To the Graduate Council:

I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Seth Thomas Fortune entitled
"An Analysis of East Tennessee Farmers' Decisions to Purchase Farm
Equipment." I have examined the final copy of this thesis and content and
recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Science, with a major in Agricultural and Extension
Education.

Ro^PL. Le^ly,^aj or I'rofessor

We have read this thesis

and recommend its acceptance:

Accepted for the Council:

IntdrixaWice Provost

and Dean of the Graduate School



AN ANALYSIS OF EAST TENNESSEE FARMERS' DECISIONS

TO PURCHASE FARM EQUIPMENT

A Thesis

Presented for the

Master of Science

Degree

The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Seth Tltomas Fortune

May 2001



ao-vet-med

Z00\

.r^5



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Especial appreciation is given to the author's advisor. Dr. Roy R Lessly,

Professor and Head of Agricultural and Extension Education, for his guidance and

understanding in directing this study. Sincere appreciation is expressed to the

members of his committee, Ms. M. Ruth Henderson, Associate Professor, Four-H,

and Dr. John D. Todd, Professor Emeritus, Agricultural and Extension Education,

for their suggestions and assistance. The researcher is also grateful to Dr. Randol

G. Waters, Professor, Agricultural and Extension Education, for his assistance

with the statistical data.

The writer would like to acloiowledge personnel in the Smoky Mountain

Extension District for their assistance, cooperation and words of encouragement.

Appreciation is expressed to the farmers who generously gave their time and

completed the questionnaire.

Gratitude is expressed to the researcher's family and friends for their

encouragement and support. In addition, a special thank you goes to several

individuals who have impacted the author's life in a positive way to help him

reach this goal; Keith Hart, Agricultural Extension Leader, Carter County; Greg

Walters, Coordinator of Student Development and Activities, Northeast State

Technical Community College; Henry R. (Hank) Bell, Manager, Aftermarket Sales,

ii



John Deere Company; and Dr. John C. Waller, Associate Professor of Animal

Science, The University of Tennessee.

Ill



ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to identify and rank the reasons farmers

purchase farm machinery. Various selection criteria for purchasing equipment

were evaluated including: based on cost, based on specific features, because of

specific features, to update with new technology, to replace old machinery, to save

labor, based on size (power), based on durability, and to increase farm production.

In addition, fourteen decision-maldng statements were analyzed, as well as the

demographic criteria of respondents.

To expedite the study, the following specific objectives were explicated:

1. To develop a personal profile of East Tennessee farmers who had

purchased farm machinery in the past five years;

2. To identify and rank specific selection criteria farmers used when

purchasing new machinery;

3. To determine the decision-maldng process farmers used when purchasing

farm machinery; and

4. To determine the differences between the selection criteria and

decision-maldng process used by farmers when purchasing machinery

and selected personal and farm characteristics.

IV



A questionnaire was developed by the researcher to evaluate the study

objectives. A closed ended Likert-type scale was used for the decision-maldng

statements on the survey. In addition, selected demographic information was

collected. The questionnaire was mailed to 240 East Tennessee farmers. The

farmers' names and addresses were provided to the researcher by The University

of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service. A pre-test was completed to

determine content validity and reliability.

Questionnaire data were tabulated by the researcher using the Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS for windows version 10.05). The findings

were deduced through the use of descriptive statistics, the t-test for Equality of

Means, Levene's Test for Equality of Variances, and Duncan's Multiple Range

Test for multiple comparisons.

Farmers participating in this research indicated that their decisions to

purchase farm equipment were based on economic aspects. When the selection

criteria for purchasing machinery were ranked, safety ranked as one of the least

important criteria. Updating with new technology was the least important criteria

utilized in purchasing equipment.

Findings further revealed that farmers who owned smaller land acreage

deemed it more important to consult the Extension Agent before purchasing



equipment than did farmers who owned more land. Farmers with smaller land

holdings and less education tended to seek the approval of others more often than

farmers with larger farming operations and more education.

Farmers at all income levels deemed it important to purchase farm

machinery to increase production. Buying farm equipment because it was on sale

was not important to farmers in any income level.

Few of the farmers indicated a need for approval on their farm machinery

purchases or a need to select farm machinery similar to that of neighbors. Even

though many fanners select farm equipment based on economic aspects, more

education in the area of farm machinery selection and economical purchases is

needed.

VI



TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM I

Introduction 1

Statement of the Problem 2

Purpose of the Study 3

Definition of Terms 3

Objectives 4

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5

History 5

Farm Machinery and Technology 6

Summary of Review of Related Literature 9

II PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY 11

Introduction II

Sample and Population 11

Instrumentation 12

Materials 12

Procedure 13

vii



 

Data Analysis 14

IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 15

Introduction 15

Demographic Profile of Respondents 17

Selection Criteria for Purchasing Machinery 23

Decision-Maldng Process Used in Purchasing Farm Machinery 29

'^ Selection Criteria and Decision-Maldng Processes and Their
Relationship to Selected Demographic Characteristics 38

Relationship Between Level of Total Family Income
Received from the Farm Operation and Selection
Criteria/Decision-Maldng Statements 39

Relationship Between Farmers' Age and Selection Criteria/
Decision-Maldng Statements 46

Relationship Between Number of Years Farming and Selection
Criteria/Decision-Maldng Statements 53

Relationship Between Farmers' Educational Level and Their
Perception of Selection Criteria/Decision-Maldng
Statements 59

Relationship Between Farm Income and Selection
Criteria/Decision-Maldng Statements 65

Relationship to the Size of the Farm Operation and
Selection Criteria/Decision-Maldng Statements 74

V. SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS 83

viii



Statement of the Problem 83

Purpose and Objectives of the Study 83

Review of Literature 84

Methodology 85

Identification of the Population 85

Instrumentation 86

Data Analysis 87

Major Findings 87

Implications 98

Recommendations for Further Study 98

REFERENCES 100

APPENDIX 104

Cover Letter for Mailings 105

Questionnaire 106

VITA 109

IX



LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

I. Profile of Personal and Farm Operation Characteristics
of East Tennessee Farmers who have Purchased Farm

Machinery in the Past Five Years 18

II. Importance of Selection Criteria They Used When
Purchasing Farm Machinery as Perceived by Selected
East Tennessee 24

III. Decision-Maldng Process Used for Farm Machinery Purchases
as Perceived by Selected East Tennessee Farmers 30

IV. Level of the Total Family Income Received from the Farm
Operation and the Selection/Decision-Maldng Criteria
Farmers Used When Purchasing Machinery 40

V. Farmers' Age and the Selection/Decision-Maldng Criteria
Farmers Used When Purchasing Farm Machinery 47

VI. Years of Farming and the Selection/Decision-Maldng Criteria
Farmers Used When Purchasing Machinery 54

VII. Farmers' Educational Level and the Selection/Decision-

Maldng Criteria Farmers Used When Purchasing Fann
Machinery 60

VIII. Farmers' Annual Farm Income and the Selection/Decision-

Maldng Criteria Used When Purchasing Farm Machinery 66

IX. Farmers' Size of Farming Operation and the Selection/
Decision Maldng Criteria Farmers Used When Purchasing
Farm Machinery 75



CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM

Introduction

Use of farm machinery has been the answer to increased farm production.

Machinery and equipment are essential for successful farm and ranch operations.

In 1989, David Lins stated, "U. S. farm machinery and equipment are currently

valued at nearly $75 billion, ranldng behind farmland as the most valuable asset

in U. S. agricultural operations" (p. 191). Farm machinery and equipment costs

continue to accelerate. With technological advances in farm machinery, the costs

for this research and advancement are passed on to the consumer, who is the

farmer.

Since "the application of machines to agricultural production has been one

of the outstanding developments in American agriculture during the past century"

(Kepner, Bainer &. Barger, 1978, p. I), it is important to understand the

motivation or reasons for purchasing farm machinery. Historically, farm

mechanization has increased when the labor force was decreased and the available

farm labor force has continued to decrease.



The process of mechanization continues to be dynamic, with no end in

sight. Many groups, such as farm machinery dealers, equipment manufacturers,

and the agricultural education sector, need a better understanding of why farmers

purchase machinery. This understanding will provide the information necessary

for educators to better advise farmers on farm machinery purchases.

Statement of the Problem

"Why does a farmer buy equipment?" is the question asked by Russell

Poynor (1962, p. 3) at a conference of the American Society of Agricultural

Engineers and the Farm Equipment Institute. This question still needs an answer

in todav's world.

Farmers often purchase equipment that is too costly for their small

operations. Sometimes the reasons for purchasing equipment are not adequate to

justify the cost. Having too much farm equipment with too much investment

costs remains a problem which has not been resolved.



Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to identify and rank the reasons farmers

purchase farm machinery. The results will be utilized in helping farmers make

equipment purchases which are economically feasible for their farming operation.

Definition of Terms

The following definitions relate specifically to this study and may not be

the definition used by other sources.

Timeliness - ability of the farmer to rapidly apply additional power and

machinery resources to contend with unpredictable and unfavorable

weather and other natural hazards (Thornbrough, 1962, p. 5).

Selection - restricted to choosing a new equipment unit (Seferovich, 1962, p.6).

Integration - the matching of new units with existing equipment so as to achieve

best overall results of a machine process system (Seferovich, 1962, p.6).

Status - relative rank in a hierarchy of prestige; position or rank in relation to

others (Webster's Dictionary, 1984, p. 1152).

Agricultural implement - another word for equipment or machinery.



Machinery management - the study of the selection, operation and replacement

of farm machines (Whitney, 1988, p.25).

Full-time farmer - a farmer who receives over half of his/her total income from

farming operations.

Objectives

There were four objectives of the study:

1. To develop a personal profile of East Tennessee farmers who purchased

farm machinery in the past five years.

2. To identify and rank specific selection criteria farmers used when

purchasing new machinery.

3. To determine the decision-maldng process farmers used when

purchasing farm machinery.

4. To determine the differences between the selection criteria and decision-

maldng process used by farmers when purchasing machinery and

selected personal and farm characteristics.



CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

History

Some research has been completed on the basic concepts of this study, but

the findings have not been inclusive. The issue of "Why farmers purchase farm

machinery" has been discussed in many meetings. Experts have not been in

agreement with conclusive answers.

Poynor (1962) addressed the farm machinery purchase issue with three

questions:

1. Why does a fanner buy equipment?

2. Why should he buy equipment?

3. How are these questions handled now, and how should

they be handled in the future?

Poynor further suggested that answers to those questions would be aclcnowledged



by "placing an understandable framework around the problems of scientific and

human management of farm machinery" (p. 3).

Agricultural efficiency affects each individual, directly. In the early

agricultural history, cultivation of the soil was done with a pointed stick or a stag's

horn, thereby including everyone in worldng the field to produce enough for

survival (Ardey, 1973; Williams, 1974).

American agriculture has thrived with the application of machines to

agricultural production. The drudgery of farm work has decreased because of farm

machinery. Increased agricultural production, via the assistance of machinery, has

allowed millions of agricultural workers to go to other industries. Still, the farmer

needs to continually produce food and fiber to accommodate the needs of an ever-

expanding population. A major factor in the increased production has been "the

increased utilization of nonhuman energy and of more effective machines and

implements" (Kepner, Bainer, (ScBarger, 1978, p. 1).

Fann Machinery and Technology

Agriculture has been a vital part of the economic growth of the United

States. Advancing technology is one characteristic of this growth, which "places



a premium on change and furthers the mechanization process." Fewer farms exist,

but the existing farms have become larger with greater farm efficiency (Chen,

Heady &. Sonlca, 1976, p. 1). Financial and economic aspects play an important

role in the farmer's decision-maldng process. Technology in machinery

advancements will continue to need an economic and financial evaluation

(Agricultural Engineering Development. 1990; Hunter 1978).

