<%BANNER%>

Factors Affecting Oklahoma Cherokee Farmers' Use of Traditional Agricultural Practices: Socioeconomics, Theory of Planne...

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101220_AAAAAA INGEST_TIME 2010-12-20T05:10:22Z PACKAGE UFE0015461_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 25271604 DFID F20101220_AAAAVC ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH shah_m_Page_166.tif GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
f9dcab9f524af24c4eb7d2f1481ae577
SHA-1
bd97c3ae9951976a24ebc3058ee5409ddc0b3e81
1053954 F20101220_AAAAUO shah_m_Page_151.tif
811108efbb5071fae12f492723fe9759
f808ae2441abbcf43b77c7efc545efcdc9780861
F20101220_AAAATZ shah_m_Page_135.tif
6ef7d04a9320fa829b48aa7d52879e51
375dc1c29904ea9098292fa0b709f66ba5598329
52991 F20101220_AAABAI shah_m_Page_138.pro
6451727946bfee15f0068aa8ed6c23ff
c249abc8a0481ba8b0e6b30f8b10d7fa90ac9a2d
F20101220_AAAAVD shah_m_Page_167.tif
82ed9555a071223e85a75bdaebe6cc4d
f0eb3f734576331c8a48459309165d1dd48c5b7e
F20101220_AAAAUP shah_m_Page_152.tif
3b97a3c3b957acbbc7859dbcf0b6b5e1
6fcc69e5601361df01d6e7fc6784170497779bfe
25110 F20101220_AAABAJ shah_m_Page_139.pro
c9cbc854262946587bfefaea5d99f375
232ccf8ac82c0990876a21d4f7b534451e22f005
F20101220_AAAAVE shah_m_Page_169.tif
ed7a83b030660a6cfdb3d8b07b78adb3
ff67fc20c3b96eeafb58e993c6aec86ea9458a88
F20101220_AAAAUQ shah_m_Page_153.tif
b3ff61d00c9a0cd7d475f2b90c658739
9276120b39cecf47114490583268f05c0dcb6341
23864 F20101220_AAABAK shah_m_Page_140.pro
700729631c8a36b562e7d01c0f584879
ac0219193013a37863b5ffffc2a6c12445ee9a7d
F20101220_AAAAVF shah_m_Page_170.tif
ab4f6a284d5fe337b14a48f2c1f66524
f67c39d69434b61e968cf893a5304158353a08df
F20101220_AAAAUR shah_m_Page_155.tif
4649846507d27df9cf074c0dc4b26d46
997552d66b3eca31cd72670e185900ed06925655
16359 F20101220_AAABBA shah_m_Page_157.pro
29b22f3019cc5869d41a810eed78ead2
8e971b16b11b409dc8007a72a46eed2377dace19
26678 F20101220_AAABAL shah_m_Page_141.pro
32ecee9c4995d2196a2ddda7709c8769
f23a172332626cb0debb8084970e07a7b8ce0829
F20101220_AAAAVG shah_m_Page_171.tif
afd9173245de8d2ad42bc205fbcae522
fb00b4098e8136f86f7bb9b829f0bf2ec24b54c9
F20101220_AAAAUS shah_m_Page_156.tif
0ae8ecdb4dd0b431d3e5332e0c343cb5
1be30d25e73e47140496506463799fd5285373af
6073 F20101220_AAABBB shah_m_Page_158.pro
6a2bff4863af8f999171b40a6d0836fb
d87fbb90fb6b92e5925b9ff62a856eb2531de001
33870 F20101220_AAABAM shah_m_Page_142.pro
1b090cd6e04c21fd0b00073a22539768
b52682956b163455147fbecb249e397750b57a6f
F20101220_AAAAVH shah_m_Page_172.tif
6481c4911317d9e586d2e2e0d7931796
3738fc59af4614e786066aa54126759a8a1f5c98
F20101220_AAAAUT shah_m_Page_157.tif
ee96f81045dfc9e3809e06d8373669a4
df0d35b9ebf2a61739cf39190f9421ce858bfcda
49339 F20101220_AAABBC shah_m_Page_159.pro
7f21d025659868f628a1e4e410f90a87
59c08a1f03a7e03b972655b440b01e0b98a0668b
30297 F20101220_AAABAN shah_m_Page_143.pro
708fe2c21feaa2ab627486060f9f6c32
e5aaa8b63b2c04541f5f141f57524b2a14e61b1a
9740 F20101220_AAAAVI shah_m_Page_001.pro
569c2508be44e748f40af9cbbe5beacb
4942e1895ccb95b9df3e597a7e6f40933530dbf0
F20101220_AAAAUU shah_m_Page_158.tif
0d52cf047e3778cb1754cbd62053bc8a
d8fb8a82d9a52cba0e1982d1ea6da62d75416050
32313 F20101220_AAABAO shah_m_Page_144.pro
a525e146d815d633eb642fb4339e3b60
f698a68364c5ba0e0053539808632e0e37fa34e3
1224 F20101220_AAAAVJ shah_m_Page_002.pro
bbdf0419e90730573f01de1052ee2f3e
fb77dcf9c1cafb341a6626a9f34236cc3b53289f
F20101220_AAAAUV shah_m_Page_159.tif
4b5ca9b1e123e77e07ddc2bdfd7ab54d
e73c2871faa2a1fb04b46de4d081cf396df9cf7e
43531 F20101220_AAABBD shah_m_Page_160.pro
59d66ab2be5f5b099724736c37543269
8e34432dcf1f4bfa19c1579246f6b475b595fd91
28401 F20101220_AAABAP shah_m_Page_145.pro
27112ad6ecabda67193786efd6a8a6d3
16df756baed8a9b9f4cda10ee258ca236fc5122c
2156 F20101220_AAAAVK shah_m_Page_003.pro
5c6ee50a7d5e8c749f763dc2c512430b
859753d55071fc7b776afb72ad5528fd741134f1
F20101220_AAAAUW shah_m_Page_160.tif
468455d0f72fa6a10628be1f7962a2a2
16b7da16f13b07cb43008879064f4d16dafd90e8
49915 F20101220_AAABBE shah_m_Page_161.pro
0132fd87e95e5d73a54323582dd8ce62
ad490505182ea6d56dfa98c80c95de2977613446
27474 F20101220_AAABAQ shah_m_Page_146.pro
7379bf369bfd32ed06ddd3ffc1a2d28a
f798ed5b09019e526e9838805194a82e21493aa6
22483 F20101220_AAAAVL shah_m_Page_004.pro
59414e87bca671e3e365e8a3a6f48e8e
605c6b43508c3bdcecac93d49aefc48ba3d337d8
59178 F20101220_AAABBF shah_m_Page_162.pro
17d4aeb5d227501e389201e1467acdad
577ff1fa081decdde71251d58507b210ad82391c
17737 F20101220_AAABAR shah_m_Page_147.pro
c62ceff3c0f4d0412e0c399ce7359169
d3c0de5940771171a04f7dda9cfd38e9d22381b4
72105 F20101220_AAAAVM shah_m_Page_005.pro
e85954c71d19b458cf717f304dc980ce
f4fd0c64ff91977355385641dbfd073d78f3ba0e
F20101220_AAAAUX shah_m_Page_161.tif
18886c3342bf2d9c7b2d50c8e081ef53
32f0f3dfc1ad361a5f647765a79be7e83a1176a5
55874 F20101220_AAABBG shah_m_Page_163.pro
f5195b7a90c836200f432e8590fde3bb
833f42cb6b1cc460671a724458d5b7cfa7a881a9
52945 F20101220_AAAAWA shah_m_Page_020.pro
90c252c7913c1a84b9cb8e324d9245a5
43baea34fbd2da17b010f209100ac4afb5cdaef7
16551 F20101220_AAABAS shah_m_Page_148.pro
76ff916f80e6d74f04357f22d44bfe1b
ba5108eaa2fabc4b0c0a95cf1f94854b132c6d6a
F20101220_AAAAUY shah_m_Page_162.tif
311ea03ff1223d1d4349f56e9c810f57
d57ad6169db7fe61c0b95e42e05aaa37b59ee232
59905 F20101220_AAABBH shah_m_Page_164.pro
2a446590e9f0e351c3956c2ed6692ba5
1fbc54094834a6fb239300b2475cc45518f2dc1d
50648 F20101220_AAAAWB shah_m_Page_021.pro
841759832c5148f833a1ff5531eb28b1
82f2b006097ec1e7966cacaaedfbd072d5b6b018
25494 F20101220_AAABAT shah_m_Page_149.pro
b5aac976f6a3824cea8bda3ba49bd93c
b13b8e7cc4be54ae7baee9625bd6925e2f84233e
87999 F20101220_AAAAVN shah_m_Page_006.pro
31422d34cb6b00137c5e0bf38c5a98af
075a3ea4db4a37316d37943cca2375ea01f07665
F20101220_AAAAUZ shah_m_Page_163.tif
a6743c12cb1b3fe6de59c72b2c6d0f03
e1c5d1ccf29f4b8966285840aab36bb4251f4a4e
55817 F20101220_AAABBI shah_m_Page_165.pro
d9ca3160137b061441f3f6f944b95929
be6cbd1ff044358e9113f8364b23a1dff1626f13
47950 F20101220_AAAAWC shah_m_Page_022.pro
3f8acb9d4fa046cef1c54b4bb7249d54
6cb7ad49f771457f99835955af00ba8b8240fd85
23047 F20101220_AAABAU shah_m_Page_150.pro
22c7fb4a377a9f3ad18d38a28dee7aa4
f06f1bd8137920cb4e31d99c30c05d1278321179
27050 F20101220_AAAAVO shah_m_Page_007.pro
022d6c11d76b1916b52dde52fcdc59c1
bcd7ca5a741680c5870a0d932573b253ee001204
61830 F20101220_AAABBJ shah_m_Page_166.pro
6128a22a4777b2adf0338f8a327c21d4
2f83e85d2f8ac1104b6d9e6434916451ee8a95ce
49559 F20101220_AAAAWD shah_m_Page_023.pro
765a9fd8031e14172077f26c77376be5
a4bb5fba8c38b6a012155a8afab8ef5ba069813b
24221 F20101220_AAABAV shah_m_Page_151.pro
88f77d3a1ce2bb2bf9919c166b321f9f
77d08e8a1ef1146be3d761b1604529723d94ec75
58452 F20101220_AAAAVP shah_m_Page_008.pro
47f0da7eecdd1a809816e56850a5f58f
f316440ab92e87a17981577e68b65f3a51b8aae3
59769 F20101220_AAABBK shah_m_Page_167.pro
aa6ba28798be5013bb418bb56fbf51bb
bff61f1e308dd959e9b37f3a07ad4c3d1e5fe3ca
48908 F20101220_AAAAWE shah_m_Page_024.pro
f9716c3576e1c16f57b4a50bc41c53e4
5e415d2677ccd83917d804538884f7c7a3ec0497
30797 F20101220_AAABAW shah_m_Page_152.pro
81f7ca102338a087c9d29e68ed5faed8
e881e84a2c5b786d0608672f3cd3acaa6a47b599
41942 F20101220_AAAAVQ shah_m_Page_009.pro
7dab707da8e9d219a1400e34e4566d39
8a59cf44430c4a60eb70d185da6de1e197b64e83
1731 F20101220_AAABCA shah_m_Page_012.txt
f866fd5e9a4105f6c9a00a456527bb55
323f3db6aa72f559cee68bd8a49143c2b24b57de
62209 F20101220_AAABBL shah_m_Page_168.pro
aaedba715952d4c7e71307270010dd3a
4f9be90be017759ab598d3df933ce7ca57577fc3
51759 F20101220_AAAAWF shah_m_Page_025.pro
f21cfee118a30a9751097214d08406cc
e73064293a910d9d2f9aa02af2e1aa777cb8ef30
9459 F20101220_AAABAX shah_m_Page_154.pro
cd7f8b6740a35970c99c90c96a8b989f
d4d6913daf50ce5451748c3cb2650ea438667103
59676 F20101220_AAAAVR shah_m_Page_010.pro
41ab1876332189f781357cc1f77f1722
253673bad33fd37d90da76c7764993cd3b9ce780
1303 F20101220_AAABCB shah_m_Page_013.txt
2e9a7f625e9e05ab4f06c34a87603d57
37cae78848e04a0cc57dfc569ea72e4e053aa161
56833 F20101220_AAABBM shah_m_Page_169.pro
3c88d2b4581b170aad835eb9819a9d15
f6d18ace211c6eef1f866d2ba633bb704ec2b7f9
51444 F20101220_AAAAWG shah_m_Page_026.pro
f13323caaf1e2b9800efe0d24c155465
cd1c9e8c8a0e8ecddde6c4d2c53e2720e31baca7
7270 F20101220_AAABAY shah_m_Page_155.pro
734540cd837365778884e72e7194577b
d60721ab8dced77e5b5d424f6a25e9e45f47b9cc
8779 F20101220_AAAAVS shah_m_Page_011.pro
abcf0bd2e0fa6d5a199d0a66ca9703f4
b843cf23603d865c48a382b13d6c67b7c0b5cdaa
1804 F20101220_AAABCC shah_m_Page_014.txt
ffdeb62d5b4eaf4dc375639a31a32281
658f0722fe4ade630186615a92cf59c4271505bc
26545 F20101220_AAABBN shah_m_Page_171.pro
f446d03c58a040b6f3401eed8ea23d7b
b82bf21a2955b3b8482b10b91cb7589dd58f8472
49419 F20101220_AAAAWH shah_m_Page_027.pro
7ff14676d45e2171dc51395919fe10b0
b6f6195c96217381cb82e3b6e42b62ee7996fe1a
12902 F20101220_AAABAZ shah_m_Page_156.pro
6c81fc1c8715de579e91c8c784faaf8e
ddf31cefbc80ea8f4bfc8444235b9844d64a0190
39269 F20101220_AAAAVT shah_m_Page_012.pro
8c6206f38516fb0cf9eb296f237bb983
0798dae36ee2f2c99f1332bdd9bfed7ed3af5edd
2067 F20101220_AAABCD shah_m_Page_015.txt
6e3019e6b4628cf1ab02838d85052c84
50f407855f6d28861ca9a21861a9d27b8d1717d3
41719 F20101220_AAABBO shah_m_Page_172.pro
cd005230ef8c873f77ad92a795e2f1f6
20da47701e7a3a0d3900faf8677e1d364e793099
49250 F20101220_AAAAWI shah_m_Page_028.pro
834dbbde2899f386984e0fc0e816c6de
537e83543e6cea2708eb51cf889483c2283434be
32839 F20101220_AAAAVU shah_m_Page_013.pro
2b41e87531ec499edd00bd906163a9c3
d7301a8d43f5fba9be6ac9f8a187414234300b27
528 F20101220_AAABBP shah_m_Page_001.txt
7ba1aaacc9b3c4632d24d3e67604c382
b681616208e3939b119c4972c61d60b7684e58e8
51000 F20101220_AAAAWJ shah_m_Page_029.pro
2570def768fa2b9a22100d0b65caf1b8
fc1073be3541091acc65fac3c28633b960fb65ea
43329 F20101220_AAAAVV shah_m_Page_014.pro
be74a18fa55eb4458a4d6d4708658fd9
aa25757784f6bfb4f33e5615e4e39ea7c4f33955
1988 F20101220_AAABCE shah_m_Page_016.txt
bb37440a4f360e28dd0f9cd26cc23ff1
4b7f4c4301cf081d365d8fbc8a9176f28080c766
113 F20101220_AAABBQ shah_m_Page_002.txt
52b405acc980f8284b4bad524315d4a1
4e974fc241d417a6161478620e8f35fe4b6b9748
52254 F20101220_AAAAWK shah_m_Page_030.pro
edd8cd8f23f80d6bbf3ad6d807d650f5
f334fbf47aaa0564f6ea9e3af7b7714ed11c80e4
51525 F20101220_AAAAVW shah_m_Page_015.pro
a354f209459aa115b29c916d65e780a0
262b7ce7277a74afaf204f210b9246d12306a22e
1916 F20101220_AAABCF shah_m_Page_017.txt
28cee1446cd9fc026521d553f6f7756a
129d9db8f939cd35ef4705f78d7f9f4bd774cf6b
137 F20101220_AAABBR shah_m_Page_003.txt
1c50f819849536aa86023d6e44a2283c
797b35fd21314475b22ae9b95ea31f48eddb16e1
49002 F20101220_AAAAWL shah_m_Page_031.pro
3f9c1a63e652152a75ed85db664976b9
75488f2bc9bc5bd4270d5092a943b9652b468ca5
49684 F20101220_AAAAVX shah_m_Page_016.pro
a51dcc36350187b92b5b22e44cae6bd4
f4d0457601d15afdc39f6867b0add129d471926d
1735 F20101220_AAABCG shah_m_Page_018.txt
d1f6db7265b395126e4b480ccb3592c8
d866f243652dde4de60efae986db82ba17aa9d3b
46649 F20101220_AAAAXA shah_m_Page_047.pro
20d8788bd1e611f97e4a8f5e4d49dd1e
5abb5ad80306923cc28b45a54f7fed7600b057b3
940 F20101220_AAABBS shah_m_Page_004.txt
09dae6da2d1e11405186920d69a29b3c
0574b743aebb0524286317a82df888a5ef8ac3cd
50165 F20101220_AAAAWM shah_m_Page_033.pro
a62ef6277b248e53e02e539bb3e84128
b90cff5ff3b62e7e2d8846a1fe91c9dda217875f
1763 F20101220_AAABCH shah_m_Page_019.txt
4f5315827383f488c2a00100f6371de9
8d93ef5dbf7666ba5a0e2cfb61ba20eef2c7ee30
40155 F20101220_AAAAXB shah_m_Page_048.pro
14abba961092d3ec12bf3565d4bb26bb
f6778aeed0f823168714014631c51ad6ce9af3c4
3057 F20101220_AAABBT shah_m_Page_005.txt
790190c5d116546a7dd6672d9f34a338
f5aed2d8a7a7debdbe313e0fd1cf9b51c8546307
49405 F20101220_AAAAWN shah_m_Page_034.pro
1cddec01228b1f69570130fcec47bd07
3793fa3fec726ccefce266308262e64dd3c0b9e4
47817 F20101220_AAAAVY shah_m_Page_017.pro
8c3c10b7cb0484d7a9beefc4cd3805e2
5119b4674899e0bdeadc6c411c34a29d50209048
2080 F20101220_AAABCI shah_m_Page_020.txt
e5e5b1b725a75ab0e46faf5570b85129
93c8279fd0fb30784dcf956c1d9e255f21a79f73
38543 F20101220_AAAAXC shah_m_Page_049.pro
e7c78864230166fdb552a5b712624478
6081023766220f773970716b7a5a8dac4c9b1fde
3598 F20101220_AAABBU shah_m_Page_006.txt
bccdea97bbfa61acf075b09cb21a1d57
ecc62b0f834ea28d5d97fcd45d145cbba6b53345
53453 F20101220_AAAAWO shah_m_Page_035.pro
bbd73bd72bf93a50412757fb11d58199
c76a94d615735bdc6f7217b64a438e4878086b8e
39802 F20101220_AAAAVZ shah_m_Page_018.pro
ad2b052d670ad2b82bd4f55048415442
f72a4f3242c0ba12da450d3aa84dfe648806a52b
1991 F20101220_AAABCJ shah_m_Page_021.txt
14ac79226913a8b3ef7dd44856cba95b
73c0399018705200744a618b9156b6f6097ec3d2
49888 F20101220_AAAAXD shah_m_Page_050.pro
0990c330e36650ae266904159cc4d140
d0b9b0efa7bfb1a99be1339c65a5436f079807e4
1076 F20101220_AAABBV shah_m_Page_007.txt
0a067fb3ddfb81cf3cab1f51d57a9c81
c0965b86ce39e3c7bc1de635000cae2cf046bdc1
45594 F20101220_AAAAWP shah_m_Page_036.pro
f2c52dbe9dd0bf04fdc822b4764e6b03
d92433c0cac8530e3331b940f5fe188cffcf7ea2
49978 F20101220_AAAAXE shah_m_Page_051.pro
c08236f3f158e819fb81ef734357f7db
5a41ae14cdb45e0ae06238f6963d7901ec10df59
2381 F20101220_AAABBW shah_m_Page_008.txt
c5db2e035c64793a7dcd890c36f4ebd5
32568d564db43b242068ac6bcffeacdb3363575e
52137 F20101220_AAAAWQ shah_m_Page_037.pro
1c29a03e21ba158e2dbceefc4320ece6
f1e1f0045b356c9c5b3ece5288324f331e78711b
F20101220_AAABCK shah_m_Page_022.txt
630f125e3df5f55c542e1804c48701ac
4c20eff81b929f1b822d2f882d2f74672efa9487
43672 F20101220_AAAAXF shah_m_Page_052.pro
cf6bf2a1a8c5989014918862349ed374
3b5bc427c11ed2af7399044a94a06e2a666748a9
1696 F20101220_AAABBX shah_m_Page_009.txt
f7342680978f7fc1e3004b8a4b2de843
939e22282ce8aaccc39178bc11ca70ad9026066b
51225 F20101220_AAAAWR shah_m_Page_038.pro
d90e12eb3f310a46e5be6fca1ff932e5
4f02d3f5308d1464efcb75fd60cde8e4ab52f761
2011 F20101220_AAABDA shah_m_Page_038.txt
6385e3491d9d3a692c1624daa6ce748a
12ad5e0d369b1cc28c51a0b0d872ac6063cee385
1963 F20101220_AAABCL shah_m_Page_023.txt
15c0d5a89551f8a112f9883b1fd78ec7
41ddc7ce8058a7dde4fc2b63e011ec3f390ab090
31436 F20101220_AAAAXG shah_m_Page_053.pro
1237ebd55d333d003c32caa314547b66
0f736214f4b8c98155f30f44a8ef40442e6f4e72
2424 F20101220_AAABBY shah_m_Page_010.txt
82adadcc14b65f6fc245a52e2b3aeb96
cfafe5385b780ff0067d68ab31a99a7c7200e0ad
52079 F20101220_AAAAWS shah_m_Page_039.pro
67425b362efe3e88e2a5a6c2cc8a623c
17e1f0a6636157dfcb4e8731c66143c7b666845c
2045 F20101220_AAABDB shah_m_Page_039.txt
274190cb116ebf0bd6c7f1e1f14a2d44
ac48cb44b64f592bc9b4196a24eb990a7e72d388
1932 F20101220_AAABCM shah_m_Page_024.txt
ccefb65358be62dee04dd870ea71d1c1
978ec7ead998563f7a799b190885de2f72fd9919
52606 F20101220_AAAAXH shah_m_Page_054.pro
b2c60f4a5defc7ad472280f2b06a80e7
38832f8b71ad5fb5d84001ff98b45ad94f89164a
357 F20101220_AAABBZ shah_m_Page_011.txt
60b8b117f61b0f3988dbfa8537e6ad7f
54a7f4cc7b1dd198377d2097f53507623ad569bb
53209 F20101220_AAAAWT shah_m_Page_040.pro
d3ae3cc19bcf0f0c02daf6551ee594d6
21f4fc7c27f86e371f363529351c3b6bc44279c7
97436 F20101220_AAAAAA shah_m_Page_044.jpg
6a4751ccee0cf2b72c7d66cc6f962d85
d622f12c8e1572243060d7c4461ad591f5566f91
2089 F20101220_AAABDC shah_m_Page_040.txt
82668280e1a296f8555fd4c7adeddfca
bad7e340e4804fd6c789a711827a9abc7e14d875
2037 F20101220_AAABCN shah_m_Page_025.txt
a2f6d2f1b4cf359943a99ae2083077b1
365485114dd89e2f79892248e17a6b79e299ccbe
56267 F20101220_AAAAXI shah_m_Page_055.pro
cd81482d8bc0d2f57f3fa2416b01ba79
dc1bfa8f54844f298833606f4252261c29a7f763
51445 F20101220_AAAAWU shah_m_Page_041.pro
cf26be4c8d205fc5fb7f964a11433aa3
930776754263794feac0cf9d8ca6172b38741777
62615 F20101220_AAAAAB shah_m_Page_080.jpg
5bd3c243c830d23148c1e8edbda27e91
51855606a85322c52d462a20559abf3e3475176d
2014 F20101220_AAABDD shah_m_Page_041.txt
8cf127824218e0cca77fd85d9151cbe7
7d4c8e234086c33934c96e6a2295cb67359f7f79
2028 F20101220_AAABCO shah_m_Page_026.txt
b27b090894cd30cf62bd0a3588f3501e
1d9ddfad2a5e88ccf823a6f527fcdf653cd32fe4
49549 F20101220_AAAAXJ shah_m_Page_056.pro
17bc933fe0753d6ca8afa64826ee90bd
b582862230859a617fd04e311ce9ee86cb8f9b1e
45408 F20101220_AAAAWV shah_m_Page_042.pro
1145bddefa4ae8910667d420f8bcb9cc
4a387d5c67faf57656d3fe1a90380e2ae984760b
87708 F20101220_AAAAAC shah_m_Page_097.jpg
0ad21fcbc38d17fa39c9d233a4390e1a
e358694ab69e47133a271f10595658e08432c033
1795 F20101220_AAABDE shah_m_Page_042.txt
81b25da06aa96ddeb16118e2eaa5d230
7d74b5b821b88fb12e22e81b63b37fb27b696de9
1948 F20101220_AAABCP shah_m_Page_027.txt
374f3cc24838b4669337b1fc0752b4fe
a640e6a6b0d9254e44c17668ac88bf549e4e1cf4
47280 F20101220_AAAAXK shah_m_Page_057.pro
9d1313a55617d24ba0e275222f13bb43
ca3869c96dcd10c1dd021c5ea4b15bf08d149e82
49678 F20101220_AAAAWW shah_m_Page_043.pro
ef65e4ef2dcd7b8ba9539574a15b4553
5457baceba55ccfba262fe9e4bcdeb0347374e90
1942 F20101220_AAABCQ shah_m_Page_028.txt
05acbb23cee2bbf9d3a0b05252dd46c4
a15605525da26d185aadefebbcfc9d93b920afc1
53030 F20101220_AAAAXL shah_m_Page_058.pro
2de462116862ca045f960345c6d5696f
5cf148dfe1f569cd62f68d8a42425f2b4e499e5b
47522 F20101220_AAAAWX shah_m_Page_044.pro
4646be1e8545a515fd1a767fb2c3557d
db81a99af6d9c58a9720da071a1e4637494f808f
5365 F20101220_AAAAAD shah_m_Page_152thm.jpg
a321888b43437e9f229d76246cf3b966
423039debd5e431366506a9bb2d4672bec00110f
1993 F20101220_AAABDF shah_m_Page_043.txt
b214978115d1cee614f334dba50b799e
a3379e81abd0995dffe4a2713873af05c28cad78
2009 F20101220_AAABCR shah_m_Page_029.txt
a357a5fa48221032b70f3bb2281d765c
2da6a00a6ddfe6d2bbb6b495ec24414c2e8bcf3c
41934 F20101220_AAAAXM shah_m_Page_059.pro
49e465f0b4939744cdcf3d6293677e23
cac540c06ede2a49ad7b60b917a8da751d9fc523
47649 F20101220_AAAAWY shah_m_Page_045.pro
451bd1e623f6ee3045857ee8573c5452
f440004f6df1d044475eb599a2ee8919d0455014
52835 F20101220_AAAAAE shah_m_Page_151.jpg
b479d1fe6e6b019cf27e91226f00e5aa
3e0e0f650863e2b7a274df8a490783ebeac94909
1885 F20101220_AAABDG shah_m_Page_044.txt
330239d7d3bb55950944eddfdf1c4f40
efb82708a6c70a239a6770f67bcb170a65695d01
54901 F20101220_AAAAYA shah_m_Page_073.pro
d536561952dd0ebb72995c6a01d957a3
ec99245b108f67a64df220ca5cc8f609ad049375
2053 F20101220_AAABCS shah_m_Page_030.txt
09ce40dbc4fd486d4ff7041d84815405
fb3a2572e56ee6f7926189d205a84a094f1221aa
32378 F20101220_AAAAXN shah_m_Page_060.pro
f499f81ab43020c6665fc227e4c5f289
f894313384f817efcedff1e49891784158021029
92005 F20101220_AAAAAF shah_m_Page_085.jpg
9bbe79c724acd03623c21fbc201b5f13
4526408a23b762dba1a915a8a61847db8cdde848
1891 F20101220_AAABDH shah_m_Page_045.txt
150de2e236d9179d551e4cd3a44cf256
509bd8ecc33c5c19beb59d79508964189d3668c2
51171 F20101220_AAAAYB shah_m_Page_074.pro
0ead6544de74ab8d58ea297aa74e29bc
9a72bfc9afe1c27ada32c4a79f790b61e33ea677
1931 F20101220_AAABCT shah_m_Page_031.txt
11cceb3fd2de2f0c6ae30790b956fc80
f867e3fd3bc210aa53546ed2614b4abd64ea26c9
14537 F20101220_AAAAXO shah_m_Page_061.pro
f99b11ad56696a4157c15e3ae9bec0af
c19305593e4e79450e2a038356b314caf6ed1525
51550 F20101220_AAAAWZ shah_m_Page_046.pro
49723d753cf9db0d8c297c8e799d3238
c5c7f2534b058c612436cce19940e3a50d40fbf5
F20101220_AAAAAG shah_m_Page_047.tif
dbb0a5117626acc512505abed0b344ab
8d0dfd1b3d6eda128495c3df43f10c1f789c7231
2033 F20101220_AAABDI shah_m_Page_046.txt
4d002aebb7d4daf8601fc85c64c8e9c3
37c33ccddb50eab27a2c888fb244cf3dad6bf755
45465 F20101220_AAAAYC shah_m_Page_075.pro
1ba3c7418c97d55fa4ca33d18fbe7be5
9ee02f44022f57fe8873675309a52ff7a7c01884
1929 F20101220_AAABCU shah_m_Page_032.txt
5a65a4e37134732774b08d52986f09b8
d5cdd87bbd1832390879db9f927a70048b1a97fd
41661 F20101220_AAAAXP shah_m_Page_062.pro
81293994bb3c4eb180117b80d7ddc72c
40a68c6e049fdef2c4596ca210bab42f947b4283
7039 F20101220_AAAAAH shah_m_Page_014thm.jpg
0e82760768058d923bc0ab64e8d46877
5b14225547a2cfc42a0ecf462f39b6ffbd511d88
1911 F20101220_AAABDJ shah_m_Page_047.txt
aed929cfc170340ffb10123dd15fad6c
456558d1ea719145350cca1eabf369b5da587408
47450 F20101220_AAAAYD shah_m_Page_076.pro
8df5f637bbf99b6a3926e7c10aeb5ec9
6229c8a77810cf7e2cf49fabeabf47f4a7625dab
1968 F20101220_AAABCV shah_m_Page_033.txt
6c9c6054bae29eb585086d5b358c5db7
22f6cc1c2fc91ab64ae88717308df43a54b0f719
53134 F20101220_AAAAXQ shah_m_Page_063.pro
64ef1e19c3dae6823579c6420c6aebd2
8e8c09f712bb8dd7f0bf0c1ee682b2df17f1f785
41077 F20101220_AAAAAI shah_m_Page_088.pro
00f99823f5925567746d71cf8cefc4ee
6c56ffca817a6578c9cbe666317fb72d9cee2161
1674 F20101220_AAABDK shah_m_Page_048.txt
f8d375ef4cf200b5d6767eb2aadbd9a0
6e5180899b958672e59c2ffec2b82bb0d1826dac
51691 F20101220_AAAAYE shah_m_Page_077.pro
b9f2c1e3a284f55dbbac17e253adcfb5
3f22b52d5bd4cb6c05b35b088062ad833a8ffefa
1947 F20101220_AAABCW shah_m_Page_034.txt
ca9976a15bbaab5d1ad41f801ce4f1a0
52188741493d72ac675c90c4080192f2a37acc02
51154 F20101220_AAAAXR shah_m_Page_064.pro
fffe0316feaed925c15f439083461018
44da215f53fcb60419d9c6a69e18d6aa11661c52
2022 F20101220_AAABEA shah_m_Page_064.txt
0006248e76991b9bf84f6134dec0726f
fe002cd98b1d81047307ac7bff7fc4c587ff8dc4
8138 F20101220_AAAAAJ shah_m_Page_043thm.jpg
cf848f889c6b11adc5c698e7da781ad6
c0e584df53199e531bb4933e6e92053a741ca2fb
1561 F20101220_AAABDL shah_m_Page_049.txt
fbc717f1a91e8e3c161214bd6d730fa3
6b75acf6d7f9d7dd99ec10ebe8afd013f1db54d1
49045 F20101220_AAAAYF shah_m_Page_079.pro
a9d6a6384fbc06a9c9acfaf6074a5d3e
411e31a4132a3d05820acab75ef4417ecabf5dff
2100 F20101220_AAABCX shah_m_Page_035.txt
4c7564f03aaa0396a462271758c0c5ac
f5055d766196401530ead374ff3954361d5ee6fa
50088 F20101220_AAAAXS shah_m_Page_065.pro
faa5e0ddd13dd04c40896487c0272b50
80df497957eb39e64795c7520f430f24f6d53d94
1969 F20101220_AAABEB shah_m_Page_065.txt
1d3409ee32c26a4997927e2f2a22635c
ffcdf09180731b8aa2242495026071c24d5d7953
47437 F20101220_AAAAAK shah_m_Page_094.pro
2247a0b56772ac5e1be57b84b5801acc
821c8a88ee1cdbb9093717fea2538ebfa48f08a3
1967 F20101220_AAABDM shah_m_Page_050.txt
67a06cbda66f43c1095cf7a4a50db9d7
490cf5ac49073fa9616675ec581e1787e196c9e0
31426 F20101220_AAAAYG shah_m_Page_080.pro
defa9a46c662743cda9bc44f4fcea607
bd3b2ba9c682d6d34b8da425527c75e5180e8e17
F20101220_AAABCY shah_m_Page_036.txt
3f3fa7b91c759576d422d25492b50d61
da9f86a99cfca27fa4de74a3cc9f6db00905c454
50863 F20101220_AAAAXT shah_m_Page_066.pro
7b4f80bd9876d2c19f3838d4e3b48b03
7969ba85c70406b96f2efc1970ff1f320602a14b
4212 F20101220_AAAABA shah_m_Page_004thm.jpg
9afc33ac5394661a42dd55b23df73acd
89e2a62d81d00866efe5498dbe609f3ead15329a
2010 F20101220_AAABEC shah_m_Page_066.txt
6e6777e85b8ba44e096a100dadb5159c
88af2938369b28c110502a5eb64f97566a23d8b2
62733 F20101220_AAAAAL shah_m_Page_131.jpg
e653d69a5ca35c8d0d1aa6e48ac9342a
3191285671ef17acae82e3d94a16772b2c992a81
1976 F20101220_AAABDN shah_m_Page_051.txt
b8febfb87c46e0de52a6f7bf5bb2edfc
11e097ba608b0171303525f0f508ce2a74d433ab
44086 F20101220_AAAAYH shah_m_Page_081.pro
1cc3122264421047a2281c70f07179ca
943c229ad972a857a6949f8cbc761cb1f6175318
2050 F20101220_AAABCZ shah_m_Page_037.txt
d578e825528fc4db960f18fff869fc85
b260c75a915b39c6f60eab608db2480fb8b9b5b9
48720 F20101220_AAAAXU shah_m_Page_067.pro
6572d88a01f0a87ee033cbbbe020a422
3b9df94a7fed662a805347ab5c9835c8cd4b0902
8505 F20101220_AAAABB shah_m_Page_020thm.jpg
fc507dc83243592a2bb29d3f51f11a24
26358cdb750e8aa82e39140cfdbfe84429047bbb
F20101220_AAABED shah_m_Page_067.txt
e8ffbdee52f57d30536b45c2f0c0e51d
df4a6635b6108501d18a8574c849e1abec14bd1a
99111 F20101220_AAAAAM shah_m_Page_138.jpg
9852f5b3f725858c46121d9c662eb857
052b98bed761def80718a62d795bb8e96f08b90c
1738 F20101220_AAABDO shah_m_Page_052.txt
0c0fee861b5100a2d121ad9c4099de45
2aa23a7f5ddf5436bdc086178c6e5bc294c96f5e
38607 F20101220_AAAAYI shah_m_Page_082.pro
32b0ea6ccbed41968b852a165772b128
9decd09a734474b51bd5569cca53c5eec3aa625b
51023 F20101220_AAAAXV shah_m_Page_068.pro
3e45d5bddb96baf8e0c7618cec5e6c27
f8582da42366ebc3295856a4030cf7a9d3ac693f
8103 F20101220_AAAABC shah_m_Page_015thm.jpg
be77d8b8072e64747cd78fd85fa9bbff
89b5c8d8bea49a77ee75046da9d308474004d53b
2013 F20101220_AAABEE shah_m_Page_068.txt
359425ad9258f9757dadf646c32487b2
394d77e9df864dea07437f978b4b90db3b80de19
48777 F20101220_AAAAAN shah_m_Page_032.pro
489c39e163761c8e2c36fbcad3da9729
74208be719368f813e75215126474fefd5240a25
1322 F20101220_AAABDP shah_m_Page_053.txt
7360f420a02e4f2fc5870dc4b021d9a3
ddcb8e81985da4be9d060ca7868f8a766a8f0313
33133 F20101220_AAAAYJ shah_m_Page_083.pro
b08612891374b17234066963d7b14cd0
1f33489619dce3443aaf1150795a8f2758aee91f
50530 F20101220_AAAAXW shah_m_Page_069.pro
7586f6cfce736318151cd12be65f92db
2c5e118a47d1f537a3f6589a58f5b3679d9ee79d
7224 F20101220_AAAABD shah_m_Page_075thm.jpg
739fe2ab6f766f8da6f4805e2a3d6be7
4850262ead2300d925f60bbec978c258d981d3da
2019 F20101220_AAABEF shah_m_Page_069.txt
43a259a57cb27674817cc9264fb16266
80cf486889a81e2d0ab131d665bb47dbde0fce70
1858 F20101220_AAAAAO shah_m_Page_122.txt
0730489cb54b2e9ff5c14e05abb6be91
94d3d87cbd4daf91362649fb39a6d8fcd1bdfa80
2072 F20101220_AAABDQ shah_m_Page_054.txt
ac142d0503fc85b14ba44259b68bd538
011542046fb3f4914944fe78a70889ff44cdc2e5
45076 F20101220_AAAAYK shah_m_Page_084.pro
eb9eeae99f317686455bde1324bded92
a1f7578c5cf05cda9a4f7c48abb9c5eeda9d3959
52017 F20101220_AAAAXX shah_m_Page_070.pro
a02e426c54492fdd180336d941a6145e
6791cbcade9a33289a1d946a7411f11cfcb483b3
31347 F20101220_AAAAAP shah_m_Page_001.jpg
54d2e5b228d2ef74f6edc77019b2c632
38fa24b7a291a8cd8f6d214b6445e8cd35cb3236
2199 F20101220_AAABDR shah_m_Page_055.txt
440c8bab289de2a9d70a588c596ce047
2d1613defcaf78a25a8e00f9d103dbe5616bb52b
44854 F20101220_AAAAYL shah_m_Page_085.pro
5760e6b4559718e01d2d31b4f58bc94e
01dd9ca2226cf5319bc3d5ecb7a8e82034268124
2042 F20101220_AAABEG shah_m_Page_070.txt
c229dd8b4fbe1c9cbdee043ccf8b27df
8383de46cb262c4d8962eeadcb0d3f7870c527e7
53952 F20101220_AAAAXY shah_m_Page_071.pro
10bd8a37cbc9b2038140bf96a9cb02a3
f5b894ea15052f4453aa49ac86da823cfd5ac2a2
106966 F20101220_AAAABE shah_m_Page_065.jp2
e3230a77160f5b4e21c0b0be9e379e9c
11b599a74a74e142d0cd1ead984cb8bf2fd99581
32462 F20101220_AAAAAQ shah_m_Page_112.QC.jpg
36357ebb25db73253c2fd046e68ca821
992de63a2e7e18d3d4343fef2175360060d6984d
50954 F20101220_AAAAZA shah_m_Page_102.pro
653d5f552d94ffe99a33079efce6e6dc
5a5a68f42a32aa0686e6c35abe666d97dbfc871e
1957 F20101220_AAABDS shah_m_Page_056.txt
59390a65cde90b3d81e53d128060fe98
8904007435a03e392b6c7c8bf466bfc4d1b8a6dd
36206 F20101220_AAAAYM shah_m_Page_086.pro
72a05f0cc94735fb73527f52fc304d17
91c527f6219f22d6c07e92bba0fca07828a0971e
2128 F20101220_AAABEH shah_m_Page_071.txt
0b58c26bbb5cfab263c66908778bd3c7
7b6ce7da673f3b90427bb74caaa201efa3a7caf8
54473 F20101220_AAAAXZ shah_m_Page_072.pro
7fa7dfac74d44df6102b1361072cda29
51ea7d46693a494eced685a1ae83ea61af1a5db0
598625 F20101220_AAAABF shah_m_Page_139.jp2
9edaeafd908ad56c571b70cfde88ff6b
f2d8e3cd30559c7623d6415d13d9bb4c8f3ea61f
8425398 F20101220_AAAAAR shah_m_Page_086.tif
080806c1a41d72e904c822fb8727d12a
e13d92a9254bfb93feeacf5b6f335d29755571c2
48379 F20101220_AAAAZB shah_m_Page_103.pro
7e0a6649a218e1bf894dc739ed7ded4b
119a1d647e83912f9f36d10eb71ad07ed9e9c8b5
1870 F20101220_AAABDT shah_m_Page_057.txt
62b939fcd9573aee68b40e46c1705a28
c1440b9bcc3871067ecb507b1c65b4b6f5d64fe2
28808 F20101220_AAAAYN shah_m_Page_087.pro
fc13c8c143665fc1a6bbcccd479d6889
fe77e98920004718d03cdc0cff7e2a0836988178
2136 F20101220_AAABEI shah_m_Page_072.txt
75f843b35bf443512e44b856f25d0e18
9c6a1be71a39f11728e2057b1059bbba7f6bb058
46567 F20101220_AAAABG shah_m_Page_078.pro
ff40ecddde8de1fdb07fc90068cd8951
cae3428880ef61135f1d91e5fb2facaba4840075
F20101220_AAAAAS shah_m_Page_107.tif
59341790adf17995b4259daf3bf5cab8
d9037b92f301e3d69b1adc2ac6b3b0fa97403ee6
28593 F20101220_AAAAZC shah_m_Page_104.pro
9cad953b44cd88c4a80d2eb04c8bfe33
2629d770287e622ebb5b712bb525feefc42179d5
2082 F20101220_AAABDU shah_m_Page_058.txt
4fc4390af734b8789c1002ca19f96acd
901f418ca0913b18132074a697440e87f96a3c8d
41478 F20101220_AAAAYO shah_m_Page_089.pro
0ae34308ee5ee532cbd1c91e006aafee
305a7f235ac2b175b72143448d624eab134fe78b
2153 F20101220_AAABEJ shah_m_Page_073.txt
6f79651a53905364990c71ebe1a5aa8b
117ed9b99ec54e5e72bf1f41930b26913ca29e15
5893 F20101220_AAAABH shah_m_Page_129thm.jpg
4119f4fe67f4affbb907f06377002e1b
b7fe2b9ccba64c0f5ee262e1cb2784653c12609d
89642 F20101220_AAAAAT shah_m_Page_075.jp2
ad17dc7d20566a59a8e6e3168aeeab8b
a9d5cc30ae28498875d5d92b0ec49bc270aca423
40455 F20101220_AAAAZD shah_m_Page_105.pro
69b77c733093f8ef504ed79e8f436875
2d349651a68793787eea5c30c14d5ffac0a1e07e
1732 F20101220_AAABDV shah_m_Page_059.txt
24193da03920c8353463d416b652e289
9b8105d450656508411f7c836359807f7479392c
33816 F20101220_AAAAYP shah_m_Page_090.pro
d245a9012bfc5f6a6c5cebe4a585fb37
7ca1e24efb8f083ae8c9dcc418895e3ef7bfe00c
F20101220_AAABEK shah_m_Page_074.txt
ea0332a403a69f1adb80a2e87d9e0705
d1f2c049605200b1555511af565ccdf579a06197
F20101220_AAAABI shah_m_Page_154.tif
aae9719452ab104617cb0e7fe7eab95a
045ef3fba0bd8a2073b4395dca9987707afb7bf5
27866 F20101220_AAAAAU shah_m_Page_095.QC.jpg
d615a35a116554acf6af5e01875132af
fd4dd0302ddcf7bd50bb01a2023f25369e2d608c
46837 F20101220_AAAAZE shah_m_Page_106.pro
65ce29066cc6d8fa4e39b7d6f9609116
5f235bd267e21dba6273dc9f3bbfe4cd8c8f8daa
1365 F20101220_AAABDW shah_m_Page_060.txt
324f5adfa2a48936d8c10ad97898843f
60b2177296f523ba2d7290017c1b5d344433925e
34476 F20101220_AAAAYQ shah_m_Page_091.pro
563597e9bf5f70d900f85f33830b6c80
b6dffd903a61ec6941bf5be259b8fc90eedcc671
1860 F20101220_AAABFA shah_m_Page_091.txt
b341a124793e4ef74daa6e3b7ded1c79
6905853209fcc6cc45c82e47512432f7bb056bb7
2889 F20101220_AAABEL shah_m_Page_075.txt
96ce46a002d9b6b200e0b0fbe28c59ee
2a5f83cb338d425bb738d6df87f4be75db6971d3
20588 F20101220_AAAABJ shah_m_Page_153.pro
240fd78fa2d66a5b7507389015c1babe
5eeeb9a9569518bc073f198c883b9e0fa117e530
34537 F20101220_AAAAAV shah_m_Page_051.QC.jpg
1354d68b7d0d215d79e6da3b6da66825
7da85ea84cb3247d7af38ccb8f8e5ab3d573db27
50786 F20101220_AAAAZF shah_m_Page_107.pro
0eb2a00e00f3f8a31eca1ee03250bd82
c53632c623860f16b651a06bd4e11728f0729309
650 F20101220_AAABDX shah_m_Page_061.txt
94bbcd2255334860f680fb2956893de6
1d65b81a93cf05ecfe67048b5c0386d59a1c566f
60125 F20101220_AAAAYR shah_m_Page_092.pro
ea04b9d49e1fa7bfed2cc0352b1b2a7b
e34d1b6b3b6532fe55104f9ec2347aff0de7183a
3983 F20101220_AAABFB shah_m_Page_092.txt
12e21807c3ecde908780e64d3af3de7c
0106f9c4fcb0562cd1f4a2c3dfa48399481cb6ca
2196 F20101220_AAABEM shah_m_Page_076.txt
a7ecf39d9427b4cb866c4cf584c987ac
16843882386ab396ffd35df16a0e436c8f3b8b7f
58982 F20101220_AAAABK shah_m_Page_170.pro
85ccd19e2e44d0d15f083c4601b87279
525ad9bbafbb4850a5dad1c8695e1e6a25954763
600052 F20101220_AAAAAW shah_m_Page_086.jp2
a6a171109e8c7370a4b6977b6d3a68da
54f7d9d8ed15b4602d4fbd08d98a368fca361472
48953 F20101220_AAAAZG shah_m_Page_108.pro
a467262dd86b2a700b64e125346b2b70
f7fb85b32327e8bfebaa931965c996eb1a724ba6
1770 F20101220_AAABDY shah_m_Page_062.txt
eb872fc6a5a98945657c544a77ad4005
94fd369b2bbb287b1667fb14ff4051323a450b4f
51552 F20101220_AAAAYS shah_m_Page_093.pro
f738ea4451bab437e0cb9536a79a3c83
472c65692b67c0ead2e62d85c97abd486efaa20c
F20101220_AAABFC shah_m_Page_093.txt
25b0e6c90853f363373ffda984b23d61
9502696118c93dec9a416e16910d397e06cf8ac3
2038 F20101220_AAABEN shah_m_Page_077.txt
159cf10aa4649e999f161e2ee1414c69
36e9404b4ad782c6b35146272882ebb06e9ce7b3
633 F20101220_AAAABL shah_m_Page_002thm.jpg
407f59ff858082cee6120e22baef5b8f
ba5c65ea41f7177ab84d549e31cda4b21323d433
84909 F20101220_AAAAAX shah_m_Page_059.jpg
92d6fafc0d890b2b14d07d0d7130a33b
36f0d40d01423c60ba204fa81d38e87cf66b3675
F20101220_AAAAZH shah_m_Page_109.pro
bec3cb64a1856f88d9ebcc9e118176c5
287240c09626f761148f190a695672183fd26810
2091 F20101220_AAABDZ shah_m_Page_063.txt
1452c3208e2ab658ac381b39d033872e
36ea67d0f57917d0033bd3fce917fa978bd113fc
45629 F20101220_AAAAYT shah_m_Page_095.pro
4c723a756f997507ac2de8f5a5093b35
5d6c207c75b5d0962a0798c9cb9fbee7f7cacc58
51715 F20101220_AAAACA shah_m_Page_137.pro
ece45cbac6adfb46e8acaa2cf39a1b98
addd2dbd502e822ff7d43d0225d5d70811e2b546
1920 F20101220_AAABFD shah_m_Page_094.txt
6193bdfc16a669e53d3f3e6556bd0f0c
943fcca305662b7304100ea61211bf9f6359ebbb
1852 F20101220_AAABEO shah_m_Page_078.txt
c246a8d857de3c9ae373bd99c8ad337e
5dd49515344f30119cda0111a838f92f241ee9b5
21583 F20101220_AAAABM shah_m_Page_123.QC.jpg
ca4bd8590619f988cc5ea06706d837a4
cb06e774174d9ce16c96b259816300783877afdd
8154 F20101220_AAAAAY shah_m_Page_034thm.jpg
8f23789bfe1aaa9d83e73ce10f20d81d
15950a06b345f3005d2ea71dd113a79a1428f4b6
51559 F20101220_AAAAZI shah_m_Page_110.pro
3c91958de1b20a78429b4a83e9fcd2ff
7700528d246746fc62c115e9351b3bc727d3ded1
34910 F20101220_AAAAYU shah_m_Page_096.pro
9561a112ce6df51cc57787b8c3d393ce
44fb6d626718f5333b8f9374bd1d36972ec7f3f0
104550 F20101220_AAAACB shah_m_Page_015.jpg
108b62cde7d899c952669c7efb31f04d
3c08e85be119710f7b12be3cb43ab5429428739c
2278 F20101220_AAABFE shah_m_Page_095.txt
86385956df158faf7ab8894a9ae51664
ba8720ff11e427ec488694e9d5d0b8b6ec634cef
1977 F20101220_AAABEP shah_m_Page_079.txt
08edea8cc2dffd4d6991cc472c6a385f
b1956c6a465dd563c2547a660aad6df07849267b
102897 F20101220_AAAABN shah_m_Page_050.jpg
89f034f11ef835d26eb9a58f107ec77d
8f50b58690e3fc6e8e9a77f02210ee9b7ddb34e5
1845 F20101220_AAAAAZ shah_m_Page_081.txt
f7b1fbcd59131e54673ea5f5a30722c2
596d54d2f5cab4a1a4d0c0ca5fcc1deca91434aa
51694 F20101220_AAAAZJ shah_m_Page_111.pro
757bde1f31f51131ed1b4ae57e62aad4
f81d885f190d73103ad5190dc51a66b53a9a481b
43164 F20101220_AAAAYV shah_m_Page_097.pro
9e0e1e7b2b02fab7617e626905f4d238
339bcdeb57f0915a5c052ed62ddeface2732a68a
F20101220_AAAACC shah_m_Page_143.tif
aca1ce764d1ea050736470ae0311fc49
9c83cabc41402caa285a3b95a0e066558397a4e1
1558 F20101220_AAABFF shah_m_Page_096.txt
73f999f08c1dc11a3a0f7840659eb038
09cb576343bec6f9844b7502c604840da4199f0d
1315 F20101220_AAABEQ shah_m_Page_080.txt
0b0df7c0139e4819413874cce4ac285b
a69be827ed8b3f31ff485941ccba604ebb625865
103279 F20101220_AAAABO shah_m_Page_122.jp2
991d34ee2cce91a307da94105d0f00ca
8c95f41c31e03eb4620cee07a91d6ffe9c516d3b
49218 F20101220_AAAAZK shah_m_Page_112.pro
571100a66736fc744e83f1bc7ca9f2e4
4f4714e6967c0af992a74a26491b7bb4a15fab8b
47347 F20101220_AAAAYW shah_m_Page_098.pro
e546666fde9fa2e0f27f9cce52a6a35a
412aab5a8ebd16b69f639929568dbba657c9500b
110164 F20101220_AAAACD shah_m_Page_107.jp2
27af84164b6628ef01c1397049560598
a122dd26c2a739e819202b0de1a32fac77298ab6
2313 F20101220_AAABFG shah_m_Page_097.txt
6ffa1189538fccab513aff8295ebb25f
80ef2c212df8e0ab45174893661591a66f7f57f6
1779 F20101220_AAABER shah_m_Page_082.txt
875886e772d27f25122a0bfe853a75dc
5da8b9e5d5ba0731a4486beac5363983f645e146
5030 F20101220_AAAABP shah_m_Page_125thm.jpg
b85d6ed6e7970c796e185e6cb6dd9929
bbfbd391b4eaf6bf5f247f2d8e78c8b78d91a2af
51114 F20101220_AAAAZL shah_m_Page_113.pro
0fd66cc313f4f8ff7d1d0cb0ca8620f0
73d1ffcc3d92142dbb3954d515d0c6be73727ca2
29868 F20101220_AAAAYX shah_m_Page_099.pro
e808ecdf06c16270945873ef843aeefd
8cec98b8345d35f94922ccc69fb62492f253a250
30353 F20101220_AAAACE shah_m_Page_098.QC.jpg
2d767f695c4ea94ccf3923b611907054
de947c860ac341bc87368947cf497fb47fc2d000
1529 F20101220_AAABES shah_m_Page_083.txt
e8185087e5c35e18ec97e1b393557379
c65cbc73b0ff7ccb34ae055af0f888331ed7c462
31735 F20101220_AAAABQ shah_m_Page_123.pro
be065b2c249e52ffae55119a326277f2
51bdf95d6fea71f4a9a6b2d83a60f71de2ace82e
52417 F20101220_AAAAZM shah_m_Page_114.pro
0db4db1f77f3973727f010d56eb28326
035b65eb1748e9ffc42caf7e986658dbf644c477
53401 F20101220_AAAAYY shah_m_Page_100.pro
adcf6b91537066e78059ae2ab44794fe
016807bf3fd66d745371161ac99dfa2e5eb8adfb
2141 F20101220_AAABFH shah_m_Page_098.txt
8c0589d33992f236898cb59cbfd93975
7c9ade9746f281ccd7ad095de1f50ccf45f50e7a
2339 F20101220_AAABET shah_m_Page_084.txt
ec5f730d2d1b852a7b6d95b6bdb22142
4886a0691a6a24c7ef56e8000c630a1a4b46dbee
16602 F20101220_AAAABR shah_m_Page_004.QC.jpg
3c7e0cc16c5f48d4c30b859c491c8f7d
cd2a00aad72a0c8c6ac2e955cc5939d581f324ff
47352 F20101220_AAAAZN shah_m_Page_115.pro
97b798c05bcab1f76b34d4b44c87d56d
9b2f621723b9cffa0e2eb0ab357494069e25de4d
45839 F20101220_AAAAYZ shah_m_Page_101.pro
cfa3a68d0e9f54534855762a2b80a568
5c75b6bd97cfe443c88df50d7b22c021297159be
21227 F20101220_AAAACF shah_m_Page_124.QC.jpg
784688739d3d7a79f874a37990360a0a
2b9412a014d3fbbd0b086d01c83ef159e606c7d6
1555 F20101220_AAABFI shah_m_Page_099.txt
f022d69ec44ea7f5a3386515677a2229
bf28fb7bf0482554ecaf731ac18c7fdf7d3c9c9a
1781 F20101220_AAABEU shah_m_Page_085.txt
9d94d08d2a21cc264dc99f995ad023aa
ceb4610ad3f4988cbc1df9c9d20746c3cb0ba7e6
30644 F20101220_AAAABS shah_m_Page_042.QC.jpg
b02f8b18ce272c06a29b5b8e841a2146
2ba309698d481129735cae3b7ec1624bdf80a3f7
48307 F20101220_AAAAZO shah_m_Page_116.pro
13f2129cf2b868bf10541d2345cf02b8
c6e9d5028a520e4c5f1d22fef6ff2bbbb2ee32bf
42117 F20101220_AAAACG shah_m_Page_019.pro
981d5cc26549b519c685567cae1bd7dd
3476e532b713df6c954ef300ae0333ff31d73d0e
2932 F20101220_AAABFJ shah_m_Page_100.txt
5f57dce3df6e0e55200673be5c90118c
622d1db7b2be7495aa42745a730e8e122f4bd347
1906 F20101220_AAABEV shah_m_Page_086.txt
9a0bead81b6363db4581c273f1b2bcd3
ebd8bc13d4889cea094fff7b1376c64d262c18b5
4815 F20101220_AAAABT shah_m_Page_137thm.jpg
fd68d2194e0f22c42fe8d75c743d3cf7
5739412660007fb02fbeeec0e959545ebb470c5c
50844 F20101220_AAAAZP shah_m_Page_117.pro
ffdf341b5cfbd4c65c3d3856a83169e4
4b2b446e92ee0023f2ad0a2d2b56b4be6bc04a74
6650 F20101220_AAAACH shah_m_Page_099thm.jpg
fa2210be61b144fc47ffaf50f5e8739d
522e42b750b5ca19fffb4ab1dffb55f8ff9d74ad
1900 F20101220_AAABFK shah_m_Page_101.txt
590a7c98487d3923cd94c4d95308d1ef
fc5e7487fc57ecdd6d5f9c70fbc74acd1ec33779
1372 F20101220_AAABEW shah_m_Page_087.txt
9d41b589488a473858c604e2eacad784
d1339886e66d64db2dd8b1457dd9a78a92505357
23439 F20101220_AAAABU shah_m_Page_132.QC.jpg
a08b5aee181a75f1466ad61b1d9ba4ac
36c341e2cee6c0e2a8c98df98da5ddff7fa09b91
46679 F20101220_AAAAZQ shah_m_Page_118.pro
3cba507e2c01e5d938dd12f0943a429b
6f8f780598306c331c8eb616669e5fe9c4045d4a
2187 F20101220_AAAACI shah_m_Page_137.txt
0f51495199a5eb8a7290e9de9a311e25
0af9371b8e43d854ea4185f9b8223b5b089d39b7
2007 F20101220_AAABGA shah_m_Page_117.txt
d7843b8d9d908898c88d8adc2b56e636
237c9cc8c7799eca04c8ecca16f3ee5a6a2c6438
2546 F20101220_AAABFL shah_m_Page_102.txt
a56d3be6a1cdadaef3cb3aaf1c668879
618ded0f00a3bdd9f4f6931a3ceb3699b81d969b
1727 F20101220_AAABEX shah_m_Page_088.txt
53f5300cc756dd3810f9b25182254836
a72db002a85fa7b373b1f22cf06d74018033ae46
101707 F20101220_AAAABV shah_m_Page_043.jpg
acce3377d939b64268f1115f97e2ece4
0cc9a521f3fce629fdbcebb02bb7bc86d6b0bd11
35079 F20101220_AAAAZR shah_m_Page_119.pro
69dfc24322a134222c46b74e6ea652e6
facbddd763015f9fc6fb604cba7e0ee6288304da
81238 F20101220_AAAACJ shah_m_Page_082.jpg
1725a39cf48e4b330668754e7ca44332
454079b914013619483bc19b281f050fbc3ac39f
1919 F20101220_AAABGB shah_m_Page_118.txt
269f4542db589e47a52e27c75813705f
8f5f8c1f9f7538e585d0436541abb0e1cb76f2f1
1959 F20101220_AAABFM shah_m_Page_103.txt
7b53a4aa29bdb37c178f0b4cac308418
a71e81325a3b7fe8589c10d653bfc8e09442f515
1668 F20101220_AAABEY shah_m_Page_089.txt
819b60e44a31fa6495275fa626e8813f
f146e910425c16eae11cbc1d25a9259e2ce7fb94
88034 F20101220_AAAABW shah_m_Page_120.jp2
cabcb6b886021e238a2ffdec584221f2
98861fb083c079379f74f8d675d2c852238088a1
39946 F20101220_AAAAZS shah_m_Page_120.pro
43f5c0334135ad2b05279ce2466da582
91976b103ef653f9335f856a42e670698e8e49a6
108968 F20101220_AAAACK shah_m_Page_040.jpg
a81f661dad03fbacf4c5b55131745a05
3de51877cc4ea7fea6c7ba5ee9f70b5a74c4ee78
1400 F20101220_AAABGC shah_m_Page_119.txt
b61c93ca1a17d48ae365c3c75a67fa48
411868b2998585195dd7e34202395d3ac9be058e
1193 F20101220_AAABFN shah_m_Page_104.txt
6c38e285962ffb7d99324bdee7a03dda
4ce52ec260fcec8de665082bfbdd104eff17d026
1502 F20101220_AAABEZ shah_m_Page_090.txt
d31e6cf0c8fbf5b2b66cd8742089cd47
478128fccc7f7ee727968a5427a180a6a3df8559
98902 F20101220_AAAABX shah_m_Page_109.jpg
ced87d3ae8da1f6734920fa7933d1a12
7806f9469a37f59ecefeb1c3a235609ea3917adc
49661 F20101220_AAAAZT shah_m_Page_121.pro
e73885ce81c94002e6667d7d3b99d556
3b3f4970aeb6e86dc40083e9b9344a7b460a4a94
86928 F20101220_AAAADA shah_m_Page_012.jpg
10c488b0454038756742a0579aeafc46
5bb72541064538b8c8fafa2df45eb4008009fbf2
6637 F20101220_AAAACL shah_m_Page_159thm.jpg
0867d71181e53f64e46f6688306ec88a
0a0103ce5306e0dc342c64e8b4c9115b5d1a254b
1703 F20101220_AAABGD shah_m_Page_120.txt
3fb0116ceeeba2ec7d4457c921018121
6dcfa6fad099ced77d55c34dc79e6a3ad21c9305
1721 F20101220_AAABFO shah_m_Page_105.txt
623e07a01b39d22d3e763109c967a7cc
0f12b5e8fd925cb1f405ad494e7485f3d09f1f5a
F20101220_AAAAZU shah_m_Page_122.pro
3f0e48dab2d64c9b5a2bed98554117a6
3fa9658c853ae8bf6bc24953dd3987434b9ae86f
67872 F20101220_AAAADB shah_m_Page_013.jpg
9facdb26efeec9852e4bab6f818c5b1b
01f9b8bef57bc599684c1c8587981afec765ac2f
1051974 F20101220_AAAACM shah_m_Page_047.jp2
78a7240464677c85498ef90d98e757a6
f6517513b4e88207c24a8b54ba188bef233b318a
68735 F20101220_AAAABY shah_m_Page_099.jpg
05ee5fd5a36a29441eb6b9e3433a51d9
e214cdd5ff6632fb48c02ff5ef67e0eb0efc2aed
1964 F20101220_AAABGE shah_m_Page_121.txt
58b33750d2ed7ca66d0d1699f510b189
e47639947a74dacf3cebbaddc07084ff8e54fa5e
1851 F20101220_AAABFP shah_m_Page_106.txt
336b6adb0b4cbd067a0ec76f3a5c46a0
49484e5832fb1acd69f689b2b50b829d88a12a4a
5975 F20101220_AAAAZV shah_m_Page_124.pro
f1841ed1ef3600d712625813fbe955c6
d4f333b84e67ea306676edc9452e124c37b32bb2
89817 F20101220_AAAADC shah_m_Page_014.jpg
1619c94503fab648d7cb16c47eabcb18
0cc2e77f922778c23c6c614b07a3daad4b0f8578
254380 F20101220_AAAACN UFE0015461_00001.xml FULL
4eafa983e255e7197e564ae46d9c684b
b1b81ff14a0fbf9858fe47a9241c3b37cbb55eb7
F20101220_AAAABZ shah_m_Page_168.tif
963e1cc5876b2bece974083af349ba7b
3902d850f31bc226f78738b2f9cb50cf7d8e5e90
1312 F20101220_AAABGF shah_m_Page_123.txt
4750bfcda9b09c393fca00e4f682883d
02c02ca5d6328471722cc9ddc9fdd98d7390d5b1
2006 F20101220_AAABFQ shah_m_Page_107.txt
bb899abaeba14b82c971bc474009b933
f8a9af3b4c8d517e8d73d79c496074808c3d9cab
43839 F20101220_AAAAZW shah_m_Page_125.pro
f60875636cf083095576c97b04b99563
a814418d738cd1e6a0743a9c65cdf680aa27fa37
100247 F20101220_AAAADD shah_m_Page_016.jpg
b9002c019a794803e0c60c832ed98ca6
93c0c8b69ccc7b2e31164e0ad5c5d4aa39282852
311 F20101220_AAABGG shah_m_Page_124.txt
9e312619d49ce62ba7698441ea8cf8ec
2e4234bf06a3fafd83eb9523b4bf4fa6073e5339
1936 F20101220_AAABFR shah_m_Page_108.txt
2ef134377b41c8c6982c9f71f16268b9
460a4637a80d0badc062f3425b2fae0b4fdcb165
27473 F20101220_AAAAZX shah_m_Page_126.pro
4f76c2546d8b1e16cc562e0309a81283
968b26a3cb4a5d5e2a41b57b7ee2915e19459c7c
97806 F20101220_AAAADE shah_m_Page_017.jpg
b0048fcdcdc23ee205b03be20ab68789
db539586abfdae3feb8832d0d45a75a657973c95
F20101220_AAABGH shah_m_Page_125.txt
067e5a71a630dc1e9ba8acc857f27959
d7af9010243d7ed89b83fc1f1bd70e6e0e7dbff7
F20101220_AAABFS shah_m_Page_109.txt
7db619fa89488618cee9a7a10c76ede6
300558c9fa8d8fe9dbf07f44570178d8f2813e48
16198 F20101220_AAAAZY shah_m_Page_127.pro
56e32cc6ef9e7deb9aca565f276c8443
6ec0fbc9d9d8f446e5fd81ecaa27091f42785bfe
79031 F20101220_AAAADF shah_m_Page_018.jpg
f4612b288be665affcc88f4545289cb8
e1c4efbb534809fabd056605ec1ee3852588bfc5
4798 F20101220_AAAACQ shah_m_Page_002.jpg
9a4e4c053975c123ca7ac8beef918bf4
3216c27fc025997800f97aee50722dc33165b294
2029 F20101220_AAABFT shah_m_Page_110.txt
eea230a355b954d02953d2c6e8cd0891
434e3fa60362f70fce4d6d4f64a4b2f23857caef
42979 F20101220_AAAAZZ shah_m_Page_128.pro
894d310add473d584fc965e9178cae0e
d8c22b6440c2806abd8289c52240d12b24ee15a4
7041 F20101220_AAAACR shah_m_Page_003.jpg
61983247340294edd1b6423b71aace54
a2e26956312daf1c6369bf6ff1ab5da8faac0dbe
1318 F20101220_AAABGI shah_m_Page_126.txt
a431b3783761d7007eea0894d501010f
00699560111cd73b23fa8f4351452aef685e38c1
F20101220_AAABFU shah_m_Page_111.txt
e70e170ab8e907085652eb324415b6df
c6312c2639955b530bd00ae4522279d4c408fdd9
86880 F20101220_AAAADG shah_m_Page_019.jpg
751a398fd2c37917e00ea803fb8ed5a9
152fde95a77735cacbaae4f4b6a1a6110f35a04b
49353 F20101220_AAAACS shah_m_Page_004.jpg
78bf4068f85e9ff2b4db805faa56e381
7316c55ba336e88de041e10a1a52ea2ca1a0fb67
951 F20101220_AAABGJ shah_m_Page_127.txt
e0eea2132042f536fe4ac817386c3a38
79ea902a5514dc0fdc0896bde4dc1ec0c2072e71
1937 F20101220_AAABFV shah_m_Page_112.txt
c5f4de9311209fb3795f53a84460ba18
a3bae374120b0ef571991d6717ee3b583c005f26
105747 F20101220_AAAADH shah_m_Page_020.jpg
3fb96b80d8d5a938844c918252c89ef7
cfa159e0313ed5efc7426f542b12e23b001925cc
100727 F20101220_AAAACT shah_m_Page_005.jpg
94560da2d1a1c7d661fa0ae85f5064ae
e6f66cbff79953be7c93c7a0e7e0ef9b0a8235c3
2232 F20101220_AAABGK shah_m_Page_128.txt
9c8c8408fb0deaa82c4495ce53d3b0ff
cb487e911fb32f66e5c5b24c44963c7570e043f1
2017 F20101220_AAABFW shah_m_Page_113.txt
e75ec1142936aead36ca4fad8dee0aaa
0f00ae68ac48b60a38fb6affa468e52a5d71de1c
102603 F20101220_AAAADI shah_m_Page_021.jpg
1c65d96925dea5c81f4490923f697758
db11d64daf6773991935d7921558b97c210cc7f7
118928 F20101220_AAAACU shah_m_Page_006.jpg
0da50ef99e442009573f6f06918e1b72
eeba6054db6092cb87b99aeb13c4a07bebe83253
1604 F20101220_AAABHA shah_m_Page_145.txt
b3105d96e4113ecc305aae57887e3195
90cc7794c0ccdef80676f51dfcf26c845ad33b9b
1503 F20101220_AAABGL shah_m_Page_129.txt
0f193b311264eb820a0361dce23e73e8
4c73dc71bd760f998c016fd78fdb2111335082cc
2061 F20101220_AAABFX shah_m_Page_114.txt
6368781cb829e61776e7f0ecb8b5f3cb
f5af244bc2c0a9f30ade414316acb998d4af9aca
98776 F20101220_AAAADJ shah_m_Page_022.jpg
cc22aae1b1a266add6fcdde1e4fb7fbc
7f9f4f0dfb6b715e661a9f939a63b431ad9c2421
65399 F20101220_AAAACV shah_m_Page_007.jpg
020abc5d9596e873eb32f36bb6ed18a9
ba98184957de61c7a2734d852749e901c1220543
1263 F20101220_AAABHB shah_m_Page_146.txt
49bc635b9395f406b80e3174fb9c9e1a
97e717c6603915960df691fd86f99d385e8e08eb
1755 F20101220_AAABGM shah_m_Page_130.txt
df32aebc3b878512db73d2a628b93ab0
18d0037398a31097c85766e59f3aab75db591485
1871 F20101220_AAABFY shah_m_Page_115.txt
61bd21a2c190a7b781f459019d3df391
3542ea5f6960e346a71a2e258eac7b35a79d81b7
101735 F20101220_AAAADK shah_m_Page_023.jpg
062bb4d42d14a94a1b11f3e65be1f1ee
25f649b7b982c1e8a370a370627cbba01cfabee8
118655 F20101220_AAAACW shah_m_Page_008.jpg
8eb5612548c82357bf96b36ff9f4b949
f265de23391b45896a5878a3ad161af04b24ed10
984 F20101220_AAABHC shah_m_Page_147.txt
1fabcf917a769f91ed48477f903594f7
4bd32079d50bd2ae6b3dbe7ad70cf343d9ce003a
1510 F20101220_AAABGN shah_m_Page_131.txt
cb93ffb34c879d80e5783f4b9424a38c
ab59412acb07619be8a068eb301ec14a90953abf
1951 F20101220_AAABFZ shah_m_Page_116.txt
3e1af5fb476ccff0794143c1d201db84
8af33cfa0186af1a5dbf204ec73801b6e1753fb1
100444 F20101220_AAAADL shah_m_Page_024.jpg
7463e39d06432b4d8ac363058bd35429
9fb282432c05803b0fe2870832d2d9c638b1d722
81095 F20101220_AAAACX shah_m_Page_009.jpg
930210f2371e98da58206acabe69ebd3
daeaca09fb1f8b4688821cc4c12c67eb18a82925
107426 F20101220_AAAAEA shah_m_Page_039.jpg
01c39d76ac03fb4331a9e1de0c14490e
b69cf3c950581d9598e60806a15d3c9a60cf704c
865 F20101220_AAABHD shah_m_Page_148.txt
61975544af218b1f345163774c6da6e9
1b9d9c4f48c403a7fb8fc7a5d378eef10a316834
1468 F20101220_AAABGO shah_m_Page_132.txt
60487bdb071f53bb4859f44c68554dc7
d89b49836d6af6a4a60554174572508c837a1496
105007 F20101220_AAAADM shah_m_Page_025.jpg
cfaaa37cf92140cae856f4c573907570
cec017566b2a6ed25db6647be907849dff723543
123136 F20101220_AAAACY shah_m_Page_010.jpg
1f169f6784efffa16c06ecc9ea50323e
b712ed9930c79c23f480c81f113f1461427dff97
108564 F20101220_AAAAEB shah_m_Page_041.jpg
60103a44427f76e0bdd73fd3f6d8aca8
cca4dd61a77cedb0aae908be6d944a14468aa729
1274 F20101220_AAABHE shah_m_Page_149.txt
10fb0215a72e35016f327ad77079c102
e749ba3b159b0f151a36e92ab34e59276ac2b397
1241 F20101220_AAABGP shah_m_Page_133.txt
d7b64c3d05583fb5b62a201a4514351e
557b640527c825c395d3527bd039fc60f3c3609c
105971 F20101220_AAAADN shah_m_Page_026.jpg
a9124f42213031602a5b563d89f035c2
a38ef7459a1b5b4113b15f0add673f09f6aef7f3
24045 F20101220_AAAACZ shah_m_Page_011.jpg
