Research and Development s4

DEPARTMENT for ENVIRONMENT, FOOD and RURAL AFFAIRS CSG 15 Research and Development Final Project Report (Not to be used for LINK projects)

Two hard copies of this form should be returned to: Research Policy and International Division, Final Reports Unit DEFRA, Area 301 Cromwell House, Dean Stanley Street, London, SW1P 3JH. An electronic version should be e-mailed to [email protected]

Project title Analysis of England's sheep farmers' attitudes towards sheep handling and marketing practices

DEFRA project code LS1621

Contractor organisation The University of Reading and location School of Agriculture, Policy and Development Whiteknights, Reading, UK

Total DEFRA project costs £ 6,650

Project start date 01/02/04 Project end date 31/03/04

Executive summary (maximum 2 sides A4)

The project’s objective was to identify the main cognitive barriers and drivers to the adoption of selected recommended practices for breeding and marketing of sheep in England. Following an open discussion with a group of sheep farmers to identify perceptions regarding selected methods for improving economic returns from their sheep enterprises, a postal survey of 3,000 sheep farmers was conducted. Data were analysed within the framework of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TORA). Three areas of practice were studied: the selection of rams with known EBVs, reference to market reports when making decisions about selling lambs and selection of finished lambs for slaughter by frequent handling and / or the regular weighing of lambs to assess readiness for market. These management practices are considered to be effective methods of achieving better returns from the sale of finished lambs. A separate questionnaire was developed for each and mailed to a separate sub-sample of farmers. The findings are based on the responses of 345 farmers, an overall response rate of 12 percent. Most respondents (57%) were between 40 and 60 years old and 19% percent were female. Nearly one in seven received more than half their household income from the farm, with sale of finished lambs the main source of farm income for 32%. The average size of holding was 127 ha., 71% were owner/occupiers and 30% farmed mainly upland areas. Mean flock size was 262 breeding ewes with a mean lambing percentage for the previous year of 154%. The majority (62%) of the respondents sell finished lambs to market (liveweight) compared to 33% that sold to abattoirs (deadweight) and 19% that sold privately. The majority claimed to be satisfied with their ability to achieve the best return for the finished lambs. Referral to EBVs when selecting rams Seventy six percent bought rams in the last year but only 11% claimed to have referred to EBV, Index, or Signet records. The EBV was the factor least influencing the choice of ram. Overall intent to refer to EBVs was slightly negative. Least likely to refer to EBVs are those selling between 50 and 170 finished lambs, upland farmers, those with smaller units, those least economically dependent on farming and female respondents. In

CSG 15 (Rev. 6/02) 1 Project Analysis of England's sheep farmers' attitudes towards DEFRA LS1621 title sheep handling and marketing practices project code

contrast those already referring to EBVs are most likely to continue doing so. The main barrier concerned farmers' own sense of confidence in their ability and experience. Those already referring to EBVs find the system confusing and difficult to understand: this is acting as a potential barrier to their continued use of the system. There is a lot of ignorance and apathy regarding EBVs, reinforced by farmers’ general confidence in their existing experience and ability. The normative component – i.e. the opinions of other people – has little influence on most respondents, with the farmer’s family having the most influence. Therefore promotional strategies should seek to target and influence the family unit and not just the main decision-maker. Referral to recent market reports Most (86%) respondents claim to use some form of market information source. Most consult multiple sources of information. The most frequently consulted are auctioneers, the farming press and other farmers. The main reasons given for choice of source were accuracy, overall picture, own experience of and contact with source, local information, frequent updates and buyers’ requirements. Those already referring to market reports expressed the strongest intent to do so in the future. Only farmers claiming not to refer to market reports expressed negative intent, which suggests that encouraging non-users to make reference to reports will be difficult. Smaller sheep units and those less economically dependent on the farm are less likely to increase their use of market information. The issue of having to sell when the lambs are ready no matter what the state of the market suggests the need for more attention to be paid to market trend reports and forecasts to permit the management of lambs to fit more closely the market cycles. As with EBVs, farmers are influenced more by their own experience and knowledge than others’ opinions. Other experienced farmers and family are the most influential referents across most respondent categories regarding the use of market reports. However, buyers and EBLEX also appear to be influential referents regarding market information. Assessment of lambs’ readiness for market by ' frequent handling' The majority of respondents (74%) claim to assess the condition of their lambs by frequent handling. Those expressing least intent to do so in the future are upland farmers and those that have not already adopted this practice to some degree. Encouraging uptake by the small proportion not currently handling and expressing the weakest intents to do so will be difficult. The main difference lies in the confidence in the buyer's assessment and their own ability to grade the lambs by handling. Helping those that are less confident in their ability to judge the finish of the lamb by handling to improve their expertise is the most positive strategy and should be done by practical demonstrations that provide farmers with the opportunity to test their abilities against known experts and tips on how to improve current weaknesses. For farmers who are less confident in their ability and those achieving lambing percentages of less than 160%, the buyers, auctioneer and abattoirs are important referents with regard to this practice and should be encouraged to promote it. However, the content of the promotional message is more critical than the channel. Assessment of lambs’ readiness for market by 'regular weighing' Just under half (44%) of the respondents claimed to weigh their lambs regularly so as to judge their readiness for slaughter. The majority (59%) expressed a positive intent to do so. The strongest predicted positive change in weighing was registered by those with flocks of between 250 and 500 ewes and with lambing percentages in excess of 160%, who are also those more likely to be doing so already. Those least likely to express intent to weigh are those currently not weighing and the smaller producers. The main finding indicates that farmers who are less confident in their abilities are more likely to consider weighing as opposed to handling as the preferred method of assessing the condition of the lambs. It is suggested that in cases where it is difficult to promote handling, weighing should be presented as a viable option for judging the readiness of the lamb for market and the ability to achieve the best price to weight returns. For addressing this practice, the outlet representative, principally the abattoir or auctioneer, is likely to be the most influential referent. These should be encouraged to endorse and or promote the practice of weighing, particularly with those that are not confident in their capability to assess the lambs’ condition by handling. The MLC is also a respected channel regarding the issue of assessment in general. However, care should be taken to avoid involving non-farming organisations in any promotional programme except with the smallest sheep units (i.e. hobby farmers). It is therefore also important to identify which are considered to be farming rather than non-farming organisations.

Scientific report (maximum 20 sides A4) Background1 The Better Returns Programme (BRP) of the English Beef and Lamb Executive (EBLEX) has identified sheep management practices which could improve the profitability of farm businesses in England. These include the selection of rams with known EBVs, reference to market reports and selection of finished lambs for market by frequent handling and/or regular weighing. The aim of the present study was to identify the factors that are acting as barriers and drivers to their uptake or continued use and to explore farmers’ current practices. To predict the future application of the recommended practices, a study of the relationship between farmers' intentions, attitudes and perceived social/normative pressures toward applying the practices was undertaken. The Theory of Reasoned Action (TORA) (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980) provides the theoretical template for the study. One of the main strengths of this theory is the ability both to predict future behaviour and to identify the possible cognitive barriers and drivers to the particular practice in question. The findings are based on the responses of 345 farmers to postal questionnaires distributed during the first quarter of 2004, prior to the main lambing season. A separate questionnaire was designed and distributed to a separate sample for each of the three practices. Overall a 12% response rate was achieved. This report briefly describes the methodology applied, its theoretical construct and the samples. A separate analysis is then presented for each of the practices. Current practice, future intent, attitudes and normative influences are presented and then related to determine the barriers and or drivers influencing future practice. Differences dependent on socio-economic characteristics and current practice are also drawn out. Methodology Process The process of data gathering involved two separate stages, the first informing the second. Initially an open discussion with a group of sheep farmers was held to identify perceptions regarding methods for improving economic returns from their sheep enterprises, particularly focusing on methods of selecting finished lambs and rams, and the sources of market information consulted. The second stage involved the distribution of a formal postal survey instrument and the analysis and presentation of the findings. Theoretical construct The theory of reasoned action (TORA) is based on the assumption that human beings usually behave in a manner that makes sense to them; that is, they take account of available information and implicitly or explicitly consider the implications of their actions. The theory postulates that a person’s intention to perform (or not perform) behaviour is the immediate determinant of that action. Barring unforeseen events, people are expected to act in accordance with their intentions (Ajzen 1988). The theory is therefore primarily concerned with identifying the factors underlying the formation and change of behavioural intent (Fishbein and Manfredo 1992). The intention, in turn, depends on two independent factors: attitude and subjective norm. Attitudes depend on beliefs regarding the outcomes of performing the specific behaviour and the values attributed to these outcomes. A person’s subjective norm (perceived social pressure) is a function of their normative beliefs regarding how they feel ‘important others’ would expect them to behave and their motivation to comply with these “others” (Figure 1). In order to change behaviour it is necessary to change either the pertaining attitudes and /or subjective norms by changing the corresponding underlying beliefs. The strength of the relationship between the variable constructs within the theory is normally measured using the correlation coefficient. The multiple-correlation coefficient (R) usually serves as an index of the extent to which behavioural intention can be predicted from the simultaneous consideration of the attitude and subjective norm, using parametric statistics. However, there is concern regarding whether some of these variable scales can be treated as parametric measures (i.e. of equal interval). We have therefore used non- parametric methods and the Spearman Rank Order Correlation (rs) has been applied to identify the differences in the contribution or influence of the attitude and subjective norm on the intention (I) and similarly the influence of the different outcome attitudes (OA) on intention (I vs. OAi). Similarly, the Mann Whitney U Test (a non-parametric equivalent of the t test) or the Kruskal-Wallis Test are applied to identify significant

1 A full analysis of the findings of the project is available in McKemey and Garforth (2004) CSG 15 (Rev. 6/02) 3 Project Analysis of England's sheep farmers' attitudes towards DEFRA LS1621 title sheep handling and marketing practices project code

differences in the TORA variable readings between the comparative categories such as size of holding and flock, lambing percentage, tenure, level of education and gender.