Wendell Bowers (1970) stressed that one of the most difficult decisions for

the farmer is farm machinery selection. He related specific questions for the

farmer to answer before maldng a machinery purchase. In addition. Bowers

addressed a number of methods which could be used to assist the farmer in

maldng the best decision possible for the farming operation.

Farm implements used for the harvesting of grain were, for many centuries,

only the siclde and the scythe. These two hand implements enslaved manldnd to

the soil (200 Years a Nation, 1976). "Farming methods that had begun in

England and Europe were brought unchanged to the 'New World'." Fann

machineiy developed as the early companies built "special equipment to help the

local farmers, their friends and neighbors, solve the problems of plowing, sowing,

reaping and transporting" (Mills, 1986, p. 11). As farm machinery companies

began to develop, more productive farming took place. Rapid advancements in



agricultural progress meant more difficult decisions for farmers concerning

purchases of farm implements and machinery.

Agriculture in both Europe and North America continues to become more

highly mechanized. "Exploiting the full potential of expensive, high-output

equipment involves better machinery management as well as better business

management" (Whitney, 1988, p. 2). Mechanization of agriculture necessitates

substantial farm machinery investments by farmers. The total value of farm

machinery assets in 1992 as reported by the United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA) was $85.6 billion. This figure represents about 10% of the

total agricultural assets (Cross Sl Perry, 1996; USDA, 1992). Since this

expenditure is important to both the farmer and the farm industry, it is essential

to loiow how the farmer thinks, acts and reacts (Thornbrough, 1962).

In his study. Slater (1962) posed four limitations that a farmer should

consider in selecting farm equipment. These limitations are paraphrased as

follows:

1. Select equipment to use throughout the year that can perform

many taslcs.

2. Reduce capital requirements by purchasing equipment with a

large ratio of work output to investment;



3. Use lease arrangements to reduce capital requirements; and

4. Select equipment that can be used in adverse and varying

weather conditions (pp. 12-13).

Since it is difficult to catalogue an average farmer, a greater understanding of why

all farmers make certain farm machinery decisions is needed.

Research completed by Thornbrough (1962) related that personal

motivation to own new, better and larger equipment remains a strong factor in

farmers' purchases. Status symbol purchases were made by successful farmers

particularly after a profitable farm year. Another factor for purchasing equipment

is timeliness due to such things as weather or equipment breakdown. Some

farmers also purchase new machinery because of labor-saving opportunities and

increased production.

Summary of Review of Related Literature

Fi-om the research review, several reasons for purchasing farm machinery

became apparent. Technology has played a major role in improved farm

machinery, thereby maldng additional farm equipment a desirable and, often,

necessary purchase. Purchasing equipment for status (personal motivation), labor-



saving opportunities, timeliness and increased production were all indicated as

factors in many of the studies. Even though some factors were given, the question

of "why does a farmer buy equipment" was still unresolved after researching the

question.

10



CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This study is descriptive/correlational. Data were collected using a

researcher-developed questionnaire.

Sample and Population

The sample was purposefully selected from the population which was

farmers in 24 East Tennessee counties. Ten fanners from each county were used

in the sample for a total of 240 fanners. Names and addresses for farmers were

secured through The University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service.

Usable surveys were returned by 155 fanners which were 65 percent of the total

questionnaires mailed.

11



Instrumentation

The instrument was a three-page questionnaire developed by the researcher.

The factors considered in purchasing farm machinery were evaluated in the

questionnaire through statements developed by the researcher. These statements

provided for the ranldng of nine factors that are reasons farmers purchase

equipment and tools.

In addition to the selection criteria for purchasing farm machinery, which

were evaluated in the survey, the respondents evaluated decision-maldng

statements. Fourteen decision-maldng statements were included in the research

questionnaire with closed-ended Likert-type scale.

Demographic information was the final part of the questionnaire. The

statements used in this suiwey section, were open-ended with group choices listed.

Materials

A cover letter was mailed with the questionnaire which explained the

purpose of the study and encouraged participation in the research project. The

cover letter specified a return date for the completed questionnaire. All

12



respondents were infonned of the confidentiality of the survey answers when

included in the research data. The information was confidential but not

anonymous because of the need for follow-up mailings.

Procedure

Statements developed by the author were utilized in conducting this study.

A questionnaire was finalized from a pilot study before the sample population

received the survey. The pilot study was given to 10 farmers from Tennessee.

Suggestions made by these farmers were used to improve the final draft of the

questionnaire.

The final version of the questionnaire was delivered via the postal mail

service with postage-paid return envelopes included to 240 East Tennessee

fanners. A follow-up letter was mailed after two weelcs to nonrespondents to

encourage participation in the study. The final return of usable surveys was 155

respondents (65 percent).

13



Data Analysis

The questionnaire data were tabulated by the researcher using the

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS for windows version 10.05). A

summary of the data is presented by descriptive statistical methods. The responses

were lanked, with some answers calculated as a percent of the total population

sample. Subgroups were divided based on similarities and dissimilarities of survey

responses through a cluster analysis. The analysis of the data revealed the key

factors in decision-maldng. The reasons for actually purchasing farm equipment

were ranked according to the respondents' answers.

14



CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to present findings of a study of East

Tennessee farmers' perceptions of the selection criteria and the decision-maldng

process used when purchasing farm machinery.

Questionnaires were mailed to 240 East Tennessee farmers. Of this total,

two were returned due to incorrect mailing addresses and 155 surveys were

returned with completed information. The response was 65 percent of the total

surveys mailed.

Data were analyzed and organized according to the objectives of the study

which were:

1. To develop a personal profile of East Tennessee farmers who had

purchased farm machinery in the past five years;

2. To identify and rank specific selection criteria farmers used when

purchasing new machinery;

15



3. To determine the decision-maldng process farmers used when purchasing

farm machinery; and

4. To determine the differences between the selection criteria and decision-

maldng process used by farmers when purchasing machinery and

selected personal and farm characteristics.

Tables included in this chapter present mean responses for the "level of

importance" and the "frequency of use." The following scale identifies the range

limits for the respondents' questionnaire answers.

Level of Frequency
Range Importance of Use

1 - 1.49 Very Important Strongly Agree
1.5-2.49 Important Agree
2.5-3.49 Not Important Disagree
3.5 - 4.00 Strongly Disagree

The discussion of the findings includes descriptive information from the

demographic profile of the respondents as well as selection criteria and evaluation

of the decision-maldng process farmers used when purchasing machinery. Data

were collected with a Likert-type scale and were analyzed using Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances, the f-test for Equality of Means, and Duncan's Multiple

Range Test (measure of variation) for multiple comparisons. The simple analysis

of variances (ANOVA) was used to determine the significance of the findings for

16



the Post Hoc comparisons. The level of significance («) was p ̂  .05. The data were

analyzed and organized according to the demographic profile of respondents,

selection criteria for purchasing machinery, and the decision process in purchasing

machinery.

Demographic Profile of Respondents

Objective number one was to develop a personal profile of East Tennessee

farmers who had purchased farm machinery in the past five years.

Of the 155 farmers responding to the questionnaire, 141 (91 percent) had

purchased farm machinery in the past five years. Data in Table I characterize the

personal and farm operation characteristics of these 141 individuals. Farmers who

purchased machinery in the past five years and responded to the questionnaire

included 140 males and one female. As reported in Table I, 41 (29.1 percent)

farmers were 40 - 49 years of age, 36 (25.5 percent) were 50 to 59 years of age,

33 (23.4 percent) were more than 59 years of age, and 31 (22.0 percent) were less

than 40 years of age.

17



TABLE I: Profile of Personal and Farm Operation Characteristics of East
Tennessee Farmers who have Purchased Farm Machinery in the Past Five Years

Farmers

Characteristics Number Percent

Age
20-29 3 2.1

30-39 28 19.9

40-49 41 29.1

50-59 36 25.5

60- 69 22 15.6

70- 79 11 7.8

Total 141 100.0

Gender of Respondents
Male 140 99.3

Female 1 .7

Total Family Income
Over half from farm 92 65.2

Less than half from farm 49 34.8

Total 141 100.0

Years in Farming Business
5 years or less 1 .7
6-12 years 6 4.3
13-20 years 32 22.7
21-30 years 37 26.2
More than 30 years 65 46.1
Total 141 100.0

18



TABLE I. (Continued)

Farmers

Characteristics Number Percent

Level of Education

Some High School 4 2.8

High School 39 27.7

Some College 35 24.8

Bachelor Degree 50 35.5

Graduate Level 13 9.2

Total 141 100.0

Annual Farm Income

Under $10,000 12 8.5

10,000 - 20,000 19 13.5

20,000 - 35,000 26 18.4

35,000 - 50,000 21 14.9

50,000 - 75,000 14 9.9

More than 75,000 49 34.8

Total 141 100.0

Size of Farm

Under 10 acres 3 2.1

10-60 acres 8 5.7

60 - 100 acres 16 11.4

100-500 acres 78 55.3

More than 500 acres 36 25.5

Total 141 100.0

Types of Farm Operations*
Beef Cattle 87 61.7

Dairy 50 35.5

Row Crops 35 24.8

Tobacco 68 48.2

Other 28 19.9

19



TABLE I. (Continued)

Characteristics

Farmers

Number Percent

Own Sufficient Machinery for Farm Operation
Yes 126 89.4

No 15 10.6

Total 141 100.0

Plans to Purchase Machinery in Next 3 Years
Yes 72

Maybe 56
No 13

Total 141

51.1

39.7

9.2

100.0

Machinery Brands Purchased
John Deere
Ford-New Holland

Case- Intemati onal

Massey Ferguson

Other

No Preference

55

29

19

13

9

36

39.0

20.6

13.5

9.2

6.4

25.5

*Total does not equal 141 since some respondents have dual farm operations

**Total is more than 141 since some respondents purchased more than one
brand

20



On the question of total family income, 92 (65.2 percent) respondents

indicated they received over half of their family income from the farm while 49

(34.8 percent) indicated they received less than half of their income from the

farm. Sixty-five (46.1 percent) of the respondents had been farming for more than

30 years while only seven (5.0 percent) had been farming 12 years or less.

More than two-thirds of the total group had either some college or a college

degree. Fifty (35.5 percent) of the farmers had a bachelor's degree, 35 (24.8

percent) had some college, and thirteen (9.2 percent) had education at the

graduate level. Thirty-nine respondents (27.7 percent) had completed high school

and only four (2.8 percent) responded that they did not complete high school.

The annual farm income for these respondents revealed that the largest

group of 49 (34.8 percent) earned more than $75,000 annually from the farming

operation. Twelve (8.5 percent) farmers reported an annual farm income of less

than $10,000 with 19 (13.5 percent) earning between $10,000 - $20,000. The

data further showed that 26 (18.4 percent) had an annual farm income between

$20,000 - $35,000, 21 (14.9 percent) earned $35,000 - $50,000, and fourteen

(9.9 percent) earned $50,000 - $75,000.

When responding to the question regarding farm size, more than half

(55.3 percent) indicated they owned between 100 - 500 acres of land. Only three

21



(2.1 percent) had less than 10 acres, eight (5.7 percent) had a farm between 10 -

60 acres, 16 (11.4 percent) had 60 - 100 acres, and more than 500 acres were

owned by 36 (25.5 percent) of the farmers.

Many of the farmers who participated in this survey had diversified farming

operations. Eighty-seven (61.7 percent) raised beef cattle while 50 (35.5

percent) farmers reported having dairy operations. Row crops were grown by 35

(24.8 percent) farmers and 68 (48.2 percent) raised tobacco. Twenty-eight (19.9

percent) farmers had other types of farm operations.

One hundred twenty-six (89.4 percent) farmers indicated they owned

sufficient machinery for their farm operation while fifteen (10.6 percent) felt they

owned insufficient machinery for their farming operation.

To update and increase the amount of machinery owned, 72 (51.1 percent)

indicated they had plans to purchase additional machinery in the next three years.