efb1b477b8d8874134f5e8e4fae8137c
eb14c32009126a8e8a1991822d180da6f9c16973
94289 F20101220_AAAAEC shah_m_Page_042.jpg
ff0b5b38cd54fa05a5b2b4d6fac51f93
272f45d0ed842602be4ae9176dffe4c80b92372f
1079 F20101220_AAABHF shah_m_Page_150.txt
a8d6d91e7562ac38d73be6e161ef8374
fd70d4ea8b9428f3908c4961b239dcea5ce701a1
1148 F20101220_AAABGQ shah_m_Page_134.txt
901496e93bf97cf77c278e0aadef16d9
d29856d2fe53330f7b7ac33e94cf4631271a018b
101066 F20101220_AAAADO shah_m_Page_027.jpg
370e11b2ba2a8bfb2807aadd4e4b57a3
3ac31d57522b84546be13dc7c11b17a0432b379c
98952 F20101220_AAAAED shah_m_Page_045.jpg
81070edc0d69e53bb05e5aaf9f1f7f10
9142c6866d478aeb91803298e63d233aff6e70f2
1034 F20101220_AAABHG shah_m_Page_151.txt
5b830a4dbf51c5fa46e132db8f743187
6778b17a395084a597ce1f7f0a9307b618115206
1063 F20101220_AAABGR shah_m_Page_135.txt
d4a99b2e3b5d93386bfbf1c1d59ccb4d
77e26042d950e7b2c9584747026e6c560c9d523f
100730 F20101220_AAAADP shah_m_Page_028.jpg
c1928a8d9d1dd318c63c76bbc8466799
25fcf80d1119448656c93a2294aea593c4c112b0
105452 F20101220_AAAAEE shah_m_Page_046.jpg
80cbb04c24beb39eab815bb82a46d23a
5502672bfe423145273f573c9ef15413224f4de2
1536 F20101220_AAABHH shah_m_Page_152.txt
7aca7732f3c384b4b2d05ab2b0948bdd
ea65a6bcf69adce91340c0693024b5397da26edd
2497 F20101220_AAABGS shah_m_Page_136.txt
c70276cd5f822858c9af5b79ce1bbe53
55e5e722df662018584d140520ead3b41ff2554e
104635 F20101220_AAAADQ shah_m_Page_029.jpg
ee748ca8722a2e6b9f5a0d78c6e5de70
98cd490e771ad3a3d0ce49c3cd20f99bb4aa56e0
96029 F20101220_AAAAEF shah_m_Page_047.jpg
55930a5da1bc9bd2d83cd62d45fb535c
4fba72e20610d6a41f12a5efffc3b4a59a953314
872 F20101220_AAABHI shah_m_Page_153.txt
78c0e5d2c2e5d4c5afc07c5c9fab0ca8
9f51f607435ed9786bbe397c32afb34964c0fdb6
2144 F20101220_AAABGT shah_m_Page_138.txt
e0c4896f32ed7ca824560ba3d82dbe1b
00de5edc8033b648eacdbe3a9e61095c50a72fac
107024 F20101220_AAAADR shah_m_Page_030.jpg
94281bf5ae73b8b05bdf76bdfe965c04
fcd3652fc5fc5a3b0c0fe8fa40bcdf0c6daf90f0
85413 F20101220_AAAAEG shah_m_Page_048.jpg
4fbf1c050a4acc13300de3e119a04024
e1934f00d0489ff952ea108fc941d83845df23cc
1169 F20101220_AAABGU shah_m_Page_139.txt
5525087190d93cc3a66a2f91b1aed9b5
adaa7af60c32debb2841a71d48be294531363500
98524 F20101220_AAAADS shah_m_Page_031.jpg
925cb3a505b0f27fce985676b3567b9e
aa01e751429ade8f50215040449e860707a7c763
401 F20101220_AAABHJ shah_m_Page_154.txt
5386da0cc0aa8038882d33a3c54eb450
2e6a00ec8f0c37c7ba5f0fc343651c78150b8b95
1126 F20101220_AAABGV shah_m_Page_140.txt
3d03c26cacddd214ce4ae4a1010b787d
d46c3f5248c50171496982163873efef53d048a7
100422 F20101220_AAAADT shah_m_Page_032.jpg
211aad74811020b74345fa55bcd1da95
6b5b2e841393e4e1461203e821774de49b6d2ab2
97695 F20101220_AAAAEH shah_m_Page_049.jpg
c6bcd2853393c51c26eb2e745a39e8e4
1e9db8548daf12202c5cf70c4511f181956fa1d2
463 F20101220_AAABHK shah_m_Page_155.txt
2cbd1e266db484b1c51819dc1320f3db
4b60681b809c343644de3d3875fac7a8e4dbe279
1326 F20101220_AAABGW shah_m_Page_141.txt
95bc6729a47963360320c8c1dd2a1556
abce8d05b002bef63d7bc9e2038a109ab872bb25
102918 F20101220_AAAADU shah_m_Page_033.jpg
68ca624ccbae2cef6579a51e8ff0c80b
a19e4e478ccbbc9baacb397b3c591b746e535e7f
102000 F20101220_AAAAEI shah_m_Page_051.jpg
b631fcaaf11cefd962fa146a5685ee82
6b04a3fbfb05ccc2201175006ed285f016d59e2d
1091 F20101220_AAABIA shah_m_Page_171.txt
7d5c71374c575840ff902d456bc03d4a
1f9885aaea8a5035d0853da78b27505063b49f78
827 F20101220_AAABHL shah_m_Page_156.txt
fb8ae08e7757f5cd006e46a6a6c26f9f
09b89dce0d1ddb9aa8045783c8635179ab2f1ea4
2164 F20101220_AAABGX shah_m_Page_142.txt
2d66e3f90ddc8b83d4c8e9e0c31fe0a6
1325b0d8add80b40ec01c2f61024f831314175f9
102628 F20101220_AAAADV shah_m_Page_034.jpg
f782d6bfa5d57bf6ddebabd75a36c58c
46756c7123f38cfbe932db4b642c7f3c78f4fa2a
91968 F20101220_AAAAEJ shah_m_Page_052.jpg
aeb6e9d5bbcfdf1d913a6ea6fcb1194c
91ffb8daff609bbf14a54c433fe170729c1e4d7d
1684 F20101220_AAABIB shah_m_Page_172.txt
8153d75cba6408fac3107b2811655d6f
0cf32b2070ff647f71601f9ec0f8f2b62c29f51b
870 F20101220_AAABHM shah_m_Page_157.txt
2fcf9c69a948ef63f2cd3a628aba9080
4da7c5d2bee0c2a8283284f50e2cd9a124291356
1591 F20101220_AAABGY shah_m_Page_143.txt
9171115ac5359f604ef0b68c230a8a7f
45709d3079d2763494db693af6764058cbf9cf34
109648 F20101220_AAAADW shah_m_Page_035.jpg
c41e1fddd30dd93a5e3b38e274e4a0af
476dbac36be7c00c2f0fe55bacdfea1c750e2554
90780 F20101220_AAAAEK shah_m_Page_053.jpg
8ae2168e3dbf692cdba6b59707541644
014c15cc22690e1ec3b20a96fc095fb9d3fdf40c
2507 F20101220_AAABIC shah_m_Page_001thm.jpg
159732dd2761407e5130bedb9ff1ee34
1e91ca9257888b0e2edf3b4caa0ddaca0fe94b40
403 F20101220_AAABHN shah_m_Page_158.txt
451a8af4127cda5cfe5bac191158b700
42f073f1fa464144635d9901cb361ef0d78fc4ae
1667 F20101220_AAABGZ shah_m_Page_144.txt
d36948222872b60ed4b6e42346294f72
c30ca71eaaa876be77be5c9fd0016c9bf84fa193
93381 F20101220_AAAADX shah_m_Page_036.jpg
e0ba62afc3d2d92025f91965472cef00
4b01ee797773556723441f41e04aefaf3a538263
102725 F20101220_AAAAFA shah_m_Page_070.jpg
5a1db9c2a55b2164e27505ae6cf63052
f4157eeada8132fda72f30c2832da0076a6b74c8
106296 F20101220_AAAAEL shah_m_Page_054.jpg
d80e932535218933127acc086348d40e
260a841e0dadc4c7ae9cae3bf7d973d4538a8683
1413292 F20101220_AAABID shah_m.pdf
cef1d4944a7e679ad75ef8c41d09ae91
34ae3a72e86b9bb1d971c0a423017e1b352e3a82
2304 F20101220_AAABHO shah_m_Page_159.txt
b80f9a91f236f2fd1cccfe920385fc7f
cb14cf6c588dbe390086c936c9d3391de517f22b
107440 F20101220_AAAADY shah_m_Page_037.jpg
fc91b10ab3a86696b32813a31200599d
4a6ff527cad750c521209ccaa07a4782504ed64d
107279 F20101220_AAAAFB shah_m_Page_071.jpg
41558c1f5bc3a95f7472de69864d82b8
8a2f95bcb35b27ef5b388f40c31e9f34402ea677
111471 F20101220_AAAAEM shah_m_Page_055.jpg
ed09b408c4d00ff5221f44c07a3d5910
bb36f727e8f175e4bef856b36a8c2fd50ba3b979
9253 F20101220_AAABIE shah_m_Page_001.QC.jpg
8b206cbdef96985d2b730edbbf0c6d25
296224e0bd09134875db29f00ed599338e30338c
2052 F20101220_AAABHP shah_m_Page_160.txt
e9dfeffdcf96db017da72343a23c3487
0bbc5d1270a609b200d40e788997199f75d2e66c
104908 F20101220_AAAADZ shah_m_Page_038.jpg
e313f77e03d16e26470b67c74a3b415e
9ab58b00e04c0ec91c3b0e248374525f1f8e9f0b
109328 F20101220_AAAAFC shah_m_Page_072.jpg
adb83f939e87e95d994c0340e7971ef8
294d01590dadb5aef0c88df5b4dd1cc53694a263
99872 F20101220_AAAAEN shah_m_Page_056.jpg
ffdd02ef789b8ce0995a2b790921f3dc
abf0ff63ae00abe863e1f57562d075b389ba4d83
1600 F20101220_AAABIF shah_m_Page_002.QC.jpg
2371d6736c8232ef672f9e350cdb1471
6274ddfb9f093f5fc55e67600762f757d462e342
2027 F20101220_AAABHQ shah_m_Page_161.txt
95b0f0beacae132ef70cd520f5e18503
a0cb050df9d95f331aa7664a5a779c894387b470
108632 F20101220_AAAAFD shah_m_Page_073.jpg
6e6f0294f0f63ffd6bfe596f375af504
3fbcbadef36847dd39cfd07765b462c9056d55c1
96166 F20101220_AAAAEO shah_m_Page_057.jpg
f35b06414804d69448e9f1a8c58ce4e5
312a69f4e19b4d86bdb130cb1903cc563ac23ca9
1769 F20101220_AAABIG shah_m_Page_003.QC.jpg
a6cd2512042171266dda0443085ba0f6
990d0a4fbd8f670cfc6968b219a2ac83c87357c6
2395 F20101220_AAABHR shah_m_Page_162.txt
deb36c14fddbb08619173a3789125a7a
20acec7998e3c2169b7b183781fb868ecc935d94
101156 F20101220_AAAAFE shah_m_Page_074.jpg
da213bd6c43ac8e474840ff4ccd0d657
8d9b91a98ad7830dccdc359af2e3c25f11ac0059
106695 F20101220_AAAAEP shah_m_Page_058.jpg
95bcdae50a2f7da99e590d1e24c0f3e9
6d718683cf71b29718ee4ff514dea1b7db2ac5d5
719 F20101220_AAABIH shah_m_Page_003thm.jpg
6a7f216c8326e22578f5b9d365e5a693
df5d66b7a96fd3b7a87c814f4b98eabafb022c54
2282 F20101220_AAABHS shah_m_Page_163.txt
7e64390fadbb42802fa803bc785a9e49
22833b8880df55636ba66eccc2c5fa5972ef57b3
89294 F20101220_AAAAFF shah_m_Page_075.jpg
c4cedea31d765f57b463879ce0f04c13
538d69ca0649b8edea465448c8eeefbe1f7030a1
83389 F20101220_AAAAEQ shah_m_Page_060.jpg
da5acf9da4a01a35614310c5e2efb6fa
8b2384ebf44f52cac903bf43b732cbc4f182fbf6
22568 F20101220_AAABII shah_m_Page_005.QC.jpg
5ca4b656adadf70db3d756c6c92302ab
f047657af0e0a2ccdf4728733bae99d0faed6c6a
2431 F20101220_AAABHT shah_m_Page_164.txt
4381931b41d95397bde7dc9b1b89786b
f33d7a7fcc483d6a0c506295dcfaed12eeb4f832
95652 F20101220_AAAAFG shah_m_Page_076.jpg
b9221adcc6e4c0f510c16bafb452c8a4
cac084499d8728003207534a1718c01b4a770b4e
29575 F20101220_AAAAER shah_m_Page_061.jpg
67acf7f104bedbcaa3f13301bf20994f
8d5e86a53501a04de775514a00dcb7669de40536
5361 F20101220_AAABIJ shah_m_Page_005thm.jpg
46b2ea1b3685a0ede24f060c7d685573
f02d7d5cf1fc2ed851d7850731124256eef65345
2275 F20101220_AAABHU shah_m_Page_165.txt
5549a64151f5aa418dc880c2ee4df3ce
d43a9218cae958bd8f48fcea80ff3e9aa29373f4
104260 F20101220_AAAAFH shah_m_Page_077.jpg
9d85e15ca1dd2c1be2764ec25fa79239
137b3bfd15130296629a9f2e6a46a5fc7e07e7b5
86868 F20101220_AAAAES shah_m_Page_062.jpg
19fcadfcafb6100b00d7c77a6947db25
9f74bcac987d431ea2c0a14e197c4637546cbd16
2510 F20101220_AAABHV shah_m_Page_166.txt
168f3f57fd9a4f06f99f31764e9e9e0c
89b699ef79e837a2cdff941a987ff3a5af840cc5
106705 F20101220_AAAAET shah_m_Page_063.jpg
975dc3b9ad2f92de658970eba718a59d
f1b41ada17a887f6185e791bbaa7fe7261525a20
24573 F20101220_AAABIK shah_m_Page_006.QC.jpg
a9c0a45c890ad5a08e45d655580625ec
1c595511dd2fcd1d3e595a801a8fbd60fbabd65a
2429 F20101220_AAABHW shah_m_Page_167.txt
93573a09d0deacbc7457b788d36387a3
b23e9679ec55c19a8dbb9cfc84347c140de1a522
91898 F20101220_AAAAFI shah_m_Page_078.jpg
9788eb770472071480536279afac6697
d006075d6e8e8d1e57e6f3c0ec4bc4b8fb116b5f
102627 F20101220_AAAAEU shah_m_Page_064.jpg
1f67f4c4faea530465d3bff86b7b1523
754e0a7700db326c0281180dba658dc991fdc071
28268 F20101220_AAABJA shah_m_Page_014.QC.jpg
962656383f593a856c0c708a6d843cd3
edc55f03fce445dfa28867ea6b941976e1c57690
5726 F20101220_AAABIL shah_m_Page_006thm.jpg
784b79394ac482dd82c18d6eab97c86a
ad7dd509640c679c0aeb81d75156e9fc885a6c15
2512 F20101220_AAABHX shah_m_Page_168.txt
2c949a64b98e84626be4b9eb2845cbbb
07922202af362d6439553209454d9f83e88dc0af
98360 F20101220_AAAAFJ shah_m_Page_079.jpg
6b6e90fc3131468004696358776267e8
e2b834557c2fbb83a3ae2dbdf89b38176ddee3cf
100324 F20101220_AAAAEV shah_m_Page_065.jpg
005b07e5e94fc01c87b3ef873fd820eb
3e1171af7db1b1e936de2eef0296c187ca67122d
34409 F20101220_AAABJB shah_m_Page_015.QC.jpg
f1ad5122ec88c1e96f9b327b04bebe86
46bc58d1ab012ca2d1952d74358882f218b70c22
18027 F20101220_AAABIM shah_m_Page_007.QC.jpg
21d416b4f1f592e6c316e50b44e2a223
96fd81ee57bc10021abfc382b8022fa933da8839
2303 F20101220_AAABHY shah_m_Page_169.txt
b8bfc2141b4c8ab5468a0ecea76088ec
86f24f9e566897b6b163d6cdeb9d8b8a24d32ff3
91363 F20101220_AAAAFK shah_m_Page_081.jpg
85ef94c1c7e94760ec37faac9969f257
fe3e43b9b66048ea62ad2fd2cf64b8a0ba054e7f
103910 F20101220_AAAAEW shah_m_Page_066.jpg
3756cbddf27ba1eaa5d4fbdcf372f4c3
ff33a4f285efbe6356d7783c659a28d18a88533b
33330 F20101220_AAABJC shah_m_Page_016.QC.jpg
2e100e89f7070dd1d1b90dba3bc80aa2
bfb69b86c369dc7ec3ec9a5f4a50a890a81474e0
4303 F20101220_AAABIN shah_m_Page_007thm.jpg
563ffc0bc2fd92c2119808fd07974521
5c5721bdeab9e26b53cddf5e9a79786f6aeaa2df
2418 F20101220_AAABHZ shah_m_Page_170.txt
a8c0c9ee197f9c00cd3d6195367c7d00
bb4435e73b0a78247748dbcaa4aa743b38882888
94301 F20101220_AAAAGA shah_m_Page_101.jpg
330912db69601758cd27af1cd40cfb78
7c8ab02ce7f56e43c830af24288cb6ea0928fbd5
76534 F20101220_AAAAFL shah_m_Page_083.jpg
0c3f36a63420ba134f176d43ca6406bf
7cdd8c4ed376fbd651f152365930eeb96373c814
100246 F20101220_AAAAEX shah_m_Page_067.jpg
6a17a1855f012e6156aef9ed3d6c74db
ac4b4b11e6beb82780793db14470b2f304020916
7815 F20101220_AAABJD shah_m_Page_016thm.jpg
23cf5e800cdd8680ea46ffdcf92fc48b
2ba7d380d356c472f7b6ba0f6454a2f880bc8a08
33180 F20101220_AAABIO shah_m_Page_008.QC.jpg
bae7b18e72e45f0db0b5252a85cd5ca1
affa3be16a28552f858e8097e3193415483fd7b1
103453 F20101220_AAAAGB shah_m_Page_102.jpg
ad7d943dc5c914de778fc8709c01ba03
1186580ded1072f8dbdbe4ffa8f684b7d0ecc7fd
92485 F20101220_AAAAFM shah_m_Page_084.jpg
4c4ef5415d47b5ea3cb2ec34e6116865
353bec6f4266f5c1189ee63d6abfd0c1840e3cb1
103746 F20101220_AAAAEY shah_m_Page_068.jpg
aded3aac91c3bc60918f83d45c8693b9
d7c014d3931a5ff0a58da4526ac14edaf8939a1f
31416 F20101220_AAABJE shah_m_Page_017.QC.jpg
0ad5449a447522633ce82c98d204e58c
30eca7a9d8403c578ed0033e64ee45721e2cb5d6
8337 F20101220_AAABIP shah_m_Page_008thm.jpg
c14c09bec58c33cb59e2f6506fa6fd9d
efdafe8826a3f832b170fa48081c3bd34bff70ea
98656 F20101220_AAAAGC shah_m_Page_103.jpg
336411d1d451adf90bbeec958c265e14
711338626057e4901a31203f64f668a056f30d8c
37871 F20101220_AAAAFN shah_m_Page_086.jpg
c1ac18ce50649b4d6dc04cc4b19232f6
73dc6ee887c209a6ec3378c8258bd6c6af571d28
100769 F20101220_AAAAEZ shah_m_Page_069.jpg
3c287e5153925840a377f1822141c49a
d3727c90c582e9bc2a24a40c22f9925c4e70398d
8047 F20101220_AAABJF shah_m_Page_017thm.jpg
4b2c263468118757cbe34f4619badd64
b4ebdfea95b37c9d54e6a0bce4d712056d296d8b
23277 F20101220_AAABIQ shah_m_Page_009.QC.jpg
b31a35da18c92e4d70f8463080813e3c
1a0a2a6cffc5b53f6c13e0a208a2f859718c2f84
61703 F20101220_AAAAGD shah_m_Page_104.jpg
d584fa2ca2b71549bd3d10ddb55edceb
2a4ffc09c196604afb8b88788796192245c440c6
64330 F20101220_AAAAFO shah_m_Page_087.jpg
3184a40927dc5f33295af0c8a6ea39c7
f250894525c69e0273a5904df5fb894f37596187
23013 F20101220_AAABJG shah_m_Page_018.QC.jpg
4a3c5ca04f2028e49a8f0c6a3036e403
f337f9e2e914fd028f993326674e8f69848935dc
5628 F20101220_AAABIR shah_m_Page_009thm.jpg
2bc232c4b6ecebfd9647d3ddbe4ec85b
7823523493644797f5c112cb0a7a76168586dd1b
82568 F20101220_AAAAGE shah_m_Page_105.jpg
04f4739baf41854aa9b655d749808dd7
ef25e1dd12c9fdc402b852aa98869b9ade0f2e01
85579 F20101220_AAAAFP shah_m_Page_088.jpg
157830c6d4c20895ff054c182e8f7268
52515a8f7da85c5daa918b1429fdb775c6a06345
6061 F20101220_AAABJH shah_m_Page_018thm.jpg
abe7abcaea7b25eb1766af051d63427d
05bba3aa36077a6318c957a47ef927a4d953fdbb
33659 F20101220_AAABIS shah_m_Page_010.QC.jpg
0f6bafd696eaff16c6422703a6c4de4d
d2ec22a909eaf80fdf0890d8937f80afa2ee3f8d
97059 F20101220_AAAAGF shah_m_Page_106.jpg
1ec48df9754ad60e23a979a020140afd
5f3aff9ccf99f834292cf3cbcd552d7de2827a09
84433 F20101220_AAAAFQ shah_m_Page_089.jpg
41266d677054a9c1ca5ebd0e36f5d3b0
919b85d9b13530e51c9b13ed1fe2f93b26860c96
27421 F20101220_AAABJI shah_m_Page_019.QC.jpg
10b9f8dafbf86c1dfadf14b9feac8c51
ff764e826d5b3546f5384406839cf0f587ce7d0b
8146 F20101220_AAABIT shah_m_Page_010thm.jpg
3644ff53d079a49e2d8c1b4acf00caa7
b1223dbec6f460d2150efd4b984c148198cc0504
103011 F20101220_AAAAGG shah_m_Page_107.jpg
b5baa374ec405044a7e83f4943f8dc2d
5c4fdc1ece2195396bd57c814c39c59dcfc8d77b
76791 F20101220_AAAAFR shah_m_Page_090.jpg
dc462a0ea275131f7f8e81272bc75cc5
59d5c95c65d4c61eee5af455c3de837116663609
6882 F20101220_AAABJJ shah_m_Page_019thm.jpg
822624b2670fd7de84d772c680e19e82
5ce15c6000b83a361b23737bf1babc910c9df60a
7010 F20101220_AAABIU shah_m_Page_011.QC.jpg
b9984f80fa8f8855c19177a981b5d01e
75ac92ce42390bf04d8d0275d4e0edfdeddd6d7b
100453 F20101220_AAAAGH shah_m_Page_108.jpg
4e780a34181d3d2ae65910805bb02a94
4823c18f418877b188e850581ebbd14b200869ee
34105 F20101220_AAAAFS shah_m_Page_091.jpg
cb82ef401ca513716fb63d622fb41ace
87cbf6e78c2610872574ea92e96ad1454d64164d
35020 F20101220_AAABJK shah_m_Page_020.QC.jpg
1775009be129bafa6e6640ee303be217
3d1dff5ac6626f4702b85ffc770214176d495453
2088 F20101220_AAABIV shah_m_Page_011thm.jpg
aac6905eb1d57dfbedaef4eaba0fb1e5
144e71e3e837da21e83ea6d1d4609fb805121669
104942 F20101220_AAAAGI shah_m_Page_110.jpg
a1422e52145691c959cb81457b8e2ad7
56c5d243da93340dc76686e6bf25fd6f0a4db4b6
98262 F20101220_AAAAFT shah_m_Page_092.jpg
e62149fe0c5b972974c1b67626f636f4
ae64ec2412cc75596f12981a11fa70c00118c193
26017 F20101220_AAABIW shah_m_Page_012.QC.jpg
30cc88cc5583bf896f4d7fcb2ebd5c4c
a12f8a584bf796ea82c7b9091553123b3426f9b1
103873 F20101220_AAAAFU shah_m_Page_093.jpg
ea3df327f3911770a46efd71faa9e5ba
48a62801ce9e5f98d16e446c119122c2c2ea57e5
8373 F20101220_AAABKA shah_m_Page_028thm.jpg
fd368dac1cca920de3a81c09b82b7f3d
5a99a8ae202391889bd3916a5a8816f7f9f6d0d0
34275 F20101220_AAABJL shah_m_Page_021.QC.jpg
08792d9e4c170c002883f9fde6ef3918
06b0ca358b7d3f830e3ec6bde40a9ebf114dad1a
6738 F20101220_AAABIX shah_m_Page_012thm.jpg
5f3d7ae304b3a28d282616e9747f313d
1abcd1d78915d26cb39e9bb4ef74957eb9986f68
104298 F20101220_AAAAGJ shah_m_Page_111.jpg
673ff170a7fdae36b469d2c5dd98f824
a6f332b4a4e7e9a918d38a28c434850e583322ff
96976 F20101220_AAAAFV shah_m_Page_094.jpg
63a8f075dc6e8ac08bf034882b0178c7
724f53ce3c8ff2ff0e51cdf6c5da5d07cd802a28
34568 F20101220_AAABKB shah_m_Page_029.QC.jpg
414f7c9a6dc48d8fdc155599d69be93c
273bcaed6f44805a4de548dc30781823b3c860ba
8473 F20101220_AAABJM shah_m_Page_021thm.jpg
f2ce05c31e0bfcb118c030f924c1fcb6
89b105b6534620c3e5c51c82a6a6266c33c1474a
22282 F20101220_AAABIY shah_m_Page_013.QC.jpg
4f0b3a5ad17a2ae97f64cda5a7791f7d
04a1a4ea5575e8a4f0665d362dd0f0240407be90
99884 F20101220_AAAAGK shah_m_Page_112.jpg
d00e10fcc017bc75d141f54be1162355
1b32596fcc963640ec73d909ebda91b8426f2569
93275 F20101220_AAAAFW shah_m_Page_095.jpg
455653500e71adaee0569c3e2ae03576
9b0f6cd4b95307ddd127527be0682745fbedb83b
8381 F20101220_AAABKC shah_m_Page_029thm.jpg
7102f26d9a4fe461503624d9b8970bf4
735d456604243fc1ff668752ed58f56d5f1b4270
32992 F20101220_AAABJN shah_m_Page_022.QC.jpg
ad04ce0f7d907d47e3413e159b30fd40
c8a779e53a39ddde7bc530b6ce06b09ca3f5a37d
5606 F20101220_AAABIZ shah_m_Page_013thm.jpg
697b960af899d4daf0c7928219eccc64
9dd54a93bafcdbaed4f9111dfbdecb2105586018
103836 F20101220_AAAAGL shah_m_Page_113.jpg
fb77e64812f8f90610fa07db4639c3eb
be8ecb5a5c06cb4a846514d2d8038f9886edde6e
82978 F20101220_AAAAFX shah_m_Page_096.jpg
afa091f39d71ab0b1e36875a72850397
47bde7d2f4c078410b77f5c08288162ba340fc93
90228 F20101220_AAAAHA shah_m_Page_128.jpg
f3fdd6344ca7330b3680a509a0cc745a
4f38ea0e1140883f563e6dec3ee3db0fbe6148eb
35271 F20101220_AAABKD shah_m_Page_030.QC.jpg
43d8c43f64d5ecef3410ebf8fb44d2f0
5f58407b0b52822b7a5b42916aa1e1fc6d172428
8092 F20101220_AAABJO shah_m_Page_022thm.jpg
cbb9d83a081bc957f9d2cfe852071a53
eafb110f7ac9b840114274e5fc0f1c1fe15ab361
105414 F20101220_AAAAGM shah_m_Page_114.jpg
26d3f3d8a5d895597d579bd60b8d04c9
734329b7f716e618eccaacdf38de1e6958d4f4bc
95574 F20101220_AAAAFY shah_m_Page_098.jpg
b9bf77549120cd7a1efd8a33ccee1fec
f498a0a7a14e17a6da83087754d60e41fdfbd0cd
69337 F20101220_AAAAHB shah_m_Page_129.jpg
d34ece8bcd9d549e60f70958eb131717
e68fb10b15532790bcd4fe84b136d38ba42ac375
8579 F20101220_AAABKE shah_m_Page_030thm.jpg
46aa9522b51ed4f8e60a5f6909eb359f
78b0a378197965b5ee7d9f321d850d6e8f1dcad1
33455 F20101220_AAABJP shah_m_Page_023.QC.jpg
5511ca26b708d0b1bbc2a0552d28393a
b46841a37342a04e27f71930aa301de11303a56a
95842 F20101220_AAAAGN shah_m_Page_115.jpg
ba597bb4ead7938a80cf67a68be1ce80
02088e7f5173559d6e24fdd76a06f3f7b64a7f85
106179 F20101220_AAAAFZ shah_m_Page_100.jpg
731d146526226a42ea6000cecb3f1c08
a14518bec78c111b355a717be7c1a990c1dc9d4c
67527 F20101220_AAAAHC shah_m_Page_130.jpg
795d1a24801aacffb826c69075cbc6df
dbfd46c30b62d6791fc3780e67b8f03f7ceec87a
31950 F20101220_AAABKF shah_m_Page_031.QC.jpg
8040a35752654b667d68c116c20f8914
9cf15624fb3f56748ac7d6ea9debdcbc87500a6f
8231 F20101220_AAABJQ shah_m_Page_023thm.jpg
444a30b32e5b23157634d54cd48b026b
968affb9e25d416bae266cbf7bd4f9bf6f17c34c
98815 F20101220_AAAAGO shah_m_Page_116.jpg
2811cf4ce749f11b869e589aa2cd8957
c6ced4c3c009b990ca2ef797c4ad71dce6d4e1b3
71337 F20101220_AAAAHD shah_m_Page_132.jpg
5f0963bd14961463fc72e8d82e096a15
7ad1e17c1fb6f433ff31c784247d989f16c3876c
8210 F20101220_AAABKG shah_m_Page_031thm.jpg
d4ea1042feb8ddeb0b02bdcf3ee5a099
594f079b0116f39f8926134a32625f22c7cb1795
33408 F20101220_AAABJR shah_m_Page_024.QC.jpg
4d3c2f1284cbcfdebbac9ea585d85e20
565ccb1de2b87fc9ae525eee9fcd48a5aa13c7fd
104207 F20101220_AAAAGP shah_m_Page_117.jpg
c79df506b416ab56d8a4e1240ffaedb3
3f2707443ca077d90dec6954fce2e35e72686bb2
65195 F20101220_AAAAHE shah_m_Page_133.jpg
834bc5e3ed8e4eebbd91d2ae6959a167
eed6bf1b438b21e06c924a7658bda9b6cef84716
32692 F20101220_AAABKH shah_m_Page_032.QC.jpg
b304c875438b92ee18df318f57f94352
f6490e79b3bf2af0eba4454d1f130e5e74814699
8152 F20101220_AAABJS shah_m_Page_024thm.jpg
d6eeff26dd7841dc8c4be232841d04ee
238ab36a23ae859df1ba30a78c31cea6aaab1625
93691 F20101220_AAAAGQ shah_m_Page_118.jpg
3f35e3738d696c72b1fc6d3b7e3a920e
f9dfd60becd896453155f522f918c5b8f1a4bdf6
55237 F20101220_AAAAHF shah_m_Page_134.jpg
1ce314a01198b59f6663d6f673df1be5
930f744e5415e547f4a295770c746a68c7affb2d
8217 F20101220_AAABKI shah_m_Page_032thm.jpg
85f7ddee976bdb7c408059c7959ab805
ab4dae3af6428ee58932525ea9ff9ee89d98b8e3
35056 F20101220_AAABJT shah_m_Page_025.QC.jpg
97759a645e54c09c950e2a984322efd2
109c84e7f5eae967b06466705d401dd133a39174
72528 F20101220_AAAAGR shah_m_Page_119.jpg
a528d6bf057006eebcf5b872a4250f70
f6ecf0c0842a4db34c5040fef81664207f1304fb
49086 F20101220_AAAAHG shah_m_Page_135.jpg
b1a34ee29863f6407dee18ab0324000c
c3e716d50eb1815d3691aded67db3d47e206dea3
F20101220_AAABKJ shah_m_Page_033.QC.jpg
71dda779e7ab30ea4c88db84f0044d73
8c085295a93058da432a0117ac3a245bad653a14
8583 F20101220_AAABJU shah_m_Page_025thm.jpg
855254828096aeff8de859227e0db6bd
8a30f2fb2c70e4633d9a9f396c6c5133623e2440
83301 F20101220_AAAAGS shah_m_Page_120.jpg
84deccb227d28fac2bf5a77113de2966
d08f8e62f1a845e9a11a91a9f8db7da8c6e76ca7
86006 F20101220_AAAAHH shah_m_Page_136.jpg
4d2fb4b474669ac4402af4020145f4e2
a8cf4a347c68c0c939b72909fdc12fa381d3ae5e
8394 F20101220_AAABKK shah_m_Page_033thm.jpg
1792a1b59d389ee80ba89c3d9864fa53
82606336e6f0cf536dae4bb18b333ebac26bb199
34519 F20101220_AAABJV shah_m_Page_026.QC.jpg
0a12d2dca9b987929bef69a4f4e7b23b
2ada8f5aea6726d06432129b0859d96eafadbb16
100620 F20101220_AAAAGT shah_m_Page_121.jpg
7bc8af05754990b30fbdbcfe061f9a4d
78d5b2e08851bc9620181482eb6699eb52a36353
66697 F20101220_AAAAHI shah_m_Page_137.jpg
e58a647d36eeaf8e84e7f7bdcdf21f0d
e216184ff6ea90037091a3a08192c114616824cc
34131 F20101220_AAABKL shah_m_Page_034.QC.jpg
d6866aff60b4bddbb3a75bdb770fa5a5
fa33e08c68593f336b4294b387b6505918b38ce9
8238 F20101220_AAABJW shah_m_Page_026thm.jpg
169970a0eff001b6ad3ba303b26d5497
b27a3824c22f567d83be4e59641ab7f2f0ccf0c9
95773 F20101220_AAAAGU shah_m_Page_122.jpg
9b25f91502c549fedbe4f311cf71c52b
6e0f65356866cd13397ddc2d3ecfc470003c67cb
62440 F20101220_AAAAHJ shah_m_Page_139.jpg
af5549859ff8b8f84f36ed9d8845a6d5
76df9de6b5d968e6085217a1afa7b12a3380ec49
7661 F20101220_AAABLA shah_m_Page_042thm.jpg
3de08d1f5f2d743a65b5bf0edc1a89f9
dec307c49a422a57c6e4bc60c80964114b867f72
32710 F20101220_AAABJX shah_m_Page_027.QC.jpg
08acce9e6ca8d7d9d1d183dff51e4d50
d7676a8ce793b7c5f64534597d3a8d6320fa580b
67058 F20101220_AAAAGV shah_m_Page_123.jpg
48d6d52670f1667f48d15b1faf710f36
f4e3216d2551deba8075052f4d82ae649ac04f54
33176 F20101220_AAABLB shah_m_Page_043.QC.jpg
ce20fa3a90f52e90ffc121158c09784d
584b94f6f09892d1361907c220a145f83e13ceac
35966 F20101220_AAABKM shah_m_Page_035.QC.jpg
9368a30d70b3571894d14031761e3412
5282c1d6874c60fd3fbfcb19858769064d838e41
8134 F20101220_AAABJY shah_m_Page_027thm.jpg
bd08bb59b3b75ed84bdb2a0e45c4b3cc
2d9628e1a69147cbf090df0c4152bf3664de4be8
57189 F20101220_AAAAHK shah_m_Page_140.jpg
260ed2de50782a0cb746d64b65d44ecd
6a14cc77beca8fd3be5369b8abdd080f42a71f80
63064 F20101220_AAAAGW shah_m_Page_124.jpg
e3fccb876fdaf2013fde8a3fd077863a
6a481f888f9caa93b472d75d4976cc082db573a2
31867 F20101220_AAABLC shah_m_Page_044.QC.jpg
c38797f84d1a8273bb49d31587b8a4c5
ba1cd00c42ae65ce257791307241034b93a7cc11
8722 F20101220_AAABKN shah_m_Page_035thm.jpg
facd3df76f459a86288cdf7032b0217a
1fc5b11c34bcb20794e8f42477e1d0fd3135ab38
32968 F20101220_AAABJZ shah_m_Page_028.QC.jpg
a591ff928484f55f4750dc4409e9a8f0
3268ac52edf2b70293aaecca5d5b36f11e2f1da8
37771 F20101220_AAAAIA shah_m_Page_157.jpg
635cf6aa2d6dfc65ef8ac0af396dd0da
1746577289d562f0b5b337843705e117923fe2bd
68388 F20101220_AAAAHL shah_m_Page_141.jpg
b1a7bb1ff03518d0d31c0f57157eaceb
ae7c4261cda9cef3a1751c556a3b8867428ca6b7
65032 F20101220_AAAAGX shah_m_Page_125.jpg
0faa62bf9b352ce97107a9b6dcbd2561
ba4441718202544404f65f487dd9b2dae7afd530
8173 F20101220_AAABLD shah_m_Page_044thm.jpg
d1e8b16f9a04154a420cbec2bf58abdf
dd53a4ede10133bf5c27e1c83aaf7f253015b3f9
31597 F20101220_AAABKO shah_m_Page_036.QC.jpg
91945c959cec7b16016f588b6201bd25
64326ee06f89016e72bf6dd7c7d1dbd864a87afb
22778 F20101220_AAAAIB shah_m_Page_158.jpg
4046ff84396b7ccbe424c14b6a550728
f55afa97069ef6c1dbe785399b642b1dbdefd28c
72806 F20101220_AAAAHM shah_m_Page_142.jpg
8f88e3b214a644586bc9eb8c10357879
0f4dda7f971e92436caf8ff0843a476308bf149d
61948 F20101220_AAAAGY shah_m_Page_126.jpg
9b1c74c69dbc9d896fc62cd9eeb86d69
5991dc37ce3bec75d91692cf0479d9c68c8ca32c
31607 F20101220_AAABLE shah_m_Page_045.QC.jpg
19214c943201bf58bea2f4bf6c0ff5d2
438ace79983330a47247d6ab56833836be726975
8073 F20101220_AAABKP shah_m_Page_036thm.jpg
6aa3b783c67ff445301d95b8698b2754
4e554ff8c88e12cd7cea059541814b8d125772f9
86360 F20101220_AAAAIC shah_m_Page_159.jpg
7df55227e2515ebc17c4cebf75fdcc93
35d0c9eee30424788beead65ca749f645c35df87
75549 F20101220_AAAAHN shah_m_Page_143.jpg
25f3541779c707485e786309d0916775
9ad5facaa5b2ef5141670b6c01cbc35f235cf630
43405 F20101220_AAAAGZ shah_m_Page_127.jpg
9554768b70a2dc6109ba1df9266a909c
70bdf271db23527c715a3290cc5a8a864d860ec3
8042 F20101220_AAABLF shah_m_Page_045thm.jpg
b321864cd1e870609f95fe0facb6fd7c
37e4b1621bde8653b78a38e17dbc94afdff27661
35091 F20101220_AAABKQ shah_m_Page_037.QC.jpg
528ba1d64ebdffffd2d66b48a9465558
0595c66a5cfbaa9083882ecf393826f86e6ba202
74280 F20101220_AAAAID shah_m_Page_160.jpg
93dbfb1a713978185b9b2fc3cb3ee4f2
73089425ac38e1ddd38cfa2edd38e5c2ad73d844
73419 F20101220_AAAAHO shah_m_Page_144.jpg
d2aa42b897fa2e0e795826bc2c893d7d
7d22bddd152e03c8da5a8905a172b2ad5d9083b9
33918 F20101220_AAABLG shah_m_Page_046.QC.jpg
40a33a8dcd8b30e9bd40c38e15bfab82
3aedb90097b7d99f4a9760619c82f6e3482a380b
8475 F20101220_AAABKR shah_m_Page_037thm.jpg
c355061a2c42263ffca488022bb4e3ad
984776305873f02ef2b32eada12d7e06155232a2
106066 F20101220_AAAAIE shah_m_Page_161.jpg
84800affce608862380365fbfd9dca77
db345080e00fdb97bebad681fd7f193d57c82a2d
72330 F20101220_AAAAHP shah_m_Page_145.jpg
da55972619bed2e8c6a397f4e6dc70a7
112f66e06d69d6405c43135e50ed6e6fc4cac53b
8081 F20101220_AAABLH shah_m_Page_046thm.jpg
927951df1c7cab39e644d9b4427b000d
d98c0baf26a890426fd474f6751adf2a4153225e
34323 F20101220_AAABKS shah_m_Page_038.QC.jpg
441e01112b51a09e5f6f2253bb6b47d8
cbf305a48d372b55ee7ade8d7744e843cb8a7713
120932 F20101220_AAAAIF shah_m_Page_162.jpg
d598b4e5f05be27e282796cc279f8af9
15a756d4b3aaa153f4ae651d8050a5646af5d93b
60924 F20101220_AAAAHQ shah_m_Page_146.jpg
8cae2c54227794b28215e07195145baf
80ea37952a95c9c980e58b62fd2b46bb924beaec
31018 F20101220_AAABLI shah_m_Page_047.QC.jpg
e1f59ad1cc4d3f677b3110c7ca886346
e7a3f4781b3fecfb05abad307cc3723eee3f17c6
8349 F20101220_AAABKT shah_m_Page_038thm.jpg
36f1a91cd4e9d2e4d1cfdbd7895e65c8
b40fd9e0f9ee3cdbc747366ace89406845879cc3
109721 F20101220_AAAAIG shah_m_Page_163.jpg
4cd39d0bb527eb6aae4e36715c323210
c90818cd1d4c15b682f70c4f16fd52a055e62a73
44601 F20101220_AAAAHR shah_m_Page_147.jpg
8d00be7adebbb6401980084f80597bbd
8410ea23f525039d7f492cb3e3755c91aa60c81f
8117 F20101220_AAABLJ shah_m_Page_047thm.jpg
df13da9a4b56a0a550f8eba84edacb11
3a3f423daa977155be2df41df4b40ffc477472b3
34816 F20101220_AAABKU shah_m_Page_039.QC.jpg
00198c5e1afb02f675b1c1e2d3bd2907
0759b112322081712afe7dc2ff020a220803e01e
122154 F20101220_AAAAIH shah_m_Page_164.jpg
b81f9b478b751a23c0b7e8bb97657229
6ea78163646658ee2c0d8775f50090bde6a85d6f
40724 F20101220_AAAAHS shah_m_Page_148.jpg
027c5dcbd561cb0e834add22cfc0e6f0
395ab4cabd93fd6f5f7fae00ac7c62e88e0cf4fe
27328 F20101220_AAABLK shah_m_Page_048.QC.jpg
6ea44ea33f74ce82fe9f515f8473462f
ec961e11c2dd514285c62a058c6e2ee411dbf6d4
8553 F20101220_AAABKV shah_m_Page_039thm.jpg
38ca41596347729aab8bfa53b092b8f0
7fe542f46778c14149946ad452e6d700b9b2ba37
106752 F20101220_AAAAII shah_m_Page_165.jpg
bd395fe5604db7ea3313a4a281e3c629
0d62bf090b07b2737800f764b8d085606a240e94
60287 F20101220_AAAAHT shah_m_Page_149.jpg
68a24166812faa50ed246a36713a5a04
f77891506ec89c9908278c69d793bc77fee268f0
6842 F20101220_AAABLL shah_m_Page_048thm.jpg
88fe7558ac53ca2fb0667dbac9ee142c
4242f643dbee915b665ef89e8182d4d058b0b21d
36056 F20101220_AAABKW shah_m_Page_040.QC.jpg
39f67a31ce7dab8fced2d65a9045bd57
4e00bd81acb77329eee6afd42fc45b9c5b77ffe5
125223 F20101220_AAAAIJ shah_m_Page_166.jpg
5c74c19ee15e02bd815f51fbdbef696e
e5635bd9cf067966e57b55b66a76cb358e50db13
52231 F20101220_AAAAHU shah_m_Page_150.jpg
a8634a185fb7966ce0cda84b866005ee
9f9855841eb63fd00ca5e29b4c708b8583ead0fb
8139 F20101220_AAABMA shah_m_Page_056thm.jpg
adefa6ba2b7a9dfcea997d5ebe893b9d
1512fe43c9487ef5596bd5af6d50840014c4f1cc
31000 F20101220_AAABLM shah_m_Page_049.QC.jpg
0c292194a778c644136245aae134c56f
eb51b7e9fb1c8cbbdf5aa8ea3e5d17acb0138202
8697 F20101220_AAABKX shah_m_Page_040thm.jpg
efd4a110ee4556deb33c42e832b9b25e
d481db6a0e1836ae4d5092044209f14009c88c33
121816 F20101220_AAAAIK shah_m_Page_167.jpg
cfe38cc4e84ab38f407c990ee974f121
98dcbf631cf58d85b63ca49cf7688aaa266306d6
60567 F20101220_AAAAHV shah_m_Page_152.jpg
5badad30cc65698a75d8240bfbe7324e
29962169674e0862fba7d247809b9862ce7b78cd
30932 F20101220_AAABMB shah_m_Page_057.QC.jpg
0fe7fe58b31a0322277ae2ab4e0d955b
27464b69980a3589f23466f236767e3e04014fb1
35618 F20101220_AAABKY shah_m_Page_041.QC.jpg
f102f5457671faae19a2f616050ac64e
11ac04e55151024211d5ccc0384c18d9b9a610c6
46317 F20101220_AAAAHW shah_m_Page_153.jpg
1dfc7308bdd18dd02b7821f27d422ce9
f7366a75d6351b4a4f4caf981984baa35f162999
7718 F20101220_AAABMC shah_m_Page_057thm.jpg
211f0f8decdc7d909b8bd21cfe017350
97004ae39a08988bd3a661cea63477a8ca59c4d8
8176 F20101220_AAABLN shah_m_Page_049thm.jpg
992d9a7be47404b7f8cd701a7c78fda1
c6a5ade91b19ebb7233e8717950c42a1ab39af39
8570 F20101220_AAABKZ shah_m_Page_041thm.jpg
3916a09100290b90823411d072dde94e
4f4743030610c1dd8ca6f0e330f520f5d8e1a09b
127892 F20101220_AAAAIL shah_m_Page_168.jpg
ba9f84b8b7efb672527fb431bdaadb49
1e60768ed6f46766e3f537ae925e140b295a46ca
23498 F20101220_AAAAHX shah_m_Page_154.jpg
ff029c419a54f9f643fe09fe36fd3af8
8b2e88e8fe51aab9ce97c760ed5c9b966dd23c03
423479 F20101220_AAAAJA shah_m_Page_011.jp2
1c77cd9697d844e71ae8cb33e8934398
eac306ee0e96c1c59a8c5c6ec1e6395b7363c34c
34544 F20101220_AAABMD shah_m_Page_058.QC.jpg
06760c11db9854923612b3d6a814a2e6
a2b0fee680913f8a6b88def5e9c4148efe2c56c5
33102 F20101220_AAABLO shah_m_Page_050.QC.jpg
329f075589906f3b82915321ca008289
3299547b71df59f832181490887c9652a5815a80
118834 F20101220_AAAAIM shah_m_Page_169.jpg
7426f50f1bdc855fe321bc8ce3302692
4d0614b4247e9d9559119018e1a09ead7c20ac23
26899 F20101220_AAAAHY shah_m_Page_155.jpg
75ae49a9a465b32043ea1e439fc7ac38
b92a67cdc5695c478b7d109c90caa8eb2c89fc10
88942 F20101220_AAAAJB shah_m_Page_012.jp2
dc97b775bcdc624d9548eb4ddcebad97
00df7cee51c2db2afeb403ffac0829ec067df90c
8426 F20101220_AAABME shah_m_Page_058thm.jpg
189500c8f8b7b2f048a10b888b077af0
f7daabc984d24c06c59a89d0affc16e762a02ac0
8434 F20101220_AAABLP shah_m_Page_050thm.jpg
bfb6dbdb7e71ce88ccf00ffc3135bff3
5a0921d31d8bd561dc9856bf706e5eb9aa22b038
125387 F20101220_AAAAIN shah_m_Page_170.jpg
2fa0149351521c6de9e0d40819bb59e3
c647a2efee4e6c74e2cc57cf3d9c26b8b0984c1f
37718 F20101220_AAAAHZ shah_m_Page_156.jpg
2819c31e47ecfc288bac61bc5bfb75b1
78a32a5710784b82191525fa78e8e9715989c47c
73424 F20101220_AAAAJC shah_m_Page_013.jp2
2b0364604137ef07b409d93d902a8608
a75e1cbb5e56d569be72ee134f9929ae71a0a5e6
27424 F20101220_AAABMF shah_m_Page_059.QC.jpg
e382d20e5563a37f2a3e4dcaa1299eea
6e5fe824edd255f02daf00d40eddb6a3cb7a180e
8489 F20101220_AAABLQ shah_m_Page_051thm.jpg
ceed6c70f457f94879e370afdd92c795
5bfd1ec97e3ea9109e7de8339e160d45fe81cc5c
56696 F20101220_AAAAIO shah_m_Page_171.jpg
4974b3cca8ac988d823ad017f8ccc310
611d3d543e965369e607d0c323207aa17be4b6e7
96509 F20101220_AAAAJD shah_m_Page_014.jp2
2cc346a8f4c0281f3bde0cc38ae4f543
29d8d96ac4ad9ef0917a12cc2dd3bcf7190d0eb9
7097 F20101220_AAABMG shah_m_Page_059thm.jpg
b389616d664803ecf599a8f3b516d196
959bcb807edd3143458d63e16dfd12e123e1e85f
30224 F20101220_AAABLR shah_m_Page_052.QC.jpg
67a9d804b7223822b835712cf2836940
9e36fd901e85096360884b52888272b3a2dbc336
87603 F20101220_AAAAIP shah_m_Page_172.jpg
aaafc51ba4def1a9c0357d47662c7e59
ecfdb9896fa9181042d5ef968394440cdc29664b
110469 F20101220_AAAAJE shah_m_Page_015.jp2
d9504223e21138def51f6190f89d201e
336ce97da0a31ad18176d6340f43778a283c8db0
24616 F20101220_AAABMH shah_m_Page_060.QC.jpg
24aebad186450e6e2f530f47ba83ae1f
65c747b4e4e61898644c78c0d5f86c8140c96ff2
7216 F20101220_AAABLS shah_m_Page_052thm.jpg
62f52cbdd7de3b66799ec28764530c98
765702f5b3ec2fb9cf5d5085617e7d0f126217f2
28973 F20101220_AAAAIQ shah_m_Page_001.jp2
3f9ee71aa7cf68f1f695cb3f9aa81959
06bb532e349277f6d820ab28f0e485e1d96afe38
108558 F20101220_AAAAJF shah_m_Page_016.jp2
42efcc93ac3ba8646338acc4c995dd1a
64f731deca0298411fe8c3b752a007d848100aef
6771 F20101220_AAABMI shah_m_Page_060thm.jpg
84becac5f4297c1dd150659da5710937
721153d1e4f9d2a04c1b0c45d5cd6894df5509d0
28480 F20101220_AAABLT shah_m_Page_053.QC.jpg
8a27f730fdc02ec8769075a2a8e6265d
c8cf43b13ec6bf92d351f252813c01e9e0127288
5743 F20101220_AAAAIR shah_m_Page_002.jp2
df96e76ea0bf327f9ed83e79086083fe
6976a2bab94139d2009f7b98633a9f64ff23cb95
104805 F20101220_AAAAJG shah_m_Page_017.jp2
102b0dacfbead17a2964beb89463e55e
3453c09b0ce2b4a52e2f24f44b1943d219bb5c53
8851 F20101220_AAABMJ shah_m_Page_061.QC.jpg
4e354526e1dd16223fed0f97295c0b3d
88041c496fca541116721dcbee3456ff951e5cc3
7343 F20101220_AAABLU shah_m_Page_053thm.jpg
757574b09fd92d0e9038428748495d9e
2dbf0869d4ae904f02ea9abd0cc2a16a0c9112b3
8121 F20101220_AAAAIS shah_m_Page_003.jp2
843febef7c27196a6068825edabf79c3
3dd69b23d33aa7d6f25c8d70f8b3b33c89cb1c05
84894 F20101220_AAAAJH shah_m_Page_018.jp2
86078e8b433fedf1a242573d54086b7d
071a91e3f04278c35cec91b7fce89a04113ee584
2291 F20101220_AAABMK shah_m_Page_061thm.jpg
18735658dd68e3f8aa6651340d5062cf
c4a4b1d6cdb70015d1ec77069403f60a52beb478
34173 F20101220_AAABLV shah_m_Page_054.QC.jpg
7ae5f07d961446daecead61b77ce0b36
e22a284127816175e1dcb2dcbdf0fadeac93be69
51386 F20101220_AAAAIT shah_m_Page_004.jp2
8c2d64dc90c851efa810b14ce386a667
a8e48dd3875ec0c4a4fc0b64dbd186a19268094c
92279 F20101220_AAAAJI shah_m_Page_019.jp2
2282190eb20ff0d3007f40e331a26196
d1203a026666eb9873a30b2870273a37c9a1cf35
27284 F20101220_AAABML shah_m_Page_062.QC.jpg
1666136bbb0c93a5b20641a48a167a50
84229aebc4e5d6346ccddefd77389b996440dffc
8123 F20101220_AAABLW shah_m_Page_054thm.jpg
4f4036462e1148e3c60070e1e13c5de4
3568a93b043810187535c3b7426908bb3558d5af
1051976 F20101220_AAAAIU shah_m_Page_005.jp2
0aed45d0c8ba2be82236a6603ad64922
562119c58008bce28290e1fafdc9593fb7955f12
112714 F20101220_AAAAJJ shah_m_Page_020.jp2
e149bcb968d9db07f844238a8c83fd73
f430a22202250fe5578dca74340a9dc5ddedfd00
8083 F20101220_AAABNA shah_m_Page_069thm.jpg
3f8f870c9485902e882ceae1a5d5c9ee
64e6451f92ff0918d239874e093855697d88b89a
7131 F20101220_AAABMM shah_m_Page_062thm.jpg
8cb5fd0c0fbf1fc53293922ed7d7fe3d
4c529763f67811253a82e335ff6eae2d8c0e6d05
36436 F20101220_AAABLX shah_m_Page_055.QC.jpg
a3cdb2f780595c8dc750586ee40372ff
6f206c3a595984107b5f14323ba997682ed677e1
1051985 F20101220_AAAAIV shah_m_Page_006.jp2
6ca7fa79371aacd12c168f87d42f1e49
84b78e08602563b36e2100a06a3768001cbe1aa8
111438 F20101220_AAAAJK shah_m_Page_021.jp2
bd2784a6b7f9932e4ab52ac47d803d1b
6e4ec9bd9fbdcfe78b02fc5caeffbacc3777af15
33596 F20101220_AAABNB shah_m_Page_070.QC.jpg
2b7feaa0956c439fc7c692fac68be7f9
5d0e04b3c5dcb7cdb52bcc3587f4fea5e3b84002
34563 F20101220_AAABMN shah_m_Page_063.QC.jpg
c5737aa325dad8d7364d4e77213f4551
b4b3b8f880d43bbe7604bec040d55a60d96df1b7
8771 F20101220_AAABLY shah_m_Page_055thm.jpg
5bc67c5c1f0f348252b374070df9f656
91121dd1a278cce8cd87f9316dece83c989b4fd5
1051977 F20101220_AAAAIW shah_m_Page_007.jp2
01c90ab45fa2054e12afbe9e359d6caa
e0f118d9adf026e5c9b9c951687e06220f4f4030
106494 F20101220_AAAAJL shah_m_Page_022.jp2
def8691765fe43032d975006872c8b3b
9f59694c289cd88158e2ae5cbc270d4057236a7f
8347 F20101220_AAABNC shah_m_Page_070thm.jpg
c837013ab6d36b7d2e27d683f5a0afc6
b15ece1a7b6c999f45aaf54c58140505bbd7e2e2
32124 F20101220_AAABLZ shah_m_Page_056.QC.jpg
eecdcb9b88256b95fc615f17610f2b6e
9c6fa58dcc46fade817648671122582732426964
1051981 F20101220_AAAAIX shah_m_Page_008.jp2
e12fcfc9c2928dc8ec6ae441bb7b5e7f
3215fc700ef48f3eb86480b98fb01371e0662a7b
113654 F20101220_AAAAKA shah_m_Page_037.jp2
2de6d708d61a8e51cd6eedc8dbf7cd9b
8b88a3ddc86762961d87e1478d08eb6ef62ee530
35093 F20101220_AAABND shah_m_Page_071.QC.jpg
f07e9f1a812fab9a1dc1df079a710792
d17a48b83d942b3618a2b52357abeeedc70807ed
8345 F20101220_AAABMO shah_m_Page_063thm.jpg
5e4aeb8e8dcdaaf9803fb5f0ae16f995
23c27aa931c97f19bc66ba9dd08fd0751d7584b6
1051975 F20101220_AAAAIY shah_m_Page_009.jp2
845d9a925607a3c7d9e4ff0292c42821
c0388627ad6111d19327c422eb031e1702011c8b
111187 F20101220_AAAAKB shah_m_Page_038.jp2
eb0a19ef521cdf4b0f7af1993d6fdfe4
edc9976d0112af59746ea4898e365b8d7738ecbf
109042 F20101220_AAAAJM shah_m_Page_023.jp2
dcefc63bedb751ad188b6bea2b4f205f
6a5d5e8592ee7a37dbf6e1d3fbd7aa1898d79d62
8711 F20101220_AAABNE shah_m_Page_071thm.jpg
7c8b87d70c0fba337174eafeb1d11972
b389bf59a34fd2ca35a59991539d0421dda35fe9
33536 F20101220_AAABMP shah_m_Page_064.QC.jpg
e9faa3e85541ddb3cef93ca44ebf881e
e5b7088a4d1a32d9e067fe495d476f1cab4dca8c
1051986 F20101220_AAAAIZ shah_m_Page_010.jp2
ef41a26e28e95d86939089278c933470
58030d6813461079215482e0bc00f66b885eec20
114706 F20101220_AAAAKC shah_m_Page_039.jp2
3e576d95efd94c87c08cd530c80e2196
988197fb0e351ee22ab842fcd8018290635e5d23
108031 F20101220_AAAAJN shah_m_Page_024.jp2
0c0135c4c936e11803cbcbfbba453c66
da609e109756499fc6a3435b171623ba9af798e1
35594 F20101220_AAABNF shah_m_Page_072.QC.jpg
952597eb951e8160c7efce1e41eaa70e
6996cc90fc8f3007b0a3d4b66cb8a740e94dcd72
8232 F20101220_AAABMQ shah_m_Page_064thm.jpg
878b27f1104007ce2bc28c2efb383ed9
1e993c8d56e17a56c091fbbb79b70c685847c924
116667 F20101220_AAAAKD shah_m_Page_040.jp2
ae5dc6937b5f322838ba7a1ee4781715
369470665b49c1990106a54cdab0f848c3889f4b
112133 F20101220_AAAAJO shah_m_Page_025.jp2
bba1dabf687867945c9fc4a7c58e2925
800d024fbeb10f02c1f02d165ddd51bb9b593c33
8651 F20101220_AAABNG shah_m_Page_072thm.jpg
d042fda2462774ca846e8c8ded084f9e
1c7992308d5556cec4a7eceb9137f35fe5dfa2aa
32850 F20101220_AAABMR shah_m_Page_065.QC.jpg
f65dea36ee9cf9ab0067c6f0ec59248d
91e3066ca806d82059e18ecb1bcff1d4980d59ce
114601 F20101220_AAAAKE shah_m_Page_041.jp2
b81aa8cba36892caa31386a17a5810ef
c569a7916728aca4fc07e5c1ad0f233b6315b231
112894 F20101220_AAAAJP shah_m_Page_026.jp2
856bdedc123930ce499d92aa34dd701b
f998caa69366952631daee57117326e04215dda5
35545 F20101220_AAABNH shah_m_Page_073.QC.jpg
f532be96a26f49d4e120ac6fedddc131
1ff18cde7a0d29b6aa8fea23d657b92f1f216439
7888 F20101220_AAABMS shah_m_Page_065thm.jpg
36584671574ff476f4889a0c88ef0290
88bf1dfc5e0e65b0079511d446269804f8b69cf3
101094 F20101220_AAAAKF shah_m_Page_042.jp2
05f4b7067cab7336d3fdee491de0bad2
93ca62f74632bf3eda1bac5648c9a678541a6068
107696 F20101220_AAAAJQ shah_m_Page_027.jp2
3201309d10c5c8d4c61d81be7fe06537
cf071b7e6d5498ac300d2d875b163147f765309e
8645 F20101220_AAABNI shah_m_Page_073thm.jpg
59b73498976beff0a7d059a0654fecb7
8a18009e96bf33d958d5535cff49247f4f5be7fe
33965 F20101220_AAABMT shah_m_Page_066.QC.jpg
54eeef191a2af8e5bec064804362bde6
6b7f8b6044f9b7bca8eb20e0fb37d60308aefdba
110084 F20101220_AAAAKG shah_m_Page_043.jp2
d107917e7af70edd43e69b773b3797cb
e5d9b4ce6c7649ec9857518ca79eda855c2ccc5c
107834 F20101220_AAAAJR shah_m_Page_028.jp2
e240583a5342c30daf593300c5c0a84f
ead1bf66f6559e6f22458bc7487c757a3d0d3e4d
32623 F20101220_AAABNJ shah_m_Page_074.QC.jpg
3f9fec601d5bafe23a3f7eedccc8c806
6625980321b845fdd82d190b45678268f0224ecd
8508 F20101220_AAABMU shah_m_Page_066thm.jpg
6e6c3b41c269cbb3315a7c9088de1c53
44c445fc3f7b333aa650613122d6f76bbde0528b
107202 F20101220_AAAAKH shah_m_Page_044.jp2
c871376cc647cb03d0957bea300704f1
92c653e981f96fef4b9283baaf88c82664353afe
111672 F20101220_AAAAJS shah_m_Page_029.jp2
00e1539e2c14e70ca5a3cf18418b280d
16510254ddaa03dc359bb98aa70264139512b803
8271 F20101220_AAABNK shah_m_Page_074thm.jpg
d21c4a5ebba6905e20151215cd5e496f
9611b8b867f9ea022d2c8dcdc9106e11b63108d6
33388 F20101220_AAABMV shah_m_Page_067.QC.jpg
3bff34fba4f7a3fbc82ef6b645ad8d0c
72b661b36d6d1c851d61c3121c41ae5e41fefcca
107442 F20101220_AAAAKI shah_m_Page_045.jp2
46eb21d15181ef5e5d84cd203b8c2abe
8a44514ef1bed7ed5e38bfbbe9d5110778724466
112782 F20101220_AAAAJT shah_m_Page_030.jp2
e303853518b9e7f2ecf2a468b67f23db
06516dbda6ce1b54fc0b29f7653dc78ec2436d68
27823 F20101220_AAABNL shah_m_Page_075.QC.jpg
47895c8354132aab54dcf2acc41cbf8b
c71ae5e1214ada25477b207b2b24a33b4b845089
8358 F20101220_AAABMW shah_m_Page_067thm.jpg
15a358951857dee26c9d8e70902841ef
9cd5f8317a1f639aab4a21052d6e77e7b8dd0b0b
112018 F20101220_AAAAKJ shah_m_Page_046.jp2
e231808664151d379199743fa6d76451
ec87ca7a9eb7f2ce940c529f6fafa80497f30542
106048 F20101220_AAAAJU shah_m_Page_031.jp2
70c79abfeb77b6d3de4e819ee89f6071
7b5f0bd1bd6e52fed7d182f5c5e403b2377f1c14
25167 F20101220_AAABOA shah_m_Page_083.QC.jpg
ee06ae387489f79147d60d446709adc4
11ef711f22d5be55b1e6c166a0ee10044a0205bc
30410 F20101220_AAABNM shah_m_Page_076.QC.jpg
ca6f037f94c3ebcdd3d21550955e3609
4b2063ff94ae102f1c1f9dadb86530191e87abf6
33467 F20101220_AAABMX shah_m_Page_068.QC.jpg
78c2afde8ca81b1eb17882cddd55e858
e32ac0479b0435dd518c9d04696cef37cfa54214
941922 F20101220_AAAAKK shah_m_Page_048.jp2
0894c36534015359424d60436245788e
171c2a05d5b18bdb0fa85275e80e3e85974b33ea
107661 F20101220_AAAAJV shah_m_Page_032.jp2
34d9d0370cb6bd10def3d25f510af7dc
633f78992fe1d4be2f7a498ffbe52d6726ddb49b
6776 F20101220_AAABOB shah_m_Page_083thm.jpg
c5d4ef7bf1486d9c2c062c92c307c07b
a92022209a26fcbcd52b5009725c99d3b6abb2fb
7399 F20101220_AAABNN shah_m_Page_076thm.jpg
91a8e842a0c1c1b1f6e18abc8c05bc6f
2c6e4562db2e55bf6718f4a71801e947a2dcd62b
F20101220_AAABMY shah_m_Page_068thm.jpg
3453a53dee08c02c6353579dc1510cb6
0bc7d1a3f2ee4186dfb3696c4cbd941a8846679f
1051906 F20101220_AAAAKL shah_m_Page_049.jp2
bf8797929a426d8d3781d4ec5534b807
69a8bd90c7e6b1dfd0f1aec9252d2499a9584cd7
110851 F20101220_AAAAJW shah_m_Page_033.jp2
a9d5490b56e4df5ca1c5cfd7ff672bfa
19df3e13631d38fa6c098f6667da4600b2c5b589
28089 F20101220_AAABOC shah_m_Page_084.QC.jpg
edab513a721194b922a6e7002d7411d2
e6aa2416fdef37a3ca0e0c22d17de7a9cc0398d8
33924 F20101220_AAABNO shah_m_Page_077.QC.jpg
c0f484fee02554580edfc5759f99d0a4
7e970545290537590958191c3e3a1a6b9854712b
33543 F20101220_AAABMZ shah_m_Page_069.QC.jpg
ebd8efda4751795710e1ad40b53ed9db
ad4a90150428029bbe61f862b12d78bb5e52b0df
1051915 F20101220_AAAALA shah_m_Page_064.jp2
638fe2bace64c978bd4518e9c5b9e8bf
de80753ddd0c0a43ff7bacdabda4bd73039211bc
1051971 F20101220_AAAAKM shah_m_Page_050.jp2
866cf98cb56741343eefe79cb17f4b97
6f01e9c5212b815c486c987ac5bc063cf08dbba4
108384 F20101220_AAAAJX shah_m_Page_034.jp2
c12fc22df892bda63dd95df62953419c
b6ed7c99a0ee9366762f09eaff75bf41173fb4ff
7298 F20101220_AAABOD shah_m_Page_084thm.jpg
2dfa20337f21e7ee0d81d155fc13fc26
02d08d079cdc3acf7132152569b23f058b5fe7ae
110140 F20101220_AAAALB shah_m_Page_066.jp2
9c4ed364fcc8810ef0fab8e13ab9374d
c5776cbd0c2d028bf9516dc5e743612af5b3b837
115417 F20101220_AAAAJY shah_m_Page_035.jp2
80970726096df92ad1501a9bc945c8b7
b7cc9f52e182538844d5438f399f0afdeb436e55
30092 F20101220_AAABOE shah_m_Page_085.QC.jpg
a8d8b7af9bee8bc5c558f34be5687bf7
1d0c6743347105262ec829ef3f811b2d809a8650
8459 F20101220_AAABNP shah_m_Page_077thm.jpg
065d483a1cc11e4f4fbd1a1b217bd106
58c4ebb6cd17d9c197dde46e7e8f222492f68f96
106123 F20101220_AAAALC shah_m_Page_067.jp2
cb35c4aa6a375ac39a22297f414ac2f2
b3d8562c831ab88b4a02df05ec71fc604f027339
109458 F20101220_AAAAKN shah_m_Page_051.jp2
07fbc29220f14e32aae807f2c5314abe
3a75c38bac814ce282384d7110e9370fafc08991
101096 F20101220_AAAAJZ shah_m_Page_036.jp2
e9d1712a2f68793e189bfbee7380cff2
76254d7e0b10e46b5c05caa0eb8b4bb581f3b953
7616 F20101220_AAABOF shah_m_Page_085thm.jpg
bf7a7fa94f5311feec8664708c79c1fc
86877c2fc78706931bd20515ef20be0f23c46349
31328 F20101220_AAABNQ shah_m_Page_078.QC.jpg
d677c62b6f0f2bc9a72f01f932c42a0e
c6df833482c15b849e91dad85363ea85b40998e6
110344 F20101220_AAAALD shah_m_Page_068.jp2
cc776bd93a15d15af9316f396d197eac
09c54f5792bc10ad7bd44a7f463d473f29588c72
96242 F20101220_AAAAKO shah_m_Page_052.jp2
89e239d7d7708062ec4705785c8be840
eeceff88c8d38a257d520c3e44ff569e652307ae
13979 F20101220_AAABOG shah_m_Page_086.QC.jpg
957b167360dce002ec16876c1f0bb935
4e6ee5b9d3dd25b78f45d13d38d9db84a8fe76ef
7408 F20101220_AAABNR shah_m_Page_078thm.jpg
ba64740e018634599ba31bfc4f9c3364
edff38194c50b69c7a72f46dd787e5e5623e9831
108412 F20101220_AAAALE shah_m_Page_069.jp2
43af54c91e3d52f242d07377180e7af7
9f6ec537d07771a66b6aaa6581e236d92781e16f
1032882 F20101220_AAAAKP shah_m_Page_053.jp2
ec7abfac9140b84b533c4c9803dfd69b
1365d08fece08f25765e6ccca100d3fd6b6b20c7
4135 F20101220_AAABOH shah_m_Page_086thm.jpg
68bc1a28858671b9b3e7dd0181d91839
585d65d601d3fd7f3c752540f72a008d74daab89
33118 F20101220_AAABNS shah_m_Page_079.QC.jpg
c47245c6cd6b48c318a5fb55507a7436
cc4171a1a8b6cf21622d380daaaa568f2fe9e089
112429 F20101220_AAAALF shah_m_Page_070.jp2
ad575fb0a2207cde42fe343121ce0ac0
55cccd084293ac24d959327ca7aecab68e5c2c68
112981 F20101220_AAAAKQ shah_m_Page_054.jp2
44fabd6507bac96d7d774f3aff05aa35
181acf6e497c5ad5d63fda1c2e30f2cca5a80f9d
19759 F20101220_AAABOI shah_m_Page_087.QC.jpg
e49fe608b87ad022ed84b41c83738011
9b415c6f79ce3fe16f5069779d8266ea3113cb47
8197 F20101220_AAABNT shah_m_Page_079thm.jpg
197633ef6d58f9f73dd62c1d71e337ab
7948715fb8c557c460baf3e5797bf46af7205fa8
114912 F20101220_AAAALG shah_m_Page_071.jp2
1f7d68f1bb9bcab46d635fb63df1d23d
ca0643e02ca568ede39d2044dca2cc41a62fdaa8
117371 F20101220_AAAAKR shah_m_Page_055.jp2
c9ee163e953d55f9f4711acc6853a91c
4aff26274c9f998a48da774d8c7cb39c11c89b11
5089 F20101220_AAABOJ shah_m_Page_087thm.jpg
fb001629dd887cbff3a60627fec65e83
3a0e1189ba521ab5cf9ee24dd2d62f0e299e16e3
18837 F20101220_AAABNU shah_m_Page_080.QC.jpg
46a78b97c68e7523ef21f5a1a51be359
f3144abda75965fef59af2d56246fa2a40a3f58e
115497 F20101220_AAAALH shah_m_Page_072.jp2
f7c6d42068a4565576dfccbb83224dcd
41e120e87545312e0bcdafb4ca3ecb558ca275fd
104548 F20101220_AAAAKS shah_m_Page_056.jp2
fd36ca69442df14f3ca09929fab805cd
2c6623a2cb3df1ca8cfd5b0f2a7cfbf5c69a7565
26877 F20101220_AAABOK shah_m_Page_088.QC.jpg
618ef582dda7c4c588baa4cf37b24981
272d7f29a99023ff919017065b4916141421159f
4871 F20101220_AAABNV shah_m_Page_080thm.jpg
7878bdddd4ab07ad1dbc9486d8e26178
19c0d81984654afbbb914c99c64f897cc2cdedb6
115251 F20101220_AAAALI shah_m_Page_073.jp2
1011c77fdedefb0539dc0b4602cca2b4
6784416de4254d6bfec3ff46f7f1beb579c63eef
103258 F20101220_AAAAKT shah_m_Page_057.jp2
cd4ecac202d0f1ca58fb3a2304162fea
109cb247ec1953fc4e57ec9d9c83a02adacf768a
6741 F20101220_AAABOL shah_m_Page_088thm.jpg
2421531baf903ea565ff243b8dcd1329
91cb54301dc788f7dfe2408ebd9e609988725e91
29280 F20101220_AAABNW shah_m_Page_081.QC.jpg
4db9ce44f840d66d405ef4ac40924ff8
b57f5ae8b49f7fe9f8a1dc4e89d19224de62e1c2
107504 F20101220_AAAALJ shah_m_Page_074.jp2
205e59516b0b7ce51219a42692d8a6e4
5ad196692e8e81de227fe48a5a4bf33e3c49a205
114497 F20101220_AAAAKU shah_m_Page_058.jp2
b1c2e1783c6ca9007a487b1db5670d35
66070d1c8c6373df7a236b676bf44b76718c3a32
7545 F20101220_AAABPA shah_m_Page_096thm.jpg
7dd623c8bde56846c487aee099684b5f
b620e140e2775a00a94815e1ac4a20a9cfb5645a
F20101220_AAABOM shah_m_Page_089.QC.jpg
8201b5fa8c95abf33843011023a91210
34cdb949125a8a13c1a95f0edafeca56f2a13e20
F20101220_AAABNX shah_m_Page_081thm.jpg
baab4ee05dd14182b6c51ecc11e743f3
5be549f9f93dbb64ad1efe3840e8907da416edf7
97692 F20101220_AAAALK shah_m_Page_076.jp2
4aae78301727b07a6139ab69ad42392e
7ab21f981af628c0c6e3ef6db61f18234e616705
92492 F20101220_AAAAKV shah_m_Page_059.jp2
006079adc1382031638862438daa4e0d
cd6e058c460cfc2637a3fbd2997c86158e6e6ee1
25194 F20101220_AAABPB shah_m_Page_097.QC.jpg
