AN ANALYSIS OF THE MARKET HEWS SERVICE FOE LIVESTOCK AMD
GRAIN nr OHIO WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE
MEDIA OF RADIO AND DAILY NEWSPAPERS
DISSERTATION
Presented in Parti* 1 Fulfill«ent of th* Requirenents for th* Degree
Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of
The Ohio Stato UniTcrsity
By
FRANCIS BUHWELL McCORMICK, B.S., M.S.
Tha Ohio Stato University
1968
Approrod by* ACMCWIXDOKimrTS
The author desires to bake this opportunity to acknowledge tho assistance and aonatrueti'ro erltioism received froa othara in tho proparation of this manuaoript*
To Claroaoo P. Baumel oho interviewed approximately one-half tho f armor a from whom information was obtained, and who aided in tabulation of tho data*
To tho various olorioal assistants who aided in tho tabulation
and analysis of tho data and ospooially to Mrs* Shirley Freahley and
lira* dr lone Lewis, each of whom helped with analytical work in addi tion to typing the manuaoript*
To meufcers of tho Doaprtment of Agricultural Booaomios, Tho
Ohio Stato Dnivarsity, from whom valuable suggestions tore obtained,
inolading Idas Margaret MoDonald, Dr* George F* Henning, Dr* Ralph
W* Sherman, Dr* Marvin G* Smith and Dr* Virgil R* Worts*
Tho author is particularly indebted to Dr* J* I* Falconer, until
July 1, 1058 Chairman of tho Department of Agricultural Boononles,
The Ohio State University, under whose guidance and leadership this
study was made possible*
FRAKCIS BUSWSLL MoCORMICK TJLB12 OP CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I INTRODUCTION...... *...... »• 1
B»UtlT« Inportanoo to Ftrairt of Varlouo Conodlty Markot Roporto 5
II PURPOSE OF S T U D Y ...... 7
III HISTORY OF LIVESTOCK AND GRAIN MARKET N W S ...... 9
IV METHOD OF STUDY AND SOURCE OF DATA...... 16
V PROBLEMS COBCWNED WITH FARM MARKET REPORTS ...... 20
Prloo Variation Botwoon Livootook Mar koto in Ohio** 20
The Problon of tho ClOToland Torminal Markot*• • 29
Radio Porsonnol and tho Problon of Markot Roperting SO
Nowapapor and tho Problon of Markot Roportlng • •••• 51
VI SUMMARY STATEMENT OF LIVESTOCK AND GRAIN REPORTS ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL MARKET HENS SERVICES ...... * SS
VII LIVESTOCK MARKET INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO OHIO FARMERS 42
Radio Information ...... *...... 42
Dally Eowopapor Information • •...... 65
VIII EXTENT OF FARMER USB OF AVAILABLE LIVESTOCK MARKET IN FORMATION ...... 60
Farmor Uoo of Radio Information .... 62
Farmor Usoof Daily Eowopapor 76
Faraor Uooof Farm Paporo ...... 80
Famor Uoo of Tolophomo .... * 8 6
Farnor Uao of Othor Sourooo ••••.•••••••••.••••»•** 91
IX LIVESTOCK MARKET INFORMATION FATHERS WANT REPORTED*... 94
Doairod Radio Information ...... 94
Doolrod Daily Eowopapor Information ...... 107
-ii- TABI2 OF CONTESTS (oontinned) c h a p t e r p a g e
X GRAIN MARKET INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO OHIO FARMERS.... 116
Radio Information ...... 116
Daily Newspaper Information 121
XI EXTENT OF FARMER USB OF AVAILABLE GRAIN MARKET INFOR MATION ...... «... 125
Faxmer Gao of Radio Information •*.••••••.••... 127
Farmor Gao ofDaily Nowapapor 154
Farmor Gao of Tolophono 157
Farmor Gao of Ballot in Board ...... 141
Farmor Gao of Other Sourooa 142
XII GRAIN MARKET INFORMATION FARMERS WANT REPORTED ...... 146
Deaired Radio Information ...... 145
Deaired Nowapapor Information ...... 155
XIII PROBLEMS OF RADIO STATIONS IN EFFECTING CHANGES IN MARKET NHNS REPORTS ...... 162
XIV LIMITATIONS OF THE STGDT AND VALIDITY OF THE SAMPIZ.. 165
XV S U M M A R Y ...... 175
LiToatoek 175
Grain ...... 177
XVI CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS FCR LIVESTOCK AND GRAIN MARKET REPORTS ...... 182
APPENDIX A TABI2S A 1 THROUGH A 61-THE ANALYSIS OF LIVESTOCK MARKET INFORMATION*...... 192 APPENDIX B TABLES B 1 THROUGH ft S 6 0 THS ANALYSIS OF GRAIN MARKET INFORMATION...... 296 APPENDIX C MAP OF OHIO-INDICATING EASTERN AND WESTERN AREAS USED IN THE ANALYSIS...... 567 APPENDIX D FARMER SURVEY SCHEDULE 568 APPENDIX E RADIO SURVEY SCHEDULE ...... 59S BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 400
-ill- LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number Pkge
1. Market News OfTices and Teletype System 1952...... 37
2. Radio Stations Which Broadcast Livestock Mar ket News Two or More Times Daily, Ohio, 1950. 43
3. Radio Stati orvjWhich Broadcast Livestock Mar ket Mews Three or ’.'ore Times Daily, Ohio,1950 44
4* Radio StatioitfWhich Devoted Ten or More Min utes per Day to Livestock Market Mews, Ohio, 1950 ...... 45
5. Radio Stations Which Broadcast Livestock Mar ket News Between 9x30 and 11x00 A.M. One or More Times, Dally, Ohio, 1950*...... 46
6. Radio Stations Which Broadcast Local Livestock Market News, Ohio, 1950...... 47
7. Radio Stations Which Broadcast Local Livestock Market News,Two or More Times Daily,Ohio,1950 46
8 . Period of Time Farmers Listened to Radio for Livestock Market Information Before Selling.. Hogs and Cattle, Ohio, I960...... 65
9. Number of Radio Stations Farmers Listened to for Livestock Market Information Before Sell ing Hogs and Cattle, Ohio, 1950...... 6 7
10* Radio StatI ons Listened to Most for Livestock Market Information Before Selling Hogs and Cattle, Ohio, 1950...... 66
11* Time of Day Farmers Listened to Livestook Mar ket News Broadcast Before Selling Hogs and Cattle, Ohio, 1950...... 73
12. Farmers Rank of Radio as a Source of Livestook Market Information Before Selling Hogs and Cattle, Ohio, 1950...... 7 4
13. Period of Time Farmers Read Daily Newspaper for Livestook Market Information Before Selling Hogs and Cattle, Ohio, 1950...... 76
-iv- LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure Humber Fage
14. Farmer® Rank of Daily Newspaper as a Source of Livestock Market Information Before Sell ing Hoga and Cattle, Ohio, I960.*.,...... ** 79
15, Period of Time Farmenf Read Farm Paper for Livestock Market Information Before Selling Hogs and Cattle, Ohio, 1950...... 83
16* Farm Papers Read Most for Livestock Market Information by Farmers Before Selling Hogs and Cattle, Ohio, 1950...... 84
17 . Farmers Rank of Farm Papers as a Source of Livestook Market Information Before Selling Hogs and Cattle, Ohio, I960*...... *...... *• 87
18. Farmers Rank of Telephone as a Source of Livestook Market Information Before Selling Hogs and Cattle, Ohio, 1950*...... 90
19. Time of Day Farmers Indicated They Would Usually Listen to a Radio Broadcast of Livestock Market News, Ohio, 1950*..... 97-A
20. Livestock Markets Farmers Want Reported in a j'adio Broadcast of Livestock Market News, Ohio, 1950...... 101
21. Relative Importance of Specifio Items of Livestock Market Information Farmers Want in a Radio Broadcast of Livestock Market ' News, Ohio, 1950...... 106
22. Livestock Markets Farmers Want Reported in a Newspaper Report of Livestock Maicket News, Ohio, 1950...... Ill
23. Relative Importance of Specific Items of Live stock Market Information Farmers Want in a Newspaper Report of Livestook Market News, Ohio, 1950...... 113
24. Radio Stations Which Devoted Five Minutes or More per Day to Grain Market News,Ohio, I960 116
-v- LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure Number Fag®
25* Radio Stations "Which Broadcast Local Grain Mar ket Neva, Ohio* 1960.• 118 Lopal 26* Radio Stations Which Broadcast/Grain Market News Two or Wore Times Daily* Ohio* I960*..... 119
27. Radio Stations Which Broadcast Chicago Board of Trade Futures Quotations Two or -Wore Times Daily, Ohio, 1950...... 120
28* Period of Time Farmers Listened to Rad! o for Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, Ohio, 1950...... 129
29. Radio Station Farmers Listened to Most for Grain Market Tnforriation Before Selling Wheat* Ohio, 1950...... 131
30. Farmers Ranic of Radio As a Source of Grain Mar ket Information Before Selling Wheat, Ohio* 1950...... 133
31* Period of Time Farmers Read Daily Newspaper for Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, Ohio* 1950...... 136
32. Farmers Rank of Daily Newspaper as a Source of Grain Market Information Before Sellifag Wheat, Ohio* 1950...... 136
33. Farmers Rank of Telephone as a Source of Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat* Ohio* 1950...... 140
34. Farmers Rank of Bulletin Board as a Source of Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, Ohio* 1950...... 143
35* Time of Day Farmers Desired a Radio Broadcast of Grain Market News, Ohio* I960*• 149
36* Grain Markets Farmers Want Reported in a Radio Broadcast ofGrain Market News, Ohio* 1950..... 150
-vi- LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure Number Page
37. Speoific Grains Farmer* Y.rant Reported in a Radio Broadcast of Grain Market News, Ohio, 1960...... 162
38 Relative Importance of Speoific Items of Grain Market Information Fanners Want in a Radio Broadcast of Grain Market News, Ohio, 1950.. 153
39 Grain Markets Farmers Want Reported in a News paper Report of Grain Market News, Ohio, I960...... 168
40 Relative Importance of specific Items of Grain Market Information Farmers Want Reported in Daily Newspapers, Ohio, I 9 6 0 . • 160
41 Appendix 0 ...... 567
-vii- LIST OF TAFLES
age
Percent of Radio Program* Reporting Various Item* of Livestook Market Information for Spool fled Markets Reported, Ohio, 1950 • 51
Percentage of Newspapers Reporting Various Items of Livestock Market News, by Species, for Major and Local Markets, Ohio, 1950 ...... 55
Percentage of Farmers Us:ng Various Sources of Farm Market Information Before Selling Hogs, Cattle, Calves, and Sheep, Ohio, 1950 61
Percentage of Farmers Using Various Sources of Farm Market Information Before Selling Wheat, Corn, and Soybeans, Ohio, 1950 • 126
Standard Error and Confidence Interval at Two Levels for Various Percentages Calculated for Specified Sample Numbers .•••• 169
Period of Time Farmers Listened to Radio for Livestook Market Information Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratifloation, Ohio, 1950 ..••••.• 192
Period of Time Farmers Listened to Radio for Livestook Market Information Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 194
Number of Radio Stations Farmers Listened to for Live stook Market Information Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 . . • • 196
Number of Radio Stations Farmers Listened to for Live stock Market Information Before Selling Cattle, by Varioua Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 • • • • 198
Radio Stations Listened to Most for Livestook Market Information Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 . . . • 200
Radio Stations Listened to Most for Livestook Market Information Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1960 • •.••••. . . • • 2 0 2
Time of Day Farmers Listened to Livestook Market News Broadcast Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1960 • •••••••• •••• 204
-viii- LIST OF TABLES (Continued) dumber
A - 8 Time of Day Farmers Listened to Livestook: Market News Broadoast Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 • 205
A - 9 Reasons Farmers Listened to a Particular Radio Station for Livestock Market Information Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1960 • • • 206
A - 10 Reasons Farmers Listened to a Particular Radio Station for Livestook Market Information Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1960 * • • 210
A - 11 Number of Times Buyer Was Phoned for Livestook Market Information Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratifieation, Ohio, 1950 •*•••«•••••«•• 212
A - 12 Number of Times Buyer Was Phoned for Livestook Market Information Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 214
A - 13 Period of Time Farmers Read a Daily Newspaper for Livestook Market Information Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 • • • • 216
A - 14 Period of Time Farmers Read a Daily Newspaper for Livestook Market Information Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 • • • • 218
A - 16 Number of Farm Papers Read for Livestook Market Infor mation by Farmers Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 •>•••••• 220
A - 16 Number of Farm Papers Read for Livestock Market Infor mation by Farmers Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 ••*••••• 222
A - 17 Farm Papers Read Most for Livestook Market Information by Farmers Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1960 ••••*••*•••••• 224
A - 18 Farm Papers Read Most for Livestook Market Information by Farmers Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 •*«•.••••••• 226
A - 19 Number of Souroes of Livestook Market Information Farmers Used Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 •••••••••••• 228 -ix— LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
Number of* Sources of* Livestock Market Information Farmers Used Before Selling Cattle* by Various Methods of Stratifioation* Ohio* 1950 •••••••• 230
Farmers Rank of Radio as a Source of Livestock Market Information Before Selling Hogs* by Various Methods of Stratifioation* Ohio* 1950 252
Farmers Rank of Radio as a Souroe of Livestock Market Information Before Selling Cattle* by Various Methods of Stratifioation* Ohio* 1950 .••••*•*• ••• 264
Farmers Rank of Daily Newspapers as a Source of Live stook Market Information Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratifioation* Ohio* 1950 • • • • 256
Farmers Rank of Daily Newspapers as a Souroe of Live stock Market Information Before Selling Cattle* by Various Methods of Stratifioation* Ohio* 1950 • • • • 238
Farmers Rank of Telephone as a Souroe of Livestock Market Information Before Selling Hogs* by Various Methods of Stratifioation* Ohio* 1950 «••••••• 240
Fanners Rank of Telephone as a Souroe of Livestook Market Information Before Selling Cattle* by Various Methods of Stratification* Ohio* 1950. •••••«• 242
Farmers Rank of Farm Papers as a Souroe of Livestook Market Information Before Selling Hogs* by Various Methods of Stratification* Ohio* 1950 •••••••• 244
Fanners Rank of Farm Papers as a Souroe of Livestook Market Information Before Selling Cattle* by Various Methods of Stratifioation* Ohio* 1950 •••••••• 246
Farmers Rank of Miscellaneous Sources of Livestook Market Information Before Belling Hogs*OhiO* I960. « 248
Farmers Rank of Miscellaneous Sources of Livestock Market Information Before Selling Cattle* Ohio* 1950 249
Fanners Opinions Relating to a Radio Broadoast of Livestock Market News* by Various Methods of Strati fioation* Ohio* 1950 •••»••••••• *.••• 260
-x LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Nurobo r
A - 32 Number of Daily Livestook Market News Broadcasts De sired by Farmers from their Favorite Radio Station, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 • • • 265
A - 33 Time of Day Farmers Indicated They Would Usually Listen to a Radio Broadcast of Livestook Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 • • • 256
A - 34 Number of Times During the Day Farmers Indicated They Would Usually Listen to a Radio Broadcast of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 ...... 267
A - 35 Number of Livestook Markets Farmers Want Reported in a Radio Broadcast of Livestook Market News, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 »••••••• 269
A - 36 Livestook Markets Farmers Want Reported in a Radio Broadcast of Livestook Market News, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 •••••••••■•« 261
A - 37 Farmers Reasons for Seleoting Particular Markets for Whiah a Report is Desired in a Radio Broadcast of Livestook Market News, by Various Methods of Stratifi cation, Ohio, 1950 •••••••••••••..••• 265
A - 38 Method of Quoting Livestook Prioes Desired by Farmers in a Radio Broadcast of Livestook Market News, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 •••••••• 265
A - 39 Farmers Opinion Conoerned With Quoting Actual Prices and Receipts Versus Trends of Prices and Receipts in Live stook Market News Broadcast, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 ...... 268
A - 40 Relative Importance of Specific Items of Livestock Market Information Farmers Want in a Radio Broadcast of Livestook Market News, by Varioua Methods of Stratifi cation, Ohio, 1950 2 7 1
A - 41 Farmer Opinion Cunoeming Aoouraoy of Livestook Market News Broadcasts, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 ...... tT*
•xi- LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
gas*
Farmor Opinion Relating to a Daily Nowspaper Report of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Strat ifioation, Ohio, 1950 *75
Number of Livestook Markets Farmers Want Reported in a Newspaper Report of Livestook Market News, by Vari ous Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 278
Livestock Markets Farmers Want Reported in a Newspaper Report of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 280
Relative Importance of Specifio Items of Livestook Market Information Farmers Want in a Newspaper Report of Livestook Market News, by Various Methods of Strat ification, Ohio, 1950 282
Fanner Opinion Concerning Accuracy of Livestook Prioe Quotations in Daily Newspapers, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 ••«»••••••••« 284
Farmer Opinion Concerning Accuracy of Livestook Ke- oeipt Quotations in Daily Newspapers, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 286
Number and Percent of Farmers Who Made Suggestions as to H cts Livestook Market Reporting Might be Improved by Radio Stations and Daily Newspapers, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 •••••••• 288
Suggestions Made by Farmers As to How Radio Stations Might Improve Livestook Market Reporting, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 •••••••• 290
Suggestions Made by Farmers as to How Dally Newspapers Might Improve Livestock Market Reporting, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 •••••••« 292
Number of Farmers Who Did Not Use Various Leading Sources of iMarket Information Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratifioation ••••••»•*• 294
—xii LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Number Faga
B - 1 Period of Time Farmers Listened to Radio for Gr%in Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, I950 •••••••• 296
& - 2 Number of Radio Stations Farmers Listened to for Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 *••*•••• 298
B - 3 Radio Stations Farmers Listened to Most for Grain Mar ket Information Before Celling Wheat, by Various 500 Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 •
B - 4 Reasons Farmers Listened to a Particular Radio Station for Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by 302 Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 • • • •
B - 5 Period of Time Farmers Read a Daily Newspaper for Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Var 304 ious Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 « • • • •
B - 6 Number of Times Farmers Phoned Buyer for Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 ••••••*••• . . • 306
B - 7 Number of Other Buyers Phoned by Farmers for Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various ^thods of Stratif ioation, Ohio, 1950 •••»•••• 508
B - 8 Number of Times Farmers Read a Bulletin Board for Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Var ious Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 • • » • • 310
B - 9 Number of Sources of Grain Market Information Farmers n»ed Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Strat ification, Ohio, 1950 •••••••••••••••• 312
B - 10 Farmers Rank of Nadio as a Source of Grain Market In formation Before Selling Wheat, by Various ^^ethods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 .•••••••••••• 314
B - 11 Farmers Rank of Daily Newspapers as a Souroe of Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 •••••••• 316
—x 111— LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Rumber Page
R - 12 Farmers Rank of Telephone ae a Source of Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Varioua Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 •*•••••••••• 318
£ - 13 Farmers Rank of Bulletin Board as a Source of Grain Market Information Before Selling "Wheat, by Various MethodB of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 •••••••• S20
R — 14 Farmers Rank of Various Miscellaneous Sources of Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, Ohio, 1950 • 822
B - lb Fanner Opinion Relating to a Radio Broadcast of Grain Market Hews, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio , 828 1950 ......
B - 16 Farmer Opinion Relating to a Daily Radio Broadcast of Grain Market News Versus Such a Broadcast Only in the Heavy Grain Marketing Season, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 •••,••••••••• 325
B - 17 Number of Daily Grain Market News Broadcasts Desired by Farmers From Their Favorite Radio Station, by Var ious Methods of Gratification, Ohio, 1950 . • • • • 827
B - 18 Time of Day Farmers Desired a Radio Broadcast of Grain Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 ••«••••••••••••• 329
B - 19 Number of Grain Markets Farmers Want Reported in a Radio Broadcast of Grain Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 ••*••••• 331
B - 20 Grain Markets Fanners Want Reported In a Radio Broad cast of Grain Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 ...... 888
B - 21 Specifio Grains Fanners Want Reported in a Radio Broadcast of Grain Market News, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 •••«•••• 885
B - 22 Relative Importance of Speoific Items of Grain Market Information Farmers Want in a Radio Broadcast of Grain Market News, by Various ^ t h o d s of Stratifioation, 337 Ohio, I960 ......
-xiv- LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Number p*g°
B - 23 Relative Importance of Actual and Trend of Prices on Chicago Board of Trade Among Farmers Wanting Such Prices Included in a Grain Market News Broadcast, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1960 • • • • 859
B - 24 Understandability of Term "Future Price" by Farmers Indicating They Did Not Want Chicago Board of Trade Future Prices Included in a Radio Broadcast of Grain Market News, by Various ^thods of Stratifioation, Ohio, I960 841
B - 26 Fanner Opinion Concerning Accuracy of Grain Market News Broadcasts, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, I960 ...... 848
5 - 2 6 Fanner Opinion Relating to a Daily Newspaper Report of Grain Market News, by Various Methods of Stratifi oation, Ohio, 1960 .••••••••••••»•«•• 845
B - 27 Farmer Opinion Relating to a Daily Newspaper Report of Grain Market News Versus Suoh a Report Only in the Heavy Grain Marketing Season, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 ••••••••••• 54T
B - 28 Number of Grain Markets Farmers Want Reported in a Newspaper Report of Grain Market News, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, I960 »•••••• 549
B - 29 Grain Markets Farmers Want Reported in a Newspaper Report of Grain Market News, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, I960 «•••••»•••*•• 851
£ - 30 Specific Grains Farmers Want Reported in a Newspaper Report of Grain Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 ••••••••••• • • SIS
E - 31 Relative Importance of Specific Items of Grain Mar ket Information Farmers Want Reported in Daily News papers, by Various Methods of Stratifioation, Ohio, 1950 ...... 556
B - 32 Farmer Opinion Concerning Aocuraoy of Grain Market Information in Daily Newspapers, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1960 ••••••«•••• 867
—xv— LIST OF TABLES (Continued) dumber
B - 33 Nuithar and Percent of Farmers Who Made Suggestions ta to How Grain Market Reporting Might be Improved by Radio Stations and Daily Newspapers* by Various Methods of Stratification* Ohio* 1950 ••••••••
B - 34 Suggestions Made by Farmers as to How Radio Stations Might Improve Grain Market Reporting, by Various Methods of Stratification* Ohio* 1950 •••*••••
B - 35 Suggestions Made by Farmers as to How Daily Newspapers Might Improve Grain Market Reporting* by Various Methods of Stratifioation* Ohio* 1950 •••••••• 362
B - 36 Number of Farmers ^ho Did Not Use Various Leading Sources of Market Information Before Selling Wheat* By Various Methods of Stratifioation* Ohio* 1950 • *
-XTi- CHAPTER X Introduction
Tho term * market Information" haa had more than one interpretation. It* moaning may bo all inclusive or it may have a very narrow ooxmetatlon depending on th* person using the term* At one extreew is the scientist mho be 1 lores it should include all the information needed to enable the marketing sys tem to operate offlciently*! The other extreme is represented by the farmer mho believes that market information is having one hour1* advane* notice of the price he mill receive for hie product on sale day* or in some cases* having the price of the commodity for the day or meek previous to the day of sale*
In this manuscript "market Information" mill refer to that information havii% to do with livestock and grain which is of in terest to producers of these two products when making short run marketing decisions* It is not Intended that the contents should be ooneerned primarily with the broader phases of the term in such matters as crop estimates and outlook information although the latter may be mentioned briefly*
Market reports are important to farmers because a producer of farm products usually has a choice of more than one markot and a report of price and supply conditions at th* various markets en ables th* farmer to sell where he will obtain the greatest net return*
T* Waugh* Frederick ▼**~¥riolng and Trade* U* 8 * Department of Agriculture* Washington* b* 0* 1962* p*Sl* Inadequate market information has teen reoognlsed aa a serious imrketing problem by many farmers*1
Under conditions of pure and perfect oo^>etltion there mould be less need for a system of market reporting because all buyers
and sellers mould hate complete and accurate market information,
as this is a prerequisite for a purely competitive market situa
tion* Any price dlfferentiala mould equal differences in cost*
The purpose of a system of market reporting under conditions of pure
and perfect competition mould be to report the differences in eost
at the various markets* This mould be a relatively simple task*
Actually* pure and perfect competition never existed any
where* and probably never mill** Consequently* many people* in
cluding cooperative associations* large buyers and distributors*
and representatives of the Federal and State Governments help to
determine prises* not just to disoever mhat the prioes are* As a
result* Waugh^ suggests that market information should be considered
an automatic regulator of the economy* He sayst
"Market information is like the thermostat mhleh regulates the heat in a house* When the house begins to get eool* the thermostat informs some gadgets on the furnaoe* and these gadgets are sup posed to turn on the heat imsedlately and automatically* When the supply of hogs runs a little lom in some market* the market nous service informs farmers and dealers and the situation is supposed to correct itself* When the prise of wheat gets too high farmers are informed* and presumably mill feed less wheat and plant more for next year** l*karksting~ Livestook in the Cora Belt Region* Agricultural kxperl- nent Station bulletin f W * 4outh Dakota state College* Brookings* South Dakota* Regional Publication* lormter IMS*p* 104 2«Waugh* Frederick T** Pricing and Trade. U. S* Department of Agri culture* Washington* 0*5* iVfiZ* p*Z5* 5* Ibid* p*2 0 * It would seem that the implications of the preoeding statement are to the effeot that in both the short end long run the dissem- inatlon of market Information serves a very uaeful purpose. In the
long run auoh information aerrea aa a regulator of the eoonomy while in the short run it enables producers of farm products to take advantage of conditions at the varioua market a which are of
immediate value to individual farmers. ?hat la. while long run ad
justments are being made, conditions on the available possible choice
of markets are divergent enough to make the proper selection a pro
fitable deoision for individual produoers.
It Is the opinion of some authorities that information which
permits making a wise short run deoision is more important than was
formerly the case. This would appear to be especially true for the
livestook farmer because of the present increasing importance of
direct marketing as contrasted with conditions in the early 1900*s.
Before the development of railroad transportation, the time required
to move livestook from the farm to market was so great that detailed
information of the market would have been of little benefit even if
it had been avalleble. With the use of railroads and later motor
trucks for transporting livestock to market, information on current
market conditions became muoh more Important.*
1. Newell, i. k. and ifnute Bjorka, Livestook Marketing. McGraw- Hill Company. Hew York and London. 1941. p.513. Since there Is little doubt that * wash smaller percentage of the 1 Its stock now meres through the terminal markets and a mneh greater percentage is marketed direct,1 and slnoe most lire stock market infor mation is concerned rith the terminal markets it would appear that the system of reporting the markets has not kept pace with the changes
In the method of marketing livestock*
Receipts of both hogs and oattlo were less in 1949 than in 1919 at Cleveland and Cincinnati, the two most important livestook terminals in OhiOnly 56 peroent as many hogs and 67 pereent as many oattle passed through the Cleveland market in 1949 as In 1919, Comparable figures for Cincinnati were 50 peroent for hogs and 8 6 pereent for oattle* These figures become more signlfloant when aocount Is taken of the faot that twloe as many hogs and 26 pereent more oattle were marketed in the United States in 1949 than in 1919*® If the ratio of
inorease in marketing in Ohio was the same as for the United States the relative importance of the terminal market is even less than in dicated above*
Through out this naauseript, conditions and situations conducive to the main purpose of market reports will be brought into focus*
1* Marketing Livestock in th* C o m Belt Region* Agricultural Rxperi- msnt Station bulletin £44, South Dakota State College* Brookings, South Dakota* Regional Publication, Vovosfeer, 1942*p*86*
2* Livestook. Meats, sad W e d Market Statistics and Related Data* bureau of Agricultural beononios, U* 4* Department of Agriculture* Washington, D*C.
I* Meat Animals » Farm Production and Income. 1924-49. u*S* Deparimeafc of Agrismlture, bureau of Agriculture Roonomics* Washington, D*C* Sept* 1947 and July 1962* Simply itttad, the main purpose of reporting Information eon*
oernlng different markets is to enable those having produots to sell to determine when end artiere the product may be disposed of most advant
ageously.
Relative Importance to Farmers of Various Conmiodlty Market Reports
This manuaoript is oonoerned with problems involved in reporting
the livestook and grain markets but this is not to imply that re
ports involving oondltioua regarding other farm commodities are un
important or that auoh reports are even oonsldered unimportant by
farmers* In the farmer survey whioh will be discussed later a ques
tion was asked about what farm commodity radio reports were oonsldered
important as well as the relative Importance of each commodity* The
answers to this question are of Interest at this point in the mauu-
soript*
More farmers were interested in a livestook report than were in
terested in any other commodity report* In fact, 91 peroent of the
farmers asked about the preceding question indicated a desire for
a radio report of thelivestook markets* In addition, two-thirds
of this group of farmers considered the livestock reports more im
portant than any other commodity report*
Grain was the ooanodity considered second in importance re
garding the above question in that two-thirds of the fanners asked
for a grain report* Of this number approximately one-third con
sidered it the most Important oomaodity and about one-half the se cond most important oommodlty report* Poultry and dairy products K®r# the third and fourth most im
portant commodities as ranked by farmers when asked for an opinion concerning the relative importance of the various commodities In a
radio market report* Poultry reports were requested by slightly more farmers than was the ease for dairy reports* In both instances most farmers wanting these two reports ranked them third in their
preference list*
Vegetable and fruit reports were ranked fifth and sixth In
that order of importunes* Approximately 16 peroent of the farmers
questioned believed these commodities should be included in radio
market reports* from the standpoint of information disoussed above
it would seem that livestook and grain reporta are more important
to Ohio farmers than are other ocmodity reports* They are also
the most important produots when oonsldered from the point of view
of gross farm income received in the state* CHAFTBt II Purpose of* Study
The purposes of* this st ;dy may be enumerated as follows* (1)
To review some problems concerned with farm market reports in
Ohio; (2) To obtain an inventory of the soirees of livestock and grain market information available to Ohio faru&rs; (3) To deter mine the extent to which available sources of livestock and grain market information are now being used by farmers; (4) To obtain from producers, suggesti ns as to how the market news service for livestock and grain might be expanded and improved; (5) To make re commendations as to possible ways of improving the market reporting service for livestock and grain.
The review of the problems concerned with farm market reports was limited to a brief resume of data presently available in the Depart ment of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sooiology at Ohio State Un iversity showing price differentials between various livestock mar kets, and to some problems of radio stations and daily newspapers involved in reporting the farm markets.
The inventory was limited to a description of information a- vailable through radio and daily newspapers, two of the important sources of information, and to a review of the Federal Market Mews services. An analysis was made of the timeliness, amount, and cmtent of the reports available through the afore mentioned media.
The second and third stated purposes were attained through means of a farmer survey covering all geographical areas of the state. Personal interviews were obtained in eaeh Ohio county with the exoeption of Lawrence, Lake and Qcrahoga. - 8
The recommendations for improvement are a culmination of ideas obtained from the inventory of available information, the farmer survey, and logioal deductions which could be made from an analysis of the data. The recommendations include sugKC3tions which would seem to be of interest and i mediate value to both radio stations ar.d daily newspapers. They should also be of interest and value to other media of information as well as to farmers and personnel whose business it is to work with farm market reports. catpra i n History of Livestock and Grain Market Bows
A dsseription of ths history of livestock and grain market news in the United States oan logically be divided into two major periods of time, the first being eonoerned with the years prior to the inauguration of the federal market newsservice and the seeond with the years following the inauguration of this service.
Dowell and Bj or lea, 3- from which the early history in this manu-
soript was obtained, indioated that prices on livestook provisions
including beef, pork, hams, bacon, lard, and tallow were reported
long before reports were issued on live animals. In faot, a report
with the oaption "Prioes Current in New York? appeared in the New
York Cassette* a weekly newspaper, in 1726.
During the first one-half of the last century Cincinnati led
other oitiea in the nation in the pork packing industry* As suoh,
it was the market at whieh livestook amir lost reports began to be
significant* For the most part they were oarried in newspapers
and before I860 the tendency was to oarry them weekly* Two of the
papers taking a lead in reporting the livestook market were the
Cincinnati Daily Gasettc and the Cinolnnati Price Current* The
former paper was in the business at an earlier date than the lat
ter and eaoh appears to have been reoognised as the leader in the
field during their respeotive time periods* The Frloe Current
was established in 1844, was published weekly, and was referred to
by people In the trade as the "Paokers Bible"* in 1849 the
1. Dowell, A* A* and Knute BJorka, Livestock Marketing* McGraw- Hill Company. Hen York and London* 1941. p* 41$. 10
Price Current began the issuance of an annual report that con tained summaries of statistics that appeared currently in the paper* The information in this report was considered a standard
souroe of information on meat packing and related data* As live
stock statistics were assembled more and more by other agencies, the annual report of the Price Current gave increasingly more con
sideration to statistics of the grain trade* In faot, the name of
the report was changed to Price Currant Grain Reporter in 191S
and since that time has not been an important souroe of statistics
relating to livestock, meat, and meat paoking*
During the early 1890's the editor of the Prioe Current de
veloped a more complete service for reporting the livestock market
at Cincinnati* He stationed a reporter at the stockyards who ool-
leoted information on prices, reoeipts, and other phases of the live
stock trade* The services of the reporter were paid for by the
daily newspapers at Cincinnati and by the Cincinnati Chanfcer of
Commerce* The reports were published weekly and later semi- weekly in the Market Circular* Comnlssion men at the yards sub
scribed to the circular in blocks and mailed It to their patrons*
This arrangement continued until 1897 when the commission men with
drew their support in favor of the Cincinnati Livestock Record, a
livestock market paper*
The development of livestock market reporting at Chicago fol
lowed a pattern similar to the one at Cincinnati exoept that it de
veloped at a later date as the Chicago market became increasingly 11- important* newspapers taking a lead in reporting the livestook markets were the Chicago Tribune, Dally Chicago Times, and the
Daily Times, and Herald# The Prairie Farmer# established as a monthy farm Journal and later changed to a weekly was also an Im portant early contributor in the field of livestock market reporting at Chicago.
At the time the Union Stook Yards were established in 1865,£.
Griffith developed a commercial livestook reporting service which was published semi-eveekly as the Livestock Reporter. Commission men also subscribed to this paper In lots and had it mailed to their patrons in the country. By 1875 the commission men were in
sisting on a more comprehensive report and at that time Griffith in
augurated a daily postal card report and in the following year over
600,000 of these card reports were issued.
Another leader in the field oflivestook market reporting at Chi
cago was Barvey S. Goodall. He also used a price card and later was
responsible for establishing the Daily Drovers Journal, a reoog-
nised publication in the field today.
The development of the service for collecting and disseminating market Information by private agencies at Chioago was more detailed and more complete than at most public markets. The methods used at other markets, however, were substantially the same as those used at Chicago. A weakness of this servloe was that the classifications and grades of livestock used at the different markets laoked uniform ity, because the reports issued at each were based on local classifi cations. Then, too, when the same grade terms were used at different markets, they often had different meaning. Prices reported at the different markets could, therefore, not be accurately compared.^
The preceding paragraph constitutes a brief summary of the method T.THLA'. ------12- of reporting the 11Teatook market* prior to the inauguration of the Federal Market News Service during the first World War* It also indicates some of the problems involved In a system where private agencies or individuals report the markets*
The demand for the Federal Government to enter the field of livestook market reporting emerged out of attempts to seek remedies for grievances held by producers as a result of alleged unsatis factory nmrket conditions and inadequate or inaoourate market re* ports**
Several individuals and organisations had a part in laying the groundwork for the entranoe of the Government into the live stook market reporting field* One of the individuals, and perhaps, the most Important, was H* C* Wallaee, editor of Wallace** Farmer
and secretary of the Corn Belt Meat Producers' Association* He took an aotive part in livestock marketing conferences and discussed the question extensively in his farm journal* In the autumn of
1915 in an editorial he made some definite and speoifle suggestions
concerning the livestock marketing situation throughout the nation*
The following quotation was Included in the editorial*^
The Department ef Agriculture should, at the earliest practicable date, inaugurate a system of weekly reports on (l) the number of cattle, hogs, and sheep marketed) (2) the disposal of such cattle, hogs and sheep; (5) the prices at which livestock was bought;(4) the wholesale prices of various meat products;(5) the retail prices of suoh products at representative points; (6) the supply of meat products on hand; (7) the exports of meat products of various kinds, prices at which sold, and destination; (8) the prices of grain, hay and other livestock food stuffs in the feeding country; (9) the ohaages r m ------
2* Ibid. -13- ln freight rates* commission oharges end other factors bearing on the cost of marketing livestocki (lO) the stooker and feeder movement; (ll) the supply of cattle* hogs* and sheep in the c o u n t r y i(l2) auoh other statistics and Information as may be of value in reflecting the livestook and meat trade*
It is interesting to note that the recommendations contained
in the editorial mere adopted as resolutions* almost verbatim* by
the C o m Belt Meat Producers* Association m d similar resolutions mere passed by nearly all state and national livestook associa
tions at their annual meetings the same year* Individuals in the
Department of Agriculture then devoted two years of study to the pro
blem before any aotual reporting was done at the markets*
The first livestook reporting was made possible by an appro
priation of #65*000 for the fiscal year 1917* Congress authorised
the Secretary of Agriculture to gather* compile and publish mar
ket information on livestook* meat and meat products in connection
with this appropriation* During the year Livestook Market Hews offices
were opened in Boston* Hew York* Philadelphia* Washington* Chicago,
Omaha* Kansas City* Portland* and Port Worth* Pirst reports on the
wholesale maat trade were issued on February 19* 1917* from Boston*
New York* and Ihlladelphia* In 1918 arrangements were made to re
port trading and prices at the public livestook markets* and the
first reports were released from Chicago on June 1* 1918* In early
1919 the service was extended to Kansas City amd OaahJ
The first wireless broadcast of United States Department of Agri-
T. The Market Hews Service of the United States Department of Agrloul'ture. United States Department of Agriculture. Production and Marketing Administration* Washington 26* D* C. June 1949* - 1 4 - culture Market Hews formally arranged by market news personnel was made on December 16, 1920, over the radio station of the United States
Bureau of Standards* For a time, market news went out over this sta tion daily* "Ham^ operators ldio pioked up the broadcast were re quested to make eopies of the report and deliver them to oounty agri culture agents, farmers' organisations, shippers, and others inter ested. The first radio market news broadcast by voice went out on
February 19, 1921, over the radio station of the University of Minne sota, using the eall letters 9X1* As the station had only 6 watt power it covered a very small area* In May 1920, the same Univer sity of Minnesota station, using the sane eall letters, but oper ating through radio telegraph, made an experimental broadcast, using market news reports**
In 1916 when studies were in progress In the Department of Agri culture concerning livestook market news, similar studies were also being made relative to the possibility of reporting conditions at various leading grain markets throughout the country.2 In faot, the grain market news servioe began as a spoolal service developed in the Offloe of Markets and Rural Organisation In 1916 to aid
southern farmers In marketing their oats orop* The firwt speciflo
allotment of funds for this purpose was for the flsoal year 1918-
19* During the year grain brandh offioes were opened at Mew Tork,
1 . tbid.
2* The Market Hews Servioe. reprinted from Mlsoe 1 laneous pub lication Ho* 705, 5* Dept* of Agriculture, Production and Marketing Administration, Washington, D* C., p.2* - 1 5 -
Richmond, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Chicago, Kansas City, Oklahoma
City, Fort Worth, Denver, Spokane, and San Framelsco* Biweekly reports were issued, giving information on sourees of supply of grain,stocks in dealers* hands, market receipts, shipments, and prices* ^
Appropriations for the servioe were out the following year necessitating a reduction in service and all offices except the one at Chicago were dosed* On July 1, 192S, definite funds were al lotted for the development and extension of the grain market news service* Since that time the servioes rendered have gradually be come more extensive*
1* The Market News Service on Qrain, Hay, Feed, and Related Com modities, U* S* Department o^Agrlcul'fcure, Production and flar- ketlng Administration, Washington, D. C*, January 1949. p.l. c h a p t e r i t Method of Stud 7 and Sourao of Data
Iafonatlon contained In the soot Ion related to problems was obtained from data on flln in tho Department of Agricultural Seon- omios at Ohio Stato University and froa personal oontaots made dur ing tho oourss of this study*
Tho method uood to inventory tho available sources of live stook and grain market information involved a number of steps* In tho first instance* the doseription of the inforuati on available through the Pederal Market Rees servioe was obtained from various
United States Department of Agriculture publications oonoemed with the subJset*
The radio inventory was obtained from a survey made in Ohio in
I960* At that time personnel at 07 Ohio radio stations were inter viewed for the purpose of obtaining information relative to the ex tent of livestook and grain market news ooverage in the state* These were the A II stations and the T M stations without A M outlets listed in the 1948 radio yearbook* The intent was to interview someone at the respective stations and in nearly all oases It was possible to do so* In those instanoes where it was impossible to interrogate sta tion personnel a radio was tuned to their station to get the desired information* Also* this was done for most stations where inter views were obtained* The 67 stations represented a complete radio ooverage at the time the survey was made*
Data for the newspaper inventory of livestock and grain market information available to Ohio farmers was obtained from II dally
-16- -17 newspaper* on file In the Ohio State Archeological Museum* This sanple represented approxisufc ely three-fourth* of the daily news papers published in the state* It was Halted to 76 because this was the nosber of papers readily accessible in the Museum* An arbitary date of June 16, 1960 was seleoted for the date of public ation of eaoh paper examined*
The extent to which available sources of market Information ff>re used by farmers and farmer suggestions for improving the service are items for which information was obtained in a farmer survey whloh was made during the summer and autumn months of I960* It involved personally interviewing 656 Ohio farmers from 8 6 of the states1 88 counties* farmers were selected randomly in such a manner that eaoh farmer in the state had an equal chance of being
selected for an interview* The method of selection is known as the
"area method of sampling1* and was developed by the Statistical
Laboratory at Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa and the Bureau of
Agricultural Economics, United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D* C** General prooedure involved in selecting a sam
ple of this type is briefly as followst A general highway map of
each county is divided into small areas of from six to twenty-
four farms each, and eaoh area Is systematically numbered* Once
the tentative else of the sample is determined, that is, the num
ber of people from whom an interview is desired, a set of random
nuabers is used to select one or more areas in eaoh county to be 18 used ss interview areas* The areas oan be seleeted la suoh a manner that eaoh farmer in eaeh area is bo be interviewed or It is possible bo eonbacb a selected proportion in eaoh area* In the
surrey under discussion a bobal of 2 0 0 areas were selected in 86
oounbies and a seleoted proportion of farmers in eaoh area was In
terviewed. In most oases one-half the farmers in eaoh area were
oonbaoted but in some instanoes the proportions were one-third* one-
fourth* one-fifth or one sixth* depending on the number of farms In
the area. The interviewer never knew the name of the farmer he was
to see or the type of farming In whioh the operator was engaged* The
important point is that by using this method of seleoting people to
interview it is possible to obtain a representative oross section
of Ohio farmers. The implication of the latter statement is to
the effeot that* on a percentage basis* the answers obtained in
the survey should approximate the answers whioh would have been re-
oeived had eaoh farmer in the state been interviewed*
An analysis of the answers to most of the questions asked in the
farmer survey was made by different applicable methods of stratifi
cation. They inoluded the number of hogs sold* nuaber of oattle
sold* purpose for whioh oattle were sold* number of bushels of wheat
sold* type of buyer for both livestook and grain* whether the oper
ator was a full or part time farmer* age of operator* edueatlon of
operator* and whether a resident of eastern or western Ohio* This
analysis is inoluded as Appendix A and B in this manuscript* -19-
Although the appendices include more data than la oustomary for a manusorl.pt of this typo, it was deemed advisable to maintain a re- oord of tho analysis* It was for thia purpose that they wars in eluded*
Radio poraonnol aro an important segment in tho ohain of marhot reports* As a mo ana of making it poaaiblo to obtain advloe and ooun- aol from thorn a loaflot summarising tho roaulta of tho farmer surrey was prepared and dlatrlbuted to eaoh Ohio radio atation with tho sug gestion that an onoloaod card bo returned if they wore agreeable to dlaouaaing tho loaflot on a future date* More than one-half of tho stations retnrnod oarda and a peraonal interview was later made with someone at eaoh of those stations to obtain opinions and oo— tents re
lating to the farmer suggestions contained in tho leaflet* CHAPTER. t Pr obi asms Concerned With Farm Market Reports
Prioe Variation Between Livestook Markets In Ohio
One question whioh should he oonaidered relative to the need
for market reports is oonoemed with the amount and signifieanoe of the prloe differentials between various livestook markets* A logi
cal approach would seem to be one Which would, (l) consider the dif ferentials between the major markets, (2 ) take aocount of the differ
ential between major and looal or smaller markets, and (3) the dif
ferential between looal markets for eomparable species and grades
of livestook* Suoh comparisons should indioate the need for, and
value of a oomprehenslve system of reporting livestook market news*
It should be nobed at the start that it was not one of the pri
mary purposes of this study to make an analysis of prioe differentials*
Consequently, reference to this subjeet will be limited to a bjrief
review of presently available information related to the topio* This
information is concerned only with hogs as no important study has been
made of prloe differentials for the other speoies of livestook*
or livestook markets of laq>ortanee to Ohio farmers inolude
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Dayton, Chioago, and Indianapolis*
Data are available showing the average monthly prloe differential be
tween the preoeding markets for three weight groups of hogs for the
yeast 1947 and 1948*1 The range of the average monthpdifferential
varied between 28 and 78 oents per hundred weight when the three
w*ight groups were considered together* That is,the sMLllest monthly
1. Homing, 3 . p.. Analysis of Hog Brlees in Ohio, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Researeh Bulletin 696* Wooster, Ohio* July,1981* - 20- - 2 1 - range was 28 oents and the largest 78 osnts whan all Markets were considered. The average of the ranges was 59 cents.
The average monthly differential between various markets was also noteworthy. A comparison of the differential for 180-200 lb. hogs between Cleveland and Cinoinnati in 1947-48 indicated an average monthly difference of 20 cents per hundred weight with the range extending between two and 42 cents. The average differential between Cinoinnati and Columbus was 22 cents with the extremes being six and 56 cents. Between Cincinnati and Dayton. both in the sane geographical area of the state, the average monthly differential was
31 oents. the largest differential being 68 oente and the smallest
16 oents.
Similar comparisons between Cleveland and Columbus indioated av
erage monthly differential of 58 cents with a range of 6 6 . the ex tremes having been two and 67 oents. When Cleveland end Dayton were
oompared the average monthly differential was 45 emits* The greatest
monthly differential was 78 oents and the least was 20 oents.
In appraising the signifioanoe of the preoeding differentials it
is important to remember that the data were monthly or yearly averages,
is such,they did not bring into focus the dally extremes whioh would
have been evidenced by the use of daily figures.
Another prloe relationship which seems to warrant consideration
at this point is concerned with whether or not the prioe in one market
moves in the same direction the sane day as the prloe in another -22- market. Dr. Henning1 h*» brought to light > o m striking differ ences In tho day to day aovnwnt of prleoa at tho Tarioua markets
during the years 1948 and 1949* For example, in 1948 when tho Cin
oinnati prioe of 2 0 0 - 2 2 0 pound hogs increased on a glTen day tho
Columbus and Indianapolis prices increased 77 percent of the tine while
the prloe at Cleveland inoreased only 61 peroent of the tine. When
the Cinoinnati prioe remained the same the Columbus prioe remained
the same only 2 0 peroent of the time and the percentages for Cleve
land and Indianapolis were 38 and 22, respectively. When the Cin
cinnati price decreased,declines at the other markets were Coluabus
74 peroent, Cleveland 61 percent and Indianapolis 84 percent. The
same comparisons for 1949 shewed similar variations.
The preoeding discussion has been ooncerned with the variation
in hog prioes at various major markets of inq>ortanoe to Ohio farmers*
A review of the hog prioe differentials between specified looal or
small markets is also of interest.
Dr. Henning and Dr. Evans have data available showing average
yearly prices received by farmers for hogs in I960 at specified mar- 2 kets and in specified geographical areas of Ohio. The areas are
five in number and in general are self explanatory. The areas with
number and types of markets in eaoh area are as follows* Forth West
ern - three auotions, nine concentration yards and three combination
auction - concentration yards for a total of 16 markets i South Eastera-
1. Ibid.
2 . Unpublished data* Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology* Ohio State University. Columbus, Ohio. -23 four auotions3 East Central - 12 auctions and one combination auotion-oonoentration yard for a total of 18 markets f South West ern - 17 concentration yardsj West Central - two auotions, 16 con centration yards and two combination auction - concentration yards for a total of 20 markets* Totals for the state were 2 1 auctions,
42 concentration yards and six combination auotion-oonoentration yards for a grand total of 69 markets* In addition to the pre ceding information, the data also inleudes monthly averages for 16 markets of the Producers Cooperative Livestook Marketing Association
in the state as well as three markets in the Colusfcus area*
These figures indieate that there was a difference between the prices paid for hogs at many of the markets* A number of specific
conclusions are in evidenoe* They aret (l) There was a differeaoe
in prioe between different types of markets in the same geographlsal
areas* (2) There was a differenoe in prioe between the same type
of markets in different geographical areas* (3) There was a differ
ence in price between different markets of the same type in the same
area* (4) There was a difference in the average prioe between geo
graphical areas* (S) There was a difference in price between the
different markets in Columbus * (6 ) There was a difference in price between the various Livestook Producers Cooperative markets in
Ohio*
An examination of these differences reveals the fact that they were of varing degrees of magnitude* Considering the differences
between different types of markets in the same geographical area it - 2 4 - ia noted that the greatest differentials -war# in North Western
Ohio* In that area the differential between the auctions and con centration yards was 38 cents per hundred weight is contrasted with 26 cents between the auctions end combination type and 15 oents between the concentration yard and the combination markets*
In East Central Ohio there was a differential of 30 cents per hun dred weight between the auotlons and the combination type* Smaller differentials were evident in the west central area* In that area there was a difference of 14 oents between the average auction price and the average concentration yard price* The differential between the concentration yard average and the combination type
average was six cents* Because of a lack of data comparisons could not be made for the south eastern and south western areas*
An examination of the differential between markets of the same
type in different geographical areas shows the differential to be
greatest between auctions and least between markets of the combin
ation type* The range of the yearly differential was 93 oents per
hundred weight for auotlons and only eight cents for the oosbination
type market* It was 33 cents for the concentration yards* When the
yearly average auction prioes in the different geographical areas
were compared the differential ranged between two and 24 oents*
Similar figures for concentration yards were four and 10 cents
while for the combination type of markets they were sero and three
cents*
An appraisal of the difference in prloe between the sane type -26- of market in the same geographical area is of interest* In four areas for which data were available the ranges for the differ ence in auction prices were 9. 16, 69, and 60 oents. In three areas for whioh data were available the ranges for the differenoe
In concentration yard prioes were 17, 25, and 29 oents. Ranges for the difference in pries between the eoihbination type of mar kets were five and six oents in the two areas for whioh figures were available•
The differenoe in the average prioe between areas when all types of markets were inoluded rmaged between zero and 51 oents. These were yearly averages and the figures for two of the areas were the same.
In the Columbus area it is evident there was a differenoe in price between paoker markets and also a differenoe between the packer and producer markets. The differenoe between the yearly average
price for one weight group of hogs at two paeking establishments was only four oents and for another weight group it was eight cents*
The monthly averages showed a greater variation, the range in diff
erentials being between two and 20 oents. When a comparison is
made between two packer markets and the producer market the monthly
differential ranged between eight and 77 oents. It should be noted,
however, that the pri oes for the paoker markets were for specified welgfc groups while the prioes for the produoer market were for all weight groups.
The range of tlm differenoe between monthly average prices at 16 -26- produoer nark eta* excluding Columbus* varied between 20 and 66 oents for market hogs* In two months the range was only 2 0 oents idiile in four months it was more than 40 oents* The range in the monthly averages between Columbus and other produoer markets varied between
15 and 47 cents while the average monthly differential varied be tween five and 16 oents for all market hogs*
Since Producers* is the most important hog market in Columbus it is now possible to make a general statement concerning the dif ferentials between the major livestock markets and the smaller or looal markets in Ohio* It has been indioated previously that there was a differenoe between prices at Columbus and prioes at other major markets• In the previous paragraph a differenoe between Columbus and
other produoer marks ts was indicated* Therefore* there must be a
difference between prioes at the looal and major markets* It is
impossible to measure the differential in question because data
for the two comparisons were for different years*
What is the significance of the preoeding differentlaIsT In the
first instanoe it seems Important to restate the fact that the diff
erentials have been deseribed in terms of monthly and yearly averages*
In the ease of the yearly averages it seems obvious that the differ
entials do not show the extremes whioh would have been evident had it
been possible to use monthly averages* Likewise* the monthly aver
ages do not bring into foeus the extremes which would be expected
from daily quotations and it is the dally quotations in whioh farmers
are most interested* -2 7
PerlMpc tbt point of (rntaat tiinlfiauoa and oertainly the most obrloua, la the fact 'that there la a differenoe In tha priaa paid for hog a at tha various Ohio markets if tha years under eon- aider at Ion have baan a typical tina period. In retrospect tha dif- fereneaa ware between eejor marketa, between major marketa and local markets* and between looal markets. It would be tery difficult to accurately select tha one differential between any two markets from the data used. Bather It would seem to be logical to state that between most marks to there la likely to be a differential which in some Instances may be small and in ethers may be as much as $1 . 0 0 per hundred-weight with daily variations ranging between the two extremes. Thus it would appear that farmers would be In a position in increase their income substantially by making wise decisions-
In their choice of markets if a comprehensive system of reporting the livestock market were in existence.
An approximation of the amount Income might be Increased can be indicated by the use of a few figures* It is estimated that Ohio farmers produced 1*160,000,000 pounds of perk in I960. If It is assumed that all of the pork was marketed* an Increase in price of
▼crying amounts is noteworthy. An increase of 10 cents per hundred pounds would have resulted in an increase of #1*160*000.00 to Ohio hog farmers while am increase of 26 * 60* TO* and 1 0 0 cents would
have resulted in an Increase of #2*826*000.00* #6*750,000.00*
1 8 ,6 2 6 *0 0 0 .0 0 * and #11*500*000.00 in that order. Such increases
however* are not likely to be the result of any system of live
stock market reporting. - 2 8 -
If conditions aort nearly approaching perfect competition
*re Msuasd In the livestock marketing induetry i o w gains made by finwrf aho carefully folloaed tha aarkvt raporta would llkaly
rwult In lower prleee to farmers who did not follow the reports
as adjustment* In the aupply-prloe relationship among the various mar
kets took plaoe* The lmplioation of the preceding statement is to
the effeot that sou* farmers would receive gains and s o w would re
ceive lower prioes for their hogs* It is impossible to determine
the extent of either the gains or lower prioes whioh would be re-
eeived as it also is impossible to estimate tho proportion of far
mers in each group who would be involved* From the standpoint of
individual farmers however, the gains eould be quite extensive for
those who ohoss to make wise and efficient marketing dooisions*
Sinee it is generally agreed that conditions of pure and per
fect oowpetition do not exist in the nation's eeomamy it is possible
to view the effects ef an efficient system of market reporting in a
somewhat different manner* While it seems logical to assume that
some purchasers of livestook enjoy eoonood.o advantages over their
competitors whioh enable them to pay a higher prloe than would
otherwise be possible* it also seems logical to assume that because
of a lack of knowledge of market conditions by many farmers some
purchasers of livestock would offer less then purely competitive
conditions would demand* They would thus enhance their profits at
the expense of the hog produoer*
If the assumption is made that it la the desire of each buyer 29— of livestock to maximise profits and if tho provlous statement bo granted thot pure and perfoot competition doos not oxist in tho
•oonoay, tho figures concerning inoroosod income mentioned pro-
-riously bogin to hare addod eignifioanoe* Under thoso oonditions
• otM^reheneive system of aarkat reporting would certainly bo of benefit to Individual farmers who Bade wise dooisions in ohoosing a particular hog market* In addition it would seem that to tho ex tent the hog marketing Industry is not purely competitive total not returns would bo increased to tho group, of faraors who sold hogs*
Although siailar data are not available for oattle and other spooioe of livestook there is little reason to believe that the seas general prinoiples and oonditions applioable for hogs would not be siailar for the other species* It might be noted that sinee there are many more grade and weight groups whioh apply to oattle than la true for hogs the ohanoes of larger differentials for settle are sonewhat enhanced* For the most part, this is a grading problem, but a grading problem would be oonduoivs to at least the reporting
of wider differentials*
The Problem of the Cleveland Terminal Market
The Cleveland terminal market is unique In Ohio from a market
reporting viewpoint beoause it is the one large terminal in the state without a federal market reporter and beoause livestook market reports
•uinatlng from it may have as their souree either the Cleveland Stock
Yard* Company or the Produoer Livestook Cooperative Association these
personnel are loeated in the Sxohange building at the terminal* -30-
That is, one press service association oontaots personnel of the
Stock Yards' Company for market information whioh is disseminated to various radio stations and newspapers throughout the state while another press servioe association oontaots personnel of the Producers
Association for market information whioh is also disseminated to radio at&tions and dally newspapers* In addition, both of these sources have their own respective radio market news broadcasts*
In as mu ah as both press servioe associations obtain their in form tion from within the oonflnes of the Cleveland terminal market
it vould be expeoted that information for any given day would be the
same regardless of the souroe of the data* In the past it has sometimes
been difficult to determine whether the quotations were always the same,
and it has been the opinion of some that they were not s h m y s the
same on a t^iven day* One reason they are diffieult to oompare is be
cause the two press servioea use different grade or weight groups
for some species of livestook in making their reports* It is almost
impossible for the average listener or reader to oompare quotations
for the same grade or weight group at the same or different markets
uhen different terminology is used to desoribe these grade or
weight groups*
Radio Personnel and the Problem of Market Reporting
The method and earner of reporting the farm markets by radio
stations is important to farmers and It is also Important to radio
personnel whose responsibility it is to supervise or do the actual -31 reporting. The radio reporter or station manager who believes that the only prerequisite for reporting the farm markets ia the ability to read,will find it impossible to maintain a farm audienoe for any substantial tism period* There is some evidence to support the pre- iciee that before farmers will consistently listen to a market reporter they must have been Instilled with the idea that the reporter under stands what he is reporting* Consequently, obtaining the servloes of a qualified market reporter ia one problem faeed by radio station management even when the only task of reporting consists of reading wire servioe copy. The problem beoomes even greater when local mar kets are to be reported and the Information must be assesfcled by radio station personnel*
With the exception of a few stations who have a full time farm program director most radio stations employ personnel not trained in
agriculture. This being the case, there is a need for Information rtiich will be an aid in planning a program format somewhat in con formity with farmer needs and desires. This meed is recognised by
personnel at many radio stations*
The rate of radio personnel turnover Is very great at many sta
tions. In faot, in some years it would seem to approach 60 per cent
for personnel engaged in farm servioe work* This rapid turnover great
ly inoreases the need for information related to planning farm mar
ket report programs •
Newspapers and the Problem of Market Reporting
The problems of dally newspapers and radio stations concerning - 8 2 - the subject of far* market reports ara similar in nature in that they ara both confronted with tha problem of what to raport and the form in which tha information should be reported* A. raeant survey
revealed very little similarity among newspapers in this respect*
It would seem that the question of why there Is not more sim
ilarity among newspaper reports eould logically be asked* If it is
assumed that market interests In different geographic sections of
the state ara approximately tha same it follows that reports for the
different areas should also be sisdlar if maximum servioe is to be
performed* This is not to suggest that the differenoes in newspaper
reports are dlreetly correlated with the areas ki (Which the news
papers are located* Rather, there does not appear to be any cor
relation between areas or within areas* Consequently, it would
seem logical to assume that the lack of similarity of nmrket re
ports among newspapers is at least partially due to a lack of know
ledge on the part of newspaper personnel as to the type of reports
which are of value to farmers* CHAPTER VI Sunmtary StatMMnt of LI ▼••took and (3 rain Reports Issued by the Federal Market Hows Servioe*1
Tho livestook and grain market news services art administered from Washington, D. C. through tho Livestock Bran oh and tho Orain
Branch of the Production and Marketing Administration. Eaoh servioe has a head In the respective oosssodlty branohee mho is responsible for tho reporting servioe throughout the nation.