Fifty-six (39.7 percent) were uncertain about purchasing additional fann

machinery over the next three years, and thirteen (9.2 percent) of the respondents

were sure they would not be purchasing additional machinery within the next

three-year period.

For the question on machinery brands purchased, many farmers listed more

than one brand. John Deere equipment was the brand usually purchased by 55

22



(39.0 percent) of the farmers. Ford-New Holland was most frequently purchased

by 29 (20.6 percent) and Case-International was the brand most often purchased

by nineteen (13.5 percent) farmers. Thirteen (9.2 percent) respondents listed

Massey Ferguson as the machinery brand purchased, nine (6.4 percent) listed

other brands, and 36 (25.5 percent) had no preference.

Selection Criteria for Purchasing Machinery

Objective number two was to identify and rank specific selection criteria

farmers used when purchasing new machinery.

Farmers responding to the survey were asked to rate the level of importance

of nine selection criteria they used for purchasing machinery. These data are

presented in Table II. Respondents rated the importance of the nine selection

criteria they used when purchasing farm machinery on a Likert-type scale from 1

= very important to 3 = not important, as shown on page 16. All of the criteria

were rated as at least "important."

23



TABLE II: Importance of Selection Criteria They Used When Purchasing Farm
Machinery as Perceived by Selected East Tennessee Farmers

Farmers

Selection Criteria Number Percent Rank

Based on Cost 3

Very Important 95 61.3
Important 60 38.7
Not Important 0 00.0
Total 155 100.0

*x=1.39 SD=.49

Based on Safety Features 8
Very Important 38 24.5
Important 99 63.9
Not Important 18 11.6
Total 155 100.0

x=1.87 SD=.59

Based on Specific Features 5
Very Important 80 51.6
Important 69 44.5
Not Important 6 3.9
Total 155 100.0

x=1.52 SD=.57

Update with New Technology 9
Very Important 43 27.7
Important 83 53.6
Not Important 29 18.7
Total 155 100.0

x=I.9I SD=.68

24



TABLE II. (Continued)

Farmers

Selection Criteria Number Percent Rank

Replace Old Machinery 6

Very Important 81 52.3

Important 62 40.0

Not Important 12 7.7

Total 155 100.0

x=1.55 SD=.64

Save Labor 2

Very Important 100 64.5

Important 52 33.6

Not Important 3 1.9

Total 155 100.0

x=1.37 SD=.52

Based on Size (Power) 7

Very Important 44 28.4

Important 90 58.1

Not Important 21 13.5

Total 155 100.0

x=1.85 SD=.63

Based on Durability I

Very Important III 71.6

Important 42 27.1

Not Important 2 1.3

Total 155 100.0

x=1.30 SD=A9

25



TABLE II. (Continued)

Farmers

Selection Criteria Number Percent Rank

Increase Farm Production 4

Very Important 94 60.6

Important 57 36.8

Not Important 4 2.6

Total 155 100.0

x=1.42 SD=.55

*Mean (x) - calculated from values which ranged from I = Very Important,
2=Important, to 3=Not Important

26



Purchasing machinery "based on durability" was ranked most important

of the nine criteria with a mean of 1.30 {SD = .49). More than 71 percent (ill)

of the farmers perceived "durability" to be very important when purchasing

machinery and 42 (27.1 percent) agreed that "durability" was important. Only

two (1.3 percent) deemed "durability" of farm equipment not important as a

reason in purchasing farm machinery.

Purchasing new farm machinery to "save labor" was ranked second of the

nine criteria with a mean of 1.37 {SD=.52). One hundred (64.5 percent) of the

respondents indicated that "saving labor" was very important with 52 (33.6

percent) considering it as important. Three farmers (1.9 percent) considered

"saving labor" as not important.

Purchasing farm machinery "based on cost" was ranked third of the criteria

with a mean of 1.39 (SD=.49). All respondents rated machinery cost as, at least,

important with 61.3 percent indicating this criterion was very important and 3 8.7

percent rating it as important.

"Increase farm production" criteria ranked a close fourth with a mean of

1.42 (SD=.55). Ninety-four (60.6 percent) respondents marked very important

on the survey for "increasing farm production," followed by important for 57 (36.8

27



percent) respondents and only designated by four (2.6 percent) respondents

perceiving this criterion as not important.

The fifth ranked selection criterion for purchasing farm machinery was

selecting for "specific features" with a mean of 1.52 (SD= .57) "Specific features"

were rated as very important by 80 (51.6 percent), important by 69 (44.5

percent), and not important by six (3.9 percent). With a mean score of 1.55,

{SD= .64) to "replace old machinery" was the sixth ranked selection criterion.

Eighty-one (52.3 percent) farmers deemed "replacing equipment" as very

important, followed by 62 (40.0 percent) for important, and twelve (7.7 percent)

for not important.

Selection criterion "based on size (power) "was rated seventh in importance

by the surveyed farmers with a mean of 1.85 {SD=.63). Forty-four (28.4 percent)

considered "size" as very important, with 90 (58.1 percent) stating "size" as

important, and 21 (13.5 percent) as not important.

The "safety features" selection criterion was ranked eighth by the

respondents with a mean for this category was 1.87 (SD= .59). The largest

number of respondents (63.9 percent) rated "safety features" as important,

followed by 38 (24.5 percent) who felt "safety features" were very important, and

28



eighteen (11.6 percent) deemed "safety" as not important in purchasing farm

equipment.

The ninth and last ranked selection criterion was for "updating with new

technology "with a mean of 1.91 {SD= .68). Only 43 (27.7 percent) rated this

selection criterion as very important. Eighty-three (53.6 percent) respondents felt

that "updatingwith new technology" was important, but 29 (18.7 percent) agreed

that purchasing equipment to "update with new technology" was not important.

Decision-Maldng Process Used in Purchasing Farm Machinery

Objective number three was to determine the decision-maldng process

fanners used when purchasing farm machinery.

To determine the findings regarding this objective, surveyed respondents

were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with fourteen

statements regarding the decision-maldng process for purchasing farm machinery.

These fourteen decision-maldng statements were rated by the respondents from

strongly agree= 1 to strongly disagree= 4. Data, shown in Table III, present the

number and percent for each of the decision statements and their rank.

29



TABLE III: Decision-Maldng Process Used for Farm Machinery Purchases as
Perceived by Selected East Tennessee Farmers

Farmers

Decision Statements Number Percent Rank

Compare Prices Before Purchasing 1
Strongly Agree 94 60.7
Agree 58 37.4
Disagree 3 1.9
Strongly Disagree 0 Q.Q
Total 155 100.0

*x= 1.41 SD= .53

Buy Machinery Because on Sale 9
Strongly Agree 11 7.1
Agree 42 27.1
Disagree 77 49.7
Strongly Disagree 25 16.1
Total 155 100.0

X=2.75 SD= .81

Important to Have New Farm Machinery 12
Strongly Agree 3 1.9
Agree 35 22.6
Disagree 71 45.8
Strongly Disagree 46 29.7
Total 155 100.0

x= 3.03 SD= .78

Purchase Machinery Similar in Size to Neighbors 13
Strongly Agree 2 1.3
Agree 18 11.6
Disagree 81 52.3
Strongly Disagree 54 34.8
Total 155 100.0

x= 3.21 SD= .69

30



TABLE III. (Continued)

Farmers

Decision Statements Number Percent Rank

Consult with Family
Strongly Agree 34 21.9
Agree 87 56.1
Disagree 23 14.9
Strongly Disagree 11 7.1
Total 155 100.0

x= 2.07 SD= .81

Consult with Friends

Strongly Agree 16 10.4
Agree 93 60.0
Disagree 34 21.9
Strongly Disagree 12 7.7
Total 155 100.0

x= 2.27 SD= .75

Consult with Other Farmers

Strongly Agree 42 27.1
Agree 94 60.6
Disagree 9 5.8
Strongly Disagree 10 6.5
Total 155 100.0

X= 1.92 SD= .76

Consult with Extension Agent 8
Strongly Agree 4 2.6
Agree 57 36.8
Disagree 68 43.9
Strongly Disagree 26 16.7
Total 155 100.0

x= 2.75 SD= .76

31



TABLE III. (Continued)

Farmers

Decision Statements Number Percent Rank

Consult with Machinery Dealer Representative 4
S trongly Agree 27 17.4
Agree 100 64.5
Disagree 24 15.5
Strongly Disagree 4 2.6
Total 155 100.0

x= 2.03 SD= .66

Consult with Farm Credit Representative 10
Strongly Agree 11 7.1
Agree 31 20.0
Disagree 79 51.0
Strongly Disagree 34 21.9
Total 155 100.0

x= 2.88 SD= .83

Consult with Other Person 11

S trongly Agree 4 2.6
Agree 12 7.7
Disagree 131 84.5
Strongly Disagree 8 5.2
Total 155 100.0

x= 2.92 SD= .48

Observe What Others Buy 6
Strongly Agree 27 17.4
Agree 93 60.0
Disagree 22 14.2
Strongly Disagree 13 8.4
Total 155 100.0

x=2.14 SD= .80

32



TABLE III. (Continued)

Farmers

Decision Statements Number Percent Rank

Others Should Like What I Buy 14
Strongly Agree 3 2.0
Agree 18 11.6
Disagree 76 49.0
Strongly Disagree 58 37.4
Total 155 100.0

x= 3.22 SD= .72

Buy Based on Dealer Location/Availability 3
Strongly Agree 37 23.9
Agree 84 54.2
Disagree 30 19.3
Strongly Disagree 4 2.6
Total 155 100.0

x= 2.01 SD= .73

*Mean (x) - calculated for values which ranged from 1 = Strongly Agree,
2= Agree, 3 = Disagree, to 4 = Strongly Disagree

33



The largest number of respondents (60.7 percent) strongly agreed with the

statement, "compare prices before purchasing." Fifty-eight (37.4 percent) agreed

on "price comparison," with three (1.9 percent) who disagreed and no farmers

strongly disagreed. "Compare prices before purchasing" was ranked number one

of the fourteen decision-maldng criteria with a mean of 1.41 {SD= .53).

The statement, "consulting with other farmers," was agreed with by almost

88 percent of the respondents. It was ranked number two of the fourteen decision-

maldng criteria with a mean of 1.92 (SD= .76). Forty-two (27.1 percent) strongly

agreed with 94 (60.6 percent) agreeing on "consultation with other farmers."

The third ranked statement was to "buy based on dealer

location/availability." Almost one-fourth (23.9 percent) of the respondents

strongly agreed with this statement. While 84 (54.2 percent) agreed and 30(19.3

percent) disagreed, the remaining four (2.6 percent) strongly disagreed. Selection

of farm machinery "because of dealer location and availability" was ranked third

in the decision-maldng criteria with a mean of 2.01 {SD= .73).

The decision statement to "consult with a machinery dealer representative"

was agreed with by 100 (64.5 percent) of the respondents and strongly agreed

with by 27 (17.4 percent). This statement was disagreed with by 24 (15.5

percent) respondents and strongly disagreed with by four (2.6 percent)

34



respondents. A ranldng of fourth was designated for this criterion with a mean of

2.03 (5D= .66).

Eighty-seven (56.1 percent) respondents agreed on "consulting with family"

before purchasing farm machinery. While 34 (21.9 percent) strongly agreed, 23

(14.9 percent) disagreed, and 11 (7.1 percent) strongly disagreed. "Consulting

with family" was perceived as the number five choice of the fourteen decision-

maldng statements with a mean of 2.07 (5D=.81).

Ranldng as the sixth decision-maldng statement was to "observe what

others buy" with a mean of 2.14 (SD= .80). Sixty percent (93 respondents)

agreed with the decision statement, to "observe what others buy." Another 27

farmers (17.4 percent) strongly agreed with "observing what others buy." Disagree

was checked by 22 (14.2 percent) respondents and strongly disagree was chosen

by thirteen (8.4 percent) respondents.