e2f67d05ae5607965e058d260654d61d
eaf421bf4f8fe0a28ba31fe6c87122acfe71ea6e
7040 F20101220_AAABON shah_m_Page_089thm.jpg
5d29df913ffec2168de55894365bb05c
531981c4279feedb689a01bb0c54c1c4aaaeef90
25770 F20101220_AAABNY shah_m_Page_082.QC.jpg
bc40fd8214cccf1d3741e4b3e1060f74
8d9f14c55e041827f273a8ed7e92335719aae21a
110644 F20101220_AAAALL shah_m_Page_077.jp2
946d656c54da39a88540de9ae3bb97af
1c9f653f7d1e4828c9030e8fa5eb21f584e63712
882045 F20101220_AAAAKW shah_m_Page_060.jp2
0d062837cca45dff7719029736690544
21564aa4872121ba1ecb8adc84711b839fdfa0fb
6685 F20101220_AAABPC shah_m_Page_097thm.jpg
9c7e79b732cdabeec5178118902b5dac
4e0fb0bfd18d9c1585f108fa7883a05abc5b5456
25931 F20101220_AAABOO shah_m_Page_090.QC.jpg
4300491749fec801ee448d14a0e2b0c1
3c5900251a790b4dbddc766de464b98fec0926fc
6684 F20101220_AAABNZ shah_m_Page_082thm.jpg
264c9bdb27efbd44efe4cedad7eacff7
603764e23de2f7a84f88d7ef3374c2bad378e6a2
100015 F20101220_AAAALM shah_m_Page_078.jp2
20e8213ee45f447caad1f3a43ab3ef05
e5dcd7d933a932c19eca0a70fd4a9ee7deff583e
32771 F20101220_AAAAKX shah_m_Page_061.jp2
ab0ba060b19a923c7e6565ea0479adfd
29d0472e47dade7e1ad455908cc27bd12711b26d
110272 F20101220_AAAAMA shah_m_Page_093.jp2
d5cd1dd17ce291144a7dd50d236bf6fa
1b447302134cfbfb51e28bae3519b94056cf636d
7720 F20101220_AAABPD shah_m_Page_098thm.jpg
85bf77e30b087add0c56467971694682
319ac367cb23cd150780dc087b6ac2c1bee2f958
7176 F20101220_AAABOP shah_m_Page_090thm.jpg
1cc3aeb05914ff97442d1bd25ad8f050
5b3818910d669f77a65b52ccdad28374eb1f2323
105208 F20101220_AAAALN shah_m_Page_079.jp2
84d6c2421e8b5131fc3fad755cd50200
c56d58c6936ee0f8fe46bf1076e7350ecf58ab2b
92413 F20101220_AAAAKY shah_m_Page_062.jp2
0ba3ba93244c4838ae02dd3c2a5495bd
28ecff40c0f25ee992e6ae886efb5ffbb6737fce
102338 F20101220_AAAAMB shah_m_Page_094.jp2
cfee0ed689c3407d98238e6dcd16d67a
8167c044470b3d8ee5ec4e80d88ad5487fde3b79
22297 F20101220_AAABPE shah_m_Page_099.QC.jpg
821e974570ec5a2c7411941c7820251f
70993841450af5daed55b3471f7322e9dd0f2687
114389 F20101220_AAAAKZ shah_m_Page_063.jp2
0e3339fa053eb1bf183c8db0de60731c
9eac3d3aa2020ae9dd35488bcf5f8bc212876b67
96147 F20101220_AAAAMC shah_m_Page_095.jp2
5ca45c9c7ff399c82be25b34c4f1eafe
a5999d288f9a99fe158cdd9949e2134b00481423
31462 F20101220_AAABPF shah_m_Page_100.QC.jpg
3faec8301570fed1eedcf06ff8297cdb
cf77f4c7a94ebc7925ef8d9e3ca8604ac58d26ea
12209 F20101220_AAABOQ shah_m_Page_091.QC.jpg
a8b816301fd4ab9ed528dd7d6fe6740f
3f0610a9b744d8c4ee2dce160fa2fa7c0e6efbfc
67953 F20101220_AAAALO shah_m_Page_080.jp2
b872be879d3108d71c43535c93fab6ae
3c2a16850bf2a73f2ef71fa8563fdd700e130451
874359 F20101220_AAAAMD shah_m_Page_096.jp2
04c20b03c9022be56319d8c602821add
3625e1c2e244c617b4aac5cb1459217da236cea3
8114 F20101220_AAABPG shah_m_Page_100thm.jpg
4f02512e4d59a8baa955b2aa915ed334
8b365cd7a19ab2f889a080190fa367f31d3820cb
3894 F20101220_AAABOR shah_m_Page_091thm.jpg
0af37e90fd92f108461b10fb5b575d9a
6062f3cca682cac5ebd10a21a43134e18019486d
95128 F20101220_AAAALP shah_m_Page_081.jp2
87535ceb88b2fe4951bae3e01cfe39ed
352f29c6e1a68851ae15408afd191c12e2ca21f7
88276 F20101220_AAAAME shah_m_Page_097.jp2
3512a5c8e514430b9a392ac13586634e
188e333de1a038585a756b0fed545ff3a90b72b2
29777 F20101220_AAABPH shah_m_Page_101.QC.jpg
43f3aa410bdc4d187037ddfa3a7df987
2344df5765ae0725b722e2aebef9d1a9bc63f874
27408 F20101220_AAABOS shah_m_Page_092.QC.jpg
9703a52fafbe54f2a6b152f946e90441
4cfd20421c4d220469cc611cec4b0a1d019c2d4b
82150 F20101220_AAAALQ shah_m_Page_082.jp2
3bf36839be65fd9046fab0121bb7351a
8c847df20b68a64a388c965d656f6a2976e9d5d7
100406 F20101220_AAAAMF shah_m_Page_098.jp2
44ad31b1af7e95c0a31aa852423c7ee6
dcafa17eed5d15231f2f315e0b78bfa6e0a1f936
7677 F20101220_AAABPI shah_m_Page_101thm.jpg
7a30099ba8cc3abce72bb6800d629644
4e8b33bc7c74d2df0a6df85110f7faea0e483232
7482 F20101220_AAABOT shah_m_Page_092thm.jpg
bad38dbf37f3e5ab8376d62711d90327
62eb3cdca570852c7f3483d8d8de99b7799cbd43
763047 F20101220_AAAALR shah_m_Page_083.jp2
80da8b9d75d144526a7ab72a22f261f1
d0fc7893241f46a3022851d5072dfd82267fa177
686295 F20101220_AAAAMG shah_m_Page_099.jp2
e60fb1a1b82a8050179a2b9209941904
9f948c47df5de401c2e4018be057bfa539e89ce1
31013 F20101220_AAABPJ shah_m_Page_102.QC.jpg
8bbd75d7570d86953d09ed3c8108fc4a
476d13388017550158c93a406ea8bc59ded8616f
34155 F20101220_AAABOU shah_m_Page_093.QC.jpg
24d1197d4303b19d75c0295359fc75bc
3c623e3de33229a740e1945348e95948045f866b
106443 F20101220_AAAAMH shah_m_Page_100.jp2
de05db98d34959feff257a4cc81b142a
e68829c48374743ef6a5e3527d3a3abfb1faae14
96258 F20101220_AAAALS shah_m_Page_084.jp2
e19502a7e64c9098f9c249604c1b73e1
b22939fb67d4626a3cfaa13aa5c29709064dfeed
8110 F20101220_AAABPK shah_m_Page_102thm.jpg
74e9692bb8cebf8512f12db8472dd9ae
bac524d5ef3b884376211195316c14105bcf5541
8726 F20101220_AAABOV shah_m_Page_093thm.jpg
c418ad38769c38e123357b49e69b1e50
64b6961ad801012d34ab5c15ddeb474e80f0a829
99948 F20101220_AAAAMI shah_m_Page_101.jp2
e285364ff9922f8fec688bc48a709581
8106d97ad5985ac3056762c23d11c5c77fcab07a
97726 F20101220_AAAALT shah_m_Page_085.jp2
dc431dc5cc80096eb49b2ca6610de7c0
9f742ad70a051bdebbd3dae343c46cb0dc5f7f4b
32059 F20101220_AAABPL shah_m_Page_103.QC.jpg
bc086fe3c4885b37986885ad35c712c4
b4bc8199660ac91afcf518dbb5c122e8378e98c4
30216 F20101220_AAABOW shah_m_Page_094.QC.jpg
f9a5e93ed40413d044222e92aeae8336
4f1099054af7045cc689efc736af44119b65334e
107216 F20101220_AAAAMJ shah_m_Page_102.jp2
d4657b31d2eaf34d32b537499fe7df5e
e0507460e598d84a0e0b2b4961ea685c3878f5ec
63003 F20101220_AAAALU shah_m_Page_087.jp2
6f9e59244211192907641a2a5d46496d
1fdc910b3765ed9c0a00ae37c2dc95198bb595db
8416 F20101220_AAABQA shah_m_Page_110thm.jpg
36f7d51d6772ab2f50d62a046aaf9bb3
ed741c7fa14f4d3396f922f5405f689479e5b067
8450 F20101220_AAABPM shah_m_Page_103thm.jpg
e05dd23172b67baf44b82ae57c0ab9d3
9cbd10a05b91f057fc47532be3f17421edca0bf4
7980 F20101220_AAABOX shah_m_Page_094thm.jpg
0ab09c28b905294fcc58f05e5ef5f29d
61df20e74c1d50e418fe3ddaf66a9b4f4304d2fa
105220 F20101220_AAAAMK shah_m_Page_103.jp2
26ad94829c6a215930b02775e16f3ee5
e8f50d55342693d0869dd58ddbcd801e21afca8a
88477 F20101220_AAAALV shah_m_Page_088.jp2
faba4af3d590316ef773c972ae8a33f5
99b320dcd752410b55035bc94da7babb7dea3222
34235 F20101220_AAABQB shah_m_Page_111.QC.jpg
94eb0fc9ff33a415c69cbed153283d26
89c424ba12c01eb0cc1aa7eb7f5e5b62d5879340
19121 F20101220_AAABPN shah_m_Page_104.QC.jpg
22498b38378e3cc935cbf7df2e00fc91
56b050bbe9499703cf73a10559e33ac05129c926
7114 F20101220_AAABOY shah_m_Page_095thm.jpg
1d070cc0e29f9a1e93e0d0dc656369a1
48af50fe1c4fbd9899e9a0223fcaef5a00306ea1
63944 F20101220_AAAAML shah_m_Page_104.jp2
499285129e3392d396d1679e67892de1
1370f67338cb0059d9fc086884a1c6200b7a8a3d
90357 F20101220_AAAALW shah_m_Page_089.jp2
4e60c618458694735f5ee560b6f5cd81
330d52446d0e8c2bc0bfe89464abf0a72137da6f
8622 F20101220_AAABQC shah_m_Page_111thm.jpg
9d62bc6e54b3b8edac709fbabcdedfa3
be43e529bdb9d18ebc996dd80c965182df7897b4
5227 F20101220_AAABPO shah_m_Page_104thm.jpg
1f4ea3b6f890af95e340f342bf2978f2
7b4a5b1decc1209cea1213bb35f105ee1f0d4d21
27367 F20101220_AAABOZ shah_m_Page_096.QC.jpg
87bce00db6a5975cf71847df24b40df6
9ee48b6f14a5c470fba68da5ef4106de61d21c71
108535 F20101220_AAAANA shah_m_Page_121.jp2
f57932dcd05961e73169369ba264285b
fa7a35cc817c3609222ff51ffbd03ac6fd628dd7
90001 F20101220_AAAAMM shah_m_Page_105.jp2
d824081ee5f4f6070836fc85672b7af5
0b2edf872c3c88ccc49e2e4b9c8c461a0679efb5
772337 F20101220_AAAALX shah_m_Page_090.jp2
1d1d09bf88ea46de5592d8af93e9971f
b7abfdeeee8317069ee71806cd1d052691ecdb9e
7986 F20101220_AAABQD shah_m_Page_112thm.jpg
3325560360b7aa54b73bbf68de95c1c6
a6599364e94d188e9b7cd0a61ef90978dae54c37
26625 F20101220_AAABPP shah_m_Page_105.QC.jpg
1bf1f30cb46c127ffbafa7f515d70c2a
29fa1e4a861f4ede73330a5c1ebccea8165f8a51
70642 F20101220_AAAANB shah_m_Page_123.jp2
ac5ebac78eac338b6554d76718778e9d
d87159f42fbf87a7e2ebd833cfb170d817481b9a
103458 F20101220_AAAAMN shah_m_Page_106.jp2
1115eded3adf1ca2aaca1f3ca9639c42
5dbadf7e008b4a78dd8a187cecffd5129c724c90
546748 F20101220_AAAALY shah_m_Page_091.jp2
7848589ff152ff31c592f5adecfb0bf6
8eb0b0bf6aaa75e6f438c48bc9bb40418bdf8ca0
33879 F20101220_AAABQE shah_m_Page_113.QC.jpg
c10de51e9b466abc55a908e6fe714c48
03915411d08918c26062a21f07c710bc3cc95295
7124 F20101220_AAABPQ shah_m_Page_105thm.jpg
8f25d5b12d6d42ceb5e2cf2bd15d8212
6c10972fe0d392dcda62133dab149ca2c662703e
932836 F20101220_AAAANC shah_m_Page_124.jp2
cbbcb3db9591120046c49ba4a03e735a
d36583fd638f50c9829b3620ebe1b617366ee89c
107614 F20101220_AAAAMO shah_m_Page_108.jp2
0e2ba93939168ccafb866193261693ce
353cccaeb55edfac9e2d4a7026afc889c0f104b4
100445 F20101220_AAAALZ shah_m_Page_092.jp2
ecd408118b3cf3d296a9ee9eb7819df5
a073ddf16d2f259d8944b5879dfde0db1ad62abd
8506 F20101220_AAABQF shah_m_Page_113thm.jpg
b9ab9453cf6d121b293ec3c62fd33fa1
3e7dd8e1c86ea2748d48ffa79f0b1bacdd342ee4
78425 F20101220_AAAAND shah_m_Page_125.jp2
5cef944d5c230c5f4eaa65e04ceffd26
791140fe28d36941b60e7f5d24326d820ffcbde6
34462 F20101220_AAABQG shah_m_Page_114.QC.jpg
a12029fffdb1d142c214610aee0074e7
dd4a0924a289dd82d4a3a9c1fef1822653d054fe
31826 F20101220_AAABPR shah_m_Page_106.QC.jpg
a5d6d547977aa7f7095b052aeec0ed6d
47199671ac58cb5b3f46b1db781c0777b3a278ef
598738 F20101220_AAAANE shah_m_Page_126.jp2
88957629542ba8ce1374c438bb20ed0c
03f9990c17d313f23f1abe0b30f7e6ae29aa5c44
106864 F20101220_AAAAMP shah_m_Page_109.jp2
a807ec0434418c6fc73e6bf755136af6
fd17fb6ada8b062d5e4c1eda3a2f0894fec24a87
8557 F20101220_AAABQH shah_m_Page_114thm.jpg
f05883533f02c87f484894d63be37c25
8cf59780b027d367c871fc7b4b94bd1aabf2e4fb
8061 F20101220_AAABPS shah_m_Page_106thm.jpg
764707af6571c3140d210389166657d3
505e57f72abd2f9cbab366974e3f0f539724fea6
379311 F20101220_AAAANF shah_m_Page_127.jp2
8e09be5287d1b6c09b90baa9326c5af4
d8a850a52adc50e2896d096229031683c5e7e86f
111641 F20101220_AAAAMQ shah_m_Page_110.jp2
700a44442096c6523b425eb129a97dd5
a58e1a59cdc998285f5cd883bca242528725792c
31379 F20101220_AAABQI shah_m_Page_115.QC.jpg
c531b18e629a04296c50e228911884bd
df26d30fe4ae62edb4b009c62b2e19bf8ac4eb33
33573 F20101220_AAABPT shah_m_Page_107.QC.jpg
5f9b984b5f9284d1d5439772670105fb
c69ee9aa864035f4e5bda5197967b9c623064d3f
963893 F20101220_AAAANG shah_m_Page_128.jp2
f282d7ba95a9f9ba20e986fdf664284a
86d9fbe32e885b82aaa1edd63352d397c3d61be3
111132 F20101220_AAAAMR shah_m_Page_111.jp2
151191f9764d7fee48267fe565a3de7f
4462aca024ebf49b62fdd9244098047525ce16f3
8022 F20101220_AAABQJ shah_m_Page_115thm.jpg
6979b8d4fe38c19b79cc0976713be0f8
b0d6ff64fa9a3faebd086eb366e460b46b9e8aca
8409 F20101220_AAABPU shah_m_Page_107thm.jpg
72373788526bdbf8f7911c8e0f5ef45a
110549e0085fa3bcfdac4c92f44feea8389ed6ba
736516 F20101220_AAAANH shah_m_Page_129.jp2
1c6d4a4ebdd46af5475003171ab336d5
58561f0b8908ce74871f2308641dd7990a9afbc1
105946 F20101220_AAAAMS shah_m_Page_112.jp2
b074f0dec738e15a772398d5de47b67e
16f2eb03bced680f870f595b0e6356a0d47ebafd
32274 F20101220_AAABQK shah_m_Page_116.QC.jpg
a9bc506b503e1f3e72667d36e9084de9
1e7e29fc6b99bb7d6fa05515274bed4ea6ba3e8f
32897 F20101220_AAABPV shah_m_Page_108.QC.jpg
885cf55915388c406c01cca27ed137c7
1ebb06a6f7e07a55eb07f6458bf8e93ef650bc93
679837 F20101220_AAAANI shah_m_Page_130.jp2
2443943f66b112500d07b67da0177691
f5051767250077003e3c36cce554b634c164afc1
111051 F20101220_AAAAMT shah_m_Page_113.jp2
ccd3002462f6a90fb4658bb546d70553
fee3dee7c331eba81b9288c7ff7f378f4f0bfa3f
8382 F20101220_AAABQL shah_m_Page_116thm.jpg
bd360ca2eaad02df84333461656116bc
0b964adae1d932dab8d46e847d656753805dac54
8478 F20101220_AAABPW shah_m_Page_108thm.jpg
9ddb6d5fb9727ab9c629dbeace5018a1
04583757a6e18d09dd37ebed8b89c9e208a0614e
608813 F20101220_AAAANJ shah_m_Page_131.jp2
c1973393f2250c26db2be1ba3cfac244
643a9ca5402bd72a68e9d1b5a16469b6c3af6f9d
112169 F20101220_AAAAMU shah_m_Page_114.jp2
386489b4d62259b929713cd1e55361b5
68e705468e799d8097e5b80bcb51ba1a9c0841d7
18612 F20101220_AAABRA shah_m_Page_125.QC.jpg
a494f156afd25802721b840112514f2f
412817ef75eb8ae67b968cc224d064d55ac18586
33591 F20101220_AAABQM shah_m_Page_117.QC.jpg
6f002c0164d01394c21a292a2d3c76df
11cbf8d55aa78827c461122bcc51bc11fcc22235
32528 F20101220_AAABPX shah_m_Page_109.QC.jpg
0a8f71954b9a06c67cd93e8b442cf0c2
40606d82519fe4f4123dfd48ab481ac60b943ca0
699790 F20101220_AAAANK shah_m_Page_132.jp2
f5b14ff48350933c50711a4fb573a34c
be734c59c13a6654dc0332bc982843c4bee33235
102639 F20101220_AAAAMV shah_m_Page_115.jp2
a3f4551a44fd698e1ccda1369920c523
42e569fcfa6b999ed5d9b41ac856c38b2fd41ce0
20068 F20101220_AAABRB shah_m_Page_126.QC.jpg
9ea5bfc24657d6a17f7cf34734f76c2f
352712633888443a9f25f01e58e8f82d9b9a73a4
8536 F20101220_AAABQN shah_m_Page_117thm.jpg
daaa6a0434bc4ae1c7213ec9d8b2b5df
07a84bb36573557666a9c747bab0754cc09b0d2a
8058 F20101220_AAABPY shah_m_Page_109thm.jpg
1919991876131bf4c52b23700d2918e8
b8e2c935060af473823e1f81a1b3429d341db607
638556 F20101220_AAAANL shah_m_Page_133.jp2
b90a655950f6f98f4ae36dd6a1d1254b
dbf39b2ad18b66e10e4dbb347c6d5679d6c90a79
105988 F20101220_AAAAMW shah_m_Page_116.jp2
268473a7b45301863a7dd7ab8d68e3ae
9a314406ac6236cee19d1c839643424a4608b3ea
5538 F20101220_AAABRC shah_m_Page_126thm.jpg
45d281dfdfd00fa875ebf1d604b98fbe
0026b562ac86069263cda815722d1dc0c33edc11
30482 F20101220_AAABQO shah_m_Page_118.QC.jpg
614c770b323d584aec2b29f937b5f755
9cc32a0177cdc4285117c7acd57d01767df0a6b5
34102 F20101220_AAABPZ shah_m_Page_110.QC.jpg
d00dbc51747ceb8e9a84f6cda80cf039
fc7a1decfec23cccdfbc3fd26e1945cefd8616bc
57164 F20101220_AAAANM shah_m_Page_134.jp2
faf3aa4099aa8c1d7c1a74ead4fa853f
0a2bec51b5d4251f49147b5db35f6e03f9b75282
111783 F20101220_AAAAMX shah_m_Page_117.jp2
8c515c39ba985ad7c86d2ef70b19a863
15a67248380d3f8225c4fd04ccab60a1a32d86bb
60583 F20101220_AAAAOA shah_m_Page_149.jp2
e7d480f23311b935cda80e8e363c500d
122bea1c595968bf388c1b634b707bd1a7743e4a
14464 F20101220_AAABRD shah_m_Page_127.QC.jpg
35f76b34e51b935a67c5ff8c76bc2590
66d7094c999143355938e174e74c31b9dfe99834
7913 F20101220_AAABQP shah_m_Page_118thm.jpg
cb85cd915103e9b931ec7adda785377e
7a15c5b9cb4de20479863f0b8a8d5b43e5885f02
52917 F20101220_AAAANN shah_m_Page_135.jp2
c4acfb9f3ab73cee4bd7e00845eb2424
a38d6f461805c2d87eb95815b8698fa98e96d407
99607 F20101220_AAAAMY shah_m_Page_118.jp2
860742b8527e5ba07d734d7c63c0a378
ad91eb90b3197ad4ec4fd17eb7c3771f50771b56
564355 F20101220_AAAAOB shah_m_Page_150.jp2
9053519d4f085c76a083f79a63708e30
a11447bcc4a70536d539f392a08d69b5108f5760
4017 F20101220_AAABRE shah_m_Page_127thm.jpg
f98b20766496b11134fdeb2bd3db1cb1
c5f35f75c0df0effce72f1cadd68325089c5e319
24519 F20101220_AAABQQ shah_m_Page_119.QC.jpg
cf817b16fb1c060d0a10418e7d5826e2
08354e0b37c286064ea3c3f78ee9b4652731c264
95980 F20101220_AAAANO shah_m_Page_136.jp2
0ae3ea76bf9b2150bc44e95a403654a3
bab2c84f335bbf8ee7a1d0aff9fa41c214af986b
78862 F20101220_AAAAMZ shah_m_Page_119.jp2
df38f20bf61e173c8d49c4790a1df8f0
dce00491268b5065f46db91c4646b68f77ba4fa5
57496 F20101220_AAAAOC shah_m_Page_151.jp2
bf94dc2fddd19791ef15552a4bfcc44e
2a4e9183583c54e18cb10ee68bcb2a871a2fcaeb
26618 F20101220_AAABRF shah_m_Page_128.QC.jpg
fb33ebf973e80102b18c72556098796f
637b6de651b4d84d9fa58d3f998780a8dff72d94
6212 F20101220_AAABQR shah_m_Page_119thm.jpg
e3516c51ebb83f1447145c606a1dc279
73d8bfcd70730b1f52dfc10722ce0983a6e16039
85699 F20101220_AAAANP shah_m_Page_137.jp2
12b78f17a0296a697d3b2f2cc186932b
f272e2abd2cc7f91f3c225c9b67ab58769d9113b
607518 F20101220_AAAAOD shah_m_Page_152.jp2
55c1a0676e0a42a8636053d89ebf63d4
36132c876a41f843508bf9a177d8a4a260558a83
7017 F20101220_AAABRG shah_m_Page_128thm.jpg
c4303fc40780d7b1076ac832f59d4634
a902ec053b396a39e6ee7755277f4d30baf8570d
51101 F20101220_AAAAOE shah_m_Page_153.jp2
cc56b45b8cffcadfbb3ad2240e38a63b
61d104f013dc678ee191fcb7cd0e5c57ea91c376
21339 F20101220_AAABRH shah_m_Page_129.QC.jpg
7f220869b0473f04862839eb75d0fc4b
350be8c4e234fe30abd803b9d46945164cb2be9f
26376 F20101220_AAABQS shah_m_Page_120.QC.jpg
d1c5281f10fc21958f0798b14e1e7c73
8eeff993954af0cc3525471f99b70a4c93234485
106887 F20101220_AAAANQ shah_m_Page_138.jp2
5b9e23647cf32703556183b42a800eb1
ff79aa17953bfca3c19f9b7a1e9e7d86c066361e
23727 F20101220_AAAAOF shah_m_Page_154.jp2
bdf83cb5e08bfa8dfc1e4f12e4bea9b3
39b6c75c634becebdf6ad9fa0435145de91d0f40
22333 F20101220_AAABRI shah_m_Page_130.QC.jpg
bab7bb8854514ed4b2142245f62f5b01
97937fe16f377e7e41fc115f1b2a6fb8c2544e70
6550 F20101220_AAABQT shah_m_Page_120thm.jpg
5534b9cfc2f996efd5347491c90d3028
3fffdfbf9d7b46fc4640e5ed779951719e9ba62f
535050 F20101220_AAAANR shah_m_Page_140.jp2
85f302c11695f3e34fe8111eef8e4d1b
4dc85d06564dc46e817b3dedbd8576db049a1ff1
232191 F20101220_AAAAOG shah_m_Page_155.jp2
edd27e38a8240e96c445b255653e79e4
3a7d5b78cff19c651451b51dab333c7a560d4c84
6515 F20101220_AAABRJ shah_m_Page_130thm.jpg
b840dde60b1380bfe0e6c53985f50f1d
1eedb77a8da067790c0aba0ebcd5bcbde6dffc89
32426 F20101220_AAABQU shah_m_Page_121.QC.jpg
b6b827ca283410219bf408059722892f
723510038c417883970f53ab7e95a4858e1c01c1
650422 F20101220_AAAANS shah_m_Page_141.jp2
8893cf98cdea1682163f5447b2ef616c
e9242f00e91ca663785ead8257cd612351a8afe8
318909 F20101220_AAAAOH shah_m_Page_156.jp2
3c3f340dca7f8d0b65326d3d87d661a4
0810e894d6cdf57c9e4448b3bce00c47e2771c7e
20683 F20101220_AAABRK shah_m_Page_131.QC.jpg
d7f4cb0362490becc5ab04cb390ea00f
e09dececabe3001019bab20a397625afbd33a8de
8181 F20101220_AAABQV shah_m_Page_121thm.jpg
7677158302a502754c0adf86bf44cc54
744a811bb0f6a384c32c2024e526f75b7d754904
751732 F20101220_AAAANT shah_m_Page_142.jp2
bd270cf2f88ed982e634c6fccde76109
8c3a35e17e6e390056b1461dd7e714b1dc365fbf
326559 F20101220_AAAAOI shah_m_Page_157.jp2
ca199c5abe6d6030ab4fe66864c086c8
92ec2f6b7d10fb0b82918f27b123d084ce182b8a
6070 F20101220_AAABRL shah_m_Page_131thm.jpg
c5e0411bee7f6033a8e173413754b634
bc3cc079c064af65d56ec8471dbaa76d3e9ca115
30694 F20101220_AAABQW shah_m_Page_122.QC.jpg
e166c0b683b32c9e41030fb9d040660e
ff93048e0a43bf8604689b8e7bbed36bf6094045
704631 F20101220_AAAANU shah_m_Page_143.jp2
9f7d5bfbef128b20dd3581c5dce15116
60d4a5d66208eb850c368a5815a002e941166416
175988 F20101220_AAAAOJ shah_m_Page_158.jp2
1ec77761091e537053a1bcaa2ada3ba1
f710c95e09efb67eceea7c38f2925a58cf1cb6f5
18946 F20101220_AAABSA shah_m_Page_140.QC.jpg
eabdd0043d2fc3782dbf6aa52de17005
fae83ae54a9637716a71c1fa2695fdf1da419df2
6498 F20101220_AAABRM shah_m_Page_132thm.jpg
b5542de4959b0088d68a21ccf05d6f82
0661055c93a0a19859184268bf4e382ec5082815
7919 F20101220_AAABQX shah_m_Page_122thm.jpg
19ba514153eb9b6bd404cec90a5a0ed5
9fbf122ca628a4fb4f7ece1670bf5031ee5caede
701642 F20101220_AAAANV shah_m_Page_144.jp2
2c7e9a56f3cefb2b5336150f39c4c636
807b5b1803b759145bd34c0da90eb00e68822553
93217 F20101220_AAAAOK shah_m_Page_159.jp2
9e0db6e671c22b49b8ef07a764167497
84283e79ae24d652b0d23a5f4de603249ddcb419
5397 F20101220_AAABSB shah_m_Page_140thm.jpg
39825722c9ec83fded4c9fca4500cd8e
76d9c3f304479b93996eba368df5b787cdf07a6e
20115 F20101220_AAABRN shah_m_Page_133.QC.jpg
84526e98a9480a4bd6f87cf54cf58f0c
60a76f1227b35a304a5b94011d6c8b03b5ed4a2a
5682 F20101220_AAABQY shah_m_Page_123thm.jpg
56f82bfdab4572df178911341bb9e587
560b2c7dba4658bef1f8596b73989b9b3728201c
655766 F20101220_AAAANW shah_m_Page_145.jp2
57174c67e977b3831b37fcd37a75cd65
2b0c05ccdb0f30ca0132185a7e19a8230752e64b
85256 F20101220_AAAAOL shah_m_Page_160.jp2
731fdbc919f6bb21efc39d883842d322
f11f0a6684545f0f962ad1c8e4cb01951754d360
21073 F20101220_AAABSC shah_m_Page_141.QC.jpg
3920ef9fa7e33e22e9c062787e2fd81a
f58ac3f026e2482ebb85d7e8c37c5d3b1d4625f9
5445 F20101220_AAABRO shah_m_Page_133thm.jpg
07ec1f5ce5f3ef5d99e14799829b4217
ccb8f41e85e75a915a1b1ecadd8aac194cc70dd6
6326 F20101220_AAABQZ shah_m_Page_124thm.jpg
918f77627cab27a1252ffd73d4b5cafa
5fd82ede9a399eeda79c8d8a1bdc5eb0a550277c
62148 F20101220_AAAANX shah_m_Page_146.jp2
555a4fb980e7c6a4c4add7d18f178255
9f08b6cc16ccdd03c81238def06f75f293bb543e
F20101220_AAAAPA shah_m_Page_003.tif
600407dfa560ab04595e2125c7b5dd07
c90144433f50ee7e857993f1401f1b48fed5faf3
1051982 F20101220_AAAAOM shah_m_Page_161.jp2
e67cda13c341d66c21f84090c4cf7c93
c4521451011d276e5dd9f19e56cea087585ade7c
5454 F20101220_AAABSD shah_m_Page_141thm.jpg
b6880a15e5b8429c387051543ec78f5f
65c6552996a1d19b3a066aa1070637cca9aab807
16445 F20101220_AAABRP shah_m_Page_134.QC.jpg
f0a5d2567dd3fb54d6f9cfef7a909d52
051dcaaa98924232edcc38d620233567b0a2d69b
44700 F20101220_AAAANY shah_m_Page_147.jp2
681ae597d28fc9236a5f6d0c0f1c275c
9c60f73edeb29fe31d3b9bceb13a1d906d269878
F20101220_AAAAPB shah_m_Page_004.tif
569855d9d3e94092c3d9849b26865897
c69e94426458349547a189e00e864d04756f4756
130345 F20101220_AAAAON shah_m_Page_162.jp2
2eb88661d315514fa3977a3d88cc6368
ef2297065ffb64fe11db94bef04c25b660f42078
23902 F20101220_AAABSE shah_m_Page_142.QC.jpg
ac8b37690859b320baa80900f13e0eb3
bdcff810a1e4319ad8295c95d75b71e70bcc33b0
4683 F20101220_AAABRQ shah_m_Page_134thm.jpg
2bd3548c476c774b25cae81ef7b3835e
c035db3ce72b1571be40ad96bf843e7e02cec8b8
41671 F20101220_AAAANZ shah_m_Page_148.jp2
9193e3785232bf8687213b5b02e4e1a7
5c110fdf12e60f4859405a467d7a9040fd3c0cc8
F20101220_AAAAPC shah_m_Page_005.tif
4af9cc0152c647ddb8ac4d475fb4ebba
1310d0eb99b4085479d738820aa571435ad1a08f
121918 F20101220_AAAAOO shah_m_Page_163.jp2
18f58f256c03e92f988ebf706d840037
5599e223fecd237bef248c86295400d06e9457c7
6340 F20101220_AAABSF shah_m_Page_142thm.jpg
9d8a0a95222b7b78ef6b65ffa92b0b3f
0cbda57ada7364da16a3ec583e2f382d1ffaa2a1
15989 F20101220_AAABRR shah_m_Page_135.QC.jpg
16fc527e5a51c7216be4a117c11bcdf5
5672e74f2773aa3fde18772ca231762e3f7bde12
F20101220_AAAAPD shah_m_Page_006.tif
a59b32f7491e5f6cc0265936bf9015db
4fa29e13a959198fc77edcfbcf1df16c450623e7
1051800 F20101220_AAAAOP shah_m_Page_164.jp2
6e8a869217369af2e09e25ad589a555b
d44894450a01ab10791572f8c0a775b2f0a13d1b
24596 F20101220_AAABSG shah_m_Page_143.QC.jpg
f8d428c5fb8ccb328ddbd9b0bfcd6b1a
741d918ec458cd5c57960a837175fe2b42bc85fe
4238 F20101220_AAABRS shah_m_Page_135thm.jpg
a824670175ae9aa167eb82c8a032ff74
e9618d560c9adf32575e98d1214a8ec41fd91043
F20101220_AAAAPE shah_m_Page_007.tif
6c41a86511f083c0c7336e4c3b629609
ec2557792da06125611c845d0a1ee13d0e8c7a14
122746 F20101220_AAAAOQ shah_m_Page_165.jp2
c4e215f3066e031763a84b3ccbea2e4b
897b3664c114b86ac8f0c68dfbf499a3a8f73e65
6585 F20101220_AAABSH shah_m_Page_143thm.jpg
6f2924849fd41c82e0b9fffe64cd0a83
b46616955b0c7c8c9665175f5fe888fd08d2d33b
F20101220_AAAAPF shah_m_Page_008.tif
162ef593906152307d60f4adbfe8fc8f
3f60df4a2923c5fc917ed0819d6489681dd774b0
23795 F20101220_AAABSI shah_m_Page_144.QC.jpg
eadd42bbc7934515744c71fa13196dce
5423a96ca5f279c5e1564b7afd0cac42ba18309c
23834 F20101220_AAABRT shah_m_Page_136.QC.jpg
1485efb79375cfe524ae29f7b6b5d9f6
0d0e037fd9ddf8329767599efcf25335e465fdba
F20101220_AAAAPG shah_m_Page_009.tif
81c29a70aeb6c9ee9aee8eb88678bb21
f5b678289c6cbd71cff4bf01bbe9990d6130f02a
F20101220_AAAAOR shah_m_Page_166.jp2
e3126a542a3281a69905be5edf5fb50e
3449fe26a19ba7c2bdce57faabdf34cbd41098cd
6886 F20101220_AAABSJ shah_m_Page_144thm.jpg
cfffed9e29d4bffce1fea67ff39549d4
12ab3f2d88caf23e2e25ac8c890cad24559d1e43
6152 F20101220_AAABRU shah_m_Page_136thm.jpg
9ba41c9be6cf9c35e87c2f874e722ab7
6d6fa458812ac2410a3b71f027019f3a4f7991b9
F20101220_AAAAPH shah_m_Page_010.tif
d674d3e750d9112646fe7ca42e514392
2b871e58e5136a3cc3e92a3ebe94e7953a6b3620
127614 F20101220_AAAAOS shah_m_Page_167.jp2
5c6cfe6604da3a3cdf3c067c17611ac2
f02678bb1748409dce059edd5fbb74b24659c98c
23317 F20101220_AAABSK shah_m_Page_145.QC.jpg
009c1cec1ca441335c97116f3938ecda
9c698bb2f6fce7c86f5a0162f0fbfc39447a2b81
17715 F20101220_AAABRV shah_m_Page_137.QC.jpg
44e46a4ee3d2b2d12f3d99c7f7e9b4be
823e7853252c9d1dc55d46dbdf86feeeebdc2b06
F20101220_AAAAPI shah_m_Page_011.tif
db88f1b034d5a35adef5d03dae8a15f3
73be55c48a34dc1e5412ab0d671c681aeed9d85c
135079 F20101220_AAAAOT shah_m_Page_168.jp2
8f9867ee3732a12dc223ca36de3dae53
4d46ad52ca12075b876240183013416af2ebb976
6459 F20101220_AAABSL shah_m_Page_145thm.jpg
d268be2e8a23979f8c58a0a4013b131f
da58bdecb3ebb26f258a9a05f53be88688abcdaf
26925 F20101220_AAABRW shah_m_Page_138.QC.jpg
a93a63ff9ab4e385c05eec293c09343a
a33e91907748effadf5bf46ce8e279bcbea52a47
F20101220_AAAAPJ shah_m_Page_012.tif
ee0afe0cc78627d76b381873fbcdfd13
af3762c7455cf95b6afc57337f08034436d90f9c
1051948 F20101220_AAAAOU shah_m_Page_169.jp2
46f702d1e1877f7372ae044f404c82ab
21e2879fcdf988aec205997a3627e8be5b2f14f2
4712 F20101220_AAABTA shah_m_Page_153thm.jpg
bf4de3f1aa94d0c038427255e00f912e
2655e5332fd79eaa17d2b46525d36cfa789f0401
20531 F20101220_AAABSM shah_m_Page_146.QC.jpg
0ce473e7193582a7d9ac8f13f9fb076a
a3bc7758bfc8284b428515c892aa82b277aef825
6101 F20101220_AAABRX shah_m_Page_138thm.jpg
a95cc67cec5c51da5c7876cf2f949de6
136d93087ded29721d735eabeaa511386223298a
F20101220_AAAAPK shah_m_Page_013.tif
d0ce56e52f428cc98c0a3bfdb182442a
7bdca8c3ec218eba9a07b9f2f7c991a0e944de98
1051962 F20101220_AAAAOV shah_m_Page_170.jp2
98c74a8934bf513a8940233370520115
7e66e22d4f546de81538aa6a767aea080a3e0535
6573 F20101220_AAABTB shah_m_Page_154.QC.jpg
7c7bdf7c652de0db008af683cfe9eeb2
d68772474d3c41283e6d9ba810bab0e15aa1369b
5502 F20101220_AAABSN shah_m_Page_146thm.jpg
c1278d78e0af0a7f4f3dfb3e94ae642c
5cc0dc777cc8195c97e450adc431099c261fef45
21636 F20101220_AAABRY shah_m_Page_139.QC.jpg
324a182a7e2f98e76dd187152e7e9679
f1c1c366bd6ae50a00a0658ba9e7b8bd7025d2ad
F20101220_AAAAPL shah_m_Page_014.tif
c78931b69ca5714064eba70b8a14b0b5
686c19ef2ff9f729e50afc426960e1aba94a061f
60604 F20101220_AAAAOW shah_m_Page_171.jp2
14b4c7a04aa1676793e7294cf2b290d2
44cdfc288a9866273df11a474a4c29384d4da586
2098 F20101220_AAABTC shah_m_Page_154thm.jpg
b79f50910c810cea3a2b9f1a6e5f8034
923a8df968e10cad8d0aeeebedeeae8eb17fa1ef
15640 F20101220_AAABSO shah_m_Page_147.QC.jpg
f922968b456a69f931fb177abd9f037c
8aff385416ca1c0e8105aa1a74bb3ff2bc7beb2b
5746 F20101220_AAABRZ shah_m_Page_139thm.jpg
d610acb058a387a614ff5190ca028ccb
32bb002d7004066f2a108b18a911c00068734d56
F20101220_AAAAQA shah_m_Page_029.tif
81e1ee394240df62efc35510fd094493
01affd2523951de9fb5f1c6b6f96f1bb6facb7f4
F20101220_AAAAPM shah_m_Page_015.tif
3a6eefbee6f0c62b387cde0c5ec3a261
040e0ee6c9e066b650eea53f9ca792ab2f50683c
91350 F20101220_AAAAOX shah_m_Page_172.jp2
436db0229e2d53d6c6bf1e0dbb695f92
d530797cf2ffb81dcc683793a0613ab3ce68f21c
9851 F20101220_AAABTD shah_m_Page_155.QC.jpg
24b662fef1060ce40aa66ccdace9fe23
61d1321f96c52c382789d281f2ee02cbf0cb1a8c
4397 F20101220_AAABSP shah_m_Page_147thm.jpg
66f871095259d263d0d8b5b64ceea65d
805a240cd7fb25636fd521491e9b242e8c1d841e
F20101220_AAAAQB shah_m_Page_030.tif
de5b46390efeeaa68d2b9080ad0b4c03
8cf7a3dafd13899fe406bbba7bcdbc585b7c60e5
F20101220_AAAAPN shah_m_Page_016.tif
be18308aa15a44b64ce760dd4edb1371
b62a6f812e60f253ded1e61d6e718f963fed74ca
F20101220_AAAAOY shah_m_Page_001.tif
a751d4334135ec64de5298fae2773e3f
285c2b71daf4773fc7a854fd4fac12986a2efe25
3275 F20101220_AAABTE shah_m_Page_155thm.jpg
b5fb572b91d6a5f3632a0e561a976ccd
bbbcf92b8ad8b7d650112a626442899fa2076404
13134 F20101220_AAABSQ shah_m_Page_148.QC.jpg
122c6e98e218a9ab3d986b6d591253ec
1e52a783803b801198815c726fdf8a121a0c885a
F20101220_AAAAQC shah_m_Page_031.tif
30b858936ab13e85d438f161fc1581c1
ac2d3f7f5adf9bf14063802baec8cdab48bed633
F20101220_AAAAPO shah_m_Page_017.tif
9d22556f2693f1d2f86fba14398c8eb8
f637ee5b084ae792dd9df0f6288b578f8cbc1dcb
F20101220_AAAAOZ shah_m_Page_002.tif
1f14f6a8810afea1e0b85d85f6249f17
958e61ddd166dbcc6449fb8bf0d1cda53a9a3141
14106 F20101220_AAABTF shah_m_Page_156.QC.jpg
883e20ca22f8ca6aa8e38f786bba5b34
754089f9ffc8b5c7f430bd7f51013a0a8bc8308c
4098 F20101220_AAABSR shah_m_Page_148thm.jpg
da05995d2f7822796b9edd5418b01bc4
d20d5900bab4e62f72845fef774fc4e6d723c642
F20101220_AAAAQD shah_m_Page_032.tif
fa61c26643bfd94b11cf8d85ff84c5fd
ebd505edf4685a102dac88f6a3bb4df49e12f923
F20101220_AAAAPP shah_m_Page_018.tif
acbc8c3438c3e8d902144a331f65125c
e4d41ea980556c6fea93e11120a30eabc5389d44
4575 F20101220_AAABTG shah_m_Page_156thm.jpg
9fb7029600c72969f78b9da91b031ef0
f0ab53a2457f9624b4023e9cf460718d5d1b46f3
17938 F20101220_AAABSS shah_m_Page_149.QC.jpg
fd7b31a674f5c004e66f19fa86f45e4a
fdfd275702b2eba1b977f0108ab6e4ec79a109ea
F20101220_AAAAQE shah_m_Page_033.tif
04acd34ead923f38f6436231bc3214e6
87f085c41b50f9d1d556c1c2b25f7d009145638a
F20101220_AAAAPQ shah_m_Page_019.tif
9d540fa6637b311834f0dfd7520e731e
b427e5149174896e90a028b908c41360c1ee9407
13887 F20101220_AAABTH shah_m_Page_157.QC.jpg
fa0a27c983a6edfcf235f09ef6a1071c
0468f28c2d11963f5b8fc5dffcf6df399d50ec63
4907 F20101220_AAABST shah_m_Page_149thm.jpg
599f093b7a46b1b6a862c132623f3e5f
416266dfe6af75e13591c931ce5ab158de8a620b
F20101220_AAAAQF shah_m_Page_034.tif
18c0a314cdb0e9aed37b6176de3799b1
e8ca55a80a325f603dc55bfcab30113de95a65c9
F20101220_AAAAPR shah_m_Page_020.tif
6eb9a69e4b91e389cee3a043d951a588
8ab8c413662298e153a456dbc58925cce5e9e758
4687 F20101220_AAABTI shah_m_Page_157thm.jpg
6b8106b925162b8e6f53d7846ad42f13
088dd4033b8dd019550e64fd931e5c5c42bf9131
F20101220_AAAAQG shah_m_Page_035.tif
44bd40dd4d15881b63c82832a60edd59
642c3349c1ef121d26be3c0e9db5663fce7b0f17
8363 F20101220_AAABTJ shah_m_Page_158.QC.jpg
414ac057b8910645cb2ef69a008a0e10
b7965d0ce018aee16d0941b2cf514ebe7d1989eb
15862 F20101220_AAABSU shah_m_Page_150.QC.jpg
c4cfdecdd5895784bc70112fc4b24422
6c1fdcc9b3e727b314f310e233cf73d7fbadf1fc
F20101220_AAAAQH shah_m_Page_036.tif
9d1322373f0c9492069ce43a61c1334a
1afb724bad5eabf298f9a5e0882e40b538a09734
F20101220_AAAAPS shah_m_Page_021.tif
e3e24235ed7f5328b50ff51afbf37379
62d9567351294e3e58b6eb9acb3a5ed455e8bdfe
2708 F20101220_AAABTK shah_m_Page_158thm.jpg
f4da26665aaaeafb1bc1631dab2c8c63
e0d6c21af8cc547dcfacfe76c5ec6e430e834f5e
4656 F20101220_AAABSV shah_m_Page_150thm.jpg
14831b156196877b4b75e620d2844d15
5ec1cb920336b226def7e47d23835507e68ab6ef
F20101220_AAAAQI shah_m_Page_037.tif
c09c31b2104ee1ff6828dc07faa83eac
355113ae02479f4e7c81954756f31d9459c854e1
F20101220_AAAAPT shah_m_Page_022.tif
832f3f9213e77129ac2de6c38d77bcea
4a706eeea3dde835db8f09eef1063db52bffaee7
25003 F20101220_AAABTL shah_m_Page_159.QC.jpg
5547f98515b30a81b1d5dd65376c2305
56cc000f7597c7faabd4436b58e25c3d7af38703
16804 F20101220_AAABSW shah_m_Page_151.QC.jpg
3192591a48eb6bb0721e4a10d5247a06
3007ab4083a86afcf6b863c2414e9d252d136250
F20101220_AAAAQJ shah_m_Page_038.tif
962c9eaf17024dad3423a48230c791b3
7beab2a31ce0e9aa0ef7ad7e3776d346a634741d
F20101220_AAAAPU shah_m_Page_023.tif
6781dcc8fed6f5ea4e328fbdc8697abb
86733c97f80683589783c78a81041f7d5d014c81
33971 F20101220_AAABUA shah_m_Page_167.QC.jpg
f31a48fbbe6f620bf4a4c96519654b18
fe2b6e24667cbd8ff4d2cf8b01872c5827129b39
21248 F20101220_AAABTM shah_m_Page_160.QC.jpg
d8bafef00180bfa971f54074c6954f81
17f8657d3cb671f3709033a360262dd3ea054255
4552 F20101220_AAABSX shah_m_Page_151thm.jpg
86d976a29a68ef2db5da833d9bc9480c
198251dee32c04995835fba35582a4e7d2c8b208
F20101220_AAAAQK shah_m_Page_039.tif
c03062d88821473fae9127736b5cb03f
95318899a2428225b27bf885417eab26186347f4
F20101220_AAAAPV shah_m_Page_024.tif
f6906872de31daf5953feb9b77df92b6
db46c2ca947a9db87f952e8ec51280c54f4dd92f
8384 F20101220_AAABUB shah_m_Page_167thm.jpg
dac31391c289855bfb344aa8a00cb58b
af46e4f4701547b2aec3550b243a5564383643ec
5810 F20101220_AAABTN shah_m_Page_160thm.jpg
e7645c01df6eedabc6e64d5bac633b6e
740bfecb661edd3cce8cb71ad2476e4ad183866e
19649 F20101220_AAABSY shah_m_Page_152.QC.jpg
b34b70314a1757b36fcd8af95a529794
34a446412fa38b15e2ae81a8dc274e397489cd3e
F20101220_AAAAQL shah_m_Page_040.tif
bff8b85df90c62cfe898b6383d890bd7
65ec40d14fc0ee7ed248dbc0f7b514c9db0ddc26
F20101220_AAAAPW shah_m_Page_025.tif
b4ba21977f6e302f732c1cc056638cee
bd2b04f6ec3e7038d640bc9f7fd28fa43966a443
35434 F20101220_AAABUC shah_m_Page_168.QC.jpg
75f9976ecc6d2d65a0e19e0f6bdf708f
e8816ab62f715bc43d90a80761e1fac07b0f19ba
30640 F20101220_AAABTO shah_m_Page_161.QC.jpg
c13d69174e80ea4336ddc6dcd79debc8
500a50a76f164d17a578f9f151af4b4719101b7a
13837 F20101220_AAABSZ shah_m_Page_153.QC.jpg
c048fc8dec17b8aa504ae6bfbbeccc28
30dca8253005f103d1ea63cc3dcb7e9e52660a00
F20101220_AAAAQM shah_m_Page_041.tif
ecbf98597bca3ddbfee76d961f86a983
f76e1eecacccd9926a499344e7ca467df942136a
F20101220_AAAAPX shah_m_Page_026.tif
2a3b4820975f69ff8ac06fce79d2fc88
56517de8f0769a0cd75674e7ae45970f06762e99
F20101220_AAAARA shah_m_Page_056.tif
3134d63c57468b1bd4a670b70131a214
9f1e74f18b74650665b8bda6b13ca643c3ec8c18
8661 F20101220_AAABUD shah_m_Page_168thm.jpg
550418c2865c7d512acd73892bece6e3
3fe84d145287d8956a80919c1cd3b116bf9f368a
7933 F20101220_AAABTP shah_m_Page_161thm.jpg
1aa61574cacd66e3ff6d8fe8a4515dc2
e9cf53f934b2da3d7ecebf6b13f9568d6a5cc3a1
F20101220_AAAAQN shah_m_Page_042.tif
4d8ba9084f5adad854220d3ecf2eee04
51a1426d952dce1ffbbd3cc08ce470d4aea91bfb
F20101220_AAAAPY shah_m_Page_027.tif
2a978f29de98c9e0d4102f60e6af9e21
b90f490686aaa84b0e1e3556920d12e8b749aebd
F20101220_AAAARB shah_m_Page_057.tif
dc762ca7ccc38c4cb97e4d6b43cf6a2e
f84eda829b3a56539b1f22a9cf271bca31d2f631
34178 F20101220_AAABUE shah_m_Page_169.QC.jpg
994e646d063e50180366002a35b38f60
d77c27dcfc1488a2e691bca190dd43767950c3b6
34655 F20101220_AAABTQ shah_m_Page_162.QC.jpg
a4f47d3bf95dc9166ee45004dc4f4b50
2aa37c45f0100423ac39faa1bb0fce59e8006b14
F20101220_AAAAQO shah_m_Page_043.tif
43e932118a411133a977362350a38233
8e2da3d1f8852d3d945ce715d7f3d7f67980e7ed
F20101220_AAAAPZ shah_m_Page_028.tif
612dd8e6639ab8fe224924fe033aac0a
f154aa51b1d0eb291a87b4e32c31354c428aeec1
F20101220_AAAARC shah_m_Page_058.tif
0d12115f79ddc550bb66389a2e61aba6
7d66af1e13534337779f81d22b4811ee0177e0ac
8572 F20101220_AAABUF shah_m_Page_169thm.jpg
c299e3230136931674898b4303f5193a
7a4f6326f99f549a2aef6987e2800af06c35d491
8378 F20101220_AAABTR shah_m_Page_162thm.jpg
65580410f1f7ab79c772a5460eb5e1f8
1105ac6028adfadb469e5e458dba4cb2e92bd3a6
F20101220_AAAAQP shah_m_Page_044.tif
5206b9ab49715d124023645b1ef61494
53af6510b1528bb6353f7cb6bc4a3abbebbca6dd
F20101220_AAAARD shah_m_Page_059.tif
db4427f9e83c07236c8d0b3aa99964a3
4128181f17d4ffd66d88aa4fb49a58acdacdde7b
34459 F20101220_AAABUG shah_m_Page_170.QC.jpg
de3e15d5adb6f919faa95c08e2d569d2
5a7ca8d6501980a1d8655b76637042ba7a09db81
31479 F20101220_AAABTS shah_m_Page_163.QC.jpg
60bc324180778697f9095e69c712a3b8
913305e98561a9eac3d5f2c206a4bf270f07be6a
F20101220_AAAARE shah_m_Page_060.tif
f55df6aae0737376704b6d6d1d5fc46f
4eb77c4c78b9179f5f27e05f69a78c65aef5fb2e
F20101220_AAAAQQ shah_m_Page_045.tif
8fc0bea843455926697c4fdb349f55bf
d94bc611365ba7231b809a8ac8b2960261f6ef36
8582 F20101220_AAABUH shah_m_Page_170thm.jpg
0775a26c31aef6ee5ed4d6928cfe1ed4
96939604cc220e193133efc8e07b7b73b8784349
7817 F20101220_AAABTT shah_m_Page_163thm.jpg
a6c50ab2b8b9704e13c675db99482b41
7cae3db815884ac77090f28e4cfa31d661f35075
F20101220_AAAARF shah_m_Page_061.tif
7ca222f7cef74872aeadd1592d94084d
4c1011344901dfd3315a2c0c50f2bacde7c28f16
F20101220_AAAAQR shah_m_Page_046.tif
55cec1ff941bf2f53d0f1a3fd7706348
c96a5120593e4de0ebcc3192b1af2ff6186c40de
15814 F20101220_AAABUI shah_m_Page_171.QC.jpg
514f72da1dd46ac77281e80e30a47eb5
f234d82ee3ee50e404563337b95df1299e53e29d
34862 F20101220_AAABTU shah_m_Page_164.QC.jpg
f7be0c7885742b563b7e613043c57448
8dfa844834e2cd302773f9cb5e7f296b54cbf12b
F20101220_AAAARG shah_m_Page_062.tif
a2fb414119f84150d3c35c1515416dcc
6cf4ee19803c12767abb6ca61bec07b917bad679
F20101220_AAAAQS shah_m_Page_048.tif
d9e1316e23c1457c0f1f557f69fa5b78
531c6580b73947c873635daaffafcaea647f3e75
4004 F20101220_AAABUJ shah_m_Page_171thm.jpg
4e1771dcb43e21129ea2073bd0cef73f
87bee4d99404a1726d9bd7584a171d7316580fb9
F20101220_AAAARH shah_m_Page_063.tif
26a7a1fa23ab91c2dc578a288efe577e
b6c430c07e1400d5b2250e9ee30abcafa0ca3ebb
28916 F20101220_AAABUK shah_m_Page_172.QC.jpg
b4663b36d920de8949642dbc9d3552e1
912425c9042047c08b74244160e498ef461199c3
8738 F20101220_AAABTV shah_m_Page_164thm.jpg
0dd691f377da815ec20b04e7a6ccb9df
99601ec292c56bd41206e55a8ee3157b621b2737
F20101220_AAAARI shah_m_Page_064.tif
f4c3c0762c8e4a27455e3917efc09b80
af61b7b15c8a1a878c5673aff735707c03f4bb3a
F20101220_AAAAQT shah_m_Page_049.tif
ea90624e0b11c15cc87e46024e27761e
d5a47672680571cfbe68206ddd18c2ec195ebcf1
7221 F20101220_AAABUL shah_m_Page_172thm.jpg
e5299b60d81beab93e721a2a58454222
010f9a9f32f410033d1fd1c86752cd20e0b5c034
31943 F20101220_AAABTW shah_m_Page_165.QC.jpg
d818ad5b2b0a082ad182b581a48c28fd
a6180867b5b8ea5b3aef7c52333547804a776d55
F20101220_AAAARJ shah_m_Page_065.tif
6f17c1043a96ebeff9e7a3f0ec2f93f0
ccd9570edf3b208d620f3783ecb9e0ef59350b6c
F20101220_AAAAQU shah_m_Page_050.tif
9075387b5913bbdcec1e97d5bf75bb7f
0dd96a66502876d02a20b8e875863ee13d7bfe19
196578 F20101220_AAABUM UFE0015461_00001.mets
e8989ce67a8071ab06f9471813cd43ee
f278fcf9f5940aac5ad590c6b735ea9a8c2d9ca0
8343 F20101220_AAABTX shah_m_Page_165thm.jpg
fed18b90532174101a22b7512152635b
27f76abcd62267df2e0fb602e4dea34ead8cc0f3
F20101220_AAAARK shah_m_Page_066.tif
52dd734f18c3848fdb9167c61fee28f6
5671a4e03f07d48467288dc3ffb0501bd2ff3008
F20101220_AAAAQV shah_m_Page_051.tif
e436724c670eb78fff822c759d380699
7fe1a3f0d18e3670e500ba564f2040265c4a3e64
35828 F20101220_AAABTY shah_m_Page_166.QC.jpg
9cfc4d74cc3328032a74f5aff073cef2
d806386bbbb2a3a727135dc180572e670bc7e3d2
F20101220_AAAARL shah_m_Page_067.tif
b4c4ddf282a3c654e151b4fe88df7b17
86e32774055c7eb6815fd8ebbbfb90434138a3d0
F20101220_AAAAQW shah_m_Page_052.tif
e01514e32c22a02aa0d00a8bb287e31e
0bfc127d611a6c038ee56cfe471d7f52bc428832
8880 F20101220_AAABTZ shah_m_Page_166thm.jpg
036a2ab0650753cebfd0281a1c525e38
f3167dee3145c49cd21b32e35d63f848c5cb2b06
F20101220_AAAASA shah_m_Page_082.tif
52ec01c070865432d040fa3ad9d9a0d3
a1429f2183506ef2209fa058acccc6ce29e8ccc3
F20101220_AAAARM shah_m_Page_068.tif
77c6106545d67c8a238e49eab3b27adc
84f820d42cf2efc92414e88e86ab537accf1ac2e
F20101220_AAAAQX shah_m_Page_053.tif
6e8ff9a161ec31a9a675aae81f11a8ff
dc6a3ae0bfd2561af5bb86dc03caaf8e87013bae
F20101220_AAAASB shah_m_Page_083.tif
3a350c5e1dad56006bd2951a6e302a79
a7f656db15956e1dd85f65dd519ef1f83f654bdc
F20101220_AAAARN shah_m_Page_069.tif
8fd9ca1ef1ef0a7daab42c8afef2f343
fa6059ecf462e03131715ed20cccef304092385a
F20101220_AAAAQY shah_m_Page_054.tif
ceff432afc3dc335a8ccf4e4f3089e1d
970517d6b1e02d829bb8aec45bc0f437ec20f332
F20101220_AAAASC shah_m_Page_084.tif
c3cd725cadf0dfb8a8820965440c9fbc
95e405afe1c192f14bdbcd6dca515e1475009f0e
F20101220_AAAARO shah_m_Page_070.tif
4865e3bc4bfa236b97256cfdfc774b87
04b51c06bc5fc9f4d22a8db01532ed1859ee6e11
F20101220_AAAAQZ shah_m_Page_055.tif
13b0d77c58bf184ca0803933a23514da
246f2f24bb94b4b778dd67870e9f6026e8fef5b7
F20101220_AAAASD shah_m_Page_085.tif
d1c079560f3468d150e32df098483dea
cb72437ed308fcf1cfcdaa0e592fef3bfd521a80
F20101220_AAAARP shah_m_Page_071.tif
82ee4663a218a5324c4c790841dabb4e
e205eacad5184be472cd3d64109e1cb175ee159e
F20101220_AAAASE shah_m_Page_087.tif
b28d81a8cbee4b00fbe70da424b3b6ff
01ee219273ada9e12743dd77fa132c02298408ca
F20101220_AAAARQ shah_m_Page_072.tif
f285340f094cbb07df1b0e608a75a673
3114007fb279648cb13e79e90c9964051d9d84e2
F20101220_AAAASF shah_m_Page_088.tif
92ae371511a4bbc63cbecebfa7c64952
48def5a13ac3dd13d8ae4dd796bedb14e81e3884
F20101220_AAAARR shah_m_Page_073.tif
39ec24f4eaf618bb944aca1ac72828a5
4416781552252f213fd07127b25567c29824a2b6
F20101220_AAAASG shah_m_Page_089.tif
be8735656e47ffc42495c60312dee00c
0c1c9819e399b637c257a8a084acc200391b250d
F20101220_AAAARS shah_m_Page_074.tif
54c8c04b1250fc591d6c04b7d614a136
3afef3ff3192c9ccefbd6cd9fb06ff93f13bb837
F20101220_AAAASH shah_m_Page_090.tif
b1c5f40d056f5edab9623454a8ac05ee
8370f01a1c825c352ea41107104d1e84180da41c
F20101220_AAAART shah_m_Page_075.tif
911b6609b980b1380ab694819e17bc92
7214454702a98775515195fc8b30410133218c93
F20101220_AAAASI shah_m_Page_091.tif
cb4b8142c03d72a03f8b4ef13ffd0a93
1c5d604fc800f17e829c5ba98af98becfb0bafae
F20101220_AAAASJ shah_m_Page_092.tif
b1fe988dc70299f528b66d4163c0c0c0
4c59117a40838cec9dddee473059687cd173617c
F20101220_AAAARU shah_m_Page_076.tif
d70a0c45cc3070c14e5c43f6b282af15
7c17bcee7b03fba53d4d08d2c15380736c37d6ff
F20101220_AAAASK shah_m_Page_093.tif
6a1aa8efbef85ae0d2cfa306b73dfb88
c32e9bf77d7271d06aa182e4b02f5d42a6e90f16
F20101220_AAAARV shah_m_Page_077.tif
7446d5c11adc9d8495beecf50a620b96
b150f4a7d7f653c2fac22a43c7cf167ca4b35263
F20101220_AAAASL shah_m_Page_094.tif
a63e792cc381736c1a29bcfc877b88a8
63ee008f4868f255280e72ce56b77b82754ad369
F20101220_AAAARW shah_m_Page_078.tif
d7cea8f8748322af0b1ff74ae7424c7b
1c0e9152b93697ad25ec38f5852955595a2b3d88
F20101220_AAAASM shah_m_Page_095.tif
94bc41dc7b374141cb725af4e849526b
f1598648b3c6606b09bb25c2a9d2dd728c8fff57
F20101220_AAAARX shah_m_Page_079.tif
d4f903c3396fb6b6f1c25e10454ff426
4d67d919837c79e064082331e310adcf99c5e16e
F20101220_AAAATA shah_m_Page_110.tif
b52e98ad34066ec72487b6983bb44027
686992675b88a9242212c3ff5afc82ce2c68a635
F20101220_AAAASN shah_m_Page_096.tif
313bbfa9ee7066bf5b1b148f1ed559af
cfe2cf2b93ab3f7a7edf98496d40993bec54060b
F20101220_AAAARY shah_m_Page_080.tif
6044df977c6bbc33d7cf925a65093591
35cbae89cc169e902e596f34a70b0b2cbd911c15
F20101220_AAAATB shah_m_Page_111.tif
8cd9dfc06426adaa794534c8601d2f7c
c214b9938c926bf03e4ecabd16fe4fa5f509b7eb
F20101220_AAAASO shah_m_Page_097.tif
78d98d6433594c427ff9560720e56357
08dae1f980ce9f986f9b06722a8d6d327903d45f
F20101220_AAAARZ shah_m_Page_081.tif
671050da3b9d17770706987c30a80ce4
5c117d5daa4128117e846dc26463f726964cef2f
F20101220_AAAATC shah_m_Page_112.tif
34cff720296116f653ce4b756bd51169
19c8b7f6ebc6c66c68c17f4dd2711d77f78801f7
F20101220_AAAASP shah_m_Page_098.tif
2648fe0e04c3b16b67e610f2f99483d7
4f6a4beac846db1030ed3a209c457b7bc12e81be
F20101220_AAAATD shah_m_Page_113.tif
f9df0aeb44a4db4234e589677f05590a
d832319dde223e97c3f6c9e2a21775d7c91c9d35
F20101220_AAAASQ shah_m_Page_099.tif
c17ba3a28edf1e0236d7590e733bf1ee
fe9315ec2549f9bd0df18df54ccfc7e45b19d4e4
F20101220_AAAATE shah_m_Page_114.tif
c1745e07b86f646c33a05e030876a035
26d1695c2f477551ee4c53547bcefb47a03d6afc
F20101220_AAAASR shah_m_Page_100.tif
0334c6d88161ea18e725d8e48849a7f4
83a952739471e93b1feed4da713ef9f84b7f5f00
F20101220_AAAATF shah_m_Page_115.tif
a928824858e72d70a86068310d299468
4cfc8cf19ee01fd39d55912a3260b27aa0710905
F20101220_AAAASS shah_m_Page_101.tif
6097ca7f60684b3005296dcca56badcf
818df6ca1a3851d0d4c72127ce9f2669b1888174
F20101220_AAAATG shah_m_Page_116.tif
ade21238d100cd93632f78deb96f2acb
094bf3b695cc687f5d341302d06019b8518dc44d
F20101220_AAAAST shah_m_Page_102.tif
36cddf76fa08189421597fcbd94cb3f8
9b51cf81ed6b7ea5c7ea2a8e87d528c90169ef61
F20101220_AAAATH shah_m_Page_117.tif
eb87b8787ca8b599099210b4769c616b
ee736ccde5bed162045ab678f66c1a656f569a77
F20101220_AAAASU shah_m_Page_103.tif
0f31a74b9c4fa85d66a3cc1d6f71a821
efaf4288a0a1ebac00863c92b4feda6dc49afd75
F20101220_AAAATI shah_m_Page_118.tif
d53f77afec8eba09f3856662d64ba0a3
f3c9f4772fc4ab7791dcee0911a577d3943e4004
F20101220_AAAATJ shah_m_Page_119.tif
4846e0a68cc5017816d9e6360f7251c2
0539ab969dc217f513ef6a3a4369d6f5e09cdd26
F20101220_AAAASV shah_m_Page_104.tif
b78f59127653d2bfed8a681cf53f8998
996cf44b1b5d205f17c6c0597316f10f73085fa3
F20101220_AAAATK shah_m_Page_120.tif
f8bfdd99c3eff873f90be7e03f65154e
1407123ae174b7311e4e058e73eefcbb58ddffad
F20101220_AAAASW shah_m_Page_105.tif
64119a4c84bd54ffe333f56b086cbf9c
ef0fa74a10372f7ecfb13d43932e5bd543f03554
F20101220_AAAATL shah_m_Page_121.tif
c7e2ad4716920bea51a3ea7193007fec
81c690d62c32563ec98ccd0fa68f8c41fdb5bc80
F20101220_AAAASX shah_m_Page_106.tif
2733b1eb3d9832fa7b4e658a576d21a9
21a6bcf06c5af32cc97593a1b65a098d8ffdb79e
F20101220_AAAAUA shah_m_Page_136.tif
8fbe0cbce7fde74ce470e03d3d1a1a3d
ca2e2f412992e85c83d2a4abcb33a52f6326e640
F20101220_AAAATM shah_m_Page_122.tif
fab7b43bc3abbed981468c4b46e51e24
61a1f4df34442e287d90e9fd9d7deed7da63b4b0
F20101220_AAAASY shah_m_Page_108.tif
f58a4d5837fd8607d43d63f15fa96163
f7956cb07844a99fe85108d14d0c25f3de1545eb
F20101220_AAAAUB shah_m_Page_137.tif
aa56610cb5e8e1c5ed0e4c8f76e8335f
3f55e7568d10e604b855a65b2e65a5cb01970645
F20101220_AAAATN shah_m_Page_123.tif
d06a711364e78363b4c4f8525bd9698d
46904d15f0e423b5acad6f48027d89666344ca49
F20101220_AAAASZ shah_m_Page_109.tif
eb49e44f4d9b1b90d5490b4ef1ced6ab
979cf1e1e177be279836e4ade10b67d0d4e15f81
F20101220_AAAAUC shah_m_Page_138.tif
7a56581db14ca443649a600a4391b0c5
69af6f43cdad32829849bef661a445975b6f21d0
F20101220_AAAATO shah_m_Page_124.tif
768e7928285045d0ddd1544212d766ed
2cd889c0ff92b0df319b412b41217dcf119ec5e9
F20101220_AAAAUD shah_m_Page_139.tif
367ab5708e3dcd04148bacaebcc513b8
47cf0b8ced3c4ce40007824d54997e6e44657b4b
F20101220_AAAATP shah_m_Page_125.tif
7b7e78f2a3dcc1b08ff1d1d2a3b7ea82
167543afa6710c9ee036c1f23ca8b9304d00c6b4
F20101220_AAAAUE shah_m_Page_140.tif
5592a6d1c7bfa9f89064a343aa977d00
ef7082bc1d0f1c4aff4f161252c1d60d41b1313c
F20101220_AAAATQ shah_m_Page_126.tif
39b748bd02311cee4d841a13633173ae
1c1456d93601401835a0fce5283e72e0c75c2fb3
F20101220_AAAAUF shah_m_Page_141.tif
69f18388e02cf8f55e89ae8e1de0dc1e
101626aae98600cab56abf2dfcfeb0655440619f
F20101220_AAAATR shah_m_Page_127.tif
a9d488f48a6e4fbda3b01e8e324c32e2
7bf28321ffeba706d9d7c7b15b73b6b5d7efbca0
30199 F20101220_AAABAA shah_m_Page_129.pro
c05bf6c7ce7575d7262d21cc3aff4066
b08466b94b70f789457543173d1237ae97eec24d
F20101220_AAAAUG shah_m_Page_142.tif
e67a5e144cb912cd151b0c064c151766
ee700d0e766303df4a2f9c0290c3c8c4c870be1d
F20101220_AAAATS shah_m_Page_128.tif
c095a76cd891bab80bb38aa164fafc05
2d977063847202b036ec76d0a19f4def525a0c4c
30511 F20101220_AAABAB shah_m_Page_130.pro
1b76b4d929277e04dd3962fce4159b4a
b2d5937dd7c444a9264dcd0175b9f30f2700abb0
F20101220_AAAAUH shah_m_Page_144.tif
b52a1edfeac891faabbeaca08f1290a1
79301814030c42d9bf81559490d27a78ea1c2c08
F20101220_AAAATT shah_m_Page_129.tif
886e9752bf53d2eb79709094a8c9264e
5eb3148cb8941c699384d9d80fefd66558ddc5a3
F20101220_AAAAUI shah_m_Page_145.tif
31acbbf9df07dcba52a28b34880f032a
591a2972651f4a3eb361ba5056304a3654fc5629
F20101220_AAAATU shah_m_Page_130.tif
e698a45a2202ceb5b409cb170f982c98
f1def8b041415acdf443859a35fa57b4878d5544
27738 F20101220_AAABAC shah_m_Page_131.pro
357c875a9f5563b37c8ac23b97226937
edd9818a5fd61454990861da4cec6684f0057b3f
F20101220_AAAAUJ shah_m_Page_146.tif
0e82d7715914dd29af93789bca191f86
721f33f149f3da5008d61c67ec0308bb2fe4d710
F20101220_AAAATV shah_m_Page_131.tif
502b7ef6775f6d28dd50ee1b6cdc244a
78fc2535fb2b5853c51eb348348031b7a18b67b6
31562 F20101220_AAABAD shah_m_Page_132.pro
37697ba7f9755e0d9e9fcdc46c9820e0
22822abed1a84b700adb019a090ec97b524fccf2
F20101220_AAAAUK shah_m_Page_147.tif
5137cc81015f156c844394f9d124ef9c
a213a8d04eb0057b2e29d83c661be833c77a0dac
26698 F20101220_AAABAE shah_m_Page_133.pro
806ad988504830f3dd0c613520cc11ac
4f7349e8b4a75d8ec5f75fac99e49860beb52aab
F20101220_AAAAUL shah_m_Page_148.tif
8c2aca1dd8a949afc901fe3e5c62f353
cf09daad906a464565ed381517f7e91bc36c72f1
F20101220_AAAATW shah_m_Page_132.tif
dcb19145688cb82c19be3ed0ea45b111
b74f943e1d4e14ad26e4786bc897b84477da53c7
24463 F20101220_AAABAF shah_m_Page_134.pro
51d3d13151e909a7c9303ac6f8735add
0a8cd26e898ed0fba0499d803b0f97a2f9c5a4a9
F20101220_AAAAVA shah_m_Page_164.tif
fc600b5b22ed8901ad556fe42c434d53
01ec568a8de1a82c6b9bbeadf13e393d174f4e24
F20101220_AAAAUM shah_m_Page_149.tif
82b64d41207468e3416a30d97b602f07
5e84838d9cb99305b65acea03bcb8f790249cf46
F20101220_AAAATX shah_m_Page_133.tif
fc2bea03edce39c497f9a8ebe05b850b
fc968df8033f73143477316982c2683dd87777b5
22290 F20101220_AAABAG shah_m_Page_135.pro
b300e53ce2151ecd7a8c17e6d4397f5a
5c6e1cacc1472dba1e0fd69c49d2050fcb10c017
F20101220_AAAAVB shah_m_Page_165.tif
d8f40e7a3aea10c8eab6321bc693f294
efd7c22d86fd0d50c60771f9ca4b2e52efe93767
F20101220_AAAAUN shah_m_Page_150.tif
9ee7d38fe79602dece621c40d0d97e24
c049bb08b0161932d941f4e1b81b3b6d19de0c6a
F20101220_AAAATY shah_m_Page_134.tif
942d3f023cde871cbcacbd20dcaa3659
333c94f47f16708ff008a9cb131e6056991357f8
50177 F20101220_AAABAH shah_m_Page_136.pro
622606bc9ff4aa7b32b1d5128c5d819e
e5d1cfb397562c231ae06563cac4ba5fa40c2ea1