Livestock reporters are looated at 26 of the prlnolpal live-
•took markets and their responsibility is the aotual reporting of con ditions at their respective markets. Generally, the reporters ob tain information on movement, supplies, demand, prioes and priee trends of livestook. They obtain this information through personal inter views and by keeping in continuous touoh with buyers, seller,pro ducers, traders, and others on the market while trading is In pro gress.
In addition to information oollooted at the 28 principal markets information on dlroet marketing Is also oollooted at Des Koines,
Iowa, for the Iowa and sowthem Minnesota areas, and at Thomasvllle,
Georgia, for the Georgia area.
The only livestook reporter in Ohio is looated at Cinoinnati.
Other markets having reporters in whioh Ohio farmers ire dlreetly in terested are Chicago and Indianapolis. Reporters are also
1* The Market Hews Servioes. Beprinted from yisoellspeous Publication Ho. 708. United States Department of Agriculture, Production and Marketing Administration, Washington D. C. and U.8 .D.A. Market News Servioe in the Midwest, Midwest Area, Offioe of Information Services, Production and Marketing Administration, United States Department of Agriculture, 62S South Wabash Avenue, Chicago 6 , Illinois. July, 1961. -65— located at other major markets including Denver, Fort Worth, Kansas
City, Oklahoma City, Omaha, St. houis National Stook Tards, Sioux
City, South St. Joseph, and 8 outh 8t. Paul.
Market new a field offioes of the Grain Branoh of the Production and Marketing Administration are located at Minneapolis, Minnesota*
Chicago, Illinois* Kansas City, Missouri* Portland, Oregon* and San
Francisco and Los Angeles, California. Market Information collected by these six field offioes is supplemented by that supplied by 24 commercial correspondents located at important marketing oenters.
Other information which may be incorporated in grain reports includes
crop production estimates of the Bureau of Agricultural ^oonomios, movement of grain in foreign trade as reported by the Department of
Commerce, and statistics available from grain exchanges.
Grain futures prices and cash grain prloes are both reported by
the Grain Market News Service. Futures quotations most frequently us-
•d are the dosing prloes for the three nearest delivery months on wheat at Minneapolis, Chicago, and Kansas City* on oora at Chicago and
Kansas City* on oats at Chicago and Minneapolis* and on rye at m n n e a -
polls.
Daily closing oash price records are obtained covering the prin
cipal classes and grades of grain at Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City,
Baltimore, Fort Worth, Omaha, Minneapolis, and Portland. In the lar
ger markets they are the prices determined by a grain prlee o om i t tee
to most nearly represent the value of oash grain when the market
dosed. Cash sales, and relation of oash prloes to futures during -ss- the late marketing period are eontldtrid in ••tabliahiog this prlM*
In narlcetfl «h«r« th»r« are no grain axohange elosing prioo o o n d t t t w , th« market nows roprosentat i ve , or a eonoreial correspondent, re ports salos mads nearest to tho market elooo. In th# absence of act ual oash sales, nominal quotations are ealoulated on the basis of aetual futures quotations and tho premiums and discounts most recently prevailing between cash and futures prloes in that particular market*
Since grain is a nonperishable oommondity, statistics on produc tion, utilisation, and stocks in storage are generally considered more significant than current market receipts* Information of this type is also inoluded in grain reports*
There is no grain market reporter or grain market news office in
Ohio eonneoted with the Federal Market Mews Service*
Federal Market Mews of all types. Including livestock and grain, is disseminated by a number of different methods* One method is through the use of leased wire (see figure 1)* Most marinet news of fioes are connected, on the average, by approximately 1 0 , 0 0 0 miles of
oonmunioations wire leased on u eight-hour day basis* The leased wire
operates through eight olroults, eaah serving a section of the country*
Met sag es plaeed on the wire at any one point in the cireult reaoh all
points on that oireult and can be relayed to offices on any other cir
cuit whan considered desirable* Sash market news office makes use of
that part of the news carried on the leased wire that the reporter in
charge believes te he of value in his reports* That is, a daily report
written by the Livestock Market Mews Service in Detroit may -56- contain brief statements on market conditions in Indianapolis, South
St. Paul, and Badt St* Louis National Stockyards in addition to in formation concerning market conditions in Detroit*
Arrangement a are in effect with the Associated Press, United
Press, International News Service, and Transradio Press whereby they distribute market news over their facilities to newpapers and radio stations in all parts of the nation* These services pick up market news reports from many of the market news offices for transmission to local and distant points* Special consolidated market news reports are prepared for their use by the five area offioes of the Information
Branch, Production and Marketing Administration, in Atlanta, Ueorgiat
Chicago, Illinoisj Dallas, Texasj New York, New York; and San Franclsoo,
California* These consolidated reports inolude all major coimnoditios for each market in areas in which there is a Federal Market News Ser vice. They are prepared for midmoming, afternoon, and over night transmission*
Other means of dissemination inolude telegraph, telephone and mailed reports* When there is sufficient demand for a CND (Commer
cial News Die pat oh) on a product on a given market, the Western Union
Telegraph Company will transmit suoh market information on a subscrip
tion basis* When requested to do so by Western Union, any market news
office will furnish information on which to base suoh a report*
Bach of the market news serviees has available reports which are
nailed upon request* These reports are issued at different time in
tervals and may be released daily, weekly, monthly, sesdannually, or JIGUHS I MARKET NEWS OFFICES AND TELETYPE SYSTEM 1952 U.3. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE * * * PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION
Htfi RQ-UNOOFF BIS M l I I POITLMtO, 0«t A * f t rrnwM * * 1 iMJj’X V WlL, lints M-.OWkifl* M I ‘"♦*G* n AM*, 0 A I I 4) MANEaMi «, HMD I ^ } t* C M 9 1 STMW.J MOCATt COMMODITY 'JOUC'KMti.O * A | | 4* «icaiu, fwi • H Cl MCElEV CAL* AAI9S NAttir NEWS KRVlCt ftftMtfOft", M * * ||3 * '‘USA.OM* #3 l» MLlttf MM, « | | nCMALtSWl, 4 4 J HFwfftFvluriMAA} KMLM.«A| • CO'YQN I fltrfOflMIO *1 * fill ttJTIOiT, ■K'XifS} ' riLf hum. urn 1^13 M UvMHlAM. 41 Q *13191 | MAI « *WtW I ’ 3 * 1 9 * 1 M QmMQIU GRT't, OKLA §i| mleiwwm, n «| »1«WW*l0.III 1 4«fo«r m r*. w * | 10 K*NMU(, TtMH 9*1* * *»Olt| • W ftM U * t« st lCM«, wo A | M Ml,AS, 'Em *A 4 KmitgM. nui# | tfM.Nir, *I« Oi'VWC J ( H )[ nstu, nui | -? I U W 8, IM M rf 9 liVflTttt.ttlH IM O l UttWNT»«, 1>A| | I i3wH*Uf, «t 9*11 u Kumo, otu Ml | MlUXI I MMCMI I t m U FyaMvUI, AO 9 9 11 WKVlF, W.0 M |MtA*Fl|l.C, C N *« A 9 I . >L » t II H .-**** ! >M) 9 J4SAI- M l UTAH | $ mu roHs 14 Of W l, ILL 9 rototco HWlft.rtiM tl 4 A ■ I • PWOWi. Jtoc* 1*101,11 » CftKk, uUH f } H Ml Nuts, 4||| SI lACMKftro.CM | TELETYPE SYSTEM A N * I N I otfiC l 1* »m 1* 3 St SMI FltfCiSCO, | A | f |M C CMt* l* » tf 1*0>0 M*V>Ci 91 ttu M K , UU | USC6 *» IWM|1 MO »s«\b city, * 9 ■ SEASONAL m V m ftWM. mi* M rMciM.MH * f I STATE M iK l OQOftMTEI 9 KiritM mm | j| IMORT «AVt RAOIO 4 y * :t- !T /!«►> HO 9 R ttiftfft M Li' artict I an KMltiiNC *E 9
SEASONAL OFFICES rtMLAUK, COLO 9 f I07F0LIY.ALA AS I) mjmhaton , kc AS I GWKi-L. HAS H •MGMO, *1* I lOtMMmLm*! wTM,ii*«| S 14 *» S * S I I ITtTIUMQ At v lOOMJMtTO.fl* | KN.NC. *9 |1 NlCOlTA, U * i«i *9A1 *r(M , *1* S KMHLMOLDT, T IM A | WlA&.CAl* A S 14 ft>ClKM, «* « f f t t l J t U X , *1* A I 119 RtfOH MUMP, KWH* J tltt.fttt.C N .* * | H BHAicrOA.IC AS t Httil.SN# A| lU.LiMNF. ) AI ttHAVINM, *lA A l ^i*Xh K N M X.Yl* AS Ml MiTOH, M • ii'LOHdici.tc * m mrm, ru A f U4 f IffJQi CtTf, hi | xflCNACO.Tfltti i lttho G*L* A } •nn-'Wi * ,1 MV>tAt*NM«.ICA9 IT L tt!iU A * L * A S OS for PfIKI, *IA | illlttttO M viul.ftfttA **U1 10 MOO*, »* A S MNttlTeiYt, Fi*AS ft.iUM* ".»** .1* AS UNOCRII ANl A| —38 annually* They are available, free of charge, to any one requesting t hem* So far as possible, market news sfflees answer telephone re quests for market information* Occasionally, market news offioes are requested to supply information by telephone to out of town firms or individuals* This they will do on a colleeb basis*
Speoifie livestook and grain reports released in Ohio through the Federal Market News Service eonsist of three daily wire reports and a weekly mimeographed report all issued at Cincinnati and con
cerned with the Cincinnati livestook market* The wire reports area
(1) Estimated receipts released at 7 iOO A.M* { (2) Mid-session report
on cattle, hogs and sheep released at 10*30 A*M,j and(3) Closing re
port on cattle, hogs, and sheep released at lrl5 P*U* The mimeo
graphed report is entitled. Weekly Livestock Market Review, and is re
leased eaoh Thursday* There are no comparable grain market reports
issued in Ohio*
Livestock wire reports from Chicago with the time or day of their
release consist of the following}
Estimated receipts of cattle, hogs, and sheep 6 * 0 0 A.* If*
Estimated receipts at 12 midwest sutrkets 7*00 A.M*
Flash on opening hog prices 8x30 A.M.
Seoond flash hog prloes 9,15 A.M.
Opening flash on oattle and sheep 1 0 * 0 0 A.M*
Midsession report on cattle, hogs, and sheep 10t50 A.M.
Advanoe estimate of receipts for following day 1 1 * 0 0 A.M* - 3 9 -
Closing oattie, hog, and sheep reports ItOO P.M*
Crass cattle report (July IS - November 15) 1 *00 P.M.
Weekly cattle review Thursday
Weekly hog and sheep review Friday
Weekly review of wholesale neat trade Thursday
Livestock wire reports from Indianapolis with the time or day of tneir release oonsist of the following!
Estimated receipts of oattle, hogs, and sheep 6 rOO A.M*
Flash on prices of olaves and hogs 9tl0 A.M.
Report on cattle, hog and sheep prloes 10i50 A.M*
Closing prices on oattle, hogs and sheep 12*00 S..
Weekly livestock review Friday
Livestock mimeographed reports from Chieago and Indianapolis with
the time or day of their release consist of the following!
Dally Livestock Market Report Chioago - 4rOO P.M*
Weekly Livestock Market Review Chioago - Friday
Weekly Livestock Statistical &eport(l2 Midwest Markets)Chicago-Monday
Weekly Review of Meat Trade Conditions Chioago Thursday
Weekly Slaughter Under Federal Inspection at 52 oenters-Chioago-Mionday
Weekly Review of Boston Wool Market Chioago - Friday
Daily Livestock Market Report Indianapolis - 2 tOO P.M*
Weekly Livestock Market Review Indianapolis - Thursday
Urth wire reports from Chioago with the time or day of their re
lease oonsist of the followings
Cash grain market and estimated receipts 12tOO M. - 4 0 -
Closing cash and futures market 1»30 P.M.
Weakly grain market report Thursday
Grain mimeographed reporta from Chioago with the day of their release oonsiat of the following*
Weekly Commercial Crain Stock Report Tuesday
Weekly Grain Market Review Friday
Reporta similar to those in the preceding lists are available from other BMLrkets throughout the country. In addition, the Offioe of In formation Services of The Production and Marketing Administration in
Chioago, provides dally and weekly market summaries baaed on reports from all market reporting offioes in the nation* These summaries are furnished to press associations primarily for radio use* The wire re ports with the time or day they are available consist of the followings
Opening Livestock Trade 9*30 A*M*
Morning Farm Prices 10t30 A.M.
Daily Mid-morning Livestock Summary lit30 A.M*
Daily Farm Market Analysis 3t30 P*M*
Dally Market Digest 6 tOO P.M*
Weekly Feedstuff Report Friday
Weekly Grain Review Friday
Weekly Boston Wool Market Friday
The following mimeographed summaries are also available on the days indloated*
Weekly Farm Market Analysis Friday -41
Weekly Feedstuff Report Friday
Weekly Grain Market Review Friday
Weekly Boston Wool Market Review Friday
Weekly Range Liveatook Review Friday CHAPTER VII T.jTflatook Market Information Available to Ohio Parwra
Radio Information
Information with whioh the radio Inventory Is oonoerned if as ob tained from 67 radio stations in Ohio. Of this number, 44, or 66 per
cent regularly reported some type of llvestook market information on
a dally basis, exoluding Saturday and Sunday of each week.
The number of broadcasts of livestock market news per station
ranged between one and six with average being 1 . 6 for those stations
reporting suoh information. Thirteen stations were on the air with
livestock news twioe each day while three stations had three or more
broadcasts per day. (Figures 2 and S)
Approximately fbur minutes per day was the average amount of
time devoted to livestock market information by stations engaged In
reporting the liveatook markets. When tie amount of time was eomputed
on a per broadcast basis it was 2.7 minutes. Stated in a slightly dif
ferent manner, one-third of the stations used less than 2.5 minutes per
day, two-thirds of the stations spent less than five minutes per day,
95 percent used less than 10 minutes per day and five peroent devoted
more than 10 minutes per day to livestock market reports. (Figure 4)
The word "time" as used in this paragraph is not intended to inolude
any portion of any program used for eoaneroial purposes. It refers
only to that portion of tho program used in broadcasting llvestook
market informtd on.
The noon hour between lltaOO A.M. and IsOO P.M., was the time of
day when most stations broadoast llvestook market reports. Kxaotly
one half of the broadcasts oooured during this two hour period. The -43-
TULTON OTTAWA
H tN O Y 5A N D U 3KV DETiA HURON wilDimo u t n a m Youn
Y AN DOT AL.LL
ARION
KNOX UNION 5HCLBY
;*^ke
MIAMI THANK D Worth! 4
MONTGOMERY WH
HOCKING WASHINGTON
*WO.TQN KiML AND r nati
ADAMS SCIOTO
Figure 3 Radio Stations Which Broadcast Livestock Market Hews Two or More Times Daily, Ohio, 1950 LUCAS ""lAMS TULTON OTTAWA Jgcav&a
HENRY SANOUSKV nCFiANCt ERIE
AUL0IW5 -\ / PUTNAM m a m o n i m o
YANDOT C R A W F O R D R jC h l ANO
ALLEN
ARION HOLMES
KNOX LOGAN /UNION 5H E LS V
DELAWARE
CHAMPAIGN KICKING r Worthington An7soN I FRanklin MUSKINGUM CLARK C C o l m b u
TGOHCP y AlRFltLDI PERRY NOBLE. S:
HOCKING #A»PCN
AT HEMS
KjML AND
PlKC
ADAMS Gall » 5C lOTO
Figure 5 Radio Stations Which Broadcast Livestock Market N«w Three or More Times Daily, Ohio, 1950 -4 6 -
rLLIAM5 FVLTO N LUCAS
MtNRV 5ANOUJKV defiance ERIC
U RON molding PUTNAM ASHLAND
t a n o o t CRAWFORD RAMLAN0 Y N t STARK ALLEN
mCRCER ARION HOLMES
KNOX ARAWAS LOGAN /UNION £ D e l a w a r e CHAMPAIGN | | LICKING rthin ton j ^sanklin MUSKINGUM BELMONT
Cl a r k C Coluwlms
P flC B L MONTGOMERY AtRFlti_OJ PCRRV WOBLt s
HOCK INC w^lER WAROCN tNGTON
MAMiLTQN lOHi. ANP Pim£ — T u_ 1 WCIOS L 'JACK SON
Figure 4 Radio Stations Which Devoted Ten or More Minutes per Day to Livestock Market Mews, Ohio, 1950 -46-
AMS TULTON OTTAWA
HtNOY YAHOfiA sir iauce SANDUSKV ERIC aii'Lpiwo PUTNAM
YANOOT CRAWFORD RICHLAND ALLEN
»[ b ; c r ARION UGLAIZE
KNOX Raw as SHELBY LOGAN | UN ION
PA n K l DELAWARE
LICKING MIAMI SKINGUM MADISON I RANKLI ED-Worthinptto r— t.a I irnh
BRCSH MONTGOMERY AIRFICLOl PERRY MQNRO
0VTLer \ S wa «)CN HOCKING WAJh i n g t q n CLINTON t>n ROSS
VINTON
“CIG3
SClOTO
Figura 6 Radio Stations Which Broadcast Lirastook Markat Navs Batraan $ 130 and lit00 A.M. On* or Wora Tinas, Dally, Ohio 1950 -47-
rULTON Wi l l i a m s OTTAWA
MENBY DEFIANCE iANDUJKV
BaULDING PUTNAM
ASHLAND
VANDOT CRAWFORD RCH l ANO ALLEN oosta
ARION
KNOX 5 H E L B V HARRISON
AMPAlGN MIAMI
C Col jk£ k w w s o MOW TOON CO Springflleld
9UtLE WARDEN
MILTON KfML weiGs
Figure £6 Radio Station* Whleh Broadcast Local Idrestodc Market Mews, Ohio, 1 9 $ Q -48*
,:.LlAU5 rVLTON i LUCA5
HENRY
S t f i A N C t 5ANDU3KY
i u l d ING SUMMIT
PUTNAM
TANDOT CRAWFORD RICHLAND ALLEN
HARDIN
ARION HOLMES
KNOX k a w a s 5HELBV
DELAWARE
CHAMPAIGN kicking c fctffp-a 9fthinglCtti5Q f r a n k l i DCL — Colli mi fit ft “ CWTOOfclCRY NOBLt MON P J' l CR WARRCN HOCKING HJHL AND Figure T Radio Stationa Thich Broadeaat Local Livestock Market News Two or More Tlass Ohio, 1950 - 4 9 - second most important tins of day was in the morning between 6 tOO and 8*00 A*M* at which, time one-fourth of the programs were broad cast. During the midmoraine period from 9*00 until 11*00 A.*If. when livestock prioes for the day are being determined four stations had five programs amounting to seven peroent of all livestock market news broadcasts* Approximately one-half of the stations broadcasting livestock market news reported one market daily* About one-fourth reported two markets* The largest number of markets reported by any station was five and two stations reported this number* Cleveland was the llvestook market most often reported* It be ing covered by nearly one—half of the stations* It was followed by Chicago* Cincinnati* ^olumbus* and Indianapolis in that order* Chi cago was reported by almost one-third* and Cincinnati by almost one- fourth of the stations* One-third of the stations also reported a market in the same oounty as the respective stations* that Is* a local market* where mu oh of the llvestook is likely to be sold* (Fig ures 6 and 7) (Cleveland and Cincinnati were not counted as local markets when reported by stations in Cuyahoga and Hamilton counties*) One station* WHKC* in Columbus* gave daily reports on two looal mar kets* In addition to there being a dlfferenoe in the markets for which radio reports were available there was also a significant diffeeenoe in the completeness of the reports for the various markets* Some items in -the reports for whieh oowparisiona between reports were -50- -\ade were prioes and receipts for tho various species of livestock, ;rice and receipt trends, and -whether a top or range of prices was quoted. T a b l e X indicates some of the differences. Local j rices were re- orted r.n many more j retrains than were local receipts. Also local rice trends were reported more often titan local receipt trends, P.e situation for Chicago price and receipt Quotations wno exactly the c : oaite In that more receipt quotations than price quotations were reported. Reports fo the Cleveland and Cincinnati markets were more consistent in this respect in that approximately the same number of programs included receipt quotations as included price quotations, pvp reports for all markets included many more statements concerned with trice trends than receipt trends. More of the programs which re;, crted the Chicago and Cincinnati markets gave a top price than ■: oied a range of prices for the respective grades of livestock* The opj osite was true for programs which reported Cleveland and the local market. The ^receding description is for those programs wr.ich included re ports on the markets mentioned. Had the figures in Tacle I been com- ; uted from the total number of programs on which livestock market news wat. re; orted the j oroentages would have been much less, in fact, they would have ranged from only 22 percent to 40 percent as high as indi cated. It must be recognised that all species of livestock are not pur chased at all local markets* Consequently, it is not expeoted that the percent of programs whioh reported the various species of livestock w uld be as high for some local markets as it would be at a terminal market TABLE I Percent of Radio Program* Reporting Various Item* of Liveatoek Market Information for Speoified Marketa Reported, Ohio, 1950 Local Item Reported Market Chioago Cleveland Clnoinnatl .(Peroent) .(Peroent) .(Peroent) •(Peroent) Hog Prioea 95 68 95 73 Hog Receipta 56 74 89 67 C&ttle Prioea 52 57 89 60 Cattle Reoeipta 10 74 85 60 Veal Prioea 48 26 89 65 Veal Reoeipta 10 68 89 65 Sheep Prioea 48 57 85 65 Sheep Reoeipta 14 68 78 60 Top Prioe 71 74 74 67 Range of Prioea 90 68 95 65 Prioe Trend 71 79 96 75 Reoeipta Trend 14 57 37 S3 Total Programs 21 19 27 16 Sourcet Calculated from radio inventory survey* 51 52- whore all speoies are bought and sold. Thus, it seems that tho radio report* were only partially complete when reference was made to individual markets. The sane general •Itnation existed for reports ooaeeraed with a summary of condition* on all major United State* market*• Approxi mately one-third of the program* which carried livestock market new* reported suoh a aiiwu j . usually without mentioning any particular mar ket. Ineluded in the summary were priee and receipt quotations for each speoles of livestock. Hog priees and reeeipts were carried on more programs than were statistic* for any other apeole* of livestock. The figures ranged bdtween 55 peroent for sheep prloes and 75 per oent for hog priees and receipts. Approximately 60 percent of the livestock market news broad oasts were so arranged as to tins of broadcast that they reported market conditions for the ourrent day. The remaining 20 peroent reported the previous day's market. About 93 peroent of the reports for the Cincinnati market were for the ourrent day. Other current figures were 86 peroent for loeal market reports, 78 peroent for Cleveland and 66 percent for Chioago. Reports broadcast during the early morning period were usually those concerned with market conditions for the previous day. A statement relative to the aoouraey of available livestock mar ket news broadoaate was obtained from farmers in the farmer survey. Bach farmer was given a eholee of answers In expressing his opinion -63 concerning the subject. The answers for the respective ohoioes were as follows for the state* Veiy accurate, 22 percent* fairly accurate, 68 percent* not very accurate, 7 percent* not aoourate, none; and no opinion, 13 percent. An analysis of this question by geographical areas indicates that the number considering the broad cast e fairly aoourate was greater in western Ohio than in the eastern part of the state, while the number with no opinion was greater in eastern Ohio. Otherwise, the answers were about the same in the re spective areas. A breakdown by both education and age of operator divulged no significant differences in the various groups. More part time farmers had no opinion than was true for full time farmers. As s result, more full time farmers considered the reports to be fairly accurate. The proportion believing the reports to be very aoourate was exactly the same in both groups and this was also true for those who thought the reports were not aocurate. Dally Newspaper Information Information obtained from the sample of three-fourths of the daily newspapers published in Ohio indicated that about 80 percent of the papers carried some type of livestock market information. The asiount and type of information, however, varied immensely between the various newspaf. era. One of the differences is concerned with the nunfcer of markets re ported per newspaper. Almost one-half of the newspapers carried news concerned with only ame market. One-fifth reported two markets and 64- approximately one-fourth three or more market*. A few paper* car ried information not •pacifically related to any particular market. The Cleveland market was reported by 49 peroent of the paper* and was the llvestook market most often carried by Ohio newspaper*• It was followed by Chicago in 54 percent, Cincinnati in 20 peroent, and Columbus and Pittsburgh each in 12 percent of the paper*. Eighty per cent of the papers which reported looal market information gave a re port of only one marketing establishment in the oonanunity and 16 per cent carried a report concerned with two such establishment*• One paper reported five markets on the local level. Another indication of the variation in reporting among the various paper* may be obtained from an examination of Table 11 which is con cerned with specified items of llvestook market news. A number of conclusions are in evidenoe, on* of which is that some form of price 1 b reported by more papers than is true for any other item for both the major and local markets. In scat oases the prioe is quoted by grade or weight groups for the major markets but for many papers this is not true for the leoal market reports. Host papers, in quoting price* for the major markets did so by using a range as contrasted with a single price for each grade. To a great extent the same situation existed for the looal reports for all species exoept hogs where a majority of the papers used a single figure. Hearly all papers quoted a prioe trend for the major markets but considerably fewer quoted suoh a trend for the local markets. T A B U II Percentage of Newspapers Reporting Various Items of Llvestook Market News, by Species* for Major^ and Looa^ Markets*0hio* 1950 Hogs Cattle Veal Sheep Major Looal Major Looal Major Local Major Looal Prices 100 100 100 44 lOO 64 100 62 Receipts 93 32 91 24 93 24 96 24 Price by Weight or Grade lOO 92 100 32 89 36 89 28 Range of Prices 79 56 100 36 lOO 44 88 24 Single Price 21 64 o 0 0 12 3 4 Price Trend 95 44 91 24 89 24 86 2 0 Receipts Trend 2 0 17 0 7 0 16 4 Receipts by 93 32 82 8 83 8 91 1 2 Humber Receipts by Adjectives 0 0 9 16 10 16 4 12 Total Papers 57 25 57 2 6 57 25 57 25 1. Major markets included are Chioago* Cleveland* Cincinnati* Indian apolis* Pittsburgh* Wheeling* and Columbus* Toledo* and Dayton when reported by papers in oities other than the respeetlve last three named* 2. All Ohio markmts excluding Cleveland and Cincinnati* including Columbus* Dayton* and Toledo when reported by newpapers in each of these respective oities. Sourcef Calculated from newspaper inventory surveys —55— - 6 8 - More than 90 p«ro«nt of the papers quoted receipts for the major markets while leas than one-half of the papers carried comparable fi gures for the local markets. Specific numbers were used to quote re c e i p t s for moat of the major markets but, with the exeeption of hogs, acme adjective was used by a majority of papers when giving receipts for the local markets. Only a small peroent of the papers indicated a receipts trend for either type of market. Perhaps the most significant, and certainly the most noticeable feature of Table II is the fact that the looal market reports were not as complete as the reports for the major markets. Another criterion with which it is possible to associate the completeness of the various reports is the number of classes or grades of each speoles of livestock reported per newspaper. The number of weight groups or classes of hogs ranged between three and nine per newspaper with five being the number most often reported for the major markets. The comparable numbers for the looal markets ranged between zero and 14 with very little concentration around any part icular number of grades. The number of classes of oattle reported ranged between five and 16 for the major markets end between zero and 11 for local markets, again, with very little ooaeentsation about any particular number for either type of market. The veal calf reports were somewhat different in that for the major markets the number of classes ranged between sero and five with 67- four being the number most often reported* The number of classes lor the looal market aleo ranged between aero and five, but almost one-half of the papers specified no particular class* The reports oonoeming sheep were similar in some respects to Uioae concerning veal* For the major markets, the number of olasses reported per newspaper ranged between aero and seven with about one- half the papers reporting four classes* The number of classes reported for the looal markets had the same range, but approximately one-half the papers specified no particular class* Thus, from the standpoint of the number of olasses of each speoies of livestock reported the reports for the major markets were more com plete than were those for the looal markets. The timeliness of the reports was about as good as could be expeoted* Six of the newspapers examined were morning editions and as such reported market conditions for the previous day* Fifty-five papers were afternoon editions and presumably would have been in a position to repert the ourrent days market* Fifty-one of the papers, representing 93 peroent of the total afternoon editions, reported con ditions for the ourrent day* The remaining four, or 7 peroent, carried a report of oonditio .s for the previous day* A statement relative to their opinion of the aoouraoy of newspaper reports was also obtained from farmers in the farmer survey* Each farmer who indioated a desire for a newspaper livestock market report wau given a ohoioe of answers in expressing his opinion eonoerning both prioe and reoelpt quotations* Conoernlng prioe quotation% the -58 answers to the respective choice of answers for the state were ea followst very accurate, 1 2 peroentj fairly aoourate, 6 6 peroent; not eery accur ate, 15 peroent; not aocurate, one peroent; and no opinion, 16 per cent. An analysis of the answers to this question by geographical areas indicates there was very little difference between eastern and west ern Ohio exoept that the proportion of those with no opinion was higher in the eastern area of the state. Consequently, the proportion be lieving the quotations to be fairly aocurate was somew hat leas in east ern Ohio. The remaining percentages were approximately the same for both areas. ^’herc is some Indication that the younger farmers had de finite opinions oonoerning the aeouraoy of the quotations and believed them to be more aoourate than did the older groups of farmers, a higher proportion of whom weren't sure of the aoouraey or oonsldered the quo tations to be less aoourate than the younger group. Likewise, there is some reason to believe that farmers who sold the most hogs believed the quotations to be more accurate than those who sold smaller numbers of hof,s. Also, more farmers who sold fewer hogs seemed to have no opin ion concerning the aoouraey of the quotations. A higher proportion of farmers who sold beef oattle for slaughter oonsldered the quotations "not very aoourate* than was true for farmers who sold for dairy or other purposes. In addition, a smaller percentage of those who sold beef for slaughter had no opinion. Therewre no apparent differences as between educational groups. Farmer opinion ooneernlng the aoouraey of receipt quotations was similar In many respects to that expressed relative to the aoouraey of -59- ■ rice quotations* The notable oxoeption was the fact that a greater ; ?roonta e of farmers had no opinion concarnine reoeipt quotations* ,\es. ecti e answers concerning receipt quotations for the state were as follows* very accurate* 10 percent; fairly accurate* 49 percentj not very accurate, 11 percent; not acourate, none; no opinion, 30 lerceiiv,. Agai n, there was a greater proportion of those in the east — rn area of tne state who had no opinion than was true for western Ohio* A1 so, there is some evidence that a hi her proportion of both the younger farmers and farmers who sold the most hof;s again considered the quotations to be more accurate than was true for the older age groups and those who sold only a few hops each year* Likewise, there is reason to believe Mat relatively more of thot>e with a progessively higher educational ackground believed the quotations were more accurate than was true for ,ro;ps with progressively less educational training* As was the case relative to price quotations, a slightly higher percent of farmers who oold beef cattle for slaughter considered reoeipt quotations to be "not very accurate** than was true for those who sold for dairy or other ;urposes • CHAPTER Till extent of Farmer Use of Available Lire ebook Market Information The purpose of this section of the study was to determine the extent to whloh available souroes of livestock information were being used by farmers in arriving at individual marketing decisions. This was considered an integral part of the farmer survey and as such it received much attention on the part of the interviewer when dis cussing the subject with individual farmers. Each farmer was asked if he listened to the radio, if he read a daily newspaper or farm paper* if he phoned a prospective buyer* or if he obtained market information from any other souroe before the most recent sale of hogs* cattle* calves* or sheep* if there had been such a sale during the year under consideration. Other questions were also asked relative to the ex tent of the use of the various souroes of information which were used. For radio these were concerned with the length of the listening period* radio stations from whioh market information was obtained* time of day of listening* reasons for seleoting a particular station* and the rank of radio among the various souroes used. Similar ques tions were also asked concerning dally newspapers* farm papers* tele phone and other sources whioh were used before marketing livestook. Information relating to the preceding questions was obtained from 317 farmers who marketed hogs* 252 who sold cattle* 251 who sold oalves* and 74 who marketed sheep during the year under discussion. It should be noted that many farmers sold more than one speoies of livestook* oonaequencly* answers for more than one speeies were often obtained from the same farmer. -eo- TABLE III Percentage of Farmer* Using Various Souroes of Farm Market Information before Sailing Hogs, Cattle, Calves and 8heep, Ohio, I960 Source of Hogs Cattle Calves Sheep Information Peroent Peroent Peroent Percent . adio 79 66 60 78 Dally Newspaper 66 43 42 89 Farm Paper 48 27 18 60 Phone 26 4 4 22 Pusinees Service Reports 7 6 2 13 Eduoational Sources 6 • 2 6 County Agricultural 0 0 0 1 Agent Veteran or Vocational 4 0 1 4 Agriculture Teacher College of Agrloulture 2 * 1 O Local Buyer 6 19 6 14 Attend Livestock Auction 4 7 6 3 Sales Other Farmer S 5 2 0 Other 6 3 2 0 No Information Used 8 29 34 8 Total Farmers Selling 317 262 261 74 % of Farmers in Sample 48 38 28 21 * Leas than one-half of one peroent Source* Calculated from information obtained in farmer a n m y * -61- -62 Information In Table III la presented ai * auMary of th« aouroaa of lofomtion naad by Ohio fanwra before «ark«ila( th* Turloua ■peolss of llTaitoofc* Almost 60 pore •n't of 'the faraara aho uood aarkvt inf o rent Ion be fore they sold live ■'took received informtion froa throe or more ■oureaa. The proportion of thoeo who uood the greatest nuobor of ■ouroeo was highest in groups who sold the most livestock, the full tins former groups, the group with the most eduoetlonel training, and the western Ohio group. Farmer Use of Radio Information loss than one peroent of the farmers interviewed In the surrey were without a radio in tho house and almost one-half had two or more so looated, i few had four or more. In addition, about 20 peroent had radios in tho barn and almost one-half haul them in one or mere ears or trucks, In examination of Table III rareals tho fact that almost 80 peroent of the farmers who sold hogs or sheep obtained market in formation from the radio before deciding to sell. This was a some what higher percentage than was evident for oattle and calves for whioh about GO peroent used the radio. The foot remains, however, that more farmers used the radio than used any other type of information regardless of tho species of livestook being prepared for sale, A. possible reason for the fact that fewer farmers used the radio for oattle information may be because the term "oattle* is all in clusive in that it includes dairy as well as beef breeds, The laplloation is that cull dairy sows will be sold when their use- —63— fulness us milk produosrs la eta rery low point without much regard for -arket condition* at th* time* Similar reasoning will apparently apply to calves for whioh still fewer farmer* used the radio for market information. That is, the period of time during whioh a oalf mav be marketed as veal is relatively short and the calf must be sold wltuin t >is time period rogardlsss of the condition of the market* There is some evidence to the effect that the latter statements may be more applicable for those farmers who didn’t use any information be fore selling oattle and calves than it is for those who failed to use the radio* When the percentage of farmers UBing the radio is computed from a base of those who used some type of information, rather than the number who sold the various species, there is much less variation as between species* Under these oonditiona the percentage* using the radio for the various species of livestock beoomej hogs 85 percent, oattle 78 percent, oalvea 76 peroent, and sheep 86 percent* The smaller variation is because a greater proportion of farmers selling oattle and calves failed to use any type of information than was true for hogs and sheep* It is of Interest to note at this point that 77 percent of the farmers selling beef oattle for slaughter used the radio for market information while only 46 peroent of those selling dairy oattle for slaughter made use of this medium* There is also some indication that farmers who sold the most cattle used the radio more than those who marketed fewer numbers* ?he same situation apparently was true lbr those marketing hogs* Also, a -64 higher proportion of full time farmora listened to the radio than was true for part 1 1 me farmer*. There was no apparent significant dif ference as between education or age groups* Once it ia established that farmers actually depend on the radio for market information the question arises aa to the extent of thia use. One factor to be considered in this respect ia the length of the period of listening before making the deolaion to sell* ^sch farmer, who Indicated he used the radio for information before selling either ho^s or cattle waa asked the length of his listening period* The an swers ranged from one day before marketing to constant day to day listening throughout the year without regard to the apeoiee of live stock being readied for sale* The period for most of the part time listeners was either one or two weeks* (Figure 8 ) ^n analysis by geographical areas showed no signifioant difference in either eastern or western Ohio from the figures for the entire state* There is so>r» indication that full time farmers who sold oattle were more con sistent listeners than the part time farmers who sold cattle* There is also some evidence to support the premise that those farmers who sold both the most hogs and the moat oattle were more regular listeners than those who marketed fewer hogs and cattle* In addition , there is a possibility that farmers under age 36 and over 66 listened more than the middle age group* Also, there would appear to be s o m cnance that farmers with some college training were less likely to be regular listeners than those with less eduoatlonal training* -66 Figure Period of Ties Vtvnurt LltUned to Radio Tor Livestook Haricot Inf ores tl on Bsfars Soiling Hogs sad Cottle, Ohio, 1950 6 C _ ilC 20 Port—ties Full-tii n x D Listeners [ = □ Cottlo S The nuabtr of statlona to 6ilob foratra llatraad for narkat information ataiA to bo uaoolatod to a o m extent -with, tho eosaaodlty under consideration* (Figure 9) Tho proportion of farmers oho lis tened to too or o v o otatlono was greater for hoga than it n u for oattle* Tho proportion oho listened to two or wore etationo was greater in western Ohio than it was in eastern Ohio for both hogs s d oattle. It also seems that farmers who sold the largest numbers of hogs and oattle were more likely to hare listened to tee or more stations for lnforamtion* Farmers who marketed beef oattle for slaughter tended to listen to nor e stations than those who sold oattle for other purposes. This was also true for full time farmers who sold oattle. Four radio stations, WIK in Cincinnati, WKFD in Worthington, WYJJf in Cleveland, and WHKC in Columbus were the stations to whioh most farmers listened for livestook market information. WXV had more lis teners for both hog and oattle information than any ether station while WRFD ranked seeond in this respect. WHKC ranked third as to number of listeners for hog market news and fourth as to the number for cattle market information. Likewise, WTAM ranked third in the number of eattle market listeners and fourth as to the number who listened for hog market news. (Figure 10* ) The geographloal distribution of listeners was somewhat different for eaoh station with the exception of WXFD whioh is centrally located at Worthington, and, as sueh had about an equal proportion of listeners in Western as in Western Ohio. The major proportion of WXW listeners Vigor* 9 Nuafcer o f Radio Stttlou h n o r t Listened to for Livestock Market InTor^tlcn Before Hoga and Cattle, Ohio, 1950 Percent of Faraare 6 0 ___ ko 20 One Two Three cr More HO] H o g * Nuaber of Stations CD Cattle Sources Table A — 3 and k -66* llgnr* 1 0 Radio Sutlooa Llatanad -to lfoat Tor T.lraaitiorlr Market Information Bafara Sailing Bog;* and Cattla, Ohio, 1950 Parcant of Farnara 20 Ho MLM mm WTAM MHKC Otbaor 1—:— --rl H o g * 1 J Cattle Somroii Tnblaa Jb-6 -69- *ero In southern and western Ohio, as would be expected, because WIW ia located at Cincinnati in the southwestern oorner of the state* TTTAJ^ in Cleveland, drew most of its listeners from northern and eastern Ohio* Although WHKC is centrally located in Columbus, more than a proportion ate share of its listeners were in aouthern and eastern Ohio. The four previously mentioned stations are among those having the most powerful transmitters in the state* As a result, eaeh can transmit over a wide geographical area and still provide good recep tion for listeners* Each is located in or near a large olty and each represented one of the three largest livestook marketing centers in the state. In addition, eaeh of the stations employed a full time farm program director* Very few other Ohio stations have all of the previously listed advantages* There were, however, other stations to which farmers said they listened most often for livestook market information* WHKK, in Akron is one suoh station whioh earrled a daily livestook market program direot from the Cleveland Stookyards at 9t46 A*U*, a tine when live stock prices throughout the country are being determined for the day* This would appear to be an Ideal time of day for a livestook market report because suoh a broadcast would theoretically, at least, give the listening farmer a ohanoe to get current information and then decide whether to market his livestook that partloular day* Con sequently, it might be expeoted that WHKK would have many regular list eners for its market program* Suoh was not the case, however, and e -70- possible riuon Mgr have been because thoee farMrt who send thoir llveatook to Cleveland may find it necessary to arrive at tho atoek- yarda early In tho moraine to avoid trafflo concoction Xatar in tho day* 4liO( it should bo aotod that tho time of tho broadoaot lo not oonduoive to ro^ular H a t on Inc iQ tho ordinary aonaa. A. furthor analyolo of tho atatlons to whioh farmers most ofton listened lndioatoo thoro is a o a ehanoo that WTAM and WRFD obtalnod aora listeners frow farworo who warkotod throuch cooperative aaaoola- tlona than from thoao who warkotod throuch private acenoies. Also, it aaawa that from am oduoatlonal atratifloation viewpoint, HRFD obtalnod tha greatest proportion of farworo with aemo eoXXoco tralnlnc and WUf the croatoat poroontaco of thoao with oicht cradoo or Xooo of aduoatlonal tralnlnc* Vo slchif l°aixt dlfforonoo waa arid ant botwoon tha other mjor otationo In thin respect* Booanao tf tho relatively large nujAer of atatlona Involved It waa lwpoaalhXo to get any docroo of eorrelati on uolnc other wothodo of atratifloation related to thle question* Farnora advanced several roaoono thy they ehoee owe station in preference to another in eo loot Inc tho one they llatonod to moat for live a took information* One of thoao reasons, and apparently the most important, was tho quality of tho report whioh woo broad cast. Thle accounted for tho opinion of botwoon 40 and 45 per- eent of the farworo involved dependlnc on whether they wore aeleetlnC a station for hoc or oattle market nows* Suoh anew era Indicated tho 71- farmer b e lieved the report was the beet available, that he vat of the opinion market prloes where he eold were based on the market prices reported on the broadoast, that the report quoted Information on the Mi-icet where he sold, or that the station gave local quotations. Another Bet of reasons often given for selecting a particular sta tion were of a personal nature and included suoh Items as the person ality of the announoer, the reception received, and the fact that it waa * custom to tune to the «eloted station. Reasons of this nature were given by approximately SO peroent of the farmers. The third major reason listed had to do with the time of the broadoast and represented the opinion of about 26 peroent of the res pondent farmers. There appears to be no assuranoe that there Is any consistent decree of correlation between these three major reasons for seleoting a particular station and any of the t^pes of stratification previously mentioned. The time of day farmers listen to livestook market information is restricted by the programs available In any area. Sinoe approximately one-half the total programs were broadoast between 11*00 A.M. and ItOOP.lU and one-fourth between 6 *O0 A.M. and 9 tOO A.M. it might be expected that the percentage of farmers listening during eaoh of these time per iods would be in direct relation to the programs available. Actually, the situation is similar to the one expected but is not quite the same -72- in that at least two thirds of tho farmers listened during the noon hour and something less than one-fourth listened during the early morning period* (Figure 11) Another interesting aepeot of radio in its role of livestock market reporting is its importance to farmers oompared with other touroes of information available for use* The method ohosen to de termine its relative importance,when other media of information were used*was to ask eaoh farmer to rank each medium from whioh he indicated he received information before his last sale of livestock* Most farmers used two or three media* ?he percentage of farmers ranking radio first in importance among the souroes used was almost exaotly the s ame for hogs and oattle, amounting to 81 and 83 peroent respectively* The similarity was also evident when those ranking it second or below were considered* Only a very few gave it a rank of three or below* (Figure 12) An analysis by geographic divisions of the state indioated no significant difference, as between areas, from data for the entire state. There is some indication that farmers who sold the greatest number of hogs tended to give radio a higher rank than those with fewer marketings. There is no indication the latter statement would apply to oattle sales* It is also possible that farmers with some college training considered the radio more important than those with less training. In addition, there is some indication that farmers less than 35, and over 55 years of age, ranked radio higher than did the middle sge group* -T«- flfart U Ltctwcd to LlTvttook Market l m BrotdoMt Btfort Hoc* and Cettlo, Ohio, 19$0 Foreoat of i M n a r t 60 4 60 20 Manlog Mid »nrril,i>f Boon md-afternoon end Bvenlag m n b c i I Cottle Soarees Tohloo A-7, A-8 -74- Figura IS Farasrs Bank of Radio as a Sourca of Llvsstoek llarkat Infaraatlon Bafora Sailing Hogs and Cattla, Ohio, \ 9 $ Q * Parcent of Faraers 100 80 60 ijo 20 XU-LI W r i t S ac ond Third or Losrar cud Hogs R a n k Ca t t l a Soarcsi Tablas A-21, 4-22 # *•*■•*» «ha n s M radio vara thoaa «ho asad 14 * iwMrtt* of llrsstssk aarkat infonatlos« -75- Thue, it would seam that the radio was considered the most im portant single source of livestook market information. Not only did more farmers depend on it than depended on any other source but most of those using it oonsidered it their most important medium, even when it was used with other souroes. Farn**r oT Dally New Daily newspapers represent another souroe of livestook market in formation, important to many farmers. Market reports carried in a newspaper usually are not, and eannot, be as current as those avail able through radio, nevertheless they have advantages not enjoyed by the latter named medium. The advantages include the fact that they can be studied with more ease than is usually possible with a radio report, and, in addition, the fact that they can be more inclusive. They are easier to study because they are in print»and*as such*can be used as reference material for an indefinite period if so desired. They can be more inclusive, generally speaking, because paper and news print are cheaper than time purchased for radio use. Fewer farmers receive a daily newspaper in Ohio than have radios, as evidenced by the farmer survey, but about 92 peroent were the re cipients of one or more daily papers* Consequently, distribution of the papers Is no problem,as suoh, although distribution by mail limits the degree to whioh the reports may be ourrent when reoeived. A. re-examination of Table III reveals the fact that between 42 and 69 pereent of the farmers used a daily newspaper for livestock 7 6 - market inf or motion, -the exact figure depending on "the species of livestock being prepared for sale. As was the case for radio, t larger proportion of farmers used a daily paper for hog and sheep inforiation than was true for oattle and oalves. Apparently the same reasons for the difference between speoies will apply for news papers as was indicated for radio. Restated, they arei(l) The term "cattle** is all inclusive and includes dairy breeds as well as teef breeds and cull dairy cattle are often sold without regard to market conditions at the time of sale. (2) A smaller proportion of farmers obtained market information before selling cattle and calves than -was true for hogs and sheep. Consequently, if the percentage using daily papers is calculated from a base of those using some type of information rather than from a base of those making sales, the pro portions vary between 59 and 76, a somewhat narrower range. Since many farmers considered the daily newspaper an important source of livestock market information it is interesting to note the extent of its use as well as Its relative importance among the various nedia. It would seem a logical beginning would be one considering any significant differences between the number of readers in the stratified groups previouly mentioned. There is some evidence which indicates there may have been a higher proportion of readers in western Ohio than In the eastern area of the state regardless of whioh speoies of livestook was being pre pared for sale. It further appears that farmers marketing the largest 77- numbers h°e» atld cattle were more likely to have read a newspaper than those selling smaller numbers. There also seems to be a definite indication that those who sold beef for slaughter used a newspaper more than farmers who sold oattle for other purposes. No significant dif ference s were indicated for the age, education, or full or part time famer groups. Farmers indicating they used a daily newspaper for livestook in formation were asked the length of their reading period before de ciding to market. Answers to the question ranged between one day and constant day to day reading throughout the year, with constant reading being the response of 86 peroent. (Figure 13) A few followed a news paper for a period of one to two weeks. As far as can be determined there was no significant difference in the length of the reading period between geographical areas in the state or between any of the other stratified groups as differentiated from the answers for the state in its entirety. In placing a relative value on daily newspapers as a source of livestock information slightly over one-half of the farmers ranked them second among the various souroes used and approxismtely one-fifth ranked them first. (Figure 14) A few farmers, seven peroent of those using a newspaper before selling cattle and three peroent of those using this source for hogs, listed a daily paper as the only medium of information used. is a result, these farmers ranked newspapers first and they are included in the group whioh so ranked this source of information. An idea as to the rqamber whioh used only a dally paper helps in understanding F i g u r e 11 Period of Tlae Former* Reed Dally- Heeepeper for Lire*took Market Information. Before Selling Hog* end Cattle, Ohio, 1950 Percent of Per mere 1 0 0 _ do 60 i*5 20 Foil— t i m e Reedere n m Hog* □ Cattle Source* Table* V 1 3 , A-U* -T9- Figure 14 Farnara Rank or Dally Kempapar aa a Souroa of LiTeatook Markat Information Before Sellix* Hoga and Cattle, Ohio, 1950 * Percent of Fa 20 T h i r d F o urth i L o v e r Hoga C = 3 C a t t l e Souroa* T a h l a a *-23, A-2li * F“ ’*#ri 1-10 ranked daily aevapapere vara thoee vho uaad than aa a aouraa of livestock market lafonaatien —8 0 the over all rank in that it indicates that not all of those ranking tri& medium first used only the newspaper as a source of information. Consequently, a majority of those ranking it first used more than one medium of information. In fact, an analysis of the rank of newspapers b the number of sources of information used indicates that regardless of tie number of sources used more than 50 percent of the farmers con sidered it their second most important medium. ‘^'his was true without regard to the species of livestook being prepared for sale. The rank by geographical areas was about the same in both eastern and western Ohio as for the entire state. There is rather definite evidence that newspapers were considered relatively less important by farmers selliugthe largest numbers of hogs and those welling beef eattle as contrasted with those marketing fewer hogs, and cattle for purposes other than beef. It seems, then, that newspapers were the second most used source as well as the second most important when ranked In relation to all sources used. Farmer Use of Farm Papers Farm papers or magazines are a third source of livestock market information considered relatively important by farmers. The term "farm paper" as used In this manuscript has a rather loose oonnotation in that it includes such papers as Ohio Farmer, Farm Journal, Successful Farming, Cappers Farmer, Indiana Farmers Guide. Stockman, Sohlo News Letter. Doans Agricultural Digest, and other miscellaneous papers. -Cl one or more farm papers was received in most farm homes. In fact# approximately two-thirds of the farmers interviewed received the Ohio Farmer, more than one-half received the Farm Journal, one-half were subscribers to Successful Farming, one-fifth to the Country Gentleman and many to other miscellaneous papers. Farm papers do not provide a current source of livestock information as far as day to day quotations are concerned* In fact, there is wide variation among them as to the type of information carried. Generally, though, thqy are similar in that most carry some type of summary state ment and most usually include one or more articles concerned with some type of outlook information which may be either short run or long run in nature. Some papers, one of which Is the Farmer Journal, include a page devoted almost entirely to