Most respondents (60.0 percent) agreed and 16 (10.3 percent) strongly

agreed with the statement, "consulting with friends." Thirty-four (21.9 percent)

respondents disagreed and twelve (7.7 percent) strongly disagreed. This criterion

ranked number seven in the decision-maldng statements (x= 2.27, SD= .75).

The eighth ranked, decision-maldng statement was "consultation with an

Extension Agent" before purchasing farm machinery. Sixty-one farmers agreed or

35



strongly agreed with "consulting with the Extension Agent" when purchasing farm

machinery while 68 (43.9 percent) respondents disagreed and 26 strongly

disagreed with this statement. Overall respondents disagreed with this statement

with a mean of 2.75 {SD = .76).

To "buy machineiy because it was on sale" ranked as the ninth decision-

maldng statement. Only eleven (7.1 percent) strongly agreed with the statement

to "buy machinery because it was on sale." Other responses on this statement

were 42 (27.1 percent) who agreed, 77 (49.7 percent) disagreed, and 25 (16.1

percent) strongly disagreed. Seventy-one (45.8 percent) respondents disagreed

with the decision statement that it is "important to have new farm machinery."

Three (1.9 percent) respondents strongly agreed with "having new farm

machinery" while 35 (22.6 percent) agreed and 46 (29.7 percent) disagreed.

Overall respondents disagreed with this statement with a mean of 2.75 (SD=.81).

More than half (79 or 51.0 percent) of the farmers disagreed with the

decision-maldng statement, "consult with a farm credit representative." This

decision-maldng category ranked tenth. Thirty-one (20.0 percent) agreed and 34

(21.9 percent) strongly disagreed. The remaining eleven (7.1 percent) survey

participants strongly agreed with "consultation with a farm credit representative."

Overall respondents disagreed with this statement with a mean of 2.8 8 (SD=. 83).

36



Most (84.5 percent) disagreed with "consulting other person" before

purchasing farm machinery. Four (2.6 percent) respondents strongly agreed with

this statement and twelve (7.7 percent) agreed. The farmers who strongly

disagreed were eight (5.2 percent). Overall farmers disagreed with this statement

to "consult other person" and ranked it eleventh of the fourteen decision-maldng

statements with a mean of 2.92 {SD= .48).

Overall farmers disagreed with the statement relating to the "importance

of having new farm machinery" and ranked it twelfth in the decision-maldng

criteria with a mean of 3.03 {SD= .78). Seventy-one (45.8 percent) disagreed

with the statement which 46 (29.7 percent) strong disagreed. Only three (1.9

percent) perceived it "important to have new farm machinery" by strongly

agreeing. The respondents who agreed with this criterion were 35 or 22.6 percent.

Only two (1.3 percent) strongly agreed with the statement to "purchase

machinery similar in size to neighbors." Overall farmers disagreed with this

decision-maldng statement and ranked it thirteenth with a mean of 3.21 (SD =

.69). Other responses to this statement included eighteen (11.6 percent) who

agreed, 81 (52.3 percent) who disagreed, and 54 (34.8 percent) who strongly

disagreed.

Ranldng last (14th) in the decision-maldng statements was that "others

37



should like what I buy." Most (86.4 percent) of the survey participants disagreed

with the statement that "others should like what they buy" with a mean of 3.22

(SD= .72). Only eighteen (11.6 percent) respondents agreed that others should

like their equipment purchases.

Farmers indicated a strong agreement with the statements of "comparing

prices before purchasing," "consulting with other farmers," and "buying based on

dealer location/availability" which impacted their decisions on farm machinery

purchases. Farmers did not agree that it was important for "others to like their

machinery purchases."

Selection Criteria and Decision-Maldng Processes and
Their Relationship to Selected Demographic Characteristics

Objective four was to determine the differences between the selection

criteria and the decision-maldng process used by farmers when purchasing

machinery and selected personal and farm characteristics. Personal and farm

operation characteristics used for this objective were: "level of family income

received from the farm operation," "farmers' age," "years of farming," "farmers'

educational level," "annual farm income," and "size of the farm operation." These

data are presented in six tables. Selection criteria used in this section included

38



purchasing machinery based on the following nine selection criteria: cost, safety

features, specific features, update with new technology, replace old machinery,

save labor, based on size (power), based on durability, and increase farm

production. In addition, this section also compared personal and farm operation

characteristics with the fourteen decision-maldng statements: price comparison

before purchasing, buying machinery because on sale, importance of having new

machinery, similar in size as neighbors, consulting with family, consulting with

friends, consulting with other farmers, consulting with Extension Agent,

consulting with machinery dealer representative, consulting with farm credit

representative, consulting with other person, observing what others buy, approval

of others, and dealer service and selection.

Relationship Between Level of Total Family Income From the Farm Operation
and Selection Criteria/Decision-Maldng Statements

Data in Table IV present findings regarding the relationship between the

level of family income farmers received from the farm operation and their

perceptions of selection criteria and decision-maldng statements used in

purchasing machinery. For the purpose of presenting these findings, the 155

respondents were divided into two groups according to the level of income

received from the farm operation. Group I included respondents who received

39



TABLE IV: Level of the Total Family Income Received from the Farm
Operation and the Selection/Decision-Maldng Criteria Farmers Used When
Purchasing Machinery

Selection Criteria Number Mean* SD

Purchase Machinery Based on:

Cost

Group I
Group 2

98

57

1.32

I.5I

.47

.50

-2.35 .020

Safety Features
Group I
Group 2

98

57

1.89

1.84

.62

.53

.46 .643

Specific Features
Group I
Group 2

98

57

1.63

1.33

.60

.48

3.43 .001

Update with New Technology
Group 1 98 1.86
Group 2 57 2.00

.61

.78

-1.27 .207

Replace Old Machinery
Group 1
Group 2

98

57

1.56

1.54

.61

.68

.16 .870

Save Labor

Group 1
Group 2

98

57

1.39

1.35

.51

.55

.42 .674

Based on Size (Power)
Group 1
Group 2

98

57

1.93

1.72

.60

.67

1.94 .055

40



TABLE IV. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Number Mean* SD
V

Based on Durability
Group 1 98 1.29 .48 -.37 .711
Group 2 57 1.32 .51

Increased Farm Production

Group 1 98 1.35 .48 -2.05 .044
Group 2 57 1.54 .63

Decision Criteria Used When

Buying Machineiy

Price Comparison Before Purchasing
Group 1 98 1.44 .56 .79 .429
Group 2 57 1.37 .49

Buying Machinery Because on Sale
Group 1 98 2.76 .86 .14 .893
Group 2 57 2.74 .72

Importance of Having New Machinery
Group 1 98 2.99 .79 - .89 .374
Group 2 57 3.11 .75

Similar Size as Neighbors
Group 1 98 3.21 .72 .19 .854
Group 2 57 3.19 .64

Consulting with Family
Group 1 98 2.06 .73 -.18 .854
Group 2 57 2.09 .93

41



TABLE IV. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Number Mean* SD

Consulting with Friends
Group 1 98 2.33 .73 1.21 .228
Group 2 57 2.18 .78

Consulting with Other Farmers
Group 1 98 1.97 .75 1.14 .257
Group 2 57 1.82 .78

Based on Durability
Group 1 98 1.29 .48 -.37 .711
Group 2 57 1.32 .51

Consulting with Extension Agent
Group 1 98 2.87 .70 2.49 .015
Group 2 57 2.54 .83

Consulting with Machinery
Dealer Representative
Group 1 98 2.06 .70 .72 .475
Group 2 57 1.98 .58

Consulting with Farm
Credit Representative
Group 1 98 2.90 .82 .40 .688
Group 2 57 2.84 .86

Consulting with Other Person
Group 1 98 2.90 .57 -1.00 .319
Group 2 57 2.96 .26

42



TABLE IV. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Number Mean* SD

Observing What Others Buy
Group I 98 2.26 .83 2.60 .010
Group 2 57 1.93 .70

Approval of Others
Group 1 98 3.26 .72 .81 .421
Group 2 57 3.16 .73

Dealer (Service, Selection)
Group 1 98 2.04 .76 .76 .447
Group 2 57 1.95 .69

*Mean (x) = the arithmetic average of the scores and measures the central
tendency.

Group 1 = received more than half of total family income from farm operations
Group 2 = received less than half of total family income from farm operations

43



over half of the total family income from the farm operation. Group 2 included

those respondents who received less than half of the total family income from the

farm operation. The independent variable of family income from the farm was

compared to the dependent variables which were the nine selection criteria and

the fourteen decision-maldng statements.

Relationships between total income from farming operations and three of

the nine dependent variables used in farm machinery selection were statistically

significant. The selection criteria which were significantly related to farm income

were purchasing machinery: based on cost (p=.020), based on specific features

(p=.001), and increase farm production (^=.044). While farmers in both groups

considered cost as an important factor in purchasing machinery, farmers receiving

more than half of their total income from the farm operation were more likely to

consider cost when purchasing machinery than farmers receiving less than half of

their total income from the farm. While farmers in both groups also considered

specific features of equipment important when purchasing machinery, farmers

receiving more than half of their income from the farm operation were less likely

to consider specific features when purchasing machinery than farmers receiving

less than half of their total income from the farm operation. While farmers in

both groups considered increasing farm production as important criteria in

44



purchasing machinery, farmers receiving more than half of their income from the

farm operation were more likely to consider increasing farm production when

purchasing machinery than farmers receiving less than half of their total income

from the farm operation.

The level of family income received from the farm operation was

significantly related to two of the fourteen dependent variables used in decision-

maldng when purchasing farm machinery. The dependent decision-maldng

variables which were significantly related to total family farm operations income

were: consultation with the Extension Agent (p= .015) and observations of what

others buy {p= .010).

While both groups of farmers disagreed with the statement of consulting

the Extension Agent about purchasing farm machinery, farmers receiving more

than half of their income from the farm operation were more likely to disagree

with this statement than farmers who received less than half of their total income

from the farm. While both groups agreed with the statement of the need to

observe what others buy before purchasing farm machinery, farmers receiving

more than half of their income from the farm operation were less likely to observe

what others buy than farmers who received less than half of their total income

from the farm.

45



Relationship Between Farmers' Age and Selection Criteria/Decision-Maldng
Statements

Selection criteria and decision-maldng statements were statistically

analyzed to determine their relationship with the independent variable of age.

Statistical significance («), at the .05 level of confidence, was completed for nine

dependent variables of selection criteria and fourteen dependent variables of

decision-maldng statements. Analysis of variances (ANOVA) was used to test the

variables for significance. Data in Table V reflect findings of the relationship of

age on selected dependent variables.

Farmers' age was significantly related to only one of the nine selection

criteria. Purchasing farm machinery to increase farm production was significantly

{p= .004) related to the farmers' age groups. Farmers age 59 and under were more

likely to be influenced to purchase new farm machinery based on increasing farm

production than were farmers 60 and over. Farmers' age was not significantly

related to any of the other eight selection criteria.

Three decision-maldng statements were significantly related to the age of

the farmer when purchasing new farm machinery. These decision-maldng

statements included: consulting with other farmers (p= .011), observing what

others buy (p= .016), and buying based on dealer location and/or availability (p=

.041).

