dealer influence on farmers' decisions to

8/2/2019 Dealer Influence on Farmers' Decisions To

1/118

University of Nebraska - Lincoln

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Teses, Dissertations, & Student Scholarship:Agricultural Leadership, Education &Communication Department

Agricultural Leadership, Education &Communication Department

5-1-1972

Dealer Infuence on Farmers' Decisions toPurchase PesticidesLoyd L. Young

Tis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication Department at

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Teses, Diss ertations, & Student Scholarship: Agricultural

Leadership, Education & Communication Department by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. For

more information, please contact [email protected].

Young, Loyd L., "Dealer Inuence on Farmers' Decisions to Purchase Pesticides" (1972). Teses, Dissertations, & Student Scholarship:Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication Department. Paper 37.hp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecdiss/37
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecdisshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecdisshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecdisshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ag_lechttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ag_lecmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ag_lechttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ag_lechttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecdisshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecdisshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecdisshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/


2/118

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DEALER INFLUENCE ON FARMERS'DECISIONS TO PURCHASE PESTICIDES

by

Loyd L. Young

A DissertationPresented to the Faculty of

The Graduate College in the University of NebraskaIn Part ia l Fulfil lment of RequirementsFor the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Adult Education Area

Under the Supervision of Professor James T. Horner

Lincoln, Nebraska

May, 1972


3/118

-------------------DEALER INFLUENCE ON FARMERS' DECISIONS

TO PURCHASE PESTICIDESLoyd L. Young, Ph.D.

University of Nebraska, 1972Adviser: James T. Horner

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of th is study was to analyze the influence agricul-tural pesticide dealers have on farmers' decisions to purchase and useagricultural pesticides. Specific objectives of the study were to :

1 . Ascertain the extent to which dealers influence farmersin their decision-making to use and purchase pest ic ides.

2. Examine the character is t ics of the farmer and his farmingoperation in relat ion to the amount of influence thedealer had on the farmers' pesticide purchasing decisions.

3. Evaluate the reasons farmers selected thei r pesticidedealers.

4. Determine the factors that influenced farmers to usepesticides.


4/118

PROCEDURE

Data were obtained. by personal interviews using a preparedschedule of questions developed by the investigator. One hundred randomlyselected farmers in the East Crop Reporting District of Nebraska, who produced corn, grain sorghum, o r soybeans., w:ere interviewed during the summerof 1971.

The dependent variables in this study were dealer influence, reason for dealer select ion and the three Reason-For-Use Scores (Dealer,Educational, and Own Choice). The independent variables were age, education, years farmed, years farmed' on this farm, distance to agriculturaltrading center , distance to major dealer, land ownership, freedom of purchase, number of avai lable dealers , number dealers purchased from, andadvance purchase of pesticide.

SELECTED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

1. Dealers ha d a low degree of influence on farmers' selectionand use of pest icides. Only 5.3 percent of the farmers reported high influence exerted on them by the dealer to purchase and use a pest icide.

2. More tenant farmers were influenced by pesticide dealers inthei r decision to purchase and select their pesticides than part or fu l lowner farmer operators. Full owners were influenced the leas t .

3. The price charged by a dealer for a pesticide was not an important factor in the farmer 's select ion of his pesticide dealer .

4. Farmers choose their pesticide dealer because of honest andfa i r dealing with the dealer in the past .


5/118

i

5. Farmers used pesticides because of the i r own choice influencereasons. The own choice inf luence reasons Were much more important in thefarmer's decision to use pesticides than dealer or educational influencereasons. Forty percent of the farmers interviewed had a high Own ChoiceReason-For-Use Score while only 11.5 percent had a high Dealer Reason-For-Use Score. Only 7.4 percent of the .interviewed farmers ha d a high Educa-t ional Reason-For-Use Score.

5. Farmers, who rated the dealer influence on the ir decision asl i t t l e or no influence, identified the i r neighbors as the major influenceon his decision to purchase and select a pesticide.

7. The single most important reason the interviewed farmers gavefor using a pesticide was because they expected a possible increase .inyield.


6/118

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to a l l ofthe persons who made a contribution to this study.

Special thanks is due Dr. James T. Horner, Professor of Adult andContinuing Education, Professor of Secondary Education and Professor andChairman of the Department of Agricultural Education, University of Nebr-a s k a ~ Lincoln, Nebraska, for his many hours of supervision, assistanceand personal in teres t during th i s study. Dr. Horner served as chairmanof the supervisory committee.

Appreciation i s expressed to the members of the supervisory com-mittee who guided my graduate program and the disser tat ion: Dr. John L.Adams, Director of the Nebraska Agricultural Extension Service and Asso-ciate Dean of the College of Agriculture; Dr. Laren R. Robison, Profes-sor of Agronomy; Dr. David Wysong, Associate Professor of Plant Pathol-ogy and Dr. Robert J . F lorel l , State Leader, Extension Studies and Train-ing, Nebraska Agricultura l Extension Service, and Associate Professor ofAgricultural Education.

Numerous individuals contributed time, data, and insights tothe present study; while not a l l can be named here, the help of each ismuch appreciated. A sincere thank you to the County Extension Agents forfurnishing res ident locations of the interviewees.

Financial assis tance was furnished by the Nebraska AgriculturalExtension Service, The Farm Foundation of Chicago, and the Regents of theUniversity of Nebraska.


7/118

A special note of appreciation to Mrs. Janice Preston fo r typingthis paper; and to Miss Kay Klundt for assis t ing with the proofreading.

Finally , I would l ike to express my thanks to my wife, Darlene,and My children, Margo, Renee', Nancy, and Paul for thei r patience, love,and understanding during the t ry ing times of graduate study. To them,I dedicate th i s disser ta t ion .

Loyd L. Young


8/118

---------------------TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTERI . INTRODUCTION. .

THE PROBLEMStatement of the ProblemImportance of the Study.

DEFINITION OF TERMSLIMITATIONS .

Assumptions.Limitations.DESIGN OF THE STUDYMETHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY.

Procedures . . . . . .Development and AdministrationInterview Schedule . .Selection of the Sample.Analysis of the Data

SUMMARY . .II . REVIEW OF LITERATURE

DECISION MAKINGINFLUENCE . . .FARMER BEHAVIOR IN PURCHASING

Farmer Buying of Feed. . .Farmer Buying of MachineryFarmer Buying of Fert i l izer .

of the.

Purchasing Behavior of Cooperative MembersREASONS FOR SELECTING DEALERSPURCHASING PESTICIDESSUMMARY OF THE REVIEW OF LITERATURE

III . PRESENTATION OF DATAINTRODUCTI ON. .

.

PAGE

1223

4

6

678

9

9

9121317

182227282829303132323636


9/118

CHAPTERGENERAL DESRIPTIVE INFORMATION ..

The Farmer . . .Years Farming and Size of FarmsAcres of Crops . .Pest ic ide Usage .Pest ic ides Studied. .Freedom In PurchasingNumber of Available DealersAdvance Purchase of Pest icides.Number of Dealers Patronized.

.

PAGE37373939414-1'13'134-346Distance. . . . . . . . '16

REASONS FOR USING PESTICIDES '16Farmers Who Used Pesticides '16Reason-Far-Use Score. '19Independent Variables and Reasons For Use 5'1

REASONS FOR SELECTING DEALER 56Reasons Given by the Farmer 56The Influence of Price in Dealer Selection. 57Summary of Price as a Reason in SelectingPest ic ide Dealers . . . . . . . . . . 64

INFLUENCE EXERTED BY DEALERS ON FARMERS TO PURCHASEPESTICIDES . . . . . . 64Farmer's Age and Dealer Influence 67Size of Operation and Dealer Influence. 67Educational Level of Farmer and Dealer Influence. 70Tenure and Dealer Influence . . . . . 70Change from Original Choice of Pest icide. . . . 72

OTHER INFLUENCES ON FARMER'S DECISION TO PURCHASEOR SELECT PESTICIDES 75

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS. . 75IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 80

SUMMARY. . .CONCLUSIONS.RECOMMENDATIONS.IMPLICATIONS . .

Implications For the FarmerImplications For the DealerImplications For the Educator

808'18586BG8787


10/118

CHAPTERBIBLIOGRAPHY.APPENDIX ..

A. LETTERS OF INTRODUCTION AND APPOINTMENT.B. INTERVIEW SCHEDULEC. ADDITIONAL TABLES.

PAGE88

91

9295

101


11/118

........ -------------------LIST OF TABLES

Table PageI . Data on 100 Farmers, East Crop Reporting District

of Nebraska, 1971 . . . . . . . . . 40I I . A Comparison of Pest icide Use and Pesticide Studied, 1971 42

I I I . Number of Dealers Selling Pesticides at or Near Agricul-tural .Supply Center According to Farmer . . . . . 44IV.V.

Months Pest icides Purchased In Advance of UsePest icide Purchased In TownSupply Trading Center . Designated As Agricultural

VI. Comparison of Distances To Agricultural Supply TradingCenter and Pest icide Dealer . . . . . .VII. Rank of Farmers' Reasons For Using Pest icides, 95Farmers, 1971 .................

