0  25.0  30 Table  fflV  PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF VISITS TO THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURIST'S OFFICE BY TWO ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORIES A d o p t e r tendency category  Number o f v i s i t s t o t h e district agriculturist's office during the past year No v i s i t s One o r more visits  %  fo  Total  fo  Laggard and l a t e majority  84.0  16.0  100.0  E a r l y m a j o r i t y and early adopterinnovator  66.0  34.0  100.0  All  75.0  25.0  100.0  respondents  Table LXV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS AND FIELD DAYS SPONSORED BY THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURIST BY ADOPTER TENDENCY CATEGORY A d o p t e r tendency category  A t t e n d a n c e a t meetings and f i e l d days None a t t e n d e d One o r more attended  %  fo  Total  %  L a g g a r d and l a t e majority  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 adopterinnovator  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 A d o p t e r tendency category  Communitv w i l l i n g n e s s t o Total adopt new d a i r y f a r m p r a c t i c e s Willing  About average o r not very w i l l i n g  %  %  Laggard  18.8  81.2  Late majority Early majority Early adopter-innovator  58.8 75.0 55.6  41.2 25.0 44*4  % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0  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 A d o p t e r tendency category  Community w i l l i n g n e s s t o Total adopt new d a i r y farm p r a c t i c e s Willing  About average o r not very w i l l i n g  L a g g a r d and l a t e majority E a r l y m a j o r i t y and early adopter-innovator  % 46.6  % 54.0  100.0  68.0  32.0  100.0  All  57.0  43.0  100.0  respondents  fo  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 L X V I I I PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BY STAGE I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY Source  •  Awareness fo  Personal Mass Instructional group Individual instructional Total  Stage EvalTrial uation  Interest  %  fo  %  Adoption  Average  fo  fo  25.1 55.8  45.0 5.8  82.5 3.2  61.7 0.7  95.2 0.0  61.9 13.1  5.7  2.6  1.2  0.4  0.0  2.0  46.6 100.0  13.1 100.0  37.2 100.0  4.8 100.0  23.0 100.0  13.4 100.0  Table L X I X PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BY STAGE I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN Source Awareness  Adoption  25.1 10.5 62.5  45.0 23.1 31.4  82.5 8.4 9.1  61.7 8.3 30.0  % 95.2 4.3 0.5  1.9 100.0  0.5 100.0  0.0 100.0  0.0 100.0  0.0 100.0  fo  Personal Government Commercial Farm organization Total  Interest  Stage EvalTrial uation  fo  fo  fo  Average  % 61.9 10.9 26.7 0.5 100.0  33 Table LXX PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BY ADOPTER CATEGORY WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY Source  3  Adopter c a t e g o r y Laggard L a t e Early Early Average majority majority adopterinnovator fo  fo  fo  %  61.3 17.2  55.3 17.4  53.6 16.8  50.4 19.1  55.2 17.6  2.5  1.4  2.7  3.8  2.6  19.0  25-9  26.9  26.7  24.6  100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  %  Personal Mass Instructional group Individual instructional Total  Table LXXI PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BY ADOPTER CATEGORY WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN Source  Adopter c a t e g o r y Laggard L a t e Early Early Average majority majority adopterinnovator fo  fo  fo  fo  fo  Personal Government  61.3 6.1  55.3  53.6  55.2  10.8  11.8  Commercial Farm organization  31.5  33.2  14-3 31.6  50.4 16.1 33.1  32.4  1.1  0.7  0.5  0.4  0.6  100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  Total  Table L X X I I PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES, CLASSIFIED AS TO THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY, BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AT THE KWARENESS STAGE I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS Source Laggard  A d o p t e r categoryLate Early Early Average majority majority adopterinnovator  25.0 57.5  25.4 55.3  27.5 51.9  18.5 64.6  % 24.1 57.3  5.0  3.5  6.2  9.2  6.0  7.7  12.6  100.0  100.0  fo  Personal Mass Instructional group Individual instructional Total  fo  12.5  15.8  14.4  100.0  100.0  100.0  fo  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 Laggard  Personal Mass Instructional group Individual instructional Total  Adopter category Late Early Early Average majority majority adopterinnovator  % 56.3 3.1  % 47.7 8.4  39.9 5.9  41.3 3.5  46.3 5.2  3.1  0.9  3.2  3.5  2.7  37.5 100.0  43.0 100.0  51.0 100.0  51.7 100.0  45.8 100.0  fo  fo  fo  35 T a b l e LXXIV PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES, CLASSIFIED AS TO THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY, BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AT THE EVALUATION STAGE I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS Source  Personal Mass Instructional Group Individual instructional Total  A d o p t e r categoryLaggard L a t e Early Early majority majority adopterinnovator  Average  fo  %  %  fo  fo  87.2  86.8  75.8  86.5  84.1  0.0  2.9  5.0  2.7  2.7  2.1  1.5  1.0  0.0  l._  10.7 100.0  8.8 100.0  18.2  10.8  12.1  100.0  100.0  100.0  T a b l e LXXV PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES, CLASSIFIED AS TO THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY, BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AT THE TRIAL STAGE I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS Source  Personal Mass Instructional group Individual instructional Total  Adopter category Laggard L a t e Early Early majority majority adopterinnovator  Average  fo  fo  fo  fo  fo  76.4 0.0  55.6 0.0  63.8 1.9  51.0 0.0  61.7 0.5  0.0  0.0  0.0  2.1  0.5  34.3 100.0  46.9 100.0  37.3 100.0  23.6 100.0  44 *4 100.0  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 c a t e g o r y Laggard L a t e Early Early Average majority majority adopterinnovator  $  %  fo  fo  97.0  92.7  95.8  96.3  95.4  Mass  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  Instructional group  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  Individual instructional  3-0  7.3  4.2  3.7  4.6  100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  Personal  Total  T a b l e LXXVII PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION jSOURCES, CLASSIFIED AS TO ORIGIN, BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AT THE AWARENESS STAGE I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS Source  Government Commercial Farm organization Personal Total  Adopter category Laggard L a t e Early Early Average majority majority adopterinnovator  %  fo  fo  3.7  8.8  13.8  13.8  10.0  68.8  63.2  57.5  66.2  63.9  2.5 25.0  2.6  1.2  1.5  2.0  25.4  27.5  18.5  24.1  100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  fo  fo  37 Table L X X V I I I PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES, CLASSIFIED AS TO ORIGIN, BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AT THE INTEREST STAGE I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS Source  Government Commercial Farm organization Personal Total  Adopter c a t e g o r y Laggard L a t e Early Early Average majority majority adopterinnovator  % 14.1 28.1  % 20.5 31.8  26.1 33.3  29.3 29.3  22.5 30.6  1.6 56.2  0.0 47.7  0.7 39.9  0.0 41.4  0.6 46.3  100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  fo  fo  fo  T a b l e LXXXIX PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION iSOURCES, CLASSIFIED AS TO ORIGIN, BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AT THE EVALUATION STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS Source  Adopter c a t e g o r y Laggard L a t e Early Early Average majority majority adopterinnovator  4.3 8.5  % 4.4 8.8  0.0 87.2 100.0  0.0 86.8 100.0  fo  Government Commercial Farm organization Personal Total  fo  fo  % 7.9 8.0  12.1 12.1  10.8 2.7  0.0 75.8  0.0 86.5  84.I  100.0  100.0  100.0  0.0  38 Table LXXX PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES, CLASSIFIED AS TO ORIGIN, BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AT THE TRIAL STAGE I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS Source  Government Commercial Farm organization Personal Total  Adopter c a t e g o r y Laggard L a t e Early Early Average majority majority adopterinnovator  % 3.6 20.0  % 9-9 34-5  % 6.7 29-5  % 14.3 34.7  % 8.6 29-7  0.0 76.4  0.0 55.6  0.0 63.8  0.0 51.0  0.0 61.7  100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  T a b l e LXXXI PERCENTAGE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES, CLASSIFIED AS TO ORIGIN, BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AT THE ADOPTION STAGE I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS Source  Adopter c a t e g o r y Laggard L a t e Early Early majority majority adopterinnovator  % Government Commercial Farm organization Personal Total  Average  fo  fo  fo  fo  3.0 0.0  5-5 1.8  4.2 0.0  3.7 0.0  4.1 0.5  0.0 97.0  0.0 92.7  0.0 95.3  0.0 96.3  0.0 95.4  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 g i v e t h e z v a l u e s f o r data given i n Tables to i n s e c t i o n A.  2. The u n d e r l i n e d v a l u e s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t . The t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e between two p r o p o r t i o n s was used w i t h t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e r e was no d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e use o f an i n f o r m a t i o n source between a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f 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 t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was t o r e j e c t i t if z -I.96 o r z I . 9 6 and t o a c c e p t i t i f -1.96 z I . 9 6 where: -  *1  n2  ni z =  1_  p ( l - ) 1p  n  l  n  2  ( x i • percentage use o f an i n f o r m a t i o n source by one a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y , x • percentage use o f t h e same source by a d i f f e r e n t a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y , n = 100 p e r cent and „, p = £Ei ^2 ni n2 3 . An x " s i g n i f i e s t h a t t h e z v a l u e i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l . That i s , t h e c r i t i c a l v a l u e s used t o t e s t t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s were: r e j e c t t h e hypothesis i f z -2.58 o r z 2.58 and a c c e p t i t i f -2.58 z 2.58. 2  11  4. N e g a t i v e z v a l u e s show t h a t t h e a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y l i s t e d i n t h e row has a l o w e r percentage use o f an i n f o r m a t i o n source t h a n t h e a d o p t e r c a t e g o r y l i s t e d i n t h e column. 5. B l a n k s i n t h e 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 n o t used by e i t h e r o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s concerned.  40 Table L X X X I I z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES AT THE AWARENESS STAGE I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY Source  PERSONAL  MASS  A d o p t e r Category  laggard late majority early majority laggard late majority early majority  , Adopter C a t e g o r y Late Early Early majority m a j o r i t y adopterinnovator - 0 . 