630.7 
 I (fib 
 no. 679 
 cop. 8 
 
UNIVERSITY OF 
 
 ILLINOIS LIBRARY 
 
 AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
 
 AGRICULTURE 
 
. 
 
79 
 
 Influences on 
 
 ACCEPTANCE OF FERTILIZER PRACTICES 
 
 in Piatt County, Illinois 
 
 By Wa 
 
 Bulletin 679 
 
 University of Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 The Research Problem 3 
 
 Purpose, Method, and Conditions of the Study 5 
 
 Acceptance of Fertilizer Practices 9 
 
 The Role of Communication 15 
 
 Personal and Related Characteristics Associated With 
 
 the Acceptance of Fertilizer Practices 24 
 
 Farm Operator Experiences and Attitudes Associated 
 
 With Acceptance of Fertilizer Practices. . 28 
 
 Social Group Influences on Acceptance of Fertilizer Practices 32 
 
 Summary 34 
 
 Literature Cited . . . 36 
 
 Urbana, Illinois December, 1961 
 
 Publications in the bulletin series report the results of investigations made 
 
 or sponsored by the Experiment Station 
 
I <l 
 
 Influences on 
 
 Acceptance of Fertilizer Practices 
 
 in Piatt County, Illinois 
 
 WARD W. BAUDER' 
 
 THE PHENOMENAL INCREASE IN THE PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY OF AMERICAN 
 
 farms which occurred simultaneously with a decrease in farm man- 
 power during World War II was due in part to the increased use of 
 commercial fertilizer. 
 
 The volume of commercial fertilizers used in the corn belt during 
 and since the war has reflected economic conditions. Yet if economic 
 considerations were the only basis for the acceptance of good fertilizer 
 practices, use of these practices would have been considerably more 
 general. Before this study was initiated, economists had estimated that 
 application of a comprehensive fertilizer program to all the farms in 
 the county studied could have doubled the farm income of that county. 2 
 
 THE RESEARCH PROBLEM 
 
 Why had farm operators in one of the most prosperous and pro- 
 gressive cash-grain farming areas of Illinois fallen so far short of a 
 technically attainable goal a goal which almost everyone would 
 agree was economically desirable ? This is a practical question that has 
 long faced agricultural extension and other agencies concerned with 
 bringing new technical knowledge to farm people. 
 
 Several theoretical points of view may be applied to this problem, 
 including the point of view of sociology. The sociologist views adop- 
 tion of new agricultural practices as part of the general category of 
 sociological phenomena called socio-cultural change. In their macro 
 aspect, changes in agricultural technology are part of the general pat- 
 tern of change in American society and are responsive to the same 
 moving forces. In micro aspects, the adoption of new practices takes 
 the form of decision-making by individual farmers and their wives. 
 
 1 Social science analyst, Economic Research Service, USDA, and Department 
 of Economics and Sociology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa; formerly 
 Professor of Rural Sociology, Department of Agricultural Economics, Univer- 
 sity of Illinois. 
 
 "At the time the interviews for this study were conducted (1953 and 1954), 
 an organized educational program promoted by the Cooperative Extension Serv- 
 ice was underway in Piatt county to increase the acceptance of a balanced 
 fertilizer program. This was one factor influencing the decision to make the 
 study there. 
 
4 BULLETIN NO. 679 (December 
 
 We live in an era of rapid socio-cultural change. Rural society 
 especially has been subjected to an almost explosive series of changes 
 in recent decades as a result of developments such as mechanization, 
 urbanization, industrialization, and communication. Modern communi- 
 cation and transportation facilities have "shrunk" the world to the 
 point where American farmers are almost literally in contact with city 
 residents as well as other farmers of this and most other nations in 
 the world. The effect has been a tremendous increase in the number 
 and variety of external pressures which actually or potentially impinge 
 upon the consciousness of the individual farmer and his family in 
 their everyday decision-making. 
 
 Yet in spite of the powerful pressures to change, there are great 
 resistances, even among the most progressive persons. Change is not 
 automatic, even in an environment so charged with dynamic forces as 
 ours. 
 
 Changes in farming, like changes in other practices such as style 
 of dress or speech mannerism, take place within a complex social 
 setting. This setting includes so many factors that an attempt to 
 identify the crucial ones for any particular change is a very formidable 
 task. For example, a cash-grain farmer in central Illinois may decide 
 to use commercial nitrogen fertilizer only after an economically rational 
 calculation of expected costs and returns. But other factors, many of 
 which are difficult to measure or cannot be measured in dollars and 
 cents, will have influenced his decision. Some examples are immediate 
 family needs which compete with fertilizers for the family's purchasing 
 power, family traditions, opinions and reactions of relatives and 
 friends, work habits, government programs, desire for prestige or 
 recognition, and misinformation or lack of knowledge. 
 
 Sociologists and other students of social change have noted re- 
 peatedly that social and cultural change is multi-dimensional that 
 acceptance of innovations in one area of human activity forces changes 
 in other areas. They have also noted that changes in social structure 
 and nonmaterial culture tend to lag behind technological change. Tech- 
 nological change triggers change in economic, political, and social 
 institutions. But in turn the influence of tradition and vested interest 
 in these institutions affects the rate of acceptance of technological 
 change. 1 
 
 *In recent years concern with this lag between technical "know-how" and 
 farm practice has prompted a number of serious, systematic efforts to discover 
 the reasons for the lag. These are generally referred to as studies of the diffusion 
 of farm practices. Productive contributions have been made by rural sociologists, 
 cultural anthropologists, educational psychologists, agricultural journalists, and 
 others. 
 
19611 ACCEPTANCE OF FERTILIZER PRACTICES 5 
 
 PURPOSE, METHOD, AND CONDITIONS OF THE STUDY 
 Purpose 
 
 This study, a study of social change, was concerned with the rela- 
 tionships between technological changes and various socio-cultural and 
 socio-psychological factors influencing farm people in their day-to-day 
 decision-making. The technological changes studied involved the use 
 of commercial mineral fertilizers. Answers were sought to the follow- 
 ing questions: 
 
 1. Of the farm operators in the sample, what proportion used the 
 principal mineral fertilizers? 
 
 2. At what rate did acceptance or adoption take place ? 
 
 3. What was the role of communication in the acceptance process? 
 When and how did farm operators learn of these fertilizers? 
 What were their sources of information? 
 
 4. How much lag was there between first knowledge and trial ? 
 
 5. What economic, social, and socio-psychological factors influenced 
 decisions to try the practices? 
 
 6. What socio-economic, sociological, and socio-psychological 
 characteristics of farm operators were associated with the accept- 
 ance of fertilizer practices? 
 
 Method 
 
 This study was limited to one major category of related agricultural 
 practices fertilizer practices. 
 
 The following six practices were included: 
 
 1. Soil testing. 
 
 2. Application of limestone. 
 
 3. Application of phosphate, either as rock phosphate or super- 
 phosphate. 
 
 4. Application of potassium. 
 
 5. Application of commercial mineral nitrogen in one or more of its 
 various forms. 
 
 6. Application of a mixed mineral fertilizer, either as a starter or 
 as a general replacement or maintenance application. 
 
 The decision to limit the study primarily to these six practices was 
 influenced by the practical considerations of limited time and resources, 
 and by the conviction that more may be learned by concentrating on a 
 small number of related practices. 1 
 
 'These six practices may be viewed as a single practice in the sense that 
 for most cash-grain farmers the adoption of a balanced fertilizer program 
 necessitates the use of all of the practices in a functional unit. 
 
6 BULLETIN NO. 679 (December 
 
 This was a study of human behavior, and as in any study of be- 
 havior the first problem was deciding which unit of behavior to meas- 
 ure. Obviously any of the above practices could be broken down into 
 measurable subunits of behavior. For example, the fact that a specific 
 fertilizer is used is a measurable unit of behavior, and the way a 
 fertilizer is applied to the soil and the time of application may also 
 be considered units for measurement and analysis. The fact that a 
 particular fertilizer was used is herein treated as the unit of behavior, 
 regardless of the amount used, time of application, or method of 
 application. 1 
 
 Acceptance scores 
 
 To facilitate the testing of hypotheses regarding the differences 
 among farmers with different degrees of acceptance of fertilizer prac- 
 tices, a composite score based on their knowledge of and experience 
 with each of the six practices was devised. Using three kinds of 
 evidence knowledge of each practice, extent of use of each practice, 
 and pattern of use of the six practices an index was constructed to 
 represent the farm operators' degree of acceptance of fertilizer prac- 
 tices. Extent of use of the various fertilizers and the comprehensive- 
 ness of the fertilizer program or pattern of use were given the major 
 weight in determining score positions. 
 
 Score positions varied over an 11 -point scale, from farmers who 
 had used none of the practices and had very little knowledge and under- 
 standing of them to those who were using all the applicable practices 
 in a well-organized, comprehensive fertilizer program. Because the 
 number of cases in some positions on the 11 -point scale were too few to 
 allow statistical analysis, the categories were further consolidated into 
 the four presented in Table 1. 
 
 The sample 
 
 Because a principal objective of the study was to investigate the 
 influences of various socio-cultural and socio-psychological factors 
 on the acceptance of a series of related practices, a county where these 
 practices were generally applicable provided the best opportunity. 
 About 85 percent of the land in Piatt county is class I land, adapted 
 to a cash-grain type of farming. Livestock and general farming enter- 
 prises are limited principally to the rougher land along the Sangamon 
 
 1 In making this decision, it was recognized that in many instances the amount 
 and kind of fertilizer used, and the time and method of application in the trial 
 stage, may have a very crucial influence on the decision to adopt the practice. 
 