VIII. Distr ibution of Reason-Far-Use ScoresIX. Probabil i ty Level of Comparison of Independent Variables

45

47

48

5053

an d Three Reason-Far-Use Scores Using Chi Square. . . 55X. Rank of Farmers' Reasons For ChoosingDealer, 95 Farmers, 1971 . . . . . . Their Pest icide

XI. Distr ibution of Ratings By Farmers of the Importance of58

Price of Pest icide in the Select ion of Pesticide Dealers. 60XII. Dealer Selection Based On Price According to Farmer'sPersonal Buying Habits and Farm Character is t ics 61

XIII. Distr ibution of Ratings By Farmers of Degree of DealerInfluence . . . 66XIV. Dealer Influence on Farmers' Decisions to Use an d PurchasePest icides by Farmers'Age ....... . 68XV. Dealer Influence on Farmers I Decisions to Use an d PurchasePest icides by Size of Operation

XVI. Dealer Influence on Farmers' Decisions to Use an d PurchasePest icides by Educational Level of Farmer 71XVII. Dealer Influence on Farmers I Decisions to Use and PurchasePesticides by Tenure of the Farm Operator . 73


12/118

LIST OF TABLJ;:S (Continued)Table PageXVIII. Dealer Influence on Changing Farmer's Original Intent

Regarding Pest icide 74XIX. Greatest Non-Dealer Influence on Farmers in Selection and

Purchase of Pesticides Studied. . . . . . . . . . . 76


13/118

Figure1 .

LIST OF FIGURES

Distribution of Respondents, Geographic Area, andCounties Included in This Study. . . . . . . . . .

Page

38


14/118

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

United States farmers spend bil l ions of dol lars annually onpest icide materials to control p,:,sts affect ing the i r production of cropsand l ivestock. In 1966 U.S. farmers spent 506 million dollars on pes-t i c ides for t reat ing crops alone. I t is estimated by the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture that t o t a l pest icide expenditures by Americanfarmers amounted to 561 million dollars in 1966. This expenditurerepresented a 15 percent increase over 1964 expenditures.

In 1966, the highest expenditure for pesticide materials forindividual crops was for corn. This amounted to 135 million dol lars .The USDA reports in Agricultural Economic Report No. 192 the followingincreases in expenditures for pesticides from 1964 to 1966 on thefollowing crops:

Crop

SorghumSoybeansCorn

Percent increasein expenditure

1964 - 196624514888

Pest icides have become a part of American agriculture. 1

IHelen T. Blake and others, Farmers' Pesticide Expenditures in1966. Agricultural Economic Report No. 192. (Washington: GovernmentPrint ing Office, 1970), pp . 1-10.


15/118

2The most common source of farmer procurement of pestic ides is

through local agricultural supply dealers. The dealer plays an impor-tan t role not only in the dist r ibut ion of pesticides but as an importantsource of information about the products and their uses. Dealers, inperforming thei r distr ibution functions, may influence the amounts andtypes of pest ic ides that are used 'by farmers in thei r production opera-t ions .

Pesticides in th is report are l imited to three general types:(1) Herbicides (chemicals used to k i l l or inhibi t weeds) (2) Insect i -cides (chemicals used to k i l l or inhibi t insects) and (3) Fungicidesfor disease control (chemicals used to ki l l or inhib i t fungi).

THE PROBLEM

Statement of the Problem

The modern American farm has become increasingly complicated.One hardly needs s ta t i s t ic s to notice this trend i f he has any associa-t ion wi.th Agriculture and farming. Our growing technology has producedmany new f er t i l i zers , herbicides, insecticides, chemicals, prepared feeds,and machinery for the farmer to increase his production capabili ty andreduce his chance of fai lure in producing food and f iber,

In recent years , much has been written about the -changes, innova-t ions, and adoption rates of farmers. Lutz cited the many studies madeby researchers on the rate of practice adoption, adoption of new ideas,

2diffusion of new practices , and similar studies which number over 600.

2Ar1en E. Lutz, "Change Agents As Predictors of the Rate of FarmPractice Adoption" (Unpublished Doctor's disserta t ion, Univerc;ity ofNebraska, 1966) p, 1.


16/118

3

H o w e y e ~ t h e ~ e is a s c a ~ c i t y of ~ e s e a ~ c h On the m e a s u ~ e m e n t of the influ-ence the a g r i c u l t u ~ a l supply d e a l e ~ e x e ~ t s on the f a ~ e ~ , as the farmerpurchases these production supplies from the dealer.

The purpose of this study was to analyze the influence agricultural supply dealers have on the farmers' decision to purchase and usea selected agricultural supply--pesticides.

Specific objectives of the study were to:1 . A s c e ~ t a i n the extent to which d e a l e ~ s influence f a ~ m e r s in

t h e i ~ decision-making to use and purchase pestic ides.2. Examine t h e c h a ~ a c t e ~ i s t i c s of the f a ~ m e ~ and his : F a ~ m i n g

o p e ~ a t i o n in ~ e l a t i o n to the amount of influence the dealer had on thef a r m e ~ s ' pestic ide purchasing decisions.

3. Evaluate the ~ e a s o n s f a ~ m e ~ s selected t h e i ~ pestic idedealers.

4. D e t e ~ m i n e the f a c t o ~ s that influenced f a ~ m e ~ s to usepest icides.

I m p o ~ t a n c e of the Study

Few quantif iable data a ~ e available related t o p a t t e ~ n s of useof agricultural pest icides on individual f a ~ m s , purposes for which pest i c id e s are used, fac tors inf luencing farmers' use o f p es t i c i d es , andf a ~ m e r s ! reasons for select ing thei r pesticide dealers. Such datashould be of value to public agencies who d e t e ~ m i r t e regUlatory pol ic ies .The data would be helpful to those who manufacture and dis t r ibu te agricul tural chemicals. These data should also be valuable to agriCUlturaleducators to secure effect ive and proper use of pest icides.


17/118

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -DEFINITION OF TERMS

For purposes" of clar i f ica t ion, the following terms and conceptsare defined:

4

Advance Purchase. The purchase of pesticides before actual useof the material . In this study, i t was measured in one month increments.

Agricultural Supply Trading Center. The town identif ied by thefarmer where he purchased most of his operational supplies, such asfe r t i l ize rs , feed, fuel ; pest ic ides, etc.

Dealer Influence. Any process "through which a pest icide dealeror group of dealers determines what a farmer o r group of farmers wil l doin the s81ection, purchase and use of pesticides.

East Crop Reporting Distr ic t . For agricultural crop s ta t i s t i c s ,Nebraska is divided into eight dis t r ic ts . The East Crop Reporting Dis-t r i c t is located in east central Nebraska and is composed of the follow-ing 16 counties: Butler , Cass, Colfax, Dodge, Douglas, Hamilton, Lan-caster , Merrick, Nance, Plat te , Polk, Sarpy, Saunders, Seward, York andWashington.

Fungicides. Any chemical substance used to k i l l or inhibi tfungi.

Herbicides. Any chemical substance used to" k i l l or inhibi tweeds.

Independent Variable List . The variables used to estimate de-pendent variables. The l i s t included age, education, years farmed,years farmed th i s farm, acres operated, ownership} number of dealerspatronized, and advance purchase.

Insectic ides. Any chemical substance used to k i l l or inhibi tinsec ts .


18/118

5Major Dealer. The dealer from which the farmer purchased over

hal f of the pest icide included in the study.Pesticide. Any chemical substance used for the control of pests

inc luding insec t s , weeds , fungi , nematodes, rodents , or any other pesto f man, animal , economic plant s , or possess ions o f man.

Pesticide Dealer. A business firm involved in the sale and dis-t r ibution of agricultural pestic ides to farmers.

Postemergence Pesticide. A pestic ide applied af t e r the pest hasemerged.

Preemergence Pesticide. A pesticide applied before the pest hasemerged.

Reason-For-Use. Reasons why farmers used a pes t i c ide on the irfarm. The possible reasons for using pestic ides were grouped into oneaf three decision influences. The three categories and the possiblereasons under each category were:

Farmer's Choice or Own Influence as Reason-For-UseSevere insect or weed problem l as t yearAdverse weather this springExpected increase in yieldObserved or discussed results with neighborsGood success with product l as t yearConsidered good farming business

Educational Influence as Reason-For-UseCounty Agent influenceVocational Agricultural Instructor influenceUniversity bul let insInformational ar t i c l e s in newspapers, magazinesUniversity or County Agent meetings attendedInformational radio or TV programs


19/118

Dealer Influence as Reason-Far-UseAdvertisements in magazines, newspapers, radio or TVCommercial bul let ins obtained from dealerAg Supply Dealer informational meetingDealer called on farmerFarmer visi ted the dealer

Reason-Far-Use Score. The to ta l score for each of the threedecision influences calculated by adding the yes answers to each of thepossible reasons under each category. A value of I was given to eachanswer. The highest possible score was 6 .

6

Studied Crop. The crop on which the studied pestic ide was used.Studied Pest icide. The pestic ide tha t was the subject of the

in-depth study of each farmer intervie>l.

LIMITATIONS

Assumptions

The basic assumption of th i s research was tha t purchase of pes-t ic ides was made in a normal socia l system. I t was recognized that thepest ic ide dealer might influence the farmer's perception, evaluation,lise made of educational information received, and h is f inal choice inhis pest ic ide select ion.

It was assumed that many influences were acting on the farmerduring the time he selected his pest ic ide . I t is recognized that thefarmer may not ident i fy a l l these influences. He may not be cognizantof the deg::ree of each influence acting on his decision"s ..


20/118

- - 7I t was assumed tha t each farmer is unique in his operation. Thegeneral complexity of farm management decisions makes i t improbable thatseveral different farmers would have the same level o f knowledge, a t t i -tudes, or performance abi l i ty . Social and personal characterist ics ofthe farmer, character is t ics of the farming operation and other si tuat ionscould be factors creat ing d i f : f . e r e n ~ e s in the pest icide select ion process .