outlook information whioh many fanners refer to as the "yellow sheet." For the most part it was this type of information which farmers said they obtained from farm papers. Tho number of farmers using a farm paper for livestook market information varied somewhat as between the speoies in a manner sim ilar to tho variation for radio and daily newspapers. The figures were 48 percent for hog market information, 27 peroent for cattle, 18 per cent for calves, and 60 percent for sheep. Generally, these propor tions were approximately the same In both eastern and western Ohio with the possible exception of the figures for sheep in which case the tendency seemed to be for a greater proportion of farmers to use -62— a. farm paper in the eastern area than waa true for the western area* There also so eased to be some definite relationship as to who read a farm paper and who didn't when the data was stratified according to previously mentioned methods* For example* a greater proportion of full tire farmers used a farm paper for hog market information than was true for part time farmers* There was also some indication that relatively more farmers marketing hogs through a cooperative associa tion read & farm paper for market information than was the case for those selling through private agencies* In addition*there seamed to be reason to believe that a higher proportion of farmers selling the largest numbers of hoga and cattle read a farm paper more than those selling smaller amounts* More of those who sold beef for slaughter depended on this mediujk than those who sold cattle for other purposes* Also, there is a possibility that more farmers with some college training used a farm paper for hog market information than did those without such training* In the case of cattle the situation was ex actly the opposite in that it seemed those with the least educational training were in the majority as far as using this medium was concerned* There was no apparent difference as between age groups* The length of the farm paper reading period was one of constant or regular reading for approximately 70 percent of those using this source of information* About 26 peroent indicated the reading per iod was one month in length* (Figure 16) The nunfcer of farm papers read for livestook market information was about the same for each species of livestook as well as between -as* Fleur* IS rlod of Tiae Paraaae Road Farm Paper for Llveatoek Market Information Before Selling Hoga and Cattle* Ohio* 1950 Percent of Farmara 100 ___ 90 60 h O 20 Part-time Full-time R eadera □ n Bog* CD C a t t l e Source* Dnpubllahed date* Par art am t of Agricultural Econoad.ce* Ohio State Unl'reralty* Coluabue* Ohio* Flfort 16 Punt Papera Reed Mott Tar L l m t o o k Market Infcanaatlon by Per ear a Before Selling Begs and Cattle, Ohio* 19$0 Perc en t o f ^ 0 ______6 0 8 0 Ohio farm Journal Others Bogs 1 C a t t l a Sesreet T ab l es Ar-17# Inl8 —8 5 — geographical areas of* the state and the other methods of stratification* Slightly more than one-half read only one such paper while about one- third read two papers for Information* A few read three or more papers* Specific farm papers usually read by farmers include all of those previously mentioned in addition to a few other miscellaneous publica tions* based on the nuittber of fanners who said they read each paper the Ohio Farmer and the Farm Journal were considered by far the most important* Approximately two-thirds of the farmers using this medium indicated they read the Ohio Farmer and slightly less than one- half read the Farm Journal* The next paper in importance in this respect was Successful Farming which was read by about one—fifth ofthose who read a *f arm paper* When asked which cne paper they considered most important the answers were similar* (Figure 16) Almost 60 percent of the farmers considered the Ohio Farmer the most important single farm paper while slightly less than 30 percent believed the Farm Journal was the most important* The preceding are figures for the entire state and were not greatly different in either eastern or western Ohio* There is* how ever, some indication that farmers in the eastern section of the state considered the Ohio Farmer relatively more important and the Farm Journal relatively less important with the opposite indioated in the western area of the state* There also appeared to be an inverse re lationship between farmers selling progressively larger numbers of hogs and those reading the Ohio Farmer for market information but a direct correlation between those selling progressively larger “8ft1 numbers of hogs and those who read the Farm Journal for the same type of information. Other relationships appear tobe evident. One is that the percentage who read the Ohio Farmer increased in moving from young to progressively older age groups. The opposite was true 0f the Farm Journal. Another relationship oonoerns the eduoaticnal groups, in which the percentage who read the Farm Journal increased in moving from lower to progressively more advanced educational groups while the percentage who read the Ohio Fanner for hog market infor mation declined. In plaoing a relative value on farm papers as a source of live stock market information almost 60 percent of those using this source ranked it third for both hogs and oattle. About 20 percent ranked it second in importance and between four and 10 percent placed it first among the various sources used. (Figure 17) There was no significant difference as between geographical areas of the state. An analysis of rank by the number of sources of information used indicates that whether it was hogs or cattle being prepared for sale there was a dir ect correlation between the number of sources used and the relative importance of farm papers. That is , the number of sources of in formation used indicated the . numerical rank of farm papers by a majority of farmers. There is also some indleation that farmers who sold progressively larger amounts of livestock tended to give farm papers a progressively lower rank. -8T- F l g n r t XT Farmer# Bank of F a n Papers as a Source of Llweetook Market InforMtioa Before Selling Hogs and Cattle, Ohio, 1950* Percent of ljo 2C First S e c o n d T h i r d F o u r t h or I1_LI Hogs B a n k □ Cattle Sources Table# 4-27# 4*28 * Farmers who ranked farm papers were those who uaed them aa a source of llreatoek market Information* -88- Furmer Use of Telephone The telephone Is another medium through whioh it is possible to transmit livestock market information and It is used by some farmers for this purpose. InolUded in the eharaoterlsties of the telephone a s a source of information are at least two -worthy of mention; (l) the information so received must of necessity be current, and(2) if it should be used to obtain other than local reports it would be very expensive because of long distance charges. Telephone service to Ohio farmers is not entirely universal throughout the state in that some seotlons have more and better ser vice than others. Almost 75 percent of the farmers interviewed had a telephone and the areas least well served in this respeot were in southern and eastern Ohio. There was a decided difference between farmers who sold hogs and those who sold oattle with respeot to the number of each who used a telephone to obtain market information. The number using this medium before marketing hogs amounted to 25 percent while the figure for cattle was only four percent for the state as a whole. There was alsO an apparent difference between eastern and western Ohio as to the number who used a telephone for hog market news, with the western •ection having the larger proportion. Other differenoes associated with various methods of stratifioation are also very noticeable. One such association is that the number who used a phone increased pro gressively as the number of hogs sold increased. Also, a larger pro portion of farmers who sold hogs through cooperative associations 89- used a phone then wee true for thoee who marketed through private agencies* In the age group stratification a higher percentage of those in the younger groups phoned a prospective buyer than did those in the older group* Furthermore, . there appears to be a dir ect correlation between education and the number who used a phone in that thoee with progressively more educational training used the phone more than those with progressively less education* In addition* more farmers marketing beef cattle for slaughter used the phone than was true for those selling cattle for other purposes* The number of times the prospective buyer was phoned varied be tween farmers but 80 to 90 peroent indicated they phoned only once* Very few phoned any one buyer more than twioe* The number of prospective buyers phoned also varied* Approximately 75 percent of those using this medium* however* phoned only one and most of the remainder phoned only two regardless of the speoles of livestock being readied for sale* In relation to other sources of information the phone enjoyed a rather important role as a medium of market news dissemination as evidenced by the rank indicated for it by individual respondent users* Exactly one-half of those using it for hog market news gave it a rank of two and about 15 peroent ranked it first* (Figure 18) All of the other farmers ranked it third or fourth and nearly all of them ranked it third* Although the number of farmers using the phone for oattle market information was too small to be significant* muoh the same re lation was indieated* An analysis of rank of this medium by the -90- Fl g u r e is Bank or Telephone as a Source of LIT N t O C k Market Infaraatlon Before Soiling Hogo and Cattle, Ohio, 1 ? $ 0 * Percent of Farmers 80____ 60 l£ 20 H First S e c o n d Third Fourth or Loser HD H o g s □ C a t t l e Sonrcet Tables 4 - 2 5 , 4 - 2 6 * Careers who ranked the telephone sere those who need it a source of lireeteek market Information. -91- number of touroea used indicates that regard loss of this number a ma jority of farmers considered it their seoond most important source of information. Thus, although the phone m s used by relatively few farmers for livestock information it was generally considered important as a medium by those who ohose to use it. It would seem that there was also some indication that the users, at least in some respects, were the more progressive farmers* Farmer Use of other Souroes In addition to radio, daily newspapers, farm papers, and the telephone there are other sources of livestock market information used by farmers even though they are used to a lesser degree* Included in this latter group are various business service reports, looal live stock buyers, other farmers, auction sales which farmers attend, and the eduoational sources including County Agricultural Agents, Vocational Agriculture Teachers, Veteran Teaohers in Agriculture, and information disseminated by Colleges of Agriculture* The business service reports include such material as letters from banks, livestock terminal markets, cooperative associations, and others who solicit business from the farmer • Local buyers refer to people ordinarily known as truok dealers. The number of farmers using h business report for livestook mar ket information ranged between two peroent before oalves were sold to 13 peroent before sheep were marketed* Although the number of farmers involved is small and great significance should not be given this -92 observation it is interesting to note that a majority of those using a business service report for hog market information gave it a very low rank while a majority of those using suoh a report for cattle naT- ket information ranked it second in importance among the sources used* A greater proportion of farmers obtained information from local buyers regarding cattle and sheep than was obtained for hogs and calves* This source of information was considered relatively important by far mers using it as evidenced by the rank it was given* Almost three-four ths of those using it for cattle market information ranked it first or secondhand about the same proportion using it before selling hogs gave it a rank of seoond or third* Some farmers regularly attend livestock auction sales in their community and from the sale take home information from which they later make marketing decisions* The percentage of farmers using this means as a souroe of livestock market information varied between three for sheep and seven for cattle, there being but little difference between the species* The tendenoy to use this source, however, seemed tc be greater in eastern Ohio than in the western area of the state. Far mers attending sales for this purpose also considered it an important source of information* Some considered it to be their most important source* Each of the educational sources previously listed were used by a few farmers, the number varying between one farmer who contacted his 93 County Agricultural Agent concerning sheep market information to four percent of those mho sold hogs mho oontaoted a Veterans or Vocational Agriculture teacher* Generally, each mas rated relatively lorn as a source of market information* A fern farmers considered other farmers as & source of market in formation, the proportions ranging betmeen cero for those who sold sheep to three peroent of those mho marketed hogs and oattle* For the most part, such farmers so oonsidered, mere rated relatively high as a so roe of information* It is interesting to observe at this point that none of the far mers interviewed listed any of the Federal Government Market News mimeographed reports Issued daily, meekly, monthly, quarterly, semi annually, and annually by the Production and Marketing Admin1strati cm of the United States Department of Agriculture as a source of live stock market information* This is probably the most aoourate, com plete, and informative ef all market news information* CHAPTER IX Livestock Marked Inforaiation Fanusra Want Reported This chapter ia devoted to a discussion of information farmers in dicated they would like reported in livestock market newa broadcasts or in daily newspapers* Questions to farmers regarding the subject were so worded that the response reoeived indicated the type of in formation wh’oh both radio stations and daily newspapers would dls- seninate if eaoh farmer could dictate both the type and contents of respective reports* From the point of view of individual farmers the reports would be ideal and would not represent the type of re ports which were currently available except as they might have ser ved as a base from which to form opinion* Generally, the questions asked concerned speolfio details related to the subject and were worded in such manner that a definite ehoioe of answers was indicated* There were, however, open end questions which permitted respondent farmers to express any ideas or make any suggestions which came to mind, the subjeot of which was not covered in the former type of questions* Consequently, there was ample opportunity for eaoh fanner to express any and all ideas concerning the topic* All farmers who had sold any livestock during the previous year, even if only one veal oalf, and all other farmers who expressed even the slightest interest in live stock reports were asked these questions* Desired Radio Information The first question asked regarding radio Information was whether a radio broadoast of llvestook market news was desired from a favored - 9 4 - - 9 5 - radio station* Answers received indicated that about 64 peroent of the people living on farms (1945 census definition of a farm) desired suoh a broadcast* There was, however, a very significant difference be tween the number wanting such a broadcast as between eastern and west ern Ohio* In the western area 76 percent replied in the affirmitive while in eastern Ohio the number so replying amounted to 52 percent* It is interesting to observe something of the characteristics of the 36 percent who were not interested In suoh reports* Approximately 20 percent were in no way engaged in the business of livestock farming* In this group, nearly all the operators were employed off the farm on a year around basis and for praotical purposes were rural residents but not farmers* In this oonneetlon, attention is also called to the fact that in eastern Ohio 31 peroent were in the class just described while the figure in western Ohio was about 8 peroent* This group was uninterested to the extent that they were interviewed only to establish their clasaifioation as farmers, obtain the size of their farm, their tenancy status, and orop acreage data related to the farm* A majority of the remaining 16 peroent who did not ask for a livestock market news broadcast also did not sell livestock during the year under considera tion but they were interested to the extent that a oomplete schedule was justified* Other reasons were advanced for not desiring a radio broadcast of livestoek market news and they Included statements to the effeet that Quotations reported were not dependable, there was no time to listen to the radio, and a few stated they didn't like radio* -96 Of the farmers from whom complete schedules were obtained, whioh for practioal purposes represented all of those even remotely in terested in farming, 79 percent indioated a desire for a radio broad cast of livestook market news* There was a slight differenoe in the proportions wanting suoh a report between eastern and western Ohio, the figures being 82 percent in the western area and 75 peroent in the eastern area* There were also other apparent significant differences between various groups* A rauoh higher percentage of full time ikrmers than part time farmers wanted suoh a report. Also, farmers selling the largest numbers of hogs and oattle almost all wanted a report while less of those selling fewer numbers of both species were so inter* acted* furthermore, more farmers marketing beef oattle for slaughter were interested in the reports than were those selling cattle for other purposes* In addition, there were apparent age and educational differ ences with more of both the younger and the better educated groups desiring the reports* The remaining questions relating to radio broadcasts of live stock market news were conoerned with those farmers indicating they wanted suoh a broadcast and the percentages expressed will be of this last mentioned number* The number of daily broadcasts desired per station was another question given consideration* Approximately 42 peroent of the far mers indioated one suoh daily broadoast would meet their needs while 45 peroent wanted two and the remainder suggested three or more* In 97- western Ohio * smaller proportion indioated a desire for one broad cast and a larger proportion teo er more radio reports than was true for the eastern area of the state. There is some indication that a higher proportion of the full fime farmers and those with at least soma high school training suggested two or more broadcasts than did the part time farmers or those with eight grades or less of education* The time of day a livestock market report is broadcast is import ant to both radio stations and farmers* It is important for radio stations to know when to sohedule suoh reports because they desire the maximum number of listeners and it is important to farmers be cause farmers want reports on the air at a time when it is both con venient to 11 ten and when the maximum benefits ean be obtained* As a result of the apparent importance of this question an attempt was made to obtain information from more than one approach* One method used was to ask eaoh farmer his first choice as to the time of day a radio station should broadcast livestook market news* Eaoh was also asked for a second and third ahoioe of time if more than one daily re port was desired* Answers received in reply to the first ohoioe of time were greatly in favor of the noon hour between 12*00 and 1*00 P*U* This was the time of day that 60 peroent of the farmers wanted reports (Figure 19)* The first ohoioe of time for 1ft peroent of the res pondents was between 7 tOO and 8*00 A.M. and for another 12 peroent between 9*00 end 11*00 A.M. with the remaining 26 peroent soattered Figure Si Tine of Dagr Farasrs Indicated They Would Usually Liatm to a Radio Broadcast of Livestock Market N< Ohio* 1950 Percent of Farmers 100 80 60 bo 20 lirly Mid- Roan Afternoon Evening H o m i n g l^ipni ng T i n s of D a y Sourest Table A-33 -98- throughout the day. It la of Interest to observe that when a se cond ohoioe of time was asked for the noon hour was again the one most requested while an evening broadcast between six and nine was the second most desired. The evening period was the one most often men tioned when a third ohoioe of time was listed* A total of the answers received for the three questions, that Is, first, second, and third ohoioe of a time period indioates that 79 per oent listed the period from 12 rOO to IrOO, and if the period from 11*00 A.M. until 12t00 noon is included a total of 92 peroent listed the noon hour as one of the oholees. The seoond most often mentioned period was the early morning hours from 6«00 until 8(00 A.M. with 52 percent, followed by the evening period from 6 tOO until 9 1OO P.M. with 38 peroent and the mid-morning period with 21 peroent. Another approach used later in the Interview was to point out the different phases of the market whloh oould be emphasized at different hours of the day and then to ask for a personal listing of the time periods in the order of their importance to individual listeners. That is, in an early morning broadoast it was pointed out that it is possible to summarize the previous days market, in a mid-morning pro gram information for the ourrent day oan be given about as soon as de termined, and programs later in the day oan be devoted to conditions relating to the ourrent day. The answers received were in the same relation to eaoh other as those seoeived when a first, seoond, and third ohoioe of time was listed. -99- Immediately following the listing of the rank of the various time periods each, farmer was asked which times during the day he would us ually listen to the radio for livestock market reports* Again, the answers were in about the same relation to eaoh other as those pre viously listed. The proportions indicating they would listen during the various periods were as followst Noon, 73 peroentj early morn ing, 36 peroent; mid-morning, 24 peroent; and evening, 14 peroent* Thus, regardless of how the question was stated, the noon hour was the time of day when most farmers wanted a livestock market broadcast and the second most often mentioned time was the early morn ing period* The third and fourth most important periods were mid morning and evening with the order of importance depending on how the question was phrased* Before the explenation of what type of information oould be emphasised during the various periods the ev ening was the third most requested time but after the explanation the mid-utornlng was the third most often mentioned period* The number of livestock mackets for whioh farmers want a report in a radio broadcast of livestook market news is another Item worthy of mention* Figures for the state indicate that about 37 peroent believed reports for one market would meet their needs while 33 per cent were of the opinion two markets should be reported on eaoh broad cast* The remaining 30 peroent indicated a desire for three or more such markets* There seemed to be some differenoe of opinion between farmers in eastern and western Ohio oonoernlng this question, the -100- tendenoy being for those in the western area of the state to favor the inclusion of more markets than did those in the eastern area. It also appears evident that a higher proportion of both the better ed ucated and those selling the largest numbers of hogs believed more markets should be reported than was true for those who had less ed ucation or those who marketed fewer hogs. The specific livestook markets for whioh reports are desired in radio broadcasts constitutes another problem olosely associated with the number to report. When the sssll markets whioh individual far mers considered local in nature were combined into a single classifi cation it represented the desires of more farmers than was true for any one large market.(Figure 20) Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Chicago were the other markets for whioh reports were most often requested, there being little difference between the number of far mers who asked for eaoh. There were, however, considerable differ ences between geographical areas of the state as to the markets moat requested. There was some indication that the proportion of farmers desiring reports for looal markets was greater in eastern Ohio than in the western area of the state. JLlso, as would be expected, a high er proportion of farmers in the eastern area of the state requested s report of the Cleveland market than was true for western Ohio, while a majority of the requests for a Cincinnati report oame from the western area, ^he proportion desiring a Chicago report was also slightly greater in the western area. Generally, there seems to be - 101- Flgure SO LlTeetock Markets Far— ra Mant Reported In a Radio Broadcast of Lirestook Market Revs, Ohio, 1 9 5 0 Percent of Fa -2Ql Local Coluabus Clareland Clnelnnatl Chicago Otha Source< Table A-36 -102 evidence which indicatee that farmers marketing the greatest num bers of both hogs and oattle were more interested in reports of the large markets, especially Chloago and Cincinnati, than they were in reports of local markets while a higher proportion of those sel ling fewer hogs and oattle were more interested in reports of looal markets* Seasons given by farmers for selecting particular markets for which information is desired were often associated with something of a looal nature in that more than one-half the farmers gave as their reason the faot that local prioes were either quoted or based on another market presently reported* A somewhat smaller, but very significant, number Indicated they chose a particular city because it was their present livestock market* To the extent that these farmers sold their livestook at a looal market these reasons also re presented an interest in looal conditions* About six peroent gave as their reason the fact that they wanted a report from a large mar ket. The number giving suoh a reason was only slightly greater than the number giving the very insignificant reason that a p&rtioular mar ket was selected because it was reported on the broadcast presently listened to* Consequently, it would appear that the reasons given for selecting particular markets on whioh reports were desired were another indication that farmers wanted local information reported* If specific requests for reports from a looal market were not made, the chances were great that a request was made for a report on a market on whioh the respondent farmer believed his looal prioes were dir ectly based# The method of reporting conditions at the various livestock mar kets was another question given consideration* Eaoh farmer was asked whether*(l) he wanted actual prioes and aotual receipts for all mar kets reported, (2) he wanted actual prices and actual receipts for some markets and trends for others, or (3) he wanted only trends for eaoh market* Results for the state indicate that a majority of far mers were interested in oonsider&ble detail ,in that 31 percent re quested actual prices and actual receipts for all markets reported, 15 percent wanted actual figures for some of the markets and trends for others, while 10 percent wanted only trends for each market* Fourteen peroent had no opinion concerning the question* The second group, which requested both trends and actual figure*, was for the most part, composed of farmers who wanted aotual quotations for the markets at whi oh they were most likely to sell but who also wanted trends for the larger and more distant markets* There is some indica tion that farmers marketing the largest numbers of hogs considered act ual quotations relatively less important and trends relatively more important* An analysis by educational groups indicated a similar sit uation in that the actual quotations were considered relatively less important and trends relatively more Important in the progressively better educated groups* Similarly,. trends were considered relatively morp important in the western area of the state than in the eastern area. Most farmers in eastern Ohio wanted aefeual prioes and aotual -104 r e c e i p t s in their broadcasts of livestook market news. Closely associated with the method of reporting conditions on the vari ou s markets is the method of reporting prices on a livestock market news broadoaet* Because of the wide variation among radio sta tions in the method of quoting prices each farmer was given a choice of five possible answers, all used to some extent throughout the state. The possible answers and the percentage of farmers requesting each were as follows * (1) Range of prices by grade and a price for which most of the grade is selling, 69 percent] (2) Range of prices by grade and top price by grade, 18 percent] (3) Range of prices by grade, 10 percent;(4) Top price only, seven percent; (6) Top price by grade, five percent. One peroent had no opinion* There were no apparent significant differences between groups in the various methods of stratification* Other items of informaticn given consideration which are some times, but not always, included in a broadcast of livestook market news include receipts for the various markets reported, a summary statement of conditions on the mid-west terminal markets, and both receipt and prioe trends for the current day. The summary statement is a brief resume of conditions at the mid-west terminals usually written without mentioning any speoifie market* A general statement can be made that a majority of farmers wanted each of the above items reported in a broadcast of livestock market news, however, there was a difference in the relative importance of each* There were also differences between groups within the various methods of stratification previously mentioned* -106- More farmers Indioated a desire Tor a prlee trend than was true for either of the other three Items* The percentages who wanted eaoh of these were as follows* prlee trend 89, receipts trend 82, re ceipts 76, and a senary ststenent 60. (Figure 21) The differences among groups within the various methods of stra tification were less for those who wanted a price trend than was true for the other Items* The only possible significant difference appeared within the age and education groups* The tendency was for more of both the younger and better educated groups to want suoh information than was true for either the older or less well educated groups* However, nost of every group wanted price trends* The nusher of farmers who wanted receipt trends seemed to vary alightly more within groups than was the ease for price trends* The aane tendency was evident In the age and education groups as was true for price trends and, in addition, there seeamd to be differences within other groups* The proportion of full time farmers desiring receipt trends was greater than was tvue for part time farmers* Also, the pre port ien of farmers who wanted receipt trends was greater in groups who marketed the largest numbers ef hogs and cattle* There was some indica tion that receipt trends were considered slightly more important in western than in eastern Ohio* The greatest differences within groups appeared in an analysis ftf those who wanted receipts and a summary statement* For both, the -106 Figure 21 Relative Importance or Specific Itewe of Livestock Market Inforwation Farmers Want in a Radio Broadcast of Livestock Market News, Ohio, 1950 Percent of Farmers 20 U) ______60 80 100 Pries Trend Receipt Trend Receipt Sniwiery Stateewnt Sources Table A-trf) 1 0 7 - trends were the same as for those who wanted price and receipt trends discussed in the preceding paragraph except that the differences were greater and apparently more significant. That is, the proportion of farmers who asked for both receipts and a summary statement was much higher in groups whioh sold the largest numbers of livestook and in both the younger age and better educated groups. In addition to questions oonoemed with the preceding problem, each farmer, as a concluding statement, was asked to make any sugges tions or recommendations which he believed would result in improved radio livestock market reporting if adopted. A total of 18 percent made suggestions and although the numbers involved were small it would appear that the proportions were highest in groups which mar keted the largest numbers of hogs and cattle, those under 55 years of age, those with the most educational training, and the full time farmers. Suggestions most often made were as followst (l) Change time of broadcast 38 peroent,(2) Report local market 23 percent, (3) Improve the accuracy of reports 21 percent, (4) Give more outlook information 9 percent, and (6) G ive an explanation of the different grades of live stock 7 percent. These suggestions were obtained in reply to an "open end" question.and#as suoh,should be considered relatively more important than some other questions. The percentages listed were cal culated from a base of the number who made suggestions. Desired Dally Mewspaper Information The first question asked regarding daily newspaper information -106- whether a llT«itoel market report was desired tram, dally news papers reoeived rocularly. Answers reoeived indioated that about 56 percent ot all people lirlag on ftrna (1946 census definition of a fara) dealred auoh a report* igain* a* waa true for radio, there was a very significant difference between the proportion who wanted auoh a report in eastern and western Ohio. In the western area 66 peroent replied in the affirmative while in eastern Ohio the nuwber so replying amounted to 42 perssnt. Of the 46 peroent who were not interested in suoh a market report, 20 peroent did not oonslder them* selves farmers and five pereent did not receive a newspaper* A total of 20 peroent considered themselves farmers but did not ears for their newspapers to earry a livestock market report* It is to be remembered that of the 20 peroent who considered themselves non- farmers in the state, the breakdown waa 61 pereent in the eastern area and about 8 peroent in western Ohio* It is also to be remembered that schedules were not completed for the last mentioned group* A. total of 68 pereent of -the farmers from whom complete schedules were obtained, which for praetleal purposes represented all of those even remotely interested in farming, indicated a desire for nswspapsas to earry livestock market news* Three-fourths of those who sold live stock wanted suoh reports* There was a slight difference in the pro portions who wanted suoh a report between eastern and western Ohio, the figures being T2 pereent in the western area and 68 percent in the eastern area* There were also other apparent significant differences between — 109' various groups. A mu oh. higher percentage of full time farmers than part time farmers wanted suoh a report. Also, & higher proportion of farmers who sold the largest number of hogs and oattle wanted news paper reports than was true for those who sold fewer numbers. There was some indication that relatively more farmers in the better ed u c a t e d groups wanted such reports than was true for those with less e d u c a t i o n . The remaining questions relating to livestock market reports in daily newspapers were concerned with those fanners who indicated they wanted suoh a report and the percentages expressed will be of this last mentioned number. The number of livestock markets for which fanners wanted a report in daily newspapers was approximately the same as the Hunter desired in radio broadcasts of livestook market news. Figures for the state indicate that about 37 peroent believed reports for one market would meet their needs while 32 peroent were of the opinion that newspapers should report two markets. Of the remaining 31 percent, 21 percent wanted three markets reported, eight pereent wanted four or more mar kets, and two percent had no definite opinion concerning the matter* Again, there seemed to be some difference of opinion between farmers in eastern and western Ohio concerning the number of markets which should he reported, the tendency having been for those in the west ern area of the state to favor the inoluslon of more markets than those in the eastern area. It appears evident that relatively more ll O - of both, those with, the most formal training, and those who sold the largest numbers of livestock, believed more markets should be reported than did those with less formal training or those who marketed fewer hogs* Closely associated with the number of liveatook markets farmers want reported in daily newspapers is the problem of the speoiflo markets for which reports are desired. When the small markets which individual farmers considered looal in nature were combined into a single classification it represented the desires of more farmers than was true for any single large market, the percentages for the various markets being} Looal 49, Cleveland 36, Chicago 32, Cincinnati 27, and Columbus 24. (figure 22) Farmers living in the different geographical areas of the state had considerable differences of opinion regarding the markets for which they wanted reports. A majority ef those who wanted reports for Chicago and Cincinnati lived in the western area of the state while a majority of those who wanted reports for Cleveland and Columbus lived in the eastern area of Ohio* There was no significant differ* ence in the two areas regarding the number who wanted reports from local markets* The evidence seems to Indicate that a higher prop or* tion of farmers who marketed the largest nustoers of hogs were more interested in obtaining reports from Chieago, Cincinnati, and Columbus than was true for Cleveland or a local market. Those who sold smaller numbers generally, were more interested in receiving 111- Figaro 22 LlToetoek Markets Farmers Vant Reported In a Xeoapapar Report of Llrssrtook Market W m m , Ohio, 1?$0 Parcaat of Farmers M ______**> 60 Local Cleveland Chicago Cincinnati Coluabas Other Sourest Tablo Mil -112- reports from the latter two mentioned markets* The same situation may have been true regarding cattle but it was less evident* It must be remembered that in Ohio the leading hog producing area is in s o u t h wstern e rather than in the north-eastern section of the state* There is also some Indication that a higher proportion of farmers with some oollege training asked for reports from Chicago, Cincinnati, and Columbus than was true for Cleveland or looal markets« Other items of information given consideration, some of which are included in newspaper market reports, were whetherj (1) Prices should be quoted by grade, (2) Receipts for eaoh species of livestock should be quoted for each market reported* (3) Receipts for each grade of livestock should be reported, and(4) a summary statement of conditions on the add-west terminal markets should be a part of the report* Again, it is possible to make a general statement to the effeot that a majority of farmers wanted all of the above items included but there was a difference in the relative importance of each* There were also some differences between the various groups into which the data were stratified* Almost all farmers (94 Peroent) indicated they wanted prices quoted by grade* The percentages of those who asked for eaoh of the other three Items were as follows} receipts for eaoh species of live stock at each market 72, a summary statement 63, and receipts for each grade of eaoh species 51* (Figure 23) Inasmuch as nearly all farmers wanted prices quoted by grade there were no apparent significant dif ferences within the various methods of stratification used concerning -115- Figure 28 Relative X^xsrtanoe of Spoelfle I tone of Llveetock Haricot Information Ffcmers Want in a Innpipar Report of LiTeetock ICarkat Mama* Ohio, 1950 100 Prlca Quotation By Qrade Receipt* for Each Market Receipt* for Each Qrade of Each Speclea Suaaarj Statanant Sooroai Tabla M i 5 114- thifl item* The proportion of fanners who asked for a report of reoeipts for each market varied between groups in the ease of some of the strata* It appears that a higher proportion of fanners who sold the largest numbers of livestock, the full time farmers, and those with the most education considered a reoeipts report more important than was true for the respective opposite groups* The same general statement can be made concerning those who want a summary statement* In addition it is possible to add the younger group and those in western Ohio to the group considering reoeipts relatively more important* There does not appear to be any significant differences within the various strata oonoeming those who would like a reoeipts re port of each grade of each species of livestook* In addition to the preceding questions concerning daily newspaper information, and as was true for questions oonoeming radio, eaoh far mer was asked to make any suggestions or recommendations whioh he believed would result in better livestook market reports in newspapers* Seven percent made suggestions* The ones most often made were as fol lows! (l) Report the looal market,(2) Improve the aocuracy of the reports, and (3) Include a summary statement of conditions on the large markets* CHAPTER X Qrain Market Information Available to Ohio Farmers Radio Information Ohio radio stations, generally, reported less grain market infor mation than livestook information. A total of 31, or 69 peroent, of the radio stations in Ohio whioh carried farm market nears in 1950 reported some type of grain market information on a total of 52 daily broadcasts which averaged slightly more than one minute per broad cast. An analysis of the time used broadoasting grain market news indicated that 77 peroent of the 31 stati ns used less than two and one-half minutes daily. Thirteen peroent used between five and sev en and one-half minutes while 10 peroent used more than seven and one- half but less than 10 minutes per day. (Figure 24) Most radio stations reported grain market information at the same time of day other types of market news were broadcast. Consequently, there was very little difference between the time of broadoasting livestock and grain market news* A few notable exceptions were those whioh carried mid-afternoon futures prioe quotations from the ^hioago Board of Trade* Exactly one-half of the programs on which grain mar ket news was reported were broadcast during the noon hour between 11*00 A.M. and 1 *00 P.M., about one-fourth occurred in the early morning be tween 6*00 and 8 rOO A.M., and the remaining one—fourth were scattered throughout the day* For the most part the remainder were scheduled during the mid—afternoon period* The number of oash grain markets reported by stations reporting grain market news varied between zero and two. A total of 36 peroent -lie- *116 AMS i rO L T O N OTTAWA TRUMBULL HENRY SANDUSKY LORAIN j r f l A N C C ERIE WON* De awuOiWi PUTNAM ASHLAND AtRT YANDOT CRAWFORD IRXHLANO ALLEN fioatar ARION KNOX LOGAN /UNION 5 H E L B V I I L IC K IN G GUERN MIAMI c E l m u n i MU5KIISOUM MADISON I R A N 5Wraftd tt-pJ Worthingt< im A1RFiCi_Di PERRY ^?tSL MONTGOMERY s N 6 T O N WARREN ramiLt ON KjMl Fig nr© U Radio Stations Which Devoted Fire Minutes or Msors per D*y to Gtain Market Hews, Ohio, 1950 1 1 7 - of the stations whioh carried suoh information failed to report any ca3h market, their reports having been limited to Chioago Board of Tra !e quotation* oonoerned with future* prices* Forty-eight peroent of the station* reported prices at one cash market and 16 percent car ried reports for two suoh markets* None of the stations gave infor- .-nation for as many as three markets* The cash grain markets for whioh radio reports were given were Chicago, Toledo, and 15 looal markets* A local market is defined as t being one located in the same oounty as the radio station* The 15 local markets reported represent reports of 48 percent of the sta tions broadoasting grain market news*(Figure#25 & 26) Information concerning the Chioago cash market was reported by 13 peroent of the stations, the same as was true for Toledo* Approximately two-thirds of the stations whioh broadoast grain market news carried Chioago Hoard of Trade futures prices* Twenty-three peroent of the stations reported these prloes two or more times eaoh day* (Figure 27) When calculated on a per broadoast basis 69 peroent of the grain programs included a report of Chioago futures prioe quotations, 40 peroent included a report of a looal cash market and eight percent included Chicago and Toledo oash prloes* It is also of Interest to observe that on 72 percent of the programs on whioh futures prioe quotations were given there was no other grain market news reported* Likewise, on two—thirds of the programs which reported a looal mar ket the looal report represented the only grain news given* A fur- -118- KC LU (OTT- GC h ENBY Mi LOR PORT SUMMI TN AM HANCOCK YANDOT API jjM B IA N A ost jom HAROIN KNOX n U K A A A W U UNIQI COSI ON CHAMP j CL iMCATOMCRY IRFIELD p e r r y AV HOC KINO WASHINGTON >35 PI 'o Figure S6 Radio Stations Whioh Broadcast Local Grain Market Kews, Ohio, I960 *119 rULTON LUCAS J g c a o o a OTTAWA YAMOGA TRUMBULL M t N O Y SANDUSKY ^FiANCL r P i t HURO 0*NA WJLOrMO PUTNAM HANCOCK ASHLAND *LRT y a n d o t CRAWfORO PlCHLANO ALLEN ARiON HOLMCS A U G L A lZ t KNOX LOGAN iUHIO CHAMPAIGN LICKING Miami ikhi Pious. BELMONT MADISON hFtsax WJEBt MONTGOMERY AlRFItLOl PERRY N O B L t MONROE OK HOCKING WASHINGTON WARREN iAK^TQN KJM*. AND m c i g s P i n t Ga l l ia ? Figure t* Radio Station* Which Broadcast/Grain Market Meva Tno or More Tinea Dally, Ohio, 1950 -120* rSSs rULTON (OTTAWA TRUM B ife - SANDUSKY L> -i f f a NC emont, PUTNA F1 nril ay ASHLAND «IS Wt" YANDOT CRAW FORDJPHCHI.AND YNL LLtN JHodstar ARION HOLUES 5 KNOX LOGAN f UNION HARR ISON DELAWARE CHAMPAIGN l i c k i n g GUERNSEY miami n'pT'A’- P i c m NNJ5KINGUM BELMONT Ladison franklin TOQMCPV AiRFItt-OI PERRV H 5UtLER warden HOC KINO WWIN6TON A T N C N 3 HAMILTON K»HL AND MCJ03 GALL l Figurs 2T Radio Stations Which Broadoast Chioago Board of Trads Futures Quotations Too or More Timas Daily, Ohio, 1950 121- ther point of interest is the faot that 69 peroent of the programs which reported Chicago futures prices gave the trend of said prices wnile only 19 peroent of the programs which carried local reports li>- indicated a trend of local prices. In fact only 10 percent of the programs which reported a local market specified the grade of grain for whioh the report was being given. A total of 79 percent of the grain market news broadcasts re ported conditions as of the day of the broadoast while 21 percent reported conditions in exiatenoe the previous day. All Chicago cash prices were for the previous day* Another aspect of grain market information available through radio has to do with the accuracy of said information. The method used to get an opinion relative to the accuracy of the radio quo tations available at the time was the same as waa used for livestook, that is, each, farmer interviewed in the survey was given a choice of possible answers designed to express individual opinions. The pos sible answers and the percentage of farmers responding to each were as followst Very accurate, 11 pereent; fairly accurate, SI peroent, not very accurate, five percent; not aocurate, one percent; and no opinion 32 peroent* The only notioaable apparent difference within the groups of the various methods of stratification was a definite indication that many more farmers in eastern Ohio had no opinion than waa true for the western area of the state* Daily Newspaper Information A total of 46 Ohio newspapers representing approximately 60 per oent of a possible 76 examined carried some type of grain market -122- information- The amount and type of information carried in each news- ; aj;er, however, varied in some detail as between the various papers- Chicago Board of Trade futures prioe quotations was the grain inarket news item most often reported, it having been reported by 33 papers representing 72 percent of the total reporting grain-Next i:: importance, in terms of the number of papers reporting, w as the local cash market, which was reported by 63 percent of the papers carry ing grain market news- Chicago cash grain prices were carried in 16 peroent of the papers, Toledo prices in 11 percent and St- Louis and Minneapolis cash prioea were each reported by one paper- Only three papers or 10 peroent of those reporting a looal cash market carried prioes for more than one firm and each of those reported irices for two firms- A list of the various grains reported is an Indication of the thoroughness of grain market reports in newspapers- In the relatively few papers which reported terminal market Information, all papers in cluded reports for corn and oats* two-thirds reported wheat and soy beans, slightly aver one-half reported barley and eight percent re ported rye- The preceding statement refers to the cash market in each oase- In newspapers which reported local cash market information, all papers carried wheat, 83 peroent reported corn, 79 peroent report ed oats and soybeans, 14 peroent carried rye, and 10 percent reported barley- Another measure of the thoroughness with whioh newspapers re- -123 ported the grain markets was the number of grades of eaoh grain for which information was given in eaoh newspaper* Most papers whioh reported terminal market news carried information for two grades of eaoh grain* A few papers oarried reports for as many as five or six grades of each grain but these were the exception rather than the accepted practice. Several papers, for most grains at least 25 percent, carried information for only one grade of eaoh grain from the respeotive terminal markets* Newspapers whioh reported the local oash grain market almost all reported prices for only one grade of eaoh grain* The only exoeptions were approximately one-fifth of the papers which reported wheat mar ket news and one paper whioh oarried oorn market news, eaoh of whioh reported prices for two grades* Other indicator* of the thoroughness with whioh newspapers reported the grain markets have to do with whether receipts, receipt trends, and price trends were oarried* A total of two newspapers which carried terminal market information reported grain receipts and the trend of grain prices* One such paper indicated a receipts trend* Only one newspaper whioh reported a local cash grain market carried a receipt* figure and none reported a receipts or prioe trend* It seems probable that responsible leaders in the field of grain marketing would deem it advisable for newspapers carrying looal grain prices to list the souroe of their quotations, that is, the name of the firm whose prloes are being quoted* Approximately one^thlrd of the newspapers reporting loeal prloes indicated this souroe* The farmer survey was also used to obtain opinions relative to the accuracy of ,;rain market information as reported in daily news- pasers* The choice of answers was the same as was the case for radio Lr.for ation* These choices and the percentage of farmers responding to each were as follows: Very accurate, eight percent; fairly acc- .:ra~e, 81 peroent; not very accurate, 12 percent; not accurate, one ;ercent; and no opinion, 18 percent. An analysis of the answers to this question by different methods of stratification indicated that a hi ;her proportion of farmers with some college education considered the grain quotations more accurate than was true for these with less formal training. Also, relatively more farmers in western Ohio con sidered newspaper quotatins more accurate than did those in eastern ■ hia. b'any part time farmers and many o* those in the eastern area of the state had no opini n relative to the aocuracy of the information CHAPTER XI Extent of Ttrair Use of Available Grain Market Information The purpose of this oh apt# r was to determine the extent to whioh trallable souroe* of grain market information wero being need by far mor* before deciding to sell wheat, ©ora, and so^foeans* Question* similar to those asked oonoeming livestook were used for grain* That is for radio, they mere oonoemed with the length of the listening period, stations from whioh information was obtained, tin* of day of listening, reasons for selecting a partioular station, end the rank of radio among the various sources used* Questions of a like nature were also asked oonoeming dally newspapers, farm papers* telephone, bulletin board and other souroes* Information oonoeming the preoedlng questions was obtained from 325 farmers Who sold wheat, 135 who sold o o m , and 116 who sold soy beans* Some farmers sold more than one grain, consequently, answers for two or more grains were often obtained from the same farmer* Table IT is presented a* a sumsary of the souroes of information used by Ohio farmers before marketing the three grains. About one- fifth of those who sold wheat indicated they made the decision to market without consulting any medium of market information* Inasmuch as answers for the three grains were very much alike, future discussion will be concerned with ^leat and the assumption will be made that information need for wheat was also used for corn and soybeans* The number of sources of information used varied among farmers who chose to avail themselves of some type of market news* Approxi- -125- TAB IS IT Peroentage of Farmers Using Various Sources of Farm Market Information Before Selling Wheat, Corn, and Soybeans,Ohlo,1960 Source of Wheat Corn Soybeans T nFormat ion Peroent Percent Percent Bulletin Board 49 56 62 Daily Paper 47 57 55 Hadio 31 58 34 fhone 27 28 27 Farm Paper 20 19 21 Business Report 2 2 3 Educational Souroes 2 2 5 Veteran or Vocational 1 2 2 County Agent e 0 1 College Agriculture 1 0 0 Other Farmers 5 5 3 Other 6 4 5 ho Information Used 19 12 14 Total Farmers Selling 526 155 116 * Less than one—half of one peroent 124— -1*7- nately 30 percent used only one source, 50 percent used two sources, 23 percent toolc advantage of three souroes and the remaining 17 per cent found it desirable to use four or more souroes of information. An analysis of the data by the number of bushels of wheat sold, type of market agency which purchased the wheat, full or part time farmers, an* o f operator, education of operator, and by geographical areas in Ohio indioated that there was no significant difference as between edu cational groups or between groups marketing through the various types of marketing agencies* It appeared, however, that relatively more farmers in groups whioh sold the most wheat, the full time farmer group, the older group of farmers and the western Ohio group used a greater number of souroes of information than was true for those in groups of the opposite extreme. Farmer Use of Radio Information An examination of Table IV reveals the fact that approximately 51 percent of the farmers who marketed wheat during the year under con sideration obtained market information from the radio. When a per centage who used the radio is calculated from a base of those farmers who used some type of information before marketing, rather than from a base of those who sold wheat, the figure is 38, a slightly higher proportion. An analysis of the data concerned with this question re veals the fact that with the possible exoeption of the age group there was very little difference within any of the various strata* It -128- seems probable that & propter proportion of farmers in the age groups aL-ove 85 used the radio than was true for the younger groups* The length of the listening period for grain market information varied between one or two days before selling wheat to constant day to day listening throughout the year, wnich for practical purposes was a continual following of the grain arket* A total of 65 percent of P e farmers who used the radio for obtaining roarket information before jelling wheat indicated they were day to day listeners throughout the year while 35 percent said they were part time listeners. (Figure 28) The data indicates that the proportion of full tirre listeners ras greater in groups who marketed the most wheat, those engaged in the business of farming on a full time basis, those with some college training, and those in eastern Ohio than it was in groups who sold the least amount of wheat, the pai-t time farmers, those without some college training or those residing in the western area of the state* Most farmers, to obtain grain inarket information from the radio, listened to only one station* In fact 67 percent indicated they listened to cue station, 24 percent said they li.tendd to two stations and seven percent to three or more stations* Approximately two percent didn't know from how many stations they had obtained information* A renter proportion of the full time farmers, the older groups,the better educated groups and those in western Ohio generally listened ..o more stations than was true for farmers in groups of the opposite extreme. -129- Plgure £ 0 Period of U m Tkrari Lletonod to Radio for (kelo Sark art Information Before Soiling Rheat, Ohio, 1 ? $ 0 Percent of OK 60 60 U> 2D Part-tlia PoU-tine Idatener* Soorooi Table B-l - 1 3 0 - The spooifio radio stations to which most farmers listened for -rain market information were YfCWO in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, WRFD in ’“i Worthington, WUf in Cincinnati, and WSFD in Toledo, the order of Importance being the order listed, exoept that an equal number of farmers listened to WRFD and WXW. (Figure 29) It is to be noted -i,».t t»o of the stations are located in westorn Ohio and one in Indiana, all three of which draw listeners mainly from the western area of the state. This is the area in which most of the wheat in Ohio is grown. The question might logioally be asked as to why more farmers listened to these particular four stations than to other stations lo cated in the wheat producing area. Other stations to which some far mers listened include WJR in Detroit, WTAM in Cleveland, WIIKC in Col umbus, WFIU in Finlay, WTMA in Lima, WOIiW In Defiance, WLEC In San dusky, and WWST in Wooster. Farmer response to the preceding question Indicated there were tnree broad groups of reasons Into which most replys mi -at be placed. i'hese included reasons of a personal nature, tie time the station was on the air with a grain market report, and -v-e nuality of the report given. Reasons of a personal nature included such itarns as the listeners* opinion of the reporter, the reoeiption obta’ned, the fact tiiat it was a custom to tune to the respective sta tion, and other similar statements. Those grouped In a quality cate gory included any statement made by the respondent which Indicated the contents of the report was the type of information desired. A total of 42 percent of the farmers listed reasons of a quality nature, -131- Figure Radio SUtloi Fareere Listened to Host for Qrain Market Infcreation Before Selling Wheat* Ohio* 1 9 5 0 Percent of Parser* 20 1 0 60 mymo WRFD w m W5FD Otfal Sources Table B-3 132- 30 percent listed personal reasons and 19 peroent said they ohose a particular station because of the time of day the report was broadcast. There would appear to be evidenoe that a significantly high er proportion of farmers in the middle age group (35-54) listed rea sons pertaining to the quality of the report and a lesser proportion listed reasons of a personal nature than was true for either the younger or older age groups. It would further appear that a signifi cantly greater proportion of those with some college background listed reasons having to do with the quality of the information reported than was evident for those with less educational training. It is of interest to note that two of the stations previously list ed, TfCWO and WSPD,both reported prices for a well-known and very lar ge grain elevator in northwestern Ohio. Station WRFD had more daily market reports than any other Ohio station and WDT has the most pow erful transmitter in the state. The time of day most farmers listened to the radio for grain mar ket news was approximately the same as the time of day they listened for livestook market Information, with the noon hour having been the time most often used, followed by the early morning and mid-afternoon per iods, in that order of importanoe. An idee of the importanoe of radio in providing grain market news to farmers was obtained by asking eaoh fanner who made use of this souroe of information to rank it relative to other souroes of market news whioh may have been used before deoiding to sell wheat.