Outcome Belief

Attitude Value

Intention Behaviour

Normative Belief Subjective Norm

Motivation to comply

Figure 1: A schematic presentation of the Theory of Reasoned Action The measurement of the main TORA variables Current practices (behaviour) regarding selecting finished lambs for market, use of market reports and information sources and selection of rams with reference to EBV values are measured by observing the responses to questions about a number of activities representing the different behaviours. The respondents’ strength of intention (I) to select lambs by handling and weighing, refer to market reports and to select rams with known EBVs during the next year was measured on a 5 point bi-polar scale, i.e. no intent (-2) to very strong intent (+2). Two measures of attitude are applied. The first is what is referred to in this document as the stated attitude (SA), a more emotive general expression of the importance attributed to the performance of the different practices during the next year on their farms. This is measured on a 5 point bi polar scale, i.e. unimportant (-2) to very important (+2). The second attitude measure is the calculated or reasoned attitude (CA). The CA is calculated by first identifying the most salient outcome beliefs common to the community in question. These were identified in the first stage and presented in the respective questionnaires. Measures are then taken for each of the salient outcome statements against a 5 point bi-polar scale regarding their ‘agreement’ (b) with the particular outcome statement and a similar measure of the ‘importance’ (e) attribute to each. The product of the individual outcome belief and value measures (b*e) give the individual outcome attitudes (OAs) (possible range -4 to +4). The OA products are added to give the calculated attitude (i.e. CA = Σ(bi*ei)). The individual outcome (b*e) products (OAs) are correlated separately with the stated intention so as to identify which have most influence on the decision making process. The direction of the OA, i.e. whether it supports the proposed behaviour or not, and the positive or negative nature of the attributed belief and value indicate whether the particular influential outcome attitude acts as a barrier or promotes (drives) the adoption of the behaviour in question. A similar approach is taken to the measurement of the subjective norm. Two measures are used in the analysis, the stated subjective norm (SSN) and the calculated subjective norm (CSN). The SSN is a measure of the respondents' beliefs regarding whether farmers they respect most will support their adoption or continued application of the different practices during the next year. The response is measured on a 5 point bi polar scale, i.e. very opposed (-2) to very supportive (+2). A list of 11 pertinent social referents regarding the different sheep management practices addressed was established during the first stage. This list of social referents was applied in each of the questionnaires. The

product of the subjective belief (sb) and motivation to comply (m), regarding each of the identified social referents is calculated (sb*m). The sum of these products is then taken to represent the calculated subjective norm; i.e. (CSN = Σ(mj*sbj)) giving a possible range of -44 to +44. The influence of the individual referents is assessed by comparing the correlation coefficients produced by correlating the measure of intention (I) with the individual referent subjective norms, i.e. (I vs. (mj*sbj). A measure for the degree of perceived control (C) is also calculated. This is calculated by taking the product of perceived difficulty (d) and ability (a) measures (each measured on a -2 to +2 scale). Descriptive variables A number of descriptive variables were applied to provide information regarding the respondents: personal circumstances (age, gender, economic reliance on the farm's income and if they were the main decision- maker regarding sheep management); general farm information (size of holding, tenure, type of land and non- sheep, stock); and sheep enterprise (number of breeding ewes, rams and breeds, last year's lambing percentage, numbers of store and finished lambs bought and sold and types market used for finished lambs). Two questions were also posed regarding the level of satisfaction with their 'ability to achieve the best returns for finished lambs’ and what they felt were the most important methods of achieving these 'best returns'. The respondents Response A separate sample of 1000 sheep farmers was selected, from data supplied by EBLEX, for each questionnaire. Each of the three questionnaires contained the same descriptive variables. The first dealt with the selection of finished lambs for market and received 117 usable responses. The second, on the use of market reports, generated 112 usable responses and the third, on referral to EBVs when selecting rams, 116 usable responses. This represented an overall mean response to the questionnaires of 11.5%. The response was very even between the three samples and is considered reasonable given that no reminders were sent. Personal and farm characteristics The majority of the respondents were between 40 and 60 years of age, less than 20% were under 40. Across the three samples, 19% of the respondents were female, the lowest proportional response recorded regarding the selection of rams. Just over half (54%) of the respondents are reliant on farming for more than 75% of their household income. The average size of farm is 127 hectares (IQR: 21 to 152). A few very large holdings, including a holding of 2000 hectares in the marketing sample, tended to skew the sample slightly. On average 25% of the respondents claimed to be farming less than 20 hectares while 20% claimed to have holdings in excess of 180 hectares. Most (71%) were either owner/occupiers or both owning and renting additional land. The majority of the holdings (70%) were in lowland or mainly lowland areas. Only 30% of the respondents claimed to be mainly farming upland. In addition to sheep, approximately 13% of all respondents had dairy cattle, with a median of 93 animals. A larger proportion (64%) claimed to have beef stock, with a median herd size of 61. Sheep enterprise On average 94.4% of respondents were the main decision-makers regarding the sheep enterprise. The mean size of flock was 262 breeding ewes. 23% of the respondents had flocks of less than 50 ewes while 16% had flocks in excess of 500. The average number of rams per flock was eight. The respondents were asked to estimate the lambing percentage achieved during the previous year (lambs born live / ewes mated). The overall mean percentage was 154% (median 156%). Just under half of the respondents (49%) reported lambing percentages of less than 160%. The overall mean number of finished lambs sold in the previous year was 324 (median 167). 20% of the respondents reported sales of less than 50 while 30% reported sales of more than 390 finished lambs. A third (32%) of the respondents claim that half or more of their farm income is based on finished lamb sales, while breeding sheep sales dominate the farm incomes of 12%. A small number (9%) of the respondents buy in store lambs for finishing. These tend to be larger operations as the mean average number bought in is 202 (median 98). The proportion of respondents selling on store lambs for finishing is larger (27%), the average number sold on being 110 (median 57). Marketing of Lambs

The respondents were asked to identify to what type of market they sold their finished lambs and in what proportion to each. The largest proportion (62%) sold finished lambs to the liveweight market with a mean of 84 lambs sold by this outlet. Deadweight sales to the abattoir represent the next most frequently used outlet of finished lambs (33%): the reported average number of lambs sold to the abattoir per respondent during the previous year was 76. Approximately 19% of the respondents are selling their lambs via private sales. Those that are selling in this fashion tend to sell all their lambs via this type of outlet. On average 72 lambs per respondent were sold privately in the previous year. Very few respondents claimed to have sold lambs by deadweight sale in the market (3%). However, those that did sell in this way sold on average 79 lambs. When the overall average number of finished lambs sold (324) is compared with the average numbers sold via each of the four types of outlet considered it suggests most are using a mixture of outlets, i.e. both liveweight and deadweight sales. Perceived ability to achieve the best returns for the finished lambs A question was posed to ascertain the degree of satisfaction respondents felt regarding their perceived ability to achieve the best returns for their finished lambs, the concept being that those already satisfied with their ability may be more difficult to persuade to adopt alternative practices. The overall mean level of satisfaction is 0.68 on a scale of -2 to +2 (IQR = 0 to 1). The majority (62%) are either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their ability to achieve the best returns. This poses a significant challenge for the BRP as those that are already satisfied are going to be more reluctant to change or modify current practice. Across all three samples only one significant difference regarding satisfaction was noted between the different descriptive categories considered. Those whose farm contributes less than 50% of their household income registered a significantly lower level of satisfaction than those that are economically dependent on the farm (means = 0.26 and 0.73 respectively). If the ram selection sample is considered, those demonstrating the highest levels of satisfaction are those with the largest holdings (mean = 1.06), those with the largest flocks (mean = 1.00) and those that consulted EBVs when selecting rams (mean = 1.00). In contrast the lowest levels of satisfaction were recorded in the ram selection sample by the female respondents (mean = 0.47) and tenant farmers (mean = 0.52). With regard to the marketing sample those that had not referred to any source of marketing information also registered one of the lowest levels of satisfaction (mean = 0.31). However, the lowest mean satisfaction scores were recorded in the lamb selection sample by those with the lowest numbers of finished lambs sold (mean = 0.24), smallest holdings (mean = 0.25) and the smallest flocks (mean = 0.27). Size of holding, flock size and number of lambs sold correlated closely. Therefore, the scale of operation appears to have an influence: the larger the enterprise the greater the degree of confidence in the ability to achieve the best returns. Results and discussion Ram selection with reference to EBVs Recent practice with respect to ram selection and use of EBVs Referral to EBVs when selecting rams is one of the main practices EBLEX wish to encourage so as to improve the return from finished lambs to farmers. The majority of the respondents (76%) had bought new rams during the past year. However, only 11% of those buying rams had considered the EBV when selecting which rams to purchase. Referral to EBVs or Signet records is very infrequent. Although only a small number of the respondents had changed breeds over the past year, of these 20% had referred to the EBVs. This slight increase may indicate that if farmers are unfamiliar with a breed they may be more inclined to consult the pertinent EBVs. Those registering the greatest EBV referral incidence were farmers with more than 500 ewes (23%) and with 251 to 499 ewes (18%). Those registering a lambing percentage in excess of 160% also more frequently considered EBVs (14%). In contrast those that registered the lowest consideration of EBVs were those with the smallest flocks (4%) and those with lambing percentages of below 160% (6%). Understanding and influence of EBVs The following observation indicates that there is significant ignorance regarding EBVs and their appropriate application. In response to the question as to whether EBVs can be compared across different breeds the

majority of the respondents (61%) did not know, 23% indicated they could not while 15% percent felt they could be compared. Eight issues that were mentioned as influences on the selection of rams were identified during the initial telephone interviews. These are presented in Table 1, EBVs being one of them. The respondents were asked to indicate the influence of each of these issues when choosing a ram. When the issues are ranked according to reported influence, EBV was the least influential. The most influential issues are conformation, breed, health and origin. Table 1 Influence of different factors on the choice of ram