I t was assumed tha t the information disclosed by each farmerduring the personal interview ",ould be reasonabJ.yaccurate.

Limitations

The study was l imited to the East Crop Reporting Distr ic t ofNebraska. In 1970, th is dis t r ic t had the largest corn acreage, secondin grain sorghum and the largest soybean acreage of the eight crop reporting dis t r ic ts in the s ta te . 3

The duration of the interviewing procedure was app,"oximatelytwo months.

The validi ty of the data is limited to the abi l i ty of thefarmers to recal l influences operating on the i r decisions and torecognize the sources most in f luent ia l in the ir decis ions to use orpurchase a pes t ic ide . I t i s believed these dif f icul t ies were minimizedby focusing at ten t ion only on the pesticide used on the crop of largestacreage on the i r individual farms.

3State-Federal Division of Agricultural Sta t i s t ics . NebraskaAgricultural Sta t i s t i cs , Nebraska 1970 Preliminary County Estimates.(Lincoln, Nebr.: Nebraska Department of Agriculture-United States De-partment of Agriculture, 1971) pp . 13-32.


21/118

8DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The descriptive research design was used for this study. Hil land Kerber define this type. o f research as "a broad category which in -cludesthose effor t s that describe and interpret certa in facts concernedwith .si.tuations, cominunities, individuals, groups of individuals, re-lat ionships ,. att i tudes . . . trends, con-dit ions , processes, or phenomenaas they exist a t a given time. ,,4

They further divide this type of research into several categoriesincluding content analysis research, which deals with a systematic exam-ination of current information--be i t written, spoken, mechanical, orportrayed in an a r t form--to provide data that might be classif ied andevaluated, and thus provide a description and interpretation of a s i t -uation or condition not otherwise desirable. S

4Joseph E. Hil l and AugustProcedures.In Educational ResearchPress, 1967), p. 108.SIbid, ; p. 109.

Kerber, Models, Methods, and Analytical(Detroit, Wayne State University


22/118

9METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

Procedures

The procedure included the development of an instrument and ob-ta ining data by personal interviews from 100 randomly selected corn,grain sorghum or soybean farmers in the East Crop Reporting Dist r ic t ofNebraska. The counties incluc.ed in the study were Butler , Cass, Colfax,Dodge, Douglas, Hamilton, Lancaster, Merrick, Hance, Platte , Polk, Sarpy,Saunders, Seward, Washington, and York.

The data obtained were then s tat is l ical ly analyzed.

Development and Administrationof the Interview Schedule

A prepared schedule of questions was developed by the invest i -gator. Several sources were used in creating the interview schedule.Studies a t Purdue Agricultural Experiment Station on farmer act ivi ty inthe purchase of the i r farm supplies were used in forming some of the

. 6questlons.Other sources were also used including several Universi ty of

Nebraska s ta f f members. The interview schedule was pretested on sixfarmers not included in the sample.

6R. L. Kohls, "Farmers' Behavior and Decisions In PurCha3inF,Farm Supplies," Research Bulle t in 7t;.9 (Lafayette: Purdue Univer"ityAgricultura l Experiment Stat ion, 1962) pp. 21-27.


23/118

10Six broad categories of information were obtained in the personal

interview. The f i r s t concerned characteristics of the farmer and his op-erat ion. Data col lected included to ta l years farmed on the presentfarm I operated acres owned and rented, and acres of corn, grain sorghum,and soybeans.

The second category of information pertained to his pest ic ideusage on the three crops in 1971. This included a breakdown by acreageof pest icide usage on the three crops and product name of pre and postemergence applica t ions of herbicides and insectic ides. The use of

fungicides was also asked but was not divided into pre and post emergenceapplica t ion. Inquiry was made as to his intentions to use the threepest icides in 1972 on the three crops.

The third category of information related to dealer avai labi l i tyand farmer purchasing habi ts . This included information relat ive todistance to his designated agricul tural supply center, number of dealerssel l ing pest icides available to him, the number of dealers from which hepurchased the pest icide and the i r distance.from his farm, and the monthhe purchased his pest icide in relat ion to the month that he used i t .Detailed questions regarding his purchase of pesticides were l imited tothe crop (of the aforementioned three) with the la rgest acreage t reatedon his farm. I f two pestic ides were used that had equally large acreage,the most expensive p e s t i ~ i q . e on a per acre basis , was selected to l imitthe interview to one pestic ide . The pesticide selected by this methodfor the in-depth study wil l be referred to hereafter as the studied p"st i c ide . I f the farmer did not use a pesticide in 1971, the intel 'v';ewwas terminated after the question was answered on pest icide usage l.n-tent ions in 1972.


24/118

The fourth type of information involved the farmer's reasonsfor using a pest icide. Eighteen questions answered by a yes or noanswer were asked pertaining to the reasons the farmer used the studiedpest ic ide in 1971. These questions were grouped into three generalcategories:

Producer Choice ReasonsDealer Influence ReasonsEducational Influence Reasons

11

The f i f th category of information was dealer selection factors.Each farmer was asked to indicate the factors which influenced him inselecting his pest ic ide dealer in 1971. Sixteen reasons such as price,proximity, an d dealer in teres t were presented. The respondent was askedto rank on a three-point scale (very important, s l ight ly important , ornot a factor , ) the importance of each of the factors in his dealerselection'.

The sixth area of information was concerned with the dealer in -fluence on original decision. The respondent was asked to rank ona5-point scale. the influence he f e l t the dealer exerted on him in hisoriginal decision to select and purchase the studied pest icide. I f thefarmer indicated the dealer exerted l i t t l e or no influence on him, hewas asked to ident i fy the person or factor that .did have the greates tinfluence On his decision to buy or select the pesticide being discussed.A question was also included i f the dealer had changed the farmer's de-cision from his original choice of pest icide.

A copy of the interview schedule is in Appendix A.


25/118

Selection of the Sample

The East Crop Reporting Distr ic t , as defined by the NebraskaState-Federal Division of Agricultural Sta t i s t ics , was used as thetarget area from which the sample of farmers was drawn for the study.The cr i te r ia used for select ing t h ~ s area were: (1) the area cdntainedboth dryland an d i r r igated farming; (2) a large acreage of corn, grainsorghum, and soybeans was grown in the Distr ict ; (3) a willingness byCounty Extension personnel to provide res ident ia l locat ion of farmersdrawn; (4) proximity of the Dist r ic t to the University of Nebraska;(5) a similar i ty of the Dist r ic t agr icul tural ly compared to the easternone-third of Nebraska.

A s t r a t i f i ed , random sample of farmers was drawn from the Dist r i c t from l i s t s avai lable to the University of Nebraska. To qualify

12

as a respondent , the farmer had to meet three cr i te r ia ; ( I ) he musthave been actively farming in 1971, (2) he had to be growing a t l eas tone of the three crops; corn, grain sorghum, or soybeans, (3) he had tores ide within the Distr ic t .

Using these sampling and screening procedures, 119 farmers weredrawn for the sample to be interviewed. The sample was drawn from thel a tes t available l i s t s (1969 farmers).

A to ta l of 100 farmers completed the interview. The remainderwere accounted for by: six were not available a t the time of the scheduled interview because o f vacat ions , business commitments, e t c . , four


26/118

were deceased, four were ret ired, two did not l ive in the study area,two were unknown to anyone, and ODe refused to be interviewed. Thepersonal interviews were- conducted by the investigator from the middleof July to late September, 1971.

The selected farmers were not i f ied of thei r select ion by l e t t e r .A proposed time and date for the interview was included in the l e t t e r .A return card was enclosed asking the farmer to return and indicate theacceptabi l i ty of the date and time for the proposed interview. A re -minder card was mailed to the farmer two days before the scheduled in-terview. Copies of th i s correspondence are in Appendix B.

Analysis of Data

The following i s a summary of the procedure used to analyze thedata collected in th i s study.

1. A coding and keypunching scheme was developed by the in-vest igator . All data were transferred to data processing cards.

2. The Sta t i s t i ca l Package for the. Social Sciences (SPSS) wasused in the analysis of the data. SPSS is an integrated system of com-puter programs for analyzing social science data. SPSS provides the in-vest igator a unified and comprehensive package enabling him to performmany di f ferent types of data analysis with options of data transforukl-

. d . 1 . 8t lon an maDlpu at lon .

8Norman Nie, Dale H. Bent,For The Social Sciences (New York: C. Hadlai Hull , Sta t i s t i ca l Package~ l c G r a w Hil l Company, 1970), p. 1

13


27/118

143. The s t a t i s t i ca l methods ut i l ized in th is study were f re-

quencies, percentages, and the chi square t es t . The degree of s igni f i -cance selected was the five percent level . Tables were collapsed so tha tan observed value of at leas t five was shown. This was not possible ina l imited number of cases. In those si tuat ions, i f the chi square valuewas close to s ignif icance, a correction formula was uti l ized where pos-s ible .