46



TABLE V: Farmers' Age and the Selection/Decision-Maldng Criteria Farmers
Used When Purchasing Farm Machinery

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD

Purchase Machinery:

Based on Cost 1.95 .105

39 or Less 31 1.32 .47

40-49 42 1.29 .46

50-59 42 1.40 .50

60-69 25 1.44 .51

70-79 15 1.67 .49

Based on Safety Features
39 or Less 31 1.81 .65

40-49 42 1.93 .60

50-59 42 1.88 .55

60-69 25 1.68 .48

70-79 15 2.13 .64

Based on Specific Features
39 or Less 31 1.42 .50

40-49 42 1.67 .57

50-59 42 1.45 .63

60-69 25 1.52 .59

70-79 15 1.53 .52

Update with New Technology
39 or Less 31 1.71 .78

40-49 42 1.95 .62

50-59 42 1.90 .62

60-69 25 2.12 .67

70-79 15 1.53 .74

1.62 .171

1.07 .371

1.35 .256

47



TABLE V. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD f P

Replace Old Machinery 1.49 .209

39 or Less 31 1.68 .60

40 -49 42 1.48 .59

50-59 42 1.57 .70

60-69 25 1.68 .63

70-79 15 1.27 .59

Based on Saving Labor .19 .945

39 or Less 31 1.39 .62

40-49 42 1.33 .48

50-59 42 1.38 .54

60-69 25 1.44 .51

70-79 15 1.33 .49

Based on Size (Power) .24 .914

39 or Less 31 1.81 .65

40-49 42 1.93 .64

50-59 42 1.83 .58

60-69 25 1.80 .76

70-79 15 1.87 .52

Based on Durability 2.21 .071

39 or Less 31 1.16 .37

40-49 42 1.31 .56

50 -59 42 1.26 .45

60-69 25 1.32 .48

70-79 15 1.60 .51

48



TABLE V. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD

Increase Farm Production

39 or Less 31 1.32A .48

40-49 42 1.29A .51

50-59 42 1.36A .49

60-69 25 1.72B .61

70-79 15 1.67B .62

Decision-Maldng Criteria Used

When Buying Machinery

Compare Prices Before Purchasing
39 or Less 31 1.39 .50

40-49 42 1.29 .46

50-59 42 1.43 .63

60-69 25 1.52 .51

70 - 79 15 1.60 .51

Buy Machinery Because on Sale
39 or Less 31 2.74 .89

40-49 42 2.50 .77

50-59 42 3.00 .88

60-69 25 2.76 .60

70-79 15 2.73 .70

Important to Haye New Machinery
39 or Less 31 2.90 .91

40-49 42 2.88 .71

50-59 42 3.26 .73

60-69 25 2.88 .67

70-79 15 3.33 .82

V

3.97 .004

1.36 .251

2.06 .089

2.42 .051

49



TABLE V. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD f P

Buy Similar in Size to Neighboirs 1.01 .407

39 or Less 31 3.39 .67

40-49 42 3.14 .75

50 -59 42 3.24 .73

60- 69 25 3.04 .61

70-79 15 3.20 .56

Consult with Family 2.32 .059

39 or Less 31 1.81 .60

40-49 42 1.95 .66

50- 59 42 2.33 .95

60-69 25 2.16 .75

70-79 15 2.07 1.03

Consult with Friends 2.18 .074

39 or Less 31 2.06 .77

40 -49 42 2.12 .77

50-59 42 2.45 .71

60-69 25 2.32 .69

70-79 15 2.53 .74

Consult with Other Farmers 3.39 .011

39 or Less 31 1.61A .50

40-49 42 1.79AB .61

50-59 42 2.21B .95

60-69 25 1.96AB .84

70-79 15 2.00AB .65

Consult with Extension Agent .48 .749

39 or Less 31 2.87 .85

40-49 42 2.76 .58

50-59 42 2.76 .91

60-69 25 2.60 .65

70-79 15 2.67 .82



TABLE V. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD

Consult with Machinery
Dealer Representative
39 or Less 31 1.90 .65

40 - 49 42 2.10 .62

50-59 42 1.95 .70

60-69 25 2.08 .70

70-79 15 2.27 .59

Consult with Farm Credit

Representative
39 or Less 31 2.77 .96

40-49 42 2.83 .79

50-59 42 2.83 .88

60-69 25 3.00 .65

70-79 15 3.13 .83

Consult with Other Person

39 or Less 31 2.87 .43

40-49 42 2.90 .43

50-59 42 2.98 .60

60-69 25 2.88 .44

70-79 15 3.00 .38

Observe What Others Buy
39 or less 31 1.90A .54

40-49 42 1.90A .69

50-59 42 2.29AB .89

60-69 25 2.40B 1.00

70-79 15 2.40B .63

V

1.06 .380

.66 .619

.38 .823

3.17 .016

51



TABLE V. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD

Hope Others Like What 1 Buy
39 or Less 31 3.39 .62

40-49 42 3.24 .82

50 - 59 42 3.26 .70

60-69 25 3.04 .61

70-79 15 3.00 .85

Buy Based on Dealer Location/
Availability
39 or Less 31 2.03AB .60

40-49 42 2.29B .81

50-59 42 1.88AB .80

60-69 25 1.80A .58

70-79 15 1.87AB .64

1.20 .315

2.57 .041

*Number =155.

**Mean (x) - Means with different letters are significantly different as
calculated using the Duncan's Multiple Range Test.

52



In the category, consulting with other farmers, the respondents ages 39 or

less were more likely to consult with other farmers before purchasing farm

machinery than were farmers in the 50 - 59 age group.

The farmers, age 49 and younger, were more likely to observe equipment

purchases of others before purchasing equipment themselves than farmers age 60

and above.

Farmers, ages 60 to 69, were more likely to purchase farm machinery

because of dealer location and dealer availability for service than were farmers in

the 40-49 age group.

Relationship Between Number of Years Farming and Selection Criteria/Decision-
Maldng Statements

Data shown in Table VI analyzed the independent variable of "years of

farming" vdth the nine dependent selection variables and fourteen decision-

maldng statements. The selection criterion of purchasing farm machinery because

of cost was significantly related to the number of years as a farmer. Respondents

who had been in the farming business between 21 and 30 years deemed it more

important to purchase machinery based on cost than farmers who had farmed

more than 30 years (p = .001).

The remaining eight selection criteria were not significantly related to the

53



TABLE VI: Years of Farming and the Selection/Decision-Maldng Criteria
Farmers Used When Purchasing Machinery

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD f P

Purchase Machinery;

Based on Cost 5.70 .001

12 Years or Less 7 1.29AB .49

13-20 Years 32 1.25AB .44

21-30 Years 41 1.22A .42

More Than 30 Years 75 1.55B .50

Based on Safety Features 1.07 .366

12 Years or Less 7 1.57 .79

13-20 Years 32 1.78 .49

21-30 Years 41 1.90 .62

More Than 30 Years 75 1.92 .59

Based on Specific Features .59 .621

12 Years or Less 7 1.29 .49

13-20 Years 32 1.47 .51

21-30 Years 41 1.56 .59

More Than 30 Years 75 1.55 .60

Update with New Technology 1.53 .209

12 Years or Less 7 2.14 .69

13-20 Years 32 1.72 .73

21-30 Years 41 2.02 .65

More Than 30 Years 75 1.91 .66

Replace Old Machinery .55 .647

12 Years or Less 7 1.86 .69

13 -20 Years 32 1.53 .57

21-30 Years 41 1.54 .64

More Than 30 Years 75 1.55 .66

54



TABLE VI. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD f P

Save Labor .09 .968

12 Years or Less 7 1.43 .53

13-20 Years 32 1.41 .61

21-30 Years 41 1.37 .49

More Than 30 Years 75 1.36 .51

Based on Size (Power) .55 .652

12 Years or Less 7 2.00 .58

13-20 Years 32 1.84 .72

21-30 Years 41 1.76 .54

More Than 30 Years 75 1.89 .65

Based on Durability

OC

.628

12 Years or Less 7 1.29 .49

13-20 Years 32 1.22 .49

21-30 Years 41 1.27 .50

More Than 30 Years 75 1.35 .48

Increase Farm Production 1.03 .380

12 Years or Less 7 1.57 .53

13-20 Years 32 1.31 .47

21-30 Years 41 1.37 .62

More Than 30 Years 75 1.48 .53

Decision Criteria Used When

Buying Machinery

Compare Prices Before Purchasing 1.49 .220

12 Years or Less 7 1.14 .38

13-20 Years 32 1.38 .49

21-30 Years 41 1.34 .53

More Than 30 Years 75 1.49 .55

55



TABLE VI. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD f P

Buy Machinery Because on
12 Years or Less

Sale

7 3.00 .82

1.16 .326

13-20 Years 32 2.84 .77

21 - 30 Years 41 2.56 .74

More Than 30 Years 75 2.79 .86

Important to Have New Machinery
12 Years or Less 7 3.14 .90

.42 .741

13-20 Years 32 2.97 .90

21-30 Years 41 2.95 .71

More Than 30 Years 75 3.09 .76

Buy Similar in Size to Neighbor
12 Years or Less 7 3.29 .95

.88 .452

13-20 Years 32 3.38 .61

21-30 Years 41 3.15 .76

More Than 30 Years 75 3.16 .66

Consult with Family
12 Years or Less 7 2.29 .76

1.72 .166

13-20 Years 32 1.94 .80

21 -30 Years 41 1.90 .54

More Than 30 Years 75 2.20 .92

Consult with Friends .90 .442

12 Years or Less 7 2.57 .79

13-20 Years 32 2.13 .87

21 - 30 Years 41 2.24 .77

More Than 30 Years 75 2.32 .68

56



TABLE VI. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD f P

Consult with Other Farmers 1.80 .150

12 Years or Less 7 2.00 1.00

13-20 Years 32 1.75 .62

21-30 Years 41 1.78 .69

More Than 30 Years 75 2.05 .82

Consult with Extension Agent .93 .429

12 Years or Less 7 2.71 1.11

13-20 Years 32 2.91 .82

21 -30 Years 41 2.80 .71

More Than 30 Years 75 2.65 .73

Consult with Machinery .98 .404

Dealer Representative
12 Years or Less 7 2.43 .53

13-20 Years 32 1.97 .74

21 - 30 Years 41 2.00 .55

More Than 30 Years 75 2.04 .69

Consult with Farm Credit .98 .406

Representative
12 Years or Less 7 3.14 .90

13-20 Years 32 2.72 .85

21 -30 Years 41 2.80 .90

More Than 30 Years 75 2.96 .78

Consult with Other Person .15 .931

12 Years or Less 7 3.00 .58

13-20 Years 32 2.91 .47

21-30 Years 41 2.95 .31

More Than 30 Years 75 2.91 .55

57



TABLE VI. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD f P

Observe What Others Buy 1.83 .145

12 Years or Less 7 2.29 .95

13-20 Years 32 1.91 .69

21-30 Years 41 2.05 .74

More Than 30 Years 75 2.27 .84

Hope Others Like What 1 Buy .49 .680

12 Years or Less 7 3.43 .79

13-20 Years 32 3.22 .75

21-30 Years 41 3.12 .71

More Than 30 Years 75 3.25 .72

Buy Based on Dealer Location/ 1.29 .281

Availability
12 Years or Less 7 2.43 1.27

13 - 20 Years 32 1.91 .39

21 - 30 Years 41 2.10 .77

More Than 30 Years 75 1.96 .76

*Number = 155.

**Mean (x) - Means with different letters are significantly different as
calculated using the Duncan's Multiple Range Test.

58



respondents' years of farming. In addition, none of the fourteen decision-maldng

statements were significantly related to respondents' years of farming.

Relationship Between Farmers' Educational Level and Their Perception of
Selection Criteria/Decision-Maldng Statements

While some of the nine selection criteria variables were considered

important by respondents, none were significantly related to the farmers'

educational level. The respondents' educational level was significantly related to

five of the fourteen decision-maldng statements: buying equipment similar in size

to neighbors (p= .035), consulting with the Extension Agent (p= .015),

consulting with another person (p= .017), desiring that others like the machinery

the respondent purchases (p= .025), and buying based on dealer location/

availability (p= .017). These data are presented in Table VII.

Farmers in all four educational level groups disagreed with the statement

of buying equipment similar in size to their neighbor. Farmers with some college

disagreed with this statement more strongly than did farmers with a high school

education or less.