19611 ACCEPTANCE OF FERTILIZER PRACTICES J 
 
 Table 1. Distribution of 221 Farm Operators 
 by Fertilizer Acceptance Score 
 
 Acceptance category Number Percent 
 
 Low* 
 
 51 
 
 23 1 
 
 Medium b 
 
 105 
 
 47 5 
 
 High" 
 
 45 
 
 20.4 
 
 Very high d 
 
 20 
 
 9.0 
 
 
 
 
 Never had soil tested or used any fertilizers, or used only small amounts in an un- 
 systematic manner. Low knowledge. 
 
 b Had soil tested_and used some fertilizers, but with poor knowledge of what constitutes 
 a comprehensive fertilizer program. 
 
 * Had soil tested and used a variety of fertilizer practices, with fairly good knowledge 
 of what constitutes a comprehensive fertilizer program. 
 
 d Had soil tested and used all applicable fertilizers in a comprehensive fertilizer program. 
 
 river, which cuts diagonally across the county from northeast to south- 
 west. Aside from the area along the river, the land is level (2 percent 
 or less slope) and composed of deep, well-drained prairie soils. 
 
 A sample of 221 farm operators was selected randomly from a 
 listing of all open-country households in the county. 1 The data were 
 obtained by personal interviews with a prepared schedule of questions. 
 
 Characteristics of sample farm operators 
 
 Several characteristics of the farm operators studied are presented 
 here as descriptive background for the discussion to follow. 
 
 Sex. All of the farm operators in the sample were men. 
 
 Age. Ages ranged from 19 to 76 years, with the median being 44.5, 
 and the mean 45.3. The distribution by age group of the 221 sample 
 farm operators was as follows: 
 
 Age group Number Percent 
 
 Under 30 15 7 
 
 30-34 26 12 
 
 35-39 40 18 
 
 40-44 34 15 
 
 45-49 26 12 
 
 50-54 24 11 
 
 55-59 18 8 
 
 60-64 16 7 
 
 65-69 14 6 
 
 70 or older . . 84 
 
 1 "Cultural" maps from the State Highway Commission were used in obtain- 
 ing and numbering the list of open-country households. A table of random num- 
 bers was used in making the selection. 
 
rs of schooling 
 nder 8 
 
 Number 
 17 
 
 Percent 
 
 7 
 
 
 72 
 
 33 
 
 -11 
 
 38 
 
 17 
 
 1 
 
 72 
 
 33 
 
 5 or more . . 
 
 22 
 
 10 
 
 8 BULLETIN NO. 679 ^December 
 
 Education. Years of schooling completed ranged from none to one 
 year of post-graduate college. The median was 10.4 years of schooling, 
 which compared favorably with the state median of rural farm males 
 in Illinois aged 25 and over in 1950. As will be noted again later, 
 farmers in Piatt county represent a rather select group in terms of 
 available measures of intelligence and managerial ability. The dis- 
 tribution of the 221 operators by educational attainment categories is 
 given below. 
 
 8 
 
 Marital status. Ninety-four percent of the men were married. The 
 remainder were equally divided between those who were widowed and 
 those who had never married. 
 
 Size of household. The mean size of household was 3.6 members. 
 About three- fourths (74 percent) of the households included children, 
 with the average number of children being 2.4 per household. 
 
 Tenure. Three- fourths of the sample operators were full tenants. 
 Another 13 percent were part owners, and only 12 percent were full 
 owner-operators. 
 
 Number of acres in farm. Farms ranged from less than 100 acres 
 to over 800. The median was 240. The owner-operators operated 
 smaller farms than the tenants or part owners. The respective medians 
 were 128, 229, and 313 acres. 
 
 Estimated gross income from crops. This constitutes a rough meas- 
 ure of size of operations in an area of cash-grain farming. Gross 
 incomes varied from less than $2,500 to over $50,000. The median was 
 $8,850. The distribution by estimated gross income from crops was as 
 follows: 
 
 Income group Number Percent 
 
 Under 5,000 49 22 
 
 5,000- 9,999 97 44 
 
 10,000-14,999 46 21 
 
 15,000-19,999 14 6 
 
 20,000-29,999 10 5 
 
 30,000-49,000 4 2 
 
 50,000 or more.. 1 
 
I96IJ ACCEPTANCE OF FERTILIZER PRACTICES 9 
 
 Landlords. The relatively high land values and high proportion of 
 tenants and part-owner-operators made the landlord an important 
 factor in decisions regarding the use of fertilizer practices. The 
 majority of tenant-operators (68 percent) had only one landlord, but a 
 few had as many as four to deal with. Most of the landlords, contrary 
 to a popular notion among the local people, were not absentee landlords. 
 Three-fourths of the landlords lived either in Piatt or an adjoining 
 county, and only 15 percent lived out of the state. 
 
 The median age of landlords was 66 years. Women outnumbered 
 men 55 to 45. 
 
 ACCEPTANCE OF FERTILIZER PRACTICES 
 
 The term acceptance is used in this study to include approval as 
 well as adoption of a practice. Adoption without approval is not likely 
 to occur, but approval without adoption may occur. Adoption is used 
 to refer to the inclusion of a practice in the farm operation on a more 
 or less permanent basis. If the practice has been used only once or 
 twice by an operator, or if it does not need to be repeated each year, 
 it is sometimes difficult to determine whether a unit of behavior signi- 
 fies adoption or merely trial. 
 
 Table 2 indicates the proportions of farm operators in the sample 
 who had at least tried each of the six practices. For each practice this 
 includes a wide range of behavior, ranging from farm operators who 
 had tried a single practice on a few acres to those who had used it in 
 a comprehensive, well-balanced fertilizer program. But it does serve 
 to indicate the relative degree of acceptance of the six different 
 practices. 
 
 Rate of acceptance 
 
 Other studies of the acceptance of farm technology have revealed 
 variations in the amount of time it takes for different practices to 
 become known and adopted. This was true of the six fertilizer prac- 
 tices in this study. 
 
 All farmers interviewed had heard of each of the six practices but 
 the dates when all had heard of them, the dates of "full awareness," 
 varied. Table 2 indicates the approximate date of full awareness of 
 each practice among the sample farm operators. Although awareness 
 of liming 1 was complete as early as 1940, some practices (potash, 
 
 1 Although lime is generally not classified as a fertilizer, it is included in 
 discussions of fertilizers and fertilizer practices in this study. 
 
10 BULLETIN NO. 679 [December 
 
 Table 2. Use, Awareness, and Acceptance Time 
 of Six Fertilizer Practices 
 
 Practice 
 
 Percent of 
 operators who 
 had used each 
 practice* 
 
 Approximate 
 date of full 
 awareness of 
 each practice 
 
 Average 
 acceptance time 
 (years) for each 
 practice b 
 
 Lime 
 
 90 
 
 1940 
 
 7.1 
 
 Phosphate 
 
 90 
 
 1950 
 
 6 6 
 
 Soil test 
 
 75 
 
 1950 
 
 7.6 
 
 Potash 
 
 30 
 
 1952 
 
 6.4 
 
 Commercial nitrogen 
 
 54 
 
 1952 
 
 2 8 
 
 Mixed fertilizer 
 
 81 
 
 1952 
 
 4 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 Having used the practice is not necessarily bona fide evidence of full adoption, although 
 in most cases it was. The fact that practices such as liming do not need to be repeated on 
 the same jand more than once every five to eight years made it difficult to obtain evidence of 
 full adoption in terms of repeated use of the practice. 
 
 b These data are adjusted to account for the fact that many of the younger operators 
 had heard of the practice before they started farming. Without this correction the time lapse 
 for soil testing would be 11.1 years. 
 
 nitrogen, and mixed fertilizer) were not known to all of the operators 
 until 12 years later. 
 
 Obviously not all farmers heard about each of the six practices at 
 the same time, nor did they all decide in the same year to use any 
 particular practice. Some first learned about and tried such practices 
 as liming and soil testing 30 or 40 years before this study was made; 
 others learned about them and tried them much more recently. 
 
 Figure 1 shows the cumulative percentages of farm operators in 
 the sample who had heard of and who had used each of the six practices 
 at different dates over a period of 34 years. 1 
 
 The awarness curve for each of the practices, and the trial or 
 adoption curves for the two (lime and phosphate) that passed the 85- 
 percent mark, exhibit the same characteristic S form a period of 
 slow increase after first introduction, a period of rapid acceleration, 
 and then a leveling off as saturation is approached. 
 
 Although the contours of the curves are similar for different prac- 
 tices, they vary considerably in steepness during the period of rapid 
 
 * In interpreting these charts, one should keep in mind that they are cumula- 
 tive proportions of a residual sample and exclude cases which might have been 
 included had the operators not died, retired from farming, or moved into non- 
 farm work. Because there is no assurance that the dropouts would have behaved 
 in the same way as those who remained in farming, it cannot be stated with 
 certainty that the observed pattern is the same as might have been obtained had 
 a sample been drawn at some date nearer the introduction of the practice and 
 observed continuously over a period. 
 
I96IJ 
 
 ACCEPTANCE OF FERTILIZER PRACTICES 
 
 100 
 
 eo 
 
 60 
 
 20 
 
 SOIL TESTING 
 
 1920 
 
 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1954 
 
 1920 
 
 1925 I93O 
 
 1935 
 
 1940 1945 
 
 1950 1954 
 
 100 
 
 80 
 
 60 
 
 40 
 
 20 
 
 POTASH 
 
 COMMERCIAL NITROGEN 
 
 MIXED FERTILIZER 
 
 1920 
 
 1925 
 
 1930 
 
 1935 
 
 1940 
 
 1945 
 
 1950 1954 
 
 Cumulative percentages of operators who had heard of and had used 
 various practices. (Fig- 1) 
 
12 BULLETIN NO. 679 (December 
 
 acceptance. The contrast is greatest between limestone and commercial 
 nitrogen. The use of commercial nitrogen climbed from less than 10 
 percent to 54 percent in just seven years. It required about 20 years 
 for the same change to occur with limestone. 
 