Most of the chi square values reported were calculated by thecomputer through the use of the SPSS computer program .. Nie, Bent, andHull describe chi square as used in SPSS as follows:

The Chi-square s ta t i s t i c given in the tables of theCROSSTABS and FASTABS subprograms is based uponPearson's Chi-square t es t of association. I t t es t sthe independence (or lack of s ta t i s t i ca l associat ion) between two variill)les. I t does not measurethe degree of association; i t only indicates thel ikelihood of having a dist r ibut ion as di f feren tfrom s ta t i s t i ca l independence by chance alone asthe observed dist r ibut ion. I ts formula i s

x2 = l: ( f ~ f ~ ) 2 i f ie

with ( r - 1) (c - 1) degrees of freedom, whereequals the observed frequency in each cel l , f equalsthe expected frequency, c equals the number of columnsin the t ab le , and r equals the nVmber of rows in thetable. The expected frequence is calculated as


28/118

where c i is the frequency in a respective columnmarginal, r i i s the frequency in a respect ive rowmarginal, and N stands for to ta l number of validcases .The probabil l ty figure given in the table indicateson what level the difference between the observeddistr ibut ion and the expected distr ibut ion can bethought as signif icant . I t shows the probabil i tyof having as much difference between the sampledistr ibut ion and the expected distr ibut ion i f infact the population distribution were independent.For example, i f the probabil i ty associated withgiven value of X2 is .05, one can re jec t the nul lhypothesis tha t the two variables are independenta t the signif icance level of .0 5 or greater .Chi-square gives the most accurate resul t whenapplied to tab les with a large value of N, aschi-square distr ibut ion tables are based onlarge sampling. Therefore, when the expectedfrequencies in some cel ls of the table run aslow as 5, i t i s a good idea to make some cor-rect ion for continuity, as the poss ibi l i t iesof dif feren t values for chi-square are ra therl imited when the cel l frequencies are smallintegers . The correct ion, which wil l tend tomake the value for chi-square somewhat smaller ,consists of bringing a l l observed frequenciesby ei ther adding or subtracting 0.5 in each ce l lbefore computing chi-square. Another way ofgett ing around the problem of small frequenciesi s combining two or more categories. I f mostce l l values are fair ly large and only a few areas small as 5, i t i s not rea l ly necessary tomake any adaustment a t a l l before computingchi-square.

9Norman Nie, Dale H. Bent,For The Social Sciences (New York: C. Hadlai Hull, Sta t i s t i ca l PackageMcGraw Hil l Company, 1970), p. 275

15


29/118

164. The variables designed as dependent variables in this study

were dealer influence:) reason for dealer- s_election, and the Reason-ForUse Score, which was subdivided into a Dealer Reason-Far-Use Score., E d u ~ cational Reason-Far-Use Score, and Own Choice Reason-Far-Use Score. Theindependent variables were age, education, years farmed, years farmed onth is farm, distance to trading center, distance to major dealer , landownership, freedom of purchase, number of available dealers, numberdealers purchased from, and advance purchase of pest ic ide.


30/118

17SUMMARY

Chapter I contained an introduction to the study, statementof the problem, importance of the study, and defini t ion of terms. Theassumptions and l imitat ions as well as detailed procedures and techniquesof the investigation were presented in this chapter.

Major objectives of this study were to : (1) ascertain the e x ~ tent to which dealers influence farmers in their decision-making to useand purchase pest icides; (2) examine the characteris t ics of the farmerand his farming operation in relat ion to the amount of influence thedealer had on the farmers' pesticide purchasing decisions; (3 ) evaluatethe reasons farmers selected the i r pesticide dealers; and (4) determinethe factors that influenced farmers to use pest icides:

One group of subjects were involved in th is study. The data wereobtained by personal interview of 100 corn, grain sorghum, or soybeanfarmers l iving in the East Crop Reporting Dis tr ic t of Nebraska.

The interview schedule was developed by the researcher. Sixbroad categories of information were obtained in the personal interview.This information included: (1) demographic characteris t ics of thefarmer and his farming operation; (2) the farmer's pest icide usage oncorn, grain sorghum and/or soybeans in 1971; (3) dealer availabi l i tyand the farmer's p u ~ c h a s i n g habits; (4) farmer's reasons for using apesticide; (5 ) dealer selection factors; and (6) dealer influence onthe farmer's original decision to select and purchase a pest icide.

Chi square was used to s tat is t ical ly analyze the data collected.


31/118

18CHAPTER I I

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Chapter II contained a review of the l i terature related to theobjectives of this study. I t included a review of the l i terature per-taining to (1) the decision-making-process; (2 ) the resul t s of in-fluence; (3) farmer behavior in purchasing; (4) reasons for selectingdeaJers, and; (5) studies on characterist ics of farmers purchasingpesticides.

DECISION MAKING

Many authors disagr"e on the meaning of the word "decision-making." To some, problem solving more nearly ident if ies the si tuat ionthat is taking place, while others fee l tha t problem solving is a moregeneral term. The concept of the decision has been defined by others asthe choice between alternative courses of action af te r preliminary stepsin the problem solution have been reached.

Malone wrote tha t decision-making is the process by which onechoice is selected from among those available. Decision-making is some-thing done with minds, not hands. l

lCarl C. Malone and Lucile Holaday Malone, Decision Making andManagement For Farm an d Home (Ames: The Iowa State College Press, 1958),p. 15.


32/118

19Brim, e t a l . , outlined six phases customarily l inked into a se-

quence of the decision process; (1) ident if icat ion of the problem:(2) obtaining necessary information; (3) production of possible sol-utions; (4 ) evaluation of such solutions; (5) selection of a strategyfor performance; an d (6) actual performance of an action or act ions,and subsequent learning and r e v i s i ~ n . 2

Brim, et a l . , points out tha t this sequence is reported in v a r i ~ ous research findings. He reports tha t a review of some three dozenstudies of the adoption of new farming practices reveals:

In the si tuations described by these studies, a farming practice such as the planting of a new crop or the useof a new insect icide or fe r t i l i ze r in place of .the old isrecommended to farmers as a course of action differentfrom the i r current pract ices. These studies are analyzedto show the phases which occur in the decision to acceptor reject the new pract ice. The data indicated tha t theinformants in the various studies do distinguish one phasefrom another, and can designate the points in time whenthey went through each phase . . .

Kohls, Stucky and Gifford in the i r study of the farmers' selec-t ion of farm machinery dealers divides the decision-making period intotwo parts ; the period of contemplation and the period of active discus-sion and shopping. They consider the dividing point betw,sen the twoperiods when an individual ceases merely to think about buying and beginsto discuss the purchase with someone. 4

20rvil le G. Brim J r . and others, Personality and Decision Processes (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1962)., p. 9.3Ibid. , p. 10.4R. L. Kohls, R. L. Stucky, and J; 1 . Gifford, "Farmers'Selection of Farm Machinery Dealers," The Journal of Marketing, XXI(April , 1957), 446.


33/118

20Dean, Aurbach, and Marsh, consider variables of farming important

in decision making. They wrote:I t is possible to conceptualize these variables or

processes as impinging upon a variety of decision-makingprocesses involved in farm management. Indeed such a conception is often implicit in the diffusion l i tera ture . Itis possible, furthermore, to view these variables asaffecting in some manner, the rat ional i ty of decisionmaking as an intervening variable ....

In a study reported by Beal and Bohlen, the fe r t i l i ze r dealerplayed an important role in the farmer's decision-making process regard-ing fe r t i l ize r use. For instance, 96 percent of the farmers expected thedealer to be a rel iable source of information about fer t i l izer . 6

Decision-making in agriculture is not l imited jus t to thefarmer. Wilkening and Bharadwaj pointed out the wife involvement:

The wife who is involved in major decisions affectingthe farm is frequently involved in the operational typesof decisions . . . . However, decision-making across farmand home areas tends to be independent in that those in volved in major farm decisions are not necessari ly involvedin household decisions. 7

5Alfred Dean, Herbert A. Aurbach, and C. Paul Marsh, "SomeFactors Related to Rationali ty in Decision Making Among Farm Operators,"Rural Sociology, XXIII, (June, 1958), 126.

6George M. Beal and Joe M. Bohlen, "The Dealer 's Role In Fert i l i ze r Sales" (Paper presented a t the Annual Meeting of National PlantFood Ins t i tu te , June, 1960, White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia).

7Eugene A. Wilkening and Lakshmi K. Bharadwaj, "Dimensions ofAspirations, Work Roles, and Decision Making of Farm Husbands and WivesIn Wisconsin," Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol, 29 (November,1967), 710.


34/118

In their decision-making studies of farm husbands and wives,Wilkening and Bhardwaj continue:

. . The instrumental-task and decision-making structureof the contemporary farm family is multidimensional inthat one spouse i s more involved in some areas and theother is more involved in other areas. There is a specialization in decision-making as well as in the performanceof tasks, with jo int involvement certain areas. 8

In another Wilkening decision-making study involving 139 RockCounty, Wisconsin dairy farmers, the authors explain that the farmer asei businessman makes decisions constantly. Some decisions are of a rou-

21

~ i n e nature while some are major changes in commitment of money and otherresources. The researchers re la te , "All these decisions involve varioustypes of considerations depending upon the nature of the decision."g

Wilkening and Johnson also explain about prof i t and decision-making by farmers:

These results support the need for considering noneconomic as well as economic factors in decision-making'by farmers. While "profit" was the main considerationfor most decisions, for some "profi t" ranked second toconvenience. For others i t was secondary to norms ofquality, prestige, and relationships with other persons.The concept of "economic man" insuff iciently explainsmany actions by the farmer, particular ly decisions involving changing behavior patterns, labor-saving devicesand relationships with other farmers, dealers, and otherpersons.10

8Ibid . , p. 711.9Eugene A. Wilkening and Donald E. Johnson, "Goals In Farm

Decision-Making As Related to Practice Adoption," Research Bulletin 225(Madison: Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station, 1961) pp . .6-7.lOIbid.