0 6 5 1  - 0 . 4 0 1 8 - 0 . 3 3 6 7  1.1141 1 . 1 7 8 8 1 . 5 1 2 2  0 . 3 1 3 7  0 . 7 9 5 5  - 1 . 0 2 9 5  0 . 4 8 2 1  -1.3421 - 1 . 8 2 1 0  INSTRUCTIONAL GROUP laggard late majority early majority  0 . 5 2 5 8  INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTIONAL laggard l a t e majority early majority  - 0 . 6 6 9 5  - O . 3 6 9 I - 0 . 8 8 8 7  - I . I 5 6 4 - I . 6 5 2 8 - 0 . 7 9 5 7  -O.3938  0.2765  1 . 1 2 6 4 1 . 7 7 8 7  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  PERSONAL  A d o p t e r Category  A d o p t e r Category Late Early Early majority m a j o r i t y adopterinnovator  laggard late majority early majority  1.2172  2.3210 1.1117  2.1219 0.9106 -0.2016  laggard l a t e majority early majority  -1.6099  -0.9551 0.6861  -0.1583 1.4647 0.8019  INSTRUCTIONAL GROUP laggard l a t e majority early majority  1.1112  -0.0405 -1.1477  -0.1583 -1.2534 -0.1179  INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTIONAL laggard late majority early majority  -0.7930  -1.9219 -1.1334  -2.0200 -1.2321 -0.0990  MASS  42 Table LXXXIV z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES AT THE EVALUATION STAGE I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY Source  PERSONAL  Adopter Category  Adopter Category Early Iarly Late m a j o r i t y adoptermajority innovator  laggard late majority early majority  0.0841  laggard late majority early majority  2.0760  1.9949  O.I465 0.0624 -1.9345  -1.7154  -2.2646 -0.7624  -I.6544  INSTRUCTIONAL GROUP laggard l a t e majority early majority  0.3191  0.6297 0.3132  1.4568  INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTIONAL laggard late majority early majority  0.4529  -1.5084  -0.0228 -0.4757  MASS  -1.9451  0.0857 O.8453  1.2294 1.0025  1.4861  43 T a b l e LXXXV z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES AT THE TRIAL STAGE I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY  Source  PERSONAL  MASS  A d o p t e r Category  laggard late majority early majority laggard l a t e majority early majority  INSTRUCTIONAL GROUP laggard late majority early majority INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTIONAL laggard late majority early majority  A d o p t e r Category Early Early Late majority m a j o r i t y adopterinnovator 3.1048*  1.9461  -1.1821  3.7350* 0.6520 1.8304  -  -1.3850  -1.3850  -  -3.104s* -1.6683 I.4619  mm  1.3850  -1.4568 -1.4568 -1.456a -3.4436*  -0.3549 -1.8143  44 T a b l e 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  A d o p t e r Category-  Category  Late majority PERSONAL  MASS  laggard l a t e majority early majority laggard late majority early majority  INSTRUCTIONAL GROUP laggard l a t e majority early majority INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTIONAL laggard l a t e majority early majority  1.3757  -  Early majority  Early adopterinnovator  0.4555 -0.9416  0.2751 -1.1166 -0.1815  -  -—  -  -1.3757  -  -  -0.4555 0.9416  -0.2751 1.1166 0.1815  45  Table LXXXVIII z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES AT THE AWARENESS STAGE I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN  Source  Adopter Category  Adopter C a t e g o r y Late majority  GOVERNMENT  COMMERCIAL  FARM ORGANIZATION  PERSONAL  Early majority  Early adopterinnovator  laggard late majority early majority  -1.4898  laggard late majority early majority  0.8359  I.6564 0.8239  0.3925 -0.4439 -1.2664  laggard late majority early majority  -0.0449  0.6822 0.7251  0.5051 0.5489 -0.1838  laggard late majority early majority  -0.0651  -O.4OI8  1.1141 1.1788 1.5122  -2.5275  -1.1167  -0.3367  __52  -l.ne  -0.0000  46 Table LXXXVIII z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES AT THE INTEREST STAGE I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN  Source  Adopter Category  GOVERNMENT  COMMERCIAL  FARM ORGANIZATION  PERSONAL  Adopter Category Late majority  Early majority  Early adopterinnovator  laggard late majority early majority  -I.I964  -2.1174  -2.6075  laggard late majority early majority  -0.5712  -0.7972 -O.2264  -0.1876 O.3838 0.6100  laggard l a t e majority early majority  1.2700  0.5969 -0.8381  1.2700  laggard late majority early majority  1.2030  -0.9367  2.?069  1.1117  -1.4390 -O.5O56  O.838I  2.0936  0.8963 -0.2159  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  A d o p t e r Gategory  GOVERNMENT  COMMERCIAL  FARM ORGANIZATION  PERSONAL  A d o p t e r CategoryLate Early Early majority m a j o r i t y adopterinnovator  laggard l a t e majority early majority  -0.0347  laggard late majority early majority  -0.0755  laggard late majority early majority laggard late majority early majority  0.0841  -2.0103  -1.9790. -0.8375  -0.7628  -1.7397 -1.7077  0.2887  1.7837  1.8528  2.5392  -  -  2.0760  O.I465 0.0624 -1.9345  1.9949.  48 T a b l e XC z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES AT THE TRIAL STAGE I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN  Source  GOVERNMENT  COMMERCIAL  FARM ORGANIZATION  PERSONAL  Adopter Category  A d o p t e r Category  Late majority  Early majority  Early adopterinnovator  laggard late majority early majority  -1.7756  -0.9918 0.8202  -2.6504* -0.9540  laggard late majority early majority  -2.3028  laggard late majority early majority laggard late majority early majority  -1.7530 -1.5566 0.7579  3.1048*  • -  -  1.9461 -1.1821  -2.3319  -0.0297 -0.7876  -  3.7350* 0.6520 1.8304  49 Table XCI z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORIES AT THE ADOPTION STAGE I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN Source  A d o p t e r Category  GOVERNMENT  COMMERCIAL  FARM ORGANIZATION  PERSONAL  laggard late majority early majority laggard late majority early majority  laggard late majority early majority laggard late majority early majority  Adopter Category Early Early maj o r i t y a d o p t e r innovator majority -0.4555 -0.2751 0.6076 0.4279 -0.8763 0.1815 Late  -1.3477  1.3757  1.3477  0.4555 -0.9416  1.3477  0.2751 -1.1166 -0.1815  C.  DISTRIBUTION OF INDIVIDUAL INFORMATION SOURCES Table XCII  PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF INDIVIDUAL INFORMATION SOURCES BY STAGE I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS Information source  Stage 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 uation t i o n use fo  fo  fo  fo  fo  14.3  22.8  38.2  30.0  23.7  24.5  9.3 4.1 0.0  19.6 17.0 0.0  35-5 6.3 6.0  29.0 26.9 1.4  17.2 0.5 52.7  20.9 11.6 7-7  21.9  2.3  1.2  0.7  0.0  6.9  1.0  14.1  4.4  6.2  2.7  6.0  16.9  1.0  1.2  0.0  0.0  5.1  3.8 8.8  5.0 0.3  2.0 0.0  1.7 0.0  1.6 0.0  3.1 2.5  1.7 1.9  5.8 4.4  0.0 0.4  1.4 0.0 1.0 0.0  2.2 1.9  1.0  1.6  2.8  1.4 1.6  1.6  2.6 4.3 2.9  1.3 0.3 0.3  0.8 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0 0.0  1.3 1.2 0.8  0.7  1.3  0.8  0.0  0.0  0.7  1.4 0.5  0.5 1.0  0.4 0.0  0.3 0.0  0.0 0.0  0.7 0.4  1.0 1.0  0.3 0.3  0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0  0.3 0.3  0.7  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.2  0.2 0.3 100.0 100.0  0.0 100.0  Neighbors o r f r i e n d s Observation o f o t h e r farms Salesmen o r d e a l e r s Own e x p e r i e n c e G e n e r a l farm magazines District agriculturist Special dairy magazines V i s i t s t o experi m e n t a l farm Radio M i l k vendor f i e l d man Veterinarian Wife, children or relatives A g r i c u l t u r a l meeti n g s and a d u l t education courses Television Newspapers B.C. Dept. o f A g r i