PAGE 1

FACTORS AFFECTING OKLAHOMA CHEROKEE FARMERS USE OF TRADITIONAL AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES: SOCIOECONOMICS, THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR AN D RESOURCE ACCESS By MITAL SHARAD SHAH A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Mital Sharad Shah

PAGE 3

This document is dedicated to seekers of knowledge and Cherokee farmers.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my partner, Jacob, and my family for being supportive of my endeavors as a graduate student. I will always be thankful for the patience and participation of the Cherokee farmers in this study and the individuals who helped me develop the instruments for this research they made this study possible. I would like to also thank Cherokee Nations Natural Resources Department for all the help in the field and the new found friendships. I would like to thank my thesis chair, Dr. M.E. Swisher, for her hard work, availability, discipline and guidance as an academic mentor. I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Hugh Popenoe and Dr. Richard Allen, for their patience, wisdom and insight. Lastly, I would like to thank Meisha Wade and Cathy Ritchie from the School of Natural Resources and Environment. iv

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................x ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................xii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Maintenance of Traditional Agricultural Practices.......................................................1 Theoretical Foundation.................................................................................................2 Cherokee and American Indian Farmers......................................................................3 Purpose and Objectives of Study..................................................................................4 Research Questions.......................................................................................................5 Definitions....................................................................................................................5 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................6 Traditional and Conventional Agricultural Practices...................................................6 Historical Context of Cherokee Agriculture.................................................................9 Pre-contact Conditions: Prior to 1690...................................................................9 Contact to American Revolution: 1690-1775......................................................11 American Revolution to Removal: 17751838...................................................14 Removal to Statehood: 1838 1907...................................................................19 Statehood to present: 1907-2005.........................................................................23 Conclusion...........................................................................................................29 Theoretical Framework...............................................................................................30 Classical Economics............................................................................................30 Social Psychology Theories................................................................................33 The Theory of Reasoned Action..................................................................33 Theory of Self-efficacy................................................................................37 Theory of Planned Behavior........................................................................38 Self-identity..................................................................................................41 Diffusion of Innovation.......................................................................................44 Research Questions and Hypotheses..........................................................................46 v

PAGE 6

Research Questions.............................................................................................46 Hypotheses..........................................................................................................46 Definitions..................................................................................................................47 3 METHODS.................................................................................................................49 Research Design.........................................................................................................49 Sample Framework and Sample Selection..........................................................52 Data Collection....................................................................................................54 Methods......................................................................................................................56 Instrument Development.....................................................................................56 Scales and Indices................................................................................................57 Other Questionnaire Items...................................................................................63 Interview..............................................................................................................63 Pilot Study...........................................................................................................65 Limitations...........................................................................................................65 Data analysis........................................................................................................66 Definition....................................................................................................................66 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................68 Behavior and User Groups..........................................................................................68 Hypothesis One...........................................................................................................71 Hypothesis Two..........................................................................................................75 Attitudes..............................................................................................................75 Self-efficacy........................................................................................................80 Modern Control Beliefs.......................................................................................81 Traditional Control Beliefs..................................................................................81 Subjective Norms................................................................................................82 Normative Beliefs................................................................................................84 Traditional Self-Identity......................................................................................85 Modern Self-Identity...........................................................................................85 Hypothesis Three........................................................................................................88 Traditional Resource Access...............................................................................88 Modern Resource Access....................................................................................89 Hypothesis Four..........................................................................................................90 5 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................92 Hypothesis One...........................................................................................................92 Hypotheses Two and Three........................................................................................96 Hypothesis Four........................................................................................................103 Summary...................................................................................................................105 6 CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................107 Future Directions......................................................................................................107 Limitation.................................................................................................................110 vi

PAGE 7

APPENDIX A CHEROKEE NATIONS 14 COUNTY JURISDICTION: NUMBER OF AMERICAN INDIAN FARM OPERATORS BY COUNTY.................................111 B INSTRUMENT OUTLINE: CONCEPTS, VARIABLES AND INTRUMENTAL MEASUREMENTS..................................................................................................112 C INSTRUMENTS ADMINISTERED BY VARIABLE............................................113 D COMPLETE INSTRUMENT PACKET..................................................................125 E SUMMARY SCORES FOR LOW AND LOW TAP USER GROUPS BASED ON VARIOUS VARIABLES..................................................................................142 F CORRELATION BETWEEN SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AND LOGISTIC REGRESSIONS FOR SOCIOECONOMIC AND THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR VARIABLES...................................................................146 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................148 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................159 vii

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Cronbachs alpha and item total correlation values for measured indices...............62 4-1 Descriptive data summary for Cherokee TAP user groups created from the behavior index measuring use of traditional agricultural practices, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005..........................................................................................69 4-2 Values of U, Z, and p Mann-Whitney U test for behavior index based on high and low TAP user groups ( = 0.05),Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005..............70 4-3 Interview responses of high and low TAP user groups for questions measuring use of traditional agricultural practices, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005..........71 4-4 Values of U, Z, and p in Mann-Whitney U test for socioeconomic characteristic based on high and low TAP user groups ( = 0.05), Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005.......................................................................................................73 4-5 Contingency Table and Fishers exact test for gender based on high and low TAP user groups ( = 0.05), Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005...........................74 4-6 Contingency Table and Fishers Exact Test for selling crops based on high and low TAP user groups ( = 0.05), Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005....................74 4-7 Values of U, Z, and p in Mann-Whitney U test for theory of planned behavior variables based on high and low TAP user groups ( = 0.05), Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005.......................................................................................................78 4-8 Interview responses of high and low TAP user groups for questions measuring attitudes towards traditional agriculture, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005.........79 49 Interview responses of high and low TAP user groups for question measuring traditional control beliefs, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005................................82 4-10 Interview responses of high and low TAP user groups for question measuring subjective norms, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005.............................................84 4-11 Interview responses of high and low TAP user groups for question measuring normative beliefs, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005............................................85 viii

PAGE 9

4-12 Interview responses of high and low TAP user groups for questions measuring self-identity, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005.....................................................87 4-13 Interview responses of high and low TAP user groups for questions measuring resource access, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005...............................................89 C-1 Likert scale of attitude toward traditional farming.................................................113 C-2 Behavior index.......................................................................................................114 C-3 Two dimensional subjective norm index...............................................................115 C-4 Subjective norm scalar response item....................................................................115 C-5 Two dimensional normative beliefs index.............................................................115 C-6 Self-efficacy index.................................................................................................116 C-7 Two dimensional modern resource index..............................................................117 C-8 Two dimensional traditional resource index..........................................................117 C-9 Modern self-identity index.....................................................................................118 C-10 Traditional self-identity index................................................................................119 C-11 Modern control beliefs index.................................................................................119 C-12 Traditional control beliefs index............................................................................120 C-13 Questionnaire items measuring socioeconomic characteristics............................120 C-14 Structured interview questions with associated constructs....................................123 ix

PAGE 10

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 The relationship between attitudes (A), behavioral beliefs (b) and the evaluation of the outcome (e)....................................................................................................34 2-2 Relationship between subjective norms (SN), normative beliefs (n) and motivation to comply (m) ........................................................................................35 2-3 The causal linkages between variables associated with theory of reasoned action .36 2-4 The causal linkages between variables associated with theory of reasoned action........................................................................................................................40 2-5 Association between theoretical models and farmer behavior. Note: Self-identity is used within this research as an extension of the theory of planned behavior.......47 4-1 Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on use of traditional agricultural practices, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005......................................70 4-2 Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on attitude toward of traditional agriculture, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005.....................................77 4-3 Score for high and low TAP user groups based on subjective norms, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005..........................................................................................83 4-4 Mean score for high and low TAP user groups based on modern self-identity, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005..........................................................................86 A-1 Permission to use by Cherokee Nation.................................................................111 E-1 Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on mean self-efficacy scores, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005............................................................142 E-2 Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on mean modern control beliefs scores, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005....................................143 E-3 Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on mean traditional control beliefs scores, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005....................................143 E-4 Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on mean Traditional self-identity scores, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005........................................144 x

PAGE 11

E-5 Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on summative traditional resource access scores, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005.................144 E-6 Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on summative modern resource access scores, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005..................................145 xi

PAGE 12

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science FACTORS AFFECTING OKLAHOMA CHEROKEE FARMERS USE OF TRADITIONAL AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES: SOCIOECONOMICS, THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR AND RESOURCE ACCESS By Mital Sharad Shah December 2006 Chair: Marilyn E. Swisher Major Department: Interdisciplinary Ecology Many individuals discuss the importance of maintaining traditional agricultural practices. Some argue that they may contribute cultural and biodiversity. It is important to understand the factors that can influence farmers to consciously maintain these behaviors when perceived direct benefits may not accrue from using them. The case study took place in Cherokee Nations fourteen county jurisdictions in northeast Oklahoma. The purpose of the study was to investigate how socioeconomic characteristics, the theory of planned behavior and access to resources influence the degree to which Cherokee farmers use traditional agricultural practices (TAP). Thirty-four Cherokee farmers participated in the study. Instruments were administered through self-completion questionnaires and interviews. Farmers were placed into two user groups based on their use of TAP. Groups were compared to each other based on the measured predictor variables. Results show that high TAP users tend to be small scale farmers or home gardeners. They sometimes identify xii

PAGE 13

themselves as traditional farmers and have a positive attitude towards using traditional farming. Social pressure urges them to use TAP. Their confidence, perceived barriers and access to resources do not influence their decision-making to use TAP. The research indicates that these farmers motivations to use TAP are associated with indirect benefits such as preservation of cultural heritage and environmental conservation. Low TAP users tend to be large scale commercial farmers. They have a less positive or negative view towards traditional farming and identify themselves as modern farmers or as both traditional and modern farmers. The research indicates that these farmers motivation to use TAP less than the high TAP user group is associated with the desire to maximize efficiency and direct economic benefits. Based on the logistic regression, socioeconomic characteristics were the best predictors of farmers use of TAP over theory of planned behavior and resource access. Future research should explore additional factors such as connection to land, biophysical environment and degree of isolation to better understand Cherokee farmer behavior. Researchers still need to develop a more comprehensive and predictive behavior model. xiii

PAGE 14

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Maintenance of Traditional Agricultural Practices Many individuals discuss the importance of maintaining traditional agricultural practices. Some argue that using these practices promote biodiversity and cultural diversity. Berkes (1999) defines traditional agricultural practices (TAP) as locally adapted agroecological management behaviors. Farmers transmit them from one generation to another. He believes that these practices encourage biodiversity and offer insight into biological species, systems analysis and resource management (Berkes, 1999). Alteri (2001) and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2004) depict the maintenance of TAP as encouraging stability of production, diversity in the diet and reduced insect and disease incidence by increasing on-farm biodiversity Some researchers encourage examining and researching indigenous farmers use of TAP because they may offer solutions previously overlooked to problems related to ecological degradation and food security. Gliessman describes these practices as contributing to the conservation of indigenous knowledge and culture (2003). Further, anthropological research demonstrates a relationship between loss of biodiversity and cultural diversity or linguistic diversity (Harmon, 1996) and suggests that maintaining biocultural diversity is important. Maffi (2005) says It was increasingly apparent that the variety of cultural knowledges, beliefs, and practices developed by human societiesare being placed at risk by the socioeconomic and political processes threatening the integrity and the very 1

PAGE 15

2 survival of indigenous and local cultures and of the environments in which they liveand that this massive and rapid change has profound implications for the maintenance of life on earth (p.604). Further, Maffi (2005) highlights the importance of examining the relation between these components to better understand the pressures it is undergoing, and the possible actions to ensure its perpetuation (p. 604). However, the use of some traditional agricultural practices (TAP), such as swidden agriculture, are controversial in relation to their effects of on-farm and off-farm environments and their potential benefits over other agricultural systems. Fujisaka, Hurtado and Uribe (1996) note that slash-and-burn agricultural systems have received a great deal of attention given their observed or hypothesized role in tropical deforestation, biodiversity loss, and contribution to global warming (151). Other practices, such as ancient agricultural activities in Lebanon, are associated with contributing to deforestation of cedar trees (Talhouk, Zurayk & Khuri, 2001). Interestingly, most of the benefits associated with using TAP are indirect and future-oriented. Maintaining traditional agricultural practices may not provide direct benefits to the individual, compared to other types of agricultural systems, such as conventional farming. What then influences farmers to maintain or reject traditional beliefs and values exhibited by using traditional agricultural practices? It is important to understand the factors that can influence farmers to consciously maintain these behaviors when perceived direct benefits may not accrue from using them. Theoretical Foundation Many theories examine decision-making and its influence on the adoption or persistence of behaviors with proven direct benefits, such as exercising, breastfeeding or increasing food yields. The rational actor model within economic theory suggests that

PAGE 16

3 farmers engage in particular behaviors by rationally determining the costs and benefits associated with using those behaviors. Sociologists examine how access to different mass media and interpersonal resources can influence the adoption or rejection of new farming technologies. Psychologys theory of planned behavior examines how self-efficacy, or confidence, and perceived facilitator and inhibitors, attitudes, and social influences predict the adoption or persistence of certain behavior. Although these theories have predicted behavior with direct benefits, no research examines how or if these theories can explain rational decisions to adopt or maintain behaviors that do not exhibit observable direct benefits. While these theories may also explain the latter type of decisions, it is also possible they will not do so. Understanding the factors that influence farmers decisions to use traditional practices may provide a deeper understanding of why people elect to maintain many kinds of behaviors that do not seem to provide direct benefits to them. Cherokee and American Indian Farmers Some American Indians engage in individual and community level action to preserve and revitalize the use of traditional agricultural practices. This is evident by the presence of organizations such as Traditional American Indian Farmers Association, Native Seed/Search, and Tohono OOdham Community Action. Some researchers are assessing the relationship between farming and culture, the types of traditional agricultural practices being used by American Indian farmers and the sustainability of these practices. The number of principal farm operators is declining among most ethnic groups in the U.S.A. However, American Indians are among the few ethnic groups that show an increase in the number of principal operators. In 1997, there was approximately 13,000

PAGE 17

4 American Indian Principal Operators, while in 2002 this number increased by 15% to 15,000 (United States Department of Agriculture, 2002, p. 1). It is important to understand this growing farming populations decision-making process and the factors that motivate them to use specific types of farming practices. I examine theories that try to understand adoption behavior and decision-making with Cherokee farmers in northeastern Oklahoma. Historically the Cherokee were farmers and used definable and specific TAP. Today, the Cherokees use a wide variety of agricultural practices. I will examine how well the theories described above explain farmers persistent use of TAP within the context of Cherokee farming. Purpose and Objectives of Study This research explores theories that may explain why Cherokee farmers choose to use certain agricultural technologies. I draw upon four theoretical models from the disciplines of sociology, psychology, and economics. This research explores psychosocial variables drawn from the theory of planned behavior and self-identity theory. I use the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) to determine how perceived behavior controls, subjective norms and attitudes towards traditional farming effect Cherokee farmers decisions to use TAP. I use self-identity theory to determine how farmers orient themselves as farmers. I use the diffusion of innovation model (Rogers, 1995) to determine how traditional and non-traditional communication networks affect Indian farmers decisions to use traditional agricultural practices. Lastly, I test the classical economic model by measuring socioeconomic characteristics to determine if this model, compared to the other theories just discussed, is the strongest predictor of American Indian farmers use of TAP.