35/118

INFLUENCE

Katz and Lazarsfeld studied decision-making in marketing,fashion, movie-going, and public affa i rs . Included in th is study wasthe effects of influence. They reported tha t women influenced otherwomen in marketing, fashion, and e n t ~ r t a i n m e n t t rends. In publicaffa i rs , men and especial ly husbands, influenced other men. ll

22

In the fashion change study by Katz and Lazarsfeld, the influenceof the salesperson was a more important factor than in the foods andhousehold goods marketing studies or the motion picture selectionstudies. The reasons advanced by the researchers for the salespersons'influence is tha t there i s more exposure to the consumer. The beautyoperator is a professional disseminator of opinions on personal grooming.The salesperson a t the perfume counter or in the dress shop plays agreater role in the purchases she induces than the clerk in the grocerystore. 12

Influence is sometimes diff icu l t to detect . Bauder suggeststhat , "the effect of information per and the personal influence ofthe communicant, are often indist inguishable." Bauder reports tha t amajority of the farmers in his study named another person, usually an-other farmer, as a source of information that influenced them to makethei r f i r s t t r i a l of a fe r t i l i ze r pract ice. 13

l lElihu Katz and Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Personal Influence (NewYork: The Free Press, 1 9 6 ~ ) , pp. 175-186.12Ibid.13Ward Bauder, "Influences On Acceptance of Fert i l izer Prac

t i ces ." Bulletin 679 (Urbana: I l l inois Agricultural ExperimentStation, 1961) p. 22.


36/118

Agricultural supply dealers are influence sourCes. Bauder wrotetha t 33 out of 571 farmers reporting named the dealer as an influencesource. 14

One of the great agricul tura l improvements of the twentiethcentury was the introduction of hybrid seed corn. Ryan and Gross ex-tensively studied the diffusion, adoption-and influences during theacceptance period by Iowa farmers. In the i r studies, farmers ci tedneighbors mere frequently as influencing them to take up the pract iceof using the hybrid seed. Salesmen were accorded considerable influence(32 percent). When considering the year of adoption re la t ive to in-fluences, Ryan and Gross wrote:

In analyzing the time pattern in the comparative in fluences of neighbors and salesmen, i t i s more reasonableto us e a time scale by year of adoption of the t ra i t ,rather than by year of f i r s t information. Two-thirds ofthe early adopters credited salesmen with influencingthem most . . 5Another Iowa study reported that :

. . The fer t i l izer dealer appears to have a greater potent ial for influencing the farmer to use fe r t i l i zer atmore nearly optimum levels than any single fe r t i l i zer - related information source. Whether or not the dealer doesinfluence the farmer seems to depend largely on three factors : (1) the extent to which the farmer perceives thedealer as a re l iable source of information about f e r t i l i zer and fe r t i l i ze r use: (2) the extent to which thedealer attempts to f u l f i l l this role of a re l iable information source; and (3 ) the dealer 's abil i ty . . . 6

14 Ib i d . , p. 23 .15Bryce Ryan and Neal C. Gross, "The Diffusion of Hybrid SeedCorn in Two Iowa Communities," Rural SociOlogy, VIII, (1943), 20-2116George Beal, Joe M. Bohlen, and Larry Campbell, "Informational

Sources Used By Fert i l i ze r Dealers," Commercial Fert i l izer and PlantFeed Industry, (December, 1956), 56.

23


37/118

Lionberger points out that when a farmer adopts a new product orpractice i t is usually the resul t of a series of influences occurringover a period of time. He relates the procedure as follows:

After learning about the innovation he ordinarily mustobtain addi t ional detai led information about i t . The accumu-lated information in turn must be evaluated and related tohis own situation before he cal! arrive a t the decision totry the new practice o r product even on a limited basis . Thisoccurs at the evaluation stage in what has been referred to asthe individual adoption process. 17

In Lionberger's farm practice adoption and farm supply purchasestudies, he uses the term locus. Locus refers to the information sourCeor means which farm operators indicated were most influential in thedecision sequences of the study. Friends and neighbors headed the l i s t

24

of to ta l mentions of sources most inf luent ia l in f ina l decision to adoptnew farm practices. More than 40 percent of the major influences wereat tr ibuted to th is source, while dealers rated second. lS

In Ozark County, Missouri 21 percent of the mentioned sourcesmost inf luent ia l on farmers' decisions to purchase farm supplies werelocal dealers while 30 percent in Prair ie County, Missouri mentioned thedealers in the Lionberger studies. 19 The supply purchase decisions

17Herbert F. Lionberger, "Legitimation of the Decisions to AdoptFarm Practices and Purchase Farm Supplies in Two Missouri Farm Communi-t ies: Ozark and Prair ie ," Research Bulletin 826 (Columbia: MissouriAgricultural Experiment Stat ion, 1963) p. 3.18Ibid . , p. 719 Ib id . , p. S


38/118

were obtained from an inventory of recent changes in supply purchaseswhich the farmers were able to recal l . These included purchases involv-in g changes in brands or kinds of mixed feeds; fer t i l izers; new seedvariet ies; t ires; automobile, crop, and f ire insurance; other-farm sup-plies; and household equipment. The farm operators were questionedabout each of these changes to determine the sources of information theyused and the , influences operating on thei r decisions. 20

There is a difference in the function being studied. As statedear l ier , many studies have been made on adoption and acceptance of farmpract ices. As Lionberger relates:

Sources for information about new products appearingon the market are not so well known and certainly notso well inst i tut ional ized as information sources aboutnew farm practices; nor are the available sources l ikelyto be viewed with as much confidence as many farmers placeon the extension education system associated with the landgrant colleges of the nation. Under such circumstances,individuals must rely more on the i r own resources in se_lect ing information sources and in deciding how much re -l iance to place in them. 2lAmong the various conclusions of Lionberger's research, i t is

25

stated tha t the recognized influence of the agricultural agencies, which'figured prominently in farm practice decision legit imation, was virtual lyab'sent in farm supply purchase decisions. 22

20 Ib id . , p. 23.2lIb id . , p. 35.22Ib id . , p. 36 .


39/118

In a study about product adoption by the medical profession, anattempt was made to study the influences acting on a physician to per-suade him to adopt a new product . I t was found that :

. . . eth ical pharmaceutical products are normally adoptedin response to the combined stimulus of several forms ofadvertising or comtnunication.... n only one out of f ivecases was a single source of information suff icient to in-sure the adoption of a drug. 23 -

A second finding of the pharmaceutical influence study was that

26

the relat ive influence of each advert is ing medium stimulating the contin-ued use of a pharmaceutical product is entirely different from i t s r e l -ative influence in introducing the same products. 24 Pharmaceutical prod-uets do not use dealers 'but use "detai l men. It

The Detai l Man i s a salesman, who seldom or never takes an order.His primary functions are to describe products and to maintain good pub-l ie relat ions so tha t the physician wil l look favorably to the companyand i ts products when it comes to the writ ing of prescriptions. TheDetai l Hen accounted fo r over 30 percent of the f i r s t mentions in theproduct-use-histories of the pharmaceutical products study of the medicalprofession. 25

23Theodore Caplow and John J . Raymond, "Factors Influencing TheSelection of Pharmaceutical Products," The Journal of Harketing, XIX,(July, 1954) 20 .24 Ibid . p. 2 l.25 Ibid . p. 20 .


40/118

FARMER BEHAVIOR IN PURCHASING

Kohls offered eight generalizations as possible t ruths aboutthe farmer as a buyer of production supplies and goods:

I . Farmers have a S1:rong "propensity to nearness'" inbuying habits .

II . The majority of farmers 'actively compare very fewal ternat ive potent ia l sources of supply in selecting aplace of purchase....I I I . A sizeable group of farmers hold the opinion there

i s l i t t l e difference among various al ternat ive supplysources.

IV. A small group of farmers do actively compare andshop around before buying, and this group generally wasmore informed concerning the nature of the potentia lmarket and believed there were greater differencesamong alternatives than did the "non-shopping"group.

V. The most effect ive channels of information tothe farmer about part icular products vary from productto product. . .VI. The farm market is made up of a heterogenous

group of consumers who base their decision of where topurchase on broad and varied considerations. Thera t ionale for se l l e r "Selection differs from product toproduct as farmers seek to sat isfy their desires . .VII. Farmers do not necessarily associate the buyingof a l l supplies with a part icular place, but insteadthe purchasing decisions for different supplies andservices are considered somewhat separately.

VIII. Changes wil l occur in the farmer as a buyer whichmay bring about a change in factors which farmers consider important in selecting their sources of supply.26

26R. L. Kphls , "Farmers' Behavior and Decis ions In, PurchasingFarm Supplies," Research Bulletin 749 (Layfayette: Purdue UniversityAgricultural Experiment Station, 1962) pp . 2-3.

27


41/118

Several studies of farmer act ivi ty in the i r purchasing of specif ic farm supplies have been undertaken a t the Purdue Agricultural Experiment Station. The following i s a br ief summary of these studies asreported by Kohls.

Farmer Buying of Feed

28

The conclusion of th is study was that the farmer does not approach feed buying with fu l l knowledge and a.wel l planned decision-makingprocess. He generally selected the dealer, then rat ional ized a patternof long-continuing patronage.

The farmer recognized that several points are ihvolved in buyingfeed including dealer location, brand, prices , credit , services , a-ndpersonality and sk i l l s of managers, salesmen and laborers. In makingth is purchase his goal is a combination of several factors and jus t notthe cheapest price alone.

There was a marked difference between the large feed purchaserand the smaller buyer. He put greater s t ress on the various factors ofmaking the purchase. 27

Farmer Buying of Machinery

This study points out tha t even though the purchase of machineryi s not done very often, farmers did not examine thoy;oughly the al ternat ives available to them. There were substantia l pat terns of habit andloyal ty between the farmer and a given brand or dealer .