culture publications Agricultural field days Foreign t r a v e l A g r i c u l t u r a l organi z a t i o n meetings D.H.I.A. s u p e r v i s o r Vocational a g r i c u l t u r e courses Canada Dept. o f Agriculture publications Total  fo  0.0 0.0 0.1 100.0 100.0 100. c  51 Table XCIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF INDIVIDUAL INFORMATION SOURCES BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Information source  Laggard  Neighbors o r 27.6 friends Observation o f o t h e r farms 22.6 Salesmen o r dealers 11.1 Own e x p e r i e n c e 8.6 G e n e r a l farm magazines 7.2 District agriculturist 2.5 Special dairy magazines 5.4 V i s i t t o Exper. Farm 1.8 Radio 2.5 M i l k vendor f i e l d man 2.5 Veterinarian 1.1 Wife, childnen or r e l a t i v e s 2.2 A g r i c . meetings and a d u l t e d u c a t i o n courses 1.4 Television 1.4 Newspapers 0.4 B.C. Dept. o f A g r i c . pub. 0.3 A g r i c . f i e l d days 0.0 Foreign t r a v e l 0.3 Agric. organization meetings 1.1 D.H.I.A. supervisor 0.0 Vocational agric. courses 0.0 Canada Dept. o f A g r i c . pub. 0.0 Total  100.0  A d o p t e r categoryLate Early Early Overall majority majority a d o p t e r - use innovator  25.9  23.5  20.8  24.5  20.7  21.3  18.2  20.9  11.8  7.1  11.4 7.0  12.3 9.3  11.6 7.7  6.8  7.0  6.8  5.9  7.1 4.6  7.6  6.9 6.0  4.7  5.1  2.8  1.6  3.6 2.7  4.2 3.4  3.1 2.5  2.7 2.1  2.4 2.0  0.4 2.1  2.2 1.9  1.4  1.7  0.9  1.6  1.2 1.4 0.9  0.8  1.4  1.3 1.7 1.7  1.3 1.2  0.5 0.2 0.2  0.8 0.8  0.8  0.2  1.7 1.3  0.7 0.7 0.4  0.0  0.2  0.4  0.3  0.7  0.3  0.0  0.3  0.0  0.3  0.4  0.2  0.2  0.2  0.0  0.1  100.0  100.0  100.0  5.9  0.7  0.8  100.0  APPENDIX I V DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE RESPONSE STATES  INNOVATION  52 Table XCIV PERCENTAGE OF THE RESPONDENTS WHICH WAS CONTINUING WITH THE ADOPTION PROCESS, BY INNOVATION AND STAGE I N 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 tion  %  fo  fo  %  0  0  2  0  Paper towels o r separate c l o t h  2  0  1  0  - ;:'  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  0  0  0  0  Q  0  I n s e c t i c i d e impregnated cords  14  4  9  6  -  33  Systemic warble f l y control  10  4  5  1  -  20  Heat lamps f o r calves  2  0  2  0  -  4  Heated w a t e r bowls o r t a n k s  3  1  9  0  -  Bulk b i n s  0  2  15  1  -  13 18  Hay  0  4  21  3  -  28  Hay dry/er  7  11  18  0  -  36  Average  3.8  l.i  mm  15.7  Regular t e s t i n g for mastitis  conditioner  2.6  8.2  fo  • fo  2  53 T a b l e XCV PERCENTAGE OF THE RESPONDENTS WHICH HAD REJECTED THE INNOVATIONS, 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 uation tion  %  fo  fo  fo  fo  Regular t e s t i n g for mastitis  11  1  19  2  Paper t o w e l s o r separate c l o t h s  41  0  21  18  -  80  S t e r i l i z i n g the t e 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 impregnated cords  9  0  8  10  -  27  S y s t e m i c warble f l y control  4  0  3  0  —  Heat lamps f o r calves  29  1  15  4  —  49  Heated w a t e r bowls or tanks  52  1  11  0  —  Bulk bins  10  0  25  0  Hay  13  1  23  3  26  0  36  0  -  64  21.3  0.4  17.1  5.0  -  Hay  conditioner dryer  Average  33  7  35 40 62 43.8  54 Table XCVI PERCENTAGE OF EACH ADOPTER CATEGORY WHICH WAS UNAWARE OF THE INDIVIDUAL INNOVATIONS Innovation Laggard _  Adopter C a t e g o r y Late Early Early m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopterinnovator _ _ _  Regular t e s t i n g for mastitis  75.0  17.2  11.4  6.3  Paper t o w e l s o r 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 impregnated cords  50.0  41.4  17.1  18.8  S y s t e m i c warble f l y control  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 t a n k s  35.0  24.1  2.9  6.3  Bulk bins  