Factors influencing choice of ram Large % Slight % None % Don't Know Rank Confirmation 96.6 3.4 0 0.0 1 Breed 95.7 3.4 0.9 0.0 2 Health 94.8 5.2 0 0.0 2 Origin 61.4 36.0 2.6 0.0 4 Looks 59.8 31.3 8.9 0.0 5 Price 38.3 49.6 12.2 0.0 6 Other performance indicators 20.0 28.6 27.6 23.8 7 EBVs 10.0 21.8 42.7 25.5 8

Predicting future referral to EBVs when selecting rams The TORA observes the relationship of both the attitude and perceived social pressure with the expressed intent to undertake the proposed activity, in this case the increased referral to EBVs to improve the return from finished lamb sales. If a strong correlation is observed between the stated intent, the attitude and/or the subjective norm the expressed intent (I) is taken to be a strong predictor of the future undertaking of the behaviour in question. Table 2 presents the mean, median scores and IQR for each of the main TORA variables and the resulting significant rs coefficients when each variable is correlated with (I). Table 2 Main TORA variable means and I vs. correlation regarding EBV referral N = 112 Mean Median (IQR) I vs. Corr Adjusted Main TORA variables rs I vs. Corr rs (I) Intention to buy Rams based on EBVs (-2 to +2) -0.20 0 (-1 to 0) (SA) Stated attitude re buying rams based on their EBVs (-2 to +2) 0.02 0 (-1 to 1) 0.811(**) 0.811(**) (SSN) Stated subjective norm re buying rams based on EBVs (-2 to +2) 0.32 0 0 to 1 0.331(**) 0.331(**) (CA) Calculated attitude re buying rams based on EBVs (-56 to +56) 0.33 2 0 to 5 0.509(**) (CSN) Calculated subjective norm re rams based on EBVs (-44 to +44) 8.37 6 1 to 12 Difficulty of buying rams with high EBVs (-2 to +2) -0.07 0 0 to 0 0.247(**) 0.247(**)

The most frequent response regarding intent, attitude and subjective norm is neutral indicating the predominant apathy or ignorance regarding the topic. Both the stated attitude (SA) and subjective norm (SSN) correlate closely and significantly with the stated intent (Table 2). The (I vs. SA, CA and SSN) correlations indicate that the stated intent is a reliable predictor of future EBV referral. Intention to consult EBVs when selecting rams during the next year Overall intention (I) to refer to EBVs in future is slightly negative (mean = -0.20 on a 5 point bi polar scale). The intent is the only negative response to the main TORA variables considered. When the whole sample is considered, 30% of the respondents expressed a negative intent compared to 18% that expressed positive intent. Of the different descriptive categories considered, significant differences in expressed intent are observed regarding number of finished lambs sold, type of land farmed and if the respondent has previously considered EBVs when selecting rams. Those that expressed the most positive intentions were those that currently refer to EBVs (mean = 0.83), farmers selling between 171 and 390 finished lambs (mean = 0.29), tenant farmers (mean = 0.22), and those whose farm incomes are mainly dependent on the sale of finished lambs (mean =

0.07). Interestingly those that are not satisfied with their ability also registered a slightly positive intent (mean = 0.03). Those categories that registered the most negative intents were those selling between 51 to 170 finished lambs (mean = -0.58), those farming mainly upland areas (mean = -0.50), female respondents (mean = -0.40), those less economically dependent on the farm, and those with the smallest holdings and smallest flocks (means = -0.39, -0.39 and -0.38 respectively). Future change in EBV referral Overall the findings indicate that there will be little change in the use of the EBV system without external intervention to promote its adoption. When current practice and intent are compared a general increase of approximately 1% is indicated, i.e. a shift from 10% to 11%. Those selling 50 to 170 finished lambs, upland farmers, those with smaller units, those who are less dependent on farming and females will be most likely to resist referring to EBVs. In contrast those that are already referring to EBVs are most likely to continue doing so. Comparative influence of the attitude and subjective components The comparative influence of the attitude and subjective norm is determined by comparing the strength of the I vs. attitude and I vs. subjective norm correlation coefficients. When the sample is considered as a whole, the (I vs. SA and CA) present the stronger correlations indicating that the respondents' decision to refer to EBVs is most influenced by the perceived outcomes of referring to EBVs as opposed to perceived social pressure to refer to them (Table 2). However, when the different descriptive categories are considered two groups of respondents are identified that are more influenced by the normative component, the female respondents and those that are currently referring to EBVs, i.e. the (I vs. CSN) correlations are significant. However in each case the (I vs. SA) correlation is also significant. Attitude toward EBV consideration Two measures of attitude have been taken; the more emotive stated attitude (SA) and the calculated or reasoned attitude (CA). The SA is a measure of the attributed importance to considering the EBV status of the ram. The SA of the whole sample was basically neutral (mean = 0.02 on a 5 point bi polar scale) (Table 2). When the different descriptive categories are considered, the following (non-significant) differences were observed. The most positive SAs were registered by those already referring to EBVs (mean = 1.25), those selling between 171 and 390 finished lambs (mean = 0.42) and tenant farmers (mean = 0.35). The categories registering the most negative SAs were upland farmers (mean = -0.23), those selling more than 390 finished lambs per year (mean = -0.20) and those that had not referred to the EBV when buying a ram (mean = -0.13). The calculated attitude (CA) is arrived at by taking the sum of the individual outcome attitudes (OAs) (i.e. CA = Σbi*ei). In this case 14 separate OAs are considered which represent salient beliefs regarding the expected outcomes of purchasing rams with high EBVs. Table 3 presents the individual OAs and their corresponding belief (b) and value (e) scores. The Alpha Coefficient of scale reliability is 0.44, lower than the 0.6 recommended level. However, several of the outcome statements are considered to counter the proposed behaviour. Those that are considered to represent negative outcomes resulting from EBV referral are shaded in Table 3. In these cases the belief signs have been changed to permit an intuitive appropriate measure of attitude when the (b*e) product is considered. The shaded cells in Table 3 represent those in which the (b) signs have been changed. The alternative OA scale presents a strong Alpha coefficient of reliability (0.9) and the alternative CA vs. SA correlation is significant (p = 0.000). The adjusted CA when the whole sample is considered is neutral (mean = 0.33 on possible range of -56 to +56) (IQR: -2 to 3). Only one significant difference in the adjusted CA is observed: those referring to EBVs registered a significantly more positive CA (mean = 3.44) compared to those that had not (mean = -0.03). The most positive CAs were registered by those managing flocks in excess of 500 ewes (mean = 4.00), those aged between 40 to 60 (mean = 3.67) and those that are currently consulting EBVs when selecting rams (mean = 3.44). The most negative CAs were registered by the under 40 age group (mean = -1.75), those managing

flocks of less than 50 ewes (mean = -1.30) and those with lambing percentages of less than 160% (mean = -0.85). Table 3 Outcome attitudes and calculated attitude on ram selection with EBVs Belief (b) Changed Value (e) Attitudes Changed (b) (b*e) (b*e) (-2 to +2) (-2 to +2) (-2 to +2) (-4 to +4) (-4 to +4) Outcome statements mean mean mean mean mean 25. Trust judgement/experience rather than referring to EBV's 0.65 -0.65 0.78 0.79 -0.79 28. Using rams with high EBVs leads to better carcass quality 0.62 0.62 0.64 0.69 0.69 29. Using rams with higher EBVs leads to better returns per lamb 0.43 0.43 0.63 0.44 0.44 34. Rams with high EBV's don't survive as long in the flock -0.06 0.06 0.41 0.02 -0.02 32. Lambs sired by high EBV rams are more difficult to finish -0.35 0.35 0.35 -0.10 0.10 30. EBV system is confusing and difficult to understand 0.19 -0.19 0.29 0.23 -0.23 27. Rams with high EBV's are too expensive 0.15 -0.15 0.26 0.19 -0.19 24. High EBV rams produce early finishing lambs 0.41 0.41 0.23 0.50 0.50 33. Difficult to locate rams with high EBVs 0.20 -0.20 0.18 0.20 -0.20 31. Rams with high EBVs will cover more ewes -0.66 -0.66 0.11 -0.06 -0.06 26. Selecting rams with high EBV's mean introducing new breeds -0.48 0.48 0.09 -0.06 0.06 22. Offspring of rams with high EBV's will require more mgt -0.46 0.46 0.06 0.04 -0.04 21. Not be worth the additional hassle -0.23 0.23 0.05 -0.36 0.36 23. Not be enough high EBV rams to meet demand 0.14 -0.14 0.04 0.11 -0.11 Calculated Attitude (CA) (range -56 to +56) 2.81 0.33 Alpha coefficient 0.4 0.8

The statement that registered the strongest OA is with respect to farmers 'trusting their own judgement rather than referring to EBVs'. The respondents believe in their own judgement over EBVs and this is an important issue for them. However, the direction of the statement is not supportive of EBV referral. Therefore the adjusted OA is negative as demonstrated in the final 'changed (b*e)' column in Table 3. However, the following three most highly ranked outcome attitudes (OAs) are all supportive of EBV referral: using rams with high EBVs will lead to 'better carcass quality', 'earlier finishing' and 'better returns'. Interestingly, the concept of 'EBVs not being worth the hassle' is generally rejected also resulting in one of the more positive OAs when the belief sign is adjusted. The other negative outcome statements that the sample did not agree with were related to the concepts that 'rams with high EBVs will cover more ewes', ‘the need to introduce new breeds', 'lambs will require more management' and 'will be difficult to finish'. Outcomes that were felt to be most important (e) were the 'trust of their own judgement', 'carcass quality', 'better returns' and 'ram survival'. In contrast 'the supply of rams with EBVs', and 'additional hassle and management' were given least importance. To identify the influence of the outcome attitudes on the decision to refer to EBVs the different OAs are correlated with the stated intent. Those that present significant (I vs. OA) correlations are considered to be influential and acting as either drivers or barriers to the future consideration of EBVs. The (I vs. b, e and OA) correlations for the whole sample are presented in Table 4. Seven of the OAs present significant (I vs. OA) correlations and can therefore be considered influential. Several of these are also supported by significant (I vs. b and e) correlations.