27Ibid. , pp. 10-11


42/118

There was no dominant reason for select ing various brands. Someof the influences on a farmer in making his machinery purchases werebrand select ion, price considerations, and dealer-oriented reasons.

Efforts to correlate machinery shopping and the decision-makingframeworks to various individual characteristics such as education, age,experience, s i z e of bus iness , l e a d e r s h ~ p ; etc . were not successful . Thefarmers who shopped around more tended to have more knowledge about themachinery market. 28

Farmer Buying of Fert i l izer

The farmers did not do as much shopping for fe r t i l ize r supplies.Farmers'knowledge had some influences on prices they paid in this study.No single factor was apparent for the selection of a dealer. 29

28 Ib id . , pp. 17-18.29 bI ld . , pp . 19.

29


43/118

Purchasing Behavior of Cooperative .Members

Purdue University also analyzed the buying habits of farm supplycooperative member9. Some general conclusions were:

1 . Cooperative members do not behave much differently fromthe other farmers in buying farm supplies.2. Shopping behavior may vary with the product.3. Members' patronage loyalty to their cooperative could notbe explained by characteris t ics of the farmer or his farm opera-t ion.4. Patronage loyalty was associated with aspects of coopera-

t ive behavior. 5. Belief in cooperatives as an inst i tution was the most pro-nounced factor in explaining cooperative loyalty . .6. Medium loyal members were highly price conscious. 30

30W. D. Downey, R. L. Kohls, and R. B. Wilson, "Purchasing Be-havior of Cooperative Members," Research Bulletin 797 (Lafayette:Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station; 1965) pp .1-2 .

30


44/118

31REASONS FOR SELECTING DEALERS

Joseph Brown in a study involving 250 farmers in Georgia d e ~ termined 10 fac tors tha t the farmers rated as important in pesticidedealer selection. These factors in order of highest to lowest rat ingwere:

1. Courtesy and friendliness of manager.2. Courtesy and friendliness of other personneL3. Credit and terms.4. Speed and service.5. Has or can get any pesticide.6. Convenience of location from farm.7. Keep pest icides ful ly stocked.8. Information on use of pesticides.9. Price on pest icides.10. Convenience of location of other shopping. 31

Other farmer purchasing behavior and att i tudes found in theGeorgia studies were:

(1) Dealers are the leading source of pesticide informationamong farmers, followed by published materials, neighbors and countyagents.

(2) Two separate groups of farmers existed according to information sources used. One group tended to depend on the i r dealersand neighbors, while another group tended to depend on publishedmaterial , the i r county agent, and University personnel. .

(3) Buying recommendations of non-partial specialis tsreceived the highest evaluation as a method of buying pest icides.Buying advertised products or by price savings received thelowest evaluations. 32

31Joseph D. Brown, "Adoption and Purchasing of AgriculturalPest icides," Research Bulletin 39, (Athens: Georgia AgriculturalExperiment Station, 1968) p. 31.32Ibid. pp. 37-38.


45/118

32PURCHASING PESTICIDES

A Tennessee study on the use of pesticides by vegetable growersrelates that 42 percent of the growers were non-deliberate in makingdecisions on pesticide purchases. Deliberate decisions were those basedon choice processes in which a l t e r n ~ t i v e s were consciously ident if ied andevaluated. Over half of the growers in the Tennessee study, 51 percent,were considered as moderately deliberate in buying. This l a t t e r groupmade only l imited use of technical knowledge and of price and quali tyinformation. The f i r s t group of 42 percent made no attempt to secureinformation about quali ty or price of a part icular pest icide. 33

In an Iowa farmer pesticide purchasing study, it was concludedthat "farmers buy pe$ticides where i t is convenient and/or where theymarket or purchase other farm products and supplies." Further conclu-sions were tha t farmers did not t rave l great distances to purchase pest-icides and they bought from dealers with whom they have deal t for a longtime. This study of farmers and dealers also related tha t the majorityof dealers did not actively seek increased pesticides sales on thefarm. 34

33M. B. Badenhop and Thomas K. Hunter, "Utilization of PesticidesBy Tennessee Vegetable Growers" Bulletin 499, (Knoxville: Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Stat ion, 1968) pp . 4, 22.34George M. Beal, Joe M. Bohlen, and Daryl J . Hobbs, "FarmerPurchasing Patterns for Pesticides," Farm Chemicals, (October, 1960), 36.


46/118

33Brown reported tha t farmers did not make special t r ips to town

to purchase convenience goods which included insecticides and chemicals.I t was found tha t farmers bought these items when in town for other rea-sons. 35

Rocke concluded tha t for the majority, the commodity purchasedhad more influence on purchasing behavior than characteris t ics of thefarmer or his farm. 36

SUMMARY OF THE REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The l i t e ra tu re reviewed revealed that farmers make decisionsconstantly. Some studies outlined six phases in the decision-makingprocess while other researchers ident if ied only two. In Iowa studies,the fe r t i l i ze r dealer was identified by the farmer as an importantsource of information in his decision-making process.

In l i terature on influence, evidence indicated the type ofproduct being sold created a difference in the factor of influence.Several agricul tura l studies cited sources of iqfluence ranging fromneighbors to dealers . One researcher pointed out tha t acceptance of anew agricul tura l product or practice was usually due to a series ofinfluences occurring over a period of time.

35Floyd W. Brown, "Pattern of Buying Farm Equipment and Supplies,"The Journal of Marketing, XV (July, 1950), 73.36Donald C. Rocke, "Farmer Behavior and Decision Making In Purchasing Supplies," Dissertation Abstracts, 28: 27A, July, 1967.


47/118

34Purdue University has conducted several studies of farmer act ivi ty

in purchasing farm supplies. In the purchase of feeds, farmers did nothave fu l l knowledge and a well planned decision-making process. Farmersrecognized several factors , not merely the cheapest price.

Regarding the purchase of machinery, the Purdue studies showedtha t farmers did not examine the al ternat ives available to.them. Theytended to make t he i r machinery purchases based on habit and dealer orbrand loyal ty.

There was no one single apparent factor in farmers' select ion ofthe i r fe r t i l i ze r , in the Purdue studies . Farmers' knowledge did inf luence prices paid for fe r t i l i ze r .

The Purdue studies also analyzed the buying habits of cooperativemembers. The purchasing behavior of cooperative members was not muchdi f feren t from other farmers. Shopping behavior varied with the product.However, cooperative members, who believed in cooperatives, kept their

loyal ty to them.Georgia studies indicated that farmers selected the i r pestic ide

dealer because of the courtesy and friendliness of the manager. Thel eas t important reason was the convenience of the dealer in relat ion toother shopping.

A Tennessee study related that over half of the vegetable growersin tha t s ta te were moderately delibera te in the i r select ion of pest icides.This group made only l imited use of technical knowledge, price andquali ty information.


48/118

An Iowa study on pesticide purchasing concluded that farmersbought insect ic ides where it was convenient or where they bought otherfarm supplies. The study also showed that dealers did not act ively seekincreased pest ic ides sales on the farm.

35


49/118

CHAPTER I I I

PRESENTATION OF THE DATA

INTRODUCTION

I t i s the purpose of this c h ~ p t e r to repor t the data collectedfrom the respondents through the use of the personal interview schedule.The significance of selected data was tested by the use of the chi squaret es t . The .05 level of significance was used in th is study.

I t i s also the purpose of th is chapter to present the analysisof the data appropriate to accept or reject the following null hypothe-ses .

Null hypothesis 1: There i s no signif icant difference betweenDealer Reason-For-Use Influence, Educational Reason-For-Use Influence,and Farmer's Own Choice Reason-For-Use Influence and the farmer 's dec i s ion to use p e s t i c i d ~ s .

Null hypothesis 2: There i s no signif icant difference betweenthe Reason-For-Use Scores and the independent variable l i s t .

Null hypothesis 3: There i s no signif icant difference betweenthe importance of price paid for a pest icide and the farmer's select ionof a pesticide dealer .

Null hypothesis 4: There is no s ignif icant difference betweenthe level of dealer influence on farmers and the farmer 's decision topurchase pest ic ides .

Null hypothesis 5: There i s no s ignif icant difference betweenthe dealer influence on farmer's decision to purchase pesticides an dthe farmer's age.


50/118

Null hypothesis 6: There is no signif icant difference betweenthe dealer influence on farmer's decision to purchase pesticides and thesize of the farming operation.

Null hypothesis 7: There i s no signif icant difference betweenthe dealer influence on farmer 's decision to purchase pest ic ides and theeducational level of the f a r m e r ~

Null hypothesis 8: There is no signif icant difference betweenthe dealer influence on farmer 's decision to purchase pest ic ides and thetenure of the farm operator.

The analysis of the data i s presented in four major divis ions.

37

The f i r s t major division is the demographic characterist ics of the re -spondents, the i r farming operations, their pest icide usage, and the i rpest icide purchasing t;r>aits. The second division wil l report the findingsabout the reasons the respondents used pest icides. The th i rd .section wil lre la te to the reasons why the respondents selected the i r pesticidedealers. The l as t division analyzes the extent to which dealers influ-ence farmers in the i r decision to purchase pest icides.

GENERAL DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION

The Farmer. A t o t a l af 100 farmers residing in 16 counties ineast central Nebraska were interviewed far this study. Figure 1 shows

the number of farmers interviewed in each a f t h e 16 counties and thegeographic location of the study,

Table I presents a summary of various characterist ics of thefarmers included in this study and their farming operation. The averageag e of the farmer was 49.3 years. The average l eve l of educationat tained was 10.6 years.