 Wilkening noted this variation in adoption rate in a North Carolina 
 study (8)* and suggested that such variations are related to (a) seri- 
 ousness of the need the practice meets, (b) communicability of the 
 practice, (c) immediacy and visibility of returns from its adoption, 
 and (d) the emphasis given to it by agricultural programs. 
 
 The relationship of the practice to other practices already in use 
 or available for adoption, and capital resources needed for adoption, 
 may be added to the above list in explaining variations in adoption 
 rate among fertilizer practices. 
 
 Acceptance time 
 
 For most people, the process of acceptance of a new idea takes 
 time. In Figure 1 the horizontal distance between the awareness and 
 trial curves provides a rough measure of the time lapse between first 
 knowledge and first use of a fertilizer practice. Table 2 presents a more 
 accurate estimate of the average time between awareness and first use 
 for each practice. This period is referred to in this study as acceptance 
 time. 
 
 The average time that farm operators have taken in deciding to try 
 specific fertilizer practices after first hearing about them varied con- 
 siderably. One of the "oldest" practices, soil testing, had the longest 
 acceptance time, while one of the "newest" had the shortest time. 
 Answers given in the interviews indicated that some farmers learned 
 about soil testing at demonstrations or in other ways 30 or more years 
 before they had any of their soil tested. 
 
 Relationship of a new practice to established practices 
 
 In his role as a farm operator the farmer accepts or rejects a new 
 practice in terms of the total complex of his behavior, which includes 
 practices directly related to the new practice. Often adoption of a 
 new practice requires that an old practice be abandoned or modified. 
 The new practice may also complicate an old practice or make it less 
 efficient. For example, in this study some operators explained that 
 they had discontinued the practice of applying starter fertilizer at 
 
 * This number and similar numbers in parentheses refer to "Literature Cited" 
 on page 36. 
 
1961 J ACCEPTANCE OF FERTILIZER PRACTICES 13 
 
 corn-planting time because of the time required to do the job, and 
 because of the extra manual labor involved in handling the sacks of 
 fertilizer. 
 
 Of the many changes taking place in American agriculture, some 
 are minor in scope and involve little or no alteration in other practices; 
 others have wide scope and require extensive alteration of the daily 
 and seasonal pattern of activities of the farm operator and his family. 
 The change to hybrid corn illustrates the first extreme, and a change 
 from cash grain to dairying represents the latter. 1 A change from 
 nonuse to use of mineral fertilizers falls in between these extremes. 
 Also, some changes are qualitative ( for example, the change from non- 
 use to use of commercial nitrogen) and some are quantitative (for 
 example, changes in the amount of elemental nitrogen applied to the 
 soil). This study concentrates on qualitative changes in fertilizer 
 practices. 
 
 Differences among individual farmers in acceptance 
 of new ideas 
 
 Differences in time required for different people to progress from 
 the awareness to the adoption stage contribute to the time lapse between 
 awareness and adoption of a practice within a group such as the sample 
 farmers in this study. 2 The acceptance time of a particular practice 
 is a composite of the time required for awareness to spread to all farm 
 operators and the time required for each operator to decide to adopt it. 
 
 One of the first studies of the adoption of improved farm practices 
 (7) noted that although the average time lapse between initial infor- 
 mation about hybrid corn and adoption was 5.5 years, this average 
 included "early adopters" who waited only 1.6 years together with 
 "late adopters" who waited 9.2 years. Others have since characterized 
 farmers in terms of how quickly they adopt new practices as either 
 innovators, early adopters, majority, or nonadopters. The implication 
 is that some people can be characterized as more willing than others 
 
 'Another dimension of variation, the attitudinal (social-psychological) 
 dimension, should be added to these. For example, although from an activity 
 standpoint the change to hybrid corn is a rather simple one, from the attitudinal 
 point of view it may have involved a very complicated and difficult change for 
 many farmers. 
 
 * A summary analysis of research projects in the adoption of new farm 
 practices (6) suggested that the acceptance of a new practice involves a sequence 
 of thoughts and actions beginning with awareness or first knowledge and 
 proceeding through the interest stage, the evaluation stage, and the trial stage 
 to adoption. 
 
14 BULLETIN NO. 679 [December 
 
 to accept new ideas. Although such a classification of farmers must 
 be used with caution, it does serve to illustrate the importance of 
 attitudes as variables influencing the acceptance process. 
 
 In this study, direct evidence of differences in readiness to accept 
 new practices was obtained from responses to the question: "When a 
 new practice comes out, do you like to try it right away?" Nearly 
 one- fourth (23 percent) of the respondents said yes; the remainder 
 said no. 
 
 Sequence of adoption of fertilizer practices 
 
 The functional relationship among the practices suggests a logical 
 sequence of adoption. Soil testing is first, followed by application 
 of lime and phosphate, and potash if needed. When these basic 
 minerals are present in the soil in adequate quantities, it is then logical 
 to consider the application of nitrogen. An exception would be when 
 the soil already contained enough lime, phosphate and potash, but this 
 would be an uncommon occurrence. 
 
 The figures below show the numbers and percentages of operators 
 who used soil testing and applications of lime, phosphate, or potash in 
 an improper order, that is, they applied the fertilizer before having 
 their soil tested. 
 
 Number testing soil and Fertilizer used prior 
 Fertilizer using the fertilizer to testing soil 
 
 Number Percent 
 
 Lime 144 83 58 
 
 Phosphate 152 66 43 
 
 Potash 57 25 
 
 The following tabulation indicates how many of the 115 farm 
 operators who used commercial nitrogen fertilizer either never applied 
 lime, phosphate, or potash, or started applying these "basic" mineral 
 fertilizers after using commercial nitrogen. 
 
 Practice Number Percent 
 
 Lime 
 
 Had never applied lime 2 2 
 
 Tried lime after trying nitrogen 3 3 
 
 Phosphate 
 
 Had never applied phosphate 5 4 
 
 Tried phosphate after trying nitrogen 5 4 
 
 Potash 
 
 Had never applied potash 62 54 
 
 Tried potash after trying nitrogen 26 23 
 
1961] ACCEPTANCE OF FERTILIZER PRACTICES IS 
 
 The figures do not tell the whole story, because some operators who 
 had used the basic fertilizers first did not apply sufficient quantities. 
 One-third of the 43 farmers who were dissatisfied with results of 
 using commercial nitrogen admitted that they had not adequately built 
 up the other requirements in their soil before applying the nitrogen. 
 
 Although the use of basic fertilizers and commercial nitrogen in 
 proper sequence was somewhat more common than the use of soil test- 
 ing and basic fertilizers in proper sequence, the low frequencies of 
 proper use in both cases indicate a low level of understanding of the 
 functional relations between fertilizer practices. It takes more than 
 just getting adoption of a series of independent practices to bring 
 about effective improvements in a fertilizer program. A comprehensive 
 educational effort that treats each practice as a part of an integrated 
 fertilizer plan is required. 
 
 THE ROLE OF COMMUNICATION 
 
 Because social change involves communication, some assessment of 
 the number and relative importance of various means of communication 
 has been a part of every farm-practice study. 
 
 Attention has been given to the availability of communications 
 media, sources of information most used, sources most trusted, relative 
 importance of different sources at different stages in the acceptance 
 process as one moves from awareness or first knowledge to adoption, 
 and the relative importance of different information sources to persons 
 who may be classified as innovators, early adopters, informal leaders, 
 and later adopters. Some attention has also been given to the fact 
 that the importance of various information sources varies with the 
 nature and complexity of the recommended practice. 
 
 With the development of radio in the 1920's, much attention was 
 given to the idea that the mass media were potent instruments for 
 bringing powerful action stimuli directly to millions of persons eager 
 to receive such stimuli. Such a picture offered great possibilities of 
 fostering change. 
 
 Intervening variables in the flow of information 
 
 Implicit in the concept of the role of mass media in communication 
 was the suggestion that these media were omnipotent, and that the 
 masses, on the other hand, were composed of independent persons 
 ready and willing to receive information and act accordingly. However, 
 
16 BULLETIN NO. 679 f December 
 
 evidence from small-group analysis, sociometric analysis, and com- 
 munications research made it increasingly clear that some very impor- 
 tant events and processes intervene between mass media and the masses. 
 The following intervening variables which may facilitate, alter, or 
 block the flow of information have been noted (3). 
 
 1. The degree of exposure or access to the stimuli transmitted by 
 mass media. 
 
 2. The differential character of the media themselves. (What is 
 the differential effect of the same message transmitted over radio, 
 over television, or via the newspaper?) 
 
 3. Content in the sense of form, presentation, and language. 
 
 4. The attitude of the audience. 
 
 5. Interpersonal relationships. 
 
 Several aspects of the nature and significance of these variables 
 to the communication process became evident in the data from this 
 study. 
 
 In a gadget-conscious society with a high material level of living 
 such as ours, it seems improbable that there would be significant 
 differences in exposure, or at least the potential opportunity for 
 exposure, to messages transmitted through mass media. Insofar as 
 possession of the instruments of mass media is a measure of potential 
 opportunity for exposure, this appears to be a sound assumption. 
 