Table 4 Intention vs. beliefs (b), values (e) and attitudes (b*e) correlations (rs) regarding referral to EBV when selecting rams (adjusted)

Outcome statements Belief (b) Value (e) Attitude (b*e)

rs rs rs 28. Using rams with high EBVs leads to better carcass quality .400(**) .356(**) .409(**) 29. Using rams with higher EBVs leads to better returns per lamb .361(**) .321(**) .397(**) 26. Selecting rams with high EBV's mean introducing new breeds .260(**) .317(**) .333(**) 32. Lambs sired by high EBV rams are more difficult to finish .335(**) .333(**) 24. High EBV rams produce early finishing lambs .446(**) .611(**) .314(**)

22. Offspring of rams with high EBV's will require more mgt .370(**) .257(*) 21. Not be worth the additional hassle .534(**) .718(**) .249(*) 25. Trust judgement/experience rather than referring to EBV's .411(**) .244(*) 23. Not be enough high EBV rams to meet demand .448(**) 27. Rams with high EBV's are too expensive .418(**) 30. EBV system is confusing and difficult to understand .391(**) 31. Rams with high EBVs will cover more ewes 33. Difficult to locate rams with high EBVs .503(**) 34. Rams with high EBV's don't survive as long in the flock .211(*) .279(**) Calculated Attitude (CA) .509(**) The shaded rows indicate where the (b) and therefore (b*e) signs of the have been change.s

* Correlation (rs) is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tail); ** Correlation (rs) is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tail)

This analysis of attitudes indicates that the main drivers of future EBV referral in order of influence are better carcass quality, better returns and early finishing lambs. Sensitive issues which could have a negative influence on farmers’ reasoning and need to be addressed include the need to introduce new breeds, the perception that lambs would be more difficult to finish, offspring of rams with high EBVs requiring more management and whether using the EBV system is worth the 'hassle'. The main barrier to future EBV referral is farmers’ trust in their own judgement and experience. Perceived social pressure (subjective norm) regarding EBV referral As with the measurement of the attitude held toward EBV referral, two measures of the subjective norm are considered, the stated subjective norm (SSN) and the calculated subjective norm (CSN). The SSN is a measure of the degree to which the respondent feels that other respected farmers would support their referral to EBVs when selecting rams in the following year. The SSN of the whole sample is positive but not strongly so (mean = 0.32 on a scale of -2 to +2) (Table 5). It is more positive than the SA. The majority of the respondents (67%) did not know how supportive other farmers would be. However, 32% indicated positive support. Only two significant differences between the categories considered were noted, regarding size of holding and previous referral to EBVs. No group registered a negative SSN. Those groups that registered the most positive SSNs were those currently referring to EBVs (mean = 0.83), the largest holdings (mean = 0.74) and those with over 500 ewes (mean = 0.54). The weakest SSNs were recorded by those farming between 30 and 70 hectares (mean = 0.19), those aged under 40 (mean = 0.20) and those with flocks of 50 to 250 ewes (mean = 0.21). The CSN is calculated by taking the sum of the11 social referent subjective norms, i.e. (CSN = Σ(mj*sbj)). Table 5 presents the separate referents' mean and median scores regarding motivations (m), subjective beliefs (sb) and subjective norms (m*sb). The CSN for the whole sample is positive (mean = 8.37, range -44 to +44). There is a positive correlation between the SSN and CSN measures of the subjective norm (p = 0.030). The scale formed by the different rsns registered a positive Alpha coefficient for scale reliability (0.88). The ranking of the different referent subjective norms (rsns) is presented in Table 5. The most positive rsn scores were attributed to other farmers (mean = 1.12), buyers (mean = 1.02), and abattoirs (mean = 0.97). In each of these cases the associated motivation to comply and subjective belief were also ranked higher than other referents. The least positive rsns were attributed to other organisations (type not specified), auctioneers and the farming press. With regard to each of these the motivation to comply was negative, although the subjective beliefs were positive, especially in respect of the farming press. Although the Internet registered a relatively positive rsn, this result is considered counter intuitive given the very negative motivation and subjective belief attributed to this referent. The motivation and subjective belief regarding the MLC is positive. However, with regard to EBLEX the motivation to comply was weaker, although the subjective belief score was stronger than that attributed to the MLC. This may be due to EBLEX not being as well known on the one hand (m) and the influence of the questionnaire on the other (sb). Table 5 Referent and calculated subjective norms re ram selection with EBVs

Motivation (m) S' Belief (sb) Referent sns (rsns)

(-2 to +2) (-2 to +2) (-4 to +4) Social referents mean mean mean

4sn. Other experienced farmers 0.73 0.70 1.12 5sn. Buyers 0.49 0.61 1.02 7sn. Abattoir 0.56 0.73 0.97 10sn. Meat/Livestock Commission 0.26 0.44 0.89 11sn. Family 0.11 0.22 0.85 9sn. Internet -0.80 -0.32 0.78 1sn. EBLEX 0.18 0.53 0.69 2sn. Farmers organisations 0.00 0.35 0.64 8sn. Farming Press -0.07 0.31 0.61 6sn. Auctioneer -0.17 0.24 0.56 3sn. Other organisations -0.30 0.02 0.39

Calculated subjective norm (CSN) 8.37 (range -44 to +44)

Alpha coefficient 0.88

None of the referents registered a significant (I vs. rsn) correlation when the whole sample is considered. However, it is interesting to note that the motivation (I vs. m) and subjective belief (I vs. sb) regarding EBLEX correlated most positively. Implications for promoting the future referral to EBVs Any strategy that aims to encourage the referral to EBVs when selecting rams in future will need to reinforce the beliefs that are currently acting as drivers and address those that are barriers. When considering the sheep farming population in general the outcomes regarding improved carcass quality, better returns and early finishing need to be reinforced. However, issues such as the need to introduce new breeds, difficulty finishing, problems managing lambs from sires with high EBVs, and whether EBV referral is really worth the additional hassle are also sensitive and need positive reinforcement in promotional messages. The main barrier concerned the farmers' own sense of confidence in their ability and experience. This will require delicate management so as not to be seen to be undervaluing the farmers' expertise when promoting referral to EBVs. With regard to those that are already referring to EBVs, the perception that the system is confusing and difficult to understand is acting as a potential barrier to their continued use of the system. In this case EBLEX needs to find ways of making the system easier to understand and more user friendly. Overall there is a significant amount of ignorance and / or apathy regarding the EBV system that will need to be overcome. This is reinforced by a general confidence in the existing experience and ability to select rams. The normative component has little influence on many of the categories of farmer considered. The farmers' own beliefs and experience tend to dominate their decisions regarding the choice of rams particularly when set against referral to EBVs. The family is the referent most often registering greatest influence across the different categories considered. Therefore promotional strategies should seek to target and influence the family unit and not just the main decision-maker. The fact that those using the EBV system appear to find negative pressure from their families reinforces the importance for the broader targeting when developing promotional strategies. The use of market reports Recent or current practice regarding the use of marketing reports/information The majority (86%) of the respondents claim to be using some form of market information source although this is often by word of mouth from other farmers, buyers/agents or auctioneers. As demonstrated in Table 6 most farmers rely on multiple sources of information. The most frequently used are auctioneers, the farming press and other farmers. Approximately half of the respondents claimed to be using each of these three primary sources. Approximately 14% say they consult seasonal market trends. However, only 9% use the Internet as a source of market information with only 3% claiming to have consulted the EBLEX site. A similar small

proportion (8%) is using the CEEFAX service on BBC 2. Only one respondent had used the recorded telephone service and similarly the fax service. Given the information presented in Table 6 the main form of documented information consulted is via the farming press placing significant importance on this information source over and against the electronic forms. This does raise questions about the investment placed in these other forms of information technologies. Table 6 Proportion of respondents using different market information sources

Information sources consulted Frequency Percent Rank Auctioneer 58 51.8 1 Farming press 57 50.9 2 Other farmers 53 47.3 3 Abattoir 21 18.8 4 Buyer / agents 19 17.0 5 Seasonal market trend graphs 16 14.3 6 Not referred to any market source 16 14.3 6 Market reports on the Internet 10 8.9 8 CEEFAX (BBC 2) 9 8.0 9 Eblex website 3 2.7 10 Recorded telephone lines 1 0.9 11 Fax services 1 0.9 11

In response to an open question, the main reasons given for their preferences were accuracy (18%), overall picture (13%), own experience (13%), local information (11%), frequently/daily updated (11%) and buyers’ requirements. A separate question asked the respondents to indicate the importance they attributed to including 'simple' lamb quality descriptors in liveweight price reports. Most (81%) felt it was important. Predicting future use of market reports As indicated, the TORA observes the relationship of both the attitude and perceived social pressure with the expressed intent to undertake the proposed activity, in this case the use of market reports to improve the economic returns from finished lamb sales. If a strong correlation is observed between the stated intent, the attitude and/or the subjective norm the expressed intent (I) is taken to be a strong predictor of the future undertaking of the behaviour in question. Table 7 presents the mean, median scores and IQR for each of the main TORA variables and the resulting significant coefficients when each variable is correlated with (I). The intent and stated attitude (SA) regarding market report referral are strongly positive. However, in the case of the stated subjective norm (SSN) the majority expressed a neutral response. Both the stated attitude and stated subjective norm correlate significantly with the intention to refer to market reports as do the CA and SSN. However, the perceived control of access (c) to recent market information does not appear to be influential. The significant (I vs. SA, CA, SSN and CSN) correlations indicate that the stated intent (I) is a reliable predictor of future referral to market reports when selecting where and when to sell.