(Figure 30) -133- Flgnra 90 h r M T f Rank of Radio aa a Souroa of drain Markot Inftarnation Boforo Soiling W m t , Ohio, 1^50 • Pareant of Farnars 80 60 k P 20 First Sacand Third or Looor Rank Sourest Tablo B-10 *Fan— ra who ranked radio vara thosa Who uaad it a aauraa of grain aarkat information -134- Yfhen compared with o*ther media, the radio was ©onsidered very important as evidenced by the fact that 69 percent of the farmers who used it considered it their most important souroe of wheat market news* 1 total of 19 percent ranked it seoond and 12 percent ranked it third or lower among the various souroes used* This represented a relatively lower rating than it was given for livestock market news* There is some evidence to ihdioate that it was given a higher rating by both the younger and older age groups than was true for the mid dle-age group of farmers who sold wheat during the year under con sideration* Consequently, it is apparent that relative to other sources of grain market information radio oocupied an important role but was not considered the most important souroe by most farmers* Slightly less than one—third of those who sold wheat chose to use it as a source of grain market news* Farmer Use of Dally Newspaper Statements made relative to the characteristics of livestock mar ket reports earried by dally newspapers are also applicable to grain market news reported by the same medium* Briefly restated, they aret (l) newspaper reports are not as current as those available through radio;(2) they ean be studied with more ease than is possible with a radio report; (5) it is possible to make newspaper reports more it*> elusive than radio reports because neeeprlnt and paper are generally lesb expensive than time purchased for radio use* - 1 3 5 - An examination of Table IV reveala "the fact that a daily news paper wa* used for grain market Information by 4? peroent of the farmers who sold wheat. There is reason to believe it waa used by relatively more farmera who marketed the largest amounts of wheat than by those who sold smaller amounts. There is further reason to believe it was used by a greater proportion of full time fanners than part time farmers. It would also appear that this source of information was us ed by relatively more farmers in the middle age group, in groups with the higher levels of educational training, and in the western area of the state than waa true for the reapeotive opposite groups. Farmers who used a daily newpaper for grain market information were asked the length of their reading period before they sold wheat. An swers to this question varied from one or two days before deciding to sell to oonstant day to day reading throughout the year. A total of 80 peroent of the farmera were in the latter group and 20 percent were in the group classified as part time readers. (Figure 31) There were no noticeable significant differences as between the various groups within the different strata ooneemed with the length of the reading period. The relative value plaoed on dally newspapers as a source of grain market information by fanners is indioated by the faot that when asked to rank the various sources of grain market news used, a total of 32 peroent considered the newspaper to be their most important souroe of information, 56 peroent oonsiderdd it their seoond most important sour— oe, and 32 peroent ranked It third or lower among the various sources Vigor* SI Period of Tina Farmer* Read Daily Manapapar for Qraln Hark at Information Before Sailing Wieet, Ohio, 1950 Percent of Varner a 1 0 0 ,______ 60 60 W> 20 0|______L _ J _ _ ftrttiae VOll-tim* Reeder* Souroei Table S-5 137 used* (Figure 32) It is important to remember that some farmera used only one medium to obtain information and aa a result aome far mers mho ranked the newspaper firat uaed only the newspaper. A sim ilar statement oan be made concerning some farmers who ranked it se cond* The fact remains* however* that regardless of the number of sources of information used* more farmers ranked it second in im— portance than ranked it either first* or third or lower* In import ance* There is evidence which indioates that the newspaper was con sidered relatively more Important by farmers under age 56 than by those over that age. The concluding statement relative to the use of the daily newspaper as a source of grain market news should be to the effect that it was used by the seoond highest number of farmers among the various soaroes* and that it was ranked seoond in importance by more farmers than gave it any other rank. Farmer Use of Telephone The telephone was used as a source of wheat market news by 27 peroent of the farmers marketing this produot* almost as many a6 lis tened to the radio for similar information. In fact* it was used by the fourth highest number of farmers among the different souroes. The proportion of fanners who used the phone was relatively higher in groups which sold the largest amounts of wheat* by full time farmers* by those under 36 years of age* and by farmers in progressively higher educational groups. 133- Fi Faraara Rank of Dally I«niM|Mr aa a Source of Qrain Market Infrwwntlon Before Soiling lhaat, Ohio, 1950 F i r at Sac and T h i r d oar L< R a n k Sources Tablo B - U **arnera d o ranted dally naarapapera aere thoae aho aaad than aa a aouroe af grain aarkat Infer* nation* - 1 3 9 - An idea aa to the extent of the use made of the telephone by farmers who ohoae to use this medium -was obtained by asking the num ber of times the buyer was phoned before the wheat was sold, and also by asking the number of other prospective buyers who were phoned be fore making the decision to sell* One oall was the number made by 66 percent of the fanners while 16 peroent phoned their respective buyers twice and 18 peroent phoned three or more tlites* The number of calls was greater in groups which sold the largest amounts of wheat, in the full time farmer groups. In the middle age group, and In groups with progressively more eduoational training• Relatively few farmers called prospective buyers other than the one to whom the sale of wheat was made* In fact, of the farmers who used a telephone for grain market information 70 peroent phoned no other prospective buyer, 18 peroent phoned one other buyer, and 12 peroent phoned two or more other buyers* Although the numbers involved are too small to permit definite significant statements it would appear that fariae s who phoned other prospeotive buyers were generally more numerous in the groups mentioned in the preceding paragraph* The telephone was given a relatively high rank among the souroes of grain market information by farmers who used It* This Is evidenced by the faot that 44 percent ranked it first in importance, 29 peroent ranked it seoond, and 27 peroent ranked it third or lower among the modi* used* (Figure 33) It would appear that it was oonsldered re— 140- n f u r v S8 Ftraars Rack of Talaphona as a Sooret of drain Mirkti Inforaitlm Btfort Sailing Rhaat, Ohio, 1950 a Parcant of Faraara 80 ______ 60 !*> 20 0 ______First Saeond Third or Loanr Rank Scuroat Tabla B-12 a Faranro who rankad tha talaphona war# thoaa who uaad it aa a souraa of grain aarknfc Infak- aat laa* latively more important in groups of farmera who sold -bo privately owned elevators as contrasted with those cooperatively owned, in groups under 35 years of age, and by farmers in eastern Ohio. Thus, although the telephone was used by fewer farmers than used some other souroes of grain market news it was considered relatively important by those who chose to make use of it for this purpose. Farmer Use of Bulletin Board The bulletin board at a local elevator was the most often mentioned source of grain market information used by farmers before selling wheat, A. total of 49 peroent of the farmers who sold wheat indicated they had read such information one or more times before making the de cision to sell* The proportion of farmers ohoosing to read the bulletin board was higher In groups selling the largest amounts of wheat, those selling to cooperatively owned elevators, the full time farmers, the older farmers, those with the most eduaatlonal training, and those in the western area of the state* One indication that the bulletin board was considered an important source of grain market news is the faot that 43 peroent of the farmers who used this medium read the board three or more tines before deciding to sell* Thirty—seven peroent said they read it onoe while 20 per cent indicated they read a board twice* The proportion of farmers who read the board two or more times was greater in the group which mar keted the largest amounts of wheat, in the younger age groups, and by -142 farmers who resided in we •'barn Ohio* Another indioation that the bulletin board was oonsidered import ant by fanners is the faot that 56 peroent of those who used it ranked it first among the various media from whioh information was obtained* A total of 51 peroentoonsidered it the seoond most important souroe and 15 peroent gave it a rank of third or lower (Figure 34/ There is some indication that it was ranked relatively higher by farmers with progressively less educational training than was true for those with the most training* No significant differences were evident among the other groups into which the data were stratified* It is apparent, then, that the bulletin board waa used as a souroe of wheat market information by more fanners than was true for any other media and it is also true that of those farmers who read a board a higher peroentage ranked it first in importance than was true for any other medium* Thus, it was oonsidered the most important souroe of wheat market information* Farmer Use of Other Souroes Although the bulletin board, the daily newspaper, the radio and the telephone were the most often used sources of grain market infor mation, Ohio farmers gave some consideration to the use of information obtained from other miscellaneous sources* Included in the latter group were various business service reports Ineluding the "Sohio News Letter1*, Veterans or Vocational Agrloulture Teaohers, County Agri cultural Agents, Colleges of Agriculture, and other farmers* 145 Fifurt 54 Tmrmmrm Bank of Bulletin Board mm a Source of (Brain Market Infcarnation Befere Selling Vheat, Ohio, 1950 * Percent of F m a r i do 60 J<0 20 O ______First Seoond Third or Loner Bank Souroei Table B-13 • P e r n o r s who ranked the bulletin board were those who used it as a souroe of grain Market lnfoxwn- tion* 144- Each of the above mentioned sources was uaed by a very small insignifioant number of farmera, the moat often mentioned of Which, was the "Sohio News Letter*. It was used by 18 farmers before making the decision to sell. Generally, eaoh of these aouroea waa given a relatively low rank by farmers who used them, with the majority hav ing been ranked third or lower in importance. Only a small pro portion were ranked first in importance* CHAPTER XII Grain Market Information Farmers “Want Reported The contents of this section are devoted to a review of the information farmers indicated they would like disseminated by radio stations or daily newspapers when reporting grain market news* Ques tions to farmers regarding the subject were so worded that eaoh was asked to answer in a manner he would have seleoted had he been giv en the final decision as to the type and content of the respective mar ket reports* Stated in a slightly different manner* the answers were so stated that the opinions of eaoh fanner represented what would have been considered Ideal reports by eaeh respondent* The questions were of the same type as those asked concerning livestock market news and* generally* were related to speoifio details and were worded in suoh a manner that a definite ohoioe of answers was indicated. Not with standing the fact that the latter type of question was in the major ity* there was ample opportunity in the form of open end questions for each farmer to express any ideas or make any suggestions for improve ment which came to mind* Saoh individual who oonsidered himself a farmer was asked whether he wanted both a radio and a daily newspaper grain market report* Those who answered in the affirmative were then asked the detailed questions concerning each type of report* Desired Radio Information A total of 46 peroent of all people living on farms indioated a desire for a radio broadcast of grain market news* The number who wanted suoh a report in western Ohio was much greater than the pro portion in the eastern area of the state • -1 4 6 - -146- Si nee a larger percentage of* all faraers was not Inter ested in a grain market broadcast than was Interested in suoh a re port it is of interest to observe something of the oharacteristics of the 54 peroent In the former group, k total of 20 peroent were in no way engaged in the business of farming and, in fact,did not consider themselves farmers. More than two-thirds of the remaining 34 peroent did not sell any wheat during the year under consideration and con sequently were apparently uninterested. Also, almost two-thirds of t e m were located in eastern Ohio. There la also some indication that the proportion of part time farmers, those in the older age groups, and those with something less than a college education, not wanting a broadcast was greater than was true for groups at the respective other extremes, ^hua, the proportion of those who wanted a grain market news broadcast was highest in the following groups* (l) farmers who sold the largest amounts of wheat, (2) the full time farmers, (3) those under 36 years of age, (4) those with some college education, and (6) farmers residing in the western area of the state. It diould be noted at this point that when the peroentage of far mers who wanted a grain market report is calculated from a base ex cluding those who did not oonslder themselves farmers the figure is 67 rather than 46. In fact, in western Ohio 73 percent Indicated a desire for suoh a report while in eastern Ohio the figure was 58 percent when those considering themselves non-farmers were exeluded. It was the 73 peroent in western Ohio and the 38 percent in eastern Ohio from whom speeifio information related to radio reports was ob tained. 147 Inasmuoh as a very high percent of the grain is marketed during the harvesting seas n a question was asked as to whether individual farmers wanted daily radio reports of grain market news throughout the year or only during the heavy grain marketing season. Replies were approximately throe to one in favor of daily broadcasts through out the year for the state in its entirety. There was no significant difference as between groups in any of the previously mentioned methods of stratafication. Another question given consideration was the number of daily broed-- oasts of grain market news farmers wanted from the radio station to which eaoh usually listened. The answers received indicated that one such broadcast was the choice of 60 percent of the respondents, S3 per oent wanted two reports, and six peroent requested three or more daily broadcasts. One peroent had no opinion. The variation between groups in the different strata was not great but it would appear that a higher proportion of those who marketed wheat through a cooperative were Interested in two or more dally broadcasts than was true for those who sold through a privately owned agency. It would further appear that a greater percentage of both, operators under 35 years of age. and those with some high school training, wanted two or more broad casts than was true for those in the older age groups or those with only grade school training. Percentagewise the figures were approxi mately the same in both eastern and western Ohio. The noon hour was the time of day whloh 64 percent of the farmers listed when asked what tine during the day they desired a gjrain mar— -148- kot news broadoast. The percentage of farmers who listed various other time periods was as followsi early morning, 21 peroent; mid- morning, eight peroent; and afternoon and/or evening six percent* One peroent had no opinion* (Figure 56) Thus, it appears that con venience as to time of listening was the Important factor oonsidered by farmers when selecting a favored time period for suoh a broad cast* This is evidenced by the fact that the noon hour was the time of day most often mentioned regardless of whioh product was oonsidered or in what form the question was phrased* The number of markets to report in a grain market news broadcast was another subject given consideration in the farmer survey. Re sults indioated that 67 peroent of the farmers believed one market was sufficient, 28 percent wanted two markets, and six percent were of the opinion three or more should be reported* Nine peroent had no opinion* The proportion of farmers who wanted two or more markets re ported was higher in the group which sold the largest amounts of wheat* Otherwise, there were no notioeable differences between groups in the various strata* Specifio markets farmers wanted reported varied among farmers but for the most part they were the same cities and towns listed as live stock markets* When the small markets which individual farmers con sidered looal in nature were combined into a single classification it represented the desires of more farmers than was true for any one lar ge market* (Figure 38) Chicago, Toledo, Columbus, and Cincinnati were the other amrkets most often requested* The percent of farmers who aaked for each market was as followst Looal 44, Chicago 20, Toledo 18, * u * » Flgura S8 T i m m of R a y Fmrmmrm D e t i r a d * Rad i o Brotdeait of Qraln Haricot i, Ohio, 1950 «Di of m m 60 60 hO 20 M d - ■o Moraine Maralng and Opinion Kvaalag Sourcas Tabla B-18 160- nfnrt *• Qraln Markffta h m r a Want Reported In a Radio Broadcast of Qraln Market Maos, Ohio, 1950 Parcant of F. 20 XL -60 Local Chicago Toledo Coluabus Cincinnati Other Mo O p i n i o n Sonroas Table B-20 161 Columbus 13, and Cincinnati 12. A total of 16 peroent mentioned still other markets whiJe 10 peroent expressed no opinion. Approximately the same number of farmers in the different groups of the various strata requested Cincinnati, Columbus, and Toledo. Concerning Chicago, it seemed evident that it waa desired by a greater proportion of those who sold the largest amounts of wheat and of the full time farmers. Farmers who wanted a looal market report were more numerous, proport ionately, in the full time fanner groups, in the younger age groups, in the groups with least eduoational training, and in the eastern aroa of the state. As would have been expected, a greater proportion of requests for Toledo and Cincinnati came from the western one-half of the state than oame from the eastern area. A recognised problem at some radio stations was the question of what grains to include in a radio grain market report. Farmer replies to suoh a question indicated that almost all farmers wanted wheat and corn inoluded, that approximately two-thirds wanted soybeans, slightly over one-half asked for oatw, and a few also suggested barley and rye. (Figure 37) Other items of general information asked about in the farmer survey included the desire for an explanation of dlsoounts when quoting priees, the desire to have the grade of grain specified when prices are quoted, and whether it was the desire of farmers that Chioago Board of Trade futures prioe quotations be reported.(Figure 38) Of the three items, a higher proportion was interested in an explanation of discounts* That is, farmers wanted to know in advance the dockage they would -152- Plgure BT Specific Grains Farmer* Want Reported In a Radio Broadcast of Qraln Market Naas, Ohio, 1?$0 Parcant of Farmers 20 M 6 0 80 100 Wheat Corn Soybeans Oats Rye Barley Other ] Sourcet Table B—21 -163- Figure 68 Relative Importance of Specific I teas of Qraln Market Infor nation Farmers Want In a Radio Broadcast of Qraln Market Hews, Ohio, 1 9 $ 0 Percent of F » ______\jP_ 60 60 Explanation of Discounts Grade of Qraln Specified Inclusion of Chicago Futures Sources Table B—22 154- receive for either excess moisture or excess foreign material* Sev enty-two peroent requested this type of Information* It seems pos sible that the proportion of full time farmers who made suoh requests was higher than the proportion of part time farmers* A total of 69 percent of the farmers asked were of the opinion the grade of grain should be specified when quoting prices. Apparently, there were some who believed they knew which grade was being quoted during a grain market report even though it was not specified* Approximately one-half, 49 percent, believed that Chicago Board of Trade futures price quotations should be made a regular part of any radio grain market report. The percentages were progressively higher in groups with progressively more education* It would further seem that the proportion wanting suoh information was higher in both western Ohio and in the group which marketed the largest amounts of wheat* It is of interest to note that of those who wanted a report of futures prions, 61 peroent wanted the actual prices quoted, 38 per cent wanted only trends, and 11 peroent had no opinion concerning which of the two was carried in a radio report* The proportion who asked for trends was progressively higher in groups with progressively more eduoational training* No other significant differenoes were ev ident between the various stratified groups* Farmers who said they did not desire the inclusion of futures price quotations in a radio report were asked whether they understood -155- -the meaning of the term. Of this number, 78 percent answered in the negative and 22 peroent in the affirmative* The proportion who an swered in the affirmative was highest in the educational group with college training. Between other groups of the various strata there w e r e no noticeable significant differences* The final question each farmer was asked concerning the type of radio grain market report he would like was one in which he was given the opportunity to make any suggestions of any type which he believed would result in more valuable reports if his suggestions were adopted* Eighteen percent of those who had sold wheat during the year and 14 percent of all fanners interviewed made suggestions* Numbers invol ved are very small and may not be significant but the proportion who made suggestions was highest in the group which sold the largest am ounts of wheat, in the full time farmer group, in the group under 36 years of age, and in the group which had had some college training* Suggestions most often made and the respective percentages for each were as followsi report local market 35, report oash prioes 20, report trend of prioes 11, report soybean prioes 9, and explain dis counts 8* The preceding percentages were calculated from a base of those who made suggestions* It is of interest to note that each of these most often mentioned suggestions was asked about earlier in the questionnaire, but their listing at this point served to re—emphasize their importance* Desired Newspaper Information In attempting to determine what type of grain market news farmers .156 wanted reported in daily newspapers, the first question given con sideration was whether there was a desire for daily newspapers to oarry such information* Answers reoeived from farmers indicated that 43 percent of all eople living on farms (1945 oensus definition of a farm) desired this type of grain market news* Of the remaining 67 percent who were not interested in grain reports in daily newspapers, 20 per cent did not oonsider themselves farmers, 33 percent were farmers who received a daily paper, and four percent were farmers who did not re gularly receive a daily newspaper. As previously stated, a majority of the con—farmers were in eastern Ohio. When a percentage of those wanting newspaper grain market reports was calculated from a base of those who oonsidered themselves farmers the figure so desiring a re port was 64* It is th'a group with which the remaining questions will be concerned* There were apparent significant differences between groups within the various strata* For example, the percentage in western Ohio who wanted a newspaper report was 72 while in eastern Ohio it was only 32. Also, the proportion who asked for this type of information was progressively higher in groups with progressively more educational training* The same general situation existed relative to the age groups in that the percentage of farmers who wanted the information became progressively less in moving from the younger through the older age groups* In addition, there is some evidence to indicate that the proportion of full time farmers who wanted the information was greater than was true for the part time farmers* -157- Eighty-seven percent of those who said It was their desire that newspapers carry grain reports were also of the opinion that the in formation should be reported on a daily basis throughout the year* Only 12 percent believed seasonal reports during the heavy grain mar keting season would meet their needs. One percent had no opinion con cerning the question* The number of grain markets on which a newspaper should report was another question considered* Farmer replies to this question were as followst one market 54 percent, two markets 31 percent, three or more markets 10 peroent, and no opinion five peroent* The differ ences of opinion between the groups of the various strata were so small they must be oonsidered insignificant* In reply to a question asking what grain markets they wanted carried in daily newspapers almost twice as many farmers mentioned a looal market as mentioned any other single market* In faot, the per centages for the most often listed markets were as follows* Looal 59, Chioago 32, Toledo 15, Cincinnati 12, and Columbus 11* (Figure 39) Again there appeared to be no significant differences between the various groups* Specific grains and the proportion of farmera who asked that daily newspapers oarry eaoh were wheat 98 peroent, oorn 92 peroent, soybeans 67 percent, oats 58 peroent, rye eight peroent and barley six percent* Other faotors, some of whieh are sometimes lnoluded in daily news paper grain market reports, were considered in the farmer survey* -168 Figure 89 Qrtln Mariccto n r a r a Suit Reported in * Mewapaper Report of Qraln Market Mono, Ohio, 19$0 Faroant of Fa ?0 * 60 Local Chicago Toledo Cincinnati Colnafene Othara Mo Opini on Sources Tahla 8-29 -169- Thoy Included obtaining farmer opinion as to whether it was necessary to specify the grade of grain, whether an explanation ofdiscounts due to excess moisture or foreign material should be included, whether a general sujwoary statement of the overall grain market should be inoluded, and whether inclusion of Chicago Board of Trade futures price quotations was desirable. Without exception, a majority of farmers wanted each of these items inoluded but more wanted some than wanted others. (Figure 40) More were of the opinion the grade of grain should be specified than wanted any of the other items. The proportions asking for eaoh were as follows* grade of grain speolfied 74, summary statement 71, explanation of discounts 60, and inclusion of futures quotations 55. The percent of farmers within the various groups of the differ ent strata were not significantly different relative to having the grade of grain specified. It would appear^ however, that the pro portion of full time fanners who asked for a summary statement was signifioantly greater than the proportion of part time farmers who asked for the same information. It also seems possible that the pro portion who desired a summary statement was progressively higher in groups with progressively more educational training. The proportion who asked that diseounts be explained was about the same in all groups of the various strata except for the full and part time farmers. It would seem that it was signif ioantly greater in the case of the full time farmers. There were also apparent significant differences between groups relative to the lnolusion of futures prices. Again the proportion of 1 6 0 - Tlgure 66c Relative I^>ertanee of Specific Items of (brain Market Information Farmers Mint Reported In Dally newspaper, Ohio, 1950 Percent of Farmers _2Q______hSL______$QL 60 Qrade of Drain Specified Explanation of Discounts Si i Ma r y Stat — ant. Inclusion o f Chicago futures Source* Table B - 3 1 -161- full time farmer a who want ad euoh information was greater than was true for part time farmers. It would also appear that there were differences between age groups and that the main difference was that the group over £5 was much less interested in their inclusion than were the younger groups. Another difference was the fact that the proportion who wanted them inoluded was progressively greater in groups with increasingly more educational training. Another differ ence was between eastern and western Ohio in which case the percent age who desired their inclusion was much greater in the western area of the state. It will be remembered that in the oase of grain market information concerned with radio, each farmer was asked to make any suggestions or recommendations which he believed would result in improved grain market reporting. They were asked the same question relative to daily newspaper reports. A total of 11 percent of those who sold wheat and eight percent of all farmers interviewed made suggestions in reply to this open end question. Of those who made suggestions. 40 percent asked for a local market report. 33 percent asked that the accuracy of the reports be improved, eight percent wanted cash prices reported, and eight percent also believed soybean quotations should be included in the reports. CHAPTER XIII Problems of Radio Stations in Effecting Changes in Market Hews Reports It has been stated previously in this manuscript that a relative ly short mimeographed leaflet mas prepared in which was set forth a summary of livestook and grain market information available to farm ers through radio, the use made of this information by farmers, and some ideas of what farm people expect from radio pertaining to mar ket news concerned with these two products* Distribution of the leaf let to Ohio radio stations was made by mail with the understanding that any station personnel interested in commenting or making sugges tions concerning information in the leaflet should so state by means of returning an enclosed eard* Slightly over one-half of the stations returned oards and personal visits were made to these stations* Almost without exception, information contained in hho leaflet was favorably reeeived and the radio personnel concerned stated they either had, or expected to, make use of some of the information* Most of the stations, however, had one or more problems which prohib ited immediate drastic changes in their market reporting program* One such problem was conoerned with personnel* A few stations had full-time farm program directors whose business it was to direct all programs that were associated in any way with agriculture. At such stations the personnel problem was usually of less concern than at most stations without a farm specialist, but even with personnel of this type there was sometimes a rapid turnover* This often con stituted a serious problem* The problem at most stations, however, was one of having non-farm trained personnel oonduoting farm programs -162- -163- inoluding market report*. This. In the mind* of some radio people was an indication that the program had only a few listener* and con sequently was destined to he short lived* A* a result, some program directors were hesitant to sohedule additional farm market programs unless trained farm announcers could be obtained. Another problem common to many stations was concerned with the allocation of time for farm market reports* In some oases this problem may have been Imaginary, but it was brought Into focus by the fact that radio personnel realise that in order to stay in business they must sell their time* Inasmuoh as the time they believed most farmers would listen was often sold to other Interests, it was not considered advisable to substitute a public service program in its plaoe* It would seem that the error in their logic might be in the assumption that a farm market broadcast must of necessity be consid ered a public service program* Time for farm market reports can be sold as evidenced by the experience of some Ohio radio stations* Time, however, is a problem where a station is almost completely at the mercy of a major network and the network is inclined to be dic tatorial in its polioy with respeot to allocation of local time* The oost of obtaining worthwhile market reports was another problem encountered by a few stations* Usually, reports from the major markets are incorporated with other news received a s a part of regular press service oopy at no extra oost to the station* There are stations, however, whloh must incur extra eosts to obtain timely reports from looal markets within their respective listening areas* -164 The extra costs would usually take the form of long distance telephone calls. Another problem not always recognised by radio station personnel was their failure to understand the farm problem and the Importance of farm market reports. Some made no differentiation between the listening habits of farm people and those of city people, while others made a substantial differentiation. Most stations, however, were in terested in either obtaining, or maintaining, a large farm audience* Only a few previously realised that so many farmers listened to farm market reports* Host stations were glad to learn of the type of in formation farmers desired in radio reports and to the extent possible indicated they would be followed. chj lpts r n r Limitations of -the Stndy and Validity of the Sample There are a number of faetora which might limit or restriot any conclusions to ba made relative to this study* Ono such faotor la oonoerned with samples from which tha data war a obtainad* In reality* only ona sample la involved but tha baaa froa which tha radio and daily nawspapar inventory was obtainad war rant a mention at this point* Tha radio inventory was obtained from personal interviews at* or by tuning to* each Ohio station la operation as of a oertain date* Tha preceding statement implies that the total of all stations oon- tacted represented a complete radio population la Ohio at the time tha contacts were made* As such* no radio sampling problem was in volved* Data related to tha dally nawspapar inventory ware obtainad from newspapers on file at tha Arohaeologloal Museum on tha oawpus at Ohio State University* Approximately three-fourths of all dailies publish ed in Ohio made up tha file* It is assumed that lnasmuoh as tha sam ple const! tat ad such a high proportion of tha total nawspapar popu lation that tha answers would not have bean substantially different had all papers bean examined* There was no indication that any par ticular types of paper* or papers which represented particular types of localities* were omitted firom the file* It is further assumed that tha date of publioation for Which the papers were chosen for ex amination was representative* Tha farmer survey sample represented approximately three-tenths -166* -166— of one percent of all farmers in the state* It -was the opinion of statisticians at Iowa State College that this size sample was adequate and that answers received would be approximately the same, percentage wise, as if all farmers in the state had been interviewed* Inasmuch as the survey was made in 1950, and since this was the date of the most reoent Census of Agriculture, it was possible to check some ques tions asked in the survey with similar or like questions asked by census enumerators* One such question asked concerned the tenancy status of the operator, in which case each was asked whether he was a full owner, a part owner, a tenant, or a manager. Chi-square values were calculated for each of the preceding categories and for a combina tion of the categories in which a comparison of survey and census data was made* In each case the values were not significant at the five percent level*^ The statistical formula used was as followsi J? - (II - Mi) Z / U x t (Xg _ Mg) 2/>*2 nherfl X • Chl-*qu*r*# Z - sA m p l e number, A n d u * the «xp*o'fc*d number. An example will serve to illustrate the procedure Involved in such a calculation* According to the 1650 Census of Agriculture there were 199, 359 farm operators in Ohio as of April 1, 1950* Of this nunber, 146, 331, or 66*3 percent, were full owners* A total of 656 farmers were contacted in the farmer survey* Had the proportion in the survey been the same as for the census data, 436 full owners would have been contacted* Actually, 446 such operators were obtained in the survey* Substituting, the afeove formula then becomesi I 2 e (448-436)2 -h (208 - 221)2 = 1.15 — T. Snedscor, George W*, Statistical Methods* Iowa State College Press* Ames, Iowa* 1946* p 22* -167- Ths lttt«r aa«-hiilf of th« foraila woo obtained by the foil wring not hods The expected number, 436, « u eubtraoted f roe 666, the total sample, to obtain 221* Then 448, the aotual sample number, was sub tracted from 666 to obtain 208, the nunber of farmers who were other than full owners* The same formula was used to obtain the following specified chi- square -values for the stater Tenants ----- *14 Age 66 and over — — — — — — — — — 2,02 Part Owners— 2.20 Age not given ————— 4*64 Managers — 2.27 Mo. farmers who sold hogs and pigs alive 1.05 Under Age-36-6.09 Mo. farmers who sold eattle alive — — 1.24 Age 35 - 64 — .28 Mo. farmers who sold wheat ————— 3.84 Age 55 - 64 — .41 Mo. part-time farmers------— - .06 Two of the above values are significant at the five pereent level.* They are the values for the group under 36 years of age and the age group not given. It is the opinion of the author that the latter mentioned group is signif leant be cause it is probable there was less hesitation on the part of a higher proportion of farmers to divulge their age to the respective survey interviewers than was true for the census enumerator. There is some question as to why the younger age group figure is signifloant. It is possible that it is due to the fact that information on age was obtained from only 527 farmers, the nunber who considered themselves farmers. Another possible cause could have been concerned with errors in judgement on the part of the interviewers as to ‘tee definition of an operator. Regardless of tee cause, tee fact remains teat ehi-square values for 11 of tee preceding 13 characteristics of the sample were not significant. In other words, if 1600 farmers had bean interviewed the answers received would have bean nearly tee same as those obtained in this study. 1. Ibid. - 1 6 8 - Other questions were asked in -tha survey ^xlota. vara int and ad as possible ohaoka «ith oenaus data* Ona auoh qua at Ion was aonoamad with tba aiaa of tha operator *a farm, but aa tha survey was balnf completed it was dlsoowered that tha quaation had baan given a differ ent ooonotatlon than had baan originally intended* X> a result, intend ad comparisons oould not be wade* In any analyala where tha data are stratified, tha problem of in adequate nunbara in aaoh group la often encountered* Suoh la the oaaa in this study* This Unit a tha oonoluslons whieh nay be nada relative to tha various groups* Tha following table is presented in whloh tha standard error of a peroentage is ealoulated for various nunbara with percentages for eaah nunber listed in Intervale of tan* It la intended that this table should serve as a guide whan making con clusions ooneerning the tables in Appendix A and in Appendix B* The numbers 666 and 627 will be found as totals in these tables* The numbers 50, lOO, 200, 500, and 400 are used because they represent approximations of other numbers listed In the tables* The formula used to ealoulate the standard error of a peroentage la as follows Where P represents the proportion in tha population expressed as a deoinal and I represents the number of itnes In the sample* 1* Creates. P* B* and S. J* Cowden. Applied Oonoral Statist too* Pro atlas - Hall Ins., Hew Terk. 1046* p*WR* . TABLE V Standard Error and Confidence Interval at Tiro Levels for Various Percentages Calculated for Specified Sample Numbers 6 7 % 9b% Sample Standard Confidence Confidence Number Percentage Error Interval Interval 656 90 1.2 > 1.2 * 2.4 80 1.6 * 1.6 t 3.2 70 1.8 ± 1.8 ± 3.6 60 1.9 t 1.9 ± 3.8 50 2.0 ± 2.0 ± 4.0 40 1.9 ± 1.9 ± 3.8 30 1.8 t 1.8 + 3.6 20 1.6 t 1.6 t 3.2 10 1.2 £ 1.2 ± 2.4 527 90 1.3 t 1.3 -+ 2.6 80 1.7 ■A 1.7 * 3.4 70 2.0 + 2.0 * 4.0 60 2.1 t 2.1 £ 4.2 50 2.2 ± 2.2 ± 4.4 40 2.1 t. 2.1 £ 4.2 30 2.0 ■fe 2.0 t 4.0 20 1.7 +- 1.7 + 3.4 lo 1.3 1.3 2.6 400 90 1.5 ± 1.5 -*• 3*0 80 2.0 * 2.0 + 4.0 70 2.3 t 2.3 1 4.6 60 2.4 ± 2.4 t 4.8 50 2.5 ± 2.5 L 5.0 40 2.4 * 2.4 1 4.8 30 2.3 ± 2.3 £ 4.6 20 2.0 + 2.0 £ 4.0 10 1.5 ± 1.5 + 3.0 300 90 1.7 v 1.7 7 3.4 80 2.3 ■t 2.3 £ 4.6 70 2.6 ± 2.6 7 5.2 60 2.8 •A 2.8 £ 5.6 50 2.9 ■fc 2.9 £ 5.8 40 2.8 * 2.8 ± 6.6 30 2.6 4 2.6 i 5.2 20 2.5 4 2.3 £ 4.6 10 1.7 + 1.7 £ 3.4 -169- TABLE V (Cont'd) Standard Error and Confidence Interval at Two Levels for Various Percentages Calculated for Specified Sample Numbers 67% 95% Sample Standard Confidence Confidence Humber Percentage Error Interval Interval 200 90 2.1 + 2.1 + 4.2 80 2.8 * 2.8 * 5.6 70 3.2 ± 3.2 t 6.4 60 3.5 ± 3.5 ± 7.0 50 3.5 * 3.5 + -7.0 40 3.5 ± 3.5 + 7.0 30 3.2 t 3.2 ± 6.4 20 2.8 + 2.8 ± 5.6 10 2.1 + 2.1 ± 4.2 100 90 3.0 + 3.0 t 6 .0 80 4.0 * 4.0 + 8.0 70 4.5 t 4.5 + 9.0 60 4.9 + 4.9 + 9.8 50 6.0 ± 5.0 +10.0 40 4.9 i 4.9 ± 9*9 30 4.5 ± 4.5 ± 9.0 20 4.0 ±_ 4.0 ± 8.0 10 3.0 t 3.0 A 6.0 50 90 4.2 + 4.2 + . 8.4 80 5.7 ♦ 5.7 t 11 *4 70 6.6 + 6.5 ± 13.0 60 6.9 + 6.9 ± 13.8 50 7.1 t 7.1 ± 14.2 40 6.9 t 6 *9 ± 13.8 30 6.5 t 6 -5 ± 13.0 20 5.7 ± 5.7 + 11.4 10 4.2 + 4.2 A 8.4 -170 -171- Thus, 'the mass of data presented in Appendix A and Appendix B Is not neoessarily significant in Itself, but, used with the infor mation presented in Table V it oan be used safely within the limits prescribed. Another limiting factor is conoamed with the respondent farmers ability to remember details. Eaoh was asked questions concerning attitudes and actions for a pr seeding year and to the extent the memory of eaoh was aocurate the answers received were accurate. It is the opinion of the author that because of the usual unhesitating manner in whioh most questions were answered this is not a serious limita tion. A limitation similar to the one just mentioned should also be recognized. It has to do with the tendency of farm people to change attitudes concerning a particular question over a period of time. (This is not limited to farm people.) There seems little reason to believe that attitudes oonoerning this question should have changed substantially sinoe the survey was made. It seems logical to expect that as a study is about to be com pleted other questions and problems are enoountered whioh should have been considered. One suoh problem related to this study which wasn't entirely overlooked, but about whioh little was done, has to do with the actual use which was made of market information farmers indicated they used. That is, to what extent did the information used alter decisions whioh were made or aotion that was taken7 It would appear -172- that this problem should ser're as the basis for future related re search* Other minor questions were encountered which make it appear further consideration should have been given them, however, their omittance was not a serious mistake* Another limitation has to do with the role of television in the field of farm market reporting. Although television was not an im portant medium of dissemination when the survey was made, it seems logioal to assume that this new medium should adopt the principles applicable to radio as far as oontent of report is concerned. CHAPTER XT Smmnary Livestock Limited information available Indicates there was a difference in the price paid for hogs between terminal markets, between local markets, and between terminal and local markets in Ohio* It is assumed these differentsa mere as great, or greater, for other species of livestock. Thus, there is a need for a market reporting service In Ohio. There is also a need on the part of personnel engaged in reporting the markets for information concerned with the type of market news farmers use and want reported. One livestock market reporter employed by the Production and I^arketing Administration of the United States Department of Agriculture is located in Ohio. He is stationed at Cincinnati* Information prepared by this reporter comprises a relatively small part of the livestock market news released to the press associations from P.M.A.'s regional office in Chicago. Much of this Information does not infiltrate down to inter ested farmers. The inventory of livestock market information available to farmers indicated that approximately two-thirds (44) of the radio stations in whio reported some type of livestock market news. These stations de voted an average of about four minutes per day to reporting this type of information with the average number of broadoasts per station having been 1.5. Exactly one-half of the daily broadcasts occured during the noon hours between lit00 A.M. and It00 P.M. The seoond most popular time of day for suoh broadcasts was the early morning period between 6:00 and 8 rOO A* M* -173 -174- The markets moot: often reported were Cleveland, Chicago, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Indianapolis. About one-third of the stations reported & local market located in the same county as the radio station. The number of markets reported daily by each station was small. Approxi mately one-half of the stations reported only one market. Some radio reports were not as complete in other respects as they might have been. At some stations reports for all species of live stock were not given. In addition, some stations often quoted prices but did not quote receipts, while at other stations receipts were quoted without comparable price data. Price trends were quoted more often than not, but receipt trends were indioated on only about one-third of the pro grams. There was wide variation between reports for various markets, concerning these factors, without regard for particular radio stations. A summary statement of market conditions at the important markets was given by about one-third of the stations. Radio auotations were considered relatively accurate by BO percent of the farmers who asked for such reports* Livestock market news was reported by more than three-fourths of the daily newspapers examined. The markets most often reported were the sons as those listed in connection with radio reports except that Pitts burgh should be substituted for Indianapolis in the list. Approximately one-half the papers carried a report for only one market. Newspaper reports were also incomplete in many oases. The number of classes and grades of each species of livestook reported per news paper varied to a considerable extent. About 90 percent of the papers -175- uhich reported price data for a major market also reported receipts for that particular market* In the case of local markets, the number of papers which reported receipts amounted to about 50 percent of those -which re ported price data* Relative to timeliness, nearly all afternoon editions reported con ditions for the current day* Newspapers published during the early morn ing period, of necessity, reported market conditions for the previous day* Newspaper price quotations were considered relatively accurate by 68 percent of all farmers who indicated a desire for such reports* About the same proportion believed the receipt quotations were accurate. Something of the extent to which livestock market information is used by farmers is indicated in the following paragraphs. The radio was considered the most important single source of live stock market news* About 75 percent of those who sold livestock used It as a source of market information. This was more than used any other medium. It was also ranked higher as a source of livestock market news than any other medium. Four radio stations, WJJN in Cincinnati, WRFD in Worthington, WHKC in Columbus and WTAM in Cleveland were those to whioh most fanners lis tened for livestock market news* Most fanners listened to two or three stations* Approximately two-thirds of those who listened indicated they were constant day to day listeners thrcmghout the year* Daily newspapers were the seoond most we d souroe of livestock mar ket information. Approximately 60 peroent of those who sold livestock made use of this medium and about one-half of these readers ranked it -176- second among the souroes used. One—fifth of the readers considered it their moat important source* Eighty-six percent of those who used a news paper as a souroe of information said they were constant da;/ to day readers throughout the year* The third most important source of livestock market news* from the viewpoint of the number of users* was the farm paper. This medium was ranked third or fourth by a majority of those who used it. The Ohio Farmer was the farm paper most often mentioned and the Farm Journal was listed the second highest number of times* The telephone was the fourth moat often used sou roe of livestock market information and those who used it gave it a relatively high rank* Other media were used much less extensively. In the section of the study concerned with information farmers want in a livestook market report it was indicated that about two-thirds of all farm operators requested one or more daily radio broadcasts of live stock market news. Almost 60 percent of the operators who considered them selves farmers wanted such a report* and for praotioal purposes almost all farmers who sold livestook indicated a desire for suoh broadcasts. More than one-half the operators wanted two or more daily reports* The noon hour was the first choice of time of day for the reports* Approximately