 Farm magazines, newspapers, and radio are the principal mass 
 media used for diffusing new ideas in agriculture. Of the 221 farm 
 families in the sample, 99 percent reported owning a radio, 98 percent 
 subscribed to one or more daily newspapers, 74 percent subscribed to 
 one or more weekly newspapers, and all but one subscribed to one or 
 more farm magazines. 
 
 How many newspapers and farm magazines a family had was a 
 more appropriate basis for classification than having or not having 
 newspapers and magazines. Twenty-two percent reported having two 
 or more newspapers, and 64 percent reported four or more farm maga- 
 zines. The average number of farm magazines per family was 3.9, 
 and in addition each family had, on the average, 3.1 nonfarm maga- 
 zines. There also was a noticeable tendency to subscribe to more than 
 one weekly newspaper 15 percent reported two or more. 
 
 At the time of the interviews, 1953 and 1954, television was still 
 relatively new in rural areas. Even so, nearly half of the families 
 (48 percent) had television sets. 
 
 Table 3 indicates that farm operators with high fertilizer acceptance 
 scores tend to have more mass communications facilities than those 
 
1961 J ACCEPTANCE OF FERTILIZER PRACTICES 17 
 
 Table 3. Mean Number of Units of Various Mass Communications 
 Facilities per Family by Fertilizer Acceptance Score of Operator 
 
 Fertilizer 
 acceptance 
 score 
 
 Number 
 of 
 operators 
 
 Communications facilities 
 
 Daily 
 news- 
 papers 
 
 Weekly 
 news- 
 papers 
 
 Farm 
 maga- 
 zines 
 
 Nonfarm - 
 maga- 
 zines 
 
 television 
 
 Low . . . . 
 
 51 
 
 1.27 
 1.21 
 1.39 
 1.65 
 
 .98 
 .89 
 .93 
 1.20 
 
 3.33 
 3.95 
 3.80 
 4.55 
 
 2.89 
 2.75 
 3.92 
 3.90 
 
 .50 
 .42 
 .51 
 .30 
 
 Medium 
 
 ... 105 
 
 High 
 
 45 
 
 Very high . . 
 
 20 
 
 
 
 with low acceptance scores. But since the operators with low accept- 
 ance scores have quite ample facilities, it is likely that the apparent 
 association reflects a third variable, socio-economic status. Operators 
 with high socio-economic status as measured by estimated income (see 
 Table 7) tend to have the highest fertilizer acceptance scores and also 
 the most mass communications facilities. 
 
 Recent mass media research has revealed that owning a radio or 
 subscribing to a newspaper or magazine is no guarantee that informa- 
 tion transmitted via these media will be received by the individual. 
 Those groups which are most hopefully regarded as targets for a 
 message transmitted through mass media are often least likely to be in 
 the audience (3). Even though, by chance, they are in the audience 
 physically for example, being tuned in to a farm program on the 
 radio there is always the possibility that they may not be in the 
 audience mentally for any specific practice. Their acceptance of any 
 particular practice may have been arrested at the awareness stage. 
 
 Research also supports the observation that people view, listen to, 
 and read those things that support their opinions, and tend to avoid 
 exposing themselves to opinions that conflict with their own (4). 
 This puts mass media in the role of "rein forcers" rather than "con- 
 verters." Unfortunately, this may be true in spite of all the well- 
 meaning efforts to "break through" to individuals by combining several 
 mass media approaches into the same educational program and by care- 
 ful attention to the content of messages. Success in such efforts is often 
 rather severely limited, since even in the strictly informational pro- 
 grams attention may be conditioned by emotionally laden attitudes 
 toward an old practice or old knowledge which is threatened by the 
 new practice or knowledge. 
 
II BULLETIN NO. 679 (December 
 
 Sources of first information about fertilizer practices 
 
 In general, studies of the acceptance of recommended farm prac- 
 tices have indicated that the mass media are the most important sources 
 of first-remembered information about the practices (.6). 
 
 Fertilizer practices apparently are an exception to this rule. In 
 the Piatt county study, neighbors and friends or other farmers ranked 
 first by substantial margins for five of the six practices involved 
 (Table 4). 
 
 Data for this analysis were obtained from responses to the following 
 question: "As far as you can recall, where or how did you first hear 
 about this fertilizer practice ?" 
 
 Several of the practices were known to some farmers for 30 years or 
 more. Naturally it was especially difficult for respondents to recall 
 where and how they first heard about these practices. If there is any 
 selectivity in "recall" in favor of information received from individuals 
 over that received through mass media, the passage of time could 
 produce a cumulative error. However, as has already been indicated, 
 fertilizer practices are relatively complex, and procedures for deter- 
 mining amounts of application are complicated. The very complexity 
 of the practice and the absence of general recommendations with blanket 
 application is a logical argument for a personal contact as the source 
 of first information. 
 
 The high rank of neighbors and friends or other farmers, and 
 especially the vocational agriculture program, as the sources of first 
 information indicates that although the majority may have actually 
 first heard of these practices on the radio or read about them in a 
 newspaper or magazine, their first-remembered information came 
 directly from another person in face-to-face interaction. 
 
 The extreme difficulty of isolating specific causal factors in any 
 human relations situation is illustrated by the data from this study. 
 Note that the vocational agriculture program ranked first as the source 
 of first information about soil testing (Table 4). Apparently a histori- 
 cal factor is involved. 1 
 
 The important consideration is not which agency or program is most 
 important, but that a particular type of information or educational 
 program the face-to- face discussion involving a systematic approach 
 to the problem over a period of time is especially effective in pre- 
 
 1 Some observers have said that the vocational agriculture program has car- 
 ried the major load in spreading soil testing information and awareness in 
 Illinois. That this has been true, at least in Piatt county, is indicated by the data. 
 The basic position of soil testing as the foundation practice in a comprehensive 
 fertilizer program no doubt has been a factor in the importance of vocational 
 agriculture as a source of first information about other fertilizer practices. 
 
I961J 
 
 ACCEPTANCE OF FERTILIZER PRACTICES 
 
 
 1 
 
 JL| 
 
 E o 2 
 
 f~ i i >O "5 <N *5 OO 
 
 
 V 
 
 55 o 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 (2 
 
 p>l ** \O rO ^* >O 
 
 
 
 v. en 
 
 
 
 
 V o 
 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 E-oS 
 
 Tt< ^J* O ^O ^t* O O O 
 
 
 
 3 4> 
 
 
 09 
 
 0) 
 
 'M 
 
 Z Q 
 
 
 O 
 
 ^> ^ 
 
 ,. 
 
 
 
 
 iS 
 
 c 
 
 ^H cs 10 rf) * 
 
 1 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 h 
 
 
 w M 
 
 
 4) 
 
 
 o ^ 
 
 
 N 
 
 "rt 
 
 c "^ ta 
 
 i O\ O <*5 "5 **5 ^OO 
 
 9 
 
 *?j C 
 
 C O L^ 
 
 OO ' -" ^" **) 
 
 *p 
 
 u CJ 
 
 3 QJ 
 
 
 4> 
 
 to 
 
 S2 
 
 Z o 
 
 
 * 
 
 o'c 
 U 
 
 rt 
 
 ~* : **e**> " 
 
 'D 
 
 
 
 
 PI 
 
 
 - m 
 
 
 eo 
 
 
 o O 
 
 
 j 
 
 01 
 
 rt 
 
 3 U 
 
 ^< rj< CS ro > i 
 
 8, 
 
 0) 
 
 c 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 i es TJI PO "5 *o *^ 
 
 > 
 
 
 i^ m 
 
 
 o 
 
 & 
 
 
 
 o> 
 
 rt 
 
 1 
 v ^ 
 
 J i, 
 
 OO ^ T-I << CS 
 
 B 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 to 
 *o 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 -,,. - ; 
 
 1> 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 J5 2 
 |o2 
 
 O ^^ f*^ OO t^ t^ O O 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 4) 
 
 
 c 
 
 -* 
 
 
 
 
 U flj 
 -* 2* 
 
 " / - ~ 
 
 
 
 
 1 N'l 
 
 
 
 
 E. ft 
 
 | ^ .SS jo 
 
 
 
 
 .S E a c 5 ^_^i 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 2 - ^ c 3? S 
 
 ill* i-f 2 i 
 
 ?s ** c rt "(5 w . O 
 
 
 
 
 llJIllPl 
 
20 BULLETIN NO. 679 fDecemb.r 
 
 senting information that "sticks" when the practices involved are as 
 complicated as those in a fertilizer program. 
 
 Mass media, specifically magazines and newspapers, were second in 
 importance as sources of first information about commercial nitrogen 
 fertilizer and third in importance for phosphate, potash, and mixed 
 fertilizer. They were less important for liming and soil testing. 
 
 Dealers and salesmen were apparently not important sources of first 
 information about fertilizer practices, with the possible exception of 
 commercial nitrogen. An Iowa study of fertilizer practices produced 
 similar results (1). On the other hand, a study of the acceptance of 
 hybrid corn in Iowa indicated that dealers and salesmen were very 
 important sources of first information, especially as the use of hybrid 
 seed became more general in the state (7). 
 
 The Agricultural Extension Service (farm advisers), although an 
 important source of first information for all the practices studied, 
 did not rank higher than third place in any case. In the commercial 
 nitrogen and mixed fertilizers categories, the Extension Service ranked 
 below dealers and salesmen. 
 
 Influences of the various government programs on the use of lime 
 and phosphate, and of landlords in the use of commercial nitrogen as a 
 high-cost quick-return practice were also indicated by the data. 
 