Table 7 TORA variable means, medians, IQRs and rs correlations (market information)

Mean Median (IQR) I vs. Corr

Main TORA variables (market information use) n = 112 rs (I) Intention to consult recent market reports (-2 to +2) 0.49 1 0 to 1 (SA) Stated attitude re recent market reports (-2 to +2) 0.67 1 0 to 2 .805(**) (SSN) Stated subjective norm re recent market reports (-2 0.59 0 0 to 1 .441(**) to +2) (CA) Calculated attitude re marketing (-40 to +40) 2.56 2 0 to 5 .263(*) (CSN) Calculated SN marketing 6.17 6 2 to 9 .524(**) (C) Control of access (-4 to +4) 1.48 1 1 to 2

Intention to consult marketing reports CSG 15 (Rev. 6/02) 12 Project Analysis of England's sheep farmers' attitudes towards DEFRA LS1621 title sheep handling and marketing practices project code

Future intent to refer to market reports is strong (mean = 0.45 on a range of -2 to +2) when the sample is considered as a whole (Table 7). 58% expressed a positive intent compared to 21% that were negative, with 21% of the sample neutral regarding future referral. When the intentions of the different categories of respondent are considered, significant differences are noted regarding dependency on the farm income, referral to marketing information and referral to the auctioneer. The groups that registered the strongest intent were those that sold between 170 and 390 finished lambs in the last year (mean = 1.00), those that referred to the Internet (mean = 1.00), those that referred to the farming press (mean = 0.85), those with between 50 and 250 ewes (mean = 0.85) and those that referred to some form of market information (not specified) (mean = 0.73). The weakest intents were registered by those that have not referred to any source (-0.94), those managing less than 50 ewes (mean = 0.11), those less dependent on farm income (<50%) (mean = 0.12) and those selling deadweight (mean = 0.18). Clearly those that are already referring to market reports expressed the strongest intent to continue doing so. Comparative influence of the attitude and subjective components When the sample is considered as a whole The SA is more influential than the SSN (Table 7). However, the CSN is more influential than the CA. Overall, both the attitudinal and normative components are influential and should be considered when developing promotional strategies. It should be noted that there is a significant correlation between the two measures of the subjective norm. However, there is not a significant correlation between the two attitude measures. The CSN scale registered an acceptable Alpha 0.7 coefficient of reliability. In contrast the CA scale registered an Alpha coefficient of 0.2 which is well below the level recommended. Therefore the SA, SSN comparison is considered the more reliable. When the different categories of respondent are considered, all demonstrate a greater SA influence when compared to the SSN measure. Attitude toward market report referral The SA is positive (mean = 0.67 on a possible scale of -2 to +2) (Table 7). When the SAs of the different categories of farmer are considered, significant differences are noted between those who have and those who have not referred to market reports in general, the agricultural press and the Internet. In each case those that have referred to a market information source demonstrated significantly more positive SAs. Other groups registering relative high mean SAs were those selling between 170 to 390 finished lambs (mean = 0.94) and those mainly dependent on the farm income (mean = 0.93). The groups registering the weakest SAs were those not referring to the agricultural press (mean = 0.23), those selling less than 50 finished lambs (mean = 0.24), those with less than 50 ewes (mean = 0.30) and those not mainly dependent on farm income (mean = 0.38). As in the case of intention those currently referring to market reports, particularly the agricultural press and via the Internet hold the most positive attitudes. Those not using the agricultural press and small operators attribute least importance to market reports. For the calculated attitude to the use of market reports, ten separate outcome attitudes (OAs) were considered, which represent the salient beliefs drawn from earlier telephone interviews and group discussion. The outcome statements and their corresponding agreement (b), importance (e) and OAs (b*e) are presented in Table 8. The CA represents the sum of the OAs (i.e. CA = Σ(bi*ei)). The CA of the whole sample is slightly positive (mean = 2.56 on a possible range of -40 to +40). As indicated above there is not a significant correlation between the more positive SA and the CA measures. The weak reliability coefficient of the OA scale suggests that the salient outcome statements identified may be measuring slightly different issues. Significant differences are noted regarding size of flock and lambing percentage, the use of the Internet and referral to any marketing source. Those with lower lambing percentages expressed significantly higher CAs. The most positive CAs were recorded by the Internet users (mean = 5.86), those selling between 170 and 390 finished lambs (mean =3.91), those with 250 to 500 ewes (mean = 3.87) and upland farmers (mean = 3.77). The weakest CAs were registered by those that had not referred to any market information source (0.57), those that sold between 50 and 170 lambs (mean = 1 12), those with between 50 and 150 ewes (mean = 1.33) and those with lambing percentages of more than 160% (mean 1.56). Table 8 Beliefs, values and outcome attitudes re use of market information

Belief (b) Value (e) Attitude (b*e) CSG 15 (Rev. 6/02) 13 Project Analysis of England's sheep farmers' attitudes towards DEFRA LS1621 title sheep handling and marketing practices project code

Outcome Statements ( range -2 to +2) Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median 32. Use of up to date market information will lead to better returns 0.65 1 0.68 1 0.99 1 25. Price information that is of use is the previous day's sales 0.33 1 0.65 1 0.53 1 33. Once finished, lambs have to be sold no matter what the price 0.40 1 0.90 1 0.50 1 28. The web is a reliable source of market information 0.24 0 0.02 0 0.41 0 27.We can now get market information via the web 0.56 0 0.12 0 0.34 0 29. MLC market information is reliable 0.31 0 0.34 0.5 0.31 0 30. EBLEX web site is easy to access 0.17 0 0.00 0 0.14 0 26. Access to up to date information is expensive -0.56 -1 0.07 0 0.12 0 24. Feedback from Abattoirs and buyers is unreliable -0.04 0 0.59 1 0.06 0 31. Information by phone is not value for money 0.07 0 0.08 0 -0.02 0 Calculated attitude re market information (CA) 13.24 12 range (-40 to +40) Alpha coefficient of scale reliability 0.2

Outcome attitudes regarding market reports The statement that registered the strongest OA reading related to 'better returns resulting from the use of up to date market information'. The next most highly ranked OA relates to the belief that 'only the previous day's information is of use'. Both these OAs relate to the importance of the currency of the information. The third ranked OA relates to the issue of 'having to sell when the lambs are finished no matter what the price'. In this instance the condition of the lamb rather than the current market price seems to dictate. As such this could be seen as a negative attitude toward the use of market reports. Only one negative OA was noted regarding 'market information by phone not being worth the cost'. This seems to reflect the very low reported use of this means of information access. The three most highly ranked OAs were also considered the most important (e) and supported by strong agreement (b). A strong agreement was also registered regarding 'access information via the web'. However, the attributed importance did not match the belief resulting in a weaker OA with respect to this issue. There was generally a strong disagreement with the concept that 'up to date information is expensive'. Again, surprisingly the attributed importance to the issue was relatively weak. Although the agreement with the concept that 'feedback from abattoirs is unreliable' was neutral to negative this was felt to be a relatively important issue. Influence of OAs on the future use of market reports The (I vs. OA) correlation and its degree of significance indicate the influence of each of the OAs on the decision to refer to market reports in future. This influence can be either positive, acting as a driver of uptake or continuation of the practice, or negative acting as a barrier. The (I vs. OA) correlations for the whole sample are presented in Table 9. As can be noted four of the OAs considered registered significant (I vs. OA) correlations. Three of these are considered drivers, i.e. support the use of market reports, and one is acting as a barrier if the sample is considered as a whole. Table 9 Intention vs. attitude correlations (rs) re market information use

Outcome statements (b) (e) (b*e) 24. Feedback from Abattoirs and buyers is unreliable .219(*) .241(*) 25. Price information that is of use is the previous day's sales .454(**) .207(*) 26. Access to up to date information is expensive 27.We can now get market information via the web .294(**) .207(*) 28. The web is a reliable source of market information .254(*) 29. MLC market information is reliable .203(*) .275(**) 30. EBLEX web site is easy to access .438(**) 31. Information by phone is not value for money 32. Use of up to date market information will lead to better returns .532(**) .552(**) .469(**) 33. Once finished lambs have to be sold no matter what the price -.315(**) -.203(*) Calculated Attitude (CA) .263(*) * Correlation (rs) is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tail); ** Correlation (rs) is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tail)