The decision-maldng statement, to consult with the Extension Agent, was

significantly related to the educational level of the respondents. While farmers in

all educational groups disagreed with this statement, farmers with a Bachelor's

59



TABLE VII: Farmers' Educational Level and the Selection/Decision-Maldng
Criteria Farmers Used When Purchasing Farm Machinery

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD

Purchase Machinery:

Based on Cost .09 .968

High School or Less 46 1.39 .49

Some College 36 1.42 .50

Bachelor's Degree 55 1.36 .49

Graduate Level 18 1.39 .50

Based on Safety Features
High School or Less 46 1.85 .56

Some College 36 1.83 .61

Bachelor's Degree 55 1.85 .62

Graduate Level 18 2.06 .54

Based on Specific Features
High School or Less 46 1.54 .62

Some College 36 1.42 .50

Bachelor's Degree 55 1.53 .57

Graduate Level 18 1.67 .59

Update with New Technology
High School or Less 46 1.96 .70

Some College 36 1.97 .65

Bachelor's Degree 55 1.80 .70

Graduate Level 18 2.00 .59

Replace Old Machinery
High School or Less 46 1.63 .68

Some College 36 1.47 .56

Bachelor's Degree 55 1.62 .68

Graduate Level 18 1.33 .49

60

.67 571

.81 .492

.76 .519

1.34 .264



TABLE VII. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD f P

Save Labor .75 .523

High School or Less 46 1.33 .52

Some College 36 1.47 .61

Bachelor's Degree 55 1.38 .49

Graduate Level 18 I.2S .46

Based on Size (Power) .68 .564

High School or Less 46 I.S7 .62

Some College 36 I.S3 .65

Bachelor's Degree 55 I.9I .62

Graduate Level IS 1.67 .69

Based on Durability 1.53 .210

High School or Less 46 1.24 .48

Some College 36 1.44 .56

Bachelor's Degree 55 1.27 .45

Graduate Level IS 1.22 .43

Increase Farm Production 2.62 .053

High School or Less 46 1.43 .50

Some College 36 1.61 .55

Bachelor's Degree 55 1.29 .53

Graduate Level IS 1.39 .61

Decision Criteria Used When

Buving Machinerv

Compare Prices Before Purchasing 1.00 .395

High School or Less 46 1.33 .52

Some College 36 1.47 .61

Bachelor's Degree 55 1.40 .49

Graduate Level IS 1.56 .51

61



TABLE VII. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD f V

Buy Machinery Because on Sale 2.39 .071

High School or Less 46 2.76 .85

Some College 36 2.56 .91

Bachelor's Degree 55 2.95 .68

Graduate Level 18 2.50 .79

Important to Have New Machinery 1.39 .249

High School or Less 46 2.85 .79

Some College 36 3.14 .90

Bachelor's Degree 55 3.13 .67

Graduate Level IS 3.00 .77

Buy Similar in Size to Neighbor 2.95 .035

High School or Less 46 3.04A .76

Some College 36 3.47B .70

Bachelor's Degree 55 3.I5AB .65

Graduate Level 18 3.2 SAB .46

Consult with Family .47 .706

High School or Less 46 2.15 .76

Some College 36 2.08 .91

Bachelor's Degree 55 2.05 .87

Graduate Level 18 1.89 .47

Consult with Friends 1.00 .396

High School or Less 46 2.30 .66

Some College 36 2.42 .84

Bachelor's Degree 55 2.15 .76

Graduate Level 18 2.28 .75

62



TABLE VII. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD f P

Consult with Other Farmers I.IS .320

High School or Less 46 1.74 .61

Some College 36 2.00 .79

Bachelor's Degree 55 I.9S .85

Graduate Level 18 2.00 .77

Consult with Extension Agent 3.58 .015

High School or Less 46 2.52A .62

Some College 36 2.64AB .83

Bachelor's Degree 55 2.9SB .73

Graduate Level IS 2.S3AB .86

Consult with Machinery 2.66 .051

Dealer Representative
High School or Less 46 1.91 .69

Some College 36 2.2S .81

Bachelor's Degree 55 1.95 .56

Graduate Level IS 2.II .32

Consult with Farm Credit 1.59 .194

Representative
High School or Less 46 2.67 .73

Some College 36 2.97 .97

Bachelor's Degree 55 2.91 .84

Graduate Level IS 3.II .68

Consult with Other Person 3.48 .017

High School or Less 46 2.S3A .53

Some College 36 3.14B .42

Bachelor's Degree 55 2.S7A .47

Graduate Level IS 2.S9A .32

63



TABLE VII. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD f P

Observe What Others Buy .38 .766

High School or Less 46 2.11 .74

Some College 36 2.25 LOG

Bachelor's Degree 55 2.07 .74

Graduate Level 18 2.17 .71

Hope Others Like What I Buy 3.19 .025

High School or Less 46 2.98A .80

Some College 36 3.33AB .79

Bachelor's Degree 55 3.38B .59

Graduate Level 18 3.1 lAB .58

Buy Based on Dealer Location/ 3.50 .017

Availability
High School or Less 46 2.26B .65

Some College 36 I.78A .80

Bachelor's Degree 55 2.00AB .72

Graduate Level 18 I.83A .71

*Number = 155.

**Mean (x) - Means with different letters are significantly different as
calculated using the Duncan's Multiple Range Test.

64



degree disagreed with this statement more strongly than did farmers with a high

school education or less. While farmers in all education groups disagreed with the

statement, to consult with other person, those with some college disagreed more

strongly than did farmers in the other three groups.

There was a significant relationship between the dependent variable, others

should like what I buy, and the independent variable of education (p- . 025).

Again, farmers in all four educational groups disagreed with this statement.

Farmers with a bachelor's degree disagreed more strongly than those with

education of high school or less (x = 3.38).

The independent variable of dealer location/availability was significantly

related to educational level with p=.0\7. Those respondents with some college

education and education above a bachelor's degree were more likely to buy based

on dealer location/availability than farmers with education of high school or less.

Relationship Between Farm Income and Selection Criteria/ Decision-Maldng
Statements

Data in Table VIII analyzed the relationships between annual family farm

income and the nine selection criteria, as well as the fourteen decision-maldng

statements. Four selection criteria were significantly related to respondents' farm

income. These four criteria included: based on cost (p=.039), based on specific

65



TABLE VIII: Farmers' Annual Farm Income and the Selection/Decision-

Maldng Criteria Used When Purchasing Farm Machinery

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD f P

Purchase Machinery:

Based on Cost 2.40 .039

Under $10,000 16 1.25AB .45

$10,000 - $20,000 22 1.23A .43

$20,000 - $35,000 33 1.55B .51

$35,000 - $50,000 21 1.43AB .51

$50,000 - $75,000 14 1.14A .36

More Than $75,000 49 1.45AB .50

Based on Safety Features .80 .551

Under $10,000 16 1.81 .54

$10,000- $20,000 22 1.68 .57

$20,000 - $35,000 33 1.91 .58

$35,000 - $50,000 21 1.81 .40

$50,000 - $75,000 14 1.93 .47

More Than $75,000 49 1.96 .71

Based on Specific Features 4.48 .001

Under $10,000 16 1.38AB .50

$10,000- $20,000 22 1.73BC .63

$20,000 - $35,000 33 1.36A .65

$35,000 - $50,000 21 1.67ABC .48

$50,000 - $75,000 14 2.00C .39

More Than $75,000 49 1.39AB .49

Update with New Technology 1.40 .228

Under $10,000 16 2.19 .91

$10,000-320,000 22 1.91 .61

$20,000 - $35,000 33 2.03 .73

$35,000 - $50,000 21 1.76 .70

$50,000 - $75,000 14 2.00 .68

More Than $75,000 49 1.76 .55

66



 

Table VIII. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD f p

Replace Old Machinery 1.71 .136

Under $10,000 16 1.56 .73

$10,000- $20,000 22 1.77 .61

$20,000 - $35,000 33 1.39 .61

$35,000 - $50,000 21 1.76 .83

$50,000 - $75,000 14 1.36 .50

More Than $75,000 49 1.53 .54

Save Labor 1.70 .139

Under $10,000 16 1.56 .73

$10,000- $20,000 22 1.59 .50

$20,000 - $35,000 33 1.27 .52

$35,000 - $50,000 21 1.38 .50

$50,000 - $75,000 14 1.29 .47

More Than $75,000 49 I.3I .47

Based on Size (Power) 4.66 .001

Under $10,000 16 I.75AB .58

$10,000- $20,000 22 I.9IBC .68

$20,000 - $35,000 33 I.48A .57

$35,000 - $50,000 21 2.I4C .57

$50,000 - $75,000 14 2.2IC .70

More Than $75,000 49 I.88BC .56

Based on Durability 1.44 .212

Under $10,000 16 1.38 .50

$10,000- $20,000 22 1.27 .46

$20,000 - $35,000 33 1.18 .39

$35,000 - $50,000 21 1.24 .44

$50,000 - $75,000 14 1.57 .76

More Than $75,000 49 I.3I .47

67



 

TABLE VIII. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD f P

Increase Farm Production 4.54 .001

Under $10,000 16 1.75B .58

$10,000- $20,000 22 1.73B .70

$20,000 - $35,000 33 1.30A .47

$35,000 - $50,000 21 1.48AB .51

$50,000 - $75,000 14 1.14A .36

More Than $75,000 49 1.3 lA .47

Decision Criteria Used When

Buying Machinery
Compare Prices Before Purchasing 1.51 .192

Under $10,000 16 1.25 .45

$10,000- $20,000 22 1.50 .51

$20,000 - $35,000 33 1.33 .48

$35,000 - $50,000 21 1.33 .58

$50,000 - $75,000 14 1.29 .47

More Than $75,000 49 1.55 .58

Buy Machinery Because on Sale 3.19 .009

Under $10,000 16 2.50A .52

$10,000- $20,000 22 2.59A .50

$20,000 - $35,000 33 2.51A .80

$35,000 - $50,000 21 3.29B .96

$50,000 - $75,000 14 2.71A .61

More Than $75,000 49 2.84AB .90

Important to Haye New Machinery 1.20 .313

Under $10,000 16 3.19 .66

$10,000- $20,000 22 2.91 .81

$20,000 - $35,000 33 2.82 .68

$35,000 - $50,000 21 3.24 .83

$50,000 - $75,000 14 3.21 .89

More Than $75,000 49 3.04 .79

68



 

TABLE VIII. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Nunaber* Mean** SD f p