51/118

-Ii CHCII",,,,

" I T ~ " ' - - ' - ' - l - ' -1 __ ----- 1_111141"' . SHClft/Mlf IIIO:..-------P''''''''.- .. _ ..... - . ~ .. - ....r

"". . ...

! iHOOItrll tYIf!OI'M' I .,."" . .". .MI/InI'". ~ ~

C " t ' l ~ 1 H I I :.. IICutl.

:,.!..".!";.! _ .._-L.r-- ..h .- ~ - . . .. ...Ii I... rt>lvlfl ; ~ " , . . r I U O N f HAI l I------_J_-r ---- _ .. _...&. --"-,

II

" ' l I t INS


52/118

39Years Farming and Size of Farms. The average farmer in th i s

study had been farming for 25.7 years. He had farmed on the same farm oron a farm within 2 miles of his present farm an average of 21.8 years.Thir ty- three percent of the respondents owned a l l of the land they operated while 8 percent were par t owners who owned more than three-fourthsof the land they farmed. Combining the two class i f icat ions of part ownersgave the largest group or 41 percent. The tenant c lass i f ica t ion contained the smallest group (26%) (Table I) .

The size of farm operated by the average farmer in the sample was400.7 acres. Part owners ha d the largest farms (534.4 acres) , tenantswere below the average for a l l operators (374.0 acres) an d fu l l ownersoperated the smallest sized farms (255.5 acres) .

Eight percent of the sample owned land which they did not operate.The average size of this owned but not operated land was 164.2 acres.

Acres of Crops. This study was l imited to the use of pesticideson the three crops - corn, grain sorghum, and soybeans. Eighty-one percent of the respondents produced corn. Their average corn acreage was125.3 acres.

Sixty-four percent of the respondents produced grain sorghum.The average acreage of sorghum was 103.8 acres.

The smallest group, 43 percent, grew soybeans. They had anaverage of 37.2 acres of soybeans per operator (Table I ) .


53/118

40Table I

DATA ON 10 0 FARMERS,EAST CROP REPORTING DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA, 1971

RangeCharacteristic Unit N ~ I e a n Low HighAge Years (100) 49.3 24 76Education Years ( loa) 10.6 6 16Years Farming Experience Years ( loa) 25.7 2 61Years Farmed This Farm Years (100) 21.8 2 61Tenure of Land Operated

Full Owner Acres ( 33) 255.5 77 1185Part Owner(a) Owns 75-99% Acres ( 8) 378.1 16 0 640(b) Owns (b) Acres ( 41) 534.4 16 0 3840Tenants Acres ( 26 ) 374.0 80 1100

Land Owned But Not Operated Acres ( 8) 164.2 34 400Size of Operated Farm Acres (100) 400.7 77 3840Crop Acres, 1971

Corn Acres ( 81) 125.3 2 570Grain Sorghum Acres ( 64) 103.8 3 530Soybeans Acres ( 43) 37.2 5 17 0

Distance to:Major Ag Supply Center Miles (100) 5.9 .5 18Pesticide Dealer Miles ( 95) 6.2 .5 25


54/118

Pest icide Usage. Ninety-five percent of the 100 farmers used apesticide on at leas t one of the studied crops in 1971. 1

Of the 81 corn producers, the largest group, or 67.9 percent ,

41

used a preemergence in sec t i c ide . Over ha l f , 51.9 percent , used a preemer-gence or postemergence application of herbicide (Table I I ) .

The largest usage of pesticldes in sorghum production was preemergence herbicide. Of the 64 grain sorghum producers, 59,4 percentused a pre emergence herbicide while 34.7 percent used a postemergenceinsect icide, primari ly for aphid control (Table I I ) .

Only one pesticide practice was used by the 43 soybean producers.Twenty-two farmers or 51 . 2 percent of the soybean growers used a preemergence herbicide (Table I I ) .

Pesticide Studied. As indicated in Chapter I , the pest ic ideselected as the subject for each interview was l imited to the largestacreage of one of the three crops, which had had a pesticide applied tothe crop by the farmer or a commercial applicator employed by the farmer.Seed treatment with a pesticide by the seed company was not included. I twas not the intention of th is study to focus on a specif ic pest ic ide butto review the general usage and purchase of herbicides, insect icides, andfungicides by farmers.

Table II re la tes the number and percentage of the pesticides usedas the subject of the 95 interviews within the l imi ts establ ished forth is study. The largest group of interviews, 33.7 percent, focused onthe purchase and use of a preemergence insect ic ide on corn.

IDoes not include pesticides used as a seed treatment.


55/118

Table I IA COMPARISON OF PESTICIDE USEAND PESTICIDE STUDIED, 1971

Farmers Using Th i sPest icide Selec ted

42

Farmers Using Pest icide l ____ ~ F ~ o ~ r ~ S ~ t ~ u ~ d ~ y L _ _____Crop - Pest ic ide NumberCorn

Preemergence Herbicide 42Postemergence Herbicide 42Preemergence Insec t i c ide 55Postemergence Insec t i c ide 15Fungicide 0No Pest ic ide 4

(N=8l)Grain Sorghum

Preemergence Herbicide 38Post emergence Herbicide 27Pre emergence Insec t i c ide 6Postemergence Insec t i c ide 22Fungicide 0No Pes t ic ide 7

(N=64)Soybeans

Preemergence Herbicide 22Postemergence Herbicide 0Preemergence Insec t i c ide 0Post emergence Insec t i c ide 0Fungicide 0

(N=43)

Percent Percentof tha t Crop .Number of To ta l

51.951.967.918.5

0.04.9

59.4

42.29.4

34.70.0

10.9

51.20.00.00.00.0

191132

3o.0

18

10o2

oo

ooooo(N=95 )

20.011.633.7

3.20.00.0

18.910.5

0.02 .10.00.0

0.00.00.00.00.0

IDoes not inc lude pes t icide seed t rea tment


56/118

freedom In Purchasing. As landowners part ic ipa te in more of theproduction expenses, a question was asked of the respondents, "Do youhave freedom in purchasing supplies, such as pesticides or must you consul t with someone before makir.g the purchases?" This question was askedafter i t was determined i f the interview should be continued based onthe respondent's use of pesticides in 1971. Therefore, it excluded the5 non-users of pesticides.

Ninety-four (98.9%) of the respondents had complete freedom inchoosing and buying their pest icides, while only one (1.1%) had to consul t with a farm manager. No other person was mentioned as necessary toconsult before making supply purchases.

43

Number of Available Dealers. The pest icide users were asked toidentify the number of dealers , who sold insect icides in the town or immediate area they identified as their agriCUltural supply trading center.Table III presents a breakdown of the number of pest icide dealers eachrespondent ident i f ied . A similar percentage of farmers reported two(18.9%), three (15.8%), and four (15.8%) dealers . The la rges t group,28.4 percent, reported only one dealer sell ing pesticides in their agri cultural supply trading center.

Advance Purchase of Pesticides. Table IV presents a breakdown ofthe advance purchase of pesticides before use. Over half , 52.6 percent,purchased thei r pest icides the same month they used the matcrja1. ~ l r ' u r l y one-fourth, 23.2 percent , purchased the ir pes t i c ides the month beforethey were to be used (Table IV).


57/118

Number

Table I I INUMBER OF DEALERS SELLING PESTICIDES AT OR NEARAGRICULTURAL SUPPLY CENTER ACCORDING TO FARMER

Respondentso f Dealers Number1 272 183 154 155 76 87 or more 5

(N=95)

44

Percellt28.418.915.815.87.48 .45.3


58/118

Table IVMONTHS PESTICIDES PURCHASED IN ADVANCE OF USE

Months Purchased Before UseSame month

1

2

3

4

56 or more

RespondentsNumber

5022153

11

3(N=95)

45

Percent52.623.215.83.21.1

1 .1

3.2


59/118

'

Number of Dealers Patronized. Most of the farmers interviewedbought a l l the i r pest icide from the same dealer . Ninety-one farmers(95.8%) bought a l l the i r studied pesticide from a single dealer . Four(4.2%) purchased the i r pesticide from two dealers.

46

Table V re la tes tha t not a l l farmers purchased the i r pest ic idefrom a dealer located in the town they had designated ear l ie r as the i ragr icu l tu ral supply trading center . More than one in f ive , 21.1 percent ,purchased pest ic ides from a dealer located in another town.

Distance. Table VI discloses that the distances to agr icu l tu ralsupply trading centers an d pest ic ide dealers did not dif fer great ly. Thelargest group for both categories (30.5% agricul tural supplies -,28.4%pesticides) traveled 2 miles or less . A larger percentage, 11.6, t r ave lover 12 miles for pest ic ides than the 8.4 percent t ravel ing 12 miles ormore for agr icu l tu ra l supplies .

REASONS FOR USING PESTICIDES

Farmers Who Used Pest ic ides . The 95 farmers, who used pest ic idesin 1971, were given a l i s t of possible reasons for deciding to usepesticides on the i r crops. They were asked to indicate i f each of thereasons were a par t of the i r t o t a l decision to buy and use pest ic idestha t year. In asking th is question, i t was emphasized tha t what waswanted was their reason, or reasons, for deciding to use pest ic ides , andnot the i r reason for picking a cer ta in brand or dealer . These reasonswere given to the farmer for his evaluation ra ther than jus t asking himfor reasons, on the assumption tha t he may have found i t di f f i cu l t toexpress some o f these reasons otherwise.