The main drivers of future market report referral are, in order of influence, better returns, access to information via the web and benefit of up to date price information (previous day's sales). The main barrier is the need to sell lambs once finished regardless of price. The groups that were considered to be the least likely to refer to market reports were those that are not referring to any source of market information, those managing smaller units, less dependent of the farms income and selling their lambs deadweight. With regard to those currently not referring to market reports, only one significant (I vs. OA) correlation was observed regarding the benefit of information on the previous day's sales. In the case of non-users as with the users this issue is acting as a driver. However, in the case of those that are currently referring to market reports several of the OAs are acting as drivers. For those managing less than 50 ewes, the issue of being able to get information via the web has a positive influence, as does the possibility of better returns. The issue of having to sell no matter what the price once the lambs are finished acts as a barrier across many of the categories considered even for those that registered some of the strongest use and intent, e.g. the Internet users. Perceived social pressure with respect to market information referral Two measures of the subjective norm are considered regarding the use of market information, the stated and calculated subjective norms, SSN and CSN. The SSN of the whole sample is positive (mean = 0.59 on a scale of -2 to +2). The majority (53%) of the respondents did not know how supportive other farmers would be. However, the rest (47%) felt that other farmers would support market report referral. Significant differences between the categories considered are observed regarding economic dependency on the farm and referral to other farmers for market information. Those less dependent on the farm income and that had not consulted other farmers registered lower SSNs than their counterparts. The CSN is calculated by taking the sum of the 11 social referent subjective norms (rsns). The different social referents and the mean and median values regarding the attributed motivation to comply (m), subjective belief (sb) and referent subjective norms (m*sb) are presented in Table 10. These are ranked by the referent subjective norms. When the sample is considered a whole the CSN is slightly positive (mean = 6.17 on a scale of -44 to +44). The CSN correlates closely with the SSN. The rsn scale registered a relatively strong Alpha coefficient (0.7) regarding scale reliability. Table 10 Mean and median scores regarding the different social referents re market reports

Motivation Subjective belief Rsn (m) (sb) (m*sb) n = 112 Mean Median Mean Mean Median (6sn) Auctioneer 0.90 1 0.76 1 1.19 1 (4sn) Other experienced farmers 0.81 1 0.76 1 0.99 1 (11sn) Family 0.34 1 0.60 1 0.87 0 (8sn) Farming press 0.79 1 0.74 1 0.84 1 (5sn) Buyers 0.34 1 0.47 1 0.76 1 (9sn) Internet -0.17 0 0.10 0 0.67 0 (7sn) Abattoir 0.18 0 0.18 0 0.62 0 (10sn) Meat and Livestock Commission -0.15 0 0.20 0 0.47 0 (1sn) EBLEX 0.01 0 0.32 0 0.41 0 (2sn) Farming organisations 0.11 0 0.37 0 0.39 0 (3sn) Other organizations -0.40 0 0.08 0 0.03 0 Calculated SN marketing (CSN) range -44 to +44) 6.17 6

The most positive rsns were attributed to the auctioneer, other farmers, family and farming press (Table 10). Corresponding strong motivations and subjective beliefs also supported these. Although negative motivations were registered regarding other organisations, the Internet and the MLC, no negative rsns are noted. The negative to neutral mean motivational responses regarding the MLC and EBLEX indicate a need to address their positioning with farmers if they wish to influence the increased use of marketing reports. Eight of the social referents registered significant (I vs. rsn) correlations. If the strength of correlation is taken to represent influence the most influential referents are other farmers, family, buyers and EBLEX.

Further analysis of the correlations shows that the influence of the social referents differs according to the category of respondent (McKemey and Garforth 2004). For those that have not referred to any source, no referents registered a significant (I vs. rsn) correlation. This suggests that this group is reliant on their knowledge and experience. However, a strong rsn mean score was attributed to the farming press in their case. They also expressed the strongest motivation to comply with other experienced farmers and the press. It should also be noted that they indicated strong negative motivation scores regarding both the MLC and EBLEX. Therefore, other respected farmers and the press may prove to be the most appropriate channels for encouraging them to use market information. Clearly neither EBLEX nor the MLC would be an appropriate channel. With regard to those managing less than 50 ewes, other farming organisations appear to be the most influential. Several of the smaller units consisted of specialist breeders, which may involve greater interaction with breeder societies. These may prove appropriate channels if the aim is to also encourage these small producers to refer to market reports. For those less dependent on the farm income, the family is the most influential referent. It should not be assumed that these are all small farmers or running small sheep enterprises. For example of this less dependent category 45% have flocks in excess of 50 ewes and 12% more than 250 ewes. Therefore strategies aimed at encouraging this group to refer to market reports should target the whole family and not just the decision-makers. Implications for the future promotion of market report referral The majority of farmers are already referring to some source of market information, the farming press being one of the most predominant. The issue of up to date information is very important. Preferably this should refer to the previous day's sales when considering price. The need for recent information places added importance on rapid means of information transfer such as the Internet. However, only 10% appear to be using this means of information access. The issue of having to sell when the lambs are ready no matter what the state of the market suggests the need for more attention to be paid to market trend reports and forecasts to permit the management of lambs to fit more closely the market cycles. As in the case of EBV referral when selecting rams, farmers in general tend to be more influenced by their own experience and knowledge than by the opinion of others. Other experienced farmers and family are the most influential referents across most of the categories considered as well as the farming community in general regarding the use of market reports. Any general promotional strategy should seek to involve the whole family were appropriate and to channel the messages through respected farmers to the target audience.

CSG 15 (Rev. 6/02) 16 The selection of finished Lambs for slaughter by handling and weighing Recent or current practice regarding finished lamb selection Five options were presented to the respondents describing different methods of finished lamb selection. Most use only one method of assessment, with approximately 35% claiming to be using more than one method. The majority (74%) claimed to be handling frequently to assess readiness for market followed by weighing regularly (44%), and 10% got their lambs assessed on the farm by either the auctioneer or abattoir. Only 3% claim to be using the MLC classification scale to help assess their lambs’ readiness. This is a surprisingly low proportion and presents a challenge for those attempting to promote the use of these scales as an assessment aid. Differences in handling and weighing practice are noted when flock size, lambing percentage, land type and satisfaction with ability to achieve the best returns are compared (Table 11). Those with flocks of 50 to 250 ewes and those satisfied with their ability to achieve the best returns currently tend to rely on handling most (80% and 79% respectively). Those applying the method least were upland farmers (67%). In this case there is room for an increase in this practice. However, as will be discussed later the upland farmers generally indicated an intent to increase this practice. Regular weighing so as to select optimum weight for sale is most frequently practised by those managing flocks of 250 to 500 ewes (59%). In contrast those with the smallest flocks relied on this method least (33%). Table 11: Current behaviour and predicted change regarding handling and weighing

Handling Weighing % currently % predicted % currently % predicted handling change in weighing change in handling weighing Whole sample All 74.4 15.0 44.4 16.1 Number of Ewes <50 70.4 18.1 33.3 14.8 50 to 250 80.0 8.3 44.4 16.0 251 to 499 66.7 21.8 59.3 22.1 500> 76.5 17.7 41.2 8.9 Lambing % <160 % 71.4 11.9 42.9 13.7 160> % 73.5 22.3 49.0 20.4 Land Type Lowland 79.0 13.3 43.2 18.1 Upland 63.6 17.7 48.5 12.8 Ability to achieve Satisfied 78.7 9.9 44.3 13.1 best returns Unsatisfied 74.0 15.6 44.0 17.7

Understanding of weight achieved at sale Various questions were posed regarding awareness of and attitude toward the hot and cold rebate, factors influencing killing out percentage and the influence of rounding the weight up or down. Only 46% of the respondents claimed to be aware of the hot and cold rebate. Of all the respondents 74% are not sure if they agree with its fairness while 60% had no opinion regarding its importance. This indicates a possible high degree of ignorance regarding this issue. The factor considered to have the most influence on the killing out percentage is the age of the lamb, i.e. new season vs. hogget. This is followed by the fullness of the stomach. The sex of the lamb is considered to have least influence. On average only 14% claimed not to have an opinion. However, of those selling to an abattoir, 58% do not know the dressing specifications of the abattoirs they are selling to. Other additional comments also drew attention to the lack of clarity regarding the norms being applied in the abattoirs. Overall the majority (58%) of the respondents did not know if the weight was rounded up or down by the buyer. Those that sell the bulk of their lambs to the abattoir expressed greater ignorance regarding the rounding of prices than those that sell less than 50% to the abattoir (ns). However, a significant difference between those that are more and less dependent on abattoirs regarding the perceived degree of weight rounding was noted. Those that sell less than 50% of their lambs to the abattoir expressed a much more pessimistic view, i.e. 63% felt that the weight was rounded down by -0.5 kilos compared to 25% of those that are mainly dependent on abattoirs as their principal outlet. Also a large proportion (44%) of those selling the majority of lambs to abattoirs also felt that they were receiving the exact weight, whilst none of their counterparts believed this to be the case. This finding suggests the perception of the weight being rounded down could be negatively influencing the sale of lambs via the abattoirs. Given the more positive response of those that are dependent on abattoirs this

CSG 15 (Rev. 6/02) 17 Project DEFRA title project code

may suggest that non-users may be influenced by too pessimistic an impression of the abattoirs' weighing practice. Predicting the use of handling to select the lambs' readiness for slaughter The mean, median and IQR for each of the main TORA variables and the resulting significant correlation coefficients (rs) when each is correlated with the intent (I) to 'frequently handle lambs when selecting, which lambs and when to market over the next year' are presented in Table 12. Table 12 Intention, attitudes, subjective norms and perceived difficulty (handling)