Buy Similar in Size to Neighbor 1.06 .387

Under $10,000 16 2.88 .81

$10,000- $20,000 22 3.23 .87

$20,000 - $35,000 33 3.15 .51

$35,000 - $50,000 21 3.24 .62

$50,000 - $75,000 14 3.36 .63

More Than $75,000 49 3.29 .71

Consult with Family
Under $10,000 16 2.19AB .66

$10,000- $20,000 22 I.73A .46

$20,000 - $35,000 33 I.9IAB .84

$35,000 - $50,000 21 2.38B 1.02

$50,000 - $75,000 14 I.86AB .77

More Than $75,000 49 2.22AB .80

Consult with Friends

Under $10,000 16 2.13 .62

$10,000- $20,000 22 2.09 .81

$20,000 - $35,000 33 2.36 .78

$35,000 - $50,000 21 2.29 .64

$50,000 - $75,000 14 2.00 .96

More Than $75,000 49 2.41 .70

Consult with Other Farmers

Under $10,000 16 I.75AB .58

$10,000- $20,000 22 I.86AB .89

$20,000 - $35,000 33 I.70A .47

$35,000 - $50,000 21 I.95AB .86

$50,000 - $75,000 14 I.64A .63

More Than $75,000 49 2.20B .84

69

2.41 .039

I.IS .323

2.60 .027



TABLE VIII. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD f P

Consult with Extension Agent 3.45 .006

Under $10,000 16 2.25A .58

$10,000- $20,000 22 2.64AB .90

$20,000 - $35,000 33 2.55AB .75

$35,000 - $50,000 21 3.00B .77

$50,000 - $75,000 14 3.00B .70

More Than $75,000 49 2.92B .67

Consult with Machinery 1.88 .102

Dealer Representative
Under $10,000 16 2.38 .62

$10,000- $20,000 22 I.9I .43

$20,000 - $35,000 33 2.03 .59

$35,000 - $50,000 21 1.76 .54

$50,000 - $75,000 14 2.14 .77

More Than $75,000 49 2.06 .77

Consult with Farm Credit 1.17 .328

Representative
Under $10,000 16 3.00 .73

$10,000- $20,000 22 2.72 .77

$20,000 - $35,000 33 3.00 .90

$35,000 - $50,000 21 2.76 .77

$50,000 - $75,000 14 2.50 .94

More Than $75,000 49 2.98 .83

Consult with Other Person 2.94 .015

Under $10,000 16 3.00ABC .00

$10,000- $20,000 22 2.9IABC .29

$20,000 - $35,000 33 2.73A .57

$35,000 - $50,000 21 2.76AB .54

$50,000 - $75,000 14 3.07C .27

More Than $75,000 49 3.06BC .52

70



TABLE VIII. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD f P

Observe What Others Buy 3.38 .006

Under $10,000 16 I.8IA .54

$10,000-320,000 22 2.09AB .87

$20,000 - $35,000 33 2.06AB .50

$35,000 - $50,000 21 2.05AB .67

$50,000 - $75,000 14 I.71A A7

More Than $75,000 49 2.47B 1.00

Hope Others Like What I Buy 2.02 .079

Under $10,000 16 3.00 .82

$10,000- 320,000 22 3.00 .82

$20,000 - $35,000 33 3.12 .55

$35,000 - $50,000 21 3.43 .60

$50,000 - $75,000 14 3.07 .83

More Than $75,000 49 3.41 .73

Buy Based on Dealer Location/ .49 .782

Availability
Under $10,000 16 2.06 .68

$10,000- 320,000 22 1.86 .56

$20,000 - $35,000 33 1.97 .73

$35,000 - $50,000 21 2.19 .75

$50,000 - $75,000 14 1.93 .62

More Than $75,000 49 2.02 .85

*Number = 155.

**Mean (x) - Means with different letters are significantly different as
calculated using the Duncan's Multiple Range Test.

71



features (p=.001), based on size {p=.00l), and to increase farm production

(p=.001).

Respondents with annual farm income of $ 10,0000 - $20,000 and $50,000

- $75,000 were more likely to purchase farm machinery based on cost than

respondents earning between $20,000 - $35,0000. Respondents with income

between $20,000 - $35,000 were perceived to purchased machinery more often

because of specific features than those farmers with income between $50,000 -

$75,000. Respondents with farm income between $20,000 - $35,000 were more

likely to purchase farm machinery based on size (power) than were farmers with

annual farm income between $ 10,000 - $20,000 and more than $35,000. Farmers

with income between $20,000 - $35,000 and those earning more than $50,000

annually were more likely to purchase farm machinery to increase farm production

than those respondents with less than $20,000 annual farm income.

Six of the fourteen decision-maldng statements were significantly related

to the independent variable of annual farm income. The level of significance

(« = .05) for the dependent variables was: to buy machinery because it was on sale

(p=.009), to consult with family before purchasing farm machinery (p=.039), to

consult with other farmers before selecting machinery for purchase (p=.027), to

consult with the Extension Agent (p=.006), to consult with other person

72



(;7=.015), and to observe what others buy before purchasing farm equipment

ip=.006).

The t-test indicated a significant relationship between family income and

the statement, buy machinery because it is on sale. While farmers in all six

income levels disagreed with this statement, farmers with family farm income

ranging between $35,000 - $50,000 disagreed more strongly with the statement

of buying machinery because it was on sale.

Another decision-maldng statement which was significantly related to the

independent variable of total farm income was the need to consult with family

before maldng a machinery purchase. Farmers in the income range of $10,000 -

$20,000 agreed more strongly than did farmers in the $35,000 - $50,0000

income range.

Consultation with other farmers was significantly related to the annual

income from the farm. Farmers in the income ranges of $50,000 - $75,000 and

$20,000 - $35,000 were more likely to consult with other farmers than were

farmers in the more than $75,000 income range.

A significant relationship existed for the variables of consultation with the

Extension Agent and annual farm income. Farmers with farm income of less than

$ 10,000 perceived it to be more important to consult the Extension Agent before

73



purchasing farm machinery than did farmers with income of $35,000 and above.

Consultation with other persons was also significantly related to the

variable of annual farm income. While farmers in all six income groups disagreed

with this statement, farmers in the $50,000 - $75,000 income level disagree more

strongly with this statement than did farmers in the $20,000 - $35,000 income

level.

Annual farm income was significantly related to the variable, observing

what others buy before purchasing farm machinery. Farmers with income less than

$10,000 and income of $50,000 - $75,000 were more likely to observe what

machinery others were buying than farmers with an income of more than

$75,000.

Relationship to the Size of Farming Operation and Selection Criteria/Decision-
Maldng Statements

The size of the respondents' farming operation was evaluated to determine

the relationship with the nine selection criteria and fourteen decision-maldng

statements. Three of the selection criteria and five decision-maldng statements

were significantly («) related, at the .05 level of confidence, to the size of the farm

operation.

Data found in Table IX confirm the level of significance for following

74



TABLE IX: Farmers' Size of Farming Operation and the Selection/Decision-
Maldng Criteria Farmers Used When Purchasing Farm Machinery

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD f P

Purchase Machinery:

Based on Cost .17 .915

60 Acres or Less 12 1.33 .49

60 - 100 Acres 20 1.45 .51

100-500 Acres 85 1.37 .49

More Than 500 Acres 38 1.39 .50

Based on Safety Features .69 .559

60 Acres or Less 12 1.83 .58

60 - 100 Acres 20 1.75 .64

100-500 Acres 85 1.86 .58

More Than 500 Acres 38 1.97 .59

Based on Specific Features .79 .504

60 Acres or Less 12 1.33 .49

60 - 100 Acres 20 1.65 .49

100-500 Acres 85 1.53 .61

More Than 500 Acres 38 1.50 .56

Update with New Technology .94 .422

60 Acres or Less 12 2.00 .85

60 - 100 Acres 20 1.70 .73

100-500 Acres 85 1.96 .61

More Than 500 Acres 38 1.87 .74

Replace Old Machinery 2.79 .043

60 Acres or Less 12 2.00B .85

60 - 100 Acres 20 1.50A .61

100-500 Acres 85 1.47A .61

More Than 500 Acres 38 1.63A .59

75



TABLE IX. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD

Save Labor

60 Acres or Less 12

60 - 100 Acres 20

100 - 500 Acres 85

More Than 500 Acres 38

1.83B

1.35A

1.35A

1.29A

.72

.49

.50

.46

3.64 .014

Based on Size (Power)
60 Acres or Less 12

60- 100 Acres 20

100-500 Acres 85

More Than 500 Acres 38

1.67A

2.00A

1.75A

2.05A

.65

.73

.62

.57

2.77 .044

Based on Durability
60 Acres or Less 12

60- 100 Acres 20

100 - 500 Acres 85

More Than 500 Acres 38

1.33

1.20

1.34

1.24

.49

.41

.52

.43

.71 .546

Increase Farm Production

60 Acres or Less 12

60 - 100 Acres 20

100-500 Acres 85

More Than 500 Acres 38

1.67

1.50

1.42

1.29

.49

.61

.56

.46

1.71 .166

Decision Criteria Used When

Buying Machinery

Compare Prices Before Purchasing
60 Acres or Less 12

60- 100 Acres 20

100-500 Acres 85

More Than 500 Acres 38

1.17

1.30

1.44

1.50

.39

.47

.52

.60

1.56 .200

76



TABLE IX. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD f P

Buy Machinery Because on Sale 3.05 .031

60 Acres or Less 12 2.83A .72

60 - 100 Acres 20 2.50A .69

100-500 Acres 85 2.91A .78

More Than 500 Acres 38 2.50A .89

Important to Have New Machinery 2.93 .036

60 Acres or Less 12 2.58A .67

60 - 100 Acres 20 2.75AB .72

100-500 Acres 85 3.14B .80

More Than 500 Acres 38 3.08B .71

Buy Similar in Size to Neighbor 3.12 .028

60 Acres or Less 12 2.75A 1.22

60 - 100 Acres 20 3.00AB .32

100-500 Acres 85 3.26B .64

More Than 500 Acres 38 3.34B .67

Consult with Family .65 .585

60 Acres or Less 12 2.08 .79

60 - 100 Acres 20 1.85 .81

100-500 Acres 85 2.08 .88

More Than 500 Acres 38 2.16 .64

Consult with Friends 2.08 .105
60 Acres or Less 12 2.25 .87

60 - 100 Acres 20 1.90 .31

100-500 Acres 85 2.31 .82

More Than 500 Acres 38 2.39 .68

77



TABLE IX. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD

Consult with Other Farmers

60 Acres or Less 12

60 - 100 Acres 20

100-500 Acres 85

More Than 500 Acres 38

1.58

1.70

1.99

1.97

.51

.47

.81

.82

1.64 .183

Consult with Extension Agent
60 Acres or Less 12

60 - 100 Acres 20

100-500 Acres 85

More Than 500 Acres 38

1.92A

2.20A

2.91B

2.95B

.67

.52

.78

.52

12.66 ^.001

Consult with Machinery
Dealer Representative
60 Acres or Less 12

60 - 100 Acres 20

100 - 500 Acres 85

More Than 500 Acres 38

.41 .745

2.17

1.95

2.06

1.97

.72

.51

.68

.68

Consult with Farm Credit

Representative
60 Acres or Less 12

60 - 100 Acres 20

100-500 Acres 85

More Than 500 Acres 38

2.57 .057

2.58

2.50

3.00

2.89

1.00

.76

.74

.95

Consult with Other Persons

60 Acres or Less 12

60- 100 Acres 20

100-500 Acres 85

More Than 500 Acres 38

2.83

2.85

2.95

2.92

.39

.37

.51

.49

.40 .750

78



TABLE IX. (Continued)

Selection Criteria Number* Mean** SD f P

Observe What Others Buy 1.62 .188

60 Acres or Less 12 1.92 .79

60 - 100 Acres 20 1.85 .49

100-500 Acres 85 2.24 .84

More Than 500 Acres 38 2.13 .81

Hope Others Like What I Buy 3.43 .019

60 Acres or Less 12 2.67A .98

60 - 100 Acres 20 3.05AB .69

100-500 Acres 85 3.32B .66

More Than 500 Acres 38 3.26B .72

Buy Based on Dealer Location/ 1.23 .301

Availability
60 Acres or Less 12 2.08 .67

60 - 100 Acres 20 2.10 .72

100-500 Acres 85 1.91 .68

More Than 500 Acres 38 2.16 .86

♦Number = 155.

**Mean (x) - Means with different letters are significantly different as
calculated using the Duncan's Multiple Range Test.

79



selection criteria: to replace old machinery (;?=.043), to save labor (p=.0l4), and

to select machinery based on size {p=.044).

A significant relationship existed between the selection criteria of replacing

old machinery and farmers' size of operation. While all farmers responded that it

was important to replace old machinery, farmers with 60 acres of land or more

perceived the criteria of replacing old machinery more important than those with

60 acres or less.

Purchasing farm machinery to save labor was also significantly related to

the size of the farm operation. Farmers with 60 acres of land or more perceived

purchasing farm machinery to save labor more important than those with less

than 60 acres.

Selecting machinery based on size (power) had a significant relationship

with the size of the farming operation. While farmers responded that purchasing

farm equipment based on the size (power) of the equipment was important,

Duncan's Multiple Range Test could not determine the differences between the

variables due to unequal numbers in the groups.