 Specialists from the University of Illinois, test plots, and field 
 day programs were mentioned as sources of first information on all but 
 one of the six practices. This is a mixed category which included some 
 widely different kinds of contacts, but they have in common the fact 
 that they are more or less direct contacts with an originating source 
 of information on fertilizer practices, the Agricultural Experiment 
 Station. A relatively small percentage of operators (less than 6 percent 
 in all cases) reported these sources as the first sources. 
 
 Sources of most information about fertilizer practices 
 
 Here are the sources of most information about fertilizer practices 
 as reported by farm operators in the sample (some operators mentioned 
 more than one source) : 
 
 N timber of operators 
 Source reporting 
 
 Farm magazines 147 
 
 Other farmers 116 
 
 Farm advisers 101 
 
 Fertilizer dealers 84 
 
 Vocational agriculture teachers 58 
 
 Agriculture College bulletins 43 
 
196/; ACCEPTANCE OF FERTILIZER PRACTICES 21 
 
 Although farm magazines were the most frequently mentioned, no 
 other mass media source was mentioned often enough to be included in 
 the tabulation. Of the other sources listed, all except college bulletins 
 involve personal contact. 
 
 Definition of source presents a problem here. Certain mass media 
 may be viewed in two distinct roles by a farm operator. For example, 
 the radio may be viewed as the source of information, or it may be 
 viewed simply as the medium for transmitting information. Farm 
 operators who know the farm adviser personally may think of the 
 adviser, rather than the radio station, as the source of information 
 when they listen to his regularly scheduled programs. Authors of 
 magazine articles, on the other hand, are not as likely to be known 
 personally by many of their readers. Thus the magazine rather than 
 the author is remembered as the source. 
 
 Most trusted sources of information 
 
 Recognizing the possibility of confusion between media and author- 
 ity as sources of information, farmers were asked to indicate the kinds 
 of authorities they were most inclined to trust as sources of informa- 
 tion on fertilizers. The results, in order of rank, were as follows: 
 
 Number of Number of 
 
 operators operators 
 
 Authority reporting Authority reporting 
 
 Farm advisers 165 Relatives, members of family 22 
 
 Vocational agriculture PMA representatives 20 
 
 teachers 84 Farm organization leaders. . . 16 
 
 University specialists 78 Landlords, farm managers ... 6 
 
 Other farmers 75 Veterans, teachers 3 
 
 Salesmen or dealers 46 Newspapers and magazines . . 2 
 
 Bankers 37 Businessmen 2 
 
 Magazines, which were the most frequently mentioned source of 
 most information, were not in the top 10 authorities most trusted. This 
 strongly suggests that any assessment of relative importance of various 
 information sources must consider the farmer's identification of the 
 authority for the information, whether it comes to him via the printed 
 word or by word of mouth. 
 
 Magazine articles, news stories, or radio talks by persons considered 
 trusted authorities on fertilizer carry more weight than articles or 
 talks by persons not trusted. Not only what is said but who says it 
 is important. 
 
22 
 
 BULLETIN NO. 679 
 
 (December 
 
 Importance of personal influence 
 
 The effect of information per se on decision-making, and the per- 
 sonal influence of the communicant, are often indistinguishable. One 
 element in this picture, authority, has already been mentioned. 
 
 An estimate of the importance of personal influence on farm opera- 
 tors' decisions to try fertilizer practices is provided in Table 5. For 
 all but one practice a majority of the respondents said that information 
 from another person influenced them to make their first trial of the 
 practice. "Neighbors' results" were kept distinct in the tabulation 
 because of the possibility of direct observation. However, to the extent 
 that neighbors' results were communicated, and to the extent that 
 directly observed neighbors' results were given credence because of 
 status considerations, they include a "personal influence" element 
 together with the information provided. 
 
 Kinds of persons influencing decisions to try fertilizer practices 
 
 Anthropological studies have revealed wide variations in patterns 
 for arriving at decisions. They range from one extreme where issues 
 are almost never met by ad hoc opinions to others where most issues 
 are resolved on ad hoc considerations. In the former, precedents are 
 always sought the "wise men" of the group decide what is ap- 
 propriate from their knowledge of the past. In the latter, everyone, 
 regardless of age or status, feels entitled to voice an opinion and 
 make a decision in terms of his current mood. Rural society in the 
 United States is somewhere between these extremes. Although farm 
 
 Table 5. Number of Operators Who Used Each of the Six Fertilizer 
 
 Practices and Percent Reporting Various Information Sources 
 
 That Influenced Them to First Try the Practice 
 
 Practice 
 
 Number 
 of 
 users 
 
 Influencing information source 
 
 Another 
 person 
 
 Mass 
 media 
 
 Govt. 
 pro- 
 gram 
 
 Soil 
 test 
 
 Personal 
 experi- 
 ence* 
 
 Neigh- 
 bors' 
 results 
 
 Lime .... 
 
 199 
 
 40.7 
 50.2 
 80.5 
 
 70.0 
 
 54.2 
 58.8 
 
 (percentage reporting) 1 " 
 14.2 13.1 28.1 20.1 
 43.0 20.0 33.2 11.0 
 22.4 ( c ) 52.2 12.0 
 
 30.8 () () () 
 26.3 () () 15.1 
 14.5 12.1 14.0 
 
 17.1 
 14.1 
 12.0 
 
 35.0 
 28.0 
 12.1 
 
 Phosphate 
 
 199 
 
 Potash 
 
 67 
 
 Commercial 
 nitrogen 
 
 120 
 
 Mixed fertilizer. . 
 Soil test 
 
 . 179 
 . 165 
 
 
 
 Dissatisfaction with yield, noticed signs of deficiency in crops, etc. 
 
 b Totals exceed 100 because some operators reported more than one information source. 
 
 c Less than 1 percent of users. 
 
1961) ACCEPTANCE OF FERTILIZER PRACTICES 23 
 
 people do not rely wholly on "wise men" to direct action in terms of 
 precedent, they usually make decisions in terms of local customs, and 
 very seldom without regard to the opinions of others. 
 
 In studies of public affairs we have learned that frequently the 
 husband "tells his wife" what the issues are and how to vote (3). 
 Although not many farmers in this study said their wives influenced 
 them to try a fertilizer practice, relatives were often listed as having 
 influenced the decision. 
 
 The following tabulation shows the number (571) and percentage 
 of persons in various categories said to have influenced decisions of 
 the sample farm operators to try a specific practice. 
 
 Number of Percent 
 Influence source persons mentioned of total 
 
 Landlords 133 23.3 
 
 Relatives 102 17.8 
 
 Neighbors 88 15.4 
 
 Salesmen 33 5.8 
 
 Vocational agriculture teachers 2 .4 
 
 Farm advisers 1 .2 
 
 Others 212 37.1 
 
 A large number could not be classified because respondents gave the 
 names of persons without identifying them as to type. Landlords, rela- 
 tives, and neighbors were the most frequently mentioned. Replies of 
 the operators indicated that though farm advisers and vocational agri- 
 culture teachers were recognized as the authorities on fertilizer practice 
 information, they did not often personally "influence" adoption. Such 
 
 Table 6. Reasons for Not Trying Specific Fertilizer Practices 
 
 or for Failure to Try the Practice Sooner, 
 
 Ranked in Order of Importance 
 
 Practice 
 
 Reason 
 
 Soil 
 test 
 
 Lime 
 
 Phos- 
 phate 
 
 Potash 
 
 Commer- 
 cial 
 nitrogen 
 
 Mixed 
 fertilizer 
 (starter) 
 
 Landlord objection. . . . 
 Satisfaction with yield, 
 soil conditions, etc. . . 
 Lack of sufficient 
 knowledge of practice 
 Cost or expense 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 3 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 3 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 3 
 4 
 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 4 
 
 2 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 Lack of equipment .... 
 
 Soil test . . 
 
 
24 BULLETIN NO. 679 (December 
 
 influence came through more informal relationships with persons more 
 closely identified with the farmer, such as neighbors and relatives or 
 landlords. 
 
 The landlord showed up as an important influence not only in adop- 
 tion but in nonadoption of fertilizer practices. With one exception 
 (commercial nitrogen), landlord objections, or reluctance of the land- 
 lord to go along with the trial, was given as the ranking reason for 
 not trying a practice or for failure to try it sooner (Table 6). Satis- 
 faction with present yields and soil conditions was the second most 
 often mentioned reason for delay on four of the six practices. 
 
 PERSONAL AND RELATED CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED 
 WITH THE ACCEPTANCE OF FERTILIZER PRACTICES 
 
 Other studies of the acceptance of farm practices have indicated 
 that differences in acceptance are associated with differences in such 
 factors as age, education, tenure status of the farm operator, and size 
 of the farm operation. Evidence of such associations was present in 
 varying degrees in this study. 
 
 Farm operator-farm operation characteristics 
 
 Age. A man's age as such places no restriction on his ability to 
 adopt a new practice except perhaps at the extremes of old or young. 
 But age is commonly associated with certain other material and 
 attitudinal factors which influence ability to try a new practice or will- 
 ingness to accept the risks of trial. Operator actions may be influenced 
 by such diverse items as operating capital, family needs, education, 
 degree of managerial control over farm operations, and security needs. 
 Some of these items tend to be directly associated with age (for exam- 
 ple, operating capital and managerial control), and some tend to be 
 inversely associated (for example, education and risk-taking). Others, 
 like family needs, which compete with the farm for available capital, 
 exhibit a curvilinear relationship to age. Insofar as these are causative 
 factors in the acceptance process, they confound the relationship be- 
 tween age and acceptance. This confounding effect is observable in 
 the first section of Table 7. 
 