one-third of the operators wanted reports from three or more livestock markets* Uarkets most often mentioned in the order of the number of times they were listed are as follows* Local* Columbus* Cleveland* Cincinnati* and Chicago* A majority of operators suggested that actual prices and actual receipts for eaoh market be quoted in radio broadcasts of livestook market -17 7- news. This was in contrast to substituting only trenda for dome or all of the markets. When prioea are quoted fanoars suggested thata range by grade be given, together with a price for which most of the grade is selling. It was auggested that other items be inoluded in livestook market broadcasts. One such item was a desire on the part of almost 9 0 percent of the operators for price trends. Only a few less asked for both actual receipts and a receipts trend. Somewhat fewer, but still a majority, a s k e d for a summary statement of oonditions on the large livestock mar ke t s • Slightly more than one-half of all operators were of the opinion that daily newspapers should carry livestock market reports. Hfls number re presented about two-thirds of those who considered themselves farmers. The type of report asked for was very similar to that requested from radio stations. Grain Hie Production and Marketing Administration does not have a grain market reporter in Ohio. Most of the official grain rrarket news avail able to producers in the state originates in the regional office of the Production and Marketing Administration in Chicago. Such information does not all reach farm operators. Hie inventory of grain market information indicates that fewer Ohio radio stations reported this type of news than reported livestook market news. In faot, 31 stations reported grain market information - on 52 daily programs which averaged slightly over one minute in length. One-half of the programs were broadoast during the noon hours. -178- The largest number of o&sh grain markets reported by any radio station itas two. About two-third# of the stations which reported p r a i n market news quoted futures prices from the Chicago Board of Trade. On a per broadcast basis, futures priees were included in 69 percent of the grain programs. An idea of the thoroughness with which cash grain markets were reported can be obtained from the fact that only 10 percent of the programs which reported a local market speoified the grade of grain for which a report was given. The broadcasts were timely to the ex ten t that about four—fifths reported conditions as of the day of the broadcasts. Radio reports were considered relatively accurate by approxi mately 60 percent of the fanners who asked for a grain market "broad cast. However, many farmers had no opinion concerning this question. About 60 peroent of the newspapers reported some typ^ of grain market information. The item of news most often reported was futures quotations from the Chicago Board of Trade. Sixty-three percent of the papers whioh reported grain market news carried a local report. Most reported price# for only one firm. Relatively few papers reported any cash market information from a terminal center. Some grains were not always included in newspaper reports. This was especially true for local reports and was often true for reports from terminal markets. The number of grades of each grain reported was us ually small. Most papers, when earrying reports from a terminal mar ket, gave quotations for two grades. The usual number of grades for a local report was one. Receipts and price trends were almost never inoluded in a news— -179- :aper report;, In addition, many papers did not list the source of tueir quotations. Newspaper quotations were considered relatively accurate by slightly over two-thirds of the farmers who requested newspaper mports. In the section concerned with the extent of the use made of a- vailable grain market information it was indicated that the bulletin board at a local elevator served us the source of information most often used by farmers before making a dec la ion to sell wheat. It was mentioned by 19 percent of those who sold this grain. Almost one-half of these operators said they read such a board three or more times, More than one-half of those vi\a used it ranked it first among all sources used. Most cf the remainder gave it a rank of second. The second most mentioned source of grain market news was the dally newspaper* It was read by 47 percent of the farmers who marketed wheat. Eighty percent of these operators said they followed the grain market from day to day throughout the year. The newspaper was riven a rank of sec nd among the various sources by more farmers than gave it any other rank, Almost as many ranked it first but more than 30 percent gave it a rank of third or lower, Kadio was the third most used source of grain market information, A--out 30 peroent of those who sold wheat indicated grain quotations were obtained from this source. It was ranked first in importance by more than two-thirds of those who used it. Stations listened to most were WOlfO in ft, Wayne, Indiana, WOT in Cincinnati, WRFD in Worthington, and WSFD in Toledo, -180- The telephone was the fourth most used source of grain market news* ihone calls to a prospective buyer were made by slightly more than one- fourth of those who sold wheat. Most phoned only once. This medium was ranked first by more fanners than gave it any other rankv 44 percent. About an equal number ranked it second and third but very few ranked it leaver than third. Other media were used by only a very few farmers. In the section of the study concerned with information farmers want in grain market reports it was indicated that almost one—half of all o p e r a t o r s requested a grain market news broadcast. The number was slightly greater than one-half when only those who believed they were farmers were considered. It was suggested that the reports be broadcast daily through out the year rather than only during the heavy grain marketing season. Slightly more than one-third wanted two or more daily broadcasts* The noon hour was the time of day when most farmers asked that the reports be broadcast. About one-third of the operators suggested that reports be given for two or more cash markets. The markets most often listed were Local, Chicago, Toledo, Columbus, and Cincinnati. The grains for which reports were requested were wheat, corn, soybeans, and oats* A few farmers also asked for reports for rye and barley* About two-thirds of the operators asked that the grade of grain be specified and that an explanation of discounts be given in any radio report. Almost one-half wanted Chicago Board of Trade futures price quotations included* -181 Slightly less than one-half of all operators "wanted newspapers to carry grain market reports* The type of report requested was similar to that desired from radio. Most fanners who indioated they did not want futures price quotations inoluded said they did not understand the neanin : of the term “futures prioean • CHAPTER m Conclusions and Suggestions for Improved Livestook and Grain Market Reports in Ohio The technique of reporting the farm markets has advanced ex tensively in recent years* This has been especially true during the period of advancement of the radio induetry* Most radio station manager ial personnel associated -with a station ■whioh has a farm audience con sider it a neoeasity to have at least one program on which some farm market information is reported* Every geographic area of the state is within listening distance of one or more radio stations whioh broadoa3t some type of livestook and grain market news* The analysis of data in the farmer survey indicated a number of significant differences between groups of the various strata into whioh the data were divided. These differences were general in nature and were not applicable in all oases, but ordinarily they appear to have been re levant. A higher proportion of meiribsrs of certain groups gave mane at tention to market reports and followed the markets more closely than others. Those who gave most attention were in groups who sold the lar gest amounts of livestock and/or grain; those with the most advanced ed ucational training; the younger age groups; and the full time farmers* Also, there was some indication that the group who marketed through a co-operative association should have been included* A major proportion of the suggestions for improvement originated in these groups* The preceding differences would appear to indicate two aspeots of the problem of reporting the livestook and grain markets* In the first instance the larger, more aggressive, alert, and probably more efficient farmers are those who would gain most from improved market reports* -182- 1S3- They produce a relatively large amount of all farm products maria ted but are in the minority relative to the number of people involved# The other aspect of the problem involves the remaining farmers, who constitute a majority in number, to whom any educational program indicating the importance and advantages of farm market reports should be directed. The farmer survey definitely indicates that farmers listen to and read market reports and are very much interested in market information. It would a pear that one method the aggressive radio or television sta tion manager might use to aquire larger farm audiences is to schedule re gular market reports of the type farmers desire. Such reports should serve as an asset rather than a liability to any station. The a ame prin ciple will apply to daily newspapers. Market reports, to be of maximum value, must be timely, accurate, and complete. Radio information available Was timely as to the day of broadcast but not always timely relative to specific periods during any particular day. Most newspaper reports were as timely as it was poss ible for them to be. A substantial majority of farm operators believed radio and newspaper information was relatively accurate, however, some were of the opinion improvement could be made in this respeot. Further study concerning the aoouracy of market reports is needed. It was the cri terion of completeness whioh was given major consideration in this study and it is in this area that major improvements may be made. Recommendations for improving livestock market reports include the following points of concern to radio stations,daily newspapers, and other workers in the field. 184- 1. Sol radio ttttlona should ior> tli« and iw» Mwiptf»n more i p W i for liTirtooic market roport> to obtain ooipltt* oofrttt. 2* A minimum of throo dally livestock market a m brotdotatt is needed from any radio station ^ iooo goal la complete and tl»ly liTiototk market coverage for lt« ll»iioaoro» O m program oould be at moon and tho other two oould bo oho a on from bho early morning, mid-morn ing, or owning poriodo, tho oxaot timea doponding on tho locality of tho station* Daily newspapers oan maintain timoly roporta by publiohing only tho moot ourront information* 3* Information from moro markets should bo Inoludod in tho reports of some radio atationo and oomo newspapers. About ono-half of tho ro porta from oaoh modium referred only to ono 11 wo took markot. Data from tho surwy iadioatod that a minimum of throo markoto should bo reported* It would appear tho number oould vary with individual situations* 4. Local livestock markets should bo inoludod in both radio and news paper reports* In most areas there are alternative markets and in many oases a farmer may bo in a position to choose among two or throo local markets and ono or moro terminal markets* A complete report should include information from oaoh of those Murbots plus informative from ono or moro other largo mid-west terminals* Local liwotook suur- kets have become relatively moro important and terminal markets re latively loss important with regard to tho voltnm of liwstook moving through each in recent years* 5 * Data for all speoies of livestock traded at a speciflo market should eado a part of the report for that particular market* Information for oaoh apooios has not always been given in previous reports* -185- 6. A rtnga of prices for each grade of livestock should be g lven, together with a price for whioh most of the grade is galling, when prices are quoted. In the past these quotations have been in many forme*. Some have quoted only the top price by speoies, while others have quoted a top price by grade* Such quotations may be of more harm than value to those Interested in marketing livestock* Farmers are interested in quotations for the speoifio grades they are preparing for sale; very few are in possession of the top grade* 7. Reoeipts should be quoted for all markets for which price data are given* More than three-fourths of the farmers asked believed this item should be made a part of livestock market roports* 8. Consideration should be given the possibility of reporting re ceipts for eaoh grade of the various species of livestock at each market* Generally* this has not been done in the past and if put into praotioe would represent somewhat of an innovation. A maj ority of farmers suggested the idea be given a trial. This protiem would not be of direct ooncem to radio stations and news papers but would be the responsibility of market reporters ■ They in turn would make the information available for distribution through regular channels* 9. Prloe trends and reoelpt trends both should be made a part of live stock m a r kot reports* Both were requested by more than 8 0 percent of those farmers asked for an opinionj some consider trends store important than the aetual quotations. - 186- markets la the midwest should "be made a -part of amr livestock market report# Such, a statement would Include the items of main interest related to the current day*s market and would usually he stated In such form that names of particular markets would not he mentioned* 11. The midi-morning period should he given special consideration as a -possible choice of time for a radio broadcast of livestock market news by some radio stations. Twenty-four percent of the farmers who asked for a radio report said they would listen during this period, A greater number might listen if more such programs were available, 12. Tmp-rmrad B/vmrnrT of livestock makeft ronortw should be a goal Of f*dio stations and daily newspapers. Suggestions for the improvement of grain market reports are similar in some respects to those of livestock, !he following recommendations for improving grain reports are listed for consideration by radio «wt news paper personnel as well as other interested workers in the field, 1* Sfige radio stations Should alloc^ta more time. a n d m r r m * p p y g p a p m more « p for grniii sports jto obtain complete coverage, 2. Two dally broadcasts are a number for rsd-tp station whose goal is complete and timely grain market coverage for its lis teners. Cbie such broadcast could be scheduled during the noon period soon after futures trading begins and the other might be put on the air 1— edlately after the futures market closes. -187- 3. Information from more grain markets should be included in tho reports of some radio stations and gome dally newspapers* Tho farmer survey indioat as that at least two jfcarkets should ba included in any report* In some areas where a wide oholoe of mar kets is available more would be nefidca. 4* Local grain markets should be reported by both radio sbati ns and daily newspapers. Many farmers are in a position to choose among alternative markets when marketing grain, and are interested in quotations at each of tho respective choice of markets* 5. Cash prices at a large grain terminal should be included in any grain report* A majority of farmers suggested that Chicago quo tations be given* Toledo quotations were requested by the seoond highest number of operators. 6* Reports should include quotations for all grains traded at the mar ket for which the report is given* Almost all farmers asked tnat corn and wheat be included and more than one-half suggested that quotations be given for soybeans and oats* A few wanted reports for barley and rye* 7 • Grades of grain ahould be specified when grain prloes are quoted* This has not always been done in the past* 8- Discounts in quoted grain prices due to excess moisture or for eign material should be explained in radio and newspaper reports* Such an explanation usually has not been available in the past* Farmers are Interested in the quotations for the grain they have to sell and to the extent this grain does not meet quoted grade standards discounts are important* -183- 9 . A grain market s u m m a r y statement ahould be mada a component of* complete radio and newspaper reports* 10* Futures price quotations ahould be included in grain market reporta. This recommendation is made despite the faot that slightly less than one-half of the fanners who were asked for an opinion suggested tneir inclusion. Such quotations are the asis of most cash prices and are followed closely by many farmera, especially some of those who sell large amounts of grain* They are also followed olosely by grain dealers and other members of the trade* 11. Improving the accuracy of their respective reports ahould be a goal of eaoh radio station and eaoh dally newspaper whloh reports grain market news* Some fanners are Interested in other than immediate short run aspects of any market situation* These other interests Include out look information, an explanation of the various grades of livestock, and an explanation of futures price quotations. It would appear that colleges of Agrioulture through either the Extension Service or the Experiment Station , or both, might give consideration to further work conoerned with these interests* Farm papers and miscellaneous business service reports might serve a very useful purpose by helping publicize this information* How may some of the preoeding suggestions and recommendations be placed in actual operation? What steps should be taken by various individuals or organisations to bring about their adoption? There are probably several methods of approach worthy of consideration* 189 On* approach might be the publication and distribution of a bul letin listing the recommendations previously outlined* Such a bul letin will be published by the Ohle Agricultural Experiment Station* Market agenoles in the state might consider the publication of a bulletin er pamphlet listing their suggestions* Another method of attaoklng the problem would concern itself with the employment of a nuaber of market reporters by the State Depart em t of Agriculture* er the United States Department of Agrleulture, or co operatively by both ageneies* Their responsibilities would involve working with both the marketing agenoles and the various media of dis seminating the information* This method would probably bring — results but would also be moro expensive than some other methods* A third approach might involve assigning the responsibility to the Agricultural Extension Service in the state* This would probably Imply delegating the responsibility for the program to Extension Spec ialists in the respective fields* They in turn would work through the County Agricultural Agents* The agents would not aot as market re porters # but would serve as advisors to both the disseminators of In formation and the market agenoles* The agents would be responsible for the reporting work in their respective counties* This approach would entail no extra budget on the part of the Extension Service at the out set* Some value could be derived from such a program but it would al so have some disadvantages* A possible fourth approach would involve assigning the responsibility for reporting the markets to respective members of the trade* This approach was originally unsuccessful and led to tho Inauguration of the -190 Federal Market News Service. It seems likely It would not be any more successful at the present time. It is suggested that the second mentioned a proach would be the niost desirable from tho long-run point of view* It is the considered o inion of the author it would also take the longest period of time to place in operation. Thus, it is reoommended that a combination of the second and third methods of a:proach be given consideration. Some of the details of such a program should be mentioned. It Is suggested that at the earliest possible date one or more market re porters be employed by either the State Department of Agriculture or the TTnited States Department of Agriculture, or jointly by both, to work in Ohio. The specific area in which the reporter or reporters would work would be decided after a conference with leaders of interested farm organisations and agenoles. It is suggested that such reporter or re porters be assigned an area rather than a speoific market in which to work and that ho or they be glvon the task of working with both live stock and grain within the area. The area selected would serve as a pilot area in which the program would be developed preparatory to use in otner sections of the state. Personnel would work with market agencies and the disseminators of information, mainly radio, television, and daily newspapers in developing the reporting service. During the period of development of such a program it is suggested that Extension Service personnel serve only in an advisory capacity to market agencies and disseminators of information to improve existing market reporting servioes in seotions other than the pilot area. The latter part of the -191- program would bo entirely voluntary on tho ; art of all concerned, i.owever, it to the opinion of the author tlvat, at least, in some areas, the market reporting service might be improved. Such an arrangement likely would bring into focus major existing problems related to market reporting. This disclosure indirectly might serve aa an aid in making the services of a market roporter available on a state wide asie sooner than would otherwise be possible. APPENDIX A TABLE A - 1 Period of Tine Earners Listened to Radio for Livestock Market Information Before S e llin g Hogs, by Various Methods o f S tr a tific a tio n , Ohio, 1950 Part-time Listeners Full-time Listeners Total Method of Stratification msber Percent Humber Percent Humber Percent Krter of Hogs Sold Annually 1 - 2 9 36 39 56 61 92 LOO 3 0 - 8 9 37 37 63 63 100 LOO 90 and above 12 21 - V . 79____ . -57 100 Total 85 3k 16k 66 2k9 100 Type of Market Agency Purchasing Hogs Cooperative 17 27 16 73 62 100 Private 66 36 . 6k 187 100 Total 85 3k 16k 66 2k9 100 Pull or Part-time farmers Selling Bogs pun 79 3k 155 66 23k 100 ^ — - *- n r t 6 ho 9 60 J 5 _ __ 100 Total 65 3k 16k 66 2k9 100 Age of Farm Operator Selling Hogs Under 35 18 3k 35 66 53 100 35 - 5k k2 38 69 62 ill 100 55 and over 25 30 59 70 8k 100 Hnknonn 1 100 1 100 Total 85 3k 16k 66 2h9 100 TABLE A - 1 (Cont'd) Period of Time Farmers Listened to Radio for Livestock Market Information Before Selling Hogs* by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Part-time Listeners Pull-time Listeners Total Method of Stratification Humber Percent Humber Percent Nujfcsr Percent Bdncatien of farm Operator Selling Hoga 8th grade or less 1*1 33 82 67 123 100 High school 33 33 66 67 99 100 College U 1*1 16 59 27 100 Unkncen Total 85 31* 161* 66 21*9 100 Qeograpfaieal Area of Ohio Western 52 35 96 65 11*3 100 Eastern 33. _ - _33 _ 68 67 101 100 Total 85 31* 161* 66 21*9 100 TABLE A - 2 Period of Tine Farmers Listened to Radio far Lire stock Market Information Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1 ?$0 Part-time Listeners Full-tiee Listenera Total Method of Stratification Mumbar Percent Number Percent Mover Percent Buber of Cattle Sold Annually 1 - I k W> 3k 77 66 117 100 3 5 - 2 ? 2 22 7 76 9 100 50 and above 2 - 11 85 _ .... 12... 100 Total h h 32 9$ 66 139 100 Purpose for feich Cattle Sold Beef for Slaughter lk 22 h$ 78 63 100 Dairy for Slaughter 20 Ifi 30 60 50 100 Other 10 39 ___ 16 61 26 100 Total kk 32 95 66 139 100 Pull or Fart-tim ffcraars Selling Cattle Pull 30 70 126 100 ^ 36 90 r a n 6 55 . . .5 . h$______11 100 Total hk 32 95 66 139 100 Age of Para Operator Selling Cattle Coder 35 9 30 a 70 30 100 35 — 51* 23 39 36 61 59 100 55 *nd orar 12 2k 37 76 h9 100 flwlrmpn 1 100 1 100 Total hk 32 95 66 139 100 TABLE A - 2 (Coat'd) Period of Tiae Farmers Lietened to Radio for Lirestock Market Information Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Part-tiee Listeners Fall-tiee listenera Total Method of Stratification Huaber Percent ftaber Percent Ncubar Percent Education of Earn Operator Selling Cattle cth grade or lees u* 22 51 78 65 ICO High aehool 21* 39 37 61 61 100 College 6 Is6 7 51* 13 100 ffcilnn—■* Total kk 32 95 68 139 100 Geographical Area of Ohio Vesteni n 27 56 73 77 100 Eastern V _ _ J L ___ 39 63 62 100 Total kk 32 95 68 139 100 TABLE A - 3 Huaber of Radio Stations Farmers Listened to for Livestock Market Information Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Farmers Listening Farmers Listening Farmer* Listening to Method of to One Station to Two Stations Three or More Stations Total Farmers Stratification labor Percent Huaber Percent labor Percent MuMber Percent M o t e of Bogs Sold A m w i n y 1 - 2 9 u ii5 36 39 15 16 92 100 3 0 - 0 9 28 28 56 56 16 16 100 100 90 and shore JS_.. 26 29 51 13 ____ 23 57 100 Total ft 3b 121 b6 bb 18 2b9 100 Type of Market Agency Purchasing Megs Cooperative 21 3b 30 b8 u 18 62 100 M v a t e 63 Jb_ _ 91 W _ 33 _ 18 187 100 Total ft 3b 121 be bb 18 2b9 100 Phil or Part-time Farmers Selling Hogs Poll 79 3b 112 ltd b3 18 23b 100 Part 5 33 9 60 1 7 15 100 Total dli 3b 121 b8 bb 18 2b9 100 Age of Farm Operator Selling Hogs Coder 35 21 bo 2b b5 8 15 53 100 3 5 - f t 36 32 61 55 lb 13 ill 100 55 and orar 27 32 35 b2 22 26 8b 100 llwlnypj 1 100 1 100 Total ft 3b 121 be bb 18 2b9 100 TABLE A - 3 (Cont’d) Huaber of Radio Stations flamers Listened to for Livestock Market Infcarnation Before Selling Hogs, by Varices Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 19$Q Earners Listening Farners Listening flamers Listening to Method of to Ono Station to Two Stations Three or More Stations Total tamers Stratification luber Percent Dunbar Percent huaber Percent htaber Percent Education of Farm Operator Sailing Hogs 6th grade or lees * 37 50 4i 27 22 123 100 High school 31 31 57 58 11 11 99 100 College 7 26 lit 52 6 22 27 100 M m m Total 84 34 121 48 44 18 24? 100 ,107 Geoarsahioal Iras of a m a , lectern 45 30 7lt 50 25 20 148 100 Eastern # y> 47 -46 _ «... 101 100 Total 84 3k 121 48 44 18 249 100 TABLE A. - U Number of Radio Stations Farmers Listened to for Livestock Market Information Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Farmers Listening Farmers Listening farmers Listening to Method of to One Station to Two Stations Three or More Stations Total farmers Stratification Humber Percent Huaber Percent Huaber Percent Huaber Percent Humber of Cattle Sold Annually 1 - lk 52 hk 51 hk lit 12 117 300 3 5 - 2 9 5 56 3 33 1 11 9 300 30 and abort 2 15 5 _ 38 6 Jt7 __ 13... _ 300 Total 59 to 59 hZ 21 35 139 100 Purpose for faich Cattle Sold Beef for Slaughter 23 36 28 h$ 12 19 63 300 Baity for Slaughter 22 kk 23 1*6 5 3)0 50 100 Other lk 5 k 8 31 _ It -15 . 26 300 Total 59 to 59 kz 21 15 139 300 Full or Part-time Farmers Selling Cattle fail 53 kL 5fc 1*2 21 17 128 100 m _a firi 6 5 1*5 11 100 Total 59 to & 1*2 21 l5 139 100 Age ef farm Operator Selling Cattle fader 35 15 5o 12 to 3 30 30 100 35 - a 23 39 28 1*7 8 lk 59 100 55 and orar 21 k3 18 37 30 20 to 100 fakaon 1 100 1 100 Total 59 ii3 59 hZ 21 15 139 100 TABLE a - k (Cant'd) tiunber of Radio Station* tenors Listened to for Livestock Market Inf oration Before Selling Cattle, by Various Method* of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 tenara Listening tenors Listening Earners Listening to Method of to Ono Station to Tno Stations Throo or More Stations Total tenara Stratification timber Foreant timber Percent tefcar Percent timber Percent StooatiflB of t e n Operator Sailing Cattle Sth grade or leaa 26 43 28 43 9 14 65 100 High echool 24 99 27 hk 10 17 61 100 Collage 7 $9 k 33 1 8 12 100 QdId m n d Total 59 43 $9 1*3 20 14 138" 100 Geographical Area of (M o 1 Vaotara 25 33 35 1*6 16 a 76 100 S Xaatern & 8 _ 3k 39 k 6 62 100 1 Total $9 h3 59 43 20 14 138* 100 * One "don't know* not Included* TABLE A - 5 Radio Station* Listened to Most far Livestock Market Information Before Selling Hogs* by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 ILT f R P D I H K C I T A M Other Station* Method of Listeosrs Listeners Listeners Listeners Listeners Total Pamers Stratification lumber Parent dusker Percent Huaber Percent luaber Percent Huaber Percent Huaber Percent Muab* of Hogs Solid A m m a n y 1 - 2 9 26 29 15 16 11 12 16 15 26 20 92 100 3 0 - 0 9 35 30 22 22 7 7 8 6 25 25 100 100 90 and above 16 20 11 11 _15 ? 5 17 29 100 Total do 32 60 15 29 12 25 10 60 27 250 100 Type of Mutet Agency Purchasing Hogs & Cooperative 10 29 16 26 7 11 10 16 11 10 62 100 § Private 62 11. ?2 17 22 12 1? 0 57 30 188 100 r Total 00 32 lid 15 29 12 25 10 68 27 25o 100 Phil er Part-tlns Pamirs Selling flogs Poll 75 32 66 20 29 12 22 9 63 27 235 100 Part ? 13. 2 lit _ _ 3 20 5 .13- 1? 100 Total 00 32 60 15 29 12 25 10 68 27 250 100 Age of A m Operator Under 35 12 22 13 26 6 U 9 17 16 26 56 100 35-56 37 33 21 15 12 11 6 5 35 32 U 1 100 55 and ever 30 35 16 17 11 13 10 12 15 23 06 100 ttnkzunm 1 100 1 100 Total 00 32 60 15 29 12 25 10 68 27 250 100 TABLE A - 5 (Cant’d) Radio Stations Listened to Rost for Livestock Market Information Before Selling Hogs i lay Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1?$0 I L I V R F D IHKC V T A M Other Statical* Method of Listeners Listeners Listeners Listeners Listeners Total Fsresri Stratifieatlon lusher Percent ftuber Percent Number Percent )A&er Percent Rurter Percent Itufcer Perce* Mfaffitiw Of Turn Operator Selling Begs 9th grade or lees i*6 37 17 1k 13 11 13 11 3ii 27 123 100 High school 27 28 15 15 13 13 9 9 31 31 99 100 Cellege 7 25 12 kz 3 11 3 11 3 U 28 100 l h l n w > Total 80 32 i* 15 25 12 25 10 68 27 250 100 Geographical Area of Ohio Vestera 67 h$ 2k 16 6 6 2 1 1*7 32 11*8 100 lastem V i3_ % 23 a a 2? 22 a a 102 100 Total 80 32 hfi 15 25 12 25 10 68 27 256 100 * Other stations vlth at least one percent of the listeners ware TWO, U R , 1HKE, 1KRC, VHIZ, MST, sod 1FDU TABLE A - 6 Radio Stations Listened to Most for Livestock Market Information Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 VLI I E F O IHKC IT AM Other Station* Method ef Listeners Listeners lis te n e rs Listeners Listeners Total Fareers Stratifieatlon luaber Percent itaeber Percent ftaiber Percent tfuaber Percent Huaber Percent MuMbar Percent Mnaber of Cattle Sold Amnally l - U t 34 29 26 22 6 5 a 18 30 26 117 100 1 5 - 2 9 3 33 3 33 2 23 1 11 9 100 30 (ad tbor* 1 8 1 8 2 3S 3 6 p_ V 100 Total " j i ' 27 27 IP 9 7 4 5 29 139 100 Purpose for Wiioh Cattle Sold 1 Beef for Slaughter Id 25 11 18 6 10 10 16 20 31 63 ioo i Baby for Slaughter lb 28 12 2k 2 k 8 16 lk 28 50 100 ’ Other 8 .31 _ h 15 1 k 7 27 6 23 26 100 Total 38 27 27 39 9 7 25 Id ko 29 139 100 F u ll or Part-tiee A n a r s S e llin g Cattle A l l 33 26 26 20 9 7 23 18 37 29 128 100 Part 5 J«6 l -3 - 2 18 ? 27 U 100 Total 38 27 27 IP 9 7 25 18 ko 29 339 100 Age of Turn Operator Selling Cattle Under 35 5 17 8 27 3 10 7 23 7 23 30 100 3 5 - 5 k 18 31 12 20 3 5 7 12 19 32 59 100 55. *nd over lk 29 7 lk 3 6 11 22 lk 29 k9 100 1 100 1 100 Total______38 27 27 I? > 7 2? 18 1)0 2? Iff H» TABLE A - 6 (Cant'd) Radio Stations Listened to Uost for Livestock Market Information Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 I L I I R FD WHIG IT AM Other Station* Method of ' Listeners Listeners Listeners Listeners Listeners Total Fareeri Strati fleation Ra3>er 7erc«i{ \ 1 Mujber Percent Muebar Percent Number Percent Muter Percen Sdtocatien of f a n Operator Selling Cattle 8th grade or lees 22 3fc 10 15 3 5 11 17 19 29 65 100 High sehool 13 21 13 21 5 8 12 20 18 30 61 100 Callage 3 23 k 31 1 8 2 15 3 23 13 100 gafcnown Total 38 27 27 15 9 7 25 18 hQ 29 139 100 203 geographical Area of Ohio Western 31 Id) 13 17 k 5 3 k 26 3h 77 100 leetern 7 U A 2? ? 6 22 # lii 23. 62 100 Total 36 27 27 15 9 7 25 18 id) 29 139 100 * Other stations with at least one percent of the listeners were KM ), WJR, VHKK, 1KRC, 1HIZ, KET, and IFH * TABLE A - 7 Tlae of Day Fanners Listened to LiTestock Market News Broadcaat Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Barly Morning Mid - Morning Moon Mid-Afternoon and Method of Listeners Listeners Listeners Bracing Listeners Unknown Total stratification Ruler Ter cent Ruber Percent Ruber Percent Ruber Percent Ruber Percent Busbar of Hogs Sold 1 - 2 9 26 28 6 9 57 62 U 12 92 3 0 - 8 9 20 20 15 15 71 71 7 7 100 90 and shore 11 19 ? 9 ¥ } 5 ?7 Total 57 23 28 11 176 71 a 8 21,9 Type of Mufcet Agency Purchasing Mega Cooperetlre 13 21 5 8 44 71 7 11 62 Prirate 44 2? 12 W 71 lit 7 187 Total 57 23 28 11 176 71 21 8 21,9 Fall or Part-tlne FAmers Selling Hogs Full 56 24 24 10 169 72 18 8 23k Fart 1 7 1* 27 7 } 20 Total 57 23 28 11 176 71 21 8 249 Age of h n Operator Selling Begs Bader 35 14 26 5 9 31 59 8 15 1 2 53 3 5 - 5 4 23 21 16 14 84 76 5 5 111 55 and error 20 24 7 8 60 80 6 7 1 1 84 Ttakxmm 1 100 1 Total 57 23 28 11 176 71 19 7 2 1 249 "-a-” ■■ ■■■ " 1 ~ , g ! --1-1 -l-'J— "-gt- - J-J- .. TABLE A - 7 (Cont'd) Tine of Day Fanners Listened to Livestock Market News Broadcast Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stretiflcetionf Ohio, 1950 Early Morning Mid - Morning Mo o d Mid-Afternoon end Method of Listeners Listeners Listeners Evening Listeners Unknown Total Stratification Ifci^er Percent lfanber Percent ftmber Percent Mutter Percent fruiter Percent Useatlon of farm Operator Selling Bogs 6th grade oar lose 27 22 Ut U 85 69 9 7 123 U g h school 23 23 10 10 72 73 9 9 99 College 7 26 k 15 IS 70 3 11 27 QUOMMk Totel 57 23 26 U 176 71 21 8 21(9 Geographical ires of Ohio Teetern 32 22 20 111 112 76 3 2 lii8 Isetern 2? 8 8 61* 16 16 2 2 101 Totel 57 23 26 11 176 71 19 7 2 1 21(9 TABLE A - 8 TIm of Day Famera Liatened to Livestock Market k e n Broadcast Before Selling Cattle, by 7ariooa Methoda of Strati fi cation, Ohio, 1950 Kirly Morning Mid - Morning Moon Mid-Afternoon and Method of Llatonera Lletanare Lietenera gwning Lletonore Onknowi Total Stratlfloatlon Jfoebar Percent Vuaber fceroeci Mtni>er Percent duber Percent fcuaber Percent tafcar of Cattle Sold Aanaally 1 - 1 * 3* 29 12 10 7h 63 11 9 117 1 5 - 4 9 2 22 8 89 1 U 9 30 aad above 1 8 8 62 6 31 Total 36 26 13 9 90 65 16 12 139 Pnrpoeo for W e b Cattle Sold Beef for Slaughter 3k 22 8 13 hi 65 6 10 1 2 63 Drily for Slaughter 28 it 8 33 66 3 6 1 2 50 Other 6 P 1 k 16 62 ? 19.. 26 Total 36 26 13 9 90 65 10 2 2 139 Full or Fart-tlae Tamara Selling Cattle m i 35 27 12 9 75 59 13 10 2 2 128 r t r x 1 9 1 9 V -136 — 1 9 11 Total 36 26 13 9 90 65 3k 10 2 2 139 Age of Tarn Operator Selling Cattle W a r 35 8 27 1 3 19 63 k 13 30 35 - 5k 9 15 5 9 Ii5 76 5 9 2 3 59 55 u i o n r 3$ 39 7 3k 25 51 5 10 & TTnlnt^mi 1 100 1 Total >6 26 13 9 ____ 90 6$ lit 10______2 2 139 TABLE A - 8 (Cant'd) ?i*e of Day Tarmrs Listened to Livestock Market N«wb Broadcast Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1?$0 Early Morning Mid - Moon Mid-Afternoon end Method ef Listeners Listeners Listeners feratag Liateners Unknoen Total Stratification ftnfcer Percent rfufor ^erceni ltueber Percent Huaber Percent ftu£er Percent Muoation of fare Operator Selling Cattle 8th grade er loea 21 32 6 12 39 60 6 9 65 lit 23 b 7 k2 69 8 13 61 College 1 8 1 8 9 69 2 15 13 Brinypi) Total 36 26 13 9 90 65 lb 10 2 2 139 Qeograpfaioal Area of xoz Ohio ieatem 15 20 9 12 59 77 1 1 1 1 77 Intern 21 3b if 6 31 fo 13 21 i 2 62 Total 3 f 26 13 9 90 65 lb 10 2 2 139 TABLE A - 9 Reasons Farmers Listened to a Particular Radio Station far Livestock Market Information Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratification! Ohio, 19$0 Method of farioDil fime of Broadcast Quality of Market Report Other StratlfUaUon Haber Percent JnUDtt* Percent lusher Percent eusber Percent Total Maher of Hegi Sold * itwiwilly 1 - 2 9 33 36 20 22 bo bb 6 7 92 3 0 - 0 9 31 31 32 32 39 39 10 10 100 90 end above a V 23 . 37. _ 20 35 _ 7 12 57 fetal 77 31 73 29 99 bo 23 9 2b9 Type of lhrket Agency Purohasleg Mogs Cooperative 17 27 15 2k 25 bo 6 13 62 Private 60 32 56 31 7b bo . If 6 1B7 fetal 77 31 73 29 99 bo 23 9 2b9 Poll or Part-time PanMre Selling Bogs poll 7b 32 67 29 92 39 23 10 23b r a n ) 20 6 bo . 1 ______-47 If Total 77 31 73 29 99 bo 23 9 2h9 Age of farm Operator Selling Hogs Under 35 11 21 15 28 22 b2 9 17 53 35 - 5b 39 35 35 32 b2 38 9 8 ill 55 and over 26 31 23 27 35 hZ 5 6 8b Uakncam 1 100 1 " > y ■ Total ~ T T " 31 73 " " w ~ bo 4 * a g TABLE A - 9 (Cont'd) Reasons Farnars Listened to a Particular Radio Station for Livestock Market Infaraatian Bafart Sailing Hogt| by Various Methods of Stratification* Ohio, 1$$0 Method of Partonal Tina of Broadcast Quality of Market Report Other Stratification Vtahar Parcant ihuabor Percent A m r Percent lusber Percent Total Btaaatlen af Par* Operator Sailing Hogs 8th grade or laaa to 33 37 30 50 *1 10 8 123 High eehool 29 29 28 28 38 38 11 11 99 Collage 8 30 8 30 11 U 2 7 27 ttakaonn Total 77 31 73 29 99 to 23 5 Off Qeegraphlrnl Araa of Ohio f1 fetter* 55 37 52 35 to 27 17 11 1*8 laatarn 22 22 21 21 S9 6 6 101 < Total 77 31 73 29 99 to 23 9 210 TABLE A - 10 Seasons Farmera Listened to a Particular Radio Station far Livestock Market Infaraation Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1$$0 Method of Personal Ties of Broadcast Qualitr of Market Report Other Stratification Busbar Percent Btufeer Percent Bober Percent ftdber Percent Total Bober of Cattle Sold tremally 1 - 1 4 35 30 29 25 50 43 11 9 117 1 5 - 2 9 4 44 1 11 4 44 9 30 sad above 2 35 i. 23 6 62 2 . 35 33 Total 41 30 33 24 62 45 13 9 139 Parpoee for ttiieh Cattle Sold Beef for Slaughter 16 25 33 a 32 51 8 13 63 1 Dairy Dor Slaughter 17 34 11 22 a 42 4 8 5 0 : Other 6 31 9 9 . 3 5 1 4 26 1 Total 41 30 33 24 62 45 13 9 139 Full cr Part-tiM Ftrors Selling Cattle TttU 37 29 32 25 56 44 13 10 128 n■ a * ----- r tJ- k 36 1 5 . _ 6 55 11 Total 41 30 33 24 62 45 13 9 139 Ige of I M n Operator Selling Cattle Coder 35 6 20 10 33 16 53 3 10 30 3 5 - 5 4 15 32 13 22 22 37 7 12 59 55 end over IS 31 10 20 24 49 3 6 49 Unknown 1 100 1 Total 41 30 33 24 62 45 33 9 139 TABLE A - 10 (Cont *d) Reasons Farmers Listened to a Particular Radio Station for Livestock Market Information Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1?5Q Method of Personal Ties of Broadcast Quality of Market Report Other Stratification lumber Percent lumber Percent Ihnber Percent lumber Percent Total Xtaoaticn of Farm Operator Soiling Cattle 8th grade or lsea 20 31 Hi 22 28 43 6 5 65 Higk school IB 30 16 26 25 48 4 7 61 College 3 23 3 23 5 35 3 23 13 Jktatm Total 41 30 33 24 62 45 13 5 135 Geographical Area of i Ohio xxz Western 27 35 24 31 23 30 8 10 77 lantern *4 23 __ 5 J 35_ 63 5 8 62 Total 4l 30 33 24 62 45 13 5 135 TABLE A - 11 Mraribcr of Tlmee Buyer Its Phoned for Livestock Market Information Before Selling Hogs* by Various Methods of Stratification* Ohio* 1950 Farmers Phoning Farmers Phoning Method of Stratification Onoe Two or More Times Total Muter Percent Suaber Percent lusher Peroent lfaaber of Bogs Sold Annually 15 68 2 12 17 100 30 - 89 35 90 4 10 39 100 90 and above 25 9 3 _____ 2 7 27 100 Total 75 90 8 10 83 100 Type of Market Ag«acy Purchasing Hogs Cooperative 29 83 6 17 35 100 Private 46 96 2 4 46 100 Total 75 90 8 10 83 100 Full or Part-time Farmers Selling Hogs Pull 72 90 8 10 80 100 Part 3 100 ______y 100 Total 75 90 8 10 83 100 Ago of Far* Operator Selling Hogs Under 35 29 91 2 9 21 100 3 5 - 5 4 35 86 5 12 40 100 55 and over 20 95 1 5 21 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total 75 90 8 10 83 100 TABLE A - 11 (Coat'd) Nunber of Times Bayer Was Phoned for Lireetock Market Information Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Farners Phoning Farners Phoning Method of Stratification Once Two or More Tines Total Susber JfflTfitnt Anriar F«re«nt Hncetien of Para Operator Soiling Hogs 8th grade or lees 32 92 3 8 35 100 High school 33 89 k 11 37 100 Collage 10 91 1 9 11 100 Dnkaoen Total 75 90 8 10 83 100 Geographical Area of Ohio lectern 63 91 6 9 69 100 3 SI SI lastern 12 86 2 Ik ____ lk 100 Total 75 90 8 10 83 100 TABLE A - 12 Hurtar of T i n e s Buyer Was Phoned far Livestock Market Information Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Parsers Phoning Parsers Phoning Method of Stratification Once Two or More Tises Total sorter Percent Kurter Percent Murter Percent Mortar of Cattle Sold Annually 1 - U 5 71 2 29 7 ICO 1 5 - 2 9 30 and above 3 ICO ______1 ICO Total 6 60 2 20 1C ICO Purpose for Mhieh Cattle Sold Beef for Slaughter 6 86 1 11* 7 ICO Dairy fcr Slaughter 2 67 1 33 3 ICO Othrt Total 8 80 2 20 1C ICO Pull or Part-tine Parsers Selling Cattle Poll 6 75 2 25 8 ICO Part 2 ICO 2 ICO Total 8 80 2 20 1C ICO Age of Para Operator Selling Cattle Coder 35 2 ICO 2 ICO 35-51* 5 83 1 17 6 100 55 and over 1 50 1 30 2 ICO Unknown Total 8 80 2 20 1C 100 TABLE A - 12 (Cont'd) Hunter of Times Buyer Was Phoned for Livestock Market Information Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Farmers Phoning Farmers Phoning Method of Stratification Once Two or More Times Total Muaber Percent itafcer Percent Hunbar Percent Education of Farm Operator Selling Cattle 8th grade or leas 1 33 2 67 3 100 High oobool 5 100 5 100 College 2 100 2 100 total 6 80 2 20 10 100 Qeographioal Area of Ohio Vestem 6 100 6 100 Baatern 2 5P 2 50 _ h 100 Total 8 80 2 20 10 100 TABLE A - 13 Period of Time Farmers Road a Daily Mwepaper for LiTestock Haricot Information Before Soiling Hoga, fay Various Methods of Stratification, (Mo, 1950 Part-time Readers full-time Readers Total Method of Stratification Humber Percent Huber Peroent Rusher Percent lfuaber of Hoga Sold Annually 1 - 2 9 12 17 60 83 72 100 3 0 - 1 9 13 lit 78 86 91 100 90 aid above 5 11 39 89 44 100 Total 30 Hi 177 86 207 1O0 Typo of Haricot Agency Purchasing Hoga Cooperative 5 10 i|6 90 51 100 Private 25 16 131 84 _ . ______156 100 Total 30 66 207 100 x Hi 177 Fall ar Part-time farmers Soiling Hogo full 26 15 164 85 192 100 Port 2 13 13 87 — 15 - 100 Total 30 14 in 86 207 100 Ago of farm Operator Soiling Hogs Under 35 6 15 35 85 41 100 3 5 - 5 4 14 13 90 87 104 100 55 and orer 10 16 51 84 61 100 Unknoon 1 100 1 100 Total 30 14 177 86 207 100 TABLE A - 13 (Cont*d) Period of Tine Fanners Read a Daily Newspaper for Livestock Market Information Before Selling Hoga, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Part-time Readers Full-tim e Readers T o ta l Method of Stratification Vuaber Percent dumber ^erceni dumber Percent Education of F a n Operator S ellin g Hoga 8th grade or less 17 18 79 82 96 100 High school 9 10 81 90 90 100 College k IF 17 a a 100 Total 30 lit 177 86 207 100 Geographical Area of Ohio Eastern 16 13 115 87 133 100 Eastern 12 16 62 _ 7A 100 Total 30 Hi 177 86 207 100 TABLE A - U* Period of Time Farmers Bead a Dally Newspaper for Livestock Market Information Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Part-tiae Headers Full-time Readers Total Method of Stratification Sober Percent Su^er Percent Number Percent Nuaber of Cattle Sold Annually 1 - lit 15 17 73 83 88 100 1 5 - 2 9 7 100 7 100 30 and above 12 100 12 100 Total IS 14 92 86 107 100 Purpoee for lhicfa Cattle Sold Beef for Slaughter 8 16 43 84 51 100 Dairy for Slaughter 3 9 32 91 35 100 Other — Jk 19 17 81 a 100 Total 15 14 92 86 107 100 ; I m Full or Part-tiee Farners Selling Cattle Full 12 12 84 88 96 100 Part 3 27 8 73 11 100 Total 15 14 92 86 107 100 Age of FArn Operator Selling Cattle tinder 35 3 19 13 81 16 100 3 5 - 5 4 6 12 44 88 50 100 55 and over 6 15 34 85 40 100 Qnknown 1 100 1 100 Total 15 lit 92 66 107 100 TABLE A - Oil (Cont'd) Period of Time Farmers Read a Daily Newspaper for Livestock Market Information Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Part-time Readers Full-time Readers Total Method of Stratification Muibar Percent Ruber Percent Huber Percent Education of Farm Operator Selling Cattle 8th grade or lees 7 111 1*3 86 50 100 High school 8 Id 1*1 81* k9 100 College 8 100 8 100 IhfcMft Total 15 Hi 92 86 107 100 geographical Area of Ohio Vestom 5 8 55 92 60 100 l u t c m 10 21 __ 37 .. - 7 9___ W._ 100 Total 15 Hi 92 86 107 100 TABLE A - 15 Hunber of Far* Papers Read for Livestock Market Infarsation by Parsers Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Pursers Reading Parsers Reading Parsers Reading Three Total Method of One Pars Paper Two Pars Papers Or More Far* Papers Parsers Stratification fadber Percent tfuaber Percent ' -TGa^r” " Percent Vtdber ^arcenV Rusher of Hogs Sold Annually 1 - 29 25 53 13 28 9 19 1*7 100 3 0 -9 9 3k 52 21 32 11 16 66 100 90 sad above 20 _ 5 2 ______15 15 6 .15 ?? 100 Total 79 52 67 31 26 17 152 100 Type of Market Agency Purchasing Hogs Cooperative 25 52 15 31 8 17 68 100 -082 Private ft 52 32 31 18 17 uoli 100 Total 79 52 w 31 26 17 152 100 Full or Part-tise Parsers Selling Hogs Fall 7k 51 67 32 21* 17 165 100 Fart 5 71 2 . 29 7 100 Total 79 52 1*7 31 26 17 152 100 Age of IMrs Operator Selling Hogs Coder 35 16 69 11* 62 3 9 33 100 35 - 5I» 1* 56 20 27 11 15 73 100 55 ami a n t 21 1*7 13 29 11 26 65 100 thloon 1 100 1 100 Total 79 52 67 31 26 17 152 100 TABLE A - 15 (Cont'd) Number of Far* Papers Raad for Livestock Market Information by Farmers Bafore Sailing Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Farmers Beading Farmers Beading Farmers Reading Three Total Method of One Farm Paper Two Farm Papers Or More Farm Papsrs Farmers Stratification lumbar Percent Number Percent Number Percent ifamber Percent Sdacatlon af Itorn Operator Selling Hogs 9th grade or lose 33 53 21 3b 6 13 62 100 High school 37 51 20 26 1$ 21 72 100 College 9 50 6 33 3 17 Id 100 Dhtovam Total 79 52 b7 31 26 17 152 100 Geographical Area of Ohio Vaatarn 52 53 30 31 16 16 98 100 laeten 27 50 17 32 _ 10 18 ft 100 Total 79 52 b7 31 26 17 152 100 TABLE A - 16 Number of F a n Papara Read far Livestock Market Information by Farmers Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 19$0 Farmers Reading A n m Reading Farmers Reeding Throe Total Method of Okie F i n Paper To d F i n Papers Or More Firm Papwa Flrmars Stratification ftrter Percent Punber Percent Number Parevrt Number Percent Voabor of Cattle Sold A m n a U j ’ l - l k 25 52 18 38 5 10 k8 100 3 5 - 2 J 7 88 1 12 8 100 39 and above 6 100 * ... -k - J 1 _ .... 3 . 23 13.. Total 38 55 23 33 8 12 69 100 Purpoee f|r W d d i Cattle Sold Beef for SUngfatar 20 61 9 27 k 12 33 100 Dairy for Slaughter 12 55 8 36 2 9 22 100 6 Other k2L.._ 6 k3 2 . 3k lk 100 Total 38 55 23 33 8 12 69 100 Fall or Part-time Farmara Selling Cattle Fill 32 52 23 37 7 U 62 100 Part 6 86 1 lk _ 7 100 Total 38 55 23 33 8 12 69 100 Jge of F i n Operator Selling Cattle ttadv 35 8 73 3 27 11 100 35 - 5k 20 53 13 3k 5 13 38 100 95 and o t v 10 53 7 37 2 10 19 100 Onimoen 1 100 1 100 Total 38 55 23 33 8 12 69 100 TABLE A - 16 (Coat'd) Number of Far* Papers Read far Lira atook Market Information by Parsers Before Sailing Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Farmara Heading Farmers Reeding Fnmsrs Reading Three Total Method of Qua Farm Paper Too Far* Paper s Or Moore Farm Papers Farmers Stratification Inbar Percent lobar Percent Unbar Per cent lumber tercant Unoatlen of Far* Oparator Solilog Cattla 9th grade or l a n lfi 58 10 32 3 10 31 100 High achool 17 50 33 38 k 12 3k 100 Collage 3 75 1 25 k 100 Unknoam Total 3S 55 23 33 8 12 69 100 Geographical Araa of Ohio V w t a n 22 56 12 31 5 13 39 100 Bwtara 16 53 11 37 3 10 ?o 100 Total 38 55 23 33 8 12 69 100 TABLE A - 17 Farm Papers Read Mort for Livestock Market Information by Farmers Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Ohio Farmer F e n Journal Other Farm Method of Headers Headers . i,Ftpt r Readers Total Farmers Stratification Humber Percent Humber Percent tfuier Percent Humber Perceni Hraber of Hogs Sold Annually 1 - 2 9 3k 73 11 23 2 k k7 100 3 0 - 9 9 35 53 18 27 13 20 66 100 90 and above 20 51 lk 36 ______5 13 _ 39 100 Total 89 59 k3 28 20 13 152 100 Type of Market Agency Purchasing Hogs Ceeperaiive 28 58 12 25 8 17 k6 100 Private 61 59 -.-11 _ 30 12 11 10k 100 Total 99 59 k3 26 20 13 152 100 Pull er Part-time Farners Selling flogs Full 6k 58 kl 28 20 lk lk5 100 ^ - a rtrv ? 71 2 _ ft 7 100 Total 99 59 k3 28 20 13 152 100 Age of t o n Operator Bogfl W a r 35 17 52 11 33 5 15 33 100 35 - 5k ko 55 23 32 10 13 73 100 55 and oner 32 71 9 20 k 9 k5 100 IMnyip 1 100 1 100 Total 99 59 k3 26______20 13______152 100 TABLE A - 17 (Cant'd) Tarm. Papers Read Most for Livestock Market Information by Farmers Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 (Mo Fanner Fine Journal Other Fern Method of Readers Readers Paper Reedw ______Total Fag— rs Stratification Utasber Percent MuAer !Percent Muebr Percent l^ueber Percent Sdueation of Fan Operator Selling Hogs 8th grade or less 1*3 70 1219 711 62 100 High school 38 53 2332 11 15 72100 Collage 8 hh 8 1(1* 2 12 18 100 I h t l n w Total 5 $9 1*3 28 20 13 5 5 5 5 ” Geographical Area of i Q M a lestera 53 $k 28 29 17 17 98 100 Eastern 36 67 15 28 3 5 5J* 100 Total 89 59 J*3 28 20 33 152 100 TABLE A - 16 Farm Papers Read Most far Lire stock Market Information by Farmers Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 3950 Ohio Farmer Farm Journal Other Farm Method of Seeders Reeders Paper Seeder* Total Farmers Stratification raver Pareent Sorter Percent ftafcer Percent Sorter Perceni Sorter of Cattle Sold i i M a H y X - lie 31 65 11 23 6 12 k6 100 1 5 - 2 9 6 76 1 12 1 12 8 100 30 and ahore 2 15 6 k7 - _5 36 100 Total 39 57 18 26 12 17 69 100 Purpee* for feleh Cattle Id loaf for Slaighter 19 56 8 2k 6 18 33 100 Dairy far Slaughter 11 50 7 32 k 16 22 100 -93EZ- Other 9 65 3 a 2 lk _!k 100 Total 39 57 16 26 12 17 69 100 Fall or Part-time F m a r i Selling Cattle Fall 33 5k 17 27 12 19 62 100 r u n 6 66 1 _ } k ..... 7 100 Total 39 57 18 26 12 17 69 100 ige of A r m Operator Selling Cattle Under 35 5 i<6 k 36 2 16 U 100 35 - 5 k 20 53 10 26 8 a 38 100 55 and orer lk 7k k a 1 5 19 100 Unkaam 1 100 1 100 Total 39 57 1 6 26______1 2 17______6 9 100 TABLE A - 18 (Cant'd) Far* Papers Read Host for Livestock Market Information by Farmers Before Selling Cattle| by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 19 £0 Ohio Farmer Farm Journal Other Farm Method of Readers Readers Paper Readers Total Farners M-—-1- L_ Stratification Htnfeer Percent m m r Percent tanner Percent timber Percent ttacation of F a n Operator Sailing Cattle 8th grade or leas 20 65 6 26 3 9 31 100 High school 18 5k 8 23 8 23 3k 100 Collage 1 25 2 50 1 25 k 100 Total 39 57 18 26 12 17 69 100 Qeogrcphieal Area of 1 Ohio IsstarA 18 1(6 12 31 9 23 39 100 i Baatlra 21 .10 ... 6 20 3 10. ... 30 100 Total 39 57 IB 26 12 17 69 100 TABLE A - 19 Number of Sources of Livestock Market Information Farmers Used Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Farmers Using Farmers Using Farmers Using Farmers Using Method o f One Source _____ Two Sources ______Three Sources Four or More Sources T o ta l Farmers Stratification muEer Percent M u m r I 1 Percent Muber Percaai Undbff Percent Pusher of Hogs Sold innaally 1 - 2 9 25 22 1*2 37 28 21* 20 17 115 100 3 0 - 3 9 12 00 26 22 1*3 38 35 30 116 100 90 and above k 7 „ 41 21 15 2l*__ kB 62 100 Total ia u* 81 28 86 29 85 29 293 100 Type of Market igeooy \ Purchasing Hogs 1 Cooperative 9 12 16 21 21 28 29 39 75 100 922 Private P ...Ml ... 65 30 JP_ - 56 26 218 100 Total ia lk 81 28 86 29 85 29 293 100 Phil or Part-time ftrmsr* Selling Cattle Full 38 13 73 27 81 30 82 30 271* 100 16 8 26 16 Part } 1*2 ? . _J .. Jtt. 100 Total ia lit 81 28 86 29 85 29 293 100 Age of Farm Operator Selling Bogs Under 35 9 H* lit 23 11* 23 25 1*0 62 100 35 - & 1k 10 ia 30 ia 30 1*0 30 135 100 Si «ad o n e 18 19 27 28 31 33 IS 20 95 100 TTnlfitiwi 1 100 1 100 Total ia lit 81 26 86 29 85 29 293 100 TABLE A - 19 (Coat'd) Sorter of SoarcM of Livestock Market Infomation Farners Used Before Selling Hogs, 1 7 Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 19$ 0 Farners Using Farners Using Fsrwrs Using Farners Using Method of One Source Two Sources Three Sources Four or More Sources Total Farnars Stratification Sorter Percent Sorter Percent Sorter Percent Sorter Percent Sorter Percan Education of F a n Operator Selling Cattle 9th grade or leaa 2 7 1 8 ii6 3 2 » 3 1 28 2S 116 2 0 0 Migh aohool 1 2 1 0 3 0 26 27 23 it8 i a 1 1 7 1 0 0 College 2 6 5 17 lit W 9 30 30 1 0 0 Unknoen Total bX lit 6 1 28 8 6 29 85 29 293 1 0 0 Geographical Area of Ohio 623- Veetern 16 9 ItO 23 $ 3 3 1 6 5 3 7 1 7 it 1 0 0 Eastern 2? n l a - - J S 5 - ?? 27 2 0 17 1 1 9 1 0 0 Total i a l i t 8 1 28 86 29 85 29 293 1 0 0 TABLE A - 20 Nuaber of Sources of Livestock Market Infornation Farmers Used Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods cf Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Parsers Using Pernars Using Farners Using Farners Using Method of One Source Too Sources Three Sources Pour or More Sources Total Earners Stratification Munber Percent Nonber Percent mUMMT Percent Bu*er Percent Busbar Percent Jhabar of Cattle Sold Annually 1 - lk 1*2 28 52 3k k3 28 16 10 153 100 1 5 - 2 5 1 9 1 9 5 k6 k 36 11 100 30 end above 1 6 2 _ 16 300 _ 13 k 25 ... 9 56 Total 1*1* 2k 55 31 52 25 25 16 180 100 Purpoea fcr Ihieh Cattle Sold Beef for Slaughter 12 16 22 25 26 35 15 20 75 100 Dairy for Slanghter 21 32 15 25 18 27 8 12 66 100 Ottar U 28 A _36 _ 8 21 6 15 w 100 Total 1*1* .A.,. 55 31 52 25 25 16 180 100 Poll or Part-tine Earners Soiling Cattle Pall 36 22 k5 31 k9 31 26 16 160 100 8 6 _ - 100 Fart _ ko 30 - } V ? 15 20 Total kk 2k 55 31 52 25 25 16 180 100 Age of Parn Operator Selling Cattle Under 35 12 35 11 31 7 20 5 lk 35 100 35 - 5k IB 22 25 30 2k 25 36 15 83 100 55 and over lk 23 15 31 21 35 7 11 61 100 ttnknenu 1 100 1 100 Total kk 2k 55 31 $2 29 29 16 180 100 TABLE A - 20 (Cont'd) Humber of Sources of Livestock Market Information Farmers Used Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Farmers Using Farmers Using Farmers Using Farmers Using Method o f One Source Two Sources Three Sources Pour or More Sources T o ta l Farmers Stratification Butter Percent Rutter Percent lumber Percent B utter Percent B utter Pereen Muoaticn of Fans Operator Sailing C a ttle 8th grade or lees 21 25 27 32 23 27 13 16 81i 100 High eefaeol 18 23 2 k 30 22 28 15 19 79 100 College 5 29 k 2k 7 111 l 6 17 100 thdmom T o ta l 1* 2t» 55 31 52 29 29 16 180 100 Qeographieal Area of Ohio TS2- Western 2 k 25 22 23 29 31 20 21 95 100 Eastern 20 - 2k _ __33 39. ___ 23 27 9 10 <¥ 100 T o ta l 1* 2k 55 31 52 29 29 16 180 100 TABLE A - 21 Earners Sank of Radio as a Source of Livestock Market Information Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 19$0 Banked f i r s t Ranked Second Banked Third or Method o f In Importance In Ivortance Lomr in Importance T o tal i- - I 1 Stratification musor Munber Percent Ruber Percent Ruber Percent Jhufcer o f Bogs Sold Annually 1 - 2 9 75 62 17 16 92 100 3 0 - 6 9 62 62 13 13 5 5 100 100 90 and above ?> 86 6 U 1 1 57 __ 100 T o ta l 207 83 36 15 6 2 21)9 100 fo il or Part-tine Fs t m t s Selling Hoga M l W 81) 32 1It 5 2 235 100 282- P a rt f 6 k k 29 l 7 100 T o ta l 207 83 36 15 6 2 2b9 100 ige of Ik n Operator S e llin g Hogs Tfader 35 1)6 87 6 11 1 2 53 100 35 - 5k 133 80 28 17 5 3 166 100 55 and o rer 26 93 2 7 30 100 Unknoen T o ta l 207 83 36 15 6 2 21)9 100 TABLE A - 21 (Cont'd) Parsers Rank of Radio as a Source of Livestock Market Information Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1$$0 Ranked First Ranked Second Ranked Third or Method of In Importance la Importance Lonr in Importance Total Stratification Huter Percent Huber rtT66Bv Huber Percent Huaber Percent Education of F a n Operator Sailing Hogs 8th grade or less 101* 85 17 14 2 1 123 100 High school 79 do 16 16 h h 99 100 College 24 8? 