Main TORA variables Mean Median (IQR) I vs.

rs (I) Intention to assess readiness by handling (-2 to +2) 1.22 1 1 to 2 (SA) Importance of handling to assess readiness (-2 to +2) 1.33 1 1 to 2 .697(**) (SSN) Support of farmers re handling to assess finish (-2 to +4) 0.75 1 0 to 1 .237(*) (CA) Calculated attitude re handling Range (-40 to +40) 13.24 12 8 to 18 .505(**) (CSN) Subjective norm re lamb selection (-44 to +44) 9.14 7 3 to 12 Difficulty/ease of assesses by handling (-2 to +2) 1.01 1 1 to 2 .432(**)

The intention of the whole sample to assess lambs by handling during the next year is strong (mean = 1.22 on a scale of -2 to +2). 89% indicated a positive intent with only 6% offering a neutral response. This indicates that in general sheep farmers are likely to increase the already strong application of this method of assessment by 15% (Table 11). When the strength of intent of the different categories of farmer is considered, significant differences are observed regarding the type of land farmed, age and current handling practice. The strongest intents were expressed by the under 40 age group (mean = 1.54), those with holdings in excess of 180 hectares (mean = 1.50), those that both own and rent additional land (mean = 1.38) and those that are also weighing lambs regularly (mean = 1.35). Although no group registered a negative intent, the weakest were expressed by those not assessing by handling (mean = 0.81), the upland farmers (mean = 1.00), those farming between 70 and 180 hectares (mean = 1.03) and those economically dependent on the farm (mean = 1.07). Those least likely to assess by handling in future are upland farmers and those that have not already adopted this practice to some degree. Comparative influence of the attitude and subjective components As can be observed the attitudinal measures (SA and CA) correlate more closely with the intent (I) than either of the subjective measures but indicate that intention (I) is a reliable indicator of future behaviour when considering sheep farmers in general. It also demonstrates that their decision to assess the lamb's readiness by frequent handling is based on their attitudes as opposed to social pressure. The ease / difficulty (D) of assessing by handling correlated closely with intent indicating that the perceived ease of assessing the finish in this way is also influential. The decision to assess by frequent handling is therefore based on experience and ability. Attitude regarding assessing finish by frequent handling SA and CA measures correlate closely (p = 0.000). With respect to stated attitude, the respondents as a whole felt that assessing lambs by frequent handling was important (Table 12). When the SAs of the different categories of farmer are considered, the only significant difference was noted between those that are and are not handling suggesting that practice and experience may act to reinforce an attitude toward assessment by handling. As with intent (I) the SA also appears to be sensitive to age and size of holding although in this case not significantly so. The sum of the 10 separate outcome attitudes (OAs) related to handling provided the CA. The salient outcome statements are shown in Table 14. The CA when the whole sample is considered is positive but not strongly so (mean = 13.24 on a possible range of -40 to +40). The CA and SA correlate closely and the Alpha coefficient (0.66) indicates an acceptable level of the scales reliability (McKemey and Garforth 2004).

CSG 15 (1/00) 18 Project DEFRA title project code

When the CAs of the different categories of farmer are considered, significant differences are noted regarding type of land and degree of satisfaction in ability to achieve the best returns, the upland farmers and those least satisfied with their ability registering some of the weakest CAs. The most positive CAs were registered by those farming between 20 and 70 hectares (mean = 15.44), those with less than 50 ewes (mean = 15.25) and those satisfied with their ability (mean = 14.96). The weakest CAs were recorded by those farming 250 to 500 ewes (10.75), upland farmers (mean = 10.81), those not satisfied with ability (mean = 11.07) and those not handling (mean = 11.50). The management of upland and dissatisfaction with ability to achieve best returns negatively influence farmers’ reasoning regarding the benefits of handling. Analysis of the relative strengths of the different Outcome Attitudes showed that only one negative OA was registered, related to 'handling bruising the flesh'. In this case the respondents generally disagreed with this outcome, but thought it moderately important. In other words this OA supports assessment by handling. (I.e. the direction of the (b*e) product is counterintuitive.) The strongest OA was registered for the idea that price will depend on the buyer’s assessment not the farmer’s. Although farmers only expressed weak agreement with the concept of 'farmers' assessments matching those of the buyers', this was felt to be the second most important issue. Therefore if the attributed importance is considered, the two most important relate to the influence of the buyer’s assessment. The influence, either positive or negative, of the separate OAs on the decision to assess finish by frequent handling is determined by the comparative strength of the (I vs. OA) correlations. The (I vs. OA) correlations for the whole sample are presented in Table 13. Table 13 Handling intention vs. attitude correlations (whole sample)

Outcome Statements Belief (b) Value (e) Attitude (b*e) 21. Assessment by farmers usually agrees with buyer's .251(*) 22. Price will depend on the buyer's assessment not the farmer's .322(**) 23. Regular handling prior to marketing will help maximise the return .473(**) .506(**) .491(**) 24. By frequent handling you can assess the lamb accurately .249(**) .404(**) .282(**) 25. Price depends on the buyer's order book not the quality of the lamb 26. Buyer's assessment cannot be trusted so farmers need to assess .481(**) .458(**) .441(**) 27. Handling is the only way of testing a lamb's readiness for market .386(**) 28.Frequent handling helps monitor development of lamb .536(**) .646(**) .558(**) 29. Handling tends to bruise the flesh -.205(*) 30. Grading lambs by handling needs expertise .221(*) .384(**) .315(**)

As would be expected, given the high level of current practice and future intent, none of the influential OAs regarding handling are acting as barriers. Of the 10 OAs considered 5 are acting as influential drivers. In order of influence, these relate to effective monitoring of lamb development, better returns (profitability), ability to challenge buyer's assessment, ability (expertise) and accuracy. Clearly handling is generally considered to be effective, accurate and applicable and to enhance the profitability of lamb sales. It also provides a means of protecting the farmer's interests. Perceived social pressure with respect to assessing finish by handling The SSN is a measure of perceived support from other experienced farmers to handle lambs frequently in assessing their readiness for slaughter. However the CSN is a measure of the perceived social pressure to assess lambs' readiness irrespective of the methods applied. The (SSN vs. CSN) correlation is not significant. Therefore, the CSN is used in this instance to identify the most influential referents regarding assessment of readiness for slaughter but it is not applied in predicting future 'handling' behaviour. The SSN of the whole sample is positive but not as strongly expressed as the SA (mean = 0.75 on a scale of -2 to +2). 64% of the respondents expressed a positive SSN while 32% indicated that they did not know. The only significant difference in the SSN between the categories of farmers considered is between those who do and those who do not already assess by handling. The CSN is calculated by taking the sum of the rsns (m*sb) registered for each of the 11 social referents considered (Table 14). The CSN scale registered a relatively strong Alpha coefficient (0.82) indicating the reliability of the scale based on the rsns of the 11 referents.

The CSN of the whole sample regarding assessment of finish is positive but not strongly so (mean = 9.14 on a scale of -44 to +44). The highest individual rsns were registered regarding buyers, abattoirs, experienced farmers and auctioneers respectively (Table 14). Corresponding strong motivation (m) and subjective beliefs (sb) also support these. The strong rsn regarding the Internet is based on both a strong negative motivation and negative subjective belief. It is therefore considered counter-intuitive to consider the Internet to be a positive rsn in this instance. There was a negative motivation to comply with the farming press and other farming organisations regarding assessment of finish although the subjective belief in both cases is slightly positive. There are no significant differences between the CAs of the different categories of farmer. The most positive CSNs were recorded by those with holdings of between 71 and 180 hectares (mean = 11.12), those not assessing by handling (mean = 10.89) and the 40 to 60 age group (mean = 10.25). The least positive CSNs were expressed by those over 60 years of age (mean = 6.76), those with holdings of less than 20 hectares (mean = 6.76) and tenant farmers (mean = 7.63). The (I vs. rsn) correlations (Table 15) show that the MLC presents the only significant correlation. Following the TORA rationale this suggests that the MLC is the most influential referent regarding assessment by handling. This is also supported by significant (I vs. m) and (I vs. sb ) correlations. In the case of EBLEX both the (I vs. m) and (I vs. sb) correlations are significant. This suggests that when seeking to address sheep farmers in general the MLC is an appropriate channel through which to present promotional messages regarding assessment by handling. Table 14 Handling intention vs. subjective norms (whole sample)

Social referents Motivation sb rsn

rs rs rs (1sn) EBLEX .337(**) .269(**) (2sn) Farmers organisations .264(**) .220(*) (3sn) Other organisation .262(**) (4sn) Experienced farmers .213(*) (5sn) Buyers (6sn) Auctioneer (7sn) Abattoir (8sn) Farming press (9sn) Internet .214(*) (10sn) MLC .335(**) .282(**) .285(**) (11sn) Family CSN re handling

Predicting the future practice of assessing finish by weighing The mean, median and IQR of the main TORA variables are in presented in Table 15. The significant correlation coefficients (rs) between the intent to weigh and the main TORA variables are also presented indicating the influence of each. The stated intent correlates significantly with all the main TORA variables apart from the CA. This indicates that the expressed intent is a reliable indicator of future weighing behaviour and given the comparative strength of the correlation coefficients the decision to weigh is principally driven by the respondents' attitudes, although the subjective norm and perceived difficulty/ease are also influential.