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  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  24.8  16.9  7.5  dryer  Average  38.0  55 T a b l e XCVII PERCENTAGE OF EACH ADOPTER CATEGORY WHICH WAS CONTINUING WITH THE ADOPTION PROCESS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL INNOVATIONS Innovation Laggard _  A d o p t e r Category Late Early Early majority m a j o r i t y adopterinnovator _ _ _  Regular t e s t i n g for mastitis  0.0  6.9  0.0  0.0  Paper t o w e l s o r 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 impregnated cords  35.0  31.0  34.3  31.3  Systemic warble f l y control  10.0  17.2  14.3  50.0  Heat lamps f o r calves  0.0  0.0  11.4  0.0  Heated w a t e r bowls o r t a n k s  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  20.0  41.4  37.1  43.8  12.0  16.5  16.0  18.1  dryer  Average  56 Table X C V I I I PERCENTAGE OF EACH ADOPTER CATEGORY WHICH HAD REJECTED THE INNOVATIONS Innovation Laggard  Adopter Category Late Early Early majority majority adopterinnovator  %  fo  %  10.0  48.3  37.1  25.0  Paper t o w e l s o r 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 teat 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 impregnated cords  15.0  20.7  34.3  37.5  Systemic warble f l y control  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 o r t a n k s  55.0  62.1  77.1  50.0  Bulk b i n s  60.0  31.0  28.6  25.0  Hay  65.O  34.5  37.1  25.0  Hay d r y e r  80.0  58.6  62.9  43.8  Average  45.5  44.2  44.9  38.8  Regular t e s t i n g for mastitis  conditioner  57 T a b l e XCIX PERCENTAGE OF EACH ADOPTER CATEGORY WHICH HAD ADOPTED THE INNOVATIONS Innovation Laggard  Adopter Category Late Early Early m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopterinnovator  %  1°  Regular t e s t i n g for mastitis  10.0  24.1  37.1  43.8  Paper t o w e l s o r 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 teat 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 impregnated cords  0.0  6.9  14-3  12.5  Systemic warble f l y control  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 t a n k s  5.0  0.0  2.9  12.5  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  0.0  0.0  0.0  12.5  4.0  13.8  20.9  28.1  Bulk b i n s  dryer  Average  5S Table C PERCENTAGE OF EACH ADOPTER CATEGORY WHICH HAD DISCONTINUED USE OF THE INNOVATIONS Innovation Laggard  A d o p t e r Category Late Early Early m a j o r i t y m a j o r i t y adopterinnovator fo  %  fo  H.3  25.0  Regular t e s t i n g for mastitis  5.0  3-4  Paper t o w e l s or s e p a r a t e 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 impregnated cords  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  Systemic warble f l y control  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  Heat lamps f o r calves Heated w a t e r bowls o r t a n k s  0.0  0.0  0.0  6.3  0.0  3.4  0.0  12.5  Bulk bins  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  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.5  0.7  1.4  7.5  dryer  Average  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  I n n o v a t i o n Response S t a t e C o n t i n u - R e j e c t e d Adopted i n g t h e t h e i n n o - the i n n o vation adoption vation process  %  %  %  Discont i n u e d use of the innovation  %  Regular t e s t i n g for mastitis  0.0  21.0  19.0  9.0  Paper t o w e l s o r 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  10.0  16.0  7.0  0.0  I n s e c t i c i d e impregnated cords Systemic warble f l y control  1.0  6.0  0.0  0.0  Heat lamps f o r calves  0.0  34.0  7.0  0.0  Heated w a t e r bowls o r t a n k s  1.0  54.0  0.0  3-0  Bulk bins  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  0.0  26.0  0.0  0.0  1.2  28.2  5-3  1.6  dryer  Average  60 Table C I I PERCENTAGE OF THE RESPONDENTS WHICH HAD SPENT ONE OR MORE YEARS I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS, BY INNOVATION RESPONSE STATE AND INDIVIDUAL INNOVATION Innovation  I n n o v a t i o n Response S t a t e C o n t i n u - R e j e c t e d Adopted ing t h e t h e inno- the i n n o vation adoption v a t i o n process  Discont i n u e d use of the innovation  %  10  * .  