3 11 27 100 Total 207 83 36 15 6 2 2li9 100 Oaographioal Area of Ohio Masters 126 85 18 12 h 3 m 100 M 2 - Eastern 81 80 18 18 2 2 101 100 Total 207 83 36 15 6 2 21& 100 TABLE A - 22 Farmers Rank of Radio aa a Source of Livestock Market Information Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Ranked First Ranked Second Ranked Third or Method of In Importance In Ivxartance Lover in Importance Total ffl eet-f tm Number Percent Muofcer Percent rfuaJUr Percent Vuaber Percent tafcer of Cettle Sold Annually 1 - 1 4 97 83 20 17 117 100 15 - 29 8 89 1 11 9 100 30 and abort 8 62 2 _ - 3 23 100 Total 113 81 23 17 3 2 139 100 Purpeee for Vhieh Cattle Sold Beef for Slaughter 47 75 13 21 3 4 63 100 Dairy for Slaughter 44 88 6 12 5o 100 Other 22 85 _ _.JL.. 15 26 100 Total 113 81 23 17 3 2 139 100 full at Part-time Farwra Selliag Cattle r u n 103 81 22 17 3 2 128 100 fart 10 1 9 11 100 Total 113 81 23 17 3 2 139 100 Age of D m Operator Selling Cattle M a r 35 24 80 5 17 1 3 30 100 3 5 - 5 4 68 78 17 20 2 2 87 100 55 ead orer 21 96 1 4 22 100 Oaknnai Total 113 81 23 17 3 2 139 100 TABLE A - 22 (Cont'd) Farmers Rank of Radio as a Source of Liras took Market Information. Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Hanked F irs t Ranked Second Hanked Third or Method o f In Iwortance In Importance Lower in Iwpartance T o ta l i & Stratification Rusher o Nuaber Percent Snifter Percent Mufter Percent Education of Fan Operator Selling Cattle 8th grade or leaa 53 82 12 18 65 100 High eohool 51 81» 8 13 2 3 61 100 College 9 69 3 23 1 8 13 100 T o ta l 113 81 23 17 3 2 139 100 Geographical Area of - 9 K Ohio Veetera 66 86 9 12 2 2 77 100 Eastern kl 76 . .. Ik... 23 1 1 62 100 T o ta l 113 61 23 17 3 2 139 100 TABLE A - 23 Farmers Rank of Dali/ Newspapers as a Source of Livestock Market Information Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Ranked F irs t Ranked Second Ranked Third Ranked Fourth Or Method o f In Iapartance In Importance In Importance Lover in Importance Total Stratification Member Percent Nuaber Percent K uber Percent tftaber Percent Hu£>er Percent Number o f Hogs Sold Annually 1 - 2 9 20 28 1*5 63 6 6 1 1 72 100 3 0 - 8 9 19 21 1*7 52 21 23 1* 1* 91 100 90 sod above ? 21 18 ia 10 -23.-. 7 J5. . 1*1* 100 T o ta l 1(8 23 UO 53 37 18 12 6 207 100 Full or Part-time Earners Selling Hogs F u ll 1*1 22 102 53 37 19 11 6 191 100 -9 *2 -9 F a rt 7 Uk__ 8 .50... 1 6 16 100 T o ta l 1*8 23 110 53 37 18 12 6 207 100 Age of fare Operator Selling Hogs Under 35 10 21* 21 50 7 17 1* 9 1*2 100 35-51* 36 25 77 53 21* 17 8 5 11*5 100 55 and over 2 10 12 6o 6 30 20 100 Unknown Total 1*8 23 120 53 37 18 12 6 207 300 TABLE A - 23 (Cont'd) Farmers Rank of Daily Newspapers as a Source of Livestock Market Information Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Ranked First Ranked Second Ranked Third Ranked Fourth or Method of In Inartance In Importance In Importance Lower in Importance Total Stratification Number Percent Humber Percent Barter Percent Barter Percent Number Percent Education of Farm Operator Selling Hogs 8 th grade or leas 20 21 1*9 52 20 21 6 6 95 100 High school 23 25 1)8 53 16 18 1) 1) 91 100 Collage *> 2k 13 62 1 5 2 9 21 100 Unknown Total 1*6 23 HO 53 37 18 12 6 207 100 Geographical Area of 1 * 2 * Ohio Western 27 20 66 52 27 20 11 8 133 100 Iwtern 21 28 ?? 10 1 1 71) 100 Total 1)8 23 u o 53 37 IB 12 6 207 300 TABLE A - 2k Farmers Rank of Daily Newspapers as & Source of Livestock Market Information Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Ranked F ir s t Ranked Second Ranked Third Ranked Fourth or Method of In Importance In Importance In Importance Lover in Importance T o tal Stratifioation Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Nbmiber Percent Number Percent timber of Cattle Sold Annually 1 - U i 21 21* 1*8 55 19 a 88 100 1 5 - 2 9 6 86 1 u* 7 100 30 and above 2 17 k 33 6 . 5o __ . 12 100 Total 23 21 58 51* 20 15 6 6 107 100 Purpose for lhieh C a ttle Sold Beef for Slaughter 9 18 21* 1*7 13 26 5 9 51 100 Dairy for Slaughter 9 26 20 57 5 lit 1 3 35 100 Other f u* 67 2 9 a 100 Total 23 21 58 51* 20 19 6 6 107 100 Full or Part~tine Farmers Selling Cattle Full 17 18 51* 57 18 19 6 6 95 100 Part 6 5o 1* - 33 _ 2 17 12 100 Total 23 21 58 51* 20 15 6 6 107 100 ige of Farm Operator Selling Cattle Under 35 2 12 10 61* 2 12 2 12 16 100 35-51* 18 25 38 52 13 18 1* 5 73 100 55 sad over 3 16 10 56 5 28 18 100 Pnknoon Total 23 a 58 51* 20 19 6 6 107 100 TABLE A - 2 h (Cont'd) Ftraars Rank of Daily Newspapers as a Source of Livestock Market Information Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Hanked First Ranked Second Ranked Third Ranked Fourth or Method of In Importance In Importance In Importance Lover in Importance Total Stratification Busbar Percent Busbar Percent “unber Percent Number Percenl Number Percent Education of Fara Operator Selling Cattle 8th grade or leee 13 27 26 53 8 16 2 li 1*9 100 High school 6 16 28 56 10 20 h 8 50 100 College 2 25 k 50 2 25 8 100 Unknown Total 23 21 58 ft 20 19 6 6 107 100 Geographical irea of •682* Ohio Western 11 18 35 59 9 15 5 8 60 100 Eastern 12 26 23 ii9 _ 11 _23 l 2 V 100 Total 23 21 58 51 20 19 6 6 107 100 TABLE A - 25 Farmer8 Rank of Telephone as a Source of L i v e s t o c k *arket Information Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Banked F irs t Ranked Second Ranked Third Ranked Fourth or Method o f In Importance In Importance In Importance Lover in Importance T o tal Stratification tartar Percent ta r te r Percent tarter Percent ta r te r Percent tarter Percent tartar o f Hogs Sold Anrrpal Ty 1 - 2 9 1* 21* 5 29 7 l a 1 6 17 1 0 0 3 0 - 8 9 7 1 8 2 0 5 1 1 1 28 1 3 39 1 0 0 90 and above 1 17 6 3 7 26 2 7 27 10 0 T o ta l 12 1i* 1*2 5 1 25 3 0 1* 5 83 100 ta ll or Part-time Farmer* Selling Hogs t a l l 12 15 l a 52 23 29 3 1* 79 1 0 0 P a rt 1 2 5 _ 2 5Q 1 . . . 8 - k 1 0 0 T o ta l 1 2 l i t 1*2 5 1 25 3 0 1* 5 83 1 0 0 ige of tarm Operator Selling Hogs Under 35 12 5 7 9 1*3 2 1 1 0 0 3 5 - 5 1 * 12 23 25 1*7 13 25 3 5 5 3 1 0 0 55 and over 5 56 3 3 3 1 i i 9 10 0 Onknoen Total 12 11* 1*2 51 25 30 ii 5 83 100 TABLE A - 25 (Cont'd) Farmers Rank of Telephone as a Source of Livestock Market Information Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Ranked First Ranked Second Ranked Third Ranked Fourth or Method of In Importance In Importance In Importance Lover in IflDorbanco Total 04 1 J3 Stratification Number Percent tfuober Percent Number Percent Number Percent Niuber o Education of Farm Operator Selling Hogs 8th grade or less 9 26 20 57 5 Ut 1 3 35 100 High school 3 8 18 1*9 Hi 38 2 5 37 100 College k 36 6 55 1 9 11 100 Unknown Total 12 Hi hZ 51 25 30 li 5 83 100 Geographical Area of Ohio Eastern 10 15 36 52 20 29 3 1* 69 100 Eastern 2 Jk_ . 6 5 _ 36 _ 1 7 Hi 100 Total 12 Hi 1*2 51 25 30 1* 5 83 100 TABLE A - 26 Faraer* Rank of Telephone as a Source of Livestock Uarket Information Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Banked F irs t Ranked Second Ranked Third Ranked Fourth or Method of In Importance In Importance In Ivortance Lover in Importance Total .... *** — ^ * H — [■■■ * » ■ T"" *■ » ■!!■ I I— ■■ ■ ^ ■ ■■■ I ■ —1- ■ I ■ I — ■— * 1.11 ... ■ - > . | .III, ~ Stratification Humber Percent Number Percent tfunber Percent Ntufcer Percent bunker Peroant Rueber of Cattle Sold Annually 1 - lit 2 33 1 17 2 33 1 17 6 100 1 5 - 2 9 30 and shore 1 2? 2 5P 1 ... 25 .. if 100 Total 3 30 3 30 1 20 2 20 10 100 Purpose Ar Which Cattle Sold z \ z Beef for Slaughter 3 30 3 30 2 20 2 20 10 100 Dairy for Slaughter Other Total 3 30 3 30 2 20 2 20 10 100 Full or Part-time Farmers Selling Cattle Full 2 10 3 60 5 100 2 2 Part 1 20 _ ko _i£ 5 100 Total 3 30 3 30 2 20 2 20 10 100 Age of h n Operator Selling Cattle Under 3 5 1 5o 1 5o 2 100 3 5 - 5 b 3 1*2 2 29 2 29 7 100 55 and over 1 100 1 100 Unknown Total 30______3 30______2 20______2______20______10 100 TABLE A - 26 (Cont'd) Farmers Rank of Telephone as & Source of Livestock Market Information Before Selling Cattle* by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Ranked First Ranked Second Ranked Third Ranked Fourth or Method of In Importance In Importance In Importance Loser in IiDartance Total Stratification Number Percent Number Percent jJumber Percent >tai>ar Percent Number Percent Education of Farm Operator Selling Cattle 8th grade car lees 3 100 3 100 High school 2 1(0 2 I# 1 20 5 100 College 1 $0 1 50 2 100 Unkncmn Total 3 30 3 30 2 20 2 20 10 100 Geographical Area of Ohio CM Western 1 17 1 17 2 33 6 100 Eastern 2 $0 2 ii 100 Total 3 30 3 30 2 20 2 20 10 100 TABLE A - 27 Farmers Rank of Farm Papers as a Source of Livestock Market Information Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Ranked F irs t Ranked Second Hanked Third Ranked Fourth or Method of In Importance In Importance In Importance Lcwer in Importance T o tal Stratification Muster Percent Rusher Percent Number Percent friu&er Percent Number Percent Number of Hoge Sold Annually 1 - 2 ? 1 2 13 28 21 1*5 12 25 1*7 100 3 0 - 8 9 3 1* 11 17 29 1*1* 23 35 66 100 90 and abore 2 6 16 ______5 15 1*1 25 35 _ 100 Total 6 k 30 20 66 1*3 50 33 152 100 f u l l or Part-time Farmers Sailing Hogs m i 6 k 28 19 63 1*1* 1*8 33 H*5 100 — a rtOcX 2 % 3 1*2 2 7 100 Total 6 k 30 20 66 k3 50 33 152 100 Age o f Farm Operator Selling Hoge Under 35 5 15 13 1*1 li* lii* 32 100 35 - 51a 6 6 22 22 ii3 1*2 31 30 102 100 55 and over 3 16 10 56 5 28 18 100 Uhknoen Total 6 li 3 0 2 0 66 43 50 33 152 200 TABLE A - 27 (Cont'd) Earners Rank of Farm Papers as a Source of Livestock Market Information Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Ranked First Ranked Second Ranked Third Ranked Fourth or Method of In Importance In Ivcrtanoe In Importance Lower in Importance Total Stratification WtuAcr Percent Rusher Percent Number Percent budber Percent Number Percent Education of Farm Operator Selling Hogs 8th grade or 1m s 3 5 10 16 31 30 18 29 62 100 High school 2 3 16 22 26 36 28 39 72 100 Collage 1 6 k 22 9 50 li 22 18 100 Unknon Total 6 ii 30 20 66 li3 50 33 152 100 Geographical Area of -9*2- Ohio Western li li Hi Hi 16 1*6 35 36 98 100 Eastern __ 16 _ 28 100 2 li 30 a 36 . 15 ft Total 6 li 30 20 66 Ii3 5o 33 152 100 TABLE A - 23 Farmers Rank of Farm Papers as a Source of Livestock Market Information Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 19$0 Ranked First Ranked Second Ranked Third Ranked Fourth or Method of In Importance In Im>ortance In Importance Loser in Importance Total Stratification Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number of Cattle Sold inrmally 1 - H 6 12 12 25 18 38 12 25 18 100 1 5 - 2 9 1 12 1 50 3 38 8 100 30 and above 2 2 9 70 13 100 Total S 12 15 22 31 1*5 15 21 69 100 Purpose for Ihich Cattle Sold Beef for Slaughter $ 7 21 UU 8 21 31 100 Dairy for Slaughter 2 9 1 18 11 5o 5 23 22 100 Other 1 8 1 31 6 1* 2 15 13 100 Total 8 12 15 22 31 15 15 21 69 100 Full or Part-time Farmers Selling Cattle FULL 2 29 1* 57 l 7 100 Part 8 12 y__ 21 27 ¥* H _2l_ 62 100 Total 8 12 15 22 31 15 15 21 69 100 ige of Farm Operator Selling Cattle Under 35 1 9 2 19 1 36 1 36 11 100 35 - 5 1 7 H 11 23 22 1*5 9 18 19 100 55 and over 2 22 5 56 2 22 9 100 Unknown ___ Total 8 ~ 12 15 22 31 1*5 15 21 69 100 TABLE A - 28 (Cont'd) Farmers Rank of Farm Papers as a Source of Livestock Market Information Before Selling Cattle, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Ranked First Ranked Second Ranked Third Ranked Fourth or Method of In Jjportance In Importance In Importance Lover in Importance Total Stratification Aurter Percent Humber Percent Jfnsber Percent riudber Percent Nuaber Percent Education of Farm Operator Selling Cattle 8th grade or less k 13 3 10 18 58 6 19 31 100 High echool 3 9 11 32 11 32 9 27 3k 100 College 1 25 1 25 2 50 k 100 Tfnlnwn T o ta l 8 12 35 22 31 \6 15 21 69 100 7 4 2 Geographical Area of Ohio Western k 10 5 13 21 $k 9 23 39 100 Eastern k 13 10 33 10 33 6 a 30 100 Total 8 12 1$ 22 31 ii5 15 21 69 100 TABLE A - 29 Farmers Rank of Miscellaneous Sources of Livestock Market Information Before Selling HogSj Ohio, 1$$0 Ranked f i r s t Ranked Second Ranked Third Ranked Fourth or Total farmers Sources o f In Importance In teartanoe In Importance Lower in Importance Using Each Information Vtufcer Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Veterans or Vocational Agriculture teacher 0 0 1 8 1 8 11 8it 13 100 Collage of Agriculture 0 0 2 33 1 17 3 5o 6 100 Sohio Ren letter 0 0 8 16 19 38 23 1* 50 100 Business Service Reports 2 3 lit 5 23 12 51t 22 100 w 9 *■ CD Other farmers 6 75 0 0 2 25 0 0 8 100 1 Local Buyer 1 6 8 U7 5 29 3 18 17 100 Attending Auction Sales 5 k 2 k 33 l 8 2 17 12 100 TABLE A - 30 Farmers Rank of Miscellaneous Sources of Livestock Market Infomatlon Before Selling Cattle, Ohio, 1?£0 Ranked First Ranked Second Ranked Third Ranked Fourth or Total Farmers Sources of In Importance In Ivortanoe In Importance Lover in Importance Using Each Information Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Nusfcer Fercent Rusher Fercent Veterans or Vocational Agricultural teacher 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 College of Agriculture 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 1 100 Sohio Hews Letter 0 0 2 15 8 62 3 23 13 100 i Business Service i Reports 1 8 6 * 3 23 3 23 13 100 Othor Farmers k 57 1 H a 2 29 0 0 7 100 Local Buyer 15 31 21 Ii3 9 18 k 8 k$ 100 Attending Auction CO CM Sales 10 56 5 1 5 2 11 18 100 TABLE A - 31 Farmers Opinions Relating to a Radio Broadcast of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f Desire a Do Not Desire a Broadcast Stratification Broadcast Farmers Non - Farmers* T o ta l Number P ercent** Nusber Percent** Number Percent Number Percent Number o f Hogs Sold Annually 1 - 2 9 108 8b 21 16 129 100 3 0 - 8 9 Hit 93 9 7 123 100 90 and above 61 98 1 2 62 100 Mona 63 79 37 100 T o ta l ia? 6b 110 36 129 20 656** 100 Number of Cattle Sold In rn ia lly 1 - lit 191 88 27 12 218 100 35-29 15 9b 1 6 16 300 30 and above 35 9b 1 6 16 100 Mono 396 71 81 29 277 300 T o ta l b!7 6b 130 16 129 20 656** 300 Purpose for Which Cattle Sold Beef far Slaughter 78 95 b 5 82 100 Dairy for Slaughter 92 85 16 15 108 300 Other 52 8b 10 16 62 100 None __ i?5 71 8o 29 275 100 T o ta l b!7 6b 110 16 129 20 656** 100 TABLE A - 31 (Cont'd) Far mere Opinions Relating to a Radio Broadcast of Livestock Market News, b7 Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Desire a Do Not Desire a Broadcast Stratification Broadcast Farmers Non - Farmers* Total Number Percent** Ntufeer TFercent**' Nuifeer Fercent &ui>er Pe r cent Full or Part-time Farmer Foil 3 6 5 81* 7 1 1 6 1*36 10 0 Fart 5 2 5 7 39 _ 1*3_____ . 9.1 1 0 0 Total 1*17 61* 1 1 0 16 1 2 9 20 6 5 6 * * 10 0 Age of turn Operator Under 3 5 88 85 1 6 15 101* 10 0 3 5 - f t 1 5 1 82 1*2 1 8 2 3 3 1 0 0 55 and over 13 7 78 liO 22 177 1 0 0 Unknown 1 8 1 2 9.2 .13 1 0 0 Total 1*17 61* 1 1 0 1 6 12 9 20 6 5 6 * * 1 0 0 Education of Farm Operator 8 th grade or less 201* 79 5 2 a 256 1 0 0 High school 17 2 82 39 1 8 21 1 10 0 College 1*1 85 7 1 5 1*8 1 0 0 Unknown 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 Total 1*17 61* 110 16 129 20 656** 100 TABLE A - 31 (Cont'd) Farmers Opinions Relating to a Radio Broadcast of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Desire a Do Not Desire a Broadcast Stratification Broadcast Farmers Nan - Farmers* Total 1 X, I S3 0 ttuier i,ercentwr Number Percent Mufcer Percent Geographical Area of Ohio Western 21*2 82 55 18 296 100 Kast*rn 175 76 55 _ 2k ____ 229 100 Total 10-7 61i 110 16 129 20 656** 100 * According to the U* S. Census of Agriculture these people are farmers but they considered themselves non- farmers and consequently were not asked for an opinion concerning this question# ** Percentages, other than those in the total line, were calculated from 527> the nuafcer who considered them- 252 i selves farmers# * TAEI.fr A - 32 Number of Daily Livestock Market News Broadcasts Desired by Farmers from Their Favorite Radio Station, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f None One Two Three or More Total Stratification Humber Percent Number Percent %aber Fercent Number Percent Number Percen Number of Hogs Sold Annual iy 1 - 2 9 1*5 1*2 1*9 1*5 H* 13 108 100 3 0 - 8 9 35 31 65 57 H* 12 111* 100 90 and above 22 36 31 51 8 13 61 100 None 3 2 72 . 51* 1*3 32 _ 16 12 100 T o ta l 3 1 171* 1*2 188 1*5 52 12 1*17 100 Number of Cattle Sold Aiwrnally 1 - lit 92 1*8 79 1*1 20 11 191 100 1 5 - 2 9 7 1*7 6 1*0 2 13 15 100 30 and above 8 51* 5 33 2 13 15 100 None 1 100 1 100 T o ta l 107 1*8 90 1*1 25 u 222 100 Purpose for Which Cattle Sold Beef for Slaughter 37 1*7 38 1*9 3 1* 78 100 Dairy far Slaughter 1*1 1*5 37 1*0 H* 15 92 100 Other 29 ._ 5 6 _ 29 8 __ _ 52 100 To tal 107 1*8 90 1*1 25 11 222 100 TABLL A - 32 Number of Daily Livestock Market News Broadcasts Desired by Farmers from Their Favorite Radio Station, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f None One Two Three or More Total ma._-.-1-- - Stratification Number Percent wJMDBC Percent Number Percent Number Percent M a r Percent Somber o f Hoge Sold Annually 1 - 2 9 1*5 1*2 1*9 1*5 11* 13 108 100 3 0 - 8 9 35 31 65 57 lit 12 114 100 90 and above 22 36 31 51 8 13 61 100 None 3 2 72 -__A 1*3 .3 2 16 12 100 T o ta l 3 1 17Ja 1*2 188 1*5 52 12 kl7 100 Number o f C a ttle A Sold Annually g 1 - i l l 92 1*8 79 1*1 20 11 191 100 • IS - 29 7 1*7 6 1*0 2 13 15 100 30 tad abort 8 51* 5 33 2 13 05 100 Mono 1 100 1 100 T o ta l 107 CD 90 1*1 25 u 222 100 Purpose for Which Cattle Sold Beef for Slaughter 37 1*7 38 1*9 3 1* 78 100 Dairy for Slaughter l i l 1*5 37 1*0 11* 15 92 100 Other 29 . 5 6 ___ 15 29 8 15 52 100 T o tal 107 1*8 90 ia 25 11 222 100 TABLE A - 32 (Cont'd) Number of Daily Livestock Market News Broadcasts Desired by Farmers from Their Favorite Radio Station, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of None One Two Three or More Total Stratification Number Percent Number tarcent Humber fercent Number Percent Number Percent Pull or Part-time Farmer Pull 1 1 11*7 1*0 170 1*7 1*7 12 365 100 Part 2 3 27 5.2 18 ... 35___ 5 10 52 100 Total 3 1 171* 1*2 188 1*5 52 12 1*17 100 Age of Puna Operator Under 35 32 36 1*2 1*8 11* 16 88 100 3 5 -5 1 * 1 1 01* 1*1* 83 1*3 23 12 191 100 55 and over 2 2 58 1*2 62 1*5 15 11 137 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total 3 1 171* 1*2 188 1*5 52 12 1*17 100 $ Education of Farm Operator 8th grade or lees 3 1 91* 1*6 85 1*2 22 11 201* 100 High school 63 37 87 51 22 12 172 100 College 17 1*2 16 39 8 19 1*1 100 Unknown Total 3 1 171* 1*2 188 1*5 52 12 1*17 100 Geographical Area of Ohio Western 91 38 115 1*8 36 u* 21*2 100 16 Eastern 3 2 83 1*7 ...... 72.... 1*2 9 . 175. 100 Total 3 1 171* 1*2 188 1*5 52 12 1*17 100 TABLE A - 33 Tine of Day Farmers Indicated They Would Usually Listen to a Radio Broadcast of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f T o ta l Stratification E arly Morning Mid Morning Noon Afternoon Evening Farmers Nuaber Percent Number Percent Number Percent Nuaber Percent Nusber Percent Nusber of Hogs Sold Annually 1 - 2 ? 1*6 1*3 18 17 82 76 1 1 17 16 108 3 0 - 8 9 1*2 37 1*1* 39 81* 71* 13 11 H i* 90 and above IS 30 21 33 52 85 1 1 6 10 61 None 16 12 88 66 21 16 U3 32 V h T o ta l U*9 36 99 21* 306 73 2 1 57 li* 1*17 Number o f C a ttle Sold Annually -99?- 1 - 11* 66 35 38 20 137 72 22 12 191 IS - 29 S 33 3 20 11 73 2 13 15 30 and above 6 llO 1* 27 13 87 1* 27 15 None 1 100 1 100 1 T o ta l 77 35 1(6 21 162 73 28 13 222 Purpose for Ihich Cattle Sold Beef fo r Slaughter 21 27 21* 31 56 72 10 13 78 D airy fo r Slaughter 31* 37 17 19 71 77 9 10 92 Other 22 1*2 f 10 35 67 9 17 52 T o ta l 77 35 1*6 21 162 73 28 13 222 TABLE A - 33 (Cont'd) Time of Day Farmers Indicated They Would Usually Listen to & Radio Broadcast of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 19$0 Method of Total Stratification Early Morning Mid Morning Noon Afternoon Evening Farmer* Number Percent number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Full or Part-time Farmer 3 £ CM F u ll 136 37 86 2k 77 2 1 50 11* 365 Part 13 25 11 21 50 7 H* ?2 Total li# 36 99 2k 306 73 2 1 57 li* 1*17 Age of Farm Operator Under 35 31 35 23 26 67 76 1 1 13 15 88 3 5 - f t 68 36 53 28 UjO 73 27 11* 191 55 and over 50 37 22 16 98 72 1 1 17 13 137 Unknoen 1 100 1 100 1 T o ta l li# 36 99 21* 306 73 2 1 57 H* 1*17 Education of Farm Operator 8th grade or less# 33 1*7 23 11*8 73 1 1 27 13 201* High echool 61* 37 39 23 332 77 1 1 22 13 172 College 18 1*1* 13 32 26 63 8 20 1*1 Unknown T o ta l l i # 36 99 21* 306 73 2 1 57 11* 1*17 Geographical Area o f Ohio Western 90 37 78 32 196 81 1 1 1*2 17 21*2 Eastern j>9 31* a 12 110 6a _ _ _ 1 1_ 15 9 17? T o ta l 11# 36 99 21* 306 73 2 1 57 11* 1*17 TABLE A - 3U Number of Times During the Day Farmers Indicated They Would Usually Listen to a Radio Broadcast of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f None One Two Three or More T o ta l Stratification Mumper Percent Number Percent Number Percent tfusber Percent Nuaber Percent Number o f Hogs Sold Aflimally 1 - 2 9 1 1 58 51* Ii3 1*0 6 5 108 100 3 0 - 8 9 1* 3 1*7 la 53 1*7 10 9 111* 100 90 and above 27 i*i* 29 1*8 5 8 61 100 Sana 1k 10 7? 5 5 - 38 28 9 7 131* 100 T o ta l 19 5 209 U9 163 39 30 7 1*17 100 Number o f C a ttle - 2 Sold Annually 1 - 1 1 * 1* 7 96 51 73 38 8 1* 191 100 ■19 1 5 - 2 9 9 60 6 1*0 15 100 30 and above 7 1*6 1* 27 1* 27 15 100 None I 100 l 100 T o ta l ll* 6 112 51 81* 38 12 5 222 100 Purpose for lhich Cattle Sold Beef fo r Slaughter 3 3 58 21* 31 6 8 78 100 D airy fo r Slaughter 5 5 1*2 1*6 1*3 1*7 2 2 92 100 Other 6 12 25 1*8 17 33 1* 7 52 100 T o ta l lit 6 112 51 81* 38 12 5 222 100 TABLE A - 31* (Cont'd) Number of Times During the Day Farmers Indicated They Would Usually Listen to a Radio Broadcast of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f None One Two Three or More T o tal Stratification Number Percent Number Percent Nuaber Percent Number Percent Number Percent Full or Part-time Farmer Fall 11 3 175 1*8 150 1*1 29 8 365 100 Part 8 JO _ 1 2 . _52_ 100 -« — _ 13 25 Total 19 5 205 1*9 163 39 30 7 1*17 100 Age of Farm Operator Under 35 1 1 1*5 51 35 1*0 7 8 88 100 35 - 51* 11 5 82 1*3 85 1*5 13 7 191 100 55 and over 7 5 78 57 1*2 31 10 7 137 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total 5 205 1*9 163 30 7 1*17 100 ?? -J*. - Education of Farm Operator 8th grade or less 11 5 107 53 73 36 13 6 201* 100 High school 8 5 83 1*8 65 30 16 9 172 100 College 15 37 25 61 1 2 1*1 100 Total IS 5 205 1*9 163 39 30 7 i|17 100 Geographical Area of Ohio Western 3 l 91 38 123 51 25 10 21*2 100 Eastern 16 9 111* *S_- 1*0 _ 23_... ? 3 175 100 Total 19 5 205 1*9 163 39 30 7 1*17 100 TABLE A - 3$ Nuaber of Livestock Markets Farmers Want Reported in a Radio Broadcast of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of One Two Three Four or Mare No Opinion Total Stratification fluabsr Percent jftafrcr Percent Nuaber Percent Number Percent Ntter Percent Number Percent Nuaber of Hogs Sold Annually 1 - 2 9 kb 1*2 36 33 16 15 5 5 5 5 108 100 3 0 - 8 9 3h 30 ii3 38 a 18 9 8 7 6 111* 100 90 and above 13 22 a 31* a 31* 5 8 1 2 61 100 None 61 36 27 21* 18 6 1* 7 ? 100 Total 151* 37 136 32 82 20 25 6 20 5 1*17 100 Nuaber of Cattle Sold Annually 1 - 11* 71 37 58 30 38 20 11 6 13 7 191 100 1 5 -2 9 7 1*7 3 20 1* 27 1 6 15 100 30 and above 3 20 7 I16 3 20 1 7 1 7 15 100 Hone 1 100 1 100 Total 81 36 68 31 1*6 21 13 6 11* 6 222 100 Purpose for Vhich Cattle Sold Beef for Slaughter 22 28 30 39 19 21* 5 6 2 3 78 100 Dairy for Slaughter 35 38 29 32 15 16 1* 1* 9 10 92 100 Other 2lf 1*6 ? 17 12 23 1* 8 3 6 52 100 bal 81 36 68 31 1*6 a 13 6 H* 6 222 100 TABLE A - 35 (Cont'd) Number of Livestock Markets Faroers Want Reported in a Radio Broadcast of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio,• 1950 Method of One Two Three Four ar More No Opinion Total I 1 Number Percent kuJaer Percent tfuober Percent Nuaber Percent Nuaber Percent Nu^er Percan- Full or Part-tlM Farmer Full 133 37 121 33 72 20 20 5 19 5 365 100 Part 21 1*1 29 10 V ? 10 1 1 52 100 CM Total 1ft P _ 136 82 20 2? 6 20 ? 1*17 100 Ago of Far* Operator M a r 3$ 32 37 28 32 18 20 8 9 2 2 88 100 35- a 71* 39 57 30 37 13 7 10 5 191 100 55 nd onr j* 35 51 37 26 1$ 1* 3 8 6 137 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total 1ft __ 2Z. 136 32 82 20 2?, 6 20 5 1*17 100 Education of Far* Operator 8th grad* or laaa 83 i»i 67 33 33 16 7 3 11* 7 201* 100 High school 63 37 51* 31 39 23 12 7 1* 2 172 100 College 8 19 15 37 10 21* 6 15 2 5 1*1 100 Unknown Total 136 32 82 20 25 6 20 1*17 100 1ft ...JP - ? Geographical At m of Ohio Western 71* 31 96 1*0 kZ 11 12 $ 18 7 21*2 100 Easton 80 1*6 lfl 23 1*0 23 13 7 2 1 17$ 100 Total______151* 37 136 32 82 20 2$ 6 20 5 1*17 100 TABLE A - 36 Livestock Markets Fanners Want Reported in a Radio Broadcast of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Chicago Cleveland Cincinnati Coluriws Local Other Total Stratification No* Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No., Percent Farears Nuaber of Hogs Sold Annually 1 - 2 9 25 23 37 3lt 26 2b 27 25 b5 b2 26 2b 108 3 0 - 8 9 31 27 39 3b 37 32 b2 37 b0 35 bb 39 lib 90 and above 32 53 11 18 26 b3 30 h$ 16 26 2b 39 61 lone b6 P 23 _ _ 33 __ * 27 ?? 2? 3b 39 29 13b Total U 9 29 131 31 125 30 132 32 lb7 35 133 32 bl7 Nuaber of Cattle Sold Anrmally 1 - lit 50 26 60 31 5b 28 52 27 72 38 65 3b 191 3 5 - 2 9 7 b7 b 27 b 27 7 b7 b 27 2 13 15 30 and above 9 60 6 bO 7 b7 b 27 1 7 2 13 15 None 1 100 1 100 l Total 67 30 70 32 66 30 63 28 77 35 69 31 222 Purpose fear Which Cattle Sold Beef for Slaughter 32 bl 32 bl 26 33 2b 31 26 33 21 27 78 Dairy for Slaughter 18 20 19 21 21 23 28 30 3b 37 35 38 92 Other 17 33 19 V 19 37 11 21 17 33 13 9 52 Total 67 30 70 32 66 30 63 28 77 35 6? 31 222 TABLE A - 36 (Cont’d) Livestock Markets Farmers Want Reported in a Radio Broadcast of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Chicago Cleveland Cincinnati Columbus Local Other Total Stratification So, Ear cent Ko« Percent No," Percent No# Percent No, Percent Ho, Percent Farmers Full or Part-time Farmer Full 107 29 108 30 112 31 121 33 122 33 H B 32 365 Part 12 23 23 1*1* 13 25 11 21 25 1*8 15 29_____ g2_ Total______119 29 131 31 125 30 132 32 11*7 35 133 32 1*17 Age of Farm Operator Under 35 32 36 27 31 17 19 31 35 37 1*2 31* 39 88 35-5k 56 29 55 29 57 30 62 33 71 37 57 30 191 55 and over 30 22 1*8 35 51 37 39 29 38 28 1*2 31 137 N Unknown l 100 1 100 1 100 1 s 1 Total 119 2? 131 31 12? 132 32 11*7 35 133 32 1*17 Education of Farm Operator 8th grade or lees 50 25 57 28 68 33 50 25 75 37 50 25 201* High school 51 30 56 31* 1*1 21* 62 36 61* 37 68 U0 172 Collage 181*1*16 39 16 39 201*9 8 20 15 37 1*1 TTnlmner* ^ Total II? 2$ 131 31 12$ 30 132 32 lk? 35 133 32 417 Geographical Area of Ohio VMtarn 75 31 lt7 19 9li 39 63 26 68 26 95 39 2i|2 bitarn lilt 25 Bit b6 31 18 6? 39 79 Ii5 38 22 175 Total______119 29 131 31 125 30 132 32 Ui7 35 133 32 Id7 TABLE A - 37 Farmers Reasons for Selecting Particular Markets for Ihich a Report is Desired in a Radio Broadcast of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Local Prices Quoted Desire Market Method of Is Present or Based on Market Large Presently Total Stratification Livestock Market Presently Reported Market Reported Other Farmers Ntofcer Percent Nuaber Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Nuaber of Hoga Sold Annually 1 - 2 9 Ii3 10 62 57 6 6 7 7 1 1 108 3 0 - 8 9 18 12 70 61 9 8 1 1 1 1 H i 90 and above 25 11 35 57 6 10 2 3 61 None V J .7 _ _ _ . 86 61 k 3 7 5 5 1 151 Total 165 10 253 61 25 6 15 1 12 3 H 7 Nuaber of Cattle i Sold Annually I 1-lit 83 11 119 62 7 1 1 2 1 2 191 1 1 5 - 2 9 5 33 9 60 3 20 15 30 and above 9 60 9 60 1 7 1 7 15 None 1 100 1 Total 97 11 137 62 11 5 5 2 5 2 222 Purpose for Vhlch Cattle Sold Beef for Slaughter 10 51 19 63 1 5 1 1 2 3 78 Dairy for Slaughter 32 35 18 52 1 1 1 1 2 2 92 Other 25 18 77 } 6 3 6 1 2 ?2 Total 97 11 137 62 11 5 5 2 5 2 222 TAELE A - 37 (Cont'd) Firmere Reasons for Selecting Particular Markets for Which a Report is Desired in a Radio Broadcast of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Local Prices Quoted Desire Market Method of Is Present or Based on Market Large Presently Total Stratification Livestock Market Presently Reported Market Reported Other Farmers Number Percent Humber Percent Number Percent Number Percent Nuaber Percent Pull or Part-time Farmer Full Uf3 39 * CM 5 60 22 6 15 It 10 3 365 Part 22 1*2 69 3___ 6 2 _J*. ?2 Total 165 1*0 2ft 61 25 6 15 1* 12 2 1*17 Age of Farm Opvatar Under 35 39 1*1* 1*9 56 5 6 1* 5 2 2 88 35-51* 66 36 129 66 u 6 5 3 1* 2 191 A 55 *nd over 56 1*2 73 53 9 7 6 1* 6 1* 137 i Unknown 2 200 1 1 Total 165 1*0 2?? 61 25 6 1* 12 ? 1*17 Education of Firm Operator 6th grade or Is m 83 1*1 107 53 13 6 10 5 7 3 201* High school 68 bp 121 70 9 5 5 3 1* 2 172 College li* 31* 25 60 3 7 1 2 1*1 Unknown Total 165 1*0 253 61 25 6 1* 12 3 1*17 Geographical Area of Ohio Testern 69 29 11*1* 60 16 7 11 5 10 1* 21*2 Eastern 96 55 109 62 9 5 1* 2 2 1 17? Total 165 i*o 61 6 15 1* 12 1*17 2 5 ? 25 - J TABLE A - 38 Method of Quoting Livestock Prices Desired by Farmers in a Radio Broadcast of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratifications, Ohio, 19^0 Range of Range of Prices Prices by by Grade and Top Method of Range of Grade and Price for Ihich Top Price Stratification Prices by Top Price Most of Grade Price by No Grades by Grade Is Selling frade Opinion Total No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No,t Psrcsit No,> Percent No. Percent No. Percen Niatoer of Hogs Sold Annually 1 - 2 9 67 62 19 18 9 8 8 7 3 3 2 2 108 100 3 0 -8 9 67 59 23 20 8 7 9 8 7 6 lilt 100 90 and above 33 Sk 13 21 3 5 10 17 2 3 61 100 None 78 58 21 16 21 16 It 3 7 5 3 2 13lt 100 Total 2i£ 59 76 18 10 31 7 19 5 5 1 i*17 100 Nuaber of Cattle Bold Annually 1 - lit 121 63 35 18 20 11 9 5 It 2 2 1 191 100 1 5 - 2 9 9 60 1 7 It 26 1 7 15 100 30 and above 8 53 It 26 1 7 1 7 1 7 15 100 None 1 100 1 100 Total 63 1*0 18 a 9 Ht 6 6 3 2 1 222 100 Purpose for Ihich Cattle Sold Beef for Slaughter 50 62* Ut 18 7 9 6 8 1 1 78 100 Dairy for Slaughter 60 65 19 21 6 7 3 3 2 2 2 2 92 100 Other 2? P 7 13 8 «— 5 10 3 6 52 100 Total 139 6? 1*0 18 21 9 lit 6 6 3 2 1 222 100 TABLE A - 33 (Cont'd) Method of Quoting Livestock Prices Desired by Farmers in a Radio Broadcast of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 19$Q Range of Range of Prices Prices by by Grade and Top Method of Range of Grade and Price for Ihich Top Price Stratification FTices by Top Price Most of Grade Price by No Grade by Grade Is Selling Only Grade Opinion Total Ho,> Percent Mo. Percent Mo. Percent Mo,i Psrcdnt Mo,► Percent Mo. Percent No. Percent Full or Part-time Farmer Foil 218 60 6k 18 30 8 30 8 18 5 5 1 365 100 Fart 27 52 12 2? 11 21 1 2 1 2 52 100 Total » 76 18 111 10 31 7 19 5 5 1 ia7 100 Age of Farm Operator 992 Under 35 6k 73 13 15 5 6 2 2 li li 88 100 35 - ft 106 55 ill 22 18 9 19 10 7 li 191 100 55 ami over 75 55 22 16 18 13 10 7 7 5 5 li 137 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total 76 18 10 1 100 59 111 31 - I - 19 5 5 ia7 Education of Farm Operator 8th grade or leea 116 57 29 Ik 28 Hi 17 8 9 li 5 3 20l| 100 High school 103 60 35 20 11 6 13 8 10 6 172 100 College 26 6k 12 29 2 5 1 2 ia 100 Unknown Total P 76 18 ia 10 31 7 19 5 1 ia? 100 TABLE A - 38 ( Cont*a) Method of Quoting Livestock Prices Desired by Farmers in a Radio Broadcast of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1?50 Range o f Range o f Prices Prices by by Grade and Top Method o f Range o f Grade and P rice fo r Which Top Price Stratification Prices by Top Price Most of Grade Price by No Grades by Grade Is S e llin g Only Grades Opinion T o tal 1 1 £ • No* {>ercenl No* Percent No,, Percent No,» Percent No* Percent No* Percent Geographical Area o f Ohio Western U*2 58 Ifi 17 19 8 23 9 16 6 2 2 21*2 100 Eastern 10^ j>9 36 20 22 12 8 J._ 3 2 2___ 175 100 Total 2h5 59 76 18 ia 10 31 7 19 5 5 1 ia7 ioo l 9 Z r TABLE A — jy Farmers Opinion Concerned With Quoting Actual Prices and Receipts Versus Trends of Prices and Receipts in Livestock Market News Broadcast, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Actual Prices and Actual Prices Actual Receipts Method o f and Actual for Some Markets, Stratification Receipts for Trends far Other Trends fo r A ll Markets Markets A ll Markets Ho Opinion T o tal Nuaber Percent Nuaber Percent Nuaber Percent Nuaber Percent Number Percent Nuaber o f Hogs Sold Annually 1 - 2 9 75 69 11 10 it it 18 17 108 100 3 0 - 8 9 66 58 21 19 13 U Ut 12 H it 100 90 and abort 35 57 15 25 8 13 3 5 61 100 Hone 80 60 15 11 17 13 22 16 --J3k_ 100 T o ta l 256 61 62 15 ia 10 57 lit itl7 100 Ifcrtar of Cattle Sold Annually 1 - lit 125 66 27 lit 18 9 21 11 191 100 1 5 - 2 9 10 67 3 20 2 13 15 100 30 and abort 11 73 1 7 3 20 15 100 Hone 1 100 1 100 T o tal Ut7 66 31 lit 21 10 23 10 222 100 Purpose for Ihich Cattle Sold Beef fo r Slaughter 55 70 13 17 it 5 6 8 78 100 D airy fo r Slaughter 52 57 lit 15 13 lit 13 lit 92 100 8 8 100 Other __ P 76 it 8 it it 52 T o ta l ih7 66 31 lit 21 10 23 10 222 100 i. Abli£« A — \ \ j v i i v u / Farmers Opinion Concerned With Quoting Actual Prices and Receipts Versus Trends oi Prices and Receipts in Livestock Market Neve Broadcast, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Actual Prices and Actual Price* Actual Receipts Method of and Actual for Some Markets, Stratification Receipts for Trends for Other Trends for All Markets Markets All Markets No Opinion Total Nuaber Percent Humber Percent Nuaber Percent dumber Percent Nuaber Percent Full or Part-time Farmer A CM IA 3 S Fall CM 61 54 15 37 10 51 14 100 Fart 8 10 6 11 100 64 15 ? 9 6 2 Total 2<* 61 62 15 42 10 57 14 417 100 Age of farm Operator Under 35 53 60 15 17 12 14 8 9 88 100 3 5 - 5 4 114 60 31 16 17 9 29 15 191 100 55 and orer 89 65 16 12 12 9 20 14 137 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total 256 61 62 15 42 10 57 14 417 100 Education of Farm Operator 8th grade or Leas 134 66 19 9 13 6 38 19 204 100 High school 103 60 29 17 22 13 18 10 172 100 College 19 47 14 34 7 17 1 2 41 100 Unknown Total 256 61 62 15 42 10 57 14 417 100 TABLE A - 39 (Cont'd) Farmers Opinion Concerned With Quoting Actual Prices and Receipts Versus Trends of Prices and Receipts in Livestock Market News Broadcast, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Actual Prices and Actual Prices Actual Receipts Method of and Actual for Some Markets, Stratification Receipts for Trends far Other Trends for All Markets Markets All Markets No Opinion Total - 1-- Nimher Percent JnusDQtrki Percent lusher Percent ifuaber Percent Ifcier Percent Geographical Area of Ohio Western u s is 16 19 30 13 ll7 19 2l|2 100 Eastern 137 78 16 9 12 7 10 6 175 100 Total 256 61 62 15 ia 10 57 U* 1*17 100 TABLE A - 1(0 Relative Importance of Specific Items of Livestock Market Information Farmers Want in a Radio Broadcast of Livestock Market Neva, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Receipt Receipt Trend Price Trend Summary Statement Stratification Nujwer Percent Number Percent Nuaber Percent Nuaber Percent Total Nuaber of Hogs Sold Annually 1 - 2 9 77 71 82 76 98 91 53 Ii9 108 3 0 - 8 9 9k 62 101 91 HI 97 79 69 111* 90 and above 55 90 5k 89 55 90 1*6 75 61 None n 6 9 _____ 100 75 _ 108 81 71 S3 .... l?k Total 318 76 31*0 82 372 89 21*9 60 1*17 Nuaber of Cattle • Sold Annually 1 - u liO 75 153 80 168 88 105 55 191 I5 - 2 9 12 80 12 80 11 73 8 53 15 30 and above 13 87 H* 93 Ut 93 13 87 15 None 1 100 1 100 1 100 l Total 169 76 180 81 193 87 127 57 222 Purpose for Which Cattle Sold Beef for Slaughter 63 81 65 83 70 90 1*7 60 78 Daily for Slaughter 65 71 76 83 80 87 51* 59 92 Other 78 39 75 1*3 ... 83 26 50 52 Total 169 76 180 81 193 •7 127 57 222 Relative Importance of Specific Items of Livestock Market Information Farmers Want in a Radio Broadcast of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Receipt Receipt Trend Price Trend Summary Statement Stratification Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total Full or Part-time Farmer Full 263 78 301 62 326 89 216 59 365 Fart ?? 67 35 75 66 -89 33 66 52 Total 318 76 360 82 372 89 269 60 617 Age of Farm Operator Under 35 71 81 75 85 82 93 61 69 88 3 5 - 5 1 1 li|6 76 157 82 170 89 116 61 191 55 *ad o w 100 73 307 78 U 5 87 71 52 137 Unknown 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 Total 318 76 31*0 82 372 89 269 60 617 Education of Fare Operator 8th grade or less 11*5 71 156 76 176 85 108 53 206 High school 138 80 150 87 159 92 115 67 172 College 35 85 36 88 39 95 26 63 61 Unknown Total 318 76 360 82 372 89 269 60 617 Geographical Area of Ohio Western 185 76 205 85 217 90 156 66 262 Eastern W 76 135... 77 155 89 93 -53. 175 Total 318 76 360 82 372 89 269 60 617 TABLE A - la Farmer Opinion Concerning Accuracy of Livestock Market News Broadcasts, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 15*50 Method of Very Fairly Not Very Not Stratification Accurate Accurate Accurate Accurate No Opinion Total Nuaber Percent Number Percent Number Percent ftu&er Percent Number Percent Nuaber Percen Nuaber of Hogs Sold Annually 1 - 2 9 22 20 63 59 9 8 1 1 13 12 108 100 3 0 - 8 9 34 30 65 57 7 6 8 7 114 100 90 and above 19 31 39 64 2 3 1 2 61 100 None 1? 11 72 1? . 9 .... 34 26 134 100 Total 90 22 239 57 31 7 1 1 56 13 417 100 Nmfcer of Cattle Sold Annually 1 - H i 35 18 115 60 14 7 1 1 26 14 191 100 1 5 - 2 9 6 40 6 4o 2 13 1 7 15 100 30 and above 5 33 8 53 1 7 1 7 15 100 None 1 100 1 100 Total 46 21 130 58 17 8 1 1 28 12 222 100 Purpose for Ihich Cattle Sold Beef for Slaughter 21 27 41 53 6 10 1 1 7 9 78 100 Dairy for Slaughter 15 16 58 63 6 7 13 14 92 100 Other 10 19 31 60 3 6 8 52 100 Total 46 21 130 58 17 8 1 1 28 12 222 100 TABLE A - U1 (Cont'd) Farmer Opinion Concerning Accuracy of Livestock Market News Broadcasts, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 19$0 Method o f Very F a irly Not Very Not Stratification Accurate Accurate Accurate Accurate No Opinion T o tal Nuafcer Percent Humber Percent Nuaber Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Full or Part-time Farmer F u ll 79 22 220 60 27 7 1 1 38 10 365 100 Part 11 a V 1* 8 18 35-- 52 100 Total *>,, 22 2?? ,?7 P 7 1 1 P 33 1*17 100 Age of Brm (fceratcr Under 35 15 17 56 61* 7 8 m U 88 100 35-51* 31* 18 116 61 16 8 25 13 191 100 55 and orer 1*1 30 66 1*8 8 6 1 1 a 15 137 100 , Unkncwn 1 100 1 ioo : Total 90 22 239 57 31 7 1 1 56 13 1*17 100 1 Education of Farm Operator 8th grade or leee 1*5 22 120 59 10 1* 1 1 28 u* 20b 100 High school 33 19 97 57 15 11 23 13 172 100 College 12 29 22 51* 2 5 5 12 1*1 100 Unknown Total 90 22 239 57- J1 7 1 1 56 13 1*17 100 Geographical Area of Ohio Testern 1*9 20 167 69 15 6 11 5 21*2 100 Eastern 1*1 23 72 b l 16 9 _ 1 1 V 26 17? 100 Total 90 22 239 57 31 7 1 1 56 13 1*17 100 TABLE A - h2 Farmer Opinion Relating to a Daily Newspaper Report of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Desire Newspaper Method of Report Do Not Desire Newspaper Report Stratification No Newspaper Parsers Received Regularly Non-Farmers* Total Nuaber Percent** Nuaber Percent** Nuaber Percent Number Percent Nuaber Percen Number of Hogs Sold Annually 1 - 2 9 95 7i* 25 19 9 7 129 100 3 0 - 0 9 100 81 18 15 5 k 123 100 90 and above 52 Bk 6 13 2 3 62 100 Boot 112 53 82 38 19 9.... 213 100 Total 359 55 133 20 35 5 129 20 656** 160 Nuaber of Cattle Sold liBmally 1 - li* 161 7k k2 1$ 15 7 218 100 1 5 - 2 9 12 75 3 15 l 6 16 100 30 and above 13 81 3 19 16 100 Unknown 1 5 9 ___ 1 ..So _____ 2 100 Total 187 75 k9 19 16 6 252 100 Purpose for Ihich Cattle Sold Beef for Slaughter 6i* 78 17 21 1 1 82 100 Dairy for Slaughter 77 72 21 19 10 9 108 100 Other h6 _ 7 4 _____ 11 18 5 8 62 100 Total 187 75 hs 19 16 6 252 100 TABLE A - U2 (Cont'd) Farmer Opinion Relating to a Daily Newspaper Report of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 19^0 Desire Newspaper Method of Report Do Not Desire Newspaper Report Stratification No Newspaper Farmers Received Regularly Non-Farmers* Total Number Percent** Number Percent** Number Percent Huber Percent Number Percent Fall or Part-time Farmer Full 312 72 96 22 28 6 136 100 Part if7 52 37 H 7 7 91 100 Total 359 55 133 20 35 5 129 20 656** 100 Ago of Firs Operator Under 35 69 66 25 21 10 10 101 100 4 3 5 - 5 1 168 72 52 22 13 6 233 100 i 55 and over 121 69 1|5 25 11 6 177 100 Unknown 1 8 u 81 1 8 13 100 Total 359 55 133 20 35 5 129 20 656** 100 Education of Farm Operator 8th grade or less 168 66 62 21 26 10 256 100 High school 155 73 18 23 8 1 211 100 College 36 75 12 25 18 100 Unknown 11 92 1 8 12 100 Total 359 55 133 20 35 5 129 20 656** 100 TABLE A - U2 (Coat'd) Farmer Opinion Relating to a Daily Newspaper Report of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Desire Newspaper Method o f Report Do Not Desire Newspaper Report______S tr a tific a tio n No Newspaper Farmers Received Regularly Non-Farmers* ______T o tal Number Percent'** Number Percent** Number Percent Number Percent Nuaber Percent Geographical Area o f Ohio Western 213 72 69 23 lit 5 296 100 Eastern li|6 63______6k 28 ______21______9______231 100 T o ta l 359 55 133 20 35 5 129 20 656** 100 * According to the U, S. Census of Agriculture these people are farmers but they considered themselres non- farmers and consequently were not asked for an opinion concerning this question* i 7 7 2 ** Percentages, other than those in the total line, were calculated from 527* the number who considered them selves farmers* • TABLE A - ii3 Nuaber of Livestock Markets Farmers Want Reported in a Newspaper Report of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of One ______Two Three Four or More No Opinion ______T o ta l Stratification No* Percent No# Percent No. Percent No* Percent No, Percent No» Percent Nuaber o f Hogs Sold Annually 1 - 2 9 42 44 29 31 19 20 4 4 l 1 95 100 3 0 - 8 9 30 30 35 35 23 23 9 9 3 3 100 100 90 and above 11 a 18 35 14 27 8 15 l 2 52 100 None ?2 2? 19 17 8 7 3 2 112 100 Total 133 37 Hit 32 75 21 29 8 8 2 359 100 Nuaber of Cattle Sold Annually 278 • 1 - 1 4 64 W> 52 32 30 19 12 7 3 2 161 100 1 5 - 2 9 5 42 4 33 2 17 1 8 12 100 30 and above l 8 6 46 1 8 4 30 1 8 13 100 None 1 100 1 100 Total 70 38 62 33 3i* 15 17 9 4 2 187 100 Purpose for Which Cattle Sold Beef far Slaughter 22 3U 23 36 10 16 8 13 1 1 64 100 Dairy far Slaughter 30 39 29 38 12 16 6 7 77 100 Other 18 39 10 22 12 26 3 7 3 6 46 100 Total 70 38 62 33 31* 18 17 9 4 2 187 100 TABLE A - L3 (Cont'd) Number of Livestock Markets Farmers Want Reported in a Newspaper Report of livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of (toe ______Two Three Four or More No Opinion Total Stratification No. Percent No* Percent No» Percent No. Percent ?fo« Percent No# Percent Poll or Part-time Farmer Poll H I 35 102 33 67 a 2it 8 8 3 312 100 Part 22 1+7 12 2$ 8 17_____ 5 11 It? 100 Total______133 37 llii 32 75 21 29 8______8 2 359 100 Age o f fe m tfc e ra to r Under 35 25 36 25 36 lit 21 5 7 69 100 35 -5fc 66 39 51 30 35 21 15 9 3 1 170 100 55 *nd over 1*2 35 38 25 21 8 5 It H 9 100 32 9 -279 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total 333 37 Hit 32 7$ 21 29 8 8 2 359 100 . Education of Farm Operator 8th grade or less 76 1*5 1*6 27 32 19 8 5 6 It 168 100 High school 52 33 55 36 33 21 Ut 9 1 1 155 100 College 5 Ut 13 36 10 28 7 19 1 3 36 100 Unknown Ml W. 37 lilt 32 75 21 29 8 8 2 ?», 100 Geographical Area o f Ohio Western 72 31* 71* 35 li5 21 17 8 5 2 213 100 Eastern 61 U2 1*0 27 30 21 12 8_____ 3 2 llt6 100 Total 133 37 llit 32 75 21 29 8 8 2 359 100 TABLE A - Livestock Markets Farmers Want Reported in a Newspaper Report of Livestock Market by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1?50 Method of Chicago Cleveland Cincinnati Columbus Local Other T o ta l Stratification No, Percent No. Percent No« P ercen t No» P ercen t No. Eercent No» Percent Fanners Number of Hogs Sold Annually 1 - 2 9 18 19 38 40 18 19 15 16 60 63 24 25 95 3 0 - 8 9 4o 40 36 36 31 31 29 29 46 46 31 31 100 90 and above 30 58 14 27 21 40 19 37 19 37 19 37 52 None 28 2? 42 3® 28 2? 24 21 50 45 P 29 112 Total 116 130 98 27 87 24 175 49 106 30 359 Ntaber of Cattle Sold Annually 1 - 1 4 1|6 29 67 42 38 24 36 22 72 45 5o 31 161 1 5 - 2 9 6 50 4 33 3 25 5 42 2 17 3 25 12 30 and above 10 77 6 46 6 46 4 31 3 23 4 31 13 None 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 A \ O C Total 63 34 77 41 48 26 45 24 77 41 31 187 Purpose far Ihich Cattle Sold Beef for Slaughter 28 44 29 45 18 28 15 23 24 38 22 34 64 Dairy for Slaughter 23 30 25 33 16 21 23 30 37 48 22 29 77 Other 12 26 23 5o 14 30 7 15 16 35 14 30 46 Total 63 34 77 41 48 26 45 24 77 41 58 31 187 TABLE A — lxLi (Cont'd) Livestock Markets Farmers Want Reported in a Newspaper Report of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1900 Method of Chicago _____ Cleveland Cincinnati Columbus Local Other Total Stratification fro* Percent No# PercenV No* Percent No« Percent No« Percent No. Percent Farmers Full or Part-time Faresr F u ll 107 31* 100 31* 67 28 78 20 11*9 1*6 9k 30 312 P a rt 9 19 20 S3 11 23 9 19 26 05 12 26______U7_ Total______116 32 130 36 98 27 87 2k 175 1*9 106 30_____ 359_ Age o f Fum Operator Under 35 22 32 21 3 0 13 19 16 23 1*8 70 20 29 69 35 - 51* 58 31* 59 35 1*8 28 ia 21* 77 1*5 57 31* 170 05 and over 35 29 1*9 1*1 37 31 30 25 1*9 ia 29 21* U 9 261 Unknown 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 XL 116 32 130 36 98 27 87 21* 175 1*9 106 30 359 Sducation of Farm Operator 8th grade or le s s 1*0 21* 58 35 1*6 27 29 17 82 1*9 1*2 20 168 High school 55 36 58 37 39 25 38 20 82 53 53 31* 155 College 21 58 li* 39 13 36 20 56 11 31 11 31 36 Unknown bal 116 32 130 36 98 27 87 21* 175 1*9 106 30 359 Geographical Area o f Ohio f«st*ra 81 38 23 79 37 1)0 19 ICO 1*7 75 35 213 Eutarn 35 2li 81 55 1? 13 1)7 32 75 51 31 21 U|6 Total______116 32 130 36 ?8 27 87 21) 175 to 106 30 359 TABLE A - U5 Relative Importance of Specific Items of Livestock Market Information Farmers Want in a Newspaper Report of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f Price Quotation Receipts for Receipts for Bach Summary Stratification by Brade Each Market Grade o f Each Species Statement T o tal dumber Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number o f Hogs Sold Annually 1 - 2 9 90 95 60 63 ia 1*3 51 51* 95 3 0 - 8 9 95 98 Ik 71* 52 52 75 75 100 90 and above 1*7 90 1*6 88 33 63 38 73 52 Hone 10U 93 78 70 58 52 62 55 112 T o tal 258 72 181* 226 339 9k 51 63 359 - Nuaber of Cattle Sold 282 Annual1y 1 - U * a # 96 111* 71 72 1*5 92 57 161 1 5 - 2 9 11 92 10 83 8 67 9 75 12 30 and above 13 100 13 100 8 62 8 62 13 None 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 T o ta l 150 96 138 71* 89 1*6 110 59 187 Purpose fo r Which Cattle Sold Beef for Slaughter 62 97 So 78 30 1*7 39 61 61* Dairy for Slaughter 73 95 56 73 31* 1*1* 1*8 62 77 Other 1*5 98 . _ J 2. _ 70 25 _ 51* 23 J o 1*6 T o ta l 180 96 138 71* 1*8 n o 59 187 TABLE A - \6 (Cont'd) Relative Importance of Specific Items of Livestock Market Information Farmers Want in a Newspaper Report of Livestock Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Price Quotation Receipts for Receipts for Each Summary Stratification by Grade Each Market Grade of Each Species Statement Tota! Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Nusfcer Percent F u ll or P art-tim e Farmer F u ll 297 95 233 75 165 53 201 65 312 P art 1*2 09 . _25 _ 53 _ 19 M_ 25 53 V T o tal 339 94 258 72 181* 51 226 63 359 Age o f Farm Operator Under 35 68 98 1*8 70 1*1 60 51 71* 69 35 - 51* 158 93 123 72 85 5o 110 65 170 55 and over 112 91* 87 73 58 1*9 65 55 119 Unknown 1 100 1 T o ta l 181* 226 ??? 91* . 72 51 . JL ..... 3?9 Education of Farm Operator 8th grade or lose 157 91* 113 67 79 1*7 90 51* 168 High school U*7 95 HI 72 85 55 106 68 155 College 35 97 31* 91* 20 56 30 83 36 Unknown T o tal 339 91* 258 72 181* 51 226 63 Qeographioal Area of Ohio Western 197 93 11*8 70 110 52 11*6 69 213 Eastern lil2 97 110 75 71* 51 80 55 U46 Total 339 91* 258 72 181* 5 i 226 63 359 TABLE A — 1*6 Farmer Opinion Concerning Accuracy of Livestock Price Quotations in Daily Newspg: ers, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1$>£Q Method of Veiy Fairly Not Very Not Stratification Accurate Accurate Accurate Accurate Mo Opinion Total ftu&er Percent Humber Percent Humber Percent Number Percent Huinber Percent Humber Percen Number o f Hogs Sold Annually 1 - 2 9 12 13 1*5 1*7 18 19 1 1 19 20 95 100 3 0 - 8 9 15 15 62 62 16 16 1 1 6 6 100 100 90 and above 5 10 1*0 77 5 10 2 3 52 100 Mone 12 11 1*8 u * 12 32 2 9 _ 112 100 T o tal 1*1* 12 201 56 53 15 2 1 59 16 359 100 Nunber o f C a ttle Sold Annually 1 -1 1 * 1 6 10 89 55 27 17 1 1 26 17 161 100 1 5 - 2 9 1* 33 5 1*2 1 8 2 17 12 100 30 and above 2 15 6 62 3 23 13 100 None 1 100 1 100 T o ta l 22 12 103 55 31 16 1 1 30 16 187 100 Purpose far Vhioh Cattle Sold Beef fo r Slaughter 9 11* 36 56 11* 22 1 2 1* 6 61* 100 D airy fo r Slaughter 6 8 1*5 58 n 11* 15 20 77 100 Other 7 15 22 1*8 6 13 11 21* 1*6 100 Total______22 12 103 55 31 16______1 1 30 16 lfl7 100 TABLE A - ii6 (Corvt'd) Farmer Opinion Concerning Accuracy of Livestock Price Quotations in Daily Newspapers, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1?50 Method o f Very F a ir ly Not Very Not Stratification Accurate Accurate Accurate Accurate No Opinion Total *73 1 Kueker Percent Number Percent Number P ercen t Number Percent l 0 Number Percent Full or Part-time Farmer F u ll 37 12 181* 59 1*9 15 2 1 1*0 13 312 100 P a rt 7 1? 17 9 19 1*0 1*7 100 T o ta l 1*1* 12 201 2 1 p PV 59 16 359 100 Age o f Item Operator Under 35 6 9 1*7 68 10 11* 6 9 69 100 35 -51* 16 9 95 56 27 16 32 19 170 100 55 and o rer 22 18 58 1*9 16 13 2 2 21 18 119 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total lib 12 2 1 201 56 53 15 P 16 359 100 Education of Farm Operator 6th grade or lece 22 13 89 53 21 13 2 1 31* 20 168 100 High school 15 10 93 60 27 17 20 13 155 100 College 7 19 19 53 5 H* 5 11* 36 100 Unknown T o ta l U i 12 201 56 53 15 2 1 59 16 359 100 Geographical Area o f Ohio Western 21* 11 138 65 35 16 16 8 213 100 Eastern 20 11* 6? 1*1* 18 12 2 1 1*3 29 U46 100 T o ta l lib 12 201 56 53 15 2 1 59 16 359 100 TABLE A - U7 Farmer Opinion Concerning Accuracy of Livestock Receipt Rotations in Daily Newspapers, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f Very F a ir ly Not Very Not Stratification A ccurate A ccurate Accurate Accurate No Opinion T o ta l l Tt 3 Number P ercent dumber P ercent 0 t dumber Percent Number P ercent Number Percen- Number o f Hogs Sold Annually 1 - 2 9 6 6 39 111 11 12 1 1 36 38 95 100 3 0 - 8 9 13 13 52 52 11 11 21* 21* 100 100 90 and above 5 9 35 67 6 12 6 12 52 100 Hone ? 6 W 13 12 10 1*3 39 112 100 T o tal ?? 10 17U i*b 1(0 11 1 1 109 30 359 100 Number o f C a ttle Sold Annually 1 - l i i 10 6 78 1*8 17 11 1 1 55 31* 161 100 1 5 - 2 9 1* 33 6 50 2 17 12 100 30 and above 3 23 5 39 2 15 3 23 13 100 None 1 100 1 100 T o ta l 17 9 89 1*7 20 11 1 1 60 32 187 100 Purpose fo r Vhich Cattle Sold Beef fo r Slaughter 7 11 31 aa 9 11* 1 2 16 25 61* 100 Dairy for Slaughter 5 6 111 53 9 12 22 29 77 100 Other f 11 17 37 2 1* 22 1*8 1*6 100 T o ta l 17 9 89 1*7 20 11 1 1 60 32 187 100 TABLE A - kl (Cont'd) Farmer Opinion Concerning Accuracy- of Livestock Receipt Quotations in Daily Newspapers, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Very Fairly Not Very Not Stratification Accurate Accurate Accurate Accurate No Opinion Total Kusbar Percent Number Percent Nfunber Percent Nuiber Percent A/umber Percent Ntufcer Percent Full or Pirt-tiee Earner Full 29 9 160 51 37 12 1 1 85 27 312 100 Fart 6 13 Hi 30 3 6 2k & k7 100 Total 35 10 -17k , , k8 .. P 11 1 1 109 30 359 100 Age of fta Opwtar Under 35 $ 7 kl 60 7 10 16 23 69 100 35-514 16 9 8k 50 20 12 5o 29 170 100 55 tod over Hi 12 k8 ko 13 11 1 1 k3 36 119 100 -287 Unknown 1 100 1 100 T o U l 35 10 171* kB * 11 1 1 109 30 359 100 Education of Farm Operator 8th grade or less 15 9 72 k3 15 9 1 1 65 38 168 100 High school 11 9 80 52 2k 15 37 2k 155 100 College 6 17 22 61 1 3 7 19 36 100 Unknown Total 35 10 17k k8 ko 11 1 1 109 30 359 100 Geographical Area of Ohio Vestem 23 U 126 59 33 16 31 Ik 213 100 Eastern 12 8 k8 33 7 ? 1 1 78 53 lk6 100 Total 35 10 17k k8 ko 11 1 1 109 -JP 359 100 TABLE A - 1*8 Number and Percent of Farmers Who Made Suggestions as to How Livestock Market Reporting Might be Improved by Radio Stations and Daily Newspapers, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Radio Stations Daily Newspapers Total Farmers Stratification ^u&er Percent Number■ Percent Asked Nuwber of Hogs Sold Annually 1 - 2 9 16 12 11 9 129 3 0 - 8 9 37 30 11 9 123 90 and above 17 27 7 13 62 Unknown and none 21* U 7 3 213 Total 9k 18 34 7 527 Number of Cattle Sold Annually 1 - 1h li3 20 16 7 218 2 5 - 2 9 6 38 16 30 and above k 25 16 Unknown and none 1*1 15 20 7 277 Total 9k 18 36 7 527 Purpose for Which Cattle Sold Beef for Slaughter 25 30 7 10 82 Dairy for Slaughter 17 16 6 6 108 Other 11 18 3 5 62 Unknown and none ia 15 20 7 275 Total 9k 18 36 7 527 Full or Part-time Farmer Full 86 20 33 8 1*36 Part 8 9 3 3 91 Total 9k 18 36 7 527 TABLE A - R8 (Cont'd) Number and Percent of Fanners Who Made Suggestions as to How Livestock Market Reporting Might be Improved by Radio Stations and Daily Newspapers, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f Radio Stations Daily Newspapers Total Farmers Stratification Number Percent Number Percent Asked ig e o f F a n O perator Under 35 28 27 8 8 10k 3 5 - f t kk 19 15 6 233 55 and over 22 12 13 7 177 Unknown 13 T o ta l $k lb 36 7 527 Education of Farm Operator 8th grade or less 3* 13 13 5 256 High school 13 20 17 8 211 C o lle g e 17 35 6 13 k8 Unknown 12 T o ta l 9k 18 3* 7 527 Geographical Area of Ohio W estern 5k 18 17 6 296 E astern 1|D 17 19 8 229 T o ta l 9k 18 36 7 527 TABLE A - k9 Suggestions Made by Farmers as to How Radio Stations Might improve Livestock Market Reporting, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 19$0 Change Report Method of Time of Local Improve Outlook Explain Total Farmers Stratification Broadcast Market Accuracy Information Grades ______Other Making ______~ Per# lfo» l>er« No. Per, Mo, frar, tfo, Eer,~ No, Eer, Suggestions Number of Hogs Sold Annually 1 - 2 9 3 19 10 63 b 25 3 19 16 3 0 - 6 9 22 60 3 8 s lb 5 Hi 2 5 7 19 37 90 and above 9 53 2 U b 2i* 1 6 6 35 17 Unknown and none 1* 17 7 29 7 29 2 8 5 21 7 29 21* Total 38 ¥> 22 23 20 21 8 9 7 7 23 25 91* Number of Cattle Sold Annually 1 - lit 17 1*0 11 26 12 28 6 H* 10 23 - 29 1* 67 1 2 1 2 1 2 6 30 and above 2 SO 2 50 2 50 ii Unknown and none 1? 37 11 27 5 12 7 17 1 2 10 21* ia Total 38 bo 22 23 20 21 8 9 7 7 23 25 9b Purpose for Ihich Cattle Sold Beef for S la u g h te r 9 36 b 16 6 32 2 8 8 32 25 D a iry far Slaughter 8 1*7 5 29 1* 21* 1* 21* 2 12 17 O ther 6 55 2 18 3 27 1 9 3 27 11 Unknown aid none f 37 11 27 ? 12 7 17 1 2 10 21* ia tal 38 1*0 22 23 20 21 8 9 7 7 23 25 91* T A BLE A - h9 (Cont'd) Suggestions Made by Farmers as to How Radio Stations Might Improve Livestock Market Reporting, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Change Report Method o f Time of Local Improve Outlook Explain T o tal Farmers Stratification Broadcast Market Accuracy Information Grades Other Making No. P er. No. P er. No. Per. No. Per* No. Per, No. P er. Suggestions Full or Part-time Faraer F u ll 36 1*2 18 21 19 22 7 8 7 8 22 26 86 P art 2 25 h ?