The five decision-maldng statements which were significantly related to the

size of the farming operation were: to buy equipment because it is on sale

(/?=.031), to buy machinery because it is important to have new equipment

80



(p=.036), to buy machinery similar in size to neighbor (p=.028), to consult with

the county Extension Agent (p=.000), and to please others with farm machinery

purchases (p=.019).

A significant relationship between the dependent variable of buying

machinery on sale existed with the independent variable of farm operation size.

While tests indicated a significant relationship between buying machinery on sale

and farm operation size, the Post Hoc Test could not determine the direction of

the relationship due to group size. The means above 2.49 indicated that farmers

in all four groups did not perceive buying machinery because it was on sale to be

an important selection criterion.

A significant relationship existed between the importance of having new

machinery and the size of the farming operation. Farmers who owned 100 acres

of land or more were more likely to disagree with the importance of having new

machinery than those farmers with less than 60 acres of land.

The decision statement of buying similar in size to a neighbor was

significantly related to the size of the farm operation. While farmers in all four

groups indicated disagreement with this decision statement, farmers with more

than 100 acres of land disagreed more strongly than did farmers with 60 acres of

land or less.

81



The variable of consulting with the county Extension Agent was

significantly related to the size of the farming operation. Farmers who owned 100

acres of land or less agreed that it was more important to consult the Extension

Agent before purchasing new machinery than did those farmers with 100 acres or

more.

The size of the farm operation was significantly related to hope others like

what I buy. While all four groups indicated disagreement with this variable,

farmers who owned 100 acres of land or more strongly disagreed with the decision

statement than farmers with 60 acres or less.

82



CHAPTER V

SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS

The following pages will provide an overview of this study, the purpose, and

the methodology. A discussion of the major finding, conclusions, implications, and

recommendations will also be presented.

Statement of the Problem

Farmers often purchase equipment that is too costly for the size of their

operation. The cost of purchasing new farm machinery cannot always be justified.

Too large an investment in farm machinery can be a detriment to an economical

farm operation.

Purpose and Objectives of the Study

The purpose of this study was to identify and rank the reasons farmers

83



purchase farm machinery. To facilitate the study, the following four objectives

were investigated:

1. To develop a personal profile of East Tennessee farmers who had

purchased farm machinery.

2. To identify and rank specific selection factors farmers perceive they used

when purchasing new machinery.

3. To determine the decision-maldng process farmers used when

purchasing farm machinery.

4. To determine the differences between the selection criteria and

decision-maldng process used by farmers when purchasing

machinery and selected personal and farm characteristics.

Review of Literature

The review of literature examined the various decisions farmers make when

purchasing farm machinery. Farm machinery has increased the productivity of

farmers while decreasing the drudgery and manual labor of farm work.

Experts were not in agreement on the reasons farmers purchase new

equipment. Efficiency of agricultural production affects farmers directly. The

84



application of machines for increased production has caused American agriculture

to thrive.

Advanced technology continually affects the farmer and the farm

equipment. New technology aids farmers in efficiency and greater production. The

financial aspects of new technology play a role in the farmer's decision-maldng

process. Rapid advances in agricultural progress create more difficult decisions for

farmers concerning their purchases of farm implements and machinery.

Thombrough (1962) related that personal motivation to own new, better

and larger equipment continues to be a strong factor in farmers' purchases. It was

further discovered that status symbol purchases were made by successful farmers

after a particularly successful farm year. Farmers also made purchases because of

the need to save labor and increase production.

Methodology

Identification of the Population

The sample was purposefully selected from the population which was

farmers in 24 East Tennessee counties. The 240 participants were ten farmers

from each county. Names and addresses of the farmers were supplied by The

85



University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service. Usable surveys were

returned by 155 farmers which were 65 percent of the total surveys mailed.

The questionnaire was mailed to the 240 farmers selected to participate in

this research. Questionnaires were returned by 155 farmers and were deemed

usable for the study. These 155 farmers, who returned their questionnaires,

represented 65 percent of the total surveys mailed.

Instrumentation

A three-page questionnaire was developed by the researcher for use in this

study. The selection criteria for purchasing farm equipment were presented in the

first nine questions of the survey. Fourteen decision-maldng statements relative

to purchasing farm equipment comprised the second part of the survey. The final

phase of the survey included the demographic information which was open-ended

statements.

A Likert-type attitudinal scale was utilized to measure the respondents'

answers. The questionnaire was designed for ease of reading, responding and

evaluating.

The questionnaire was pretested with ten farmers responding to the

questions. This pilot test allowed for reliability of the survey to be checked. The

86



researcher's thesis committee and the researcher evaluated the validity of the

questionnaire from the pilot test.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed with the Statistical Paclcage for the Social Sciences

(SPSS for Windows version 10.05). The relationships of the objectives of the

study were evaluated through frequencies, percentages, the t test for Equality of

Means, and Duncan's Multiple Range Test for multiple comparisons.

Major Findings

The demographic profile of the 155 respondents in this study revealed that

141 had purchased farm machinery in the past five years. More than half (77 or

54.6 percent) of these farmers were ages 40 - 59. Farmers on either end of the age

spectrum comprised the smallest groups, with three (2.1 percent) farmers in the

age category 20 - 29 and eleven (7.8 percent) farmers, age 70 - 79. All of the

respondents to the survey except one were males.

Ninety-two (65.2 percent) of the respondents received over half of their

total family income from the farm. Sixty-five (46.1 percent) of the respondents

87



had been farming for more than 30 years while 69 (48.9 percent) had been

farming for at least thirteen years, but less than 30 years.

Fewer than one-third of the respondents (39 or 27.7 percent) had only a

high school education. Sixty-three (44.7 percent) of the respondents had

completed an education at the Bachelor's level or above. More than one-third (49

or 34.8 percent) of the respondents earned more than $75,000 annually from the

farm operation. Forty-seven (33.3 percent) of the respondents had annual farm

income between $20,000 - $50,000.

Over half (78 or 55.3 percent) of the participants owned between 100 -

500 acres of land. One-fourth (36 or 25.5 percent) owned more than 500 acres

of land.

Even though many of the farmers were diversified in their farm operations,

more than half of the respondents (87 or 61.7 percent) operated a beef cattle

enterprise. Fifty (35.5 percent) of the respondents had a dairy operation. Sixty-

eight (48.2 percent) respondents grew tobacco as part of their farm operation.

While 126 (89.4 percent) of the respondents perceived that their current

machinery was sufficient for their farming operation, more than half (72 or 51.1

percent) of the respondents had plans to purchase machinery in the next three

88



years. Fifty-six (39.7 percent) respondents indicated that maybe they would

purchase additional farm machinery in the next three years.

Many of the farmers listed more than one brand of machinery for their

farm purchases. Thirty-six (25.5 percent) of the respondents did not list any

specific brand for their machinery purchases. Of the four major brands of

machinery listed by the respondents, John Deere was listed by 55 (39.0 percent),

Ford-New Holland was listed by 29 (20.6 percent), Case-International was listed

by 19 (13.5 percent), and Massey-Ferguson was listed by 13 (9.2 percent).

In response to the importance of certain selection criteria for purchasing

farm machinery, the respondents indicated the number one criteria for purchasing

machinery to be durability. Only two (1.3 percent) of the respondents perceived

durability as not important. The number two ranked selection criteria was to save

labor with only three (1.9 percent) respondents considering it as not important.

Purchasing farm machinery based on cost was ranked number three by the

respondents. All of the respondents perceived cost as an important criterion for

machinery selection. The remaining selection criteria were ranked fourth through

ninth in the following order: to increase farm production (4), based on specific

features (5), to replace old machinery (6), based on size (power) (7), based on

safety features (8), and to update with new technology (9).

89



The data for the responses to the decision-maldng statements for

purchasing farm machinery, showed that price comparison before purchasing

machinery was the number one factor in decision-maldng. Only three (1.9

percent) respondents disagreed with price comparison before purchasing

machinery. The second factor in decision-maldng was to consult with other

farmers before purchasing machinery. One hundred thirty-six (87.7 percent)

respondents agreed with the need to consult other farmers. The third ranked

decision statement was to buy machinery based on dealer location/availability.

Consult with the machinery dealer representative was ranked fourth and agreed

with by more than 82 percent of the farmers.

Consulting with family before purchasing machinery was the fifth-ranked

decision statement, but 34 (21.9 percent) of the respondents disagreed with the

need to consult family. Even though observing what others buy was ranked sixth

in the decision statements, the statement ranldng last (14) was that others should

like what 1 buy. Also ranldng at the end was the need to purchase machinery

similar in size to neighbors (13). Only twenty (12.9 percent) of the respondents

agreed with the need to purchase similar in size to neighbors.

Of the survey respondents, 98 received more than half of the total family

income from the farm while the remaining 57 respondents received less than half

90



of their total family income from the farming operation. Farmers who received

more than half of their total family income from the farm operation considered

cost of machinery as more important in the selection of machinery than those

farmers who received less than half of their income from the farm. Farmers who

received more than half of their income from the farm were less likely to consider

specific features important than farmers who received less than half of their

income from the farm. Increasing farm production was deemed more important

in selection for machinery purchases for the farmer who received more than half

of the total family income from the farm operation than for the farmer with less

than half of the total income from the farm. Farmers who received half of their

total family income from farming were more likely to disagree with the need to

consult the Extension Agent about purchasing farm machinery and also were less

likely to observe what others buy in farm equipment.

The independent variable of age when purchasing farm machinery revealed

that respondents, ages 59 and under, were more likely to be influenced to

purchase farm machinery based on increasing farm production. Those farmers,

ages 60 and over, did not base their farm machinery purchases on the need to

increase farm production.

Farmers, ages 39 and under, perceived it important to consult with other

91



farmers before purchasing machineiy than farmers ages 50-59. Farmers who were

60 or older believed it more necessary to purchase farm machinery from a dealer

who was conveniently located and available than did farmers 40 - 49 years of age.

When age and selection criteria were analyzed, farmers, ages 59 and under,

were strongly influenced to purchase farm machinery to increase farm production.

Farmers, ages 39 or under, agreed with the need to consult with other farmers

before purchasing farm machineiy. Farmers, ages 60 and older, did not find

observation of what others were purchasing an important criterion for selection

of farm machinery, while those farmers, 49 and younger, agreed with the need to

observe the purchases of other farmers. Those farmers, ages 60 and over,

considered dealer location and availability an important criterion for purchasing

farm machinery. Farmers, ages 40 - 49, disagreed more strongly with the need to

purchase farm machinery because of dealer location and availability.

When longevity of farming was related to the farm machinery purchasing

criteria, the data revealed that the cost factor was more important to those who

had been farming for 21 - 30 years than farmers who had farmed more than 30

years. Years farming was not significantly related to any of the other selection

criteria or decision statements as shown in this researcher's study.

In the analysis of data comparing the educational level of the respondents

92



to the purchasing criteria and decision statements, none of the nine selection

criteria were significantly related to the farmers' educational level. While farmers

in all educational levels disagreed with the need to buy machinery similar in size

to neighbors, the farmers with a high school education or less were more likely to

buy machinery similar in size to neighbors than those farmers with some college

education. While all of the farmers disagreed on the need to consult with the

Extension Agent, the farmers with a high school education or less were more likely

to consult the Extension Agent before purchasing machinery than those farmers

with a Bachelor's Degree.

All of the farmers disagreed with the importance of consulting with another

person before purchasing farm machinery. The farmers with some college

education were the least likely to consult another person before maldng a farm

machinery purchase. Respondents in all educational levels disagreed with a need

for others to like what they buy for farm machinery purchases. Those farmers with

a high school education or less showed the least disagreement for approval of

others, while farmers with a Bachelor's degree showed the strongest disagreement

with approval of others on their farm machinery purchases.

The respondents in all educational levels agreed that dealer location and

availability were important decision requi