 In a Missouri study (5) a small and negative correlation was ob- 
 tained between age and a series of nine improved farm practices. 
 However, an analysis of variance indicated that among four factors 
 age, education, gross farm income, and participation in formal social 
 groups only farm income and social participation were related to 
 farm practice ratings. 
 
ACCEPTANCE OF FERTILIZER PRACTICES 25 
 
 Table 7. Percentage Distribution of Farm Operators by Fertilizer 
 
 Acceptance Score, Age, Years of Schooling, Estimated Gross 
 
 Income From Crops, Number of Acres Farmed, and Tenure 
 
 Fertilizer acceptance score 
 
 Low Medium 
 
 Age of operators 
 
 Under 40 (N= 82) 16 52 32 
 
 40-55 (N = 101) 29 40 31 
 
 55 or older (N =36) 22 58 20 
 
 X* = 7.49 df = 4 .20>P>.10* 
 
 Years of schooling 
 
 8 or less (N- 89) 24 51 25 
 
 9-12 (N = 110) 24 44 32 
 
 13 or more (N = 22) 18 45 37 
 
 X' = 2.07 df = 4 .80>P>.70* 
 
 Estimated gross income from crops 
 
 Under $5 ,000 (N= 50) 25 62 13 
 
 $5,000 to $9,999 (N =97) 29 44 27 
 
 $10,000 to $14,999 (N =46) 20 41 39 
 
 $15,000 or over (N- 29) 7 41 52 
 
 X* = 15.82 elf = 6 .02>P>.01* 
 
 Number of acres farmed 
 
 Less than 150 (N = 37) 35 55 10 
 
 150-199 (N =50) 22 56 22 
 
 200-249 (N =44) 25 46 29 
 
 250-349 (N =47) 19 45 36 
 
 350^99 (N = 26) 27 38 35 
 
 500 or more (N = 17) 35 65 
 
 X = 18.68 df = 10 .05>P>.02* 
 
 Tenure of operator 
 
 Owner (N = 26) 38 54 8 
 
 Part-owner (N = 30) 17 40 43 
 
 Tenant (N = 164) 22 48 30 
 
 X = 10.49 df = 4 .05>P>.02* 
 
 * Computed on actual numbers. 
 
 Education. Although acceptance tends to increase with number of 
 years of schooling completed by the farm operator, the association was 
 not statistically significant in this study (Table 7). 
 
 Size of farm operation. Two measures of size of farm operations 
 were used estimated gross income from crops and number of acres 
 operated. 
 
 Respondents were not asked to report their incomes, but an estimate 
 of gross income from crops was made from information on acres of 
 crops and crop yields during the growing season just prior to the inter- 
 view. Although not by any means perfect, estimated gross income 
 from crops is a fairly good measure of size of operations in a cash- 
 
26 BULLETIN NO. 679 (December 
 
 grain area such as east-central Illinois. For many farmers in the area 
 gross income from crops is practically equivalent to gross farm income. 
 
 Estimated gross income from crops was significantly associated with 
 level of acceptance of fertilizer practices. Farm operators with esti- 
 mated gross incomes from crops of $15,000 or more were four times 
 as likely to have high or very high acceptance scores as operators with 
 gross crop incomes under $5,000 (Table 7). 
 
 Total acres operated, another measure of size of operations, was 
 also significantly associated with level of acceptance of fertilizer prac- 
 tices (Table 7). The table indicates that farmers operating the larger 
 farms were more likely to have high acceptance of fertilizer practices 
 than farmers on smaller farms. 
 
 Tenure. In many farming areas, and particularly areas of relatively 
 low productivity and low income, there are major differences between 
 owner-operators and tenant-operators in their acceptance of recom- 
 mended farm practices. Wilkening found that in North Carolina 
 owner-operators had the higher acceptance levels (8). The reverse was 
 true for Piatt county farm operators tenants or part owners were 
 more likely to have high acceptance of fertilizer practices than owner- 
 operators (Table 7). 
 
 The explanation for the different pattern of association in Piatt 
 county is found in differences in status value of land ownership. 
 Traditionally land ownership has been associated with higher socio- 
 economic status than tenancy. However, although land ownership is 
 still an important goal and a status symbol, it is no longer the domi- 
 nant status symbol in this area of cash-grain farming. Evidence in 
 the study suggests that it has been at least partially replaced by man- 
 agerial ability, the chief outward evidence of which is size of operation. 
 The part-owner group had the largest average size of operation as 
 measured either by number of acres or estimated gross income from 
 crops, as shown in the following tabulation. 
 
 Median number Median estimated gross 
 
 Tenure status of acres income from crops 
 
 Part owners 303 #12,000 
 
 Full tenants 229 7,150 
 
 Full owners 128 6,428 
 
 Landlord characteristics and acceptance of fertilizer practices 
 
 It was noted in the previous section that landlords were important 
 in influencing the decision to try or not to try new fertilizer practices. 
 A number of landlord stereotypes were expressed by respondents dur- 
 ing the field interviews. Two examples were (a) that absentee land- 
 
1961) ACCEPTANCE OF FERTILIZER PRACTICES 27 
 
 lords had a negative influence on agricultural progress, and (b) that 
 it was harder to convince women landlords of the value of improved 
 practices than to convince men landlords. Only one-fourth of the land- 
 lords could be classified as absentee. Fifty-five percent of the landlords 
 were women. 
 
 To determine which characteristics, if any, of landlords were im- 
 portant in influencing decisions to accept new fertilizer practices, 
 tenant-operators' acceptance scores were cross-tabulated against various 
 characteristics of their landlords and the leasing agreements. 
 
 Only the following two relationships between landlord and accept- 
 ance of fertilizer practices were found to be statistically significant 
 (Table 8): (1) farm operators with nonresident landlords tended to 
 have significantly higher acceptance scores than operators with local 
 landlords, and (2) farm operators who felt confident that they could 
 continue on their present farms almost indefinitely had significantly 
 higher acceptance scores than operators who did not know how long 
 they might stay or who anticipated a definite time limitation. 
 
 The sex of the landlord was apparently not an important factor, 
 nor were such characteristics as age, occupation, or whether the tenant 
 was related to the landlord. The nature of the lease whether written 
 or oral, for a definite period or an indefinite period apparently did 
 not matter, but how the tenant regarded the permanency of the arrange- 
 ment was related to his acceptance of fertilizer practices. The latter 
 did not appear to be a product of the formal lease conditions, but of an 
 informal understanding between landlord and tenant. 
 
 Table 8. Association of Fertilizer Acceptance Score With 
 Characteristics of the Landlord and the Leasing Agreement 
 
 Characteristics 
 
 Direction of 
 relationship 
 
 X 
 
 Level of 
 C signifi- 
 cance" 
 
 Landlord 
 Residence (local or absentee) 
 Age 
 
 + (absentee) 
 no pattern 
 
 51.58 
 10.75 
 
 .401 .01 
 
 Sex 
 
 no pattern 
 
 1.08 
 
 
 Related to tenant or not . . . 
 Occupation (farm or non- 
 farm) 
 
 + (not related) 
 -f- (nonfarm) 
 
 5.11 
 6.11 
 
 
 Leasing arrangement 
 Oral or written 
 
 no pattern 
 
 1.91 
 
 
 Length (definite or indefi- 
 nite period) . . . 
 
 no pattern 
 
 2.79 
 
 
 Length of time tenant expects 
 to continue on same farm 
 
 -f- indefinite stay 
 
 14.86 
 
 .236 .05 
 
 Only .01 or .05 levels of significance reported. 
 
28 BULLETIN NO. 679 (December 
 
 FARM OPERATOR EXPERIENCES AND ATTITUDES ASSOCIATED 
 WITH ACCEPTANCE OF FERTILIZER PRACTICES 
 
 Recognizing the probable importance of situational and environ- 
 mental factors in influencing decisions to try new fertilizer practices, 
 tests were made for association of acceptance scores with a number of 
 farm operator experience and attitude factors. The experiences fall 
 into three general classifications farm operation, personal, and social. 
 Social experiences are considered in a separate following section. 
 
 Farm operation practices and experiences 
 
 It is logical for a farm operator's experiences with fertilizer and 
 certain related farm practices to be associated with his level of accept- 
 ance of fertilizer practices. Data on practices and experience assumed 
 to be sufficiently related to influence or be influenced by fertilizer 
 practices were cross-tabulated with acceptance scores (Table 9). 
 
 Chi-square tests of association indicated statistically significant 
 association of acceptance scores with use of a crop rotation program, 
 the length of time the rotation program was followed, increasing corn 
 planting rate when nitrogen is applied, and, for those who had used 
 each respective practice, satisfaction with the results of the use of 
 commercial nitrogen and potash. 
 
 Practices such as saving manure, using certified seed, using chemi- 
 cal weed control, applying commercial nitrogen in the fall, including 
 grass in the legume seeding, and burning plant residues were not 
 associated with acceptance scores. Expressions of satisfaction with 
 results in the use of lime, phosphate, soil testing, and mixed fertilizer 
 were not significantly associated with acceptance scores. 
 
 Personal experiences 
 
 It was postulated that a number of personal experiences would in- 
 fluence a farm operator's acceptance of fertilizer practices. Data were 
 obtained on experiences that could contribute to the farmer's knowl- 
 edge of scientific farming, such as having been a member or having a 
 son or daughter in a 4-H Club, taking vocational agriculture courses 
 in high school, or having a son in such courses, and attendance at 
 adult classes for farmers (veterans' classes, vocational agriculture 
 classes). Data were also obtained on variations in occupational experi- 
 ence such as years of farm operation and whether the farmer had had 
 any nonfarm job experience. 
 