60/118

Table VPESTICIDE PURCHASED IN TOWN DESIGNATEDAS AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY TRADING CENTER

Purchased at AgriculturalSupply CenterYesNo

RespondentsNumber

7520

(N=95)

47

Percent78.921.1


61/118

Distance(Miles)0 - 2

3 - 56 - 8

9 - 1112 & over

Table VICOMPARISON OF DISTANCES TO AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY

TRADING CENTER AND PESTICIDE DEALER

Agricultural Supplies PesticidesNumber Percent Number

29 30.5 2727 28.4 2619 20.0 2312 12.6 88 8 .4 II

48

Percent

28.427.4

24.28 .4

11.6


62/118

49For 90.5 percent of the farmers, pesticides were used to in-

crease yields. Nearly an equal number, 88.4 percent, used pesticidesbecause they considered the use of pesticides as jus t good farmingbusiness. Over three-fourths of the farmers, 78.9 percent, used apesticide because they had good success with the product las t year(Table VII).

Reason-For-Use Score. To further analyze the reasons whyfarmers used a pesticide, the reasons given by the farmer (Table VII)were grouped into one of three decision influences. The three categoriesand the individual reasons from Table VII placed in each categorywere as follows:

FARMER CHOICE OR OWN INFLUENCE AS REASON-FOR-USESevere insect or weed problem las t yearAdverse weather this springExpected increase in yieldObserved or discussed results with neighborsGood success with product las t yearConsidered good farming business

EDUCATIONAL INFLUENCE AS REASON-FOR-USECounty Agent influenceVocational Agricultural Instructor influenceUniversity bullet insInformational art icles in newspapers, magazinesUniversity or County Agent meetings attendedInformational radio or TV programs

DEALER INFLUENCE AS REASON-FOR-USEAdvertisements in magazines, newspapers, radio or TVCommercial bul le t ins obtained from dealerAg Supply Dealer informational meetingDealer cal led on farmerFarmer visited the dealer


63/118

Table VIIRANK OF FARMERS' REASONS FOR USING PESTICIDES,

95 FARMERS, 1971

Reasonl

1. Expected a possible increase in yield2. Thought i t was jus t good farming business3. Had good success with the product l as t year4. Severe problem l as t year

7 ( ~ I - n - s e - c - t ~ ) ~ ( ~ W ~ e - e ~ d ~ ) - - - > 5. Information art ic les in newspapers,

magazines, or Quarterly6. Visi t to dealer a t his store about

using pesticides7. Ag Supply Dealer informational meeting or

f ie ld day attended8. University Ag College Bullet ins9. Observed, discussed or otherwise witnessedthe resul t s tha t neighbor obtained by

using l a s t year10. University or County Agent meetings or

f ie ld days attended11. Advertis-ements in magazines, newspapers,radio, TV12. Other reasons 213. County Agent influence by contact with him14. Commercial bul le t ins obtained a t yourdealer15. Adverse \"leather th i s spring16. Information radio or TV programs (non-

commercial) heard or viewed

FarmersYes

90.588.478.947.4

35.8

33.7

32.6

25.320.0

16.8

16.8

14.710.5

9.5

9 .57 .4

Rating ofNo(Percent)

9 .511.621.152.6

64.2

66.3

67.4

74.780.0

83.2

83.2

85.389.590 .5

90.592.6

50

ReasonsTotal

100.0100.0100.0100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0


64/118

52A value o f 1 was given to. each yes answer. All yes answers ,

under each category were then added together for each farmer interviewed.The sum to ta l score , using the above three categories, provided Farmer'sOwn Choice Reason-Far-Use Score, an Educational Reason-Far-Use Score anda Dei'ler Reason-Far-Use Score for each respondent. A factor of 1 wasadded to the Dealer Reason-For-Use Score to correct for the differencesin number of reasons used under the Dealer Influence Reasons. Thus, thehighest possible score under each category was 6.

The Reason-For-Use Scores were assigned as Low, Medium, or Highranking on the following basis :

RankLowMediumHigh

Total Reason-Far-Use Scoreo - 12 - 34 - 6

Table V In presents an analysis of the Reason-Far-Use Scorescreated by the above cr i te r ia . This table relates tha t the farmer's owndecision had the greatest influence on his reason for using the pestic idewith 40.0 percent of the Farmer's Own Choice Reason-Far-Use Scores beinghighest. The dealer influences were second with 11.6 percent of theDealer Reason-Far-Use Scores being high. The Education Reason-For-UseScore was high for only 7.4 percent of the farmers. Low Farmer Reason-for-Use Scores involved only 1.1 percent of the farmers, lo w 1)0


65/118

53Table VIn

DISTRIBUTION OF REASON-FOR-USE SCORES

Reason-For-Use ScoreFarmer's Own Choice Dealer EducationalScore Rank Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

High 38 40.0 11 11.6 7 7.4Medium 56 58.9 43 45;3 16 16.8Low 1 1.1 'II 43.2 72 75.8X2 = 118.84 df = 4 P = .0011, ; , ; ,

***Significant a t the .001 level of probabil i ty


66/118

54This data did not lend support to nul l hypothesis 1 which s ta tes

there is no s ignif icant difference between Dealer Reason-For-Use Inf luences , Educational Reason-For-Use Inf luence, and Farmer's Own ChoiceReason-For-Use Inf luence an d the farmer's decis ion to use pes t i c ides .There were marked differences between the three Reason-For-Use Influences,with the farmer's own choice inf luence being more important.

Chi square was calculated on the distr ibut ion presented inTable VIII. The obtained value, 118.84, was s ta t i s t i ca l ly s ignif icantat the .001 level . Therefore, nul l hypothesis 1 was rejected.

Independent Variables and Reasons Fo r Use. Null hypothesis 2stated there i s no s ign i f ican t difference between the Reason-For-Use Scoresand the independent variable l i s t . The chi square t es t of independencevalues between each of the three Reason-For-Use Scores and the independentvariable l i s t are contained in Table IX. This table discloses that onlytwo comparisons were signif icant a t the .05 level . The comparison of theeducational level of the farmer an d the Educational Reason-For-Use Scorewas signif icant a t the .02 level . The comparison of the t o t a l yearsfarmed and the Farmer's Own Choice Reason-For-Use Score was s ignif icanta t the .04 level . A detailed breakdown of these two comparisons is inAppendix C.

On the basis of the responses provided by the 95 farmers inter-viewed, the independent variables were not related to the Reason-l"oY'-IJ"cScores. Therefore, nul l hypothesis 2 could -Dot be rej ected. l l o w e v ( ~ Y ' , the following subhypothesis of null hypothesis 2 would be rejected:

2A. There i s no signif icant difference between the educat i ona l Reason-For-Use Score and the educat ional l eve lof the farmer.


67/118

Table IXPROBABILITY LEVEL OF COMPARISON OF INDEPENDENTVARIABLES AND THREE REASON-FOR-USE SCORES USING CHI SQUAREl

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

55

Independent Variable Own ChoiceReason-For-Use 2 Dealer Educational 2R e a s o n ~ F o r - U s e 2 Reason-For-Use

AgeEducationYears FarmedYears Farmed This FarmAcres OperatedOwnershipNumber of DealersPurchased FromDistance to PesticideDealerAdvance Purchase

.65 .50 .5 2

.3 1 .3 5 .02;'

.30 .34 .59

.04;' .84 .43

.58 .6 5 .18

.82 .85 .92

.77 .72 .16

.60 .96 .45

;31 .8 8 .65

lThe probabi l i ty figure given indicates,on what level the dif -ference between the observed distr ibut ion and the expected distr ibut ioncan be thought as s ignif icant .2The individual Reason-For-Use Scores were reduced to low andhigh values with 0 thru 2 to ta l scores identif ied as low and 3 thru 6

to ta l scores ident if ied as high values for computations in th is table ..."Significant a t the .0 5 level of probabil i ty


68/118

II\1I1

1\Il

562B. There i s no signif icant difference between the Farmer's

Own Choice Reason-For-Use'Score and the t o t a l years thefarmer had farmed on one farm.

REASONS FOR SELECTING DEALER

The farmers were asked why they chose the i r dealer from whom topurchase the s,tudied pest icide. An attempt was also made to determine i fthere were any character i s t ics about the dealer or his business that mighthave influenced the farmer in select ing his dealer and who in turn mayhave influenced the farmer in his selection and purchase of a pest ic ide.

Reasons Given By The Farmers. The 95 farmers, who used pesticidesin 1971, were given a list of common reasons for se lec t ing the ir pes t ic idedea ler . The farmer was asked to rate each reason as being not a fac tor ,s l ight ly important, or very important in his decision to select his pest i -c ide dea ler . These reasons were given to the farmer for h is evaluationrather than jus t asking him for reasons on the assumption that he may havefound i t di f f i cu l t to express some of his reasons i f this were not done.

Table X shows tha t 57.9 percent of the farmers indicated thathonest an d fa i r dealing in the past was very important in the selection ofthe ir dealer . Having done business with the dealer was rated as very im-portant by 40.0 percent of the farmers. This ",as similar to the r"ilc;on ofhonesty and fa ir deal ing in the past . The third highest percen t d g c ~ , ?() . ~ . ) , o f very important rat ings wa s given to convenience of location o f t l ! ( ~ dealer to other shopping.

Other reasons rated by 20 percent or more of the farmers as veryimportant were pr ice , dealer closest to farm, dealer interested in helpingfarmer solve his pest problem, services offered by dealer , and range of


69/118

57products available a t dealer ' s s to re .

The Influence of Price in Dealer Selection. Null hypothesis 3states there i s no s ign i f icant difference between the importance of pricepaid for a pest ic ide and the farmer 's select ion of a pest icid

dealer influence on farmers' decisions to

Documents