Table 15 Intention, attitudes, subjective norms and perceived difficulty (weighing)

Main TORA variables Mean Median (IQR) I vs. rs (I) Intention to assess readiness by weighing (-2 to +2) 0.39 1 (-1 to 1) (SA) Importance of weighing to assess readiness (-2 to +2) 0.56 1 (-1 to 2) .913(**) (SSN)Support of farmers re weighing to assess finish (-2 to +2) 0.63 1 0 to 1 .534(**) (CA) Calculated attitude re weighing (CA) (-20 to +20) 2.62 3 0 to 5 (CSN) Subjective norm re lamb selection (-44 to +44) 9.14 7 3 to 12 .232(*) Difficulty/ease of assess by weighing 0.52 1 (-1 to 1) .632(**)

Intention to weigh lambs regularly The intention to weigh lambs regularly in the next year was moderately positive (mean = 0.39 on a scale of -2 to +2). The majority (59%) indicated a positive intent compared to 29% that expressed a degree of negativity. This indicates that when the sample is considered as a whole a 16% increase in the practice is likely. When the different categories are considered, the only significant difference is between those that are and are not weighing lambs. The strongest intent was expressed by those that are currently weighing (mean = 1.35) indicating a wish to continue with the practice. Interestingly those that are not handling also indicated one of the strongest intents (mean = 0.75). The strongest predicted change when current behaviour is considered was registered by those running between 250 and 500 ewes and with lambing percentages over 160% (Table 11). The negative intents were expressed by those that are not weighing (mean = -0.40), those with holdings under 50 hectares (mean = -0.14) and female farmers (mean = -0.04). The smaller producers and those less dependent economically on the farm also expressed weak intents. Therefore those least likely to weigh are the smaller producers and those not already weighing. Attitudes toward weighing The stated attitude (SA) toward weighing of the sample when taken as a whole is positive but not strongly so (mean = 0.56 on a scale of -2 to +2) (Table 15). 67% of the respondents indicated a positive SA compared to 30% that were negative. When the different categories are considered significant differences are noted between those currently weighing and those not weighing, and between men and women. The most positive SAs were expressed by current practitioners (mean = 1.48) and those running flocks of between 250 and 500 ewes (mean = 1.00). In contrast the most negative and weakest SAs were expressed by those not weighing (mean = -0.24), the smallest farms (mean = 0.11) and female respondents (mean = 0.15). The calculated measure of attitude CA was not considered reliable. It did correlate with the SA but the Alpha Coefficient of reliability was low (0.35). However, a number of outcome attitudes (OAs) were captured (Table 16). The most strongly expressed OAs relate to the beliefs that 'the breed of sheep effects the price' and that 'most farmers are able to assess the condition of lambs by handling'. Respondents both agree with these statements and feel that they are important. It is also worth noting that in response to an open question regarding methods of improving the return on lambs, the breed of lamb was most often mentioned. A negative OA was registered regarding the statement that 'the heavier lambs produce better carcasses'. This was generally rejected although the issue was considered important. None of the five OAs under consideration presented significant (I vs. OA) correlations (Table 16). Therefore when considering the sample as a whole it is difficult to determine the influence of any of these. There are no barriers and drivers which seem to be affecting the sample as a whole. However, importance attributed to the issue of getting a better return for heavier lambs is influential as is the degree of agreement with the belief that the price is an accurate reflection of weight of the lamb. Table 16 Weighing intent vs. attitude correlations (whole sample)

Outcome statements Belief (b) Value (e) Attitude (b*e) 35. The heavier the lambs the more money I make .272(**) 36. Most farmers are able to assess the condition of lambs by handling 37. The heavier the lamb the better the quality of the carcass 38. The breed of the sheep affects the sale price

39. The price is an accurate reflection of the weight of the lamb .204(*)

When the influence of the OAs on the categories of farmer is considered differences are apparent. With regard to those that expressed negative or weak intent and those not economically dependent on income from lambs, two issues are influential. These relate to the concept that 'farmers can assess the condition of the lamb by handling' and 'the positive relationship between the heavier weight and quality of carcass'. In both cases these issues are acting as barriers. The belief that 'farmers can assess the condition of lambs by handling' is also acting as a barrier on those with larger units and flocks, those with higher lambing percentages and those that are satisfied with their ability to achieve a better return. In the case of those not handling, with the lower lambing percentages and not satisfied with their ability to achieve better returns, the perception that 'the price is an accurate reflect of the weight of the lamb' is a positive influence (driver). These observations seem to suggest that if the farmers feel capable of assessing condition of their lambs accurately by handling them they will tend not to weigh. In contrast those less confident in their ability will be inclined toward weighing as opposed to handling as a method of assessing the condition of the lambs. The influence of the social referents on the decision to weigh Subjective beliefs, motivation to comply and referent subjective norms with respect to assessment of the finish of lambs were discussed in the earlier section on handling: the responses on the views of social referents related to selection/assessment in general and not specifically to weighing. Table 17 presents the correlations between intent to assess through regular weighing and the components of the subjective norm. The only two referents that present significant (I vs. rsn) correlations are the auctioneer and the abattoir. Both these appear to have a positive influence and should be involved in any strategy to encourage producers to weigh the lambs regularly. This could either be by seeking their endorsement or using them as the direct channels of communication. Both the MLC and farmer organisations produced significant (Ivs. m and sb) correlations. Table 17 Weighing intent vs. subjective norm correlations (whole sample)

Social Referents Motivation sb rsn (1sn) EBLEX .226(*) (2sn) Farmers organisations .306(**) .232(*) (3sn) Other organisation .309(**) (4sn) Experienced farmers (5sn) Buyers .265(**) (6sn) Auctioneer .365(**) .245(*) (7sn) Abattoir .261(**) .237(*) (8sn) Farming press .209(*) (9sn) Internet .209(*) (10sn) MLC .322(**) .303(**) (11sn) Family

When the influence of the social referents on the categories of farmer is considered, differences can be observed between them. For those currently not weighing, the auctioneer is the most influential referent. Those with the smallest flocks (under 50 ewes) are influenced most by the abattoir, non-farming organisations and MLC. Auctioneer and MLC are the most influential for female farmers, while for those less economically dependent on the farm's income it is the abattoir. It is interesting to note that in the case of the larger operators other non-farming organisations will probably have a negative impact if involved in any promotional strategy regarding assessment by weighing. Implications for the future promotion of handling and weighing A large majority of farmers are currently assessing their lambs’ readiness for slaughter by frequent handling and intend to do so in future. Encouraging the uptake of this method of assessment by the small proportion of those currently not handling and expressing the weakest intents to do so will be difficult. The main difference lies in confidence in the buyer's assessment and their own ability to grade the lambs by handling.

Changing the confidence in the buyer's assessment will mean encouraging a negative questioning of this assessment, which could be viewed as undermining the buyer's reliability and therefore ethically questionable if there is not strong evidence to support this promotional strategy. Helping those that are less confident in their ability to judge the finish of the lamb by handling to improve their expertise is the most positive strategy. This should be done by practical demonstrations that provide these less confident farmers with the opportunity to test their abilities against known experts and tips on how to improve current weaknesses. Opportunities for this hands on training could be provided at shows, open days, and farm visits, especially at venues where upland sheep farmers are likely to attend. This process should be accompanied by the reinforcement of the current positive attitudes regarding the effectiveness, accuracy and profitability of this method of assessment. The decision regarding what method of assessment to use is governed by the farmers' attitudes rather than perceived social pressure. This appears to be particularly true regarding those that are not assessing the readiness of lambs for slaughter by frequent handling. This therefore presents a challenge when selecting an appropriate channel through which to promote the practice. When dealing with sheep farmers in general and those most likely to assess by handling the MLC is the appropriate channel. In the case of those that are currently handling EBLEX and other farmer organisations are also acceptable channels. However, when dealing with groups that are less confident (not satisfied) regarding their ability and achieving lambing percentages of less than 160% the buyers, auctioneers and abattoirs also need to be encouraged to promote assessment by frequent handling. However, the content of the promotional message as opposed to the channel is the critical issue for most farmers. With respect to assessment by weighing, the main finding indicates that farmers that are less confident of their abilities are more likely to consider weighing as oppose to handling as the preferred method of assessing the condition of the lambs. It is suggested that in cases where it is difficult to promote handling weighing should be presented as a viable option of judging the readiness of the lamb for market and the ability to achieve the best price to weight returns. When addressing the issue of weighing the outlet representative, e.g. abattoir or auctioneer, is likely to be the most influential referent. These should be encouraged to endorse and or promote the practice of weighing, particularly with those that are not confident in their capability to assess the lambs’ condition by handling. The MLC is also a respected channel regarding the issue of assessment in general. However, care should be taken to avoid involving non-farming organisations in any promotional programme except with the smallest sheep units. Conclusion Attitudes, supported by farmers’ beliefs in the outcomes of using recommended management practices, are more influential than the opinions of others in decisions about whether or not to use them. The study has identified specific barriers and drivers, for different categories of farmers, that those seeking to promote good practice can address. It has also identified channels through which such promotion can most effectively take place. References Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, Personality and Behaviour. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Fishbein, M., & Manfredo, M., J. (1992). A Theory of Behavior Change. In M. Manfredo J (Ed.), influencing Human Behavior: Theory and Applications in Recreation, Tourism, and Natural Resources Management (pp. 29-50). Champaign, Illinois: Sagamore Publishing Inc. McKemey, K, and Garforth, C (2004) Sheep Farmers' attitudes and practices regarding the breeding and marketing of lambs: report of a study for the English Beef and Lamb Executive and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Reading. The University of Reading. June 2004. 145pp.

CSG 15 (1/00) 23