2.0  12.0  10.0  2.0  Paper t o w e l s o r 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  11.0  2.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  Regular t e s t i n g for mastitis  %  I n s e c t i c i d e imp r e g n a t e d cords  23.0  Systemic warble f l y control  19.0  1.0  4.0  15.0  Heat lamps for calves Heated water bowls o r t a n k s  12.0  10.0  Bulk b i n s  18.0  Hay c o n d i t i o n e r Hay  dryer  Average  29.0  1.0  4.0  0.0  14.0  36.0  1.0  28.0  26.0  27.0  0.0  36.0  36.0  2.0  0.0  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 i n u a n c e due t o :  Character- Situai s t i c s of t i o n a l the inno- f a c t o r s vation  Character- S i t u a i s t i c s of t i o n a l the inno- f a c t o r s vation  Total  %  %  Regular t e s t i n g for mastitis  75.0  0.0  25.0  0.0  100.0  Paper t o w e l s o r 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 imp r e g n a t e d cords  88.9  11.1  0.0  0.0  100.0  S y s t e m i c warble f l y control  100.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  100.0  Heat lamps f o r calves  96.0  2.0  2.0  0.0  100.0  Heated water bowls o r t a n k s  28.3  67.2  0.0  4.5  100.0  Bulk bins  25.0  72.2  2.8  0.0  100.0  Hay  30.0  70.0  0.0  0.0  100.0  41.9  58.1  0.0  0.0  100.0  conditioner  Hay d r y e r  %  %  %  62 T a b l e CIV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF REASONS FOR REJECTION AND DISCONTINUANCE FOR THE TEN INNOVATIONS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Reason Laggard  Adopter C a t e g o r y Late Early Early majority majority adopterinnovator  %  %  %  %  60.9  62.3  64.2  78.4  Compatibility  1.1  3.9  2.5  0.0  Complexity  0.0 0.0  1.9 0.0  0.0  Divisibility  2.3 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 opera t i o n too small  23.9  14.6  16.0  9.4  Insufficient capital  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  Other s i t u a t i o n a l factors  1.1  2.3  0.6  0.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  R e l a t i v e advantage  Total  63 Table CV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF REASONS FOR REJECTION AND DISCONTINUANCE OF THE INNOVATIONS BY TIME SPENT I N THE ADOPTION PROCESS Innovation  Characteristics of the i n n o v a t i o n L e s s t h a n One o r one y e a r more y e a r s fo  %  Situational Total factors L e s s t h a n One o r one y e a r more y e a r s fo  fo  %  Regular t e s t i n g '68.2 for mastitis  31.8  0.0  0.0  100.0  Paper t o w e l s or s e p a r a t e cloths  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 cluster 73*3  24.5  2.2  0.0  100.0  Insecticide impregnated cords  48.2  40.7  11.1  0.0  100.0  Systemic warble f l y control 85-7  14-3  0.0  0.0  100.0  Heat lamps for calves  66.0  32.0  2.0  0.0  100.0  Heated water bowls o r t a n k s  21.0  7.4  64.2  7.4  100.0  Bulk bins  16.7  11.1  41.7  30.5  100.0  Hay conditioner  30.0  70.0  0.0  0.0  100.0  Hay d r y e r  14.5  27.4  27.4  30.7  100.0  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 7 15
United States 4 0
Canada 2 0
Norway 2 0
Russia 2 0
France 1 0
Malaysia 1 0
City Views Downloads
Shenzhen 6 15
Unknown 5 0
Ashburn 4 0
Victoria 2 0
Kuala Lumpur 1 0
Beijing 1 0

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

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0104751/manifest

Comment

Related Items