° 1 13 1 13 1 13 8 T o ta l 38 22 Z1 1|0 2? 20 8 9 7 7 23 2? ...... 2 L, Age o f Farm Operator Under 35 12 1*3 7 25 2 7 2 7 3 11 7 25 28 35 - $k 16 36 10 23 11 25 h 9 ii 9 10 23 liii 55 and over 10 1*5 5 23 7 32 2 9 6 27 22 Unknown T o ta l 38 hO 22 2? 20 21 8 9 7 7 23 25 91 Education o f Farm Operator 8th 0 nkb or lew w lii hi 8 2h 10 29 3 9 1 3 6 18 31 High school llj 33 13 30 9 21 li 9 3 7 12 28 1*3 College 10 59 1 6 1 6 1 6 3 18 5 30 17 Unknown Total J 8 ho 22 23 20 21 8 9 7 7 23 25 9h Geographical Area of Ohio Western 26 1*8 3 6 13 2k h i 6 11 18 33 Sh Eastern 12 30 19 1*6 7 18 h 10 1 3 $ 13______ijO Total______38 1)0 ^ 23 20 21 8 9 7 7 23 25______9h TABLE A - SO Suggestions Made by Farmers as to How Daily Newspapers Might Improve Livestock Market Reporting, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f Report Local Isprove Summary Stratification Market Accuracy Statement Other T o tal Farmers No. Per* No* Per* No. Per. No. Per. Making Suggestions Number o f Hogs Sold Annually 1 - 2 9 16 61 1 2 18 11 oo 5 7 9 a 1 2 18 5 i|6 5 16 11 90 and abort 2 29 3 13 1 11 1 11 7 Unknown and none 1 57 2 29 1 H 1 H 7 T o tal 13 P 17 17 3 8 9 25 36 Number of Cattle Sold Annually 1 - 11a ID 63 7 11 3 19 16 1 5 - 2 9 30 and above Unknown and none 3 15 10 50 3 15 6 30 20 T o ta l 36 17 1*7 3 8 9 25 36 Purpose for Which Cattle Sold Beef far Slaughter h 57 3 13 2 29 7 Dairy far Slaughter 3 50 3 50 1 17 6 Other 3 100 1 33 3 Unknown and none 3 15 10 50 3 15 6 30 20 T o ta l 13 36 17 17 3 8 9 25 36 Pull or Part-time Farmer F u ll 12 36 15 15 1 3 7 21 33 P a rt 1 33 2 67 2 67 2 67 3 T o ta l 13 36 17 17 3 8 9 25 36 TA3L£ A - 50 (Cont'd) Suggestions Made by Farmers as to Hour Daily Newspapers Might Improve Livestock Market Reporting, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f Report Local Improve Summary Stratification Market Accuracy Statem ent Other Total Farmers No* Per* No* P er* No. P e r* No. Per. Making Suggestioi Age of Farm Operator Under 35 k 50 2 25 2 25 8 35 -51* 5 33 9 60 1 7 1* 27 15 55 and over 1* 31 6 1*6 2 15 3 23 13 Unknown Total 13 36 17 1*7 3 8 9 25 36 Education of Farm Operator 8th grade or less 3 23 9 69 2 15 3 23 13 High school 8 1*7 6 35 5 29 17 C o lle g e 2 33 2 33 1 17 l 17 6 Unknown T o ta l 13 36 17 1*7 3 8 9 25 36 Geographical Area of Ohio W estern 1 6 11 65 2 12 7 1*1 17 E astern 12 63 6 32 1 5 2 u 19 T o ta l 13 36 17 1*7 3 8 9 25 36 TABLE A - $1 Number of Farmers Who Did Not Use Various Leading Sources of i^arket Information Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f Phone Radio D a ily Newspaper Farm Paper Stratification Number P ercen t Number Percent Number P ercent Number P ercen t T o ta l Number of Hogs Sold Annually 1 - 2 9 112 87 37 29 57 1*1* 82 61* 129 3 0 - 8 9 81* 68 23 19 32 26 57 1*6 123 90 and above 35 57 5 8 16 29 23 37 62 Hone 3 100 3 100 3 100 3 100 3 Total 23t 71* 68 21 110 35 165 52 317 'type of Market Agency Purchasing Hogs Cooperative hk 56 17 22 28 35 31 39 79 Private 186 79 U7 20 78 33 130 56 231* None b 100 it 100 1* 100 k 100 1* Total 2?1* 71* 68 21 110 35 165 52 317 Full or Part-time Farmers Selling Hogs Full & 5 73 61 21 103 35 150 51 295 Part 19 66 7 32 7 32 15 68 22 Total 2 3t 71* 68 21 110 35 165 52 317 Age of Farm Operator Selling Hogs Under 35 Ii3 67 11 17 23 36 31 1*8 61* 3 5 - S t 106 73 35 21* 1*2 29 73 50 11*6 55 and over 83 80 20 19 li3 a 59 57 101* Unknown 2 67 2 67 2 67 2 67 3 Total 23k 71* 68 21 110 35 165 52 317 TASLE A - 51 (Cont'd) Number of Farmers Nho Did Not Use Various Leading Sources of Market Information Before Selling Hogs, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f Phone Radio D a ily Newspaper Farm Paper Stratification. !Number P ercen t Number P ercen t Number Percent Number Percent T o ta l Education of Farm O perator S e llin g Hogs 8th grade or lees 125 78 37 23 61; ltf) 90 61 160 High school 88 70 26 21 35 28 53 hZ 125 C o lle g e 19 63 3 10 9 30 12 to 30 Unknown 2 100 2 100 2 100 2 100 2 T o ta l 23k 7U 68 21 110 35 165 52 317 Geographical Area of Ohio V e s te ra 119 63 to 22 55 29 90 to 188 E astern U f 89 28 21 55 k3 75 58 129 -962 T o ta l 231; 71; 68 21 110 35 165 52 317 APPENDIX B TABLE B - 1 Period of Time Farmers Listened to Radio for Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Part-time Listeners Full-time Listeners Total Stratification Number Percent Number Percent Nvudier Percent Number of Bushels of Wheat Sold Under 1(00 IP hi 27 59 1*6 100 Over 1*00 15 29 36 71 51 100 Unknown l 33 2 67 3 100 Total 35^ s r 65 65 100 100 T^pe of Market Agency Purchasing Wheat Private Elevator 16 36 26 62 1*2 100 Cooperative IP 37 32 63 51 100 296 Other 7 100 7 100 Unknown Total 35 35 65 100 100 Full or Part-time Farmers Selling Wheat Full 31 3it 61 66 92 100 Part k . 50 I* 50 8 100 Total 35 35 65 65 100 100 Age of Fern Operator Selling Wheat Under 35 6 32 13 68 19 100 35 - 51* 16 39 25 61 1*1 100 55 over 13 32 27 68 1*0 100 Unknown Total 35 35 65 65 100 100 TABLE B - 1 (Cont'd) Period of Time Farmers Listened to Radio for Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f Part-time Listeners Full-time Listeners T o tal Stratification Humber Percent Nuafcer Percent Number Percent Education of Farm Operator S e llin g Wheat 8th grade or less 21 38 31* 62 55 100 High school 12 36 21 61* 33 100 College 2 17 10 83 12 100 Unknown T o ta l 3J> 6? 6jeT 100 100 Geographical Area o f Ohio Western 31 1*1 1*1* 59 75 100 Eastern k 16 21 81* 25 100 T o ta l 35 35 65 65 100 100 TABLE B - 2 Number of Radio Stations Farmers Listened to for Grain %rket Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of One Station Two Stations Three or More Stations Don’t know Total Stratification Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percen Number o f Bushels of Iheat Sold Under IjOO 28 61 12 26 5 11 1 2 1*6 100 Orer 1*00 37 72 11 22 2 i* 1 2 51 100 Unknown 2 67 1 33 3 100 T o ta l 67 67 2h 21* 7 7 2 2 100 100 T^pe o f Market Agency Purchasing Iheat Private Elevator 28 67 12 29 1 2 1 2 1*2 100 Cooperative Elevator 33 65 11 22 6 12 1 1 51 100 Other 6 86 1 7 100 Unknown T o tal 67 67 21* 21* 7 7 2 2 100 100 Full or Fart-tlwe ftrwere Selling Wheat F u ll 61 66 22 8 2 2 52 100 21*in 7 P art 6 75 2 CM 8 100 T o tal 67 67 21* 2i* 7 7 2 2 100 100 TABLE B - 2 (Cont*d) Number of Radio Stations Farmers Listened to for Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of One Station Two Stations Three or More Stations Don't Know Total Stratification Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percen Age of Farm Operator Selling Iheat Under 35 15 79 2 11 1 5 1 5 19 100 35 - 51* 27 66 10 25 3 7 1 2 ia 100 55 and over 25 63 12 30 3 7 1*0 100 Unknown Total 67 67 21* 21* 7 7 2 2 100 100 Education of Far* Operator Selling Wheat 8th grade or leea 37 67 11* 26 1* 7 55 100 High school 21* 73 8 21* 1 3 33 100 College 6 50 2 17 3 25 1 8 12 100 Unknown Total 67 67 21* 21* 7 7 2 2 100 100 Geographical Area of Ohio Western 1*7 63 21 28 6 8 1 1 75 100 Eastern 20 80 3 12 1 1* 1 1* 25 100 Total 67 67 21* a* 7 7 2 2 100 100 TABLE B - 3 Radio Stations Farmers Listened to Most for Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of VOVO W R F D W L W V S P D Other Total Farmers Stratification No* Percent No* Percent No. Percent No. Percent No, Percent No. Percent Number of Bushels of Wheat Sold Under 1*00 9 20 9 20 10 21 2 1* 16 35 1*6 100 Over 1|00 9 18 9 18 8 16 7 13 18 35 51 100 Unknown } 100 3 100 Total 21 21 18 18 18 18 9 9 31* 3i* 100 100 type of Market Agency Purchasing Wheat Private Elevator 6 11* 10 21* 12 29 3 7 11 26 1*2 100 Cooperative Elevator 15 29 5 10 6 12 6 12 19 37 51 100 Other 3 1*3 1* 57 7 100 Unknown Total 21 21 18 18 M CD 18 9 9 31* 31* 100 100 Full or Part-time Farmers Selling Wheat Full 20 22 17 18 16 17 8 9 31 31* 92 100 Part 1 12 1 12 2 25 1 12 3 39 8 100 Total 21 21 18 18 18 IS 9 9 31* 31* 100 100 TABLE B - 3 (Cont'd) Radio Stations Farmers Listened to Most for Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f W 0 W 0 W R F D W L W W S P D Other Total Farmers Stratification NOe Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent Age o f Farm Operator Selling Wheat Under 35 1* 21 1 5 3 16 2 10 9 1*8 19 100 35-51* 11 27 1* 9 7 17 6 15 13 32 1*1 100 55 and over 6 15 13 33 6 20 1 2 12 30 1*0 100 Unknown T o tal 21 a 18 18 18 18 9 9 31* 31* 100 100 Education of Farm Operator Selling Wheat 8th grade or lees 13 21* 9 16 12 22 1* 7 17 31 55 100 High school 7 a 5 15 6 18 2 6 13 1*0 33 100 College 1 9 1* 33 3 25 1* 33 12 100 Unknown T o tal 21 a 18 18 18 18 9 9 31* 3fc 100 100 Geographical Area o f Ohio Western 21 28 10 13 17 23 8 11 19 25 75 100 Eastern 8 32 1 1* 1 1* 3? 60 25 100 T o ta l 21 a 18 18 18 18 9 9 31* 31* 100 100 TABLE B - h Reasons Farmers Listened to a Particular Radio Station for Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various “ethods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Personal Time of Broadcast Quality of Market Report O ther T o ta l Stratification Nuzber P ercent Number P ercen t Number P ercen t Number Percent Farmers Number of Bushels of Wheat Sold Under 1*00 17 37 7 2$ 17 37 5 11 1*6 Over 1*00 13 26 12 21* 23 1*5 1* 8 51 Unknown 2 67 1 33 _____ 1 Total 30 30 19 19 1*2 1*2 uo 10 100 Type of Market Agency Purchasing iheat Private Elevator 17 1*1 3 7 17 1*1 5 12 1*2 Cooperative Elevator 11 22 12 21* 23 1*5 5 10 51 Other 2 29 1* 57 2 29 7 Unknown Total 30 30 19 19 1*2 1*2 10 10 100 Full or Part-time Farmers Selling Wheat Full 28 30 19 21 33 1*1 8 9 92 Part 2 1* 50 2 25 8 Total 30 30 19 19 1*2 1*2 10 10 100 TABLE B - ii (Cont fd) Reasons Farmers Listened to a Particular Radio Station for Grain *arket Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various ^thods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f Personal Time of Broadcast Q u ality of Market Report Other T o tal Stratification Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Farmers Age o f Farm Operator Selling Iheat Under 35 6 32 3 16 7 37 3 16 19 35 - 51* 8 20 10 21* 22 51* 2 5 1*1 55 «nd over 16 hO 6 15 13 33 5 13 1*0 Unknown T o ta l 30 30 19 1$ U2 1*2 10 10 100 Education of Earn Operator Selling Iheat 8th grade or lees 17 31 6 15 25 1*6 5 9 55 -fioe- High school 10 30 11 33 9 27 1* 12 33 College 3 25 8 67 l 8 12 Unknown T o tal 30 30 19 19 1*2 1*2 10 10 100 Geographical Area of Ohio Western 26 35 13 17 29 39 8 11 75 Eastern i| 16 6 214 13 52 2 8 25 Total 30 30 19 1$ k2 1*2 10 10 100 TABLE B - 5 Period of Time Farmers Read a Daily Newspaper for Grain Market information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Part-time Readers Full-time Readers Total Fanners Stratification Number Percent Nunber Percent Number Percent Number of Buahela of Wheat Sold Under 1*00 12 21 1*6 79 58 100 Over 1*00 16 18 70 82 86 100 Unknown ___ 3.. 30 7 70 10 100 Total 31 20 123 80 151* 100 Type of Market Agency Purchasing Wheat Private Elevator 17 23 56 77 75 100 Cooperative Elevator 11* 21 51 79 65 100 Other 13 100 13 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total 31 20 123 do 151* 100 Full or Part-time Farmers Selling Wheat Full 28 20 113 80 litl 100 Part 3 23 10 77 13 100 Total 31 20 123 80 151* 100 Age of Farm Operator Selling Wheat Under 35 7 23 23 77 30 100 35-51* 16 20 65 80 81 100 55 and over 8 19 31* 81 1*2 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total 31 20 123 80 151* 100 TABU: B - 5 (Cont'd) Period of Time Farmers Read a Daily Newspaper for Grain Market information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f Part-tim e Readers Full-tim e Readers Total Farmers Stratification Nunfcer P ercent dumber Percent Number Percent Education of Farm Operator Selling Wheat 8th grade or less 15 23 51 77 66 100 High school 13 19 55 81 68 100 C o lleg e 3 15 17 85 20 100 Unknown T o ta l 31 20 123 80 151 100 Geographical Area of Ohio Western 25 22 90 78 115 100 SOS- E astern 6 15 33 85 ___ 39 _ 100 T o ta l 31 20 123 80 151 100 TABLE B - 6 Number of limes Farmers Phoned Buyer for Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f Once Twice Three or More Times Total Farmers Stratification Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number P ercen t Number of Bushels of Wheat Sold Under itOG 25 78 6 19 1 3 32 100 Over ljOO 29 55 8 16 15 29 51 100 Unknown 6 100 6 100 T o ta l P 66 l i i 16 16 18 89 100 Type of Market Agency Purchasing Wheat Private Elevator 26 65 7 18 7 17 1*0 100 Cooperative Elevator 31 69 6 13 8 18 1*5 100 O ther 2 5o 1 25 1 25 h 100 Unknown T o ta l 55 66 11* 16 16 18 89 100 Full or Part-time Farmers Selling Wheat F u ll 51* 61* 111 17 16 19 81* 100 P a rt 5 100 5 100 T o ta l P 66 111 16 16 18 09 100 Age of Farm Operator Selling Wheat Under 35 19 73 2 8 5 19 26 100 35 - 51* 21 57 9 2J* 7 19 37 100 55 and over 19 76 3 12 3 12 25 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total 59 66______lit 16______16 18______89 100 TABLE B - 6 (Cont'd) Number of Times Farmers Phoned Buyer for Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f Once T irice Three or More Times Total Farmers Stratification Number Percent Number Percent {lumber Percent Number Percent Education of Farm Operator Selling Wheat 8th grade or less 21* 71 6 18 k 11 31* 100 High school 29 67 6 H* 8 19 1*3 100 C o lleg e 6 50 2 17 1* 33 12 100 Unknown T o ta l 66 l it 16 16 18 89 100 Geographical Area of Ohio W estern 1*6 68 11 16 11 16 68 100 i E astern 13 62 3 H* 5 2i* 21 100 ! T o ta l 59 66 11* 16 16 18 89 100 TABLE B - 7 Number of Other Buyers Phoned by Farmers for Grain i>i&rket Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f None One Two or More Total Farmers Stratification Number P ercen t Number P ercent Number Percent Number P ercent Nuabsr of Bushels of Wheat Sold Under ijOO 26 81 6 19 32 100 Over 1(00 60 10 20 10 20 100 31 00 51 r'-'i Unknown 5 1 17 6 100 Total 62 70 16 18 11 12 89 100 Type o f Market Agency Purchasing Wheat Private Elevator 25 63 11 27 k 10 1*0 100 Cooperative Elevator 3i* 76 5 11 6 13 1*5 100 Other 3 75 1 25 k 100 Unknown Total 62 70 16 18 11 12 JSL- 100 Pull or Part-time Farmers Selling Wheat Full 59 70 Hi 17 11 13 81* 100 Part 3 60 2 10 5 100 Total 62 70 16 18 11 12 89 100 Age of Farm Operator Selling Wheat Under 35 17 66 k 15 5 19 26 100 35 - 51* 23 62 8 22 6 16 37 100 55 and over 21 8U k 16 25 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total 62 70 16 18__ _ 11 12 89 100 TABLE B - 7 (Cont'd) Number of Other Buyers Phoned by Farmers for Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various “ethods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of None One Tiro or More Total Farmers Stratification Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Education o f Farm Operator Selling Wheat 8th grade or le e s 26 76 h 12 k 12 3li 100 High school 30 70 9 21 h 9 h3 100 C o lleg e 6 50 3 25 3 25 12 100 Unknown T o ta l 62 70 16 18 11 12 89 100 Geographical Area of Ohio W eetern 1*6 68 13 19 9 13 68 100 E astern 16 76 3 Hi 2 10 21 100 T o ta l 62 70 16 18 11 12 89 100 TABLE B - 8 Number of Times Farmers Read a Bulletin Board for Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 19$0 Method of Once Twice Three or More Times Total Farmers Stratification Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number of Bushels of Wheat Sold Under If00 33 16 11 15 28 39 72 100 Over ijOO 20 25 20 25 39 50 79 100 Unknown 6 67 1 11 2 22 9 100 Total 5? 37 32 20 69 1*3 160 100 Type of Market Agency Purchasing Wheat Private Elevator 21 29 22 31 29 1*0 72 100 - Cooperative Elevator 1*2 10 32 13 35 1*5 77 100 012 Other 6 55 5 1*5 11 100 Unknown Total 5? 37 32 20 69 1*3 160 100 Full or Part-time Farmers Selling Wheat m i 56 37 30 20 61* 1*3 l5o 100 Part 3 30 2 20 5 5o 10 100 Total 59 37 32 20 69 1*3 160 100 Age of Farm Operator Selling Wheat Under 35 10 29 5 15 19 56 31* 100 3 5 - f t 23 32 18 25 31 1*3 72 100 55 And over 26 50 8 15 18 35 52 100 Unknown 1 50 1 50 2 100 Total 59 37 32 20 69 1*3 160 100 TABLK B - 8 (Cont’d) Number of Times Farmers Read a Bulletin Board for Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f Once Twice Three or More Times Total Farmers Stratification Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Education of Farm Operator S e llin g Wheat 8th grade or less 30 1*3 15 22 21* 35 69 100 High school 19 29 13 19 35 52 67 100 College 10 k3 3 1i* 10 1*3 23 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 T o ta l 59 37 32 20 69 13 160 100 Geographical Area of Ohio Western 38 32 29 25 50 1*3 117 100 Eastern 21 3 7 19 1*1* 1*3 100 T o tal 59 37 32 20 69 1*3 160 100 TABLE B - 9 Number of Sources of Grain Market Information Farmers Used Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of One Source Two Soyces Three Sources Four or More Sources Total Farmers S t r a t if ic a t io n Number P ercen t Number P ercent ffuaker ' P ercent Itfunfcer' P ercen t l ^uaber P ercent Nunber of Bushels of Wheat Sold Under 1(00 1*1 36 31* 30 22 19 18 15 H 5 100 Over 1(00 30 23 38 29 36 28 26 20 130 100 Unknown 6 y? 7 1*1 3 18 1 6 17 100 Total 77 30 79 30 61 23 1*5 17 262 100 ■type of Market Agency Purchasing Wheat 312 Private Elevator 38 32 32 26 31 26 20 16 121 100 Cooperative Elevator 29 25 31* 30 27 21* 25 21 115 100 Other 9 36 13 52 3 12 25 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total______77 30______79 30______61 23______1*5 17______262 100 Full or Part-time Farmers Selling Wheat Full 67 28 68 29 $8 2$ 1*2* 18 237 100 Part 10 1*0 11 1*1* 3 12______1 1*______25 100 Total 77 30 79 30 61 23 1*5 17 262 100 TABLE B - 9 (Cont'd) Number of Sources of Grain Market Information Farmers Used Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of One Source Two Sources Three Sources Four or More Sources Total Farmers Stratification Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Age of Farm Operator Selling Wheat Under 35 20 32 25 1*0 8 13 9 15 62 100 3 5 - 5 1 * 35 29 35 29 26 22 21* 20 120 100 55 and over 21 27 19 21* 27 35 11 ll* 78 100 Unknown 1 -5P______1 50 2 100 Total 77 30 79 30 61 23 1*5 17 262 100 Education of Farm Operator Sailing Wheat 8th grade or lese37 31 33 28 35 29 li* 12 119 100 High school 33 30 35 32 20 18 23 20 111 100 College 6 19 11 36 6 19 8 26 31 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total 77 30 79 30 61 23 1*5 17 262 100 Geographical Area of Ohio Western 1*3 23 51 28 51 28 1*0 21 185 100 Western 31* 1*1* 28 36 10 13 5 7 77 100 Total 77 30 79 30 61 23 1*5 17 262 100 TABLE B - 10 Farmers Rank of Radio as a Source of Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f Ranked F irst Ranked Second Ranked Third or Stratification In Importance In Importance Lower in Importance Total Farmers Number P ercent Number P ercen t Number Percent Number Percent Number o f Bushels o f Wheat Sold Under i*D0 30 65 11 24 5 11 46 100 Over ljOO 37 72 7 14 7 14 51 100 Unknown 2 67 1 33 3 100 T o ta l 69 69 19 19 12 12 100 100 Type of Market Agency Purchasing Wheat Private Elevator 28 67 9 21 5 12 42 100 Cooperative Elevator 34 67 10 20 7 13 51 100 O ther 7 100 7 100 Unknown T o ta l 69 69 19 19 12 12 100 100 Full or Part-time Farmers Selling Wheat , F u ll 60 66 19 21 12 13 91 100 P a rt __ 9 100 9 100 T o ta l 69 69 19 19 12 12 100 100 TABLE B - 10 (Cont'd) Farmers Rank of Radio as a Source of Grain i*1arket Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Ranked First Ranked Second Ranked Third or Stratification In Importance In Importance Lower in Importance Total Farmers Number Percent Number Percent dumber Percent Number Percent Age of Farm Operator S e llin g Wheat Under 35 15 79 1* 21 19 100 35 - $k 25 61 11 27 5 12 ia 100 55 over 29 73 8 20 3 7 1*0 100 Unknown Total 69 69 19 IS 12 12 100 100 Education of Farm Operator - S e llin g Wheat 912 3th grade or lese ia 75 10 18 1* 7 55 100 - High school 20 61 6 18 7 21 33 100 College 8 67 3 25 1 8 12 100 Unknown Total 69 69 19 19 12 12 100 100 Geographical Area of Ohio Western 53 71 11* 19 8 10 75 100 Eastern 16 100 . 6 k ...... 5 20 1* 16 25 Total 69 69 19 19 12 12 100 100 TABLE B - 11 Farmers Rank of Dally Newspapers as a Source of Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, Method of Ranked First Ranked Second Ranked Third or Stratification In Importance ______In Importance ______Lower in Importance ______Total Farmers ______Humber Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number of Bushels of Vheat Sold Under 1*00 20 35 13 31 20 31* 59 100 Over 1*00 2$ 29 31 36 30 35 86 100 Unknown It_____ UP 6_____ 60 10_____ 100 Total h9 32 55 36 50 32 151* 100 Type of Market Agency Purchasing Vheat Private Elerator 23 30 29 39 2 it 32 76 100 9t£- Cooperative Elevator 21 33 20 31 23 36 61* 100 Other It 31 6 1*6 3 23 13 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total 32 55 36 50 32 151* 100 Full or Part-time Farmers Selling Vheat Full 1*5 32 1*8 31* 1*8 31* 11*1 100 Part 1* 31______7 51*______2 15______13 100 Total 1*? 32 55 36 50 32 151* 100 TABLE B - II (Cont'd) Farmers Rank of Daily Newspapers as a Source of Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Gnio, 19J>0 Method o f Ranked F irst Ranked Second Ranked Third or Stratification In Importance In Importance Lower in Importance Total Farmers Number P ercent Nuafcer P ercent Number Percent Number Percent Age o f Farm Operator Selling Wheat Under 35 11 35 14 46 6 19 31 100 35 - 54 31 39 21 26 28 35 80 100 55 over 6 14 20 48 16 38 42 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 T o ta l 49 32 55 36 50 32 154 100 Education of Farm O perators ul Selling Wheat H 8th grade or less 17 26 24 36 25 38 66 100 ? High school 25 37 22 32 21 31 68 100 C o lle g e 7 35 9 45 4 20 20 100 Unknown T o ta l 49 32 55 36 50 32 154 100 Geographical Area of Ohio Western 33 28 34 30 48 42 115 100 Eastern 16 itl 21 54 2 5 39 100 Total 1|9 32 55 36 50 32 154 100 TABLE B - 12 Farmers Rank of Telephone as a Source of Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 19#) Method of Ranked First Ranked Second Ranked Third or Stratification In Importance In Importance Lower in Importance Total Farmers Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number of Bushels of Wheat Sold Under 100 10 bk 7 30 6 26 23 100 Over ijOO 22 bP 17 31 16 29 55 100 Unknown 7 6k 2 18 2 18 11 100 Total 39 bk 26 29 2ii 27 89 100 Type of Market Agency Purchasing Wheat Private ^Levator 19 1|8 Hi 35 7 17 i*o 100 Cooperative Elevator 16 36 12 28 16 36 bk 100 Other k 80 1 20 5 100 Unknown Total 39 bk 26 29 2h 27 89 100 Pull or Part-time Farmers Selling Wheat Pull 36 k3 25 29 2k 28 85 100 Part 3 75 1 25 li 100 Total 39 bk 26 29 2ii 27 89 100 TABLE B - 12 (Cont'd) Farners Rank of Telephone as a Source of Grain Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various *ethods of Stratification, Ohio, 19$G Method of Ranked First Ranked Second Ranked Third or Stratification In Im portance In Importance Lower in Importance T o ta l Farmers Number P ercent Number P ercent Number Percent Number P ercent Age o f Farm O perator Selling Wheat Under 3$ lit Sh 7 27 5 19 26 100 3 5 - 5 1 16 hh 10 28 10 28 36 100 55 over 9 35 9 35 8 30 26 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total 39 hh 26 29 2k 27 89 100 Education of Farm Operator Selling Wheat 8th grade or less 13 38 13 38 8 2k 3h 100 High school 21 10 23 12 28 h3 100 C o lle g e 5 h2 3 25 h 33 12 100 Unknown Total 39 hh 26 29 2h 27 89 100 Geographical Area o f Ohio W estern 25 31 21 31 22 32 68 100 E astern lit 67 5 2k 2 9 21 100 Total 39 hh 26 29 2k 27 89 100 TABLE B - 13 Farmers Rank of Bulletin Board as a Source of Grain i.iarket Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Ranked First Ranked Second Ranked Third or Stratification In Importance In Importance Lower in Importance______Total Farmers Nmnber frerceni jfanber Percent dumber Percent Nugfcer Percent Number of Bushels of Wheat Sold Under 1*00 1*1* 59 23 31 8 10 75 100 Over i|00 39 51 25 33 12 16 76 100 Unknown 7 78 2 22 . 1 100 Total 90 56 5o 31 20 13 160 100 Type of Market Agency Purchasing Wheat Private Elevator 1*3 60 18 25 11 15 72 100 * Cooperative Elevator 1*1 53 27 35 9 12 77 100 £ Other 6 55 5 1*5 11 100 -08 Unknown ______Total 90 56 50 31 20 13 160 100 Full or Part-time Farmers Selling Wheat Full 79 SU 1*7 32 20 11* 11*6 100 Part 11____ 79 3 21______11* 100 Total 90 56 50 31 20 13 160 100 TABLE B - 13 (Corit'd) Farmers Rank of Bulletin Board as a Source of Grain J>“arket Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Onio, 1950 Method o f Ranked F irst Ranked Second Ranked Third or Stratification In Importance In Importance Lower in Im portance Total Fanners Number P ercen t Humber P ercent ifanber Percent Number Percent Age o f Farm O perator Selling Wheat Under 35 21 62 10 29 3 9 3ii 100 35 - 5k 37 51 25 3li 11 15 73 100 55 and over 31 61 H i 27 6 12 51 100 Unknown 1 .Jo_ 1 50 2 100 Total 90 56 50 31 20 13 160 100 Education of Farm Operator Selling Wheat T3S- 8th grade or lees ia 61 20 29 7 10 68 100 High school 39 57 21 31 8 12 68 100 College 9 39 9 39 5 22 23 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total 90 56 5o 31 20 13 160 100 Geographical Area o f Ohio Yestero 62 53 li2 36 13 11 117 100 Eastern 28 .65 __ 6 19 7 16 ii3 100 Total 90 56 5o 31 20 13 160 100 TABL£ B - 1h Farmers Rank of Various Miscellaneous Sources of drain “arket Information Before Selling Wheat, Ohio, 19$0 Sources of Ranked First Ranked Second Ranked Third or Information In Importance In Importance Lower in Importance Total Farmers Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Veterans or Vocational Agriculture Teacher 0 0 1 25 3 75 k 100 County Agricultural Agent 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 100 College of Agriculture 0 0 0 0 2 100 2 100 Sohio News Letter 0 0 6 33 12 67 18 100 Business Service Report 1 lii 3 10 3 h3 7 100 Other Farmers 2 26 3 37 3 37 8 100 Other k 27 3 20 8 53 15 100 TABLE B - 15 Farmer Opinion Relating to a Radio Broadcast of Grain Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Desire a Do Not Desire a Broadcast Stratification Broadcast Farmers Non - Farmers* Total Farmers Number Percent** Number Percent*"*' Number Percerii Number Percent Number of Bushels of Wheat Sold Under 1*00 112 71* 39 26 151 100 Over 1*00 119 81 28 19 11*7 100 Unknown and none 71 31 158 69 229 100 Total 302 16 225 3k 129 20 656** 100 Type of Market Agency Purchasing Wheat 1( Private Elevator 111* 78 32 22 11*6 100 j Cooperative Elevator 113 Bk 22 16 135 100 Other 21* 60 16 i*o 1*0 100 Unknown k 100 1* 100 Total 251 77 Ik 23 325 100 Full or Part-time Farmers Selling Wheat Full 270 58 192 1*2 1*62 100 Part 32 h9 33 51 65 100 Total 302 1*6 225 31* 129 20' 656** 100 TABLE B - 15 (Cont'd) Farner Opinion Relating to a Radio Broadcast of Grain Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1?5Q Method o f D e s ire a Do Not Desire a Broadcast Stratification Broadcast Farmers Non - Farmers* Total Farmers Number P e rc e n t** Number P e rc e n t** Number P ercent Number Percent Age o f Farm O perator Under 35 68 65 36 35 101* 100 35 - 51* 11*2 61 91 39 233 100 55 and over 90 51 87 1*9 177 100 Unknown 2 15 11 85 13 100 Total 302 1*6 225 31* 129 20 656** 100 Education of Farm Operator 8th grade or less 11*6 110 57 1*3 256 100 *22 High school 121 57 90 1*3 211 100 College 31* 71 U* 29 1*8 100 Unknown 1 8 11 92 12 100 Total 302 1*6 225 31* 129 20 656** 100 Oeograpbical Area o f Ohio Western 215 73 81 27 296 100 E astern 87 38 11*1* 62 231 100 Total 302 1*6 225 31* 129 20 656** 100 * According to the U. S. Census of Agriculture these people are farmers but they considered themselves non- farmers and consequently were not asked far an opinion concerning this question. ** Percentages, other than those in the to tal lin e, were calculated from 527, the number who considered them selves farmers. TAbLE B - 16 Farmer Opinion Relating to a Daily Radio Broadcast of Grain Market News Versus Such a Broadcast Only in the Heavy Grain Marketing Season, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Daily Broadcast Seasonal Broadcasts Only No Opinion ______T o ta l Fanners Stratification Number Percent Number Percent Nui&er Percent Number Percent Number of Bushels of Vheat Sold Under 1)00 81 72 27 21* 1* k 112 100 Over 1)00 85 71 33 28 1 1 119 100 Unknown and none ?7 80 11* 20 71 100 Total 223 7k 71* 25 5 1 302 100 TypB of Market Agency Purchasing Vheat Private Elevator 80 70 32 28 2 2 111* 100 932- Cooperative Elevator 83 7k 27 21* 3 2 113 100 Other 17 71 7 29 21* 100 Unknown Total 180 72 66 26 5 2 251 100 Full cor Part-time Farmers Full 202 75 63 23 5 2 270 100 Part 21 66 11 31* 32 100 Total 223 71* 71* 25 5 1 302 100 Age of Farm Operator Under 35 51 75 15 22 2 3 68 100 35-51* 99 70 1*2 29 1 1 11*2 100 55 and over 71 79 17 19 2 2 90 100 Unknown 2 100 2 100 Total 223 71* Ik 25 5 1______302 1 0 0 TABLE B - 16 (Coat1a) Farmer Opinion Relating to a Daily Radio Broadcast of Grain Market tews Versus Such a Broadcast Only in the Heavy Grain Marketing Season, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Daily Broadcast Seasonal Broadcasts Only No Opinion Total Farmers Stratification Number1 Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Education of Farm Operator 8th grade or lees 109 75 33 23 b 2 11*6 100 High school 90 71 31 26 121 100 College 23 68 10 29 1 3 3b 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total 223 71 7ii 25 5 1 302 100 Geographical Area of ( M o -93S- Western 15b 72 57 27 b 1 215 100 Eastern 69 79 17 20 1 1 87 100 Total 223 lb lb 25 5 i 302 100 TABLE B - 17 Number of Daily Grain Market News Broadcasts Desired by Farmers from Their Favorite Radio Station, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of One Two Three or More No O pinion T o ta l Farmers Stratification Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number of Bushels of Vheat Sold Under 1*00 71 63 37 33 3 3 1 1 112 100 Over 1*00 71 60 39 33 9 7 11? 100 Unknown & none i|0 56 au 3h 6 9 1 1 71 100 Total 182 60 100 __ 33.___ 18 6 2 1 302 100 Type of Market Agency Purchasing Vheat Private Elevator 81 71 30 26 3 3 111* 100 Cooperative 1 Elevator 63 56 hi 36 9 8 113 100 ! Other U* 58 9 38 1 1* 21* 100 Unknown Total J£8 63 80 32 12 h 1 1 251 100 Full or Part-time Farmers Full 163 60 90 33 16 6 1 l 270 100 Part 1? 60 10 31 2 6 1 3 32 100 Total 182 60 100 33 18 6 2 1 302 100 Age of Farm Operators Under 35 36 53 29 h3 2 3 1 1 68 100 35 - 5k 86 62 hi 29 13 9 11*2 100 55 and over 57 61* 29 32 3 3 1 l 90 100 Unknown 1 50 1 50 2 100 Total 182 60 100 33______18 6______2 1______302 100 TABLE B - 17 (Cont'd) Number of Daily Grain Market News Broadcasts Desired by Farmers From Their flavor!te Radio Station, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of One Two Three o r More No O pinion Total Farmers Stratification Number Percent Number P ercent dumber Percent Nuiiker Percent Number Percent Education of Farm Operator 8th grade or lees 93 6U hh 30 8 5 1 1 li|6 100 High school 62 51 51 1*2 7 6 1 1 121 100 College 26 76 5 15 3 9 3k 100 Unknown 1 100 1 200 Total 182 60 100 33 18 6 2 1 302 100 Geographical Area of Ohio 1 - Western 129 60 72 3k Hi 6 215 100 - 822 Eastern 53 61 28 32 k 5 2 2 87 100 Total 182 60 100 33 18 6 2 1 302 100 TABLE B - 18 Time of Bay Farmers Desired a Radio Broadcast of Grain Market ^enrs, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Early Mid Afternoon Total Stratification Morning Morning Noon and Evening No (>p inion Farmers No* Percent No* Percent No, Percent No* Percent ~No* Percent No* Fffcsnt Number of Bushels of Wheat Sold Under 100 31 28 8 7 67 60 k it 2 1 212 100 Over itOO 23 IP 11 9 71* 63 11 9 119 100 Unknown & none 10 lit it 6 ?? 75 3 It 1 1 71 100 Total 21 23 6 19it 6it 18 6 3 1 302 100 Type of Market 329 Agency Purchasing Wheat Private Elevator 21 18 11 10 76 67 5 it 1 1 Hit 100 Cooperative Elevator 31 27 8 7 65 5a 8 7 1 1 113 100 Other 1 17 1 it 16 67 3 12 21* 100 Unknown Total 56 22 20 8 157 63 16 6 2 1 251 100 Pull or Part-time Farmers Pull $k 20 19 7 179 66 15 6 3 1 270 100 Part 10 31 it 13 15 it7 3 9 32 100 Total 61i 21 2? 8 19k 611 18 6 3 1 302 100 TABLE B - 18 (Cont'd) Time of Day Farmers Desired a Radio Broadcast of Grain Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Early- Mid Afternoon Total Stratification Horning Horning Noon and Evening No C)p in io n Farmers Ho, FVC6nt No, Percent No,, Percent No, P ercen t No, P ercent No,t F©rc©n"t Age of Farm Operator Under 35 15 22 5 7 11 65 1 6 68 100 35 - 51i 27 19 9 6 97 69 7 5 2 1 112 100 55 *nd over 22 2h 8 9 52 58 7 8 1 1 90 100 Unknown 1 5o 1 2 100 Total 61 21 23 8 191 61 18 6 3 1 302 100 Education of Farm Operator 6th grade or less 32 22 13 9 90 62 9 6 2 1 116 100 High school 26 21 6 5 82 68 7 6 121 100 College 6 13 h 12 21 62 2 6 1 2 31 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total 6h 21 23 8 19h 61 18 6 3 1 302 100 Geographical Area of Ohio Western 15 21 17 8 113 67 8 3 2 1 215 100 11 1 1 Eastern V 22 6 7 51 59 10 87 100 Total 61 21 23 8 19k 61 18 6 3 1 302 100 TABLE B - 19 Number of Grain Markets Farmers Want Reported in a Radio Broadcast of Grain Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, 1950 Method of One Two Three or More No Opinion Total Farmers Stratification Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number of Bushels of Wheat Sold Under 1*00 7k 66 23 21 k 3 11 10 112 100 Over ijOO 62 52 3t 29 12 10 11 9 H 9 100 Unknown & none ?7 52 26 37 2 3 6 8 71 100 Total 173 57 83 28 18 6 28 9 302 100 Type of Market Agency Purchasing Wheat Private Elevator 62 55 30 26 8 7 It 12 lit 100 Cooperative i Elevator 69 61 25 22 8 7 11 10 113 100 £2 Other 17 71 6 25 1 t 2t 100 • Unknown Total U*8 59 61 21* 17 7 25 10 251 100 Foil or Part-time Farmers Full 152 56 7k 27 18 7 26 10 270 100 Part 21 66 9 26 2 6 32 100 Total 173 57 83 28 18 6 28 9 302 100 TABLE B - 19 (Cant'd) Number of Grain Markets Farmers Want Reported in a Radio Broadcast of Grain Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method cf One Two Three or More No O pinion Total Farmers Stratification Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Yunfeer Percent Nunber Percent Age of Farm Operator Under 35 37 55 17 25 7 10 7 10 68 100 35 - Sk 86 61 37 26 8 5 11 8 li|2 100 55 and over 50 56 27 30 3 3 10 11 90 100 Unknown 2 100 2 100 Total 173 57 83 28 18 6 28 9 302 100 Education o f Farm Operator 8th grade or less 87 60 38 26 k 2 17 12 21i6 100 High school 66 55 35 29 13 11 7 5 121 100 College 20 59 9 26 1 3 It 12 3k 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total 173 57 83 28 18 6 28 9 302 100 Geographical Area of Ohio Yestero m 58 58 27 11 5 22 10 215 100 Eastern bS 56 25 29 7 6 6 7 87 100 Total 173 57 83 28 18 6 28 9 302 100 TABLE B - 20 Grain Markets Farmers Want Reported in a Radio Broadcast of Grain Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Local Chicago Toledo Columbus Cincinnati Other No Opinion Total Stratification Wo» Per. fro. P e r . E a r . No. 'Par* No. Per, No# Par. farm ers Number o f Bushels of lheat Sold Under 1*00 52 1*6 25 22 19 17 12 11 8 7 19 17 12 11 112 Over 1*00 58 10 1*1 35 22 19 16 13 11 9 21 18 11 9 119 Unknown & none 21* 31* 22 31 13 18 10 u* 17 21* 7 10 6 ? 71 Ml 131* 1*1* 88 29 51* 18 38 13 36 12 1*7 16 29 10 302 T^pe of Market Agency Purchasing lh e a t P riv a te E le v a to r 1*7 1*1 33 29 H* 12 11* 12 17 15 22 19 15 13 111* Cooperative E le v a to r 55 1*9 28 25 26 23 12 11 5 1* 19 17 11 10 113 O ther 11* 58 8 33 3 13 1* 17 3 13 1 1* 21* Unknown T o ta l n 6 1*6 69 28 1*3 17 30 12 25 10 1*2 17 26 10 251 F u ll o r Part-time Farmers Full 12h 1*6 83 31 1*9 18 35 13 32 12 31* 13 27 10 270 Part 10 31 5 16 5 16 3__ 9 1*13131*1 2 6 32 Total 131 ill* 88 29 51* 18 38 13 36 12 1*7 16 29 10 302 TABLE B - 20 (Cont'd) Grain Markets Farmers Want Reported in a Radio Broadcast of Grain Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Local Chicago Toledo Columbus Cincinnati Other No Opinion Total as o Stratification No. Per t No. Per. No. Per. No. Per. . Per. No. PfiT i No. Per. Farmers Age of Kara Operator Under 35 34 50 21 31 11 16 7 10 7 10 12 18 8 12 68 35 - a 69 49 36 25 22 16 20 14 13 9 25 18 11 8 142 55 and over 29 32 30 33 20 22 11 12 16 18 10 11 10 11 90 Unknown 2 100 1 P° 1 5o 2 Total 134 1*4 88 29 54 18 38 13 36 12 47 16 29 10 302 Education of F a n Operator 8th grade or less 56 38 37 25 25 17 15 10 24 16 23 16 17 12 146 ( High school 69 57 40 33 19 16 17 14 10 8 19 16 8 7 121 I College 7 21 li 32 10 29 6 18 2 6 5 15 4 12 34 \ Unknown 2 200 1 ' Total 134 44 88 29 54 18 38 13 36 12 47 16 29 10 302 Geographical Area of Ohio V e s t e m 76 35 62 29 49 23 19 9 33 15 39 18 22 10 215 Eastern 58 67 26 30 5 6 19 22 3 3 9 10 7 8 87 Total 134 44 88 29 54 18 38 13 36 12 47 16 29 10 302 TABLE b - 21 Specific Grains farmers Want Reported in a Radio Broadcast of Grain Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of lheat_____ Corn_____ Oats Soybeans Barley Rye_____ Other Total Stratification tfo'» Per. No* Per» No» Per. do. Per* No» Par, No. Per, No. Per. Farmers Number of Bushels of Wheat Sold Under ijOO 111 99 98 88 53 k? 67 60 5 5 6 7 3 3 112 Orer i|00 116 99 107 90 65 55 8k 71 8 7 7 6 119 Unknown & none V Specific Grains Farmers Want Reported in a Radio Broadcast of Grain Market News* by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Wheat Corn Oats Soybeans Barley Rye Other Total Stratification No* For# No* Per, No. Per. No. Per, No. Per. No. Per. No. Per, Farmers Age of Farm Operator Under 35 67 99 63 93 1*1 60 1*1* 65 1* 6 7 10 68 35 - 51* 137 97 122 86 61 1*3 95 67 8 6 7 5 3 2 11*2 55 and over 88 98 83 92 57 63 58 61* 6 7 9 10 2 2 90 Unknown 2 100 2 100 l 50 l 50 1 5o 2 Total 29k 97 270 89 160 53 198 66 18 6 21* 8 5 2 302 Education of Fans Operator 8th grade or less H o 96 128 88 83 57 97 66 11 8 12 8 3 2 11*6 I, High school 119 98 112 93 63 52 77 61* 5 1* 8 7 2 2 121 « College 31* 100 29 85 H* a 21* 71 2 6 1* 12 31* ? Unknown 1 100 1 100 1 Total 291* 97 270 89 160 53 198 66 18 6 21* 8 5 2 302 Geographical Area of Ohio Western 20 8 97 189 88 110 51 155 72 16 7 17 8 2 1 215 Eastern 86 99 81 93 50 58 1*3 1*9 2 2 7 8 3 3 87 Total 29k 97 270 89 160 53 198 66 18 6 21* 8 5 2 302 TABLE B - 22 Relative Importance of Specific Items of Grain Market Information Farmers Want in a Radio Broadcast of Grain Market News, by Various -Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f Grade of drain Explanation Inclusion of Chicago T o ta l Stratification S p e c ifie d of Discounts Futures Price Quotations Farmers Number P ercent Number P ercent Number Percent Number of Bushels o f lh e a t Sold Under 1|00 68 61 78 70 1*6 1*1 112 Over 1*00 86 72 81 68 6? 56 119 Ilknoim and none 53 75 59 83 36 51 71 total 207 69 218 72 01*9 1*9 302 Type of Market Agency Purchasing lheat Private Elevator 70 62 72 63 62 51* i l l * ! Cooperative Elevator 77 68 86 76 50 1*1* 113 ' Other 19 79 18 75 11* 58 21* Unknown Total 166 66 176 70 126 50 251 Fall or Part-time Fanners Full 190 70 199 71* 035 50 270 Part 17 53 19 59 n* 1*1* 32 Total 207 69 218 72 11*9 1*9 302 Age of Far* Operator Under 35 1*7 69 51 75 35 52 68 35-51* 101 71 107 75 76 51* 11*2 55 and over 58 65 59 66 38 1*2 90 Unknown 1 50 1 So 2 Total 207 69 218 72 01*9 1*9 302 TABLE B - 22 (Cont'd) Relative Laportance of Specific Items of Grain Market Information Farmers Want in a Radio Broadcast of Grain Market Notts, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Grade of Grain Explanation Inclusion of Chicago Total Stratification Specified Of Liscounts Futures Price Quotations Farmers Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Education of Farm Operator 6th grade or lees 99 67 106 73 60 61 166 High school 8U 69 90 76 66 55 121 College 2ii 71 21 62 23 66 36 Unknown 1 100 1 100 1 Total 207 69 216 72 169 65 302 Geographical Area of Ohio Teetern 137 66 155 72 116 56 215 Eastern 70 81 63 72 33 38 87 Total 207 69 218 72 169 69 302 TABLE 9-23 Relative Importance of Actual and Trend of Prices on Chicago Board of Trade Among Farmers Wanting Such Prices Included in a Grain Market News Broadcast, by Various Method* of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Actual Trend No Opinion Total Farmers Stratification Number Percent Number Percent dumber Percent Number Percent N\»ber of Bushels of Wheat Sold Under JjOO 25 51* 18 39 3 7 1*6 100 Over 1)00 36 51* 21* 36 7 10 67 100 Unknown and none 1*2 11* 39 7 19 36 100 Total 76 51 56 38 17 11 11*9 100 Type of Market Agency Purchasing lheat Private Elevator 30 1*9 25 1*0 7 11 62 100 , Cooperative Elevator 29 58 15 30 6 12 50 ioo : Other 9 61* 5 36 H* 100 Unknown Total 68 51* 1*5 36 13 10 126 100 Full or Part-time Farmers Pull 67 50 52 39 H* 11 133 100 Part 16 9 56 . ... _ 1* 25 3 19 100 Total 76 5i 56 38 17 11 11*9 100 Age of Farn Operator Under 35 18 52 13 37 1* 11 35 100 35-51* 39 5i 28 37 9 12 76 100 55 and over 19 5o 15 1*0 1* 10 38 100 Unknown Total 76 51 56 38______17 U ______11*9 100 TABLE B - 23 (Cont'd) Relative Importance of Actual and Trend of Prices on Chicago Board of Trade Among Farmers Wanting Such Prices Included in a Grain Market News Broadcast, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 19$0 Method o f A c tu a l Trend No Opinion Total Farmers Stratification Number P ercent Number Percent Number P ercent Number Percent Education of ffera Operator 8th grade or lees 33 55 a 35 6 10 60 100 High school 33 5o 25 38 8 12 66 100 C o lleg e 10 44 10 44 3 12 23 100 Unknown T o ta l 76 5i 56 38 1? 11 14? 100 Geographical Area of Ohio W estern 55 48 48 41 13 11 116 100 E astern 21 . 64 . _ 8 24 4 12 33 100 T o ta l 76 51 56 38 17 11 14? 100 TABLE B - 2h Unaerstandability of Term "Future Price" by Farmers Indicating They Did Not Want Chicago Board of Trade Future Prices Included in a Radio Broadcast of Grain Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Understand Term Do Not Understand Stratification ■Future Price" Term "future Price" Total Farmers Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number of Bushels of Wheat Sold -=t O G Under 100 18 27 73 66 100 Over 100 8 15 1*1* 85 52 100 Unknown and none 8 23 27 77 35 100 Total 31* 22 119 78 153 100 Type of Market Agency Purchasing - Wheat 2 * Private Elevator 12 23 10 77 52 100 1 Cooperative Elevator 13 21 5o 79 63 100 Other 3 30 7 70 10 100 Unknown Total 28 22 97 78 125 100 Full or Part-time Farmers Full 33 21* lol* 76 137 100 Part 1 6 15 91* 16 100 Total 31* 22 U 9 78 153 100 Age of Farm Operator Under 35 1* 12 29 88 33 100 35-51* 16 21* 50 76 66 100 55 and over H* 27 38 73 52 100 Unknown 2 100 2 300 Total 31* 22 119 78 153 100 TABLE B - 2h (Cont'd) Understandability of Term "Future Price" by Farmers Indicating They Did Not Want Chicago Board of Trade Future Prices Included in a Radio Broadcast of Grain Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f Understand Term Do Not Understand Stratification "Future Price" Term "Future Price" T o tal Farmers Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Education of Farm Operator 8th grade or less 22 26 6 k 71* 86 100 High school 7 13 1*8 87 55 100 College 5 1*5 6 55 11 100 Unknom 1 100 1 100 T o tal 3 k 22 119 78 153 100 Geographical Area of Ohio Vestern 19 19 80 81 99 100 Eastern 28 39 72 51* 100 T o ta l 3 k 22 119 78 153 100 TABLE B - 25 Farmer Opinion Concerning Accuracy of Grain Market News Broadcasts, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f Very F a irly Not Very Not No T o tal Stratification Accurate Accurate Accurate Accurate Opinion Farmers No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent Mo. Percent Mo. Percent No,, Percent Number o f Bushels of Vheat Sold Under l£ 0 15 13 51* 1*0 1* 1* 39 35 112 100 Over 1*00 17 I k 61 51 9 6 1 1 31 26 119 100 Unknown and none 3 h 38 _ 2 3 28 39 71 100 T o ta l 35 11 153 51 15 5 1 1 98 32 302 100 Type of Market Agency Purchasing lh e a t P riva te Elevator 19 17 59 52 5 1* 31 27 111* 100 Cooperative Elevator 12 U 60 53 5 1* 1 1 35 31 113 100 Other 1 1* 9 38 3 12 11 1*6 21* 100 Unknown T o tal 32 12 128 51 13 5 1 1 77 31 251 100 Full or Part-time Farmers F u ll 32 12 139 51 15 5 1 1 83 31 270 100 P art 3 9 11* 1*1* 15 1*7 32 100 T o tal 35 11 153 51 15 5 1 1 98 32 302 100 TABLE B - 25 (Cont'd) Farmer Opinion Concerning Accuracy of Grain Market News Broadcasts, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f Very F a irly Not Very Not No Total Stratification Accurate Accurate Accurate Accurate Opinion Farmers No. PttTCQQ't No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent NO,t Forcont Age o f Farm Operator Under 35 6 9 32 47 4 6 26 38 68 100 18 12 10 32 142 100 35 - 51a 69 49CO 7 45 55 end over 10 U 52 1 1 1 1 26 29 90 100 Unknown 1 5o 1 50 2 100 Total 35 ll 153 51 15 5 1 1 98 32 302 100 Education of Farm Operator 8th grade or lees 17 12 82 56 4 2 1 1 42 29 146 100 High school 12 51 42 9 7 47 39 121 100 College 4 12 20 59 2 6 8 23 34 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total % 11 153 51 15 5 1 1 98 32 302 100 Geographical Area o f Ohio le s te m 27 13 131 61 13 6 44 20 215 100 Eastern 8 9 22 25 2 2 1 1 54 63 87 100 T o ta l 35 11 153 51 15 5 1 1 98 32 302 100 TABLE B - 26 Fanner Opinion Relating to a Daily Newspaper Report of Grain Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Do Not Desire Newspaper Report Method of Desire Newspaper No Newspaper Total Stratification Report Farmers Non - Farmers* Received Regularly Fazmers Humber P ercent** Humber Percent** Number Percent Number Percent Humber Percent Number o f Bushels o f Wheat Sold Under 1*00 101* 69 38 25 9 6 151 100 Over ifOO 116 7 9 25 17 6 1* 11*7 100 Unknown and none 6 5 28 151 66 13 6 229 100 T o tal 2ii* 129 26 28 IT 6 5 6 * * lbo ■type o f Market Agency i Purchasing Wheat i Private Elevator 112 77 28 19 6 1* 11*6 100 Cooperative Elevator 101 7 5 25 19 9 6 1 3 5 100 Other 26 6 5 H* 35 1*0 100 Unknown 1 25 2 5o 1 25 1* 100 To tal 2l*0 % 6 ? 21 16 5 325 — im Full or Part-time Farmers F u ll 255 55 183 1*0 21* 5 1*62 100 P art p 1*6 31 1*8 1* 6 6 5 100 T o tal 285 1*3 211* 33 129 20 28 1* 656 * * 100 TABLE B - 26 (Cont'd) Farmer Opinion Relating to a Daily Newspaper Report of Grain Market News, by Various Methods, Ohio, 1950 Do Not Desire Newspaper Report Method of Desire Newspaper 'No Newspaper Total S tra tific a tio n Report Farmers______Won - Farmers* Received Regularly ______Farmers ______Number Percent** Number Percent** Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Age o f Farm Operator Under 35 63 61 32 31 9 8 104 100 3 5 - 5 * 1 137 59 86 37 10 4 233 100 55 and ewer 84 47 85 48 8 5 177 100 Unknown 1 8 11 84 1 6 13 100 T o tal 1 S 5 15 m 35 W & ------58------4------555##— 155 Education of Farm Operator 8th grade or less 125 49 109 43 22 8 256 100 High school 129 61 77 37 5 2 211 100 College 31 65 17 35 48 100 Unknown n 92 l 8 12 100 tqui______a ; y aii 33 k ? ~ & 26 u 6s&«» iofl Geographical Area o f Ohio Western 212 72 70 24 14 4 296 100 Eastern 73 32 144 62 14 6 231 100 Tot* l ______2*8 43 2l4 33 129 20 25 " T ______5%## Toft * According to the U. S. Census of Agriculture these people are farmers but they considered themselves ncn- farmors and consequently were not asked for an opinion concerning this question* ** Percentages, other than those in the total line, were calculated from 527, the number who ctasidered them selves farmers* TABLE B - 27 Farmer Opinion Relating to a Daily Newspaper Report of Grain lfarket News Versus Such a Report Only in the Heavy Grain Marketing Season, hy Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Daily Reports Seasonal Reports Only No Opinion Total Farmers Stratification Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Voter of Bushels of Wheat Sold Under fcOO 90 86 11 11 3 3 10b 100 Over bOO 10b 90 11 9 1 l 116 100 Unknown and non* 53 81 11 17 1 2 65 100 Total 21*7 87 33 12 5 1 285 100 Type of Market Agency Purchasing Wheat Private Elevator 99 88 12 11 l 1 112 IX Cooperative Elevator 91 90 8 9 2 2 101 100 Other 20 77 5 19 1 b 26 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total 211 86 25 10 b 2 2bO IX Full or Part-tlns Farmers Full 22b 88 27 11 b 1 255 IX Part 23 77 6 20 1 _J_. - -_ _ 30_ IX Total 21*7 87 33 12 5 1 285 IX TABLE B - 27 (Cont'd) Farmer Opinion Relating to a Daily Newspaper Report of Grain Market News Versus Such a Report Only in the Heasy Grain Marketing Season, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Daily Reports Seasonal Reports Only No Opinion Total Farmers Stratification Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Age of Farm Operator Under 35 50 79 13 21 63 100 3 5 - 5 k 121 88 15 U 2 1 138 100 55 and over 75 90 5 6 3 it 83 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total 12 1 285 100 21*7 97 . JL. 5 Education of Farm Operator 8 th grade or leae 110 89 11 9 3 2 121* 100 High aehool 107 83 20 16 2 1 129 100 College 30 9k 2 6 32 100 Unknown Total 2l*7 87 33 12 5 1 285 100 Geographical Area of Ohio Western 182 86 27 13 3 1 212 100 Eastern 65 89 6 8 2 3 73 100 Total 1ft 1 5 12 5 T 2B r TABLE B - 28 Number of Grain Markets Fanners Want Reported in a Newspaper Report of Grain Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of One Two Three or More No Op:in ion Total Farmers Stratification Nuaber Percent Number Percent Nuaber Percent dumber Percent Nuaber Percent Number o f Bushels o f Wheat Sold Under 1*00 57 55 33 32 8 8 6 5 10lt 100 Orer i*00 62 5*i 37 32 12 10 5 h 116 100 Unknown and none 35 5!* 18 28 8 12 it 6 65 100 T o tal 15J* A 31 28 " 10 i5 ? 26$ 100 Type of Market Agency Purchasing Wheat Private Elevator 59 53 31 28 lii 12 8 7 112 100 Cooperative Elevator 55 55 35 35 7 7 it 3 101 100 Other 15 58 9 35 2 7 26 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 T o tal 13d A 75 £ 23 ' 15 r a*r ""150™ ' Full or Part-time Earners P u ll 13U 53 80 31 27 11 lit 5 255 100 Part 20 67 8 27 1 3 1 3 30 100 T o tal {& 3i 25 10 a 5 - J R . - 100 TABLE B - 28 (Cont'd) Number of Grain Markets Farmers Vast Reported in a Newspaper Report of Grain Market News* by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of One Two Three or More No Opinion Total Farmers Stratification Number Percent Nuaber Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Parent Ace of F a n Operator Under 35 32 51 19 30 8 13 1* 6 63 100 35-51* 82 60 36 26 12 9 8 5 138 100 55 and oter 1*0 1*8 32 39 8 10 3 3 83 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total 151* 51* 88 JL 28 10 15 5 285 100 Education of Fan Operator 8 th grade or 66 53 39 32 11 9 8 6 121* 100 leas High School 72 56 37 29 15 12 5 3 129 100 College 16 5o 12 38 2 6 2 6 32 100 Unknown Total 151* 51* 88 .-J 1 28 10 15 5 28? 100 Geographical Area of Ohio Masters 109 51 68 32 21 10 lit 7 212 100 Eastern k$ 62 20 27 7 10 l 1 73 100 Total 151* 51* 88 31 28 10 15 5 28 ? 100 TABLE B - 29 Grain Markets Earners Want Reported in a Newspaper Report of Grain Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Local_____ Chicago Toledo Cincinnati Colunbm Other No folnion Total Stratification ~Io« Per. No, Per* Mo, Per> No, Per» Mo, ^er« lio, Ear, rio» Per. Varners Nuaber of Bashels of Wheat Sold Under 1*00 66 64 26 25 lit H* 8 8 11 11 21 20 8 8 101* Over 1*00 7k 61* 1*1 3$ a 18 7 6 1$ 13 18 16 6 5 116 Unknown & none 29 1*5 25 39 7 11 18 28 6 9 10 15 k 6 65 T o tal 169 59 92 1*2 15 ?? 12 32 11 1*9 17 18 6 285 Type of Market Agency Purchasing Wheat P riva te Elevator 61 55 36 32 15 13 11 10 17 15 21* 21 11 10 112 Cooperative Elevator 69 68 27 27 19 19 8 8 9 9 15 15 1* 1* 101 Other 19 73 10 39 2 8 2 8 3 12 3 12 26 Unknown 1 100 1 To tal i5o 6? 7? 30 36 15 21 9 29 12 1*2 18 15 6 21*0 Poll or Part-tiae Parsers P u ll 11*9 58 87 31* 38 15 30 12 30 12 U* 20 16 7 255 P art 20 67 5 17 1* 13 ? 10 2 7 5 17 T o t a l ______lifc" & 92 1*2 15 33 12 32 11 1*9 ~ 17 £8 I TABLE B - 29 (Cont’d) Grain Market* Faraers Want Reported in a Newspaper Report of Grain Market News, fcgr Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of______Local____ Chicago Toledo Cincinnati Coluabus Other No Opinion Total Stratification &>♦ ^er. Wo» Per* ?io, Per* Wo. Per. No* Per* Ko» Per* No. Perl" Farmers Age of Para Operator Under 3$ 39 62 20 32 9 lit 7 11 5 8 lit 22 6 10 63 35-56 85 62 62 30 19 lit 12 9 lit 10 19 lit 9 7 138 55 and over 65 56 29 35 13 16 lit 17 13 16 16 19 3 it 83 Unknown 1 100 1 100 1 Total______169 59 92 32 it2 15 33 12 32 11 69 17 18 6 285 Education of Earn Operator 8th grade or leas 72 58 38 31 20 16 19 15 9 7 22 18 8 7 126 High school 83 66 66 36 15 12 10 8 15 12 26 19 8 6 129 College 14 66 10 31 7 22 6 13 8 25 3 9 2 6 32 Unknown Total 169 39".. w ~ ir m r"i} is "TiT' iff I? - in—r ~ w Geographical Area of Ohio Western 115 5it 68 32 36 17 31 15 19 9 1*0 19 17 8 212 Eastern 56 7it 2it 33 6 8 2 3 13 18 9 12 1 1 73 T o tal______169__ 59 92 32____ 62 15 33 12 32 U 69 17 18 6 ____ 285 TABLE B - 30 Specific Grains Fanners Want Reported in a Newspaper Report of Grain Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method o f______Wheat______Corn______Oate Soybeans Barley Rye Other Total Stratification No* Per* No, Per* Ho» Per* fro# l*er« Mo, Per* tip, Per, So« Per* framers Nuaber o f Bushels of Vheat Sold Ufader JiOO 103 99 91 88 52 50 62 60 i* k 8 8 2 2 IOI4 Over 1*00 116 100 108 93 72 62 85 13 10 8 8 7 116 Unknown & none 6l 9h 63 97 i»2 65 1*5 69 k 6 7 U 2 3 65 T o tal *280 98 262 92 166 58 192 67 18 6 23 8 k 1 28?" Type of Market Agency Purchasing Wheat Private Elevator 111 99 99 88 56 50 79 71 8 7 9 8 2 2 112 Cooperative Elevator 101 100 92 91 65 64 63 62 7 7 7 7 101 Other 26 100 25 96 15 58 17 65 1 1* 3 12 26 Unkncnm 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 T o tal *39 100 21? 96 13? 5? 159 66 16 7 19 8 2 1 2W> Full or Part-tiee Faraers F u ll 250 98 233 91 Hi7 58 172 68 17 7 20 8 1 1 255 P art 30 100 29 97 19 63 20 67 1 3 3 10 3 10 30 T o tal 280 98 262 92 166 58 192 67 18 6 23 8 k 1 285 TABLE B - 30 (Cont'd) Specifio Grains Faraera Want Reported in a Newspaper Report of Grain Market News, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of lheat C o m Oats Soybeans Barley Rye Other Total Stratification So» Eer« No* Per* Ho, Per* Mo» Per* Per. No/ Per. UoY Per+ Fanners Age of Fern Operator Under 35 62 98 61 97 ia 65 ia 65 h 6 5 8 63 3 5 - a 135 98 12li 90 78 $1 95 69 9 7 9 7 3 2 138 55 and otwr 82 99 76 92 he 55 55 66 5 6 8 10 1 1 83 Unknown 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 bal 280 98 262 92 166 58 192 67 18 6 23 8 i* 1 285 Education of Fans Operator 8th grade or less 122 98 113 91 70 57 80 65 8 7 7 6 2 2 12i* High school 126 98 120 93 79 61 67 67 7 5 11 9 2 2 129 College 32 100 29 91 17 53 25 78 3 9 5 16 32 Unknown Total 280 98 262 92 58 192 67 18 6 23 8 1* 1 285 Geographical Area of Ohio Western 208 98 195 92 12i* 59 152 72 15 7 17 8 2 1 212 Eastern 72 99 67 92 1*2 58 1*0 6 8 2 55 3 1* 3 - - B - - Total 286 98 262 92 166 58 192 67 18" 6 2? 