I96IJ 
 
 ACCEPTANCE OF FERTILIZER PRACTICES 
 
 29 
 
 Table 9. Association of Fertilizer Acceptance Score With Various 
 Other Farming Practices and Experiences 
 
 France or experience %% X- C 
 
 Level of 
 signifi- 
 cance* 
 
 Crop rotation + use of crop 22 38 303 
 
 01 
 
 rotation 
 Length of time crop rotation 
 has been followed + longer period 8 28 210 
 
 05 
 
 I ncreasing planting rate of corn 
 when nitrogen is applied ... + increased 15. 15 .359 
 planting rate 
 Satisfaction with results of 
 commercial nitrogen use. ... + satisfied 15.25 .335 
 Satisfaction with results of 
 potash use + satisfied 6 90 979 
 
 .01 
 
 .01 
 05 
 
 Satisfaction with results of 
 liming no pattern 1 57 
 
 
 Satisfaction with results of 
 phosphate application no pattern 4 42 
 
 
 Satisfaction with results of 
 soil testing no pattern 5 12 
 
 
 Satisfaction with results of 
 mixed fertilizer use -(- satisfied 5 57 
 
 
 Saving manure -|- save manure 5 01 
 
 
 Application of commercial 
 nitrogen in the fall + fall application 4.66 
 
 
 Certified seed no pattern 2.71 
 
 
 Chemical weed control no pattern 3.37 
 
 
 Use of commercial nitrogen to 
 offset legume failure no pattern 3.44 
 
 
 Use of grass in the legume 
 seeding no pattern 3 . 80 
 
 
 
 
 Only .01 or .05 levels of significance reported. 
 
 Table 10. Association of Fertilizer Acceptance Score With 
 Personal Experiences of the Farm Operator 
 
 Various 
 
 Experience relSSSiip X ' C 
 
 Level of 
 signifi- 
 cance* 
 
 4-H (operator) .. . . -f 4-H experience 10.45 .221 
 
 .02 
 
 Son or daughter in 4-H + 4-H experience 55.56 .450 
 
 .01 
 
 Attendance at adult classes. .. -f attendance 10.80 1.97 
 Vocational agriculture no pattern 2.81 
 
 .02 
 
 Son in vo-ag + son in voca- 
 
 
 tional agriculture 8.52 .195 
 Years operating a farm . no pattern 4.64 
 
 .05 
 
 Nonfarm job no pattern 4 . 83 
 
 
 Percent of family income from 
 nonfarm work no pattern 3 . 65 
 
 
 
 
 Only .01 or .05 levels of significance reported. 
 
30 BULLETIN NO. 679 (December 
 
 Statistical analysis indicated that acceptance of fertilizer practices 
 was associated with four out of five "educational" experiences that 
 might increase the farm operator's knowledge of scientific agriculture 
 (Table 10). 
 
 Farm operators who had been 4-H Club members and farm opera- 
 tors who had children in 4-H work were more likely to have high 
 acceptance scores. Farm operators who had attended adult classes and 
 those with boys in vocational agriculture also were more likely to have 
 high acceptance scores, but farmers who had taken vocational agri- 
 culture in school were no more likely to have high acceptance scores 
 than those who had not. The latter result appears inconsistent, but this 
 may be explained by the fact that vocational agriculture was not avail- 
 able to the older farmers who completed high school training before 
 the program was installed at their local schools. Probably the incon- 
 sistency would not have appeared if this time variable had been con- 
 trollable. Lack of data on where farmers attended high school and 
 whether vocational agriculture was available to them prevented such 
 control. 
 
 Variations in length of farming experience and in nonfarm work 
 experience were not associated with variations in acceptance scores. 
 
 Attitudes 
 
 From the suggestion that farmers can be classified as innovators, 
 early adopters, majority, and laggards or nonadopters, it follows that 
 at any point in time the early adopters would have a higher acceptance 
 score on a series of related practices, such as fertilizer practices, not 
 introduced simultaneously. The underlying hypothesis is that measur- 
 able differences exist in attitude toward new practices which will 
 influence readiness to adopt. To test this hypothesis, acceptance scores 
 were tabulated against time of trial of each practice. 
 
 Early trial of four of the six practices was associated with higher 
 acceptance scores at a statistically significant level. The two exceptions 
 were lime and phosphate (Table 11). 
 
 Further evidence of differences among farm operators in receptivity 
 toward new practices was found when responses to the following 
 question were tabulated against acceptance scores: "When a new 
 practice comes out, do you like to try it right away?" (Table 12). 
 Farmers who answered "yes" tended to have higher acceptance scores 
 than those answering "no." 
 
 Proponents of the classification of farmers as innovators, early 
 adopters, etc., also suggest that the innovators go through the accept- 
 
1961) ACCEPTANCE OF FERTILIZER PRACTICES 31 
 
 Table 11. Association of Fertilizer Acceptance Score and Time 
 of Trial of Each Fertilizer Practice 
 
 Practice 
 
 Direction of 
 relationship 
 
 X* 
 
 C 
 
 Level of 
 signifi- 
 cance* 
 
 Soil test 
 
 . . . . -(- early trial 
 
 14 42 
 
 288 
 
 05 
 
 Potash 
 
 . . . . -f- early trial 
 
 8 11 
 
 329 
 
 05 
 
 Commercial nitrogen 
 
 . . . . -(- early trial 
 
 18 47 
 
 339 
 
 05 
 
 Mixed fertilizer 
 
 . . . . -j- early trial 
 
 14 40 
 
 274 
 
 05 
 
 Lime 
 
 . . . . no pattern 
 
 2 74 
 
 
 
 Phosphate 
 
 . . . . no pattern 
 
 9 32 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Only .01 or .05 levels of significance reported. 
 
 Table 12. Association of Fertilizer Acceptance Score and Responses 
 
 to the Question: "When a New Practice Comes Out, 
 
 Do You Like to Try It Right Away?" 
 
 Fertilizer acceptance score No Yes Total 
 
 Low 
 
 40 
 
 11 
 
 51 
 
 Medium 
 
 86 
 
 19 
 
 105 
 
 High 
 
 33 
 
 11 
 
 44 
 
 Very high 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 19 
 
 Total 
 
 168 
 
 51 
 
 219 
 
 
 
 
 
 X' = 11.13 df-3 .02>P>.01 
 
 Table 13. Association of Acceptance Time of Various Fertilizer 
 Practices With Acceptance Score 
 
 Practice 
 
 Direction of 
 relationship 
 
 X* 
 
 Level of 
 signifi- 
 cance* 
 
 Soil test 
 
 no pattern 
 
 2.71 
 
 
 Lime 
 
 no pattern 
 
 6.97 
 
 
 Phosphate 
 
 no pattern 
 
 4.22 
 
 
 Potash 
 
 no pattern 
 
 .90 
 
 
 Commercial nitrogen 
 
 no pattern 
 
 7.70 
 
 
 Mixed fertilizer 
 
 no pattern 
 
 5.07 
 
 
 AH six practices 
 
 -|- short acceptance t ime 
 
 12.73 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 None were significant at the .01 or .05 levels. 
 
 ance process, from the awareness to the trial and adoption stage, more 
 rapidly than fanners in other categories (6). If this is true, it should 
 follow that at any point in time those farmers who had the highest 
 acceptance scores on a series of related practices such as fertilizer 
 practices would be persons with the shortest time lapse between aware- 
 ness and adoption. 
 
32 BULLETIN NO. 679 [December 
 
 To test this hypothesis, acceptance time was cross-tabulated against 
 acceptance scores (Table 13). There was no evidence that farm opera- 
 tors who were currently making the most extensive use of fertilizer 
 practices in a comprehensive fertilizer program required any less time 
 to decide to try any particular practice than those with low acceptance 
 scores. The index of acceptance time for all practices indicated some 
 tendency toward less hesitation on the part of those with high accept- 
 ance scores, but the association was not statistically significant. 
 
 SOCIAL GROUP INFLUENCES ON ACCEPTANCE 
 OF FERTILIZER PRACTICES 
 
 In addition to the farm operator's level of knowledge, past experi- 
 ence, and attitudes toward new practices, factors in his social environ- 
 ment influence decisions to try new practices. The importance of 
 personal influence has already been discussed. Membership in or 
 identification with specific social groups also influences decisions (5). 
 
 Although the blending of personal influence and group influence 
 makes it difficult to separate causal impact on decision-making, it is 
 likely that group influence on decisions is more than the composite of 
 individual personal influence exercised by members of the group. This 
 is because groups symbolize sentiments and goals. 
 
 Farm operators in this study were not asked to identify group 
 influences on their decisions to try fertilizer practices, but they were 
 asked in what social groups they and their wives had membership and 
 how extensively they participated in the activities of these groups. The 
 results provide some estimate of the importance of group influence. 
 
 The importance of informal communication between neighbors and 
 friends in the diffusion of farm information has been noted in other 
 studies (5). Membership in the same informal group facilitates com- 
 munication of ideas on a person-to-person basis. Although the opposite 
 situation, membership in different informal groups on the part of two 
 or more operators, does not always preclude person-to-person com- 
 munication, it frequently is an effective barrier, especially when status 
 differences are involved. Informal groupings are typically based 
 on status. An illustration of how effectively differences in status can 
 produce barriers to communication was found in a study of farm 
 families on different-sized farms in Kentucky (2). 
 
 The Kentucky study indicated enough social distance between farm 
 families on the larger farms and families on the smaller farms to 
 isolate the latter from much of what was happening in the community. 
 