PAGE 18

5 Research Questions The broader research questions of this study include: 1. What motivates indigenous people to use traditional agricultural practices (TAP)? 2. What factors influence American Indian farmers decision-making to use or not use traditional agricultural practices (TAP)? Definitions Attitude: a persons judgment that performing the behavior is good or bad Control Beliefs: beliefs about the presence of factors that may facilitate or impede performance of a behavior Diffusion of Innovation: process by which new ideas are communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system Farmer: An individual who actively cultivates land for food production. This definition is not based on farm/garden size, amount of time spent cultivating, or amount of sales related to production. This definition is inclusive of cash crop farmers and subsistence farmers or gardeners Perceived Behavioral Control: an individuals perceived ease or difficulty in performing a specific behavior Self-efficacy: an individuals confidence about their capabilities to produce effects Subjective Norms: perceived social pressures that the individual believes are exerted on him/her to perform a specific behavior. Traditional Agricultural Practices (TAP) : agroecological management behaviors that a farmer performs which are transmitted from one generation to another; agricultural innovations which were not developed during and after the Green Revolution

PAGE 19

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Traditional and Conventional Agricultural Practices Alteri (2001) defines traditional agriculture as an indigenous form of farming, result of the co-evolution of local social and environmental systems and that exhibit a high level of ecological rationale expressed through the intensive use of local knowledge and natural resources, including the management of agrobiodiversity in the form of diversified agricultural systems (para. 1). However, traditional agricultural practices are not definable as a specific set of practices common to all indigenous or local communities. The question what is traditional has been a topic of debate among American Indians, anthropologists, and national and international governments and agencies for decades. According to Mauze, some people argue that traditional is based on beliefs, values and practices that have been used since pre-contact. Others consider that traditional encompasses both continuity and change (Mauze, 1997, p.7). This invention of tradition recognizes cultures as dynamic, adaptive and changing as opposed to static (Mauze, 1997, p.7). There is no consensus about the definition of traditional within and among American Indian cultures and sensitivities exist between different cultures toward the use of this term (Nagel, 1996). The Cherokee historically were a farming people. Various secondary sources document pre-contact agricultural activities. The Cherokee used a definable set of agricultural practices called three sisters farming. Three sisters farming is a form of 6

PAGE 20

7 companion planting where different varieties of corn, bean and squash are planted closely together. This often entails building a mound with the soil and planting the three types of plants together as a cluster on the mound (or on several different mounds). This type of agriculture was and is used by many agriculture-oriented Indian communities throughout the U.S. in various ecosystems (arid to deciduous forest). Some communities make modifications with irrigation methods to adapt to different climate regions. The use of these three food crops has historically carried cultural and religious significance for many Indian agricultural communities. This is especially true for those who have relied upon these crops as their major source of food resources. Three-sisters farming was historically traditional agricultural practices (TAP) used by the Cherokee. However, as discussed above, it is difficult to define traditional agriculture today within the context of specific practices due to adaptations over time. For the purpose of the study, traditional agricultural practices are measured by what I perceive them to not be, in contrast to practices that have developed in the post WWII period. These conventional agricultural practices are clearly identifiable. I therefore defined conventional agricultural practices and allowed study participants to reply to all questions based on the individuals definition of TAP. Conventional agriculture grew out of the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution started in 1960s. The technological products and advancements that arose from this revolution are used today by many farmers. They changed how most agricultural production systems function. An agricultural production system that primarily uses some or all components of the Green Revolutions technological introductions is now considered a conventional agricultural production system. Innovations associated with conventional agriculture include the mechanization or the

PAGE 21

8 development of new agricultural machines, such as combines, tractors, thresher, and the development of high yielding seed and plant varieties. Other innovations include synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and insecticides (DeWalt & Barkin, 1987; Freed & Freed, 2002, p.20). The aim of the Green Revolution was to reduce food shortages by increasing agricultural productivity through the introduction of new technologies (Freed & Freed, 2002). Many policy makers and economists supported the revolution on the basis of the high-payoff input model. It surmises that the key to transforming a traditional agricultural sector into a productive source of economic growth was the investment designed to make modern, high-payoff inputs available to farmers.[farmers] were viewed as rational, efficient resource allocators (Ruttan, 1998, p.159). The high-input model stresses the need for agricultural research and human capital formation. The Green Revolution between the 1960s and 1980s increased grain production and commercialization of agriculture. Food production output per acre and farmer income increased (Mellor, 1998; Staaz & Eicher, 1998; Freed & Freed, 2002). Conventional agriculture helped people become less reliant on food imports in many countries, such as India and China (Mellor, 1998). Today, we are in the post-green revolution era. Some farmer and researchers are seeking alternative ways to manage agricultural systems that reduce environmental degradation. Some of these alternative innovations and management techniques include the use of biotechnology to develop new plant varieties, increasing farmer knowledge about current technologies and the use of them, integrated pest management, conservation tillage and reducing external chemical inputs (Morris & Byerlee, 1998; Rasul & Thapa, 2004; Jordan, 2004). This is evident in some parts of Asia where some

PAGE 22

9 farmers are cultivating new, high yield, modern varieties with the help of improved germplasms and using new resources and conservation management techniques, such as conservation tillage (Gollin, Morris & Byerlee, 2005). Historical Context of Cherokee Agriculture This context section provides a historical background about Cherokee farmers. Overall, the history shows that the Cherokee use a variety of agricultural practices. Various secondary data sources associate different levels of acculturation and socioeconomic indicators with the types of agriculture practices they use. This makes the Cherokee Nation an appropriate site selection for the research. I have separated the context section into five subsections, based on major voluntary and involuntary relocation and resettlements of the now Western Band of Cherokees. Political ecologists such as Cernea and Scudder argue that changes in agricultural practices of a community may result from relocation and associated physiological, sociocultural and psychological stresses (Scudder, 1982). I draw upon the political ecology perspective primarily to help frame the historical context of modern Cherokee agriculture. Pre-contact Conditions: Prior to 1690 Cherokee settlements were in the mountainous southern Appalachian highland region of what is now the U.S.A. prior to contact with the Europeans in 1690. This area includes parts of the states of Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky and Virginia. It covered an estimated 40,000 square miles (James Mooneys History, 1891-1900, p.14). This area contained approximately 50 to 60 towns of 250 to 300 people each and a total population of approximately 22,000 (Goodwin, 1977, p. 4647). Towns or villages were located near rivers for defense and to

PAGE 23

10 accommodate religious and subsistence activities. The villages migrated periodically due to flooding, drought, disease and food shortage. Land-tenure and utilization was a village concern, not an individual matter based on private ownership. The Cherokees were horticulturalists. They supplemented cultivation with hunting and gathering. Women were the primary farmers and gathered wild resources, while men helped prepare fields and hunted (Gearing, 1958). Each Cherokee family cultivated two to three plots. These consisted of individual gardens near the home, a communal garden in the village and a communal garden outside the village. The individual garden plots next to the homes contained medicinal plants so that the families did not always have to gather medicine and herbs. Each family had to work in communal gardens to receive part of the harvest. Villages cultivated outside of the walled villages when settlements were large and gardens in the village did not supply enough food for village members (Employee of Cherokee Heritage Center, personal communications, September, 2005). Food plants included cultivated plants and gathered wild vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds and herbs. The Cherokee supplemented their diet with meat acquired by hunting and fishing. Agriculture accounted for 40-60% of food resources, while hunting and gathering accounted for the rest (Goodwin, 1977, p.55). Corn or maize served as the Cherokees primary food crop, as it did for many southeastern Indian tribes. The planting, harvesting and consumption of corn had ceremonial and religious significance. Other commonly cultivated crops included varieties of beans, squash and sunflowers (Goodwin, 1977). Interplanting corn, bean and squash (three sisters farming) was common. They mounded soil and planted crops in the mound. Corn was planted in the middle of the

PAGE 24

11 mound. Beans were planted at the base of the corn and wound around the corn stalk. Squash was also planted at the base of the corn plant and covered the ground around the plants. This allowed the Cherokee to plant crops in the same spot for a long period of time without depleting the soil of nutrients (Gina, personal communications, September, 2005). Irrigation methods included hand watering and ditch irrigation. The type of irrigation method used depended on proximity to the water source. Yields were high and labor requirements low. Farm implements included: wooden digging sticks, scapulas, blade and hoes (Goodwin, 1977). Gathering occurred when resources were available. Gathered resources included wild vegetables, such as amaranth, fruits, such as blueberries and strawberries, and nuts and seeds, such as hickory, chestnut and walnuts. Hunting took place year round. White tailed deer and elk were caught by traps, snags, drives, and stalking. Cherokees also hunted birds and other small game, such as rabbits and squirrels, with bow and arrows, cane blowguns and traps. Fish were caught with dipping nets and grapevine drags (Goodwin, 1977). Contact to American Revolution: 1690-1775 Changes in land use and agricultural practices occurred soon after initial contact with European explorers and frontiersmen, beginning sometime between 1590 -1690. The dominant forces affecting changes in agricultural practices were associated with the introduction of new technologies and the gradual acceptance of the European socioeconomic system and values. The land controlled by the Cherokees decreased due to claims made by European settlers (Goodwin, 1977). Europeans and Indians established trade routes in the early 1700s, which greatly altered Cherokee life. The Europeans introduced the Cherokees to innovations such as

PAGE 25

12 the plow, domesticated livestock, metal tools and guns through trade. They commonly traded guns, cloth and rum with Cherokees for agricultural products, minerals and deerskin. Cherokees adopted new crops, such as peaches, apples, onions, watermelons, rice, okra, cabbage, and potatoes. Cotton was also introduced during this period, but was not widely cultivated. Tools such as the plow and iron hoe and axe were also introduced, but they were rejected by village chiefs and their use was limited during this period. Goodwin (1977) states that the use of these tools was rejected because chiefs thought that they would affect the balance of nature and reduce the number of people needed for cultivation and gathering. Starting in the 1690s, missionaries encouraged Cherokees to hunt less game and cultivate more land. This was a mechanism used by missionaries to reduce the amount of land needed to hunt, which would reduce the amount of total land needed by Cherokees for food resources. They urged the Cherokees to abandon their ancient ways, including hunting, and instead, to employ themselves in tilling the ground (Knepler, 1942, p.60). Apparently, the colonial and federal governments had adopted a policy designed to change Indian values concerning land tenure, so that they might be satisfied with less (Goodwin, 1977, p.141). The missionaries focused on teaching Cherokees to become more reliant on European agricultural techniques. Further, many European farmers believed that Indians were not adequately using their land because they under cultivated it or did not cultivate it at all. This was considered a waste. This encouraged farmers and missionaries to teach Cherokees to farm the European way, which they believed made the land more productive (Hurt, 1987). As a result, more pronounced changes occurred in hunting patterns. The introduction of guns and horses greatly contributed to this change. Horses became the

PAGE 26

13 primary mode of transportation for hunting. Men hunted in groups by foot before contact. Now hunting became an individual activity. Many hunted not only for subsistence but also to make a profit through trade. Animals were over-hunted and game populations decreased drastically. By 1720 many Cherokees raised European domesticated animals, such as hogs, chickens and cattle, to offset the deficit in game. Overgrazing by livestock was common and resulted in soil deterioration (Hurt, 1987). Warfare broke out soon after trading began between the Europeans and Cherokees. This was primarily due to maltreatment of Cherokee people and land disputes. Some Cherokee settlements were destroyed and the population declined. European diseases were prevalent and a small-pox epidemic in the late 1730s further contributed to a decline in the Cherokee population. The estimated Cherokee population by 1735 was 17,000, but by 1758 the population was reduced to approximately 7,500 (Goodwin, 1977, p.107). The population recovered by the time of the American Revolution to approximately 16,000 (Goodwin, 1977, p.117). Conversion of forest areas into large tracts of open land used for cultivation accompanied the expansion of European settlements. A decrease in territorial lands made it necessary for Cherokees to use techniques that maximized development of agricultural resources. Cherokees abandoned or relinquished large tracts of land and moved into marginal areas less desired by Europeans as encroachment continued. There was a reduction in the food supply and agricultural techniques previously used were not as effective in fulfilling the village needs in these marginal areas. Villages were autonomously governed during pre-contact period. After contact, many villages combined as allies for protection and a state-like system of government developed among these towns. Eventually, Cherokee settlements started to resemble

PAGE 27

14 colonial settlements. Wide-spaced homes replaced clustered homes. Homesteads with log cabins became common. Introduction of commercial trade, slaves and fur led to the further dispersion of pre-contact town clusters. The Cherokees began to look to European agricultural practices to maintain economic viability when the fur trade declined in the 1750s. This meant that larger amounts of arable land were sought after and more intensive agricultural practices were used. Families more commonly cultivated individual and private plots and the communal form of farming and ownership diminished. Some families had plantations by the end of this period. Woodlands adjacent to the settlements continued to be an important source of fuel and game. This area served as forage area for newly introduced domesticated livestock. They fenced gardens and farms near the home to keep livestock out of them (Goodwin, 1977). Overall, a sedentary, intensive form of land-use and private ownership began to replace the pre-contact communal ownership and cultivation of land, hunting and gathering activities. Innovations introduced by the Europeans included metal tools and equipment, new domesticated plant varieties, animal husbandry, guns for hunting and warfare, private land ownership and sedentary agriculture. When the American Revolution began Cherokees used a variety of agricultural practices ranging from small-scale communal farming to large-scale individually based intensive farming. American Revolution to Removal: 17751838 The new American government forced Cherokees to cede their lands after the American Revolution. Indians continued to lose lands to American farmers. After the Constitutions creation in 1789, the Indian Intercourse Act in 1790 was passed to help regulate and protect the purchase of Indian lands by treaties. However, the federal

PAGE 28

15 government did not have the resources to enforce the law and keep American farmers from taking Indian land illegally (Hurt, 1987). The Cherokees signed the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with the United States of America in 1791. One of the aims of the treaty was to lead the Cherokees to greater deal of civilization, and to become herdsmen and cultivators, instead of remaining in a state of hunters (Kappler, 1904, Article 14). The U.S. also promised to assist the Cherokee Nation with implements to advance animal husbandry and agriculture. Cherokees began using the plow and associated tools to increase crop yields (Perdue, 1996). Iron tools such as hoes, axes, scythes and plows were too costly to use before this period. Now Cherokees used these tools more commonly (James Mooney, 1900). Many Cherokees learned how to use introduced farm implements and relied upon them for agriculture with the help of the U.S.. Draft animals allowed them to use large, heavy tools to clear difficult terrain, such as mountainous and heavy vegetation. The Cherokees began using the plow and could now cultivate introduced grain crops such as wheat, barley and rye. Beginning in this period a distinction was made between different Cherokees and their agricultural activities. One group became more acculturated into American society. These Cherokees were sometimes characterized as mix-bloods, wealthier Cherokees or assimilated Cherokees. They were characterized as having plantations and engaging in large-scale commercial production. The other group was sometimes characterized as poorer, full-bloods or less assimilated. Their agriculture was often described as small scale and subsistence based. In later periods it is difficult to determine if there is an overlap between these two distinctive groups and how mutually exclusive they are.

PAGE 29

16 However, the terminology is used throughout other periods to characterize the two groups and is used in various texts. With that said, those who developed commercial operations soon became intensive agriculturalists, cultivated large tracts of land and became wealthy plantation holders. They cultivated cotton, wheat and barley and adopted the culture of the southern aristocracy, which included slave ownership (Graebner, 1945). Some Cherokees who engaged in subsistence activities farmed communally, but it was becoming less common. From 1800 to 1820 the Cherokees adopted many additional innovations such as the Euro-American education system, literacy and Christianity. U.S.s republican form of government was also adopted as the political structure of Cherokee Nation (Wahrhaftig, 1978). Further, Malone cited by Goodwin (1977) states by the 1830s, the Cherokees had become a nation of farmers, with 2,700 families, or 93% of the population, managing their own farms and tending to thousands of cattle, swine, horses (p. 140). In 1819, Congress created the Civilization Fund which aimed to civilize Indians through farming. Numerous schools run by Christian churches began to offer education to Indian males and females to help them learn tasks to integrate them into society. Males were taught to farm and maintain livestock while women were taught to weave, spin and cook (Hurt, 1987). Tensions over land increased between American settlers and Cherokees. Thomas Jefferson aimed to create Indian policies to assimilate Indians into American culture through farming during his presidency, beginning in 1801 (Perdue, 1996). Jefferson hoped to reduce Indian land holdings, which would allow more land to become available for white settlers. He also hoped that eventually the Indians would move west. Hurt cites Esarey To promote this disposition to exchange lands which they have to spare and we

PAGE 30

17 want for necessarieswe shall push our trading houses, and be glad to see then good and influential individuals among them run in debtsthey will become willing to lop [debt] them off by a cession of lands.they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens of the United States or remove beyond the Mississippi (Hurt, 1987, p. 86). The U.S. government encouraged land allotment through treaties with Cherokee in 1817 and 1819. The allotments granted the heads of the household 640 acres if he/she lived on the land and cultivated it. This allowed the American government to determine which and how much land a household could receive. Further, it encouraged assimilation through farming and private ownership, as opposed to communal land ownership and farming. The allotment reduced Indian land holdings because not all land was under cultivation. In total, Indians of the southeast lost 80 to 90% of their total land holdings (Hurt, 1987, p.93-94). Americans encouraged Indians to emigrate to lands west of the Mississippi during the 1820s. Numerous Supreme Court cases, such as Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia in 1830 and Worchester vs. Georgia in 1831, dealt with issues related to land ownership by Indians and state governments (Hurt, 1987, p.91). Some Cherokees voluntarily moved in the 1820s and 1830s to Indian Territory in what are now parts of the states of Oklahoma, Arkansas and Kansas to avoid additional conflict with Americans. Many of them faced economic hardship initially, but were able to reestablish farm operations. Many of these Cherokees were the wealthier, more acculturated farmers. By 1837, these Cherokees were considered the most advanced Indian farmers in the west and had between 1,000-1,100 farms (Graebner, 1945, p.234). Many other Cherokees moved farther south into Georgia. Some were rich plantation holders with slaves, while others remained subsistence farmers. The subsistence farmers were sometimes called

PAGE 31

18 traditionalist because they refused to adopt all the new introduced innovations (Perdue, 1991). Heated conflict ensued between the American and Indian cultures in the east. Settlers forcefully and lawfully took lands owned by Cherokees. Americans destroyed Cherokee agricultural lands to motivate them to move west. Eventually those who did not voluntarily move to Indian Territory were forced to move there in 1838 as a result of the signing of the Treaty of New Echota in 1835 (Hurt, 1987). The treaty stated that the United States would purchase all land owned by the Cherokee Nation east of the Mississippi for five million dollars. The signing of the treaty was highly contentious and not all Cherokee leaders were present during the signing or willing to move. Thus, many Cherokees were forced to move in large groups during the winter of 1838 in dispatchments of 1,000 people each after being held in prisoner camps. The path they traveled is known as the Trail of Tears (Wahrhaftig, 1966). Overall, tensions increased between Cherokees and white settlers over land holdings. This conflict eventually led to the emigration of many Cherokee to Indian Territory. Numerous policies were passed to encourage assimilation through farming. A distinction became evident between the lifestyle and agricultural activities of the subsistence and commercial farmers. Communal land ownership and farming were being replaced by private land ownership and family run farms. The division of labor changed from farming as being a female oriented activity to that of a male activity. Farming became less of a subsistence activity and more cash and commercial oriented. This was due to the introduction of numerous farm implements, the wide use of metal tools, cultivation of introduced plant varieties, such as cotton, and education programs.

PAGE 32

19 Removal to Statehood: 1838 1907 The effects of the removal were devastating. Approximately of the Cherokees that emigrated west in 1838 died due to starvation, disease, and cold weather during the approximately 1,000 mile journey. Those who moved west to Indian Territory are now identified as the Western Band of Cherokee Nation. Those Cherokees who remained east during the removal consisted of a small group of armed individuals who resisted removal and hid in the mountains of North Carolina. They were eventually recognized as the Eastern Band of Cherokee Nation. The western Cherokees began to rebuild their life within a foreign temperate terrain of the Ozark Mountains in what are now parts of Oklahoma, Arkansas and Kansas. Agriculture was still very much a part of Cherokee life during this time. Some families relied on subsistence communal farming. Others cultivated large tracts of land with cash crops such as cotton. The first wave of resettlement took place before the signing of the Treaty of New Echota. These resettlers consisted primarily of mixed bloods that had strong European values and plantations in the eastern U.S. They colonized the best agricultural lands in Indian Territory and cultivated cash crops. The Cherokee that emigrated in 1838 cultivated more marginal lands, because the best lands were already claimed. However, compared to many of the other eastern tribes that moved to Indian Territory, such as the Seminoles and Choctaw, they had more fertile land to cultivate and were more successful at rebuilding a life with farming. Land ownership consisted of private and communal ownership. As in the previous period, two types of agricultural systems developed in Oklahoma among the Cherokee. They consisted of subsistence farming and plantation-style, specialized commercial production

PAGE 33

20 operations (Employee of Cherokee Nations Facility Management, personal communications, August, 2005; Nall, 1977). By the 1840s the Cherokees were making progress in intensive agriculture in eastern Oklahoma. Cherokee farmers grew potatoes, beans and peas and raised livestock, such as cattle and hogs. Missionaries and federal farm agents provided agricultural education and farm implements to only male farmers (Nall, 1977). For large scale, wealthier farmers, implements used included mowers, reapers and threshers. The wealthier had slaves, who cultivated the fields. They also had large plantations, gardens and fruit orchards, which allowed them to be self-sufficient (Graebner, 1945). Cotton gins and grist mills were also present. Previous to the 1840s many of the Cherokee farms in the west, large or small scale, used implements such as iron plows, axes, hoes, chisels and wedges (Graebner, 1945). Those Cherokees who were poorer and did not have slaves were described as having small garden plots (three to ten acres) and cultivated purely for subsistence. Corn was the primary cultivated crop. Other crops commonly cultivated included beans, melons and sweet potatoes. Men planted, cultivated and harvested the fields while the women wove, spun, cooked and sometimes maintained small home gardens (Thoburn & Wright, 1929, p.243). In 1854, a major drought caused damage to Cherokee crops. Yet, many farm operations rebounded by 1860 and the Cherokees were considered one of the most successful Indian farmers. Some of the wealthier Cherokee developed profitable operations without the aid of the government, which often provided poor quality implements and seeds too late. Many sold grain and livestock to nearby military posts. Crops included wheat, oats, rye, cotton, peas, potatoes, turnips, squash and corn. Fruit orchards where also maintained and included apple,

PAGE 34

21 peaches, pears and plums. Livestock included horse, cattle, oxen and sheep. Other Cherokees still practiced subsistence agriculture (Hurt, 1987; Graebner, 1942). By 1862, during the Civil War, Cherokees split into two factions and fought for both the Union and Confederacy. Many Cherokees fled to Kansas during the war. Union and Confederate troops traveled though Cherokee land within Oklahoma. Many destroyed crops, farm implements and livestock. The Civil War severlly hindered agricultural activities. When the Civil War ended, Cherokees returned to their farms. However, many stopped farming and relied on government aid due to constant theft and requisition by military troops of crops and livestock (Hurt, 1987). Many of the Cherokees still had gardens and cultivated corn, potatoes, squash and beans. Some who relied on subsistence agriculture sometimes did not have enough food for winter (Gaebner, 1945, p. 323). Many had some livestock for meat and still hunted and fished to supplement their diet. Some of the Cherokee continued to farm commercially, such as those in the Piney Community in Delaware County. According to the 1880 census they maintained fruit trees, cultivated corn, wheat, potatoes and cotton and raised hogs, horses and sheep (OBrien, 2001). Most of these Cherokees, over 3,500, were farmers by profession (Graebner, 1942, p.333). The American westward expansion eventually led settlers to Indian Territory after the Civil War ended. Many settlers squatted on Cherokee land and stole and sold cattle for profit in Kansas. A new federal government philosophy was developed and implemented by the Bureau of Indian Affairs after the Civil War. This consisted of reducing Indian Territory and breaking up communally owned land into individual allotments. Between 1880 and 1890 American commerce in the west was built on

PAGE 35

22 speculative value of Indian lands. Land hawks and Indian agents leased large tracts of Indian land to incoming American settlers. The Dawes Commission tried to get Cherokees to agree to the allotment of tribal lands and dissolve the Cherokee government. Cherokee leaders refused, but the Dawes Commission, through the Dawes General Allotment Act of 1887, authorized a census of all Cherokee in the west and a survey of their land (Lewis, 1995). White squatters began to move onto Cherokee lands. They illegally cultivated crops and allowed their cattle to graze on Cherokee land. The squatters favored the dissolution of the Cherokee Nation and the creation of a new America state. A resistance organization among the full-blooded Cherokee, called the Ketoowa Society, revitalized elements of the old culture. This included ceremonies, creation of villages in cluster and some communal planting (Thomas, 1961). The Curtis Act was passed by Congress in 1898. It called for the dissolution of the Cherokee tribal government and forcible allotment of lands. The government allotted the head of any household with 160 acres, each single individual above the age of eighteen 80 acre and each minor 40 acres. Like the allotments in the east, this reduced the amount of land Cherokee owned and required that property ownership become private or held in trust by the federal government as opposed to tribally owned. Full bloods resisted enrolling for land allotments, but after the imprisonment of the leaders of the Ketoowa Society, such as Redbird Smith, many full bloods enrolled. In 1907 most of Cherokee land became part of the 46 th State of the United States -Oklahoma (Thomas, 1961). Overall, during this period Cherokees began to adjust to Indian Territory and continued farming. Some Cherokees farmed commercially while others farmed for subsistence. Cotton became a major cash crop for commercial farmers. Ranching became a more prevalent activity during this period. Yet, the Cherokee continuously

PAGE 36

23 encountered setbacks due to theft, drought, destruction of land during the Civil War and relocation due to allotment. This reduced the number of Cherokees that farmed and the amount of land owned. Statehood to present: 1907-2005 After statehood many Americans moved west. Many forests were logged and bottomlands planted with cotton. Cherokees leased their hillside properties to cattlemen or to subsistence farmers in tiny tracts to tenants. Further, game was hunted nearly out of existence (Wahrhaftig, 1978). Many Cherokees withdrew from politics in response to the lack of recognition by the federal government of Cherokee Nation as a governing body. As a result the Cherokees had no control over their land rights and mineral products. The Bureau of Indian Affairs held Cherokees allotted titles to land as trust land. The government allowed incoming frontiersmen to use resources on land they did not own until the 1970s. Allotted land holdings were not contiguous or always accessible. Many Cherokees had to sell portions of their allotments or separate extended family units to dwell on the different land allotments. An influx of Americans came to Oklahoma and purchased large amounts of land. During the 1920s, many Cherokees did not have money to buy cattle or grow cash crops. No loans were available to Cherokee farmers to purchase implements. Many leased their lands to incoming settlers. Many in the acculturated group continued to farm commercially, grow cash crops, such as cotton and wheat, feed crops and harvested lumber. They were able to keep larger amounts of land and remained wealthy. The other group farmed for subsistence and grew watermelon and cantaloupe for additional cash.

PAGE 37

24 They were predominately poor (Employee of Cherokee Nations Facility Management, personal communication, August, 2005). The drought during the Great Depression in the 1930s put many farmers near starvation and they were unable to remain economically self-insufficient. Many Cherokees abandoned farming as a commercial activity. However, many still maintained gardens and canned their food. In Delaware County, Cherokees continued to live off the land. Everyone had a garden and supplemented their diet with fish, crawdads, squirrels, mushrooms, berries, and nuts. Awards were given [by the Indian Farm Agent] to the Cherokee who canned, cured, or dried the most for winter use and who saved the most seed for his or her garden (OBrien, 2001, p.15). According to the U.S. Census of 1930, Indians [Cherokee] are more commonly owners of the farms they operate than both whites and Negroes (Hewes, 1942, p.403) within four counties in northeastern Oklahoma. The average acreage cultivated was likely ten and many Cherokees had home garden plots rather than commercial farms (Hewes, 1942, p. 408). Within Adair County near Stillwell, with the help of school teachers and Extension Agents, Cherokees developed a prosperous strawberry cooperative and received loans for farm implements under the Indian Welfare Act. Eventually, in 1946 the cooperative dissolved and many growers started their own private strawberry operations (Debo, 1951). Although few Cherokees grow strawberries commercially in Stillwell, the town still holds an annual strawberry festival in remembrance of the strawberry industry. In 1928 the Merriam Report depicted the overall state of Indians in America. The report highlighted issues about Indian policy related to agriculture and assimilation. This included recognizing that there was a lack of experienced educators, farm implements and loans available to Indian farmers. Further, leasing of lands and allotment were

PAGE 38

25 problematic. After the report, reform policies in the 1930s, such as the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, encouraged Cherokees to retain land base, end allotment and funded programs with an economic base. These policies promoted agricultural education of women and communal farming (Duffy & Stubbins, 1998; Hurt, 1987). The Civilian Conservation Corps, established in 1933, helped and taught the Cherokees to restore overgrazed and farmed lands to a level where the land could be cultivated again (Hurt, 1987). The BIA attempted to teach the poorer Cherokee to use the latest agricultural techniques by holding demonstration projects. It tried to teach Cherokees to raise their own food on their allotments, but many projects were not successful. Many were dependent on the government for help and community cooperation became less important for raising food (Fogelson & Kutshe, 1961). Poorer Cherokees had few draft animals or farm implements. The restricted Indians as a class do less farming than before the allotment of land. The practice of renting land, including crop land, to white farmers is now more common among restricted Indians than formerly.self-support by subsistence agriculture is the modest goal held for restricted Indians (Hewes, 1942, p. 409-410). Although capital became available to fund farm projects, it was still considered a basic obstacle to farming (Hewes, 1942). During the 1940s, the wealthier Cherokees raised big gardens at home using plows. They had high crop yields, canned fruits and vegetables, smoked and salted pork, sold cream and milk and churned butter. It was important to preserve food for the family during the winter. Many of these Cherokees became cattle ranchers. They used half their land for cattle grazing and the other half to grow corn and hay. They invested and worked on their own property. Men cultivated fields, while women raised home gardens. The

PAGE 39

26 poorer Cherokees also had cattle and goats, but they did not keep the animals in fenced pastures. They had smaller tracts of land and raised gardens which had corn, squash, cucumbers, okra and potatoes. They were primarily subsistence farmers on their privately owned lands. Children were sent to work off the property to produce additional income (Employee of Cherokee Nations Facility Management, personal communications, August, 2005). During WWII, the federal government terminated the previous Indian policy. New federal policy encouraged leasing Indian lands and assimilation (Hurt, 1987). During the 1960s, agricultural farm agents introduced conventional agricultural techniques and innovations. Cherokees who were still farming commercially were able to benefit from these innovations, but many lacked capital and credit to purchase large farm implements. Through the1950s to 1970s the Army Corp of Engineers built dams where Cherokee settlements were. Many families were again displaced. Many received social services and others moved to California (Wahrhaftig, 1978). In the 1960s the Cherokee reunified to become a Nation and gained control over Cherokee affairs. The Cherokee Nation was designated land within a 14 county jurisdiction in northeastern Oklahoma. There was a decrease in small farm land holdings and an increase large land holding of 220 acres or more for farming and ranching. A decline in commercial farming was evident, but many still raised home gardens. There were inadequate resources for profitable large farms to develop. There was also a shift of political power from country to town. The acculturated Cherokees entered more fully into the cash economy and prospered. There was a further breakup of family unit (Wahrhaftig, 1966). The number of wage laborers increased and some Cherokees worked on others farms to harvest beans, peas, strawberries and huckleberries. The need and desire to possess gardens and

PAGE 40

27 farms fell. Most food was and is obtained from grocery stores. The construction of dams for river flood control and recreation areas increased. New restrictions on land are enforced because of this, such as hunting and fishing regulations, hog-fence laws and restricted stream and forest use (Wahrhaftig, 1966). Many Cherokees in eastern Oklahoma live in what are now growing towns. Yet, there are still others who live in rural, isolated and fairly inaccessible areas. They tend to be relatively poor. In 1966 there were 50 Cherokee communities that have between 30 to 60 households organized around churches and stomp grounds, a location of traditional religious gatherings and ceremonies, with a total population of 9,500 in Oklahoma (Wahrhaftig, 1966). In the 1970s economic based reports in eastern Oklahoma show that supporting agricultural development would not be profitable. Under the Indian Financing Act established in 1974, grants and credit became available to finance Indian enterprises (Duffy & Stubben, 1998). In the1970s and 1980s the Cherokee Gardens in Tahlequah provided employment to members of the Nation. However, the economy has shifted to draw tourists to Cherokee Nation as an attraction. The Cherokee Heritage Center and National Museum and Drama in Tahlequah draw many tourists today. The Cherokee National Museum has replicated two Cherokee settlements from the pre-contact and colonial period where gardens and farms are recreated and tours available of the villages. Some Cherokees own large-scale farms today. Home gardens are more prevalent then large farms, but maintaining a garden is also becoming less common (Employee of Cherokee Nations Natural Resources Department, personal communications, August, 2005). In 2002 the Five County Agriculture Project proposal was submitted to the Nations government to start teaching youth in rural Cherokee communities how to maintain and harvest fruit trees. The Nation denied the proposal (Employee of Cherokee

PAGE 41

28 Nations Natural Resources Department, personal communication, August, 2005). Today a few Cherokee communities participate in religious activities which honor agricultural activities through ceremonies such the as the Green Corn Ceremony. Some of these Cherokees garden communally more for symbolic reasons rather than for subsistence within various stomp ground in the 14 counties. Further, Cherokee commercial farmers have access to loans, farm implements, incentive programs and agricultural education programs. These are available through various USDA programs, such as Farm Service Agency, Cooperative State Research Extension and Education Services and Natural Resources Conservation Services. The Cherokee Nations Natural Resource Department employs an agricultural liaison. This individual informs Cherokee farmers about USDA programs and other marketing resources through newsletters, field days, workshops and fairs. Today there is no census available about the number of Cherokees farming. According to the USDAs 2002 Agriculture Census the number of American Indian farmers as principal operators in Oklahoma is 7,470 and has increased since 1997 (USDA, 2005, p.10). American Indians in Oklahoma cultivate 1.5 million acres of land on 6,392 farms (USDA, 2002, p.502). According to the census Oklahoma also has the highest number of American Indian principal operators. Within Cherokee Nations 14 county jurisdiction there are 2797 farms, which is 44% of all Indian farms in Oklahoma. There are 3228 principal farm operators, 43% of all Oklahoma American Indian principal farm operators, and approximately 537,00 acres of land under cultivation or 36% of all Oklahoma land cultivated by Indians (USDA, 2002, p.502) (Appendix A). Prior to allotment in the late 1890s before Oklahoma statehood, the Nation owned approximately 1.7 million acres of land. Today the Cherokee Nation owns approximately 100,000 acres

PAGE 42

29 with another 100,000 acres of individual allotted land held in trust by the federal government (Employee of Cherokee Nations Strategy Team, personal communications, June, 2006). Overall, during this extensive time period the Cherokees of Oklahoma practice farming at several scales, ranging from home gardening to commercial, large scale farming. Cherokee farmers have been introduced to numerous innovations such as tractors, hybrid seeds and new irrigation methods. However, for a large part of this period some Cherokees were unable to use and incorporate these new innovations into their agricultural operations because they lacked access to capital. Similar to previous periods they have experienced numerous changes resulting from Indian agricultural policy and relocation. Today, farming is a less important component of most Cherokees lifestyle compared to previous periods. However, access to resources, such as those provided by the USDA is evident. Conclusion Overall, major agricultural changes have taken place from pre-contact to the present. Men, instead of women became the primary cultivators of agricultural lands. Less land became available to Cherokees to supplement cultivation with hunted and gathered resources. Communal property ownership and farming has changed to private property ownership and private or single family farms. Numerous farm implements and domesticated plant and animal species have been introduced into the agriculture system. Large scale, intensive, sedentary farming techniques, such as monoculture, replaced mound planting and subsistence farming. Lastly, farming and gardening are no longer a primary occupation or activity for many Cherokee families.

PAGE 43

30 Theoretical Framework Classical Economics Classical economic theory states that farmers decisions to use certain agricultural technologies are determined by rationally weighing the costs and benefits associated with using those technologies (Staaz & Eicher, 1998). The rational actor model of human decision-making posits that individuals will behave in consistent, well-ordered ways to maximize personal gains. Preferences are considered exogenous, meaning other people or institutions do not influence their decision-making (Gowdy, 2004, p. 246). For example, a farmer may decide to grow a specific crop because it is subsidized by the government and the economic incentives from the subsidies provide the greatest return. However, some economists argue that, individual actors do not act as cost-benefit calculators who continuously adapt their behavior to changing environmental conditions. They may or may not respond rationally to incentives (Gowdy, 2004, p. 249). They argue that the classical economic model alone does not take into account individuals endogenous preferences. Endogenous preferences can include intrinsic values, future values, personal history, social influences and context (Gowdy, 2004; Osiniski, Kantelhardt, & Heissenhuber, 2003). According to Osiniski, Kantelhardt, and Heissenhuber, (2003), the economic model can incorporate endogenous components, such as assessing the intrinsic values of landscapes by determining how much people are willing to pay for environmental service. However, transferring the valuation placed on landscapes is not transferable between regions. There is evidence that people do act in ways to affect others wellbeing and are influenced by other peoples preferences. People do make choices based on fairness, which could keep an individual from maximizing personal benefit (Johnson, Rutstrom &

PAGE 44

31 George, 2006). Fischer, Irlenbusch and Sadriehs (2004) research show that resource extraction and exploitation of common pool resources can increase when considering intergenerational links. However, financial incentives are a stronger motivator of continuing exploitation. In Indian society, historically, economic growth and increased income for material goods were not the primary purpose of exchange between parties. Exchanges did have economic incentives, but they also served as social and spiritual interchanges. This may not be the case today, but it is important to consider some of these historical factors when examining modern Indian decision-making (Duffy & Stubben, 1998). The classical economic model may offer an incomplete explanation of farmers decisions to use particular farming practices (Henrich et al., 2001). Alternative explanations that include endogenous preferences may provide more robust explanations of why farmers engage in particular behaviors. Economic sociologists, beginning with Weber, do examine some endogenous social factors, such as the effects of others behaviors on an individuals decisions. These components are often socioeconomic factors, such as gender, age, income, participation in farm organizations. Ultimately, economists embed social factors within the economic model to better understand decision-making (Swedberg, 1998) and many economic sociologists have highlighted the importance of adding endogenous factors to the economic model (Zafirovski, & Levine, 1999, Luzar, & Diagne, 1999). A great deal of research explores the correlation between socioeconomic characteristics and adoption behavior. Results show varying associations between agricultural behaviors and socioeconomic characteristics. Knowler and Benshaw (2006)

PAGE 45

32 said that a more detailed synthesis of these adoption studies indicated that there are few if any influences on adoption that apply universally (p.20). Pattnayak, Mercer, Sills and Yang (2003) found that farmers age positively correlates with adoption of agrofoeresty. On the other hand, Mathijis (2003) and Gockowski and Ndoumbes (2004) research show that there is a negative correlation between age and adoption behavior. The adoption of new technologies positively correlates with land size based on Adesina and Chianus (2002) research. However, Gockowski and Ndoumbes (2004) results show that there is negative correlation between monocrop adoption and land size of Cameroon horticulturalists. Gockowski and Ndoumbes (2004) suggest that the negative correlation may exist due to population pressure for farmers with smaller land holdings. Pattnayak, Mercer, Sills and Yang (2003) and McNamara and Wetzsteins (1991) research show that there is a positive correlation between farm income and adoption behavior. Gockowski and Ndoumbes (2004) analysis of others research show that there are significant positive relationship and insignificant relationships between these two variables. Thangata and Alavalapati (2003) show that there is little difference between income and agroforestry adopters and non-adopters. Lastly and more consistently, previous findings show that the number of laborers on farms positively correlates with use of new agricultural technologies or conservation practices (Thangata & Alavalapati, 2003; Gockowski & Ndoumbe, 2004; Wubeneh & Sanders, 2006). Overall, many socioeconomic characteristics correlate with farmer adoption behavior. The direction and significance of these correlations are inconsistent for the most part and can be location specific.

PAGE 46

33 Social Psychology Theories Social psychology focuses on the endogenous components that influence peoples behaviors. This research examines endogenous components in the theory of planned behavior (TPB). TPB builds upon and is a combination of two social psychology theories, the theory of reasoned action (TRA) and self-efficacy, which I describe below. The Theory of Reasoned Action Ajzen and Fishbeins (1980) theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that individuals, as rational agents, use information at any given time available to them to make decisions about intentions to perform behaviors. A behavior is the observable response in a given situation with respect to a given target (Ajzen, N.D.). Examples of behaviors include women breastfeeding their newborn babies, voters choosing candidates in an election and college students attending classes. Intentions are the motivating factors that affect and influence a behavior. They are the conscious decision-making process used by individuals to determine if he/she will engage in the behavior. Intentions are indicative of how much effort people are willing to invest in order to perform a behavior (Ajzen, 1988). An individuals intention is the primary determinant of his/her behavior. The stronger an individuals intentions to commit a specific behavior, the more likely he/she will do so. Intentions are determined based on two factors, an individuals attitude towards a behavior (a personal factor) and subjective norms (a social factor). Attitudes are a persons judgment about whether a specific behavior is positive or desirable, or negatively or undesirable (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Two components influence attitudes towards a behavior, behavioral beliefs (b) and the evaluation of the behavior (e). Behavioral beliefs (b) are an individuals most prominent beliefs about the outcome that a specific behavior will produce (Robinson & Doverspike, 2006). For

PAGE 47

34 example, an individual might believe that walking on a treadmill for 30 minutes daily will reduce his/ her blood pressure (b) and believe that lowering his/her blood pressure is good (e). Ultimately, the individuals attitude toward the behavior reflects his/her assessment of the outcome associated with the behavior and whether the outcome is perceived as positive or negative. For example, a person may believe that farming traditionally preserves his/her cultural roots (b), and that preserving his/her culture is good (e). The individual then may have a positive attitude toward farming traditionally. Figure 2-1 depicts this relationship. A = (b) (e) Figure 2-1: The relationship between attitudes (A), behavioral beliefs (b) and the evaluation of the outcome (e) (Ajzen, I. (nd). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Retrieved March 15, 2005, from http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/index.html ) The other factor that influences an individuals intention to perform a behavior is subjective norms. Subjective norms are the perceived social pressure to engage in a behavior. This consists of two components, normative beliefs (n) and motivation to comply with influential others (m). Normative beliefs are an individuals beliefs about what important individuals or groups, known as referents, consider to be desirable or undesirable behavior. An example of a normative belief is when a farmers grandfather, whose opinion he/she considers important, does not approve of traditional farming. Notice the normative belief consist of a referents (grandfather) belief and also the importance of the referent to the individual. For example, the referent may have a positive view of traditional farming. However, if the referents opinion is not important

PAGE 48

35 to the individual then this normative belief will not be influential in determining an individuals subjective norm. A subjective norm is the social pressure to engage in a behavior (SN). This occurs when an individual believes that an important referent (n) supports a specific behavior and the individual wants to comply (m) with the referents beliefs. See Figure 2-2 for the relationship between these variables. SN = (n) (m) Figure 2-2: Relationship between subjective norms (SN), normative beliefs (n) and motivation to comply (m) (Ajzen, I. (nd). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Retrieved March 15, 2005, from http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/index.html ) The TRA tries to explain how personal and social factors can influence and determine the behavior of an individual. People will engage in or perform a behavior if they evaluate the behavior positively (attitudes) and they feel social pressure to perform the behavior (subjective norms). Behavioral beliefs influence an individuals attitude towards performing a behavior. Likewise, normative beliefs influence an individuals subjective norm. The intention to adopt a behavior is based on the combination of individuals attitude toward the behavior and subjective norms. The strength of the individuals intention to perform a behavior determines the actual performance of the behavior. The stronger the intention to engage in a behavior, the more likely an individual will perform a behavior. Figure 2-3 depicts the TRAs causal linkages between factors.

PAGE 49

36 Figure 2-3. The causal linkages between variables associated with theory of reasoned action (Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.) Researchers test TRA among a variety of behaviors and intentions, such as participation in environmental programs (Luzar & Diagne, 1999), use of educational curriculums (Codd & Cohen, 2003; Meyer, Roberto, Boster & Roberto, 2004), and health related behaviors (Dodge, Ford & Perko, 2003). Sapp (2002) discusses the importance of the hierarchy of effects principal developed by Ajzen and Fishbein in influencing behavior. The hierarchy of effects principal surmises that cause and effect are rational in that knowledge, attitude and intentions can predict and determine behavior. Individuals can make rational decisions to engage in a behavior based on these factors. However, inconsistencies between attitudes and behaviors are observed in past research. Conditions such as contrary beliefscountervailing values, addictions motivated by both physical and social conditions and abnormal psychology can create nonrational behavior (Sapp, 2002, p.38). Sapp discusses how the lack or limitations of knowledge can lead to these attitude-behavior inconsistencies or nonrational behavior instead of the above conditions. The inconsistencies may actually be related to an inability to engage in behavior that

PAGE 50

37 accurately reflects attitudes and intentions (Sapp, 2002, p.38). According to Sapp (2002) and Sandersons (2004) research results, a lack of knowledge about adoption behavior can impede an individuals ability to adopt a behavior or intention to adopt a behavior. Therefore a certain amount of knowledge is needed to be able to successfully perform a behavior. The TRA rests on the idea that intention can be expressed as a behavior when the behavior is under an individuals volitional control (Ajzen, 1991). Yet, what happens if an individual perceives that there are barriers keeping him/her from performing a behavior? What if he/she believes that performing a behavior is not in his/her control? Theory of Self-efficacy In the mid-1990s Bandura (1995) developed the social cognitive theory ofself-efficacy. The theory focuses how perceived behavioral controls (PBC) influence an individuals decision-making process. The theory accounts for situations when an individual believes he/she does not have full control (volition) over his/her decisions to perform a behavior. This theory is used among disciplines such as education, marketing, health sciences and engineering. Perceived behavior controls (PBC) refer to an individuals perceived ease or difficulty in performing a specific behavior. PBC include barriers or facilitators that influence an individuals ability to engage in a behavior. It consists of two components. They are confidence and control beliefs. Confidence refers to an individuals belief in his/her capabilities to organize and complete a course of action. An example of confidence includes a mothers belief that she can successfully breastfeed her child for six months. Control beliefs are an individuals perception of the presence of factors that may facilitate or impede performing the behavior (Ajzen, I., ND). For example, an

PAGE 51

38 individual may not believe that he/she can build a ten story building if he/she does not have the adequate skills and training in engineering. A farmer may believe that the/she cannot farm traditionally if there is a drought. Research indicates that self-efficacy can influence an individuals decision-making process and ability to perform a behavior. For example, studies show that students with high self-efficacy have higher grades in school than those with lower self-efficacy (Schunk, 1991). In addition to academic performance, self-efficacy is also a predictor of adoption and maintenance of breast self-examinations (Luszczynska, & Schwarzer, 2003). Some studies show that self-efficacy is the primary, but not the sole, determinant of an individuals intentions and behaviors (Sanderson, 2004; McGinty, 2006). Self-efficacy may also predict the persistence of a behavior in the future (Luszczynska, & Schwarzer, 2003; Schaefers, Epperson & Nauta, 1997). Schaefers, Epperson and Nautas (1997) research shows that self-efficacy is one of the determinants, but not the prime determinant, of womens persistence in engineering as an academic major. Other factors that influenced persistence behavior include academic ability, supports and barriers and interest congruency, or the degree of fit between womens personality and demands of an occupation. Various research show that self-efficacy can be influential of adoption and persistence behavior with direct benefits. However, results show that self-efficacy is only sometimes a prime determinant of adoption and persistence behavior. Theory of Planned Behavior In 1998, Ajzen incorporated Banduras theory of self-efficacy into the TRA to better understand the effects of decision-making on human behavior when individuals do not have full voluntary control over their decision making process (Sapp, 2002). The

PAGE 52

39 theory of planned behavior (TPB) is the result of this combination (Figure 2-4). Within the TPB perceived behavioral controls can influence intentions and behavior directly. The TPB has been applied to educational development, commerce, career choice and development and adoption of non-risk health behaviors (Pavlou & Fygenson, 2006; Brickell, Chatzisarantis, & Pretty, 2006; Ahuja & Thatcher, 2005; Robinson & Doverspike, 2006). The TPB often accurately predicts behavior based on attitude, intention, PCB, and subject norms. The TPBs predictive power increases especially when an individual perceives that he/she does not have control over his/her decisions to perform a behavior. This theory has been tested once among farming populations with regard to farmers adoption of agricultural practice (McGinty, 2006). McGintys results show that self-efficacy and attitudes do positively influence Bahian farmers adoption of agroforesty. Self-efficacy was the primary determinate of farmers intentions to adopt agroforestry. Farmers persistence or adoption of agricultural behaviors can be influenced by their perceived behavioral barriers. Researchers have not tested this theory with American Indian farming populations to determine its predictive power in adoption and maintenance of traditional and conventional practices. I think the TPB is more applicable to exploring American Indian farmer behavior than the TRA due to their past historical experiences with agricultural policy and their minority status. There may be barriers or facilitators that American Indian farmers perceive as influencing their use certain agricultural technologies.