8 i* 1 2 b f TABLE B - 31 Relative Importance of Specific Items of Grain Market Information Farmers Want Reported in Daily Newspapers, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Grade of Explanation Sumnaiy Inclusion of Chicago Total Method of Grain Specified of Discounts Statement Future Price Quotations Farmers Stratification Nuaber Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number of Bushels of Vheat Sold Under 1*00 72 69 56 51* 73 70 51 1*9 lot* Over 1*00 86 71* 69 60 88 76 61* 55 116 Unknown and none 51* 83 1*5 69 1*0 62 35 51* 65 Total 212 Ik llo 66 2bi 7l i5o 5T 285" T^pe of Market Agency Purchasing lheat Private Elevator 76 66 61 59 53 77 69 55 112 -998* Cooperative Elevator 77 76 62 61 75 71* 1*9 1*9 101 Other 21 81 18 69 21 81 17 65 26 Unknown 1 Total i?J* 73 5E i?3 72 i27 "53 '"211 (T Full or Part-Time Famers Full 192 75 158 62 187 71* H*l* 57 255 Part 20 67 12 1*0 H* 1*7 6 20 P Total 212 71* 170 60 201 71 150 53 285 Age of Fara Operator Under 35 1*7 75 36 57 1*6 73 39 61 63 35 - 107 78 89 65 96 70 83 61 138 5$ and orer 58 70 1*5 51* 28 31* 83 5f i28 Tota*” 0” “ z r r - 7 f 170 6o 201 71 i5o 53 28 ? TABLE B - 31 (Cont'd) Relative Importance of Specific Items of Grain Market Information Farmers Want Reported in Daily Newspaper#, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Grade of Explanation Summary Inclusion of Chicago Total Stratification Grain Specified of Discounts Statements !Future Price Quotations Farmers Nuaber• Percent Nunber Percent Number Percent Nunber Percent Education of Fara Operator 8th grade or lees 89 72 70 57 80 65 1*9 39 121* High school 99 77 81 63 96 7k 77 60 129 College 2k 75 19 59 25 78 2k 75 32 Unknown Total 212 71* 170 60 201 71 150 53 285 Geographical Area of Ohio Weetern 151 71 122 58 11*8 70 126 60 212 Eastern 6l 8U 1*8 66 53 73 21* 33 73 Total 212 7k 170 60 201 71 i5o 53 28 f TABLE B - 32 Farmer Opinion Concerning Accuracy of Grain Market Information in Daily Newspapers, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Veiy Fairly Not Very Not Total Stratification Aocurate Accurate Accurate Accurate No Opinion Farmers Ho. Percent No. Percent Ho. Percent No. Percent No, Percent No. Percent Number of Bushels of Wheat Sold Under 1*00 12 12 57 55 16 15 19 18 101* 100 Over hOO 6 5 79 68 lit 12 1 1 16 li* 116 100 Unknown A none 5 8 - 3? _ 60 } 5 1 1 17 26 65 100 u-\ *1 23 8 175 61 33 12 2 1 Type of Market -867 Agency Purchasing Wheat • Private Slevator 9 6 71 63 1h 13 18 16 112 100 Cooperative Elevator 9 9 63 62 16 16 1 1 12 12 101 100 Other 1 3 16 62 2 8 7 27 26 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total 19 8 151 63 32 13 1 1 37 15 21*0 100 Full or Part-time Farmers Fall 18 7 162 63 31 12 2 1 1*2 17 255 100 Part 5 17 13 1*3 2 7 10 33 30 100 Total 23 8 175 61 33 12 2 1 52 18 285 100 TABLE B - 32 (Cont'd) Farmer Opinion Concerning Accuracy of Grain Market Information in Daily Newspapers, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Very Fairly Not Very Not Total Stratification Accurate Accurate Accurate Accurate No Cpinion Farners Mo* Percent No.► Poreent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent Age of Fa n operator Under 35 3 5 ill 65 8 13 11 17 63 100 35 - 5k 17 12 83 60 18 13 20 15 138 100 55 and orer 3 It 50 61 7 8 2 2 21 25 83 100 Unknown 1 100 1 100 Total *2 6 175 61 3? 12 2 1 52 1S 2 8 100 Education of F a n Operator 8 th grade or leaa 9 7 77 62 15 12 2 2 21 17 I2ii 100 High school 9 7 76 59 17 13 27 21 129 100 College 5 16 22 69 1 3 It 12 32 100 Unknown Total B 175 61 J? 15 2 1 55 IB 585 166 Geographical Area of Ohio Western 19 9 Uti 66 29 lit 1 1 22 10 212 100 Eastern 6 J46 It 6 1 1 30 ia 73 100 il X/\ Total M C 22 8 175 61 ?? 12 2 1 18 285 100 TABLE B - 33 Number and Percent of Farmers Who Hade Suggestions as to Hcrw Grain Market Reporting Might he Improved by Radio Stations and Daily Newspapers, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Radio Stations Daily Newspapers Total Farmers Stratification Percent HuiMr feTconw Asked Unbar of Bushels of Wheat Sold Under 1(00 21 Hi 13 9 151 Orer 400 37 25 21 lk 147 Unknown 1 4 1 4 27 Tftal 55 18 35 11 325 Type of Market Agency Purchasing Wheat Private Elevator 30 21 15 11 146 Cooperative Elevator 23 17 14 10 135 Other 6 15 6 15 ko Unknown 4 Total 59 18 35 11 325 Full or Part-time Farmers Full 73 16 37 9 462 Part 1 2 3 5 65 Total 71 ,8l . .. 46 B 527 Age of Farm Operator Under 35 23 22 11 11 104 35- 5k 33 lk 16 7 233 55 and over 17 10 13 7 177 Unknown _ 1 8 Total ~ 7k 14 40 8 52f TABLE B - 33 (Cont'd) Number and Percent of Furors Who Made Suggestions as to How Grain Market Reporting Might be Improved fay Radio Stations and Daily Newspapers, fay Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Radio Stations Daily Newspapers Total Farmers Stratification Number Percent Number Percent Asked Education of Farm Operator 8th grade or less 25 10 16 6 256 High school 34 16 20 9 211 College lit 29 4 8 1*8 Unknown 1 8 12 Total 71* 14 1*0 8 527 Geographical Area of Ohio Western 57 13 17 6 296 Eastern 37 16 23 10 231 Total 71* 14 1*5 "B it? TABLE B - 3ii Suggestions Wads by Fanners As to Hour Radio Stations Might Improve Grain Market Reporting, ty Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Report Report Report Report Total Farners Method of Local Cash Trend Soybean Explain Making Stratification Market Prices of Prices Prices Discounts Other Suggestions Mo. Per. No. Fm % No,, Per. Ho. Per. No. Per. No. Per. Number of Bushels of Wheat Sold Under i»00 7 33 6 29 3 lit 3 lit 12 57 21 Over i»00 lit 38 7 19 5 lit 2 5 5 lit 16 it3 37 Unknowi 1 100 1 Total 21 38 lli 21a 8 lit 5 9 5 9 28 U8 59 type of Market Agency Purchasing Wheat Private Elevator 8 27 8 27 k 13 It 13 2 7 15 50 30 Cooperative Elevator 11 5 22 It 17 l it 3 13 8 35 23 Other 2 33 1 17 5 83 6 Unknoen Total 8. * u & 8 lit 5 9 5 9 28 M 59 Full or Part-tine Farners Full 25 3** 15 21 8 11 7 10 6 8 29 ItO 73 Part 1 100 1 Total 26 3* i5 20 A 11 7 9 6 A 29 39 Ik TABLE B - 3U (Cont’d) Suggestions Hade by Fsneers As to How Radio Stations Might ImproYe Grain Market Reporting, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Report Report Report Report Total Farners Method of Local Cash Trend Soybean Explain Making Stratification Market Prices of Prices Prices Discounts Other Suggestions _ Ho- Mo- HO. Far* No- Far. Age of F a n Operator Under 35 8 35 6 26 2 9 3 13 1 li 9 39 23 35- 5fc 11 33 5 15 3 9 3 9 k 12 13 39 33 55 and over 6 35 k 2h 3 18 1 6 1 6 7 ill 17 Unknown 1 100 1 Total 26 15 20 8 11 7 9 6 8 29 P 7U Education of Fan Operator 8 th grade or 292- less 9 36 6 2k 2 8 3 12 2 8 7 28 25 High school 11* ill U 12 1* 12 3 9 3 9 17 50 3ii College 2 lii 5 36 2 lit 1 7 1 7 5 36 Hi Unknown 1 100 1 Total 26 i5 20 8 11 7 9 6 IT 29 39 7Ji Geographical Area of Ohio Western 7 19 10 27 7 19 3 8 3 8 22 60 37 Eastern 19 5 i 5 Hi 1 _ _3 R 11 8 7 19 37 Total 26 35 i5 20 8 11 7 9 6 8 29 39 7li TABLE B - 35 Suggestion* Made By Farmers As To How Daily Newspapers Might Inprore Grain Market Reporting, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Report Improve Reports Report Soybean Total Farmers Stratification Local Market Accuracy Cash Prices Prices Other Making Suggestions No* Per. Wo. Per. Wo. Per. Wo. Per. No. Per. Noaher of Bushels of Wheat Sold Under 1*00 5 39 It 31 2 15 3 23 13 Orer 1*00 8 38 8 38 1 5 2 10 6 29 21 Unknown 1 100 1 Total lit ItO 12 } 9 2 6 9 26 35 Type of Market Agency Purchasing Wheat Private Elevator 5 2 2 8 33 13 13 53 15 •gee- Cooperative Elevator 5 36 9 6It 1 7 1 7 Ut Other It 67 1 17 2 33 6 Unknown Total ItO 12 3t 3 9 2 6 9 26 . . JL _____ Full or Part-tine Farners Full 15 itl U 30 3 3 3 8 10 27 37 Part l 33 2 67 ,3 Total to p )} ) 8 3 8 10 25 to TABLE B - 35 (Cont’d) Suggestion* Made by Farmers As to Ho* Daily Newspapers Might Improve Grain Market Reporting, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Report Improve Report Report Soybean Total Farmers Stratification Local Market Accuracy Cash Prices Prices Other Making Suggestions No* Per. Ho. Per. Ho. Per. No. Per. No. Per. Age of F a n Operator Under 35 b 36 2 18 1 9 2 18 k 36 U 35- 51* 7 1*1* 6 38 1 6 1 6 3 19 16 55 and over 5 39 5 39 1 8 3 23 13 Unknown Total 16 1*0 13 33 3 8 3 8 10 25 1*0 Education of Fan Operator 8th grade or lees 5 31 7 1*1* l 6 1 6 3 19 16 High school 9 1*5 6 30 2 10 2 10 1* 20 20 College 2 50 3 75 1* Unknown Total 1*0 13 33 3 $ 3 10 25 1*0 Geographical Area of Ohio Western 3 18 9 53 i 6 2 12 1* 21* 17 Eastern 1£_ 57 1* 17 2 9 1 1* 6 26 __ _ 23 _ . _ Total 16 ko 13 33 8 3 8 10 25 1*0 TABLE B - 36 Number of Farmers Who Did Not Use Various Leading Sources of Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Phone Radio Daily Newspaper Bulletin Board Total Stratification ffuAer Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Perosnt Number of Bushels of Wheat Sold Under 1*00 119 79 105 70 93 61 79 52 151 Orer 1*00 96 65 96 65 61 ia 68 1*6 11*7 Unknown & none 21 78 89 18 A 17 S3-- 67 27 Total .,„7J ... 225 69 171 b l6* Si .?2* type of Market Agenqr Purchasing Wheat Private Elevator 106 73 101* 71 71 1*9 71* 51 11*6 Cooperative Elevator 90 67 81* 62 70 52 58 1*3 135 Other 1*0 91 37 81* 30 68 33 75 1*1* Unknown Total 2)6 73 225 69 171 53 365 51 32* Pull or Part-tine Parsers Pull 208 71 200 68 151 52 11*2 1*9 292 Part 28 85 25 76 20 61 23 70 Total 236 73 225 69 171 53 165 51 325 TABLE B - 36 (Cont'd) Munber of Farners Who Did Mot Use Various Leading Sources of Market Information Before Selling Wheat, by Various Methods of Stratification, Ohio, 1950 Method of Phone Radio Daily Newspaper Bulletin Board Total Stratification Wonher Percent Munber Percent Munber’ Percent Munber Percent Age of Fan Operator Under 35 69 65 56 75 1*5 60 1*1 55 75 35- 56 112 75 108 72 68 1*6 77 52 169 55 and over 71 71* 56 58 51* 56 1*1* 1*6 96 Unknown 6 80 5 100 1* 80 3 60 5 Total 73 225 69 171 - - J l _____ 165 51 325 Education of Farm Operator 8th grade or leee 118 78 97 61* 86 56 83 55 152 High School 91 68 101 75 66 1*9 67 50 136 College 23 66 23 66 15 1*3 12 36 35 Unknown 6 100 1* 100 1* 100 _ _3 - _ 75 _ 6 Total 236 73 225 69 171 365 51 325 Geographical Area of Ohio Western 156 70 11*9 67 109 k9 107 68 226 Eastern 80 79 76 75 62 61 58 57 101 Total 236 73 225 69 171 53 165 51 325 -3«T- APFB1DZZ C WESTERN OHIO EASTERN OHIO OTTAWA HENRY VAHOGA ERIC DINA SUMMIT HANCOCK ASHLAND YANDOT CRAWFORD JICHl ANO STARK 'ALLEN COLU HARDIN CARROLL a u g l a j z e UNION COSHOCTON CHAMPAIGN MIAMI MADISON CLARK fair f i e l oi p e r r v MONTGOMERY MON ROC PtC HOCKING WASHINGTON <1 'O Pic 41 Th« hea^y lin® on the aap abov® indioat®® th® dividing lino batweon Wa®t®rn and Eastern Ohio as usod in thi® ®v.udy. JLPP11D1X D SFCTIOM I — GENERAL INFORMATION ^ opvRATrR______APTBFS3______ — Y ______T O m S H I P ______ - 7”T ^U’/BF.R FARM NUMBER______ Hew many acres do you farm? . (If answer ©o the first question is less th'an three acres, ask 1. (b), if m*Te than three acres, go to Question Mo. 2.) ('r) "rould you say that the value of all fai'm products produced on this tract of land last year exceeded ;-2$0.00? ■ (If answer to the last question is "^o", terminate the interview.) . "hat is your tenure status? (Check one) ______owner operator ______tenant operator (Cash ; Share______.) livestock . Crop_____ , ______part rimer operator (Cash ; Share______.) livestock Crop______. ______manager . H*w many acres of c^rn do you have planted en this farm this year?______. , ,;mv many acres of wheat did you harvest on this farm this year? . ~ow many acrea of soybeans do you have on this farm this year?______. . !a) Hew many radios did you have in the house April 1, 195>0?_____ . (b) How many radios in barn and outbuildings April 1, 195>0?____ . (c) How many radios in cars and trucks April 1, 195>0? (d) Hew many radios on tractors April 1, 19^0? (a) Hew many of above were FM radios? « (f) Total number of radios? « • To you have a telephone? Yes______} Mo_____ . iiI 2. (a,) I) yiwi (b) (.>) (d) Yi hut four radio stations do you listen to most? to listen you do stations Yihut radio four ;f ) What College of Agriculture, Experiment Station, or Agricnlt1 Agricnlt1 or Station, Experiment Agriculture, of ;f)College What . al letters .. Call h o ai, hc here check radio, fno Cl ltes Ct i Cl City_ , s r e t t e l Call iu City , letters . Call t al .esaes r nw oig noyu hm regularly? home your into coming now are .newspapers daily at . 3. 1. '.That f richcT,If here cneck <. . h ' h. 3. 2 , al etr , City_ , letters Call 3, ______’ s t r I’e o p . ______o oe noyu hm reg home your into come now _____ . j . Extension ___ -TOM I I — WHERE FARMERS GET LIVESTOCK MARKET NETS INFORMATION SECTION II— A--HOGS ti-'n TT A is about where you got market news information before you sold your *, lunch of hogs. ri'I you sell any hogs or pigs between July 1, 191*9 and July 1, 1950? "-•<5 ; No . 'ianswer to first question is "No" terminate this section and ’O to Section II ^.) ■ '-B On what date did you sell hogs the last time?______. "■ t T^ whom did you sell the last time? ______. c) ’"hat type of buyer would that be? Private Cooperative______(check one1) ______Terminal Market ______Packer ______Local Buyer______Other Farmer Concentration Yard Other ______Auc tion ■ \) Her:/ many hogs did you sell the last time? (V) Ho’/r many hogs or pigs did you sell between July 1, 19'*9 and July 1, 1950? • (i) before you sold your last bunch of hogs did you listen to the radio for market nevrs concerning the supply and pric^ situation for hogs? Yes____ ; no____ . (T answer to the last question is "No", go to Question No. 5.) {'■:) *!ow long before the time you sold did you listen? 1 day 2 days ; • 3 davs ; 1 week ; 2 weeks ; 1 month ; 3 months } 6 months ; Listen all the time . \c) To what radio stations did you listen? ; ; • (cL '”hich station did you listen to most? (r) ’"hat times during the day did you usually listen to hog mark et news broad- casts on this station? ; ; ; ; * • (D thy did you pick this station to listen to most? ■ (a) Before you sold your last bunch of hogs did you phone the company or perse who bought your hogs concerning market supplies and prices? Yes j No____ (Tf answer to the last question is "No", go to Question No. 6.) -371- II A--HOGS) U* it) Hov. many limes did you phone this company or person? (c) Hov, many other buyers or market agencies did you phone before selling? ___ I.fere you sold your last bunch cl nogs did you read a daily newspaper to 1 market news concerning the supply and price situation l‘cr hogs? Yes No ■If ur.r.ver to the last question is "Ho", go to Question Ho. 7.) " (i) hcv, long before the time you sold did you read a nev.*s?apor to get hog .mu.-'t iii.-Y.-s; 1 day______; 2 da y s ______j 3 days ___ ; 1 week j 3 mouths ____ ; 6_months______; Read it. all the time .) jeforc you sold your last bunch of negs did you read any Federal Government •vr.<*.t nev/s report to get information concerning the supply and price situation Yes______; Ho ■If answer to the last question is "Wo", ,10 to Quest i o n Ho, d.) y ) no.. lon0 before the time you sola did you read this report? 1 day 2 cays______; 3_clays______; 1 w e e k ______; 2 ueeKS _ j 1 month 3 r.ontns ; 6 months ; Read it all the time ____ . (c) what are the names of these reports? ______ y-.j before you sold your last uunch of i.c^c did you read anything in a farm pr_er or farm magazine which gave you market news concerning Hie supply and :e situation for hogs? Yes ____; No I: answer to the last question is "Ho", go to Question Ho. 9.) -, How long before the time you sold did you read this farm paper or farm mag' :zir.c for hog market news? 1 day______; 2 days______; 3 days______; 1 week ; 2 weeks ; 1 month ; 3 months______; 6 months______; Rea it all the time (c) V*hat are the farm papers or farm magazines which you read for hog market news? (1) hhat was the nature of the information which you read? ’.,'hich farm paper or farm magazine do you consider most important from the .uu/ci-it oi hog market news? ______ rkioie you sold your last bunch of hogs did you get hog ijiurktt news iron. source which has not been mentioned? Yes__ ; No______. ’ answer to the last question is "No", go to Question No. 10.) hat was the source of the information? low about your County Agricultural Agent? Yes ; ho ) what about a ■•Vocational cr Veterans Agriculture teacher? Yes_____ j_hTo____ . ) fin you gc.t any information from a College of Agriculture or Agricultural mrLr.icnt Station? Yes______; No______. ) hew about the Sohio hews Letter? Yes______; No______. , Vh.; t about any special business service reports? Yes______; No______. mi ti.e sources of market news inf oration which yon say you used, 'which one d you depend on most? Which was next most important, etc.? Rank all that r-' used. ) Daily newspaper (7) Written material from College of ) rh-.-ne conversation with poosibi e Agriculture or University layers (8 ) Federal Government market news rc- hadio port - Comity Agricultural Agent (9) Coin o News letter ; Vo<-at*ionai or Veterans Agricultural (10) Special business Serv' o Hvporta l-.ac'rer (1 1 ) Other } Farm paper or farm magazine (which (12) Dion't pay any attention to any of xu.) them. (Cneck here .) - 3 T S - SFCTION II— B— CATTLE 6 . ti an II— B is about where you got market news information before you sold cattle l-.st. time. •'id you sell any cattle between July 1, 19ii9, and July 1, 1990? Yes ; Mo . 'If answer to firsu question is "No”, terminate this section and go bo*Section TT-C.) fl) on what date did you sell cattle the last time? . . ' } To whom did you sell the last t i m e ? ______. {c^ ''’hat type of buyer would that be? Private ; Cooperative______(Check one) ' ______Terminal Market ______Auction ______Local Buyer ______Packer ______Concentration Yard______other Farmer ______Oth er______ (■i) How many cattle did you sell the last time?______. (b> Hovr many cattle did you sell between July 1, ±9h9 and July 1, 195>0? k (c) dumber sold for slaughter?______- fd) Member sold for slaughter which were dairy stock?______. ■) Number sold for ffeeder purposes?______. (f) dumber sold for dairy stock?______. :ra> before you sold cattle the last time did you listen to the radio for market news concerning the supply and price situation for cattle? Yes ; Wo____ (If answer to the last question is "No”, go to Ouestion Mo. 3.) (!’) How long before the time you sold did you listen? 1 day ____; 2 days______j 3 days______j 1 week______; 2 weeks ; 1 month ______; 3 months_____ ; b ninths______; Listen all the time______. (c) To what radio stations did you listen? ______; ______; . 'rJ'i which station did you listen to most? ______ (r) lflhat times during the day did you usually listen to cattle market news broadcasts on this station? ______} ; j . (f; !Yny did you pick this station to listen to most? ■ * (a) Before you sold cattle the last time did you phone the compr’V or person who bought your cattle concerning market supplies and prices? Yes j No____ (if answer to the last question is "No", go to Question No. 6 .) n 13— cattle) - 3 7 4 - 7. :, How ninny tines did you phone this company or person? _____ . .;ov; many other buyers did you phone before selling.-’ ______. 'z.) rofore you sold cattle the last time did you have any buyers come to the firm to rook at the cattle? Yes______; No______. I: answer to the last question is ’’No”, go to Question No. 7.) , „) now many buyers or others looked at the cattle? ______. . c; Did j ou .-A market information from them? Yes______; No______. ,") Before you sold cattle the last time did ^ou read a daily nev.spaper to get rnrKet news concerning the supply and price situation for cattle? Yes___;No_____ ;If ansv/er to last question is "No1*, go to Question No. 8 .) (I) How Ion. before the time you sold did you read a newspaper to get cattle rureA news? 1 day______; 2 days______j 3 days ; 1 week j 2 weeks___ ; 1 runth______j 3 months______; 6 months______j Read it all the time______. . p) Before you sold cattle the last time did you read any Federal Government iwr.^t news report to get information concerning the supply and price situation fir cattle? Yes ; No . ■;if -mswur to the last question is "No", go to Question No. 9.) p) [lev; long before the time you sold did you read this report? 1 day______; : days______; 3 days______; 1 week ; 2 _weeks______; 1 month______j 3 ninths______; 6 _months______; Read it all the time______. (c) '.That are the names of these reports?______ p; Before you sold cattle the last time did you read anything in a farm paper cr firm magazine which gave you market news concerning the supply and price Situ it ion for cattle? Yes______; No ♦ if answer to the last question is l,NoT% go- to Question No. 10.) ■t) How long before the time you sold did you read this farm paper or farm mag azine for cattle market news? 1 day ______; 2 days_____ ; 3 days______; 1 weck_ j 2 weeks j 1 month______i 3 months j 6 months______; Rea d it -3T5- ii b — c a t t l e ) 8. -ill th«- time______. c) i»Ti1 are the farm papers or farm magazines whicn you road for cattle market r- > __ ; j Nhut \.a:; the nutui c of the information which you rend? •<. j 'ft J on farm pap-, r cr farm magazine do you cc/iaidur meat Import.Uit from the s' ■ uopcint of cattle market r.eus? < . \ n \ ) Pei ore you sold cattle the last time did you get cattle market news from icurce which has riot, boon mentioned? Yes______j No______. (if answer to last question is "No", go to Question No. 11„) [tj Wh,t was the source of the information? (~i) Now about your Ccunty Agricultural agent? Yes (u) V.hat about a Vocational or V-.;.reruns agriculture teacher? Yes : Her (c) Did you got any information from a College of Agriculture or Agricultural E\,v. rim-nt Station? Yes ___ ; No______, Ho;, about the Sohio News Letter? Yes______; No______. (0 What about any special business service reports? Yes______, Uo______. -"ra . th. sources of market nev/s information which you say you used, which one 1 L. you dcp* id on most? which was next most important, etc.? RanK all that i.er-w used, (1 j Daily newspaper (7) Written mattrial from College of (2) Phone conversation with possible Agriculture or University buyer (8 ) Federal Government News Report (3) Radio (9) From buyer \/ho came to .arm (1) County Agricultural Agent (10) Sohio News Letter (5; Vocational or Veterans Agricultural (11) Special Business Service Reports teacher (12) Didn't pay any attention to any of (t) Farm paper or farm magazine (which them, (Check here______*) -sr«~ II B— CATTLE) 6. ?. 8. -57?- SFCTTON IT C—CALVFS iFD SKEPP 10. "id y n'J soil any calves between July 1, 19U9 and July 1, 1950? Yes ; Fo (If answer to last question is "No", go to Cuestion Fo. i|.) On what date did you sell calves the last time?______. '):) To whom did you sell the last time?______, (c) ’Ybat type of buyer would that be? Private ; Cooperative ; (Check one) ______Terminal Market Auction ______Local Buyer Packer ______Concentration Yard ______Other Farmer ______Other______(-o How many did you sell the last time?______. '■'.) L'ow many did you sell between July 1, 19U9 and July 1, 10^0?______. (-'I ,,raF your source of Market Mews information for calves different from that a* d for cattle? Yes ; Mo______. (Tf answer to last question is "Fo*** go to Question Mo. U*) (V) ’h re did you get market news concerning calves?______ -id you sell any sheep or lambs between July 1, 191*9 and July 1, lr >0? Y ■ s______; Mo (I: answer to last question is "Mo”, go to Section III.) (■') nn ’vhat date did you sell sheep or lambs the last time?______. 0) To whom did you sell the last time?______.______* (c'' "/hat type of buyer would that be? Private ; Cooperative (Check one) ______Terminal Market ______Auction ______Local Buyer ______Packer ______Concentration Yard ______Other Farmer ______Other______ (i) How many did you sell the last time?______. How many did you sell between July 1, 19U9 and July 1, 1950?______. (a) ^as your source of Market Mews information for sheen and lambs different from that used for other livestock? Yes j wp . (If answer to last question is “Wo*1, go to Section 'ifI.) (b) Where did you get market news concerning sheep and lambs?______-3 7 * - SECTION III— GENERAL IDE^S OF FARMERS FOR IMPROVING 11, LIVESTOCK n.itKET NEWS SERVICES •. are /cur ideas as to what the following sources of market news information vie do to improve livestock market news reporting to help you with your live- cl- marketing decisions? k.Tiic stations: (If none, check here______.) fa)______ k - ______ C ; ______ Daily ricAJspapers: (If none, check here______.) (a)______ ( 1 ) ______ L-\> (< Farm papers or Farm Magazines: (If none, check here ,) (a )______ (b )______ (c )______ U) Agricultural Extension Service or College of Agriculture: (If none, check here_____ ,) (a)______ (b )______ (c )______ H) Federal Government Market News Reports: (If none, check here (a )______ (b )______ (c; -ST9- 3ZC"ION III) 12. id)______...... LiV'.stock Buyers: (If none, check here .) (a) \ ‘ J kC) :a) ", Cther: (a). I1). (c) (d) -380- SECT I ON IV— w h a t f a r m e r s w a n t f r o m r a d i o c o n c e r n i n g 13* LIVESTOCK MARKET NEvVS i; section is about what you think you would like to have in the way of a radio r-dcast for livestock market news. aone radio stations broadcast livestock market news one or more times each day. ■*?.jthar or not the station you listen to most does this, would you like one or .■'.'Tt. such broadcasts each day from your favorite station? Yes ; Wo ____; "wr.’t c are_____ • (Ii answer to last question is "No", ask Cueetion No, 2f and go to Section v.) If your favorite station could broadcast livestock market nows only once Haring the day, at what hour would you want the broadcast? (List exact time.) ______A .M .; ______P.M. (M If two broadcasts, when would you want thorn? (List exact time.) ______, ______A.M.; ______, ______P.M. (c) II throe broadcasts, when would you want them? (list exact time.)______, ______A.M.; , , P.M. (H) For your needs, how many times during the day would you like livestock r-'.rk-.t nows broadcast from your favorite station?______. (Ask Cuestion 2e only if answer to last question is more than 35 (•) At what hours would you want the broadcasts which weren't mentioned above? « « 5 J * f.'rk '“uestion 2f only if answer to Question No, 1 is "No".) (f) :”hat are your reasons for not wanting your favorite station to broadcast an. or more livestock market news programs each day?______ • fa'i Some radio stations broadcasting livestock market news reoort only one narket while others report several markets. In order that you may be ade quately informed, what City markets would you like reported? (List in the order of importance to you.) 1 .______; 2 .______; 3 .______; k* i S* -381* 23c:.[o:: i v ) i R. 'i) Vihy aid you pick the markets you selecteu in the last question?______ radio stations in broadcasting livestock market news quote the prices Lviau' paid but do not report receipts; that is, the number of cattle, calves, :,c;’S, arid sheep on tire market. Would you like to have radio stations give the M.r.b^r of each species of livestock on the market or markets reported? ;\s ; No j D o n ’t c a r e ______. feme radio stations in broadcasting livestock market news quote only the top prices being paid for hogs, cattle, calves and sheep. Others quote the range cl prices by grade; still others quote the top price by grade. vYhich one of the following do you like best in a livestock market ncw3 broadcast? ] . Top price only ii. Range of prices r- top price by grade _ f. Range oi prices by grade only 5. Range of prices by grade and a price for which nest of the 3 . Tap price by grade only grade i; . Vl.cn prices are quoted in a livestock market news broadcast, would you like for the announcer to say whether such prices are cither higher or lower than for seme previous period such as yesterday, last week, or last year? Yes ; M ; Don't care______. ..leu receipts a m quoted in a livestock market news broadcast, would you like fcr the announcer to say whether such receipts are either higher or lower than for some previous period, such as yesterday, last week, or last year? Yes ; I 1______; Don't__care______. k Seme radio stations give a price and receipts summary of the large mid-west markets during the course of their broadcast. That is; they give the trend of prices and the trend of numbers of livestock being sold throughout the country without mentioning any city market. Do you like such a summary? xos ; fo ■ Don't care - M 2 - CTTOW IV) 1?. Th:r'' several times during the day when livestock market news could be broadcast, with a different phase of the market situation placed r 1 each pro- ?ram. For example, an early morning broadcast could consist largely of a cum- r-iry of the previous day's market. A mid-morning broadcast could emphasise indicated prices and receipts as the market opened. A noon broadcast could ?nphasize actual prices and receipts for the current day's market. A mid- afternoon broadcast could emphasize a summary of the current day's market. An -vcning broadcast could also emphasize a summary of the current day's market. In order for a radio station to adequately cover livestock market news, v?Mch of the following times is the most important to you? ’JThieh is the next nost important, etc.? (i.ist all that are considered important.) (1) p'arly morning; (2)Mid-morning; (3) Noon; (U) Mid-afternoon; (?) Fvening; (o'* Each hour of the day. (if none, check here. ) (1) ; (3) (h) ; (6) (b) To which of the times you mentioned in the last question would you usually lie ten? ; ; ; ______; ______. (a) ’"lien a livestock market news program includes a report of more than one market, do you want actual prices paid and actual receipts for all markets reported, or do you want actual prices and receipts for only some of the markets and trends for the others, or do you want only the trends for all markets? Actual prices and receipts for all markets ; Actual prices and receipts for some markets and trends for others______; Trends for all markets ^ b g Don't care______. (if answer is "actual prices and receipts for all markets", or "trends for all markets", go to Oueation No, 11) (h) If you want only a trend for some markets, for which ones do you want a complete report? ______; ; ; ; ; . (c) why did you select these as the ones on which you want a complete report? -SOS* c:io:j iv) 1 6 . ;a) Generally speaking, do you think the livestock market news broadcasts you listen to arc: (Check for each species of livestock.) Cattle Calves 'try accurate riy accurate (i . ..hat are your comments about the accuracy of livestock market ncY.'s broad- (If they don't listen, check here SECTION V — ’’7HA.T FARMERS YrANT FROM DAILY NEWSPAPERS 17. CONCERNING L F ^ T O C K MAItKET W f S -vie pc'ction is about ■what you would like for your daily newspaper to carry con- rri’v livestock market news. you want any daily newspaper you may read regularly to carry livestock market r.^ws? Yes ; No ; Don't care . ff(' answer to f*irst question is "No"^ terminate this section and g-- to Section 7 0 t7 no caper, check here______. "fat livestock markets would you like to have reoorted in your daily newsoaper? Ih-t. in the order of importance to you. 9« *1 j * * 9 * "'on't care______. 3, (a) ,Tost daily newspapers carrying livestock market news quote prices by grade for each species of livestock. Is this the way you prefer price quotations? y n ; No ; Don't care . (If answer to last question is "Yes", go to Question No. U.) (t) How would you like for the newspapers to carry price quotations?______ !i, fore' daily newspapers carry receipts for each market reported, while other oarers do not. no you think it is important for daily newspapers to carry re prints for each species of livestock for any market for which oricr quotations are carried? Yes_____ ; No_____; Don't know . y. "'-si d-^ily newsoaocrs do not carry receipts for each grade of each species of livestock. If receipts were carried by grade for each soecies of livestock, do you think this would be an improvement in livestock market news reporting? Yr s______i No______; Don't know____ . 6 . ”’ould from one to three paragraphs in a daily newspaper describing trends of prices and receipts of each species of livestock, and v/ithout direct quotations, make it easier for you to keen up-to-date on the livestock market situation? Yes______• No______j Don't know____ . 7. (a) Generally speaking, do you think livestock price quotations in newspapers are: (Check for each species of livestock*) ■scricN v) -*85- 18, I j ; rv accurate ; I Fairly accurate j j { — let very accurate ! ! 1 ;,\,t accurate ! 1 ______(b) Do you think livestock receipt quotations in newspapers art: (Check for -act species of livestock.) Cattle Ca'lvo; hheeo i " 1 7«~ry accurate ! Fairly accurate : | let very accurate j * '1,1 accurate 1 : ej i-ie.t arc. your comments about the accuracy of livestock quotations in news* pvp'..rs?______ (If you don't read livestock narket nev«'s quotations, check here .) W C T I O N VI— GRAIN 19. cation T^T is about where you got grain market news information before you sold -r:i- last time. rid 7 ou sell any wheat, corn or soybeans from last year's crop, or wheat from this year's crop? Yes ; No (If answer to first question is "No", terminate this section and go to Section "Tf.) wheat______Corn Soybeans (i) "hen did you sell the last time? 7>' How many bushels did you sell the last time? (c) To whom did you sell the last time? ['i’l "hat type of buyer would that be? (Check one for each grain.) Private Elevator Cooperative vievator Farmer billing Comoany or Processing Plant Other (jt How many tushels did you sell between July 1, 191*9 and July 1, 1950 . 3. (a) Before you sold wheat the last time did you listen to the radio for market sews concerning the price situation for wheat? Yes ; No (If answer to last question is "No", go to Question'No"." U.) (b) How long before the time you sold did you listen? 1 day ; 2 days_____ 3 days j 1 week ; 2 weeks ; 1 month ; 3 months ; 6 months ; Listen all the time (c) To what radio stations did you listen? ______; ; ; _____ (d) which station did you listen to most? ______ U) What times during the day did you usually listen to wheat market news broadcasts on this station? j _____ ; ; j j j____ (f) why did you pick this station to listen to most? ______ (n (a) Before you sold wheat the last time did you phono the elevator or person v/ho bought it concerning the prices being paid? Yes ; No . (if answer to last question is "No", go to Question No. $.) ;rc?TO*j V I ) - 5 8 7 * 2 0 . (t) How many times did you ohone this elevator or person? (cl Mow many other possible buyers did you phone before selling?______. , (n) Before you sold wheat the last time did you read a daily newspaper to get market news concerning the price situation for wheat? Yes ; No . (IT answer to last question is f,N o % go to Question No. 6.1 (b) How long before the time you sold did you read a newspaper to get wheat narkot news? 1 day ; 2 days j 3 days ; 1 week ; 2 weeks ; 1 month______; 3 months _ ; 6 months______j Read it all the time___ . . (nl Before you sold wheat the last time did you go to an elevator to read the bulletin board for market information? Yes } No (If answer to last question is "No*', go to Question No. 7.) (bl How many timos did you stop at the elevator to read the bulletin board be fore you sold?______*______. . (a) Before you sold wheat the last time did you get wheat market news from any source which has not been mentioned? Yes ; No . (If answer to last question is "No", go to Question No. 0.) (b) what was the source of the information? . (a) How about your County Agricultural Agent? Yes ; No . (b) 'hat about a Vocational or Veterans Agriculture teacher? Yes ; No (c) Hid you get any information from a College of Agriculture or Agricultural Bxu-riment Station? Yes ; No_____ . (d) How about the Sohio News Letter? Yes____ ; No . (e) ’Jjhat about any special business service reports? Yes ; No (f) How about a Federal Government Market News Report? Yes ; T o . (g) How about a farm paper or farm magazine? Yes ; No . . From the sources of market news information which you say you used, which one did you depend on most? Nhich was next most important, etc,? (Rank all that ware used.) (1) Phone conversation with possible buyers} (2) Radio; (3) Daily newspapers; (h) Reading bulletin board at elevator; (5) Farm paper or magazine (which one); I T C I 21. SIITICMVI) e tc : Ask Question No. 10 10 No. Question Ask etc: , a Wsyu suc o aktnw ifrainfr obasdfeet from different soybeans for information news market of source I,your (a. Was jr.;ion; (10) Special Business Service Reports; (11) Federal Government Government Federal (11) 7 Reports; Service Business Special (10) jr.;ion; !u.rv. [{.} 2 \.+J Experiment agricultural or ..griculture of College (9) Teacher; n?agriculture \;scd (a) was your soruce oi market news information for corn different from that from different corn for information news market oi soruce your (a) was I ase t at usini ”o, o oQeto o 11.) No. Question to go ”No", is question last to (If answer (b) Where did you get market news concerning corn? concerning news market get you did (b)Where . . . htue o ha? Yes wheat? for that used (b) Where did you get market new market get you did Where (b) (If ______„t onyArclua Aet () oi Nw etr ( Letter; News Sohio (7) Agent; Agricultural County Rpr; 1) te; 1) tpyayatnin o n o te. (Check them. of any to attention any ’tpay n d i D (13) Other; (1?) Report; _____ Ask Question No. 11 only if soybeans were sold during the year, the during sold were soybeans if only 11 No. Question Ask frwet Ys ; No Yes wheat? for r e w s n a * ) to last question is "No”, go to Section VII.) Section to go "No”, is question last to only ______if corn was sold during the year. the during sold was corn if ______No ; 3 ocrig soybeans? concerning ______5. •SM. , ______6 8 8 7 7 . ______. . ______. ______8 ) Vocational or Veter— or Vocational ) ______„ ______Iloricct - s i t . SECTION VII— GENERAL IDEAS OF F your ideas as to what the following sources of market neve information - - io do to improve grain market nows reporting to help you with your grain #r.v.ti"g decisions i i :do stations; (If none, check here ______.) kO______ :-;iy newspapers: (If none, check here______.) ______ U)______ (c)______ F"nn Papers or Farm Magazines: (If none, check here______.) ("0______ (b) ______ (c) ______ i. Agriculture Extension Service or College of Agriculture: (If none, check here .) (")______ (b )______ (c) ______k Federal Government Market News Reports; (If none, check here .) (a )______ (b )______ (c )______ A Grain Elevator or Milling Companies: (If none, check here ) (a )______ (b )______ (c) -S90- FFCTI^N VIII— WHAT FARMERS WANT FROM RADIO CONCERNING 23. GRAIN M A R K 17*! N F W S ~Y.ir> section is about what you would like in the way of radio broadcasts for grain -'rk t news. 1 . (a) would you like for your favorite radio station to broadcast grain market t k w s one or more times during the day? Yes ; No ; Don't care • (If answer to first question is "No", terminaterthis section and go to Gection No. IX.) (b) Do you think the station should broadcast grain market news each day of the y-nr, or only in each marketing season? Fach day ; In season only_ » Don' t care . 2 . "hat grain markets do you think the radio station should cover iT' Its broad casts? List in the order of importance to y o u . 1. ; 2.______; 3 . * ii* J 5. » 3 . (a) If your favorite station could broadcast grain market news only once during the day, at what hour would you want the broadcast? (List exact time.)____A.M. ______P.M. (b) If two broadcasts, when would you want them? (List exact time.)______, ______A.M.; , P.M. fc) If three broadcasts, when would you want them? (List exact time.)______, , A.M.; , , P.M. (d) For your needs, how many times during the day would you like grain market news broadcast from your favorite station? ______• (if answer to last question is 3 or less, go to Question No. Ra.) (o) At what hours would you like the broadcasts which weren't mentioned above? i i * 1;. (a) ""That grains do you think should be included in the broadcast. ______; • i • ; . 3 3 3 3 . * (b) Do you think the grade of grain should be specified? Yes ; No ; Don't care • (c) Do you think that discounts because of moisture content, foreign material, otrs.. s h o u l d b o explained? Ye.s } No ; Don't care . •891* ;c:iw:: vxii) zk, (a) Do you think Chicago board of Trade future prices should be included in the broadcasts? Yes : No _ ; Don't care If nnsv:er to last question is "No", or "don't care", ask Question No. 5c next, Lut if answer to last question is "Yes", do net ask Question No. 5c.) Nhich do you consider most important, the actual price quotations cn the toord of Trade or the trend of prices on the Board of Trade? Actr ; Trend______j Don't Know (c) In your own mind, do you understand the term "future price"? Yes ; No___ (a) Generally speaking, do you think grain market news you get from radio broadcasts is; (Check for each grain.) Corn wheat Soybeans Very accurate j Fairly accurate | lot very accurate Not accurate i______ ft) YJhat are your comments about the accuracy of grain market news you get from radio broadcasts? (if they don't listen, check here -391*. SECTION IX— WHAT FAHLERS V,'A;jI FRCf.i DAILY NEWSPAFLRC 25. coHc:isn;:a grain u j t h E T r e ..5 -'is ;.<.ction is about what you would like your daily newspaper to carry concerning ~-ir, rv-irkftt news. 1. I" "'ant any daily newspaper you may read regularly to carry grain market nt.’sV Yes______; No______j Don't care . (If answer to first question is "No", terminate this section and go to Section X.; ?: you think your daily newspaper should carry grain market news each day of the vt :.r, or only in each grain marketing season? Each nay______j Ir. .ason only___ : Don't care______. 3, T.lal grain markets would you like to have reported in your daily newspaper? Lir.t in the order of importance to you. 1 .______; 2 .______; ..hat grains do you think should be included in the report? 3. (a; Do you think grain price quotations should be by grade? Yes______; No____ Don't care______. (If answer to last question is "No" or "Don't care", go to Question No. u.) (b) Do you think that discounts because of moisture content, foreign material, etc., should be explained? Yes______\ No ; Don't care______. (a) Do you want your daily newspaper to carry Chicago beard of Trade future prices? Yes _____ ; No______; Don't care______. !t; ,7hy did you answer the last question as you did.'______ 7/ould from one to three paragraphs in a daily newspaper describing trends of prices of each grain, and vxithout direct quotations, make it easier for you to keep up to date on the grain market situation? Yes ; No ; Don't care • ( .) Generally speaking, do you thick grain quotations in newspapers are: (Check fcr each grain.) -393- CTTCM IX) uorn i eat ‘.oybe^r s Very acciirate__ I Falri'-' accurate - i - . Tot V'„rv accurate 5t acearato (L - .'Vhat are your corniuontE about the accuracy cf gr'd n quo*a ti on;: in iiev.spapero«? (I" they don’t read, grain market- quotations, check iuie______.) -894- s f c t i o n x— rwimary ?7. fro you more likely to listen to a market nows radio broadcast if it is oert of a r- gular firm program thin if it is not nart of a farm program? Yes ; No___ *'Yom the following list of commodities, place them in the order of importance to you as far as a radio market news broadcast is concerned. That is, the one you would listen to most should be ol^ced first and th one you would listen to l-..ist should bo placed last. (Ornin, livestock, dairy products, poultry, fruits, v p.tables.) 1 •______j 2.______; 3.______j U ,______; £.______; 6.______. "hat arc your comments about U. S. Department of Agriculture Drint-d nark t nows r ports? ,,r. are interested in your improssi on of announcers who broadcast farm market n ws reports. (a) In general do you think: They talk too fast. _____ They talk too slow. Their speed of talk is about right. (t) In general, do you understand the meaning of: ill of t h ': terms announcors use . _____ Most of the terms announcers use. Some of the terms announcers use. Very few of the terms announcers use. (c) ’Vhat arc some of the terms you do not understand?______ (d) In general, do you think* Announcers use about the right amount of figures. Announcers use too many figures. h Hget rd cmltd n col y operator? by school in completed grade lh. Highest o. Can y o u get radio station station radio get u o y Can o. * rTO X 28. (*?rcTIOV X) . oyu eiyou ne ay diinl nomto cnendwt fr market farm with concerned Information additional any need u o y feci you 7. Do . p o operator? of ‘pa ?. dn u e ai sainw t ho tt Uiest o or ai? Yes radio? your on University State Ohio at u g wo station radio get ou y n va. d e I gnrl d you gt h Ipeso that: Impression the get u o y do general, In (e) {!') ., hat ifrain oyu need?) you do information t a wh y.s, es s o now aalbe oyu Yes you? to available w o n not is h c i h w news know Can't !■> (r) what should they do to improve their urogram? urogram? their improve to do they should what (r) n ocuin wa, r yu sgetos r omns o ipoig n md/oi o / d m any improving for comments or suggestions your are what, conclusion, In all farm market nows reporting? (if none, chock here chock none, (if reporting? nows market farm all ____ n eea, oyou think: u o y do general, In nones o o ue nuh figures. rnough use not do Announcers ______nones o o udrtn wa- hy r tlig about. talking are they what- understand not do Announcers nones o orjb f eotn fr mre nows. market farm reporting of a job poor do Announcers ______Announcers do an excellent job of reporting farm markr nev/s.t markr farm reporting of job do excellent an Announcers Dnt know Don't ; nones nesadw-t te ae akn about. talking are they t wh- understand Announcers nones o arjb f eotn fr mre news market farm nows. renorting of market a job fair farm do reporting of aAnnouncers job good do Announcers ______"'JH.FD tWorhntn n or ai? e ; Vo ; Yes radio? your on rthington o W at . ______-395- ______ ______No ; ______.) (f nv- is ansve-r (Jf . ______ ____ ___ __ v r a i i u u a RADIO !-ARKET NEVIS SCHEDULE 'eneral Information 1, Date ______City 1. Station Time: a . m . , p.m. 3. Duration 6 . Snonsor , P -;'ver : kw. R. Frequency 9. AM or FM Station LO. Services: AP, UP, INS, leased wire, TP, teletype direct to , other. 11* Announcer m ■t‘p.oral: 1. Is grain market news reported? Yes ( ) Mo ( ) Chicago futures: 1. Chicago futures reported? Yes ( ) Ho ( ). If yes, check prices carried below. Item Pi • °^ • Open High Low Close '.The at C o r n Oa.ts, „ ------.— ------R y e Soybeans _____ Is trend of Chicago future prices indicated? Yes ( ) Mo ( ) >. Data of Chicago future prices; Previous day ( ) Current day ( ) *. Source of Chicago information: ______(AP, UP, IDA, etc.' O * 'J ;icaro cash grain: 1. ire Chicago cash grain nrices re.orted? Y e s ( ) Mo ( ) P. Are Chicago cash 1 rain price trends Indicated? Yes ( ) He ( ) 3. Ar^ rrades of grain specified? Yes ( ) ’To ( ) A. Date of Chicago cash grain nrices; Previous day ( ) Current day ( ) 3. Source of Chicago cash grain prices: ______(AP, UP. IMS, etc.) Local, cash arain: (within county) 1* '.re loc'l cash grain prices reported? Yes ( ) Mo ( ) 2* Are local cash grain orice trends indicated? Yes ( ) No ( ) 3. Are Trades of grain specified? Yes ( ) Mo ( ) A« Number of local firms whose orico is quoted ______1 . Do you contact these firms each day? Yes ( ") ffo ( ) 6 . Date of local price* Previous day ( ) Current uay ( ) 7. Source of local grain prices: (AP, UP, INS, etc.) Dther cash “rain: 1. *re other cash grain nrices reported? Yes ( ) No ( ) 2. ire other cash “rain orice trends indicated? Yes ( ) No ( ) 3* '.re grades of grain snecified? Yes ( ) Mo ( ) A. Date of other nrices; Previous day ( ) Current day ( ) i*nes oi other marmots reported: o. Source of other grain nrices: J T F , " w ; IT!S7 T i c Broadcast tine for grain: « M T » 1. Time devoted to grain market news , Livestock Deneral: 1* Is livestock market news reported? Yes ( ) Mo ( ) P. Summary of livestock market: 1. Is summary of Mid-west hop prices reported? Yes ( ) Ho ( ) 2. Is summary of Mid-west hog receipts reported? Yes ( ) No ( ) ^ S' / 7. Tc: summary Mid-west cattle orices reported? Yes ( ) vo ) 1 >■* • Is summary Cj.s' c kid-west cattle receipts reported? Yes ( ) TTo ( ) 7. Is summery of Kid-.vest veal prices reported? Yes ( ) No ( ) 6. Is summary of kid-west veal receipts reported? Yes ( ) Mo () 7. Is summary of I.cid-west sheep and lamb prices reported? Yes ( ) No ( 8. Is summary of Hid-west sheep and lamb receipts reported? Yes ( ) No ( 9. Date of s t ■nary; previous day ( ) Current day ( ) C. Chic ano Market: 1. Is Chicago market reported? Yes ( ) Mo ( ) 2. Hog receipts? te s ( ) No ( ) 3. Hog orices by weight class or grade? Yes ( ) No ( ) it. Cattle receipts? Yes ( ) No ( ) 9. Cattle prices by weight class or grade? Yes ( ) No ( ) 6 . Veal receipts? Yes ( ) No ( ) 7. Veal orices by grade? Tfes ( ) No ( ) 6 . Sheep and lamb receipts? Yes ( ) No ( ) 9. Sheep and lamb prices by grade? Yes ( ) No ( ) 10. Top price quoted ( ) Ranee of prices by grade euoted ( ) 11. Trend of market price indicated Yes ( ) No ( ) 12. Trend of market receipts indicated Yes ( ) No ( ) 13. Date of Chicago report: Previous day ( ) Current nay ( ) lit* Source of Chicago market Information: (IP, UP, P'S. etc.) D. Cleveland Market: 1. Is Cleveland market reported? Yes ( ) bo ( ) 2. Hog receipts? Yes ( ) No ( ) 3. Hop prices by vrei'ht class or grade? Yes ( ) No { ) Li, Cattle receipts? Yes ( ) No ( ) 5. Cattle prices by weight class or grade? Yes ( ) No ( ) 6 . beal receipts? Yes ( ) No ( ) 7. Veal prices by grade? Yes ( ) No ( ) 8. Sheep and lamb receipts? Yes ( ) No ( ) 9. Sheep and lamb prices by grade? Yes ( ) No ( ) 10. Top price quoted ( ) Range of prices by grade quoted ( ) 11. Trend of market price indicated Yes ( ) No ( ) 12. Trend of market receipts indicated Yes ( ) No ( ) 13. Date of Cleveland report: Previous day ( ) Current day ( ) 1 1 1 . Source of Cleveland market information: (AP, UP, INS, etc.) E. Cincinnati Market: 1. Is Cincinnati market reported? Yes ( ) No ( ) 2. Hog receipts? Yes ( ) No ( ) 3* Hog prices by weight class or grade? Yes ( ) No ( ) - 2 - -398- Cincinnati Ibrbet: (continued) h. Cattle receipts? Yes ( ) No ( ) 5. Cattle prices by vaeight class or rrade? Yes ( ) Ho ( ) 6 . Veal receipts? Yes ( ) Ho ( ) 7. Veal nrices by grndc? Yes ( ) Ho ( ) 3. Sheen and lamb receipts? Yes ( ) Ho ( ) 9. Sheen and. lam; nrices by grade? Yes { ) Ho { ) 10. Yep orice quoted ( ) nance of nrices by grade quoted ( ) 11. Trend of marbet price indicated? Yes ( ) Ho ( ) 12. Trend of market receipts indicated? Yes ( ) Ho ( ) 13. Date of Cincinnati report: Previous day ( ) Current day ( ) lit. Source of vincinnati market information: C - v I' S, etc.) In'’ ■anapol.i s M a r k e t : 1 . rs Indianapolis market reported? Yes ( ) ;:o ( ) 2. Hog receiiits? Yes ( ) Ho ( ) 3. Hoy nrices by weight class or grade? Yes ( ) ’o ( ) U. Cattle receipts? Yes ( ) Ho ( ) Cattle nrices by weight class or grade? Yns ( ) Ho ( ) Veal receipt 3 ? Yes ( ) *To ( ) 7. Veal nricos by grade? Yes ( ) Mo ( ) Cheep and lamb receipts? Yes ( ) Ho ( ) '■>. Cheep ant lamb nrices by grade? Yes ( ) Ho ( ) 10. Ton nrice quoted ( ) Range of nrices by pr^de ouoted ( ) 11 . Trend of market price indicated? Yes ( ) Ho ( ) 12. Trend of mr.r':et receipts indicated? Yes ( ) ;o i ) 13. Pate of Indianapolis report: Previous day ( ) Corrent day ( ) ll. dource of Indianapolis market information: 'AP, UP, I-*3, etc.) Twelve major Markets: 1. Others of 12 major markets similarly reported 2. Others of 12 major markets mentioned ___ T,oc al Market: (within county ; exclu' .my Cleveland F:. Cincinnati) 1. Is local market reported? Yes■s£> ( v ) HO ( ) rh <- 9 Humber of local firms re s o r t e d : Tbnes 3. Hog receipts? Yes ( ; mo ( ) U« Hoc prices by ■'"eight class or grade? xes Vo ( ) 5. Cattle receipts? Yes ( ) No ( ) 6. Cattle prices by 1 ’■eiaht class or grade? h;s ( ) ( ) 7. Veal receipts? Yes ( ) No ( ) 3. Veal prices by grade? Yes ( ) No ( > 9. Sheen and lamb receipts? Yes ( ) Mo ( ) 10. Sheep and lamb nrices by grade? Yes ( ) No ( ) 11.Top orice quoted ( ) Range of prices by grade quoted ( ) 12.Trend of market orice indicated? Yes ( ) Mo ( ) 13. Trond of market receipts indicated? Yes ( ) No ( ) ia. Date of local reoort: Previous day C ) Current day ( ) 15. Source of local market information: (AP, UP, r 1 itC.) Other Ohio Markets: 1. Other Ohio markets similarly rcoorteri (rfames) ______2. Out of state markets similarly reported (exclude major 12 <5c name£j) 3 . ^ h e r flliid markets mentioned (names) U. Other out of state markets mentioned (exclude major 12 Ft. names) -999* Livestock predictions: 1* Strength of livestock market predicted for remainder of day: Yes ( ) Ho ( ) 2. Strength of livestock market predicted for next day: Yes ( ) No ( ) Broadcast time for livestock: 1* Time devoted to livestock market news rooort: he:' commodities: 1. Is poultry and egg market regularly reported over this station? Yos ( ) No ( ) 2. Broadcast, time for poultry and eggs: a.m. o.r . 3. Is dairy sroducts market regularly reported over this station? Yos ( ) Ho ( ) U. Broadcast time for dairy products: a.m. p.m. 5. Is fruit and vegetable market regularly reported over-"this sta.tion? Yes ( ) Ho ( ) 6 , Broadcast time for fruit and vegetables: ______a.m.______p■.n. 7'. Is wool market regularly reported over this station? Yes ( J” No ( ) 2. Broadcast time for wool market: a.m.______a.m. 9. Is tobacco market regularly reported over this station? Yes ( ) No ( 10. Broadcast tine- for tobacco market: a.m. r>*T * - 4 0 0 * BIBLIOGRAPHY L* Croxtoa, F. !• tad D* J* Co*drat Appllad Ownrtl Statiitiw* Prentice - Hall Im «, Haw York* 1 9 M * 2* Dowell, A* A* and Xante BJorka, Liroatook Marketing* MoGra* Hill Company* How York and London* 1941* 8* Henning G* P., Analy»la of Hog Prlooa in Ohio* Ohio Agricultural Xxpcriaeat Station, Rooearoh Builot In «§6* Wooeter, Ohio* July,1951. d* LlToatook. Moate and yogi Market Btatiatloe and Rolatod Data* Bureau of Agricultural ftoononiea* U* 8* Dopartnont Agriculture* Washington, D* C* 8* Marketing^ Ljroatook l n t h o Corn Bolt Region. Afrlfltiltttr^l Hjrperi- newt station Bulletin 465, South bakota State College* lrodrt«g>t South Dakota* lUflMtl Publication* Hereafter, 1942* 6* Mar hot Howa Sorrloo of tho United Statoa Dopartnont of Agriculture. United Stafeta Dopartnont of Agrloulture, Production and lhrhrtlni Adninlatration, Waahington 26, D.C., Juno 1649* 7* MarkotBowa Service on Grain* Hay* Food* and Rolatod Co— ondltloa* U. S* Dopartnont of .Agriculture,Production and Marketing Admlnia- t rat ion, Waahington D* C«, January I M S * 8* Market Howa Sorrlooa* Reprinted fron l&aoollanoona Publication ¥o* 768* baited Statoa Dopartnont" oY Agriculture, Production” n T S n a t i a i Adadnlatrat1on, Waahington D* C* and U*3*D*A* Mar* kat Howa Sorrloo in tho Mldwaat, Midwest Area, Office of Infor- nation Sorrlooa, Prodnotlen and Marketing Adninlatration, United Statoa Dopartnont of Agriculture, 628 South Wabaah Aronuo, Chi* oago 6, Illinola* July, 1961* 9* haricot Howa Sorrloo* reprinted fron Xlaoollanooua publication Ho* 9bI, V* 6* Dept* of Agriculture, Production and Marketing Adnln- la t rat Ion, Waahington, D*C* 10. Moat 1» - Para Production and Inoono. 1924-49, U, 8* Depart- noxrt of Agritaltureal loononloa* Washington, D*C*, Sept* 1947 and July 1962* 11* Snodeeor, George W*, StatlatjSal Mothode. Iowa State College Preaa* Anea, Iowa* 1946* 12* Unpubllahed data. Papal' t— nt of Agricultural Xoononica and Rural Sociology, Ohio State Unlreralty* Celuabua, Ohio* 18* Waugh, Frederick Pricing and Trade* V* B* Dopartnont of Agri culture* Waahington, D*C*, 1962* - 4 0 1 - AUTOBIOGBAFBY I, Yrtaelt B v m l l MoCorsdek, « u born on a far* near Vow Conoord, Ohio, April 2, 1916* 1 receiTod ny secondary school ed ucation In ‘tin* rural schools of Muskingum County, Ohio. Ky under graduate training vaa obtained at The Ohio State University, from which I reoeived the degree Bachelor of Selenoe in 19S9* I was employed by the Farsi Seourity Administration aa a County Supervisor in Jaokson, Vinton and Perry Counties, Ohio free 1940 until 194S* From IMS until I M S I was a wewber of the U* 8* Any* In 1946 I returned to Ohio State University end in 1M7 reoeivsd the Do* gree Master of Selenoe from that institution. After completion of this degree I was appointed as Assistant with the Agricultural Ix- tension Servloe at Ohio State University where I specialised in Agricultural Beononlea while working towards the degree Doctor of Philosophy* I held this position until 1M9 at which tine I re solved an appointment as Besearoh Assistant with the Ohio Agricul tural Izperiseut Station*