 Families on the smaller farms were not very active in formal social 
 
7961 J ACCEPTANCE OF FERTILIZER PRACTICES 33 
 
 Table 14. Association of Fertilizer Acceptance Score 
 and Social Participation 
 
 
 Direction of 
 relationship 
 
 X 
 
 C 
 
 Level of 
 signifi- 
 cance 
 
 Formal social participation 
 score 
 
 + high participation 
 
 18.82 
 
 279 
 
 .05 
 
 Operator member of Farm 
 Bureau 
 
 + member 
 
 10 79 
 
 .214 
 
 .02 
 
 Operator member of Mil- 
 lion Dollar Club 
 
 -|- member 
 
 9 90 
 
 207 
 
 01 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 groups, and their participation in informal groups other than kinship 
 groups was quite limited. Because a prevailing tendency of agricul- 
 tural leaders is to introduce new practices among the larger farm 
 operators, operators on the smaller farms were much less likely to 
 acquire reliable information on those new practices. The assumption 
 that new information will filter down from the larger to the smaller 
 farms, or from the more progressive innovators or early adopters to 
 the less progressive late adopters, requires the further assumption that 
 there are no barriers to communication. When social status differences 
 are associated with size of farm operations, as they tend to be in many 
 areas, there are likely to be some communication barriers. Wilkening 
 found that the feeling of social isolation was associated with failure 
 to adopt farm practices recommended by agricultural programs (8). 
 
 In this study it was not possible to determine the full extent of 
 the social activity of sample farm operators and their families. How- 
 ever, available data on their membership and activities in formal groups 
 provided an estimate of involvement in community life, and of partici- 
 pation in the networks of association that facilitate communication. 
 
 Extent of involvement of the operators in community social life, 
 herein measured by a social participation index, was associated with 
 acceptance of fertilizer practices. 1 The farmers who were most active 
 in formal social groups were most likely to have high fertilizer accept- 
 ance scores (Table 14). 
 
 Two formal groups closely identified with the objectives of a pro- 
 gressive agriculture in the county were the Farm Bureau and the 
 Million Dollar Club. Membership in these groups was highly associated 
 with acceptance of fertilizer practices. 
 
 1 Indexes were computed by assigning weights to various kinds of participa- 
 tion and summing the weights for each farm operator. The weights were as 
 follows: membership 1, attendance at one-fourth or more of the meetings 2, 
 committee membership 4, and officership 5. 
 
34 BULLETIN NO. 679 {December 
 
 About two years before this survey was made, the Agricultural 
 Extension Service organized an educational program in the county to 
 promote a comprehensive fertilizer program. This program included 
 formation of the Million Dollar Club, so named after program leaders 
 estimated that if all farmers followed a comprehensive fertilizer pro- 
 gram the gross farm income for each township in the county could have 
 been increased a million dollars. 
 
 To become a club member, a farm operator agreed to follow a pro- 
 gram designed to bring his farm to an optimum state of fertility for 
 maximum yields. Only 8 percent of the sample farm operators had 
 joined this organization by the time this study was made, but this 8 
 percent had significantly higher acceptance scores than other farmers 
 (Table 14). Obviously the relationship would have been even greater 
 except for (a) the fact that membership was based on intentions 
 rather than past performance, and thus some members had not had 
 time to put a comprehensive fertilizer program into operation, and 
 (b) the fact that some nonmember farmers were following a compre- 
 hensive program developed prior to or independent of this particular 
 educational program. Their reaction, as one respondent put it, was, "I 
 am already following the fertilizer program recommended by the 
 Million Dollar Club organization, so why should I join it?" 
 
 The Farm Bureau was the principal farm organization in the area 
 studied with a membership including 83 percent of all farm opera- 
 tors in the sample. Farm Bureau members tended to have higher 
 fertilizer acceptance scores than nonmembers (Table 14). 
 
 SUMMARY 
 
 The experiences and opinions of a random sample of 221 farm 
 operators in a cash-grain area, Piatt county, Illinois, were analyzed 
 to determine the extent of knowledge and adoption of six principal 
 fertilizer practices; the rate of, and time required for, acceptance; the 
 role of communication in the acceptance process; the economic, social, 
 and socio-psychological factors influencing fertilizer decisions. 
 
 Proportions of operators who used each practice varied from 30 to 
 90 percent. The use of lime and phosphate was the most general (90 
 percent), and the use of potash was the most limited (30 percent). 
 
 Rate of acceptance or adoption as measured by the cumulative pro- 
 portions of operators using the practice was most rapid for using 
 commercial nitrogen and slowest for liming and soil testing. 
 
J96U ACCEPTANCE OF FERTILIZER PRACTICES 35 
 
 Acceptance time time lapse between first knowledge ami trial - 
 was shortest for acceptance of commercial nitrogen ami longest for 
 soil testing and liming. 
 
 Although adoption of the six practices would logically follow a 
 sequence dictated by their functional interrelationship, the data indi- 
 cate that many farm operators were either unaware of this or dis- 
 regarded it in their adoption of the practices. This underlines the need 
 for a comprehensive educational program treating fertilizer practices 
 as an integrated program. 
 
 In contrast with the situation for many other recommended farm 
 practices, the mass media newspapers, magazines, radio, and tele- 
 vision were not the top sources of first information about fertilizer 
 practices among the sample farm operators. Neighbors and friends 
 ranked first. However, farm magazines were the sourse of most infor- 
 mation. 
 
 Farm advisers and vocational agriculture teachers, although not 
 identified as important sources of most information, ranked first and 
 second as the most trusted authorities on fertilizer information. And 
 yet these most trusted authorities were not most frequently listed as 
 the persons who "influenced" operators to try fertilizer practices. This 
 position was held by landlords, neighbors, relatives, and friends. The 
 flow of information and influence in the acceptance process is thus 
 a complex phenomenon involving mass media as chief sources of in- 
 formation; agricultural experts as the trusted authorities; and land- 
 lords, neighbors, friends, and relatives as the persons whose opinions 
 carry the most weight in the final decision to try a fertilizer practice. 
 
 Farm operators with high fertilizer acceptance scores differed from 
 farm operators with low scores mainly in the size of their operations 
 and income. Owner-operators had smaller operations and lower scores. 
 Age and educational differences were not significant. 
 
 Contrary to popular opinion, operators with absentee landlords 
 had higher acceptance scores than operators with resident landlords. 
 Operators who felt confident they could continue on their present farms 
 almost indefinitely had higher scores than those who lacked this con- 
 fidence. The nature of the lease whether written or oral, for a short 
 or long term, or indefinite was not crucial to this feeling. Instead 
 it was the informal understanding between landlord and tenant that 
 counted. 
 
 High acceptance of fertilizer practices was associated with accept- 
 ance of crop rotations and increased planting rate of corn when nitro- 
 gen was used, but not with acceptance of such practices as using certi- 
 
36 BULLETIN NO. 679 
 
 fiecl seed, using chemical weed control, adding grass to legume seeding, 
 conserving manure, or burning plant residues. 
 
 Level of schooling was not directly associated with acceptance of 
 fertilizer practices, but certain "educational experiences" such as hav- 
 ing been in a 4-H Club or having a child in a 4-H Club or the voca- 
 tional agriculture program were directly associated. 
 
 Although operators who reported that they liked to try new prac- 
 tices soon after they came out had higher fertilizer acceptance scores 
 than those who said they were more inclined to "wait and see," there 
 was no substantial evidence that the former group went through the 
 process of accepting a new practice more rapidly than the others. The 
 time elapsed between first knowledge of a practice and first trial was 
 about the same for operators with high acceptance scores as for those 
 with low scores. 
 
 Active participation in formal associations was more characteristic 
 of operators with high acceptance scores than of those with low scores. 
 Membership in the Farm Bureau and the Million Dollar Club the 
 latter being a part of a comprehensive educational program sponsored 
 by the Agricultural Extension Service to promote better fertilizer prac- 
 tices was especially characteristic of operators with the higher 
 fertilizer acceptance scores. 
 
 LITERATURE CITED 
 
 1. ANDERSON, M. A. Informational sources important in the acceptance and 
 use of fertilizer in Iowa. la. Agr. Ext. Serv., in cooperation with TVA, 
 Knoxville, Report No. SSP55-1. 1955. 
 
 2. BAUDER, W. W. Characteristics of families on small farms. Ky. Agr. 
 Exp. Sta. Bui. 644. 1956. 
 
 3. KATZ, ELIHU, and LAZARSFEI.D, P. F. Personal influence. Free Press, 
 Glencoe, 111. 1955. 
 
 4. KLAPPER, J. T. The effects of mass media. Bureau of Applied Social 
 Research, Columbia University. 1949. (mimeo.) 
 
 5. LIONBERGER, H. F., and COUGIIENOUR, C. M. Social structure and diffu- 
 sion of farm information. Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bui. 631. 1957. 
 
 6. North-Central Regional Publication No. 1 of the Agricultural Extension 
 Services, Special Report No. 15. How farm people accept new ideas. 
 Ajrr. Ext. Serv., Iowa State University. 1955. 
 
 7. RYAX, BRYCE, and GROSS, NEAL. Acceptance and diffusion of hybrid 
 corn seed in two Iowa communities. la. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bui. 372. 
 1950. 
 
 8. WILKENING, E. A. Acceptance of improved farm practices. N. C. Agr. 
 Exp. Sta. Tech. Bui. 98. 1952. 
 
 4M 12-61 75071 
 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBAN* 
 
 Q.630.7IL6B COOS 
 
 30112019530432