PAGE 53

40 Figure 2-4. The causal linkages between variables associated with theory of reasoned action (Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; Ajzen, I. (nd). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Retrieved March 15, 2005, from http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/index.html ) Ajzen (1991) suggests that the TPB can incorporate additional predictor variables as part of the model if they can account for significant variance over and above the TPB variables. Conner and Armitage (1998) review the possibility of extending the TPB with additional variables derived from other theoretical frameworks and research evidence. A few variables are recognized as increasing TPB predictive power. Some include past behavior and habit, moral norms and self-identity. There is growing evidence to support the addition of variables to the TPB to increase the understanding of how they relate to the other predicator variables associated with the TPB and behavior. This study also explores the role of an additional variable, self-identity, added to the TPB in predicting Cherokee farmers use of TAP.

PAGE 54

41 Self-identity Within social science disciplines the definition of identity has been explored since the 1950s when E.H. Erickson first published his work about identity. Eriksons definition of identity includes internal or psychological and external or sociological dimensions. He defines identity as an individuals awareness of the sameness and continuity of his/her individuality as it relates to the sameness and continuity of ones meaning for others (Schwartz, 2001, p.8). This multidimensional definition of identity includes three forms of identity that can co-exist and vary in significance over different situations and points in time in an individuals life. Ego identity is a persons consciousness of individual identity and unconscious striving for continuity in character. Personal identity consists of goals values and beliefs that one shows the world. Social identity is sense of inner solidarity with a groups ideals (Schwartz, 2001, p.10). With these broad and inclusive definitions of identity, Erikson sets the stage for research addressing theory and methodology related to identity among social scientists. Numerous definitions and theoretical models try understanding and determining the meaning of identity within different contexts. Research related to physical activity, voting behavior and use of physician use of telemedicine or information technologies examine the influence of identity on behavior (Jackson, Smith Conner, 2003; Gramberg & Holmberg, 1990; Ellis, Robb, Burke, 2005; Gagnon, et al, 2003). Psychologists have diverged into two different groups when discussing and researching identity. The first group focuses on the social components that influence self-identity. Styker defines identity as a part of social orientation and influences or the linkages of social structures with identities (Styker & Burke, 2002, p. 287). Burke focuses on the internal process of self-verification (Styker & Burke, 2002, p.288).

PAGE 55

42 Combining Styker and Burkes definitions, self-identity includes factors that influence a persons perception of him/herself based on an internal understanding or external influences (Styker & Burke, 2002). Conner and Armitage (1998) define self-identity as the salient part of an actor's self which relates to a particular behavior. It reflects the extent to which an actor sees himor herself fulfilling the criteria for any role as affected by internal or self and external or social influences (Conner & Armitage, 1998, p.1444). Identity theory implies that people will behave in ways that conform to their self-image. The stronger a persons self identity, the more likely the individual will behave consistently with that identity. Wilson, Urban, Graves and Morrisons research (2003) with mid-western farmers illustrate this relationship. One component of the research examines the degree to which Central Illinois farmers identities are related to their daily agricultural practices. Sixty percent of the farmers in the study use plow till farming. Many of these farmers spurn or nominally adopt no-till farming (Wilson, Urban, Graves & Morrison, 2003, p.28). The rejection of no-till farming is associated with their beliefs that plow tillage is efficient and effective. No or minimum tillage is also associated with government intervention or outside control. Many of these farmers distrust the government and external authorities for various reasons and try to reject their programs when they can. No-till is also rejected because it is seen to dirty the rural landscape (p.28). Seventy percent of these farmers associated no-till farming as countering farm aesthetics. This research implies that these farmers self-identity is related to rejecting external and government intervention and preserving farm aesthetics. Their rejection of no or minimum tillage practices reinforces this identity. On the other end, the adoption of no or minimum tillage by other farmers also reinforced their identity as promoters of environmental conservation. I build upon Wilsons research to consider

PAGE 56

43 the influence of self-identity on the types of agricultural practices used by farmers. In my study if a farmer identifies him/herself as a traditional farmer, then he/she may use farming practices that reinforce this identity as a traditional farmer. I explore American Indian farmers self-identity as it relates to being a traditional farmer. I encourage farmers to provide a definition of what constitutes being a traditional farmer. It is not my aim to determine what the agreed upon view of traditional is. My aim is to understand how farmers identity themselves in relation to being a traditional farmer. It will be challenging to measure farmers self identity as being a traditional farmer because what is viewed as traditional differs among farmers. The manner in which I measure it may not truly capture what each farmer means by traditional. Numerous studies incorporate self-identity into the TPB (Jackson, Smith, & Conner, 2003; Fekadu, & Kraft, 2001; Pierro, Mannetti, & Livi, 2003). When self-identity is incorporated into the model, significant relationships exist between an individuals self-identity, the intention to use a behavior. Pierro, Mannetti and Livis (2003) research shows this relationship. They conducted two independent studies to see the effects that identity can have upon peoples intentions to attend Latin American dance classes and purchase low-fat food. The results from both studies show that the identity variables are significant and independent predictors of intentions to perform the behavior. They increased the explanatory power of the TPB. However, the variables associated with the TPB overall explained more of the variance in intentions then the identity variable. I incorporate self-identity as an extension to the theory of planned behavior to determine how it may influence American Indian farmers use of TAP.

PAGE 57

44 Diffusion of Innovation Rogers (1995) diffusion of innovation theory, published in 1962, describes the factors that may motivate people to adopt new technologies over time. The theory is used to explain the adopters of new technology behavior in the form of ideal types. For example, those individuals who are most likely to adopt a new technology first are called early adopters. Early adopters consist of opinion leaders, who are respected by their peers in a local setting. They are the first individuals within a local setting to adopt a new innovation and then provide an evaluation of the innovation to peers. On the other hand, laggards are the last in a social system to adopt an innovation. The point of reference for the laggard is the pastDecisions are often made in terms of what has been done previously [they] tend to be suspicious of innovations and change agents (Rogers, 1995, p. 265). Various disciplines and subject matters use this theory to examine adoption behavior. This includes rural sociologists study of farmers adoption of new agricultural innovations (Jacobson, Sieving, Jones, & Van Doorn, 2003 ). R esearch in education examines the spread of new teaching ideas (Wilson, & Stacey, 2003). Business marketing analysts assess consumer and organizational adoption of new products such as computers, pharmaceuticals and phones (Attewell, 1992; Berndt, Pindyck, & Azoulay, 2003). Rogers defines diffusion as the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among members of a social system (Rogers, 1995, p. 5). An innovation is an idea or practice that is perceived as new by an individual. It is not so important that the idea is new in terms of the amount of time that has passed since its

PAGE 58

45 discovery. Rather, the information or idea should be new to the individual and/or social system that encounters it. The primary factor influencing an individuals decision to adopt or reject an innovation is his/her access to information (Hooks, Napier, & Carter, 1983). Information and resources include education and contact with knowledgeable sources of innovation, such as county extension agents or other farmers. The information transfers to individuals through communication channels. The relationship between the source of the innovation and receiver of the innovation determines the effectiveness of this transfer of information. This thesis explores two channels of communication from this theory. The first is mass media channels. They are a means of transmitting messages through mass media such as radios, televisions, newspapers and magazines. The other source is the interpersonal channel, which involves face-to-face interactions and exchanges between individuals. Examples of interpersonal communication include farmer-to-farmer, or extension agent -to-farmer, community elders-tofarmers (Rogers, 1995, p. 18). Many researchers use this theory to examine factors that influence farmers to adopt new farm technologies. Some include conservation practices, precision technologies and conventional agricultural practices (Floyd, et al., 2003; Hooks, Napier, Carter, 1983; Sevier & Lee, 2005; Carletto, de Janvry, & Sadoulet, 1999; Weir, & Knight, 2004). The results are inconclusive in either fully supporting or rejecting the theorys effectiveness in explaining adoption behavior. However, what does appear to be consistent is that that there are associations between this theory and economic and social psychology theories. The innovation diffusion theory is more effective in explaining farmer behavior when used in combination with the economic and social psychology theories (Lynne, Shonkwiler, & Rola, 1988; Nowak, 1987; Floyd, et al., 2003). Rogers (1995) also

PAGE 59

46 indicates that this theory can complement other theories to better understand adoption behavior. My research explores the channels of communication farmers rely upon as sources of information about traditional and conventional farming practices. I also explore how these resources influence farmers adoption or maintenance of traditional and conventional agricultural practices. Research Questions and Hypotheses This literature review explores various theoretical frameworks that explain why certain factors may impact individuals decision-making to engage in specific behaviors. I developed research questions and associated hypotheses to determine how the various theory-based variables influence American Indian farmers decision-making to use (TAP). Figure 2-5 shows this relationship. Research Questions To what degree do socioeconomic characteristics explains farmers use of TAP? 3. To what degree do attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral controls and self-identity explain farmers use of TAP? 4. To what degree does access to different types of resources explain farmers use of TAP? 5. Which theoretical model best explains farmers use of TAP? Hypotheses 1. A relationship will exist between farmers socio-economic characteristics and their use of TAP. 6. A strong positive relationship will exist between farmers attitudes towards the use of TAP, subjective norms, self-efficacy, control beliefs, self-identity and their use of TAP. 7. A positive relationship will exist between farmers access to resources and their use of TAP.

PAGE 60

47 8. The theory of planned behavior will better explain why farmers use TAP than any of the other theoretical models. Figure 2-5. Association between theoretical models and farmer behavior. Note: Self-identity is used within this research as an extension of the theory of planned behavior. Definitions Attitude: a persons judgment that performing the behavior is good or bad Control beliefs: beliefs about the presence of factors that may facilitate or impede performance of a behavior. Diffusion of innovation: process by which new ideas are communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system Farmer: An individual who actively cultivates land for food production. This definition is not based on farm/garden size, amount of time spent cultivating or amount of sales related to production. This definition is inclusive of cash crop farmers and subsidence farmers or gardeners. Perceived behavioral control: an individuals perceived ease or difficulty in performing a specific behavior and their confidence in their ability to perform the behavior Self-efficacy: Individual's confidence about their capabilities to produce effects

PAGE 61

48 Selfidentity: the extent to which an actor sees himor herself fulfilling the criteria for any role as affected by internal (self) and external (social) influences (Conner and Armitage, 1998, p. 1444) Subjective norms: perceived social pressures that the individual believes are exerted on him/her to perform a specific behavior. Traditional agricultural practices (TAP): agroecological management behaviors that a farmer performs which are transmitted from one generation to another; agricultural innovations used before 1960

PAGE 62

CHAPTER 3 METHODS Research Design I used an explanatory case study design because I wanted to examine the complex interactions between numerous variables. This design allowed me to achieve a better understanding of how numerous theory-based variables can influence farmer behavior. I also used this design because I tested three theories under conditions that differ from those of previous studies (de Vaus, 2001; M.E. Swisher, personal communications, November, 2004). I selected the cases and allocated them to comparison groups based on the outcome variable. The outcome variable I placed the cases into a high TAP, medium TAP or low TAP group posteriori. The groups depict maximum variability. This research examines multiple cases. This provides a more rigorous test of the theories than a single case design. I used a sequential and retrospective design, where each case involves collecting information related to an extended period of time (de Vaus, 2001, p.229). The study examined cases as holistic units of analysis. I assessed characteristics of individuals as a whole as opposed to exploring embedded or sublevel characteristics of the individual in detail. Each case consists of one Cherokee farmer or gardener who currently cultivates crops (fruit, vegetable and grain) primarily for human consumption. According to Swisher (personal communications, November, 2004) internal validity in research is the degree to which the research design eliminates other explanations than the ones proposed in the hypothesis or proposition. Internal validity 49

PAGE 63

50 assesses the degree to which the design illustrates casual direction between the predictor and outcome variables. Case studies sometime have low internal validity because they, unlike experimental designs, do not create interventions to create control and treatment groups. The retrospective nature of the case selection threatens the internal validity. However, I took certain measures to increase internal validity. I address this concern by evaluating multiple cases, creating comparison groups, assessing linkages through several instruments and data sources and using an idiographic approach to examine cases. I reduced the number of possible alternative causal explanations by comparing multiple cases. I created comparison groups based on the outcome variable and compared them to each other, based on the predictor variables. The use of comparison groups and their contribution to internal validity is comparable to experimental designs, except in case study designs the groups are created posteriori. I examined how different predictor variables affect multiple cases within each comparison group. This inferred causality. Idiographic explanation focuses on particular events, or cases, and seeks to develop a complete explanation of each case. By developing a full, well-rounded causal account, case studies can achieve high internal validity (de Vaus, 2001, p. 233-234). Unlike nomothetic explanations, which focus on a restricted range of variables, the idiographic approach decreases the possibility of alternative explanations and offers a fuller explanation of each case. I assessed the interrelation between the variables by measuring numerous predictor variables in combination with each other (de Vaus, 2001). Further, I include a historical context of Indian agricultural policy and Cherokee agriculture to decrease the effects of history and examine how history may influence behavior. I reduce the effects of maturation by including questions within the instrument

PAGE 64

51 packet that examine the potential effects that history can have on participants responses. Questions related to age and numbers of years farming examine maturation. External validity is the extent to which results of the study can be generalized beyond the study (de Vaus, 2001, p.28). It is important to differentiate between two types of generalizability in case studies. Some researchers refer to statistical generalizability when discussing external validity. Statistical generalizability is the ability to generalize the findings of the research to a broader population than the sample. Statistical generalizability can increase by using probability and random sampling. Case studies sometimes do not aim to achieve statically generalizability. The findings from a case study do not always offer explanations of phenomena to a population outside of those who are studied. Rather, case studies focus on achieving theoretical generalizability. Theoretical generalizability refers to the ability to generalize findings from a study to a theory. The cases tell us about the effectiveness of the theory as an explanation of the phenomena under study. Replication enhances the external validity of case studies (Yin, 2003). I used multiple cases in this research both to achieve theoretical replication, by assigning groups on maximum variability, and literal replication, by comparing cases within each group. A major strength of the study is that it incorporated explanatory breadth by examining the complex interactions between numerous variables. Our ability to incorporate complexity is a direct reflection of how well we understand and can explain the phenomena we want to study (M.E. Swisher, personal communications, November, 2005). Artificiality and sensitization are threats in this study. Some associate artificiality with experimental designs. This can also be an issue with case studies and can affect

PAGE 65

52 responses and behaviors within case studies. For example, people may respond differently to questions in an interview or questionnaire because they may try to give the researcher a response he/she wants to hear. I tried to reduce artificiality by encouraging that participants interact in a setting comfortable to the participant non experimental conditions. Sensitization is an uncontrollable threat. Inclusion in the study may alter responses. Sample Framework and Sample Selection The theoretical population of this study is American Indian farmers in the United States. Farmers are individuals who actively cultivate land for food production. This definition does not consider farm size, amount of time spent farming or value of sales. I used this definition in order to include individuals in this study who are either cash crop producers or home gardeners. All cases include American Indian farmers or home gardeners who cultivated land within the study site and had the same tribal affiliation. Many American Indian Nations/Tribes in the U.S. are from distinct traditions, languages, and historical backgrounds. American Indian Nations are not really a single ethnic group, but rather a collection of many ethnic groups (Champagnes, 1999). I restrict my study to a single federally recognized tribe within the United States that has tribal members who currently farm or garden since the phenomena under study has a strong cultural component. I contacted 23 federally recognized tribes recommended by a key informant working with Native Women in Agriculture to select a tribe within the USA. Ten tribes of the 23 possessed cases which fit the parameters of the sample selection. Many of the other tribes did not have many or any farmers but instead had ranchers. Two of the ten tribes officially rejected the proposal to conduct research with tribal members. Seven

PAGE 66

53 tribal governments either were non-responsive or said that the tribe would claim ownership and publication rights over any material written about the tribe. One tribe, the Cherokee Nation, did fit the parameters for case selection and was willing to work with me. We agreed that the Cherokee Nation would review the thesis and determine whether it would be officially endorsed by the Nation upon completion of the research. The accessible population is Cherokee farmers of Oklahoma within the Cherokee Nations 14 county jurisdiction in northeastern Oklahoma. These farmers were also my sampling frame. Cherokee is self-defined. The farmer/home gardener claimed to be member of Cherokee Nation. I did not ask them if they held tribal membership cards due to sensitivities associated with this issue. Cherokee farmers of Oklahoma are of the same sociolinguistic background and descendents of Cherokees who emigrated west during the 1820s and 1830s. There is currently no census information available that is specific to the Cherokee Nation farmers. According to the USDA Agriculture Census of 2002, there are currently 2797 farms, 3228 principal farm operators and approximately 537,00 acres of land under cultivation by American Indian operators in the 14-county jurisdiction. This is likely an incorrect estimation of Cherokee farmers because numerous American Indian tribal members who are not Cherokee also live within this region. The USDA does not census home gardener populations because they are not considered farmers. The unit of analysis is the individual farmer who is the primary decision-maker of the agriculture system. I chose this unit of analysis so that I could measure the variables associated with the theories under study. Cherokee farmers are an excellent population to explore the theories under examination. The effects of the variables associated with these theories are not well

PAGE 67

54 understood in the context of this population. Cherokee farmers use a variety of agricultural practices. I test the effects of the independent variables across a wide range of behaviors. I used a non-probability snowball sampling technique to identify cases. Snowball refers to the process of accumulation as each located subject provides other subjects (M. Brennan, personal communication, March 2005). The exact number of Cherokee farmers within Oklahoma is unknown as is specific location of all Cherokee farms or home gardens. The population can be difficult to access, especially within rural areas. The Cherokee Nations Department of Natural Resources provided contacts of potential participants. The snowball technique continued by asking research participants for recommendations and contact information of additional individuals who fit the parameters of the preliminary case selection. These include being a member of Cherokee Nation and currently farming or home gardening within 14-county jurisdiction. The use of non-probability sampling can affect the external validity of the research (Sullivan, 2001). However, since this case study design relies on theoretical generalizability, using this sampling technique does not affect external validity. The initial goal was to select 90 cases total. Each of the three groups, high TAP users, medium TAP users and low TAP users, should posses 30 cases. I could not reach this goal due to time and resource constraints. Overall, I examined 34 cases. I collected information from 42 cases but missing data and inability to fulfill sample selection parameters led me to discard eight cases. Data Collection I assessed secondary data sources such as USDA Agriculture Census and reviewed research projects and historical resources provided by members of the Cherokee Nation

PAGE 68

55 before I entered the field to gain a better understanding of the population and region of study (Babbie, 1998; Sullivan, 2001). The Cherokee Nations Natural Resources Department and the Tahlequah Chamber of Commerce provided maps of the 14 county jurisdiction, historical information, demographic information, library references and local festival and events important to members of the Cherokee Nation. I entered the field for a period of one month in August 2005 where I administered the research instruments. Four employees of the Cherokee Nations Natural Resources Department and an employee of the Strategy Department were key informants who were familiar with the population of study. They helped me access initial cases and offered insight into local etiquette and the historical context of Cherokee farming (Krannich, & Humphrey, 1986). Many individuals were recruited over the phone, at the Bell community Pow Wow, by other participants and at stomp dances. I asked participants if they were interested in participating in the research. I contacted approximately 55 individuals, of which 42 agreed to participate in the study. I contacted consenting participants to schedule an interview and complete a self-completion questionnaire at a place and time of convenience to the participant. Upon meeting with participants, I gave them a letter of informed consent. They were given an introduction to the purpose of the research, the consent process and instructions about how the meeting would progress, with a general reference to the length of the process. I gave participants the self-completion questionnaire which consisted of scales, indices and one or multiple check-box response format questions. I offered to administer this portion of the packet verbally if it made the participant more comfortable. One participant chose that the questionnaire be administered verbally. I reviewed the index

PAGE 69

56 that measured the outcome variable when the participants finished the self-completion questionnaire, which took most participants approximately 15-30 minutes. I assigned participants to groups based on the outcome variable. If any one group had over 30 participants, then the meeting would have ended and I would not have administered the interview portion. This never happened because no one group reached the maximum limit of 30. I then administered a structured interview, which lasted approximately 45 minutes. The interview consisted of open-ended responses, scalar-like questions, and one-check response question. I asked participants if they had any questions at the end of the interview and if they had any contacts who might be interested in participating in the research. I also mentioned that the results of the study would be sent to them in a manner which they preferred. If the meeting took place at the location of the farm or garden, I asked participants if they were willing to show me their garden/farm. Nine of the participants showed me their cultivated land. I did not ask the other participants to show me their garden/farm because we either did not meet in a location where the land was cultivated or because of time restraints. Methods Instrument Development I developed instruments to measure the independent (attitudes, normative beliefs, self-efficacy, control beliefs, subjective norms, self-identity, access to resources and socioeconomic characteristics) and dependent variable (behavior or use of TAP) for this research. Instruments did not exist to measure the specific phenomena under study nor were adapted to study participants. I developed a Likert scale to measure attitude, indices to measure self-efficacy, control beliefs, subjective norms, normative beliefs, self-identity, access to resources and behavior which were included in a self-completion

PAGE 70

57 questionnaire. The self-completion questionnaire also contained check box response questions to measure socioeconomic characteristics. I developed a structured interview to additionally measure behavior, control beliefs, self-efficacy, attitudes, subjective norms, access to resources, self-identity and socioeconomic characteristics They were displayed in an open response format questions and scalar response question format (Appendix B). Scales and Indices Scales and indices are often used to measure multi-dimensional variables like those in this research. They are composite measures that generate responses to a set of related items to create a single data point. Overall, A scale or index assigns a numerical value to a concept, attitude, perception, opinion or some other complex attribute of a person (M.E. Swisher, personal communications, March, 2006). I developed one Likert scale to measure farmers attitudes towards traditional farming. Ajzen defines attitudes towards a behavior as the degree to which performance of the behavior is positively or negatively valued (Ajzen, ND). Other definitions of attitude exist which are multidimensional, but these definitions are difficult to operationalize and the relationship between the multidimensional components are not fully understand (Tesser and Shaffer, 1990). A scale is a multiple-item measuring device in which there is a built-in intensity structure, potency, or natural levels of feeling to the items that make up the scale (Sullivan, 2001, p.160). The Likert scale measured the intensity and range in value of farmers attitudes towards traditional farming by posing multiple statements. The scale consisted of a range of scalar responses to a particular statement. I used a five-point scale with response options including strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree. I gave each response item for each question a point value. I gave high point

PAGE 71

58 values to positive attitudes towards traditional farming, while less positive and negative views were assigned lower point values. I added the point values together to give each participant a summative attitude score (Sullivan, 2001). The scale measured the degree to which participant attitude is positive or negative toward traditional farming. I did the following to standardize the scale. I developed a range of 153 statements with two faculty members from the University of Florida. I placed these statements in five categories: very positive, positive, neutral, negative and very negative. A panel of 15 colleagues scored the 153 items in a scalar response format with choices ranging from very weak to very strong to determine how favorable or unfavorable each statement was. I then selected statements with the highest item-total correlation using Cronbachs alpha. I asked a panel of 12 experts from the southeastern United States to respond to the remaining 40 items. I chose respondents based on their familiarity with agriculture and also on their explicitly stated view about traditional farming. Four respondents stated that they had a positive view of traditional farming, four stated that they had neutral views and four stated that they had negative views. I ran two t-tests for each item to determine which of the statements best differentiated between positive and negative attitudes to increase the discriminatory power of the scale. I eliminated statements based on neutral responses and inconsistency between the general opinion and the marked responses. I used p-values to determine the items for each scale that significantly differentiated between attitudes. Sixteen items remained and maintained fairly equal positive and negative responses. I calculated Cronbachs alpha for the scale after data collection. I did not delete any to increase the Cronbachs alpha and item-total correlations. The final Cronbachs alpha was 0.91 and the average item-total correlation was 0.42 (Appendix C, Table 1).

PAGE 72

59 An index is a composite measure in which separate indicators of the phenomenon are combined to create a single measurescores on each individual indicator are summed to give an overall score on the composite phenomenon (Sullivan, 2001, p.159-160). I developed an unweighted unidimensional index to measure the behavior. Behavior is the manifest, observable response in a given situation (Ajzen, ND). The index consisted of multiple behaviors identified by an expert panel familiar with various agricultural practices. The term traditional is not clearly defined among different American Indian cultures. I operationalized the behavior, TAP, with the help of an expert panel, as those practices that are not conventional agricultural practices developed post WWII. These post WWII practices are well defined. Members of the expert panel listed conventional agricultural practices that could be used in both home gardens and farms in order not to exclude cases based on size of land holdings. For example, I did not measure behaviors such as tractor use or combine use because home gardeners with small acreage of cultivated land would likely not engage in these behaviors. I measured multiple behaviors to operationalize TAP in order to increase the reliability and consistency of my results. This reduced the weakness associated with the use of a single measure of a general behavior, which often results in inconsistent and unreliable results (Ajzen, 1988, p 54). I included thirteen items in the behavior index. The index used a scalar response format with five categories, almost never, rarely, sometimes, often and almost always. I calculated the summative scores for each participant. Low scores indicated high use of TAP while high scores indicated low use of traditional practices. The index originally had 13 items, but while collecting data it became evident that two items were not inclusive of small plot cultivators, crop insurance and pest scouting. They were deleted from the index. I deleted additional items, seeds or

PAGE 73

60 cultivators that are readily available commercially and mechanical land preparation, after data collection in order to further increase the reliability of the instrument. Nine items remained in the index for analysis (Appendix C, Table 2). I created one and two dimensional indices to measure subjective norms, normative beliefs, self-identity, self-efficacy, control beliefs and resource access. I used an expert panel to create these indices. The Delphi method is a technique used to identify items about which there is consensus among a group of experts (Adler & Ziglio, 1996). This approach aims to get experts opinions about a subject by using a series of questions with controlled opinion feedback (Adler & Ziglio, 1996). I first compiled a list of nine experts in agriculture. These experts included farmers, agricultural extension agents and agricultural service providers. I created a list of topics and questions that related to each variable measured. I then asked the expert panel to list 7-10 items that would answer the questions for each variable. Next, I created a rule to determine which items to keep on the list. I kept the items that 40% of respondents said were important. I then created a list which included these top responses and sent them back to the panel and had each person rank the items for importance on a 1-5 scale. I then took the mode for each item and kept the most consistent four to six answers. These items were included in the final indices that measured the variables (Appendix C, Tables 3 through 12). I developed two indices to measure self-identity, control beliefs and access to resources. I created a modern identity index and traditional identity index to measure self-identity. I created a modern control belief index and traditional control belief index to measure control beliefs. Lastly, I created a modern resource access index and traditional resource access index to measure access to resources. I developed two indices for each of these variables to determine if the modern and traditional indices are

PAGE 74

61 diametrically opposite to each other. For example, if an individual scores high on the traditional self-identity index, can he/she also score high on the modern self-identity index? Can farmers have both positive scores on both traditional and modern selfidentity? Are these categories mutually exclusive? Reliability accesses how consistently the instrument will produce the same results (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). I am confident of the reliability of my scales and indices because of the process I used to develop them. These instruments have high internal consistency and are replicable. Internal consistency is the degree to which items in a scale or index actually measures the same construct as intended to measure. Cronbachs alpha (Sullivan, 2001) is a measure of internal consistency based on the correlation between all possible split-halves of the items. It also provides the correlation between each item and the total score of the scale or index and provides an overall coefficient of scale reliability. I deleted items from the scale and indices that did not correlate well with the other items, thus improving the reliability and raising the Cronbach's alpha value. Unlike scales, index inter-item reliability is not determined a priori. These instruments may exhibit lower reliability than scales because they assume that all items in the instrument are related without testing if this is true a priori (M.E. Swisher, personal communications, March 2006). I calculated internal consistency with Cronbachs alpha and total inter-item correlation after data collection to determine if the items in the indices were related to each other and to improve reliability of the indices. I removed items from some of the indices to improve the reliability of instruments (Table 3-1). I also improved the replicability of this study by developing clear operational definitions of the variables and constructs.

PAGE 75

62 I am confident in the validity of some of these instruments. I address construct validity by operationalizing the variables under study and then creating instruments based on the opererationalized definitions. I increase face and content validity by having an expert panel and colleagues help develop the scales and indices and also by referring to past research which tried to measure similar constructs within different settings. Two of the indices became problematic during the data collection process. This reduced the validity of the instruments. Table 3-1: Cronbachs alpha and item total correlation values for measured indices Construct Item total correlation Cronbachs Alpha* Items removed Items remaining index Behavior: Use of TAP 0.33 0.79 (1) crop insurance (2) mechanical land preparation (3) pest scouting (4) seeds or cultivators that are readily available commercially 9 Selfefficacy .49 .88 Subjective Norm NONE NONE All subjective norm index items except one-item placed with normative beliefs index 1 Normative Beliefs** .46 .76 (1)Family (2)Other farmers and neighbors (3)Tribal Elders 4 Traditional SelfIdentity .45 .69 (1) I use a small or family business to run my farm. (2) I rely on internal resources available to me on my farm. (3) I am thrifty. (4) I take few risks. 3 Modern Self-identity .47 .88 (1) I rely on external resources available to me from off my farm (2) I rely on high inputs (3) I take risks. (4) I want to expand the acreage on my farm/garden 9

PAGE 76

63 Table 3-1. Continued Construct Item total correlation Cronbachs Alpha* Items removed Items remaining index Modern Resource Access .39 .70 (1) Internet 2 Traditional Resources Access*** --(1)Events (e.g. field days, workshops, conferences, tradeshows) (2)Publications about traditional practices 2 Traditional Control Beliefs .52 .88 (1) Access to knowledge and advice 8 Modern Control Beliefs .48 .88 None 9 These are the final scores after items were removed to improve internal consistency **Normative beliefs index was completely removed from study due to high non-response by participants. These scores depict reliability scores with participants who did respond to index. *** Cannot calculate Cronbachs alpha based on two items Other Questionnaire Items The self-administered questionnaire included closed response items in addition to the scale and indices (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). I did not develop scales or indices to measure socioeconomic characteristics because reliable instruments have already been developed to measure these variables. Since this research dealt with some sensitive topics, such as income, respondents were asked to answer these questions on their own instead of verbally in an interview setting. This technique aimed to produce less social desirability bias for these items (Fowler 1993) (Appendix C, Table 13). Interview I conducted structured interviews with each of the 34 research participants. Interviews allow for clarification and probing and communication with the participants (M.E. Swisher, personal communications, March, 2006). A structured interview entails

PAGE 77

64 developing questions before the interview takes place and during the interview questions are asked in a specific order. The structure is provided to obtain consistency from one situation to the next (Sommer & Sommer, 1986, p. 115). The interview included questions that addressed all variables under study and used scalar response questions and open-response format questions. I took procedural steps to ensure that the interview instruments were valid measurements of the conceptual constructs and that they provided accurate information (M.E. Swisher, personal communications, March, 2006). I began by stating my research hypotheses and included subsections related to each variable understudy explicitly. I then listed the appropriate interview topics for each hypothesis and subsection. I developed several questions for each topic with the help of colleagues and past research related to the topics. I reviewed these questions extensively to eliminate the unnecessary ones. A panel of two experts reviewed the instruments. The experts included a University of Florida professor, with expertise in research design and methods, and Cherokee Nation Natural Resources Departments Agriculture Liaison, who has expertise in local and Cherokee agriculture (Appendix B, Table 14). The benefits of structured interviews include better reliability and validity than semi-structured or unstructured interviews (Bartels, Nordstrom & Koski, 2006). I increased the reliability by providing written instructions to develop consistency in how the interview was administered and that all participants received the same information (Fowler, 1993). Further, I solely administered the interviews. This contributed to the fairly consistent delivery of the interview questions. I developed multiple instruments to measure the same construct, such as scales, indices and interviews. This increased concurrent validity and the overall validity of the

PAGE 78

65 instruments. Overall, the indicators appear to measure the concepts. I believe my operationalization makes sense. Interview data could be subject to measurement error if the interviewer does not elicit cooperation or adequate interpersonal communication. The interviewer can also be a source of error by inconsistent estimates (Fowler, 1993). I was successful at eliciting cooperation from the participants. I taped 32 interviews to reduce measurement error. Pilot Study I conducted a pilot study with four Cherokee farmers who represented the case selections I wanted to study. I made slight modifications to the instrument packet. I accounted for these changes during the pilot study. I included pilot study participants results in the final study due to the slight modifications made to the instrument packet. See Appendix D for the full instrument packet. Limitations There are several limitations to this research project. First, using a retrospective case study design limits my ability to determine causality between independent and dependent variables and thus reduces internal validity. I took several measures to overcome this limitation, such as designing comparison groups, assessing multiple cases and measuring the variables with multiple instruments. Secondly, I may not have truly measured what I intended to measure in terms of the outcome variable TAP. TAP may not be mutually exclusive of conventional agricultural practices according to some participants. Third, I should have elicited more direct feedback from colleagues and the expert panel with the structured interview and pilot-test participants. I did not do this because of my lack of experience as a researcher. Fourth, the sample size is small. This inhibits my

PAGE 79

66 ability to make a more complete evaluation of differences between groups. Fifth, two indices had high levels of non-response and as a result had to either be withdrawn from the study (normative beliefs) or reduced to a one-item question (subjective norm). Non-response may be indicative of sampling bias. This can be due to non-random error where certain types of people are more likely to not respond than others. I do not know how these cases differ than those who did respond. Lastly, pilot test participants were all part of one user group. The instruments would more reliably measure the constructs under study if I pilot tested the instruments with cases representing all user groups. Data analysis I tested for differences between the three groups based on the outcome variable TAP using a Mann-Whitney U test. I determined if the groups were different based on the predicator variables to measure the first, second and third hypotheses. I used the Mann-Whitney U test to test difference between groups with ratio, interval and ordinal data. I did not use a student t-test to test for differences between groups with interval and ratio data because the groups had small samples, the sample size as a whole was small, and the number of smalls in the groups were uneven. The Mann-Whitney U test is a more conservative measure of group differences than the student t-tests (Sheskin, 2004). I used Fishers exact test to test difference between groups with nominal data. I ran a logistic regression to test the fourth hypothesis. I conducted this type of analysis because the outcome variable was converted from an interval measurement to a nominal level of measurement. Definition Attitude: a persons judgment that performing the behavior is good or bad Behavior: Behavior is the manifest, observable response in a given situation

PAGE 80

67 Control beliefs: beliefs about the presence of factors that may facilitate or impede performance of the behavior (traditional and modern agricultural practices) (Ajzen, ND). Normative beliefs: the perceived behavioral expectations of important referent individuals or groups (Ajzen, ND). Perceived behavioral controls: people's perceptions of their ability to perform a given behavior (Ajzen, ND). This definition consists of two parts: a persons confidence and perceived control beliefs over performing behavior Self-efficacy: an individuals confidence in his/her capabilities to produce effects Self-identity: the salient part of an actor's self which relates to a particular behavior ( Stryker, S. & Burkes, 2002). I will use a modified version of Fekadu and Krafts (2001) self-identity measurements. Resource access: accessibility and reliability on traditional and non-traditional mass media and interpersonal communication resources Subjective norms: perceived social pressure to engage or not to engage in a behavior (Ajzen, ND). Traditional agricultural practices: those practices which were existent post WWII conventional agricultural practices

PAGE 81

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Behavior and User Groups I used an index to measure farmers use of traditional agricultural practices. Thirty-four farmers behavior were recorded and scored. The summative score for each farmer was used to determine the group he/she was placed in. I determined a priori the manner in which farmers would be placed into different groups. I determined the highest and lowest summative scores possible for the index and then equally dividing those points by three and determined the range of scores that would define each group. The highest possible summative score with the remaining nine questions was 45 points (nine questions x five, the highest response score possible). The lowest score possible was nine points. A total of 36 points were possible. I divided 36 by three which allowed each group 12 points. I placed farmers posteriori into a group based on their score. I did not try to base scores on specific TAP. Rather, as discussed previously, I used specific post-WWII practices in the indices. Therefore, low scores indicated high use of TAP. Farmers in this group are high TAP users. Medium scores indicated neither high nor low use of TAP, and farmers in this group are medium TAP users. High scores indicated low use of TAP and farmers in this group are low TAP users. The distribution for all participants as one group is approximately normal.I placed 6% or two of the participants in the low TAP user group, 21% or seven participants in the medium TAP user group, and 74% or 25 participants in the high TAP user group. No statistical tests can adequately determine if there is a difference between the low TAP 68

PAGE 82

69 user group and the other groups based on mean scores with a sample size of two for the low TAP user group. Therefore, I combined the low TAP user group with the medium TAP user group, collapsing the three original groups to two. This combined group is now the low TAP user group. Both groups show an approximately normal distribution (Table 4-1). Table 4-1: Descriptive data summary for Cherokee TAP user groups created from the behavior index measuring use of traditional agricultural practices, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005. High TAP user Group Low TAP user group Range of possible point value 9-21 21.01-45 # of participants 25 9 % of total participants in group 73.53% 26.47% Mean 15.25 28.34 STD 3.61 5.11 SEM 0.72 1.70 Shapiro wilk W= 0.95 0.89 I ran a Mann-Whitney U test to determine if there was a difference between the high and low TAP user groups. There was a significant difference between groups ( z= -4.39, p=<0.01, = 0.05) (Table 4-2 and Figure 4-1). I also measured use of TAP with four open response questions in the interview (Table 4-3). The questions were: Name what you think are the five most important traditional Cherokee farming/gardening practices? You mentioned in the questionnaire that you use practice X. Have you always used this practice? What did you use before this? Why did you start using this practice?

PAGE 83

70 Table 4-2: Values of U, Z, and p Mann-Whitney U test for behavior index based on high and low TAP user groups ( = 0.05),Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 Rank Sum High TAP Users Rank Sum Low TAP Users U Z P Use of TAP 325 153 0.00 -4.39 <0.01 Summative Score 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 highlowGroups Figure 4-1: Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on use of traditional agricultural practices, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 Interview responses to question one show a similarity between TAP user groups. Both groups named planting traditional crops and no use of synthetic substances as important traditional Cherokee farming practices. A few participants from the high TAP user group did not know what practices were important traditional Cherokee farming practices. Individuals from both user groups who adopted conventional agricultural practices said they did this because they were easier to use than the practices they previously used. For interview question two, Have you always used this practice?,73% of the low TAP user group said they have always used the practice. 68% of high TAP user group members said that they have always used the practice.

PAGE 84

71 Table 4-3: Interview responses of high and low TAP user groups for questions measuring use of traditional agricultural practices, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005. Low TAP user High TAP user # of participants in TAP user group 9 25 five most important TAP* **(3) plant traditional crops **(3) no use of synthetic substances **(2) use the farmers almanac **(4) use organic fertilizer **(4) dont know **(3) plant traditional crops **(3)plant a garden **(2) adequate soil preparation **(2) no use of synthetic substances Why did you start using practice X?* *(3)easier *(5) easier only practices listed two or more times total by user group participants is listed ** depicts actual number or participants with this response Hypothesis One 1. A relationship will exist between farmers socio-economic characteristics and their use of TAP. On average, participants in the high TAP user group were 53 years old, mostly males (60%) and speak a little Tsalagi or Cherokee. The most consistent level of education completed by this group is high school and the primary occupation is non-farmer/rancher work. These farmers cultivate on average 24 acres and averaged 29 years of experience farming. The five most common crops grown by this group were tomatoes, squash, radishes, onions and corn. On average participants in the low TAP user group were 66 years old, mostly males (89%) and speak a little Tsalagi or Cherokee. The most consistent level of education completed by this group was two-four year college and primary the occupation is farmer/rancher. These farmers cultivated on average 598 acres of land and averaged 50

PAGE 85

72 years of experience farming. The five crops most commonly grown by this group were tomatoes, corn, cucumbers, squash and soybeans. I used a self-completion questionnaire and interview to measure socioeconomic characteristics. Items consisted of scalar response questions, one or multiple check-box response and open response questions. I used an alpha level of 0.05 for all tests measuring statistical significance. I used Mann-Whitney U test to measure differences between groups for ratio, interval and ordinal data (Table 4-4). I used the Fishers Exact test to determine difference between groups for nominal level data that had cell counts of five or higher (Table 4-5 and Table 4-6). There were no statistical differences between groups for the following socioeconomic variables: participation in agricultural organizations, hired laborers, non-hired laborers, number of total laborers, language use, participation in tribal activities, 2004 household income, 2004 net farm income and gender. There is a difference between user groups ( = 0.05) for the following socioeconomic variables: age, hours a week farming, number of years farming, numbers of acres cultivated and selling of crops. Participation in agricultural organizations and participation in tribal activities are worth noting because their of low p-values 0.09 and 0.08, respectively. The low TAP users are older than the high TAP users. The low TAP users spend more time farming than the high TAP users. The low TAP users have farmed longer than the high TAP users. The low TAP users cultivate more acreage than the high TAP users. The low TAP user group is more likely to sell their crops than the high TAP user group.

PAGE 86

Table 4-4: Values of U, Z, and p in Mann-Whitney U test for socioeconomic characteristic based on high and low TAP user groups ( = 0.05), Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 Rank Sum Rank Sum Valid N Valid N Low TAP High TAP U Z p-level Low TAP High TAP Users Users Users Users Age 349.5000 211.5000 49.5000 -2.36472 .018050 24 9 Hours/Wk 387.5000 207.5000 62.5000 -1.95180 .050971 25 9 Farming Yrs Farming 341.0000 187.0000 41.0000 -2.39357 .016691 24 8 Acreage 278.0000 187.0000 47.0000 -2.14967 .031589 21 9 Cultivated Participation 365.5000 195.5000 65.5000 -1.71796 .085813 24 9 Agricultural 73 Activity Hired Laborer 399.5000 195.5000 74.5000 -1.48337 .137987 25 9 Non-Hired 399.5000 195.5000 74.5000 -1.48337 .137987 25 9 Laborers Total Laborer 400.5000 194.5000 75.5000 1.44433 .148655 25 9 Language 448.0000 147.0000 102.0000 .40988 .681898 25 9 Participation 392.0000 203.0000 67.0000 -1.77614 .075720 25 9 Tribal Activity Household 301.0000 134.0000 70.0000 -.68313 .494530 21 8 Income 2004 Net Farm 343.5000 184.5000 67.5000 -1.50887 .131343 23 9 Income 2004

PAGE 87

74 Table 4-5: Contingency Table and Fishers exact test for gender based on high and low TAP user groups ( = 0.05), Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 Count Total % Col % Row % Males Females High TAP Users 15 44.12 65.22 60.00 10 29.41 90.91 40.00 25 73.53 Low TAP Users 8 23.53 34.78 88.89 1 2.94 9.09 11.11 9 26.47 23 67.65 11 32.35 34 Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio 2.877 0.0899 Pearson 2.523 0.1122 Fisher's Exact Test Prob Alternative Hypothesis Left 0.1184 Prob female is greater for groups =high than low Right 0.9844 Prob female is greater for groups =low than high 2-Tail 0.2137 Prob female is different across groups Table 4-6: Contingency Table and Fishers Exact Test for selling crops based on high and low TAP user groups ( = 0.05), Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 Count Total % Col % Row % Yes No High TAP Users 3 9.09 33.33 12.50 21 63.64 87.50 87.50 24 72.73 Low TAP Users 6 18.18 66.67 66.67 3 9.09 12.50 33.33 9 27.27 9 27.27 24 72.73 33

PAGE 88

75 Table 4-6 Continued Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio 9.131 0.0025 Pearson 9.682 0.0019 Fisher's Exact Test Prob Alternative Hypothesis Left 0.0047 Prob No is greater for groups =high than low Right 0.9997 Prob No is greater for groups =low than high 2-Tail 0.0047 Prob No is different across groups Five of the 14 variables used to evaluate how well the economic model explains Cherokee farmers use of TAP are significantly different between user groups ( = 0.05) (Table 4-4; Table 4-6). Age (p=0.02), hours a week farming (p=0.05), number of years farming(p=0.02), numbers of acres cultivated (p=0.03) and selling of crops (p<0.01) differed between high and low TAP user groups. Five of the socioeconomic variables fail to reject hypothesis one ( = 0.05). Nine of the socioeconomic variables show evidence to reject hypothesis one ( = 0.05). Hypothesis Two 2. A strong positive relationship will exist between farmers attitudes towards the use of TAP, subjective norms, self-efficacy, control beliefs, self-identity and their use of TAP. Attitudes I used a scale to measure participants attitudes toward traditional agriculture. There were 16 items in the scale. I used each farmers summative score for comparison tests. There were two cases where two responses on a single question were marked. I took the average point value of the responses checked by each of the two participants and scored the missing item with an average point value of the two items checked by participants.

PAGE 89

76 I handled missing responses by reviewing the raw data to determine if there was any consistency among participants responses and missing datum points. There was none. I did not throw out any questions due to missing data. For participants with missing datum points, I determined the average of the persons score and used this value to replace with the missing datum. I replaced the missing value because the individuals sum score total was needed to conduct other analyses and because omitting the missing data scores would give the individual a falsely low score. One participant from the high TAP user group had several missing data. As a result, I did not include this participants responses for the attitude variable for analysis. There was a total of five missing data points for all other participants. I dealt with each missing point by using the average of the individuals score to replace the individuals missing point. I then ran a Mann-Whitney U test to determine if there was a difference between groups in relation to their attitudes toward traditional agriculture (Table 4-7). There is a difference between high and low TAP user groups attitudes towards traditional agriculture (z=2.46, p=0.01, = 0.05). The high TAP user group has a significantly more positive attitude toward traditional agriculture than the low TAP user group (Figure 4-2). Two open response questions in the interview were used to measure attitude (Table 4-8). Which do you think is better, traditional farming or non-traditional/modern farming/gardening? Why?

PAGE 90

77 Summative Score 20 30 40 50 60 70 highlowGroups Figure 4-2: Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on attitude toward of traditional agriculture, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 56% of high TAP users compared to 22% of low TAP users believe traditional farming is better than non-traditional/modern farming. Some members from both user groups believe that traditional farming is better because it is healthier for the body and those are the practices they were taught to use. Additional responses from the high TAP user group for traditional farming is better include its low impact on the environment, preserves the connection with the land/Earth and it is good for their culture. 56% of low TAP users compared to 24% of high TAP users believe non-traditional/modern farming is better than traditional farming. Members from each TAP user group believe that non-traditional/modern farming is better because it is easier to use. Additional responses from the low TAP user group include its a better methods, it saves time and traditional farming cannot produce enough to feed the population. Some individuals from both groups were neutral or believed both types of practices are good.

PAGE 91

Table 4-7: Values of U, Z, and p in Mann-Whitney U test for theory of planned behavior variables based on high and low TAP user groups ( = 0.05), Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 Rank Sum Rank Sum Valid N Valid N High TAP Low TAP U Z p-level High TAP Low TAP Users Users Users Users Subjective 460.5000 100.5000 55.5000 2.12219 .033830 24 9 Norms Attitude 500.5000 94.5000 49.5000 2.45927 .013927 25 9 Self-efficacy 428.0000 167.0000 103.0000 -.37084 .710758 25 9 Self-efficacy 442.0000 153.0000 108.0000 .17566 .860561 25 9 Interview Traditional 428.5000 132.5000 87.5000 .82866 .407301 24 9 78 Identity Modern 372.0000 223.0000 47.0000 -2.55686 .010567 25 9 Identity Modern 445.5000 115.5000 70.5000 1.51585 .129568 24 9 Control Beliefs Traditional 394.5000 166.5000 94.5000 -.54571 .585272 24 9 Control Beliefs Modern 379.0000 149.0000 79.0000 -.73983 .459409 24 8 Resource Access Traditional 405.5000 122.5000 86.5000 .41343 .679291 24 8 Resource Access

PAGE 92

79 Table 4-8: Interview responses of hi gh and low TAP user groups for questions measuring attitudes towards tradi tional agriculture, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005. Low TAP user Why High TAP user Why* Number of participants 9 25 Traditional Farming 22% (1) healthier for body (1) can use practices by his/her self; taught how to use them when young 56% (4) low negative environmental impact (4) preserves connection with land/Earth/ Mother Earth (3) preserves nutrients/ healthier for body (2)good for culture/heritage (1) guidance comes from God (1) dont know (1) replenish soil (1) always practice this way (1) taught that is successful (1) high labor Nontraditional/ Modern farming 56% (3) saves time (2) its a better method( precision agriculture, soil tests, insecticides, herbicides, pesticides) (2) traditional farming cannot produce enough to feed all people (2) its easier (1) no-till saves fuel, energy, labor, increases profits 24% (1) have some products which help and enhance garden, such as insecticides and fertilizers (1)so much research by agriculture extension done on plants, they know more than 1-2 people (1) have more plant varieties to pick from (1) less work (1) raise more food in smaller area for benefit of people (1) it is easier Neutral toward question 11% 8% (1)no point of view (1) looks at moon signs Both are good 11% (1)traditional: ancestors made it work and we should take advantage of their knowledge (1)modern: makes good yields and modern varieties could help us 12% (1) traditional: for personal use, keeps you in touch with land and crops and is more cost efficient (1)nontraditional: for commercial use, can farm more land, less labor intense and get more done (1)dont know difference between traditional and modern farming (1)both have advantages depicts actual number or partic ipants with this response

PAGE 93

80 Self-efficacy I used eight items in the index to determ ine each participants self-efficacy score. A potential response option for this index was no Cherokee practice. Some participants marked this box. As a result, I determined th e mean scores for each participant by taking the individuals sum total score and divi ding it by the number of responses which excluded the no Cherokee practice option. Th is was important to do because when a participant marks no Cherokee practice for an item it implies that he/she believes that the practice (item) listed was not historica lly developed and used by Cherokees. If I assigned a point value to this belief, the mean score would inaccurately assign a higher or lower mean score than what it should be. One participant was not included in this anal ysis because he/she did not believe that any of the practices (items) listed were hist orically developed and used by Cherokees. Confidence in performing traditio nal practices cannot be measur ed if the individual does not believe that the practice is traditional. This is another reason why I compiled the mean scores in the manner described above. There was one missing datum point. I took the participants average sc ore and replaced the missing da tum point with the average score. See Appendix E Table 1 for self-efficacy data. I then ran a Mann-Whitney U test to determine if there was a difference between groups (Table 4-7). There is no differen ce between high and low TAP user groups selfefficacy (z= -.37, p=0.71, = 0.05). The high TAP user group has a significantly more positive attitude toward traditional agriculture than the low TAP user group (Appendix E, Figure 1). I used one scalar response question in the interview to measure self-efficacy. If you wanted to farm/garden traditionally, how well prepared are you to do that? Both TAP user group members mean responses is th at they are somewhat prepared to farm

PAGE 94

81 traditionally. I also ran a Mann-Whitney test to determine if there was a difference between groups based on interview responses. There was no difference between groups (z=0.17, p=0.86, = 0.05) (Table 4-7). Modern Control Beliefs There were nine items in the index used to determine each participants modern control beliefs score. I used mean scores fo r analysis. One participants score was not included in this analysis because the particip ant wrote on this section of the questionnaire that this section was not app licable. This same respondent wrote this same phrases on numerous other portions of th e questionnaire. There was one missing datum point among other participants. I determined the participan ts average score for modern control beliefs and replaced the missing datum point with this average score. I ran a Mann-Whitney U test to determine if there was a difference between groups. There is no significant difference between high TAP user and low TAP user groups mode rn control beliefs (z=1.52, p=0.13, = 0.05) (Table 4-7; Appendix E, Figure 2). Traditional Control Beliefs There were eight items in the index used to determine each part icipants traditional control beliefs score. I used mean scores for analysis of traditional control belief. I did not include one participants scor e, the same as in modern cont rol beliefs, in this analysis because the participant wrote on this section of the questionnaire that this section was not applicable. There were no missing datum points. I ran a Mann-Whitney U test to determine if there was a difference between groups. There was no significant difference between high TAP user and low TAP user groups with regards to traditional control beliefs (z=-0.55, p=0.59, = 0.05) (Table 4-7; Appendix E, Figure 3).

PAGE 95

82 I measured traditional control beliefs with two open response questions in the interview What are the ki nds of things you cant contro l that keep you (might keep you) from using traditional farming/ garden ing practices?, Why? Responses to the first question are pr ovided in Table 4-9. Table 49: Interview responses of high a nd low TAP user groups for question measuring traditional control beliefs, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005. Low TAP user High TAP user # of participants in TAP user group 9 25 Prevention from use of TAP (3) weeds (2)land quality (2)pests (1)time (1)weather (1)amount of space (1) drought (1)nothing (1) erosion (7) weather (6) drought (5) time (4) land quality (2) weeds (2) health (of farmer) (1)age (1)using herbicides (1) using pesticides (1) lose land (1) dont know depicts actual number or part icipants with this response, some participants provided multiple reasons which are also included here Both TAP user groups identified weather, drought, land quality, time and weeds as things that could keep them from farming traditionally. Subjective Norms The index was not used for analysis because of data for the subjective norms index. There was one item in the questionnaire whic h measured subjective norms. There was no missing data associated with th is scalar response question. I used participants scores from this one item to measure subject nor ms. I did not include one participants responses in the analysis because he/she responded to the question by writing on the questionnaire I dont know. This was the same participant who responded to the control beliefs indices with not applicable.

PAGE 96

83 I ran a Mann-Whitney U test to determine if there was a difference between groups. There is a significant difference between high TAP user and low TAP user groups subjective norms (z=2.12, p=0.03, = 0.05) (Table 4-7).The high TAP user group has a higher subjective norm score than the low TAP user group (Figure 4-3). Subjective norms -2 -1 0 1 2 highlowGroup Figure 4-3: Score for high and low TAP user groups based on subjective norms, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 I measured subjective norms with two open response questions in the interview. Do you think you should use traditional farming/gardening practices? Why? See Table 4-10 for responses. 80% of high TAP users and 67% of low TAP users said they should use traditional farming practices. Some respondents from both TAP user groups related its importance to various aspects of preservation. High TAP users also said that they should use TAP because it is good for the environment, keeps them connected to the earth and they like to farm traditionally. 16% of high TAP users and 22% of low TAP users do not think they should use traditional farming practices. 4% of high TAP users and 11% of low TAP users think they should use traditional farming practices sometimes.

PAGE 97

84 Table 4-10: Interview re sponses of high and low TAP user groups for question measuring subjective norms, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 Low TAP user Why High TAP user Why* Number of participants 9 25 Yes 67% (3) keeps old ways alive (1) keep supporting people (1) to survive financially (1) the basics of gardening (1) has worked for many generations (1) worked for grandmother and for him/her 80% (4) better for environment (3) preserve for future generations (3) stays closer to the earth (3) likes to garden/farm that way (1) safer (1) knows how to do it (1) its small scale (1) learns about/develop traditional sustainable food production (1) to be a successful farmer Sometimes 11% (1) safer for environment; harder to do; preserve it for future generations 4% (1)there are many improvements now to make things easier depicts actual number or part icipants with this response, some participants provided multiple reasons which are also included here Normative Beliefs Similar to subjective norms, there were missing data on the normative beliefs index. The index was not used in analysis as a result. Unlike subjective norms, there were no additional items measuring normative beliefs for statistical analysis within the instrument packet. Two open response questions in the interview were used to measure normative beliefs. Who supports traditional farming/ gardening in your community? Why? Responses to the first question are provided in Table 4-11.

PAGE 98

85 Table 4-11: Interview responses of high and low TAP user groups for question measuring normative beliefs, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005. Low TAP user High TAP user # of participants 9 25 Supporters of traditional farm ing** *(7) other farmers (6)nobody (5)neighbors (3) dont know (3) community depicts actual number or participants w ith this response, some participants provided multiple reasons which are also included here **only practices listed two or more times tota l by user group part icipants are listed Low TAP users said that other farmer s support traditional farming in their community. High TAP users said that nobody, neighbors, and community support traditional farming. Three high TAP users sa id that they did not know who supported traditional farming in their community. Traditional Self-Identity I used three items in the index to dete rmine each participants traditional selfidentity score. I used mean scores for analys is of traditional self-i dentity. I removed one participants response from the analysis due to high level of missing data. There were no missing datum points among other participants. I ran a Mann-Whitney U test to determine if there was a difference between groups. There was no significant difference between high TAP user and low TAP user groups traditional self identity (z=0.18, p=0.41, = 0.05). (Table 4-7 and Appendix E, Figure 4). Modern Self-Identity I used nine items in the index to determ ine each participants modern self-identity score. I used mean scores for analysis of modern self-identity. I removed two participants responses from the analysis. One participants responses had high levels of missing data. The other participant responded to this index as not a pplicable. This was

PAGE 99

86 the same participant that responded in the same manner to the control beliefs measures. There were no missing data among other participants. I ran a Mann-Whitney U test to determine if there is a difference between groups. There is a significant difference between high TAP user and low TAP user groups modern self-identity (z=-2.56, p=0.01, = 0.05). The low TAP user group has a higher modern self-identity scores than the high TAP user group (Figure 4-4). mean score 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 highlowgroups Figure 4-4: Mean score for high and low TAP user groups based on modern self-identity, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 I used five open response questions in the interview to measure traditional and modern self-identity. Do you think of yourself as a traditional farmer/gardener or as a modern (non-traditional) farmer/gardener? Why? What does traditional or non-traditional/modern farmer mean to you? Do you like it (or would you like it) when/if people call you a traditional farmer/gardener or non-traditional/ modern farmer/gardener? Why or why not?

PAGE 100

87 Table 4-12 provides user group response s to Do you think of yourself as a traditional farmer/gardener or as a modern (non-traditional) farmer/gardener? and Why? Table 4-12: Interview responses of high and low TAP user groups for questions measuring self-identity, Ch erokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005. Low TAP user Why* High TAP user Why* # of participants in TAP user group 9 N/A 25 N/A Considers self traditional farmer 22% (1)shares knowledge (1) done it this way for long time (1) way parents do it 52% (4) uses TAP (2)dont use machinery, use hands (2) always done it that way (1) dont know (1) uses few modern techniques (1) gets information about gardening from God Considers self nontraditional/ Modern farmer 33% (1)use no till and irrigation (1)farm to survive (1)try to use most improved method 20% (2) uses modern tools (1) dont know (1)takes short cuts cant always plant according to moon Considers self both traditional and modern farmer 44% (2) uses both types of agriculture practices (2) easier to use modern tools + (2)grows like elders/ancestors 16% (3) uses both type of practices (1) traditional is healthier (1)but dont have enough knowledge, expertise to consider self traditional Considers self neither traditional nor modern farmer 0% N/A 12% (2) dont know (1) does not garden much depicts actual number or partic ipants with this response 52% of high TAP users and 22% of low TAP users identify themselves as traditional farmers. A shared response as to why they use this practices is that they have always farmed in a traditional manner. 20% of high TAP users and 33% of low TAP users consider themselves as modern farmers. Interestingly, 44% of low TAP users and 16% of high TAP users see themselves as both traditional and modern farmers.

PAGE 101

88 Respondents from both user groups said that th ey consider themselves as both traditional and modern farmers because they use both types of practices. Three of the seven variables used to ev aluate how well the theory of planned behavior explains Cherokee farm ers use of TAP are signific ant differences between user groups ( = 0.05). Three of the measured TPB (Table 4-7). Attitudes (p=0.01), subjective norms (p=0.03), and modern self-i dentity (p=0.01) differed between high and low TAP user groups. High TAP users had a mo re positive attitude toward traditional farming than low users. High TAP users had higher subjective norms than low users to farm traditionally. Low TAP users had a mo re positive modern self-identity than high TAP users. Three of the measured TPB vari ables fail to reject hypothesis two. Four of the measured TPB variables show eviden ce to reject hypothesis two (Table 4-7). Hypothesis Three 3. A positive relationship will exist between farmers access to resources and their use of TAP. Traditional Resource Access I used two items in the index to determine each participants traditional resource access score. I used summative scores for analysis of traditional resource access. I removed two participants responses from the analysis. I removed one participants responses due to high levels of missing data. The other participant responded to this index as not applicable. This was the sa me participant who responded in the same manner to the control beliefs measures. There were no missing data among other participants. I ran a Mann-Whitney U test to determine if there was a difference between groups. There was no significant difference between high TAP user and low TAP user groups

PAGE 102

89 traditional resource access based (z=-0.41, p=0.68, = 0.05) (Table 4-7 and Appendix E, Figure 5). Modern Resource Access I used two items in the index to determine each participants modern resource access score. I used summative scores for analysis of modern resource access. I removed one participants respon ses from the analysis due to responding to this index as not applicable. This was the same particip ant who responded in the same manner to the control beliefs measures. There were no missing data among other participants. I ran a Mann-Whitney U test to determine if there was a difference between groups. There was no a significant difference between high TAP user and low TAP user groups modern self-identity (z=-0.74, p=0.46, = 0.05 ) (Table 4-7 and Appendix E, Figure 6). I measured access to resources, in general, with two open response questions in the interview. Where do you go to get information about farming/gardening? Where (or to whom) do you go to when you have issues or concerns about your farm/garden? Table 4-13 provides responses to these questions Table 4-13: Interview res ponses of high and low TAP user groups for questions measuring resource access, Ch erokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005. Low TAP user High TAP user Number of participants 9 25 Get information** (5)OSU Extension (2)Elders (2)other farmers (2) farm magazines (2) USDA outreach (5) nowhere (5) internet (5)parents (3)elders (3)books (3)moon (2) OSU Extension Issues or concerns** (3)Extension (2) Nowhere (2)other farmers (2) elders (8) family (7)nowhere (4)friends (2)elders depicts actual number or part icipants with this response, some participants provided multiple reasons which are also included here **only practices listed two or more times tota l by user group part icipants are listed

PAGE 103

90 Respondents from both TAP user groups sa id that they get information about farming from elders and OSU Extension. Lo w TAP users also said that they get information from USDA outreach office, ot her farmers and farm magazines. High TAP users said that they get information from no where, the internet, parents, books and the moon. Both TAP user group members said that they go nowhere and elders when they have issues related to farming. Zero of the two variables used to eval uate how well the Diffusion Innovation model explains Cherokee farmers use of TAP are significant differences between user groups ( = 0.05). There is significant evidence to reject Hypothesi s Two (Table 4-7). Hypothesis Four 4. The theory of planned behavior will bette r explain why farmers use TAP than any of the other theo retical models. I ran a logistic regression with four of the five socioeconomic characteristics, hours a week farming, years farming number of acres cultivated a nd selling crops which showed differences between groups. I did not ru n the model with age. When I included the five variables in the mode l, the model became unstable. This is because the sample size is small. To run the model with all five variables a larger sample is needed. I looked at correlation between all of these variables. Age was more often correlated with other socioeconomic variables among both TAP us er groups than any other variable. Therefore, I removed age from the model (Appendix F). I ran the model to determine which of these variables are the most important predictors of farmers use of TAP and to determine how strong of a predictor of behavior the socioeconomic model is (Appendix F). The logistic regression shows that none of the four socioeconomic variables are sign ificant predictors of behavior ( = 0.05). However,

PAGE 104

91 number of acres cultivates (p=0.12) is worth noting. The uncertainty coefficient reduces the log likelihood by 59% ( r 2 = 0.59) at a p-value >0.01. I then ran a logistic regression with the three TPB variables, attitude, subjective norms and modern identity, which showed differences between groups (Appendix F). The logistic regression shows that none of the three TPB variables are significant predictors of behavior ( = 0.05). The uncertainty coefficient reduces the log likelihood by 18% (r 2 = 0.18) at a p-value= 0.10. It worth indicating that the p-value is 0.10 for this model. I did not run a logistic regression with any of the diffusion innovation variables because none of them showed a difference between user groups. The variables provide no explanation or predictive value between independent and dependent variables. This hypothesis is rejected based on the logistic regressions ran for selected socioeconomic characteristics and TPB variables. The socioeconomic characteristics were more significant predictors of farmer behavior than the TPB variables ( = 0.05).

PAGE 105

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Hypothesis One 1. A relationship will exist between farmers socioeconomic characteristics and their use of TAP. The results show that there is a relationship between some of the measured socioeconomic characteristics and farmers use of TAP. Socioeconomic characteristics have some predictive value as a model of Cherokee farmers choice of farming practices. Age, years farming, hours per week farming, number of acres cultivated and selling of crops were the only socioeconomic characteristics that illustrate a difference between TAP user groups. Adesina and Chianus (2002) and Pattnayak, Mercer, Sills and Yangs (2003) research observations show that farmers age and experience farming positively correlate with farmer adoption behavior. The latter research implies that experience farming can alleviate unknown risk and uncertainty in the market environment and new technologies. Other research (Casey, 2004; Mathijs, 2003) indicates that there is no correlation or a negative correlation between agricultural adoption behavior and age and farming experience. Casey (2004) says that, although older farmers have more experience farming, they may be more set in their ways and less willing to adopt new technologies. My results do not support this latter explanation. The low TAP user group is older and more experienced in farming than the high TAP user group. The average age of low TAP user group is 65 and years of experience is 50 years. The green revolution took place in 92

PAGE 106

93 the 1960s. The low TAP user group may have more exposure to conventional agricultural technologies than the high TAP user group who may have began farming when second generation problems were evident. The high TAP users may be less inclined to use conventional agricultural practices. There was a difference between use of TAP and number of hours a week working on the farm. This is inconsistent with Mathijs research (2003), where a negative correlation exists between farmer adoption behavior and number of hours a week farming. However, McNamara and Wetzstein (1991) suggest that there may be a positive correlation between these variables because those farmers who spend more time farming may spend more time learning about new agricultural technologies. Competition with off-farm employment may compete with the time needed to learn and adopt new technologies. Those who farm more are therefore more likely to adopt new technologies. My results do corroborate McNamara and Wetzsteins interpretation. The use of new agricultural technologies positively correlates with land size based on Pattnayak, Mercer, Sills and Yangs (2003) research. My research corroborates the results of their study. The low TAP user group cultivates more land than the high TAP user group (p=0.03). Small scale farmers may be home gardeners rather than farmers trying to make a profit. If this is true, generating an income from crop sales may not be as important to them as it is to larger scale farmers who rely on farming as a source of income. Other data support this interpretation of the results. The high TAP user groups most consistent primary occupation was non-farm/ranch work, while the low TAP user groups most consistent primary occupation was farming/ranching.

PAGE 107

94 The number of agricultural organizations and tribal activity that TAP user groups participated in, although not statistically significant, merits discussion because they have fairly low p-values, 0.09 and 0.08, respectively. This is consist with Mathijis research (2003). His results show a positive correlation between use of new technologies and organizational involvement. The low TAP users were more likely to participate in agricultural organizations and tribe-related activities than the high user group. This suggests these organizations do influence adoption behavior. These organizations may support the use of conventional technologies over more traditional ones. Net farm income for 2004, although not statistically significant, also merits discussion because of its low p-value 0.13. This is consistent with Pattnayak, Mercer, Sills and Yang (2003) and McNamara and Wetzsteins (1991) research which shows that there is a correlation between farm income and adoption behavior. The low TAP user group has a higher net farm income than the high TAP user group. This makes sense when considering the variable selling of crops. Those farmers, low TAP users, who sell their crops are also more likely to have a higher net farm income. The high and low TAP user groups were similar to each other based on the variables number of laborers, household income 2004 and gender. My results do not corroborate previous findings that show that the number of laborers on farms is correlated with use of new agricultural technologies (Thangata & Alavalapati, 2003). The lack of difference between groups may be associated with historical components related to farming. A few farmers from the high TAP user group said that it was important to preserve farming to maintain their culture during interviews. Preservation may be associated with including other individuals in the farming process. Since low users

PAGE 108

95 cultivate more land, they need laborers. While both groups show similar labor requirements, their reasons for needing labor may differ. This may be why groups did not differ in total labor use Household income similarities may be because farmers are not the sole contributors to total income. Another member of the household may be working in the non-farm sector. Further, high TAP users primary occupation is not farming, so income from this group is likely generated off farm. Other research findings are inconsistent in terms of the relationship between household income and farming adoption behavior (Pattnayak, Mercer, Sills, & Yang, 2003; Thangata & Alavalapati, 2003) There is no difference between groups based on gender, a finding that is similar to that of Schaefer, Epperson and Nautas research (1997). Some research shows that there are differences between male and female adoption of new farming technologies. This difference is often associated with uneven access to resources, such as land, labor or extension services (Doss & Morris, 2001). Women did not have the same opportunities as males to receive an agricultural education historically. Beginning in the 1930s, women have had more exposure to agricultural education. For example, the USDA has a small farms program that provides access to agricultural education and capital to women farmers. This implies that Cherokee women do have similar access to different resources and opportunities as males when it comes to larger scale farming. Regardless of TAP user group, farming was once a female oriented activity. There may be an association of preservation of culture with women in both user groups. The inconsistencies with many of the socioeconomic characteristics and TAP user group behavior may exist because many TAP user group members did not actually adopt

PAGE 109

96 new technologies. Many member of high and low TAP user groups during the interviews said that they always used the same agricultural practices measured in the behavior index. Most literature focuses on differences between behavior and socioeconomic characteristics as they relate to adoption behavior as opposed to persistence behavior. Each TAP user group does appear to have a few distinctive characteristics that differentiate them based on socioeconomic characteristic. The high TAP user group tends to be less educated, younger, smaller scale farmers. They do not rely upon farming as their primary source of income or as a primary occupation. It seems that this group consists more of home gardeners than large scale commercial farmers. My direct observations support this last implication. Low TAP user group members are more educated, older, culitvate more acreage, rely more upon farming as a sources of income and as primary profession. These farmers appear to consist more of commercial farmers than home gardeners. Hypotheses Two and Three 2. A strong positive relationship will exist between farmers attitudes towards their use of TAP, subjective norms, self-efficacy, control beliefs, self-identity and their use of TAP. 3. A positive relationship will exist between farmers access to resources and their use of TAP. The results show that there is a relationship between some of the TPB variables and farmers use of TAP, but the TPB has little value as a model for explaining Cherokee farmers choice of farming practices. Some TPB variables differ between the two TAP user groups while others do not. There was a difference between groups based on attitude, subjective norms and modern self-identity. The results show that there is no relationship between diffusion innovation variables and farmers use of TAP. Neither the

PAGE 110

97 traditional nor modern resource access variables differ between groups. Although results provide some support for hypothesis two, they do not corroborate hypothesis three. The results in this research show a difference between groups based on attitudes toward traditional farming. The high TAP user group has a more positive attitude towards traditional agriculture than the low TAP user group. This is consistent with previous findings. Luzar and Diagne (1999), Lynne, Shonwiler and Rola (1998) and Zubair and Garforth (2006) show that attitudes correlate with decision-making and adoption behavior. Interview responses are consistent with Likert scale results. Some members from both user groups viewed traditional agriculture as better practices than non-traditional practices because they are healthier. Some members from the high TAP user group also believe that traditional agriculture is better than conventional agriculture because TAP impacts the environmental positively, preserves the connection with land/Earth/ Mother Earth and is good for culture and heritage. Some of the low TAP user group members said that non-traditional agriculture is better than traditional agriculture because it is easier to use, saves time, is a better method due to technology advancement and can feed the population. The responses by TAP user groups make sense in light of socioeconomic characteristics. Low TAP user group members are more likely to be commercial farmers. The use of techniques which maximize efficiency is probably important to them. Armitage and Christian (2003) discuss the lack of consistency that previous research shows in determining the effectiveness of attitudes as predictors of behavior. However, this research shows that attitudes do affect behavior. TAP user groups subjective norms were also different. The high TAP user group had more positive subjective norms than the low TAP user group towards using TAP.

PAGE 111

98 This is consistent with Brickell, Chatzisarantis and Prettys (2006) research, which shows that there are positive correlations between subjective norms and intentions to use certain behaviors. However, in other research, subjective norms are an insignificant indicator of behavior (Luzar & Diagne, 1999). The interview data reflect the Mann-Whitney U test results to some degree. However, this may be due to measurement error. A one item measure may not accurately capture subjective norms. Interview responses show that TAP user groups subjective norms influence their behavior more than the ordinal question. 67% of low TAP users and 80% of high TAP users said that they should farm traditionally. Reasons given among TAP user groups members for why they should farm traditionally highlight the importance that some farmers place on preservation. Further, high TAP user group members mention that they should farm traditionally because it is better for the environment. Pressure to comply with referents reveals participants desire to preserve practices and the belief that those practices are environmentally sound. Likewise, low TAP users may not use TAP because of the desire to comply with referents who believe that TAP are undesirable behaviors. This research suggests that social pressure to comply with important referents is a relevant explanatory factor in understanding differences between TAP user groups. The results related to self-identity variables are interesting. Modern self-identity differed between groups based on the Mann-Whitney U test. Traditional self-identity did not. The high TAP user group was less likely to orient themselves as modern farmers than the low TAP user group. However, both TAP user groups had a neutral identity as traditional farmers. Lower TAP users might view themselves as modern farmers and also maintain an identity as traditional farmers, similar to high TAP users. They may be able

PAGE 112

99 to identify with their heritage, but this identity with heritage does not determine their overall identity. A portion of the interview supports this interpretation. The most consistent responses among low TAP user groups were that farmers identified themselves as both traditional and modern farmers. The rest of the interview data reveal a different finding. The biggest difference between TAP user groups based on self-identity is self-identification as a traditional farmer. The majority of high TAP users see themselves as traditional farmers, while a much smaller percentage of low TAP users see themselves as traditional farmers only. Less difference is evident between modern identities. The interviews imply that there is a difference between groups based on traditional self-identity. The discrepancy between the Mann-Whitney U test and interview responses may be because of measurement error or that people, based on different measures, have multiple identities. Research about identity show that identity is complex and that people can maintain multiple identities based on the context. Different measures yield inconsistent responses. The Mann-Whitney U test shows a difference between groups exist based on modern identity, while the interview responses show that a difference between groups exist based on traditional identity and dual identities. Identity theory implies that people will behave in ways that conform with their self-image. The stronger a persons self identity, the more likely the individual will behave consistently with that identity (Stryker & Burke, 2002). Wilson, Urban, Graves, and Morrisons (2003) research shows a relationship between farmers performing and persisting in the use of certain behaviors that reinforce farmers sense of self identity. Identities can be connected to daily agricultural practices.

PAGE 113

100 According to the Mann-Whitney U test, those who are farmers by occupation are able to more strongly identify with being a modern farmer than those who are not farmers by occupation. According to the interview responses, the high TAP users identify themselves as traditional farmers. The type of practices farmers see themselves using, such as improved methods or no till may reflect farmers identifying themselves as modern. Farmers engage in practices with attributes that signify both who they are and who they are not (Wilson, Urban, Graves & Morrison, 2003, p.7). Like Wilsons research this research shows significant findings related to the importance of identities being maintained by use of certain agricultural practices. The results related to perceived behavioral controls and resource access are especially interesting due to the lack of difference between groups. A great deal of research incorporating the TPB shows that self-efficacy is often the prime determinant of behavior (McGinty, 2006; Armitage & Christian, 2003; Sanderson, 2004). Research findings indicate the importance of control beliefs in predicting behavior (Pavlou & Fygenson, 2006; Brickell, Chatzisaratis, & Pretty, 2006). TAP users traditional and modern control beliefs did not differ between groups. Interestingly, for both control belief measures TAP user groups mean responses were neutral toward the proposed inhibitors to farm traditionally or conventionally. Some interview responses among both TAP user groups show items related to weather and lack of time as obstacles to farming traditionally. Both of these responses are more pronounced in the high TAP user group. Weather cannot be controlled. Further, it may be difficult to find the time for high TAP users to farm because their primary occupations are not farming or ranching. Regardless, both groups believe farming traditionally requires more time than they have.

PAGE 114

101 High TAP users noted drought as preventing people from farming traditionally. This may allude to resource access in that there may not be adequate nor reliable resources to get information about how to irrigate crops in a traditional manner. Self-efficacy or confidence in using TAP also showed no differences between groups in the index. This is consistent with interview responses. Most individuals from both TAP user groups felt somewhat confident that they could farm traditionally. Schaefers, Epperson, and Nautas (1997) research show that self-efficacy was a significant predictive factor in influencing an individual to persist in using a behavior. McGintys (2006) research extends self-efficacy theory (PCB) by showing that both control beliefs and self-efficacy are significant predictors of farmers decision-making and land use practices. However, the results from this research are not consistent with these researchers findings. The poor predictive power of perceived behavioral controls may be related to volitional control. The perceived behavioral controls predict behavior in situations when performing the behavior is perceived to not be under the control of the individual (Ajzen, N.D.). Perhaps TAP users today believe that they have full control over whether they use TAP or not, although historical data show that this was not true in the past. If this is true, then the theory of reasoned action might be a better model to explain differences between TAP user groups than the theory of planned behavior. Access to resources was also not significantly different between groups. Resource access scores on both traditional and modern resource indices were highly variable. This implies that neither TAP user group could consistently identify information resources as either traditional or modern. This could also imply that traditional and modern resources used by participants are actually different from what expert panel members believe them

PAGE 115

102 to be. However, upon review of interview data, the majority of resources individuals listed as important sources for information are consistent with index items. Interestingly, high TAP users and low TAP users in the interview mention similar resources for getting information, such as elders and Extension offices. Two variables from the socioeconomic model, participation in tribal and agricultural activities, may allude to potential resource access of TAP user groups. Both variables show a noteworthy difference between groups. In both cases, the low TAP users show higher participation in activities. Participation in these activities may provide information about farming. There was also a consistency between TAP user groups responses to whom or where individuals go when they have concerns about farming. Members from both groups said they either go nowhere or to elders. The response of nowhere may imply that there are no adequate resources that farmers believe they can seek. This could also mean that they do not believe they need to seek other resources for information. There was no consistency among either group in terms of whom or what resources they used and relied upon related to farming. This may mean that neither group has a reliable information source where they can consistently find information or discuss concerns about farming. Past research shows inconsistent findings in support of access to resources as a predictor of behavior. For example, Nowaks research (1987) shows the importance of resource access, such as Extension agents, as increasing with the complexity of agricultural innovations used. My results differ from this because the low TAP users use of more complex technologies, but still do not differ from high TAP users in resource

PAGE 116

103 use. On the other hand, Hooks, Napier and Carters (1983) research shows no correlation between use of certain farm technologies and resource access. There may be some association between building ones confidence and control beliefs and having the ability to build skills and knowledge by having access to resources (Sanderson, 2004). For example, high TAP users, who are younger and less educated, do not have reliable and consistent access to traditional resources. They may also not have the knowledge about how to access traditional resources. Thus, even if high TAP users want to use TAP, they may only be somewhat confident and feel somewhat in control of their ability to do so because of lack of resource access. They do not differ from low TAP user groups members because low TAP user groups do not necessary need to access traditional resources about farming. Hypothesis Four 4. The theory of planned behavior will better explain why farmers use TAP than any of the other theoretical models. My research results do not corroborate this hypothesis, based on the logistic regression. Socioeconomic characteristics are a better predictor of Cherokee farmers use of TAP than either TPB or diffusion innovation variables. Subjective norms, attitudes and modern self-identity were different between groups. However, none of these variables individually were significant predictors of behavior in a regression model. The model as a whole was not predictive of behavior. The socioeconomic characteristics, acreage cultivated, hours per week working on farm, number of years farming and selling of crops were significant predictors of behavior as a whole. However, none of the variables were individually significant predictors of behavior. In both regressions the individual variables probably have high

PAGE 117

104 multicollerarity between variables. This is observed especially among socioeconomic data. Unfortunately, due to small sample size, I was unable to run other types of analysis to determine association between variables. When considering the importance of the economic model as a predictor of behavior it is important to reconsider the historical context of the study group. The historical context shows that there is distinction between two farming groups. The wealthier farmers rapidly adopted and adapted many facets of Western farming and ranching. The poorer group does not do so as quickly or fully. The results from this research rediscover this distinction between groups some components of group differences persist. Research illustrates various effects of the influence of socioeconomic characteristics in predicting behavior. Adoption of new technologies are often considered a function of economics (Marra, Pannell, Gaudim, 2003).Research does indicate that many economic models are enhanced in predicting decision-making behavior when considering other factors, such as attitudes (Luzar & Diagne, 1999; Lynne, Shonkwiler, & Rola, 1988) and access to resources (Floyd, et al, 2003). My research indicates that components of the TPB may strengthen the predictive power of the economic model. The majority of research examining rational decision-making focuses on adoption behavior as opposed to persistence behavior, especially those which may not have direct observable benefits. I discuss my results in light of this research by interpreting low TAP users as the adopters of new technologies. However, as previously discussed, I have some reservations about this interpretation due to interview responses. Many participants who do use conventional agricultural technologies indicated that they have always used them. So, these individuals may also be persisters as opposed to adopters. Overall

PAGE 118

105 current research does not adequately explain why people persist in using certain agricultural technologies Summary I tested four hypotheses in this research: 1. A relationship will exist between farmers socio-economic characteristics and their use of TAP. 2. A strong positive relationship will exist between farmers attitudes towards their use of TAP, subjective norms, self-efficacy, control beliefs, self-identity and their use of TAP. 3. A positive relationship will exist between farmers access to resources and their use of TAP. 4. The theory of planned behavior will better explain why farmers use TAP than any of the other theoretical models. Overall, my results do not corroborate any of my hypotheses. Few to no variables associated with each theory show that a relationship exists between TAP user groups. The economic model was the strongest predictor of behavior over the TPB. However, no one variable could significantly explain Cherokee farmers persistent use of TAP. The results do allow me to offer a painting of the overarching characteristics of each user group. The high TAP user group consists of small-scale farmers who do not rely upon farming as a primary occupation or providing a major source of income. These farmers may be home gardeners or hobby farmers. They sometimes identify themselves as traditional farmers and have a positive attitude about traditional agriculture. Social pressure urges them to use TAP. Confidence, control beliefs and access to resources do not strongly influence their decision-making to use TAP. This may be indicative of their overall lack of access to reliable and consistent sources of knowledge and resources, other than elders, related to TAP. This research indicates that

PAGE 119

106 these Cherokee farmerspersistent use of certain agricultural technologies are defined by benefits which are not necessarily tangible nor immediate such as, cultural/heritage preservation and environmental conservation. The low TAP user group consists of large scale commercial farmers who are farmers by occupation, rely upon farming as a primary income source and cultivate more land. They tend to be more educated, participate in more tribal-related and agricultural organizational activities, are more experienced, older farmers, and spend more time farming than the high TAP group. Their use of conventional technologies may be associated with their desire to maximize efficiency. The low TAP users have a less positive attitude towards traditional farming and identify themselves as modern farmers or a combination of both traditional and modern farmers. They feel less social pressure to use TAP. Like high TAP users this group may not have adequate access to resources about conventional and traditional farming. This is surprising because this group is more educated than high TAP users. Education is usually associated with having more access to resources. This research indicates Cherokee farmers, who are low TAP users, persistent use of certain agricultural technologies are defined by economic direct incentives.

PAGE 120

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION Future Directions Traditional agricultural practices developed from a culmination of knowledge and beliefs that evolved by adaptive processes (Berkes, 1999). TAP are not necessarily practices static in nature. This is evident in this research. Development of a common definition of Cherokee TAP may never be fully realized due to differences in perspective and opinion of participants. However, the examination of farmers persistent use of certain farming technologies provides insight into farmers perceptions, beliefs and identities related to TAP. Research should examine the markers that define traditional by the practices consistently identified by research participants as traditional. Assessing commonly referenced traditional practices are more accurate measures of behaviors. They also provide insight about the meaning of traditional to a specific community. What influences farmers to maintain or reject traditional beliefs and values exhibited by using TAP? This study offers a partial answer to this question. The ability to sustain using certain agricultural behaviors may require different methods for different types of agricultural systems. If maintaining conventional agricultural technologies is a primary goal, then enhancing components that increase socioeconomic status and direct benefits may encourage continued use of these technologies. On the other hand, if maintaining traditional agricultural practices is important, increasing awareness and 107

PAGE 121

108 promoting values and beliefs towards indirect benefits, such as cultural preservation and environmental conservation, may support persistent use of TAP. Researchers explain farmer adoption behavior based in rational thinking primarily through socioeconomic characteristics. In this study these factors are able to explain some of Cherokee farmers behavior or use of traditional agricultural practices. Nowak (1987) states what farmers should do according to economic theory is not the same as what farmers actually do in adopting a new technology. Therefore, instead of stopping with the legitimate deduction that economies are important in the adoption of conservation practices, we must go on to the equally important task of explaining variability among farmers in terms of their pursuing conservation objectives (p. 218). Although this statement refers to adoption of conservation behaviors, it readily applies to this research. The economic model offers a framework with which to begin looking at persistence behavior. However, it is an incomplete explanation of Cherokee farmers agricultural behaviors. Cherokee farmers array of agricultural behaviors still needs further investigation and scrutiny. If most participants are persisters, then the differences between TAP user groups are not adequately nor fully explained by the theory of planned behavior or the diffusion innovation model. Like the economic model, they are able to better explain adoption behaviors that have observable direct benefits. Behavioral models that have gained acceptance in psychology and sociology disciplines provide implications for improving the economic model to assess Cherokee farmers use of TAP. However, researchers need to develop an integrated behavioral theory, as it relates to persistence behavior. Research should draw upon the most successful predictors of

PAGE 122

109 behavior and also explore less examined predictors from multiple disciplines. An interdisciplinary perspective will allow a diverse community of researchers to examine behavior and add additional insight into the nature of persistence behavior. Within economics, ecological economists explore the intrinsic value or non-use value that people place on landscapes and incorporate these in land use model. These values are indirect values where no financial gains are made. According to Osinski, Kantelhardt & Heissenhuber (2003) land use models portrait the most important relationships and explain complex systems such as a cultural heritage landscapes (p. 478). The examination of farmer persistence behavior could benefit by incorporating this non-use value component. Within the theory of planned behavior, examining attitudes, subjective norms and identities related to environmental conservation or cultural preservation might provide more insight into farmer behavior. Examining farmers knowledge of different agricultural technologies may contribute to better understanding of the risks associated with those practices, farmers confidence toward using those technologies and the type of resources that may be useful to farmers. The presence, absence and level of support of traditional ecological knowledge among participants and communities could be knowledge that increases comprehension of persistence behavior. The examination of farmers connection and identities tied to place, since the use of TAP are suggested as being place-specific adaptation, could be another source of insight into farmer behavior. For example, researchers could examine how community differences and location, such as the degree of isolation, correlate with use of TAP.

PAGE 123

110 Geographic information systems can help identify and better unravel the multiple effects of location on farmer decisions about technology and land use. Lastly, researchers could explore the effects that the biophysical environment can have on persistence behavior. For example, some studies show that farmers are more willing to adopt new technologies when they are faced with poor biophysical conditions, such as erosion and slope (Pattnayak, Mercer, Sills & Yang, 2003). This implies that farmers persist in using certain behaviors under poorer physical conditions. The effects of isolation or the proximity to certain natural resources such as lakes and rivers may hinder or facilitate the use of certain preferred agricultural technologies. Limitation There was one major limitation to this study. A small sample size for each TAP user group, especially the low TAP user group, reduced the amount and potential range of responses for all measured variables. It also reduced the number of statistical tests that I could perform. Further, this small size may not be representative of the association between predictor and outcome variables and affect the theoretical generalizability of the results.

PAGE 124

APPENDIX A CHEROKEE NATIONS 14 COUNTY JURISDICTION: NUMBER OF AMERICAN INDIAN FARM OPERATORS BY COUNTY Figure A-1: Permission to use by Cherokee Nation 111

PAGE 125

APPENDIX B INSTRUMENT OUTLINE: CONCEPTS, VARIABLES AND INTRUMENTAL MEASUREMENTS Concept Variable Instrumental Measurement Attitude General attitude toward traditional farming Scale(Q)* Open response format question (I)** Subject Norm Subject norms towards using TAP Index (Q)* Open response format question (I)** Normative Beliefs Normative beliefs towards using TAP Index (Q)* Open response format question (I)** PBC: Self-efficacy confidence in using TAP Index (Q)* Open response format question (I)** Scalar response format(I)** Modern control beliefs (hindrance to use modern agriculture practices) PBC: Control Beliefs Traditional control beliefs (hindrance to use TAP) Indices(Q)* Open response format question (I)** Modern Self-identity (identity as modern farmer) Self-Identity Traditional Self-identity (identity as traditional farmer) Indices(Q)* Open response format question (I)** Modern resources Access to Resources Traditional resources Indices (Q)* Open response format question (I)** Age Household Income Farm Income Gender Education Level Language Farming Experience Amount of acres under cultivation Farm ownership structure Hours/week farming Martial Status Crop Use Number of Laborers Participation in Tribal Organizations Participation in Agricultural Organizations Socioeconomic characteristics Primary Occupation Closed response one check box response format(Q)* Closed response multiple check box format(Q)* Open response format question(I)** Behavior Use of traditional agricultural practices Index (Q)* Open response format question (I)** *Administered in Self-completion Questionnaire **Administered in Structured Interview 112

PAGE 126

APPENDIX C INSTRUMENTS ADMINISTERED BY VARIABLE Table C-1: Likert scale of attitude toward traditional farming Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement presented below. Strongly Disagree Disagree Indifferent Agree Strongly Agree The way we farmed before was lots better than this "modern" farming. The old ways were the best. People should stay away from the old ways of farming. Modern farming is bad for big farmers. Modern farming uses too much labor. People who think ahead always use modern farming practices. The new ways of farming makes thing easier for small farmers. The new ways of farming are great for Indian farmers. I wish the new ways of farming would go away. Farmers get poor using modern farming practices. Modern farming practices advance Indian farmers. Modern farming practices make farmers broke. Modern farming pays off. Modern farming is terrible for the soil. Modern farming practices help animals. Modern farming practices are the best thing ever. 113

PAGE 127

114 Table C-2: Behavior index How often do you use the following techniques or practices on your farm/garden? Almost Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost Always Synthetic herbicides Synthetic insecticides Synthetic fertilizers Mechanical land preparation Genetically modified crop or seed varieties Drip or overhead irrigation Sap testing to determine fertilizer needs Soil or tissue testing to determine fertilizer needs Pest scouting Hedging, futures or coop marketing Crop Insurance Insect, weed, or pathogen identification services Seed or cultivars that are readily available commercially

PAGE 128

115 Table C-3: Two dimensiona l subjective norm index Do you think there are practices HI STORICALLY DEVELOPED and USED by the Cherokee to do the following? Please check the Yes or No box next to each item below. For each item checked Yes, please i ndicate the degree to which you think YOU SHOULD use the historically developed practic es used by Cherokee rather than practices introduced to the Cherokee. Yes No Almost Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost Always Manage weeds Manage insects and pests Prepare land for planting Determine plant nutrient needs Improve and select crop and seed varieties Meet plant moisture needs Meet plant nutrient needs Identify and classify insects, weeds and pathogens Table C-4: Subjective norm scalar response item How do the following people feel about traditional and modern approaches to farming/gardening? Very positive towards traditional farming/ gardening Positive towards traditional farming/ gardening Neutral towards traditional and modern farming/ gardening Positive towards modern farming/ gardening Very positive towards modern farming/ gardening You Table C-5: Two dimensional normative beliefs index Think about the people and groups whose opini on about farming/gardening you value. Then, rank the following groups in order of importance to you. 1= most important, 7= least important ____ Family ____ Other farmers and neighbors ____ Feed and seed retailers ____ Extension Agents and other government officials ____ Lenders ____ Farm groups ____ Tribal Elders

PAGE 129

116 How do the following people feel about traditional and modern approaches to farming/gardening? Very positive towards traditional farming/ gardening Positive towards traditional farming/ gardening Neutral towards traditional and modern farming/ gardening Positive towards modern farming/ gardening Very positive towards modern farming/ gardening Family Other farmers and neighbors Feed and seed retailers Extension Agents and government officials Lenders Farm groups Tribal Elders Table C-6: Self-efficacy index How confident are you that you can perform the following practices HISTORICALLY DEVELOPED and USED by the Cherokee? If you believe that a practice listed below was not historically developed or used by the Cherokee, then check the box No Cherokee practice . Not confident at all Not confident Neutral Confident Very confident No Cherokee practice Manage weeds Manage insects and pests Prepare land for planting Determine plant nutrient needs Improve and select crop and seed varieties Meet plant moisture needs Meet plant nutrient needs Identify and classify insects, weeds and pathogens

PAGE 130

117 Table C-7: Two dimensional modern resource index How often do you use the following sources to ge t information about farming/gardening? Almost Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost Always Government or commercial publications (e.g. farm journals, books, newsletters) Mass media (e.g. TV, radio, movies, magazines, newspaper) Internet Events (e.g. field days, workshops, conferences, tradeshows) Publications about traditional practices How reliable do you think these following sources of information for farming/gardening are? Not reliable Not very reliable Somewhat reliable Very reliable Government or commercial publications (e.g. farm journals, books, newsletters) Mass media (e.g. TV, radio, movies, magazines, newspaper) Internet Events (e.g. field days, workshops, conferences, tradeshows) Publications about traditional practices Table C-8: Two dimensional traditional resource index How often do you use the following sources to ge t information about farming/gardening? Almost Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost Always Tribal leaders Elders

PAGE 131

118 How reliable do you think these following sources of information for farming/gardening are? Not reliable Not very reliable Somewhat reliable Very reliable Tribal leaders Elders Table C-9: Modern self-identity index To what degree do you disagree or agree with the following statements? Please check the box which best describes your opinion. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree I am not the type of farmer/ gardening oriented towards using traditional farming/ garden ing practices. I am up-to-date with current regulations, products and technologies. I rely on modern technology and mechanization. I rely on external re sources available to me from off my farm/garden. I rely on high inputs. I take risks. I make investments. I use a corporate or business model to run my farm. My main objective is to maximize profit per unit production. I specialize in producing 1 or 2 crops. I want to expand the acreage on my farm/ gardening. I want to contract with large corporations.

PAGE 132

119 Table C-10: Traditional self-identity index To what degree do you disagree or agree with the following statements? Please check the box which best describes your opinion. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Being a farmer/ gardening who uses traditional practices is an important part of who I am. I am not the type of farmer/ gardening oriented towards using traditional farming/ gardening practices. I do not heavily rely on modern farming technologies. I grow crops traditionally. I use a small or family business to run my farm. I rely on internal resources available to me on my farm. I am thrifty. I take few risks. Table C-11: Modern control beliefs index If you wanted to use MODERN farming/garden ing practices, how likely would the following factors below keep you from using them? Not at all likely Not likely Neutral Likely Very likely Access to knowledge and advise Access to capital and credit The price I get for my products Low profitability Pressure to abandon farm Access to information (e.g. local experts and literature) Geographic location and topography Access to equipment, tools, and technologies Access to labor

PAGE 133

120 Table C-12: Traditional c ontrol beliefs index If you wanted to use farming/gardening practices HISTORICALLY DEVELOPED and USED by the CHEROKEE, how likely would the following factors below keep you from using them? Not at all likely Not likely Neutral Likely Very likely Access to knowledge and advise Access to capital and credit The price I get for my products Low profitability Pressure to abandon farm Access to information (e.g. local experts and literature) Geographic location and topography Access to equipment, tools, and technologies Access to labor Table C-13: Questionnaire items meas uring socioeconomic characteristics. 1. Which of the following statements be st describes how well you speak the Cherokee (Tsalagi) language? ____ I do not speak Cherokee (Tsalagi). ____ I speak a little bit of Cherokee (Tsalagi). ____ I can carry on a c onversation in Cherokee (Tsalagi). ____ I speak Cherokee (Tsalagi) fluently. 2. How often do you participate in tribal activities? ____ Almost Never ____ Rarely ____ Sometimes ____ Often ____ Almost Always

PAGE 134

121 3. Do you participate in any tribal organi zations? Please check th e line(s) that best describes your response. If you mark yes please provide the num ber of organizations you participate in the blank space provided. ____ Yes, I am a MEMBER of __________ (number) tribal organizations. ____ Yes, I am an OFFICIAL of _________ (number) tribal organizations. ____ No, I am not a member of any tribal organizations. 4. What is your sex? ____ Male ____ Female 5. What is the highest level of education you have completed? ____ Eighth grade or below ____ High school/GED ____ Some college ____ 2 to 4 year college degree (A ssociates or Bachelors Degree) ____ Masters Degree ____ Doctoral Degree ____ Professional Degree (MD, JD) 6. What is your current marital status? ____ Single, Never Married ____ Married ____ Divorced ____ Widowed ____ Separated 7. How many hours a week do you spend working in the garden/farm? ______________________ hours per week 8. How long have you been a farmer/gardener? ______________________ years 9. What is your age? ______________________years

PAGE 135

122 10. How much land do you cultivate? Pleas e specify in acres OR square feet. _____________None _____________acres OR _____________square feet 11. What is your primary occupation? ____ Farming/Ranching ____ Hired manager of farm/ranch ____ Non-farm work/Non-ranch work ____ Retired and still farming/ranching/gardening ____ Other, please specify___________________________________ 12. Do you sell the crops you grow? ____ Yes ____ No 13. Which of the following broad categorie s best describes your total household income? ____ under $2,500 ____ $2,501 to $5,000 ____ $ 5,001 to $10,000 ____ $10,001 to $20,000 ____ $20,001 to $35,000 ____ $35,001 to $50,000 ____ $50,001 to $100,000 ____ More than $100,001 14. What is the ownership stru cture of the farm/garden? ____ Individual ____ Family ____ Partnership ____ Cooperative ____ Tribal ____ Other, please specify_____________________ 15. Which of the following describes the land you cultivate? Check all that apply. ____ I rent it from someone else. ____ I own it.

PAGE 136

123 ____ Other, please specify______________________________________ 16. What was the net farm/garden income for 2004? ____ No income generated ____ Cost exceed income ____ Broke even ____ $0 $2,500 ____ $2,501 to $5,000 ____ $ 5,001 to $10,000 ____ $10,001 to $20,000 ____ $20,001 to $35,000 ____ $35,001 to $50,000 ____ $50,001 to $100,000 ____ More than $100,001 17. Which of the following agri cultural educat ion trainings have you participated in? Check all that apply. ____ 4-H ____ Vocational agricultur e program (high school) ____ Vocational agriculture program (night school) ____ Attendance to an agricultural college ____ Graduation from an agricultural college ____ None ____ Other, please specify________________________________ 18. Which of the following organizations do you be long to or activitie s do you engage in currently or have in the past? Check all that apply. ____ General farm organizations (e.g. Gra nge, Farm Bureau, National Farmers Union, American Agricultural Movement) ____ Commodity producers associations (e .g. National Wheat Producers Association) ____ Sustainable/Organic ag riculture organizations ____ Cooperative Extension activities (e.g. 4-H, county board) ____ None Table C-14: Structured in terview questions with associated constructs Construct Associated Questions Attitude Which do you think is better, traditional farming or nontraditional/modern farmi ng/gardening? Why? SelfEfficacy If you wanted to farm/garden traditionally, how well prepared are you to do that? Choices: Not prepared, Somewhat prepared, Well prepared What are some of the things you (or someone else) need to do to farm/ garden traditionally? Subjective Norms Do you think you should use traditional farming/gardening practices? Why? Control Beliefs What are the kinds of things you cant control that keep you (might keep you) from using traditional farming/ gardening practices? Why? Access to Resources Where do you go to get information about farming/gardening?

PAGE 137

124 Table C-14 continued Construct Associated Questions Access to Resources Where (or to whom) do you go to when you have issues or concerns about your farm/garden? Self-Identity A. Do you think of yourself as a traditional farmer/gardener or as a modern (non-traditional) farmer/gardener? Why? Choose term based on how respondent defines self in A. What does traditional or non-traditional/modern farmer mean to you? Choose term based on how respondent defines self in A. Do you like it (or would you like it) when/if people call you a traditional farmer/gardener or non-traditional/ modern farmer/gardener? Why or why not? Normative Beliefs Who supports traditional farming/gardening in your community? Why? Socioeconomic Characteristics What county do you garden/farm in? How long have you lived at your current residence? What community are you a part of? Do you have hired help on the farm/garden? (IF YES) How many people? What crops do you grow? A. What do you do with the crops you grow? If says sells crop in A Where or to whom do you sell them to? If says sells crop in A B. Do you or a vendor label or present your products in a way that let buyers know that they are buying it from an Indian? If yes to B How are the product presented which let buyers know that they are from Indians? If says sells crop in A C. Do you make your decisions about what products to sell based on their association with the Cherokee Nation? If responds yes to C What are the main products you sell based on their association with the Cherokee Nation? D. Do people who are not paid help you with the farm/garden? If responds yes to D How many people? Behavior Name what you think are the 5 most important traditional Cherokee farming/gardening practices? A. You mentioned in the questionnaire that you use practice X. Have you always used this practice? (use practices that are sometimes, often, and almost always) If respond No to A What did you use before this? If respond No to A Why did you start using practice X?

PAGE 138

APPENDIX D COMPLETE INSTRUMENT PACKET Dear participant, I am an associate researcher at the University of Florida, Gainesville in the School of Natural Resources and Environment. As part of my research project I am conducting interviews and observations, to learn about Cherokee farmers opinions about the use of agricultural practices. The interview will last approximately 45 minutes. We are also asking that you fill out a questionnaire that will take approximately 30 minutes. You do not have to answer any question you do not want to answer. I will conduct the interview in person at a time that is convenient for you. With your permission I would like to audio record the interview. Only I will have access to the recording that I will personally transcribe, omitting any identifiers during the transcription. The recording will then be erased and your identity will not be revealed in the final report. There are no anticipated risks, compensation or other direct benefit to you as a participant in this interview. You are free to withdraw your consent to participate and may discontinue your participation in the interview at any time without consequence. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. If you have any questions about this research protocol, please contact me at (352) 3921987 ext. 267 or my faculty advisor, Dr. M.E. Swisher at (352) 3922202 ext 256. Questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant may be directed to the UFIRB office, University of Florida, PO Box 112250, Gainesville FL 32611; ph. (352) 3920433. By signing this letter, you give us permission to report your responses confidentially in the final manuscript to be submitted to our faculty supervisor for possible publication. Mital Shah I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the interview and complete the questionnaire and I have received a copy of this description. ____________________________ __________ Signature of participant Date 125

PAGE 139

126 Self-Completion Questionnaire 1. Do you consider yourself to be the person who makes day-to-day decisions about the farm/garden? ____ Yes ____ No if you checked this line, please return the survey to the interviewer. You do not have to answer any of the remaining questions. Thank you for your time. I. Please check the box that best describes your answer to the following questions. 2. How often do you use the following techniques or practices on your farm/garden? Almost Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost Always Synthetic herbicides Synthetic insecticides Synthetic fertilizers Mechanical land preparation Genetically modified crop or seed varieties Drip or overhead irrigation Sap testing to determine fertilizer needs Soil or tissue testing to determine fertilizer needs Pest scouting Hedging, futures or coop marketing Crop Insurance Insect, weed, or pathogen identification services Seed or cultivars that are readily available commercially

PAGE 140

127 3. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement presented below. Strongly Disagree Disagree Indifferent Agree Strongly Agree The way we farmed before was lots better than this "modern" farming. The old ways were the best. People should stay away from the old ways of farming. Modern farming is bad for big farmers. Modern farming uses too much labor. People who think ahead always use modern farming practices. The new ways of farming makes thing easier for small farmers. The new ways of farming are great for Indian farmers. I wish the new ways of farming would go away. Farmers get poor using modern farming practices. Modern farming practices advance Indian farmers. Modern farming practices make farmers broke. Modern farming pays off. Modern farming is terrible for the soil. Modern farming practices help animals. Modern farming practices are the best thing ever.

PAGE 141

128 4. Do you think there are practices HISTORICALLY DEVELOPED and USED by the Cherokee to do the following? Please check the Yes or No box next to each item below. For each item checked Yes, please indicate the degree to which you think YOU SHOULD use the historically developed practices used by Cherokee rather than practices introduced to the Cherokee. Yes No Almost Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost Always Manage weeds Manage insects and pests Prepare land for planting Determine plant nutrient needs Improve and select crop and seed varieties Meet plant moisture needs Meet plant nutrient needs Identify and classify insects, weeds and pathogens 5. Think about the people and groups whose opinion about farming/gardening you value. Then, rank the following groups in order of importance to you. 1= most important, 7= least important ____ Family ____ Other farmers and neighbors ____ Feed and seed retailers ____ Extension Agents and other government officials ____ Lenders ____ Farm groups ____ Tribal Elders

PAGE 142

129 6. How do the following people feel about traditional and modern approaches to farming/gardening? Very positive towards traditional farming/ gardening Positive towards traditional farming/ gardening Neutral towards traditional and modern farming/ gardening Positive towards modern farming/ gardening Very positive Towards modern farming/ gardening Family Other farmers and neighbors Feed and seed retailers Extension Agents and government officials Lenders Farm groups Tribal Elders You 7. How confident are you that you can perform the following practices HISTORICALLY DEVELOPED and USED by the Cherokee? If you believe that a practice listed below was not historically developed or used by the Cherokee, then check the box No Cherokee practice. Not confident at all Not confident Neutral Confident Very confident No Cherokee practice Manage weeds Manage insects and pests Prepare land for planting Determine plant nutrient needs Improve and select crop and seed varieties Meet plant moisture needs Meet plant nutrient needs Identify and classify insects, weeds and pathogens

PAGE 143

130 8. How often do you use the following sources to get information about farming/gardening? Almost Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost Always Extension or other government agencies Events (e.g. field days, workshops, conferences, tradeshows) Government or commercial publications (e.g. farm journals, books, newsletters) Publications about traditional practices Other farmers Farm organizations (e.g. Farm Bureau, Coops, Farm groups, NGOs) Mass media (e.g. TV, radio, movies, magazines, newspaper) Internet Tribal leaders Elders 9. How reliable do you think these following sources of information for farming/gardening are? Not reliable Not very reliable Somewhat reliable Very reliable Extension or other government agencies Events (e.g. field days, workshops, conferences, tradeshows) Government or commercial publications (e.g. farm journals, books, newsletters) Publications about traditional practices Other farmers Farm organizations (e.g. Farm Bureau, Coops, Farm groups, NGOs) Mass media (e.g. TV, radio, movies, magazines, newspaper) Internet Tribal leaders Elders

PAGE 144

131 10. To what degree do you disagree or agree with the following statements? Please check the box which best describes your opinion Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Being a farmer/ gardening who uses traditional practices is an important part of who I am. I am not the type of farmer/ gardening oriented towards using traditional farming/ gardening practices. I do not heavily rely on modern farming technologies. I grow crops traditionally. 11. To what degree do you disagree or agree with the following statements? Please check the box that best describes your opinion. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree I use a small or family business to run my farm. I rely on internal resources available to me on my farm. I am thrifty. I take few risks. I am up-to-date with current regulations, products and technologies. I rely on modern technology and mechanization. I make investments. I use a corporate or business model to run my farm. My main objective is to maximize profit per unit production. I specialize in producing 1 or 2 crops. I want to expand the acreage on my farm/ gardening. I want to contract with large corporations.

PAGE 145

132 12. If you wanted to use MODERN farming/gardening practices, how likely would the following factors below keep you from using them? Not at all likely Not likely Neutral Likely Very likely Access to knowledge and advise Access to capital and credit The price I get for my products Low profitability Pressure to abandon farm Access to information (e.g. local experts and literature) Geographic location and topography Access to equipment, tools, and technologies Access to labor 13. If you wanted to use farming/gardening practices HISTORICALLY DEVELOPED and USED by the CHEROKEE, how likely would the following factors below keep you from using them? Not at all likely Not likely Neutral Likely Very likely Access to knowledge and advise Access to capital and credit The price I get for my products Low profitability Pressure to abandon farm Access to information (e.g. local experts and literature) Geographic location and topography Access to equipment, tools, and technologies Access to labor

PAGE 146

133 II. The following section includes questions about your household composition and farm/garden activities. 14. Which of the following statements best describes how well you speak the Cherokee (Tsalagi) language? ____ I do not speak Cherokee (Tsalagi). ____ I speak a little bit of Cherokee (Tsalagi). ____ I can carry on a conversation in Cherokee (Tsalagi). ____ I speak Cherokee (Tsalagi) fluently. 15. How often do you participate in tribal activities? ____ Almost Never ____ Rarely ____ Sometimes ____ Often ____ Almost Always 16. Do you participate in any tribal organizations? Please check the line(s) that best describes your response. If you mark yes please provide the number of organizations you participate in the blank space provided. ____ Yes, I am a MEMBER of __________ (number) tribal organizations. ____ Yes, I am an OFFICIAL of _________ (number) tribal organizations. ____ No, I am not a member of any tribal organizations. 17. What is your sex? ____ Male ____ Female 18. What is the highest level of education you have completed? ____ Eighth grade or below ____ High school/GED ____ Some college

PAGE 147

134 ____ 2 to 4 year college degree (Associates or Bachelors Degree) ____ Masters Degree ____ Doctoral Degree ____ Professional Degree (MD, JD) 19. What is your current marital status? ____ Single, Never Married ____ Married ____ Divorced ____ Widowed ____ Separated 20. How many hours a week do you spend working in the garden/farm? ______________________ hours per week 21. How long have you been a farmer/gardener? ______________________ years 22. What is your age? ______________________years 23. How much land do you cultivate? Please specify in acres OR square feet. _____________None _____________acres OR _____________square feet 24. What is your primary occupation? ____ Farming/Ranching ____ Hired manager of farm/ranch ____ Non-farm work/Non-ranch work ____ Retired and still farming/ranching/gardening

PAGE 148

135 ____ Other, please specify___________________________________ 25. Do you sell the crops you grow? ____ Yes ____ No 26. Which of the following broad categories best describes your total household income? ____ under $2,500 ____ $2,501 to $5,000 ____ $ 5,001 to $10,000 ____ $10,001 to $20,000 ____ $20,001 to $35,000 ____ $35,001 to $50,000 ____ $50,001 to $100,000 ____ More than $100,001 27. What is the ownership structure of the farm/garden? ____ Individual ____ Family ____ Partnership ____ Cooperative ____ Tribal ____ Other, please specify_____________________ 28. Which of the following describes the land you cultivate? Check all that apply. ____ I rent it from someone else. ____ I own it. 29. What was the net farm/garden income for 2004?

PAGE 149

136 ____ No income generated ____ Cost exceed income ____ Broke even ____ $0 $2,500 ____ $2,501 to $5,000 ____ $ 5,001 to $10,000 ____ $10,001 to $20,000 ____ $20,001 to $35,000 ____ $35,001 to $50,000 ____ $50,001 to $100,000 ____ More than $100,001 30. Which of the following agricultural education trainings have you participated in? Check all that apply. ____ 4-H ____ Vocational agriculture program (high school) ____ Vocational agriculture program (night school) ____ Attendance to an agricultural college ____ Graduation from an agricultural college ____ None ____ Other, please specify________________________________ 31. Which of the following organizations do you belong to or activities do you engage in currently or have in the past? Check all that apply. ____ General farm organizations (e.g. Grange, Farm Bureau, National Farmers Union, American Agricultural Movement) ____ Commodity producers associations (e.g. National Wheat Producers Association) ____ Sustainable/Organic agriculture organizations ____ Cooperative Extension activities (e.g. 4-H, county board) ____ None

PAGE 150

137 ____ Other, please specify______________________________________ This is the end of the self-completion questionnaire! Thank you for your time and participation. The next portion of the meeting includes a brief interview. Thank you again for your participation Date_______________________ #_______________________ County _______________________ Interview Thank you for filling out the questionnaire. Do you have any questions about it? We will now continue with the interview portion. The primary reason doing this interview is to be to gain a deeper understanding about your views towards the use traditional agricultural practices. Do you mind if I tape record our discussion? Shall we begin? Reminder: Everything we talk about will remain confidential 1. How long have you lived at your current residence? 2. Whats your zip code? 3. What community are you a part of? 4. What do you do with the crops you grow? (IF SELL CROPS) Where or to whom do you sell them to?

PAGE 151

138 5. (IF SELL) Do you or a vendor label or present your products in a way that let buyers know that they are buying it from an Indian? (IF YES) How are the product presented which let buyers know that they are from Indians? 6. (IF SELL) Do you make your decisions about what products to sell based on their association with the Cherokee Nation? (IF YES) What are the main products you sell based on their association with the Cherokee Nation? 7. What crops do you grow? 8. Do you have hired help on the farm/garden? (IF YES) How many people? 9. Do people who are not paid help you with the farm/garden? (IF YES) How many people? How are these people related to you? 10. You mentioned in the questionnaire (#2) that you use practice X have you always used this practice? (use practices that are sometimes, often, and almost always) (IF NO) What did you use before this? Why did you start using practice X?

PAGE 152

139 Practice X Uses the practice? Always use the practice? (IF NO) What was used before this? Why did you start using practice X? Synthetic Herbicides Y/N Synthetic Insecticides Y/N Synthetic Fertilizers Y/N Mechanical land preparation Y/N Genetically Modified crop or seed varieties Y/N Drip or overhead irrigation Y/N Sap testing to determine fertilizer needs Y/N Soil or tissue testing to determine fertilizer needs Y/N Pest scouting Y/N Hedging, futures or coop marketing Y/N Crop Insurance Y/N Insect, weed, or pathogen identification services Y/N Seed or cultivars that are readily available commercially Y/N 11. Name what you think are the 5 most important traditional Cherokee farming/gardening practices? 12. Which do you think is better, traditional farming or non-traditional/modern farming/gardening? Why? 13. If you wanted to farm/garden traditionally, how well prepared are you to do that? Choices: Not prepared Somewhat prepared Well prepared

PAGE 153

140 14. What are some of the things you (or someone else) need to do to farm/ garden traditionally? 15. What are the kinds of things you cant control that keep you (might keep you) from using traditional farming/ gardening practices? Why? 16. Who supports traditional farming/gardening in your community? Why? 17. Do you think you should use traditional farming/gardening practices? Why? 18. Where do you go to get information about farming/gardening? 19. Where (or to whom) do you go to when you have issues or concerns about your farm/garden? 20. Do you think of yourself as a traditional farmer/gardener or as a modern (non-traditional) farmer/gardener? Why? 21. (Based on response for #20) What does (traditional/ non-traditional or modern farmer) mean to you?

PAGE 154

141 22. (Based on response for #20) Do you like it (or would you like it) when people call you a (traditional farmer/gardener) non-traditional or modern farmer/gardener)? Why or why not? 23. Other contacts? If you would like to receive a short report of the results from this research, please provide your contact information below. Thanks for your help.

PAGE 155

APPENDIX E SUMMARY SCORES FOR LOW AND LOW TAP USER GROUPS BASED ON VARIOUS VARIABLES Mean Score -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 highlowGroups Figure E-1: Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on mean self-efficacy scores, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 142

PAGE 156

143 Mean Score 1 2 3 4 5 highlowGroups Figure E-2: Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on mean modern control beliefs scores, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 Mean Score 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 highlowGroups Figure E-3: Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on mean traditional control beliefs scores, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005

PAGE 157

144 mean score 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 highlowgroups Figure E-4: Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on mean Traditional self-identity scores, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 Summative Score 0 50 100 150 highlowGroups Figure E-5: Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on summative traditional resource access scores, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005

PAGE 158

145 Summative Score 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 highlowGroups Figure E-6: Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on summative modern resource access scores, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005

PAGE 159

APPENDIX F CORRELATION BETWEEN SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AND LOGISTIC REGRESSIONS FOR SOCIOECONOMIC AND THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR VARIABLES Table F-1: Correlations between socioeconomic characteristics for the high TAP user group, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 Hours/wk farming Yrs farming Age Acres cultivated Selling Crops Hours/wk farming 1.0000 -0.2511 -0.3150 0.9536 -0.5916 Yrs farming -0.2511 1.0000 0.6781 -0.2117 0.0444 Age -0.3150 0.6781 1.0000 -0.2341 0.2557 Acres cultivated 0.9536 -0.2117 -0.2341 1.0000 -0.5458 Selling Crops -0.5916 0.0444 0.2557 -0.5458 1.0000 Table F-2: Correlations between socioeconomic characteristics for the low TAP user group, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 Hours/wk farming Yrs farming Age Acres cultivated Selling Crops Hours/wk farming 1.0000 -0.3257 -0.5201 0.3647 -0.4182 Yrs farming -0.3257 1.0000 0.8174 -0.1314 0.3203 Age -0.5201 0.8174 1.0000 -0.2610 0.5034 Acres cultivated 0.3647 -0.1314 -0.2610 1.0000 -0.4061 Selling Crops -0.4182 0.3203 0.5034 -0.4061 1.0000 Table F-3: Nominal logistic regression results for socioeconomic variables based on high and low TAP user groups, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 Model -LogLikelihood DF ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Difference 9.661681 4 19.32336 0.0007 Full 6.746041 Reduced 16.407722 RSquare (U) 0.5888 Observations (or Sum Wgts) 27 Converged by Gradient Lack Of Fit Source DF -LogLikelihood ChiSquare Lack Of Fit 22 6.7460411 13.49208 Saturated 26 0.0000000 Prob>ChiSq Fitted 4 6.7460411 0.9185 Parameter Estimates Term Estimate Std Error ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Intercept 2.75509494 3.3515088 0.68 0.4111 146

PAGE 160

147 Term EstimateStd ErrorChiSquareProb>ChiSq Hours/wk farming 0.27171053 0.2255246 1.45 0.2283 Yrs farming -0.1005532 0.0766078 1.72 0.1893 Acres cultivated -2.3190358 1.4872937 2.43 0.1189 Selling Crops -0.039653 0.0326025 1.48 0.2239 For log odds of high/low Effect Wald Tests Source Nparm DF Wald ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Hours/wk farming 1 1 1.45152673 0.2283 Yrs farming 1 1 1.72284364 0.1893 Acres cultivated 1 1 2.43120437 0.1189 Selling Crops 1 1 1.47928101 0.2239 Table F-4: Nominal logistic regression results for theory of planned behavior variables based on high and low TAP user groups, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 Model -LogLikelihood DF ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Difference 3.150419 3 6.300837 0.0979 Full 14.551286 Reduced 17.701704 RSquare (U) 0.1780 Observations (or Sum Wgts) 31 Converged by Gradient Lack Of Fit Source DF -LogLikelihood ChiSquare Lack Of Fit 27 14.551286 29.10257 Saturated 30 0.000000 Prob>ChiSq Fitted 3 14.551286 0.3559 Parameter Estimates Term Estimate Std Error ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Odds Ratio Intercept 1.20408485 5.1097644 0.06 0.8137 Attitudes 0.05075138 0.0819062 0.38 0.5355 8.01092685 modern identity -0.8692393 0.9919136 0.77 0.3809 0.08117598 Subjective Norm 0.13783751 0.5115934 0.07 0.7876 1.73559458 For log odds of high/low Effect Wald Tests Source Nparm DF Wald ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Attitudes 1 1 0.38393885 0.5355 modern identity 1 1 0.76794667 0.3809 Subjective Norm 1 1 0.07259136 0.7876

PAGE 161

LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, G.R., & Marshall, S.K. (1996). A developmental social psychology of identity: understanding the person-in-context. Journal of Adolescence, 19 (5), 429-442. Adesina, A.A. & Chianu, J. (2002). Determinants of farmers adoption and adaptation of alley farming technology in Nigeria. Agroforestry Systems, 55 (2), 99-112. Adler, M., & Ziglio, E. (1996). Gazing into the oracle: the Delphi Method and its application in social policy and public health. London: Jessica Kingsley Publications. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. Ajzen, I. (nd). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Retrieved March 15, 2005, from http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/index.html Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Ahuja, M.K., & Thatcher, J.B. (2005). Moving beyond intentions and towards the theory of trying: effects of work environment and gender on post-adoption information technology use. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 427-459. Alteri, M.A. (2001). Traditional Agriculture. Retrieved March 14, 2006, from http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/traditional_ag.html Alteri, M.A. (1999). The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystem. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 74, 19-31. Armitage, C. & Christain, J. (2003). From attitudes to behavior: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behavior. Current Psychology, 22(3), 187-195. Atewell, P. (1992). Technology diffusion and organizational learning: the case of business computing. Organization Science 3(1), 1-19. Babbie, E. (1998a). Unobtrusive research. The Practice of Social Research. Wadsworth: Belmont, CA. Babbie, E. (1998b). Field research. The Practice of Social Research (pp. 279-307). Wadsworth: Belmont, CA 148

PAGE 162

149 Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in Changing Societies. Cambridge University Press NY, NY. Bartel, L.K., Nordstrom, C.R. & Koski, J.A. (2006). A structured interview demonstration. Teaching of Psychology, 33(1), 55-57. Berkes, Fikret. (1999). Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis. Berndt, E.R., Pindyck, R.S., & Azoulay, P. (2003). Consumption externalities and diffusion in pharmaceutical markets: antiulcer drugs. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 51(2), 243-270. Berzonsky, M.D. (1989). Identity style: conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Adolescent Research, 4, 267-281. Borman, K.M., LeCompt, M.D., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Part I: paradigms and politics of research. Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA. 1-58. Bowman, D.M., Woinarski, J.C., Sands, D.P., Wells, A., & McShane, V.J. (1990). Slash-and-burn agriculture in the wet coastal lowlands of Papua New Guinea: response of birds, butterflies and reptiles. Journal of Biogeography, 17(3), 227-239 Brickell, T.A., Chatzisarantis, N.L., & Pretty, G.M. (2006). Autonomy and control: augmenting the validity of the theory of planned behavior in predicting exercise. Journal of Health Psychology, 11(1), 51-63. Caracelli, V.J., & Green, J.C. (1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 195-207. Carletto, C., de Janvry, A., Sadoulet, E. (1999). Sustainability in the diffusion of innovations: smaller nontraditional agro-exports in Guatemala. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 47(2), 345-369. Carmines, E.G. & Zeller, R.A. (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Casey, J. (2004). Agroforestry adoption in Mexico: using Keynes to better understand farmer decision-making. Journal of Post Keynesian, 26(3), 505-521. Champagne, D. (ed.). (1999). Contemporary Native American Cultural Issues. Altamira Press: Walnut Creek, CA. Codd, R.T., & Cohen, B. N. (2003). Predicting college student intention to seek help for alcohol abuse. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 22(2), 168 191.

PAGE 163

150 Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: a review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 14291465. Debo, A. (1951). The Five Tribes of Oklahoma Report of Social and Economic Conditions. Philadelphia, PA: The Indian Rights Organization. De Vaus, D. (2001). Research Design in Social Research. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA. DeWalt, B.R., & Barkin, D. (1987). Seeds of change: the effects of hybrid sorghum and agricultural modernization in Mexico. In H.R. Bernard & P. Pelto (Eds.), Technology and Social Change (2 nd ed.), (pp. 138-165). Prospect, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. Dodge, J. R., Ford, M.A., & Perko, M. A. (2003). From ephedra to creatine: using theory to respond to dietary suspplement use in young athletes. American Journal of Health Studies, 18 (2/3), 111 -117. Doss, C.R., & Morris, M.L. (2001). How does gender affect the adoption of agricultural innovations? The case of improved maize technology in Ghana. Agricultural Economics, 25(1), 27-39. Duffy, D., & Stubben, J. (1998). An assessment of Native American economic development: putting culture and sovereignty back in the models. Studies in Comparative International Development, 32(4), 52-79. Eicher, C.K., & Staatz, J.M. (Eds.). (1998). International Agricultural Development (3 rd ed.). Baltimore, Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press. Ellis, L., Robb, B., Burke, D. (2005). Sexual orientation in United States and Canadian college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(5), 569-581. Fekadu, Z., & Kraft, P. (2001). Self-identity in planned behavior perspective: past behavior and its moderating effects on self-identityintention Relations. Social Behavior and Personality, 29(7), 671-686. Fischer, M., Irlenbusch, B., & Sadrieh, A. (2004). An intergenerational common pool resource experiment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 48 (2), 811-836. Floyd, C., et al. (2003). Household adoption and the associated impact pf multiple agricultural technologies in the western hills of Nepal. Agricultural Systems, 76, 715-738.

PAGE 164

151 Fogelson, R.D. & Kutshe. (1961). Cherokee economic cooperative: the Gadugi. In W. N. Fenton & J. Gulick (Eds.), Symposium on Cherokee and Iroquois Culture (Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 180, pp. 83-124). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2004). World food day, biological biodiversity for food security, October 16, 2004. Biological Diversity in Food and Agriculture. Retrieved April 5, 2005 at http://www.fao.org/biodiversity/index.asp Fowler, F. (1993). Survey interviewing. Survey Research Methods (pp. 105-122). Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA. Fujisaka, S., Hurtado, L., & Uribe R. (1996). A working definition of slash-and burn agricultural systems. Agroforestry Systems, 34(2), 151-169. Freed, S.A., & Freed, R.S. (2002). Green Revolution: Agricultural and Social Change in an North Indian Village. The Anthropological Papers of American Museum of Natural History, 85. Gagnon, M., Godin, G., Gagn, C., Fortin, J., Lamothe, L., Reinharz, D., & Cloutier, A. (2003). An adaptation of the theory of interpersonal behaviour to the study of telemedicine adoption by physicians. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 71(2-3), 103-115. Gearing, F. (1958). The Structural Poses of 18 th Century Cherokee Villages. American Anthropologies, 60(6), 1148-1157. Gliessman, S.R.(2003). Sustainability in Traditional Agroecosystems: Ecologically Sound Practices that Sustain Traditional Agriculture. Retrieved January 30, 2005, at http://www.agroecology.org/principles/tradsust.htm Gollin, D., Morris, M., & Byerlee, D. (2005). Technology adoption in intensive post-green revolution systems. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(5), 1310-1316. Goodwin, G. C. (1977). Cherokees in Transition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Gowdy, J.M. (2004). The revolution in welfare economics and its implications for environmental valuation and policy. Land Economics, 80(2), 239-257. Gockowski, J., & Ndoumb, M. (2004) The adoption of intensive monocrop horticulture in southern Cameroon. Agricultural Economics, 30(3), 195-202. Graebner, N.A. (1945a). Pioneer Indian agriculture in Oklahoma. Chronicles of Oklahoma, 23(3), 232-248.

PAGE 165

152 Graebner, N.A. (1945b). Provincial Indian society in eastern Oklahoma. Chronicles of Oklahoma, 23(4), 323-327. Granberg, D., Holmberg, S. (1990). The intentional behavior relationship among U.S. and Swedish voters. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53(1), 44-54. Harmon D. (1996). Losing species, losing languages: Connections between biological and linguistic diversity. Southwest Journal of Linguistics,15, 89. Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., & McElreath, R. (2001). In search of Homo Economicus: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. American Economic Review, 91, 73. Hewes, L. (1942). Indian land in the Cherokee country of Oklahoma. Economic Geography, 18, 401-412. Hooks, G.M, Napier, T.L, & Carter, M.V. (1983). Correlates of adoption behaviors: the case of farming technologies. Rural Sociology, 43, 308-323. Hurt, R.D. (1987). Indian Agriculture in America: Prehistory to the Present. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press. Isaac, S., & Michael, W. (1997). Handbook in Research and Evaluation. San Diego, CA: Edits Publishers. Jackson, C., Smith, R.A., & Conner, M. (2003). Applying an extended version of the theory of planned behavior to physical activity. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21(2), 119. Jacobson, S.K, Sieving, K.E., Jones, G.A., & Van Doorn, A. (2003). Assessment of farmer attitudes and behavioral intentions toward bird conservation on organic and conventional Florida farms. The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 17(2), 595-606. Jameison, S. (2004). Likert scales: how to (a)buse them. Medical Education, 38, 1212-1218. James Mooneys History, Myths, and Sacred Formulas of the Cherokees (18911900). Ashville, NC: Bright Mountain Books. Johnson, L.T., Rutstrom, E., & George, J. (in press). Income distribution preferences and regulatory change in social dilemmas. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. Jordan, C. F. (2004). Organic farming and Agroforestry: alley cropping for mulch production for organic farms of southeastern United States. Agroforestry Systems, 61, 79-90.

PAGE 166

153 Kappler, C.J. (Ed.). (1904). Treaty with the Cherokee, 1791. In Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties: Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved March 10, 2006 at http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Kappler/Vol2/treaties/che0029.htm Knepler, K. (1942). Eighteen century Cherokee educational efforts. Chronicles of Oklahoma, 20(1), 55-61. Retrieved April 22, 2006 at http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Chronicles/contents/v020toc.html Knowler, D., & Bradshaw, B. (in press). Farmers adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy. Krannich, R.S. and Humphrey, C. (1986). Using key informant data in comparative community research: an empirical assessment. Sociological Methods and Research, 14(4), 473-493. Kuznar, L. and Werner, O. (2001). Ethnographic mapmaking: part I-principles. Field Methods, 13(2), 204-213. Lewis, D.R. (1995). Native Americans and the environment: a survey of twentieth-century issues, American Indian Quarterly, 19(3), 423-450. Luszczynska, A., & Schwarzer, R. (2003). Planning and self-efficacy in the adoption and maintenance of breast self-examination: a longitudinal study on self-regulatory cognitions. Psychology and Health, 18(1), 93-108. Luzar, & Diagne, E.J. (1999). Participation in the next generation of agriculture conservation programs: the roles of environmental attitudes Journal of Socio-Economics, 28(3), 335-350. Lynne, G.D., Shonkwiler, J.S., & Rola, L.R. (1988). Attitudes and farmer conservation behavior. American Journal of Agriculture Economics, February, 12-19. Maffi, L. (2005). Linguist, cultural and biodiversity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 599-617. Marras, M., Pannell, D., Gaudim, A. (2003). The economics of risk uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: where are we on the learning curve? Agricultural Systems, 75, 215-234. Mathijs, E. (2003). Social capital and farmers willingness to adopt countryside stewardship schemes. Outlook of Agriculture, 32(1), 13-16. Mauze, M. (Ed.). (1997). Present is Past: Some Uses of Tradition in Native Societies. Kanham, Maryland: University of America, Inc. McGinty, M. (2006) Agroforestry Adoption and Maintenance: Self-efficacy, Attitudes and Socio-economic Factors. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.

PAGE 167

154 McNamara, K.T., Wetzstein, M.E., & Douce, G.C. (1991). Factors affecting peanut producer adoption of integrated pest management. Review of Agricultural Economics, 13(1), 129-139. Mellor, J.W. (1998). Agriculture on the road to industrialization. In C.K. Eicher & J.M. Staatz (Eds.), International Agricultural Development (3 rd ed.), (pp. 136-154). Baltimore, Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press. Meyer, G., Roberto, A. J., Boster, F. J., & Roberto, H. L (2004). Assessing the get real about violence curriculum: process and outcome evaluation results and implications Health Communication, 16(4), 451 -475. Morgan, D.L.1996. Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129-152. Morris, M., & Byerlee. (1998). Maintaining productivity gains in post-green revolution Asian agriculture. In C.K. Eicher & J.M. Staatz (Eds.), International Agricultural Development (3 rd ed.), (pp. 136-154). Baltimore, Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press. Nabhan, G.P. (1997). Cultures of Habit. Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint. Nagel, J.(1996). American Indian Ethnic Identity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Nall, G.L. (1977). King cotton in Oklahoma, 1825-1939. In D.E. Green(Ed.), Rural Oklahoma (pp.37-83). Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma Historical Society. Nowak, P.J. (1987). The adoption of agricultural conservation technologies: economic and diffusion explanations. Rural Sociology, 52(2), 208-220. OBrien, M. (2001). A Journal of Cherokee history and culture: history of Piney community. In J. Flippo (Ed.), Cherokee Quarterly, Fall-Winter. Tulsa, OK: Territorial Book Foundation. Osinski, E., Kantelhardt, J., & Heissenhuber, A. (2003). Economic perspectives of using indicators. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 98 (1-3), 477-482. Pattnayak, S.K., Mercer, D.E., Sills, E., & Yang, J. (2003). Taking stock of agroforestry studies. Agroforestry Systems, 57(3), 173-186. Pavlou, P.A., Fygenson, M. (2006). Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: an extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 115-143. Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., & Livi, S. (2003). Self-identity and the theory of planned behavior in the prediction of health behavior and leisure activity. Self & Identity, 2(1), 47-61.

PAGE 168

155 Pingali, P.P. (1998). Confronting the ecological consequences of the rice Green Revolution in tropical Asia. In C.K. Eicher & J.M. Staatz (Eds.), International Agricultural Development (3 rd ed.), (pp. 136-154). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press. Perdue, T. (Ed.). (1996). Cherokee Editor: The Writings of Elias Boudinot. Athens, GA: Brown Thrasher Books. Rasul,G., & Thapa, G. (2004). Sustainability of ecological and conventional agricultural systems in Bangladesh: an assessment based on environmental, economic and social perspectives. Agricultural Systems, 79, 327-351. Robinson, R.P., & Doverspike, D. (2006). Factors predicting the choice of an online versus a traditional course. Teaching of Psychology, 33(1), 64-68. Rocha, J.M. (2005). Measuring traditional agroecological knowledge: an example from peasants in the Peruvian Andes. Field Methods, 17(4), 356-372. Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York, NY: Free Press. Ruttan, V.W. (1998). Models of agricultural development. In C.K. Eicher & J.M. Staatz (Eds.), International Agricultural Development (3 rd ed.), (pp. 155-162). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press Sanderson, K. (2004). Extension support for organic farmers in the south: a function of attitude, knowledge or confidence? Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. Sapp, S.G. (2002). Incomplete knowledge and attitude-behavior inconsistency. Social Behavior and Personality, 30(1), 37-44 Schaefers, K.G., Epperson, D.L., & Nauta, M.M. (1997). Womens career development: can theoretically derived variables predict persistence in Engineering Majors? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44(2), 173-183. Schwartz, S.J. (2001). The evolution of Eriksonian and neo-Eriksonian identity theory and research: a review and integration. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 1(1), 7-58. Schunk, D.H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3& 4), 207-231. Scudder, T. (1982). No Place to Go: Effects of Compulsory Relocation on Navajos. Philadelphia, PA: Institute for the Study of Human Issues. Scudder, T. (1985). A sociological framework for the analysis of new land Settlements. In Ed. M. M. Cernea (Ed.), Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Rural Development, (pp.1-575). New York: Oxford University Press.

PAGE 169

156 Sheskin, D.J. (2004). Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures, 3 rd ed. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC. Skuttnabb-Kangas, T., Maffi, L., & Harmon, D. (2003). Sharing a World of Difference: the Earths Linguist, Cultural and Biological Diversity. UNESCO, TerraLingua, World Wide Fund for Nature. Retrieved March 5, 2005 at http://www.terralingua.org/UNESCO%20publication.pdf Sommer, R. & Sommer, B.B. (1986). A Practical Guide To Behavior: Tools and Techniques. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Soothill, K. & Grover, C. (1997). A note on computer searches of newspapers. Sociology, 31(3), 591-596. Sousa, L.H., Galanata, A., Batel, A., & Hespanha, P. (2003). Observing cities social inequalities: a cartographic case study of Aveiro, Portugal. Cities, 20(4), 241-252. Staatz, J.M., & Eicher, C.K. (1998). Agricultural development ideas in historical perspective. In C.K. Eicher & J.M. Staatz (Eds.), International Agricultural Development (3 rd ed.), (pp. 136-154). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press. Stryker, S. & Burke, P. J. (2002). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly 63(4), 284-298. Sullivan, T.J. (2001). Methods of Social Research. Orlando, FL: Harcourt. Swedberg, R. (1998). Max Webers vision of economic sociology. Journal of Socio-Economics, 27(4), 535-555. Talhouk, S., Zurayk R., & Khuri, S. (2001). Conservation of the coniferous forests of Lebanon: past, present, and future prospects. Oryx, 35(3), 206-215. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Part 1: Paradigm and Politics of Research. Pp. 1-58 in Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Tesser, A., Shaffe, D.(1990). Attitude and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 479-523 Thangata, P., & Alavalapati, J. (2003). Agroforestry adoption in southern Malawi: the case of mixed intercropping of Gliricidia sepium and maize. Agricultural Systems, 78(1), 57-71. Thoburn, J.B. &Wright, M.H. (1929). A History of the State and Its People (Vols. 1-2) OK: Lewis Historical Publishing Company, Inc.

PAGE 170

157 Thomas, R. K. (1961). The Redbird smith movement. In W. N. Fenton & J. Gulick (Eds.), Symposium on Cherokee and Iroquois Culture (Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 180, pp. 83-124). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (2002a). 2002 Census of Agriculture, Volume 1 Chapter 1: U.S. National Level Data Table 1. Historical Highlights: 2002 and Earlier Census Years. Retrieved March 15, 2005 at http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/us/st99_1_001_001.pdf United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (2002b). 2002 Census of Agriculture, Volume 1 Chapter 2: Oklahoma County Level Data Table 43. Retrieved March 15, 2006 at http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/ok/st40_2_043_043.pdf United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (2005). 2002 Census of Agriculture., Special Report: Part 1 Operators by Race, revised April 2005. Retrieved April 15, 2006 at http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/operatorsbyrace/opbyrace.pdf United States Department of Agriculture, National Organic Program (2003). National Organic Program Standards. Retrieved May 15, 2006 at http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/standards.html Wahrhaftig, A. (1966). Community and the caretakers. New University Thought 4(4), 54-76. Wahrhaftig, A. (1978). Making do with the dark meat: a report on the Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. In S. Stanley (Ed.), World Anthropology (pp. 410-509). Paris: Morton Publishers. Weber, R.P. (1990). Basic Content Analysis (2 nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Weir, S., & Knight, J. (2004). Externality effects of education: dynamics of the adoption and diffusion of an innovation in rural Ethiopia. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 53, 93-113. Well, R.N. (1994). Native American resurgence and renewal: a reader and bibliography. Native American Resources Series, No.3. London: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. Wilson, D., Urban, M., Graves, M., & Morrison, D. (2003). Beyond the economic: farmer practices and identities in Central Illinois, USA. The Great Lakes Geographer, 10(1), 21-33

PAGE 171

158 Wilson, G., Stacey, E. (2003). Online interaction impacts on learning: teaching the teachers to teach Online. In G. Crisp, D. Thiele, I. Scholten, S. Barker, & J. Baron (Eds.), Interact, Integrate, Impact: Proceedings at the 20th Annual Conference of the Australasian for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 541-551). Adelaide, Australia: Ascilite. Wubeneh, N.G., & Sanders, J.H. (in press). Farm-level adoption of sorghum technologies in Tigray, Ethiopia. Agricultural Systems. Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd ed.).Thousand Island, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Zubair, M., & Garforth, C. (2006). Farm level tree planting in Pakistan: the role of farmers perceptions and attitudes. Agroforestry Systems, 66, 217-229. Zafirovski, M., & Levine, B.B. (1999). A socio-economic approach to market transactions. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 28, 309-334. Zorary, D. (2001). Domestication of Plants in the Old World (3 rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

PAGE 172

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Mital S. Shah was born in Bridgeport, CT. She received her Bachelor of Arts degree in world religions from Emory University in Atlanta, GA, in May 2000. After receiving the degree she volunteered on various farms in Europe. Upon her return she worked on the Tohono O'Odham Reservations as a GED/ABE instructor in Sells, AZ. Since then and until her pursuit of a masters degree in 2004 she has also interned with the National Park Service as an interpretative park ranger at Kenai Fjords National Park in Alaska. She also interned with the US Geological Survey in Cape Cod. She then worked for the USGS as an Education Specialist. Also, during this time Mital was a coordinator of Puran News, a non-profit Indian womens organization aimed to help Indian women share, learn and support each others endeavors to continue the legacy and heritage of the Indian culture. In 2004 Mital began graduate school at the University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. She is pursuing her masters degree in interdisciplinary ecology through the School of Natural Resources and Environment. She conducted research under the supervision of Dr. M.E. Swisher in Oklahoma with Cherokee farmers. The purpose of the research was to determine what factors influence Cherokee farmers to use traditional agricultural practices. Currently, Mital is co-president of the Ethnoecology Society at the University of Florida. She recently received the David Boren Graduate Student Fellowship and will travel to India to conduct research with Himalayan tribal Indian farmers. 159


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015461/00001

Material Information

Title: Factors Affecting Oklahoma Cherokee Farmers' Use of Traditional Agricultural Practices: Socioeconomics, Theory of Planned Behavior and Resource Access
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0015461:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015461/00001

Material Information

Title: Factors Affecting Oklahoma Cherokee Farmers' Use of Traditional Agricultural Practices: Socioeconomics, Theory of Planned Behavior and Resource Access
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0015461:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












FACTORS AFFECTING OKLAHOMA CHEROKEE FARMERS' USE OF
TRADITIONAL AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES: SOCIOECONOMICS, THEORY OF
PLANNED BEHAVIOR AND RESOURCE ACCESS














By

MITAL SHARED SHAH


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006

































Copyright 2006

by

Mital Sharad Shah

































This document is dedicated to seekers of knowledge and Cherokee farmers.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my partner, Jacob, and my family for being supportive of my

endeavors as a graduate student. I will always be thankful for the patience and

participation of the Cherokee farmers in this study and the individuals who helped me

develop the instruments for this research they made this study possible. I would like to

also thank Cherokee Nation's Natural Resources Department for all the help in the field

and the new found friendships. I would like to thank my thesis chair, Dr. M.E. Swisher,

for her hard work, availability, discipline and guidance as an academic mentor. I would

like to thank my committee members, Dr. Hugh Popenoe and Dr. Richard Allen, for their

patience, wisdom and insight. Lastly, I would like to thank Meisha Wade and Cathy

Ritchie from the School of Natural Resources and Environment.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES ..... .......... ........ ......................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................. ...............x

ABSTRACT.................. .................. xii

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ................... .................. .............. .... ......... .......

Maintenance of Traditional Agricultural Practices............... .......................1...
Theoretical Foundation ..............................................2
Cherokee and Am erican Indian Farm ers ............................................. .......3
Purpose and O objectives of Study ..................................................................................4
Research Questions................... ........... ........5
Definitions ....................................................... ........5

2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................. ...............6

Traditional and Conventional Agricultural Practices ............................................6
Historical Context of Cherokee Agriculture.........................................................9
Pre-contact Conditions: Prior to 1690 ..........................................9
Contact to American Revolution: 1690-1775...............................................11
American Revolution to Removal: 1775- 1838........................................... 14
Removal to Statehood: 1838 1907 .................................. .. ......19
Statehood to present: 1907-2005 ............................. ............... 23
Conclusion......................................... ........29
Theoretical Fram ew ork.................................... ............... 30
C classical E con om ics ................. ............................................. .............. 30
Social Psychology Theories ........................................ ................. 33
The Theory of Reasoned Action ........................................................33
Theory of Self-efficacy ........................................ ................. 37
Theory of Planned B behavior ................................................................... 38
Self-identity ...................................... ...................................... ...4 1
D iffu sion of Innov ation .................................................................................. 44
Research Questions and Hypotheses .............................. ...............46


v










Research Questions ............................................... 46
Hypotheses ......................................................46
Definitions ........................................................47

3 METHODS ...................................................... ........49

Research Design ..................................................................49
Sample Framework and Sample Selection.............. ..................................... 52
D ata C collection ................... .............................. ................... ... ....54
Methods ........................................ .............................. ........56
Instrument Development ............................... ...................56
Scales and Indices..................... ........ ............... 57
O their Q questionnaire Item s....................................................... 63
Interview ...................................... .................. ............. ........63
Pilot Study ................................................65
Limitations...................................... .................. ............. ........65
Data analysis....................................... .........66
Definition............................................... ........66

4 RESULTS .................................................68

Behavior and User Groups........................ .....................68
Hypothesis One.............................................71
Hypothesis Two.................... ...............................75
Attitudes .................................................75
Self-efficacy ........................................ ........80
M odem Control Beliefs........................................................... ....... ........ 81
Traditional Control Beliefs........................ .....................81
Subjective N orm s ................... .............................................................. 82
Normative Beliefs...................................... ........................... ..........84
Traditional Self-Identity .............................................. ........85
Modem Self-Identity ...................................... ........... ........85
H hypothesis Three..................................................................... .......88
Traditional Resource Access........................................ ................88
M odem Resource Access ........................................ ..................89
Hypothesis Four...................................... ................... .......... .........90

5 DISCUSSION ................... .......................... ........92

Hypothesis One.............................................92
Hypotheses Two and Three ............................................... ........96
Hypothesis Four...................................... ................... .......... .........103
Summary ......................................................... ...............105

6 CONCLUSION.............................. ........... ........107

Future Directions ......................................................... ............... 107
Limitation ......................................................... ...............110









APPENDIX

A CHEROKEE NATION'S 14 COUNTY JURISDICTION: NUMBER OF
AMERICAN INDIAN FARM OPERATORS BY COUNTY...............1...............111

B INSTRUMENT OUTLINE: CONCEPTS, VARIABLES AND INSTRUMENTAL
M EASUREM ENT S.................................................................. ......... 112

C INSTRUMENTS ADMINISTERED BY VARIABLE............... ...............113

D COMPLETE INSTRUMENT PACKET ................................ .................................125

E SUMMARY SCORES FOR LOW AND LOW TAP USER GROUPS BASED
ON VARIOUS VARIABLES ....................................... .................142

F CORRELATION BETWEEN SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AND
LOGISTIC REGRESSIONS FOR SOCIOECONOMIC AND THEORY OF
PLANNED BEHAVIOR VARIABLES ................................. .................................146

LIST OF REFERENCES .......................................... .................. ... .......148

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............................................................. ...............159
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

3-1 Cronbach's alpha and item total correlation values for measured indices............62

4-1 Descriptive data summary for Cherokee TAP user groups created from the
behavior index measuring use of traditional agricultural practices, Cherokee
N ation, O klahom a, 2005. ............................................................. 69

4-2 Values of U, Z, and p Mann-Whitney U test for behavior index based on high
and low TAP user groups (a = 0.05),Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 .............70

4-3 Interview responses of high and low TAP user groups for questions measuring
use of traditional agricultural practices, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005..........71

4-4 Values of U, Z, and p in Mann-Whitney U test for socioeconomic characteristic
based on high and low TAP user groups (a = 0.05), Cherokee Nation,
Oklahoma, 2005 ....................................................73

4-5 Contingency Table and Fisher's exact test for gender based on high and low
TAP user groups (a = 0.05), Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 ........................74

4-6 Contingency Table and Fisher's Exact Test for selling crops based on high and
low TAP user groups (a = 0.05), Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 .................74

4-7 Values of U, Z, and p in Mann-Whitney U test for theory of planned behavior
variables based on high and low TAP user groups (a = 0.05), Cherokee Nation,
Oklahoma, 2005 ....................................................78

4-8 Interview responses of high and low TAP user groups for questions measuring
attitudes towards traditional agriculture, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005........79

4- 9 Interview responses of high and low TAP user groups for question measuring
traditional control beliefs, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005.............................82

4-10 Interview responses of high and low TAP user groups for question measuring
subjective norms, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005................. ........ ........ 84

4-11 Interview responses of high and low TAP user groups for question measuring
normative beliefs, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005. ........................................85









4-12 Interview responses of high and low TAP user groups for questions measuring
self-identity, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005............................... .........87

4-13 Interview responses of high and low TAP user groups for questions measuring
resource access, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005. ............................................89

C-1 Likert scale of attitude toward traditional farming.................................................113

C-2 Behavior index .............. ...................... 1.14

C-3 Two dimensional subjective norm index ................................... ..................... 115

C-4 Subjective norm scalar response item ................ ............... ...... 115

C-5 Two dimensional normative beliefs index .............. ...............115

C-6 Self-efficacy index ................ ........ .......... .........116

C-7 Two dimensional modern resource index ................................... ......................117

C-8 Two dimensional traditional resource index ............................ 117

C-9 Modem self-identity index .............. ..... .............................18

C-10 Traditional self-identity index .............. ......... .. ........119

C-11 Modem control beliefs index ............. ... ......... .........119

C-12 Traditional control beliefs index ................................ ............... 120

C-13 Questionnaire items measuring socioeconomic characteristics. .........................120

C-14 Structured interview questions with associated constructs ...................................123
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

2-1 The relationship between attitudes (A), behavioral beliefs (b) and the evaluation
of the outcome (e) ...................... .......... ....... .. ...... 34

2-2 Relationship between subjective norms (SN), normative beliefs (n) and
motivation to comply (m) ..............................................................35

2-3 The causal linkages between variables associated with theory of reasoned action .36

2-4 The causal linkages between variables associated with theory of reasoned
action ..............................................................40

2-5 Association between theoretical models and farmer behavior. Note: Self-identity
is used within this research as an extension of the theory of planned behavior.......47

4-1 Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on use of traditional
agricultural practices, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 ...................................70

4-2 Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on attitude toward of
traditional agriculture, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 ..................................77

4-3 Score for high and low TAP user groups based on subjective norms, Cherokee
N ation, O klahom a, 2005 ............................................................. 83

4-4 Mean score for high and low TAP user groups based on modern self-identity,
Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 .............................. ............... 86

A-i Permission to use by Cherokee Nation ....... ..............................111

E-1 Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on mean self-efficacy
scores, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 ........................................142

E-2 Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on mean modern
control beliefs scores, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 ..................................143

E-3 Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on mean traditional
control beliefs scores, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 ..................................143

E-4 Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on mean Traditional
self-identity scores, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005............... ............144









E-5 Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on summative
traditional resource access scores, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005..............1...44

E-6 Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on summative modern
resource access scores, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005 ...............................145
















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

FACTORS AFFECTING OKLAHOMA CHEROKEE FARMERS' USE OF
TRADITIONAL AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES: SOCIOECONOMICS, THEORY OF
PLANNED BEHAVIOR AND RESOURCE ACCESS
By

Mital Sharad Shah

December 2006

Chair: Marilyn E. Swisher
Major Department: Interdisciplinary Ecology

Many individuals discuss the importance of maintaining traditional agricultural

practices. Some argue that they may contribute cultural and biodiversity. It is important

to understand the factors that can influence farmers to consciously maintain these

behaviors when perceived direct benefits may not accrue from using them. The case

study took place in Cherokee Nation's fourteen county jurisdictions in northeast

Oklahoma. The purpose of the study was to investigate how socioeconomic

characteristics, the theory of planned behavior and access to resources influence the

degree to which Cherokee farmers use traditional agricultural practices (TAP). Thirty-

four Cherokee farmers participated in the study. Instruments were administered through

self-completion questionnaires and interviews.

Farmers were placed into two user groups based on their use of TAP. Groups were

compared to each other based on the measured predictor variables. Results show that high

TAP users tend to be small scale farmers or home gardeners. They sometimes identify









themselves as traditional farmers and have a positive attitude towards using traditional

farming. Social pressure urges them to use TAP. Their confidence, perceived barriers and

access to resources do not influence their decision-making to use TAP. The research

indicates that these farmers' motivations to use TAP are associated with indirect benefits

such as preservation of cultural heritage and environmental conservation. Low TAP users

tend to be large scale commercial farmers. They have a less positive or negative view

towards traditional farming and identify themselves as modern farmers or as both

traditional and modem farmers. The research indicates that these farmers' motivation to

use TAP less than the high TAP user group is associated with the desire to maximize

efficiency and direct economic benefits. Based on the logistic regression, socioeconomic

characteristics were the best predictors of farmers' use of TAP over theory of planned

behavior and resource access. Future research should explore additional factors such as

connection to land, biophysical environment and degree of isolation to better understand

Cherokee farmer behavior. Researchers still need to develop a more comprehensive and

predictive behavior model.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Maintenance of Traditional Agricultural Practices

Many individuals discuss the importance of maintaining traditional agricultural

practices. Some argue that using these practices promote biodiversity and cultural

diversity. Berkes (1999) defines traditional agricultural practices (TAP) as locally

adapted agroecological management behaviors. Farmers transmit them from one

generation to another. He believes that these practices encourage biodiversity and offer

insight into biological species, systems analysis and resource management (Berkes,

1999). Alteri (2001) and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

(2004) depict the maintenance of TAP as encouraging stability of production, diversity

in the diet and reduced insect and disease incidence by increasing on-farm biodiversity .

Some researchers encourage examining and researching indigenous farmers' use of TAP

because they may offer solutions previously overlooked to problems related to ecological

degradation and food security.

Gliessman describes these practices as contributing to the conservation of

indigenous knowledge and culture (2003). Further, anthropological research

demonstrates a relationship between loss of biodiversity and cultural diversity or

linguistic diversity (Harmon, 1996) and suggests that maintaining biocultural diversity is

important. Maffi (2005) says "It was increasingly apparent that the variety of cultural

knowledge, beliefs, and practices developed by human societies...are being placed at

risk by the socioeconomic and political processes threatening the integrity and the very









survival of indigenous and local cultures and of the environments in which they live-

and that this massive and rapid change has profound implications for the maintenance of

life on earth" (p.604). Further, Maffi (2005) highlights the importance of examining the

relation between these components to better understand "the pressures it is undergoing,

and the possible actions to ensure its perpetuation" (p. 604).

However, the use of some traditional agricultural practices (TAP), such as swidden

agriculture, are controversial in relation to their effects of on-farm and off-farm

environments and their potential benefits over other agricultural systems. Fujisaka,

Hurtado and Uribe (1996) note that "slash-and-burn agricultural systems have received a

great deal of attention given their observed or hypothesized role in tropical deforestation,

biodiversity loss, and contribution to global warming" (151). Other practices, such as

ancient agricultural activities in Lebanon, are associated with contributing to

deforestation of cedar trees (Talhouk, Zurayk & Khuri, 2001).

Interestingly, most of the benefits associated with using TAP are indirect and

future-oriented. Maintaining traditional agricultural practices may not provide direct

benefits to the individual, compared to other types of agricultural systems, such as

conventional farming. What then influences farmers to maintain or reject traditional

beliefs and values exhibited by using traditional agricultural practices? It is important to

understand the factors that can influence farmers to consciously maintain these behaviors

when perceived direct benefits may not accrue from using them.

Theoretical Foundation

Many theories examine decision-making and its influence on the adoption or

persistence of behaviors with proven direct benefits, such as exercising, breastfeeding or

increasing food yields. The rational actor model within economic theory suggests that









farmers engage in particular behaviors by rationally determining the costs and benefits

associated with using those behaviors. Sociologists examine how access to different mass

media and interpersonal resources can influence the adoption or rejection of new farming

technologies. Psychology's theory of planned behavior examines how self-efficacy, or

confidence, and perceived facilitator and inhibitors, attitudes, and social influences

predict the adoption or persistence of certain behavior.

Although these theories have predicted behavior with direct benefits, no research

examines how or if these theories can explain rational decisions to adopt or maintain

behaviors that do not exhibit observable direct benefits. While these theories may also

explain the latter type of decisions, it is also possible they will not do so. Understanding

the factors that influence farmers' decisions to use traditional practices may provide a

deeper understanding of why people elect to maintain many kinds of behaviors that do

not seem to provide direct benefits to them.

Cherokee and American Indian Farmers

Some American Indians engage in individual and community level action to

preserve and revitalize the use of traditional agricultural practices. This is evident by the

presence of organizations such as Traditional American Indian Farmers Association,

Native Seed/Search, and Tohono O'Odham Community Action. Some researchers are

assessing the relationship between farming and culture, the types of traditional

agricultural practices being used by American Indian farmers and the sustainability of

these practices.

The number of principal farm operators is declining among most ethnic groups in

the U.S.A. However, American Indians are among the few ethnic groups that show an

increase in the number of principal operators. In 1997, there was approximately 13,000









American Indian Principal Operators, while in 2002 this number increased by 15% to

15,000 (United States Department of Agriculture, 2002, p. 1). It is important to

understand this growing farming population's decision-making process and the factors

that motivate them to use specific types of farming practices.

I examine theories that try to understand adoption behavior and decision-making

with Cherokee farmers in northeastern Oklahoma. Historically the Cherokee were

farmers and used definable and specific TAP. Today, the Cherokees use a wide variety of

agricultural practices. I will examine how well the theories described above explain

farmers' persistent use of TAP within the context of Cherokee farming.

Purpose and Objectives of Study

This research explores theories that may explain why Cherokee farmers choose to

use certain agricultural technologies. I draw upon four theoretical models from the

disciplines of sociology, psychology, and economics. This research explores

psychosocial variables drawn from the theory of planned behavior and self-identity

theory. I use the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) to determine how perceived

behavior controls, subjective norms and attitudes towards traditional farming effect

Cherokee farmers' decisions to use TAP. I use self-identity theory to determine how

farmers orient themselves as farmers. I use the diffusion of innovation model (Rogers,

1995) to determine how traditional and non-traditional communication networks affect

Indian farmers' decisions to use traditional agricultural practices. Lastly, I test the

classical economic model by measuring socioeconomic characteristics to determine if this

model, compared to the other theories just discussed, is the strongest predictor of

American Indian farmers' use of TAP.









Research Questions

The broader research questions of this study include:

1. What motivates indigenous people to use traditional agricultural practices (TAP)?

2. What factors influence American Indian farmers' decision-making to use or not use
traditional agricultural practices (TAP)?

Definitions

* Attitude: a person's judgment that performing the behavior is good or bad

* Control Beliefs: beliefs about the presence of factors that may facilitate or impede
performance of a behavior

* Diffusion of Innovation: process by which new ideas are communicated through
certain channels over time among the members of a social system

* Farmer: An individual who actively cultivates land for food production. This
definition is not based on farm/garden size, amount of time spent cultivating, or
amount of sales related to production. This definition is inclusive of cash crop
farmers and subsistence farmers or gardeners

* Perceived Behavioral Control: an individual's perceived ease or difficulty in
performing a specific behavior

* Self-efficacy: an individual's confidence about their capabilities to produce effects

* Subjective Norms: perceived social pressures that the individual believes are
exerted on him/her to perform a specific behavior.

* Traditional Agricultural Practices (TAP) : agroecological management behaviors
that a farmer performs which are transmitted from one generation to another;
agricultural innovations which were not developed during and after the Green
Revolution














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Traditional and Conventional Agricultural Practices

Alteri (2001) defines traditional agriculture as "an indigenous form of farming,

result of the co-evolution of local social and environmental systems and that exhibit a

high level of ecological rationale expressed through the intensive use of local knowledge

and natural resources, including the management of agrobiodiversity in the form of

diversified agricultural systems" (para. 1). However, traditional agricultural practices are

not definable as a specific set of practices common to all indigenous or local

communities.

The question "what is traditional" has been a topic of debate among American

Indians, anthropologists, and national and international governments and agencies for

decades. According to Mauze, some people argue that traditional is based on beliefs,

values and practices that have been used since pre-contact. Others consider that

"traditional encompasses both continuity and change" (Mauze, 1997, p.7). This

"invention of tradition" recognizes cultures as dynamic, adaptive and changing as

opposed to static (Mauze, 1997, p.7). There is no consensus about the definition of

traditional within and among American Indian cultures and sensitivities exist between

different cultures toward the use of this term (Nagel, 1996).

The Cherokee historically were a farming people. Various secondary sources

document pre-contact agricultural activities. The Cherokee used a definable set of

agricultural practices called three sisters farming. Three sisters farming is a form of









companion planting where different varieties of corn, bean and squash are planted closely

together. This often entails building a mound with the soil and planting the three types of

plants together as a cluster on the mound (or on several different mounds). This type of

agriculture was and is used by many agriculture-oriented Indian communities throughout

the U.S. in various ecosystems (arid to deciduous forest). Some communities make

modifications with irrigation methods to adapt to different climate regions. The use of

these three food crops has historically carried cultural and religious significance for many

Indian agricultural communities. This is especially true for those who have relied upon

these crops as their major source of food resources.

Three-sisters farming was historically traditional agricultural practices (TAP) used

by the Cherokee. However, as discussed above, it is difficult to define traditional

agriculture today within the context of specific practices due to adaptations over time.

For the purpose of the study, traditional agricultural practices are measured by what I

perceive them to not be, in contrast to practices that have developed in the post WWII

period. These conventional agricultural practices are clearly identifiable. I therefore

defined conventional agricultural practices and allowed study participants to reply to all

questions based on the individual's definition of TAP.

Conventional agriculture grew out of the "Green Revolution." The Green

Revolution started in 1960's. The technological products and advancements that arose

from this revolution are used today by many farmers. They changed how most

agricultural production systems function. An agricultural production system that

primarily uses some or all components of the Green Revolution's technological

introductions is now considered a conventional agricultural production system.

Innovations associated with conventional agriculture include the mechanization or the









development of new agricultural machines, such as combines, tractors, thresher, and the

development of high yielding seed and plant varieties. Other innovations include

synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and insecticides (DeWalt & Barkin, 1987;

Freed & Freed, 2002, p.20).

The aim of the Green Revolution was to reduce food shortages by increasing

agricultural productivity through the introduction of new technologies (Freed & Freed,

2002). Many policy makers and economists supported the revolution on the basis of the

high-payoff input model. It surmises that the key to transforming a traditional

agricultural sector into a productive source of economic growth was the investment

designed to make modern, high-payoff inputs available to farmers.... [farmers] were

viewed as rational, efficient resource allocators" (Ruttan, 1998, p. 159). The high-input

model stresses the need for agricultural research and human capital formation. The

Green Revolution between the 1960s and 1980s increased grain production and

commercialization of agriculture. Food production output per acre and farmer income

increased (Mellor, 1998; Staaz & Eicher, 1998; Freed & Freed, 2002). Conventional

agriculture helped people become less reliant on food imports in many countries, such as

India and China (Mellor, 1998).

Today, we are in the post-green revolution era. Some farmer and researchers are

seeking alternative ways to manage agricultural systems that reduce environmental

degradation. Some of these alternative innovations and management techniques include

the use of biotechnology to develop new plant varieties, increasing farmer knowledge

about current technologies and the use of them, integrated pest management,

conservation tillage and reducing external chemical inputs (Morris & Byerlee, 1998;

Rasul & Thapa, 2004; Jordan, 2004). This is evident in some parts of Asia where some









farmers are cultivating new, high yield, modem varieties with the help of improved

germplasms and using new resources and conservation management techniques, such as

conservation tillage (Gollin, Morris & Byerlee, 2005).

Historical Context of Cherokee Agriculture

This context section provides a historical background about Cherokee farmers.

Overall, the history shows that the Cherokee use a variety of agricultural practices.

Various secondary data sources associate different levels of acculturation and

socioeconomic indicators with the types of agriculture practices they use. This makes the

Cherokee Nation an appropriate site selection for the research.

I have separated the context section into five subsections, based on major voluntary

and involuntary relocation and resettlements of the now Western Band of Cherokees.

Political ecologists such as Cemea and Scudder argue that changes in agricultural

practices of a community may result from relocation and associated physiological,

sociocultural and psychological stresses (Scudder, 1982). I draw upon the political

ecology perspective primarily to help frame the historical context of modern Cherokee

agriculture.

Pre-contact Conditions: Prior to 1690

Cherokee settlements were in the mountainous southern Appalachian highland

region of what is now the U.S.A. prior to contact with the Europeans in 1690. This area

includes parts of the states of Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina,

Tennessee, Kentucky and Virginia. It covered an estimated 40,000 square miles (James

Mooney's History, 1891-1900, p.14). This area contained approximately 50 to 60 towns

of 250 to 300 people each and a total population of approximately 22,000 (Goodwin,

1977, p. 46- 47). Towns or villages were located near rivers for defense and to









accommodate religious and subsistence activities. The villages migrated periodically due

to flooding, drought, disease and food shortage.

Land-tenure and utilization was a village concern, not an individual matter based

on private ownership. The Cherokees were horticulturalists. They supplemented

cultivation with hunting and gathering. Women were the primary farmers and gathered

wild resources, while men helped prepare fields and hunted (Gearing, 1958).

Each Cherokee family cultivated two to three plots. These consisted of individual

gardens near the home, a communal garden in the village and a communal garden outside

the village. The individual garden plots next to the homes contained medicinal plants so

that the families did not always have to gather medicine and herbs. Each family had to

work in communal gardens to receive part of the harvest. Villages cultivated outside of

the walled villages when settlements were large and gardens in the village did not supply

enough food for village members (Employee of Cherokee Heritage Center, personal

communications, September, 2005).

Food plants included cultivated plants and gathered wild vegetables, fruits, nuts,

seeds and herbs. The Cherokee supplemented their diet with meat acquired by hunting

and fishing. Agriculture accounted for 40-60% of food resources, while hunting and

gathering accounted for the rest (Goodwin, 1977, p.55). Corn or maize served as the

Cherokee's primary food crop, as it did for many southeastern Indian tribes. The

planting, harvesting and consumption of corn had ceremonial and religious significance.

Other commonly cultivated crops included varieties of beans, squash and sunflowers

(Goodwin, 1977).

Interplanting corn, bean and squash (three sisters farming) was common. They

mounded soil and planted crops in the mound. Corn was planted in the middle of the









mound. Beans were planted at the base of the corn and wound around the corn stalk.

Squash was also planted at the base of the corn plant and covered the ground around the

plants. This allowed the Cherokee to plant crops in the same spot for a long period of

time without depleting the soil of nutrients (Gina, personal communications, September,

2005). Irrigation methods included hand watering and ditch irrigation. The type of

irrigation method used depended on proximity to the water source. Yields were high and

labor requirements low. Farm implements included: wooden digging sticks, scapulas,

blade and hoes (Goodwin, 1977).

Gathering occurred when resources were available. Gathered resources included

wild vegetables, such as amaranth, fruits, such as blueberries and strawberries, and nuts

and seeds, such as hickory, chestnut and walnuts. Hunting took place year round. White

tailed deer and elk were caught by traps, snags, drives, and stalking. Cherokees also

hunted birds and other small game, such as rabbits and squirrels, with bow and arrows,

cane blowguns and traps. Fish were caught with dipping nets and grapevine drags

(Goodwin, 1977).

Contact to American Revolution: 1690-1775

Changes in land use and agricultural practices occurred soon after initial contact

with European explorers and frontiersmen, beginning sometime between 1590 -1690. The

dominant forces affecting changes in agricultural practices were associated with the

introduction of new technologies and the gradual acceptance of the European

socioeconomic system and values. The land controlled by the Cherokees decreased due

to claims made by European settlers (Goodwin, 1977).

Europeans and Indians established trade routes in the early 1700s, which greatly

altered Cherokee life. The Europeans introduced the Cherokees to innovations such as









the plow, domesticated livestock, metal tools and guns through trade. They commonly

traded guns, cloth and rum with Cherokees for agricultural products, minerals and

deerskin. Cherokees adopted new crops, such as peaches, apples, onions, watermelons,

rice, okra, cabbage, and potatoes. Cotton was also introduced during this period, but was

not widely cultivated. Tools such as the plow and iron hoe and axe were also introduced,

but they were rejected by village chiefs and their use was limited during this period.

Goodwin (1977) states that the use of these tools was rejected because chiefs thought that

they would affect the balance of nature and reduce the number of people needed for

cultivation and gathering.

Starting in the 1690s, missionaries encouraged Cherokees to hunt less game and

cultivate more land. This was a mechanism used by missionaries to reduce the amount of

land needed to hunt, which would reduce the amount of total land needed by Cherokees

for food resources. They urged the "Cherokees to abandon their ancient ways, including

hunting, and instead, 'to employ themselves in tilling the ground"' (Knepler, 1942, p.60).

"Apparently, the colonial and federal governments had adopted a policy designed to

change Indian values concerning land tenure, so that they might be satisfied with less"

(Goodwin, 1977, p.141). The missionaries focused on teaching Cherokees to become

more reliant on European agricultural techniques. Further, many European farmers

believed that Indians were not adequately using their land because they under cultivated

it or did not cultivate it at all. This was considered a waste. This encouraged farmers and

missionaries to teach Cherokees to farm the European way, which they believed made the

land more productive (Hurt, 1987).

As a result, more pronounced changes occurred in hunting patterns. The

introduction of guns and horses greatly contributed to this change. Horses became the









primary mode of transportation for hunting. Men hunted in groups by foot before

contact. Now hunting became an individual activity. Many hunted not only for

subsistence but also to make a profit through trade. Animals were over-hunted and game

populations decreased drastically. By 1720 many Cherokees raised European

domesticated animals, such as hogs, chickens and cattle, to offset the deficit in game.

Overgrazing by livestock was common and resulted in soil deterioration (Hurt, 1987).

Warfare broke out soon after trading began between the Europeans and Cherokees.

This was primarily due to maltreatment of Cherokee people and land disputes. Some

Cherokee settlements were destroyed and the population declined. European diseases

were prevalent and a small-pox epidemic in the late 1730's further contributed to a

decline in the Cherokee population. The estimated Cherokee population by 1735 was

17,000, but by 1758 the population was reduced to approximately 7,500 (Goodwin, 1977,

p. 107). The population recovered by the time of the American Revolution to

approximately 16,000 (Goodwin, 1977, p. 117).

Conversion of forest areas into large tracts of open land used for cultivation

accompanied the expansion of European settlements. A decrease in territorial lands made

it necessary for Cherokees to use techniques that maximized development of agricultural

resources. Cherokees abandoned or relinquished large tracts of land and moved into

marginal areas less desired by Europeans as encroachment continued. There was a

reduction in the food supply and agricultural techniques previously used were not as

effective in fulfilling the village needs in these marginal areas.

Villages were autonomously governed during pre-contact period. After contact,

many villages combined as allies for protection and a state-like system of government

developed among these towns. Eventually, Cherokee settlements started to resemble









colonial settlements. Wide-spaced homes replaced clustered homes. Homesteads with

log cabins became common. Introduction of commercial trade, slaves and fur led to the

further dispersion of pre-contact town clusters. The Cherokees began to look to European

agricultural practices to maintain economic viability when the fur trade declined in the

1750s. This meant that larger amounts of arable land were sought after and more

intensive agricultural practices were used. Families more commonly cultivated

individual and private plots and the communal form of farming and ownership

diminished. Some families had plantations by the end of this period. Woodlands

adjacent to the settlements continued to be an important source of fuel and game. This

area served as forage area for newly introduced domesticated livestock. They fenced

gardens and farms near the home to keep livestock out of them (Goodwin, 1977).

Overall, a sedentary, intensive form of land-use and private ownership began to

replace the pre-contact communal ownership and cultivation of land, hunting and

gathering activities. Innovations introduced by the Europeans included metal tools and

equipment, new domesticated plant varieties, animal husbandry, guns for hunting and

warfare, private land ownership and sedentary agriculture. When the American

Revolution began Cherokee's used a variety of agricultural practices ranging from small-

scale communal farming to large-scale individually based intensive farming.

American Revolution to Removal: 1775- 1838

The new American government forced Cherokees to cede their lands after the

American Revolution. Indians continued to lose lands to American farmers. After the

Constitutions creation in 1789, the Indian Intercourse Act in 1790 was passed to help

regulate and protect the purchase of Indian lands by treaties. However, the federal









government did not have the resources to enforce the law and keep American farmers

from taking Indian land illegally (Hurt, 1987).

The Cherokee's signed the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with the United States

of America in 1791. One of the aims of the treaty was to lead the Cherokees "to greater

deal of civilization, and to become herdsmen and cultivators, instead of remaining in a

state of hunters" (Kappler, 1904, Article 14). The U.S. also promised to assist the

Cherokee Nation with implements to advance animal husbandry and agriculture.

Cherokees began using the plow and associated tools to increase crop yields (Perdue,

1996).

Iron tools such as hoes, axes, scythes and plows were too costly to use before this

period. Now Cherokees used these tools more commonly (James Mooney, 1900). Many

Cherokees learned how to use introduced farm implements and relied upon them for

agriculture with the help of the U.S.. Draft animals allowed them to use large, heavy

tools to clear difficult terrain, such as mountainous and heavy vegetation. The Cherokees

began using the plow and could now cultivate introduced grain crops such as wheat,

barley and rye.

Beginning in this period a distinction was made between different Cherokees and

their agricultural activities. One group became more acculturated into American society.

These Cherokees were sometimes characterized as mix-bloods, wealthier Cherokees or

assimilated Cherokees. They were characterized as having plantations and engaging in

large-scale commercial production. The other group was sometimes characterized as

poorer, full-bloods or less assimilated. Their agriculture was often described as small

scale and subsistence based. In later periods it is difficult to determine if there is an

overlap between these two distinctive groups and how mutually exclusive they are.









However, the terminology is used throughout other periods to characterize the two groups

and is used in various texts. With that said, those who developed commercial operations

soon became intensive agriculturalists, cultivated large tracts of land and became wealthy

plantation holders. They cultivated cotton, wheat and barley and adopted the culture of

the southern aristocracy, which included slave ownership (Graebner, 1945). Some

Cherokees who engaged in subsistence activities farmed communally, but it was

becoming less common.

From 1800 to 1820 the Cherokees adopted many additional innovations such as the

Euro-American education system, literacy and Christianity. U.S.'s republican form of

government was also adopted as the political structure of Cherokee Nation (Wahrhaftig,

1978). Further, Malone cited by Goodwin (1977) states "by the 1830's, the Cherokees

had become a nation of farmers, with 2,700 families, or 93% of the population, managing

their own farms and tending to thousands of cattle, swine, horses" (p. 140).

In 1819, Congress created the Civilization Fund which aimed to civilize Indians

through farming. Numerous schools run by Christian churches began to offer education

to Indian males and females to help them learn tasks to integrate them into society. Males

were taught to farm and maintain livestock while women were taught to weave, spin and

cook (Hurt, 1987).

Tensions over land increased between American settlers and Cherokees. Thomas

Jefferson aimed to create Indian policies to assimilate Indians into American culture

through farming during his presidency, beginning in 1801 (Perdue, 1996). Jefferson

hoped to reduce Indian land holdings, which would allow more land to become available

for white settlers. He also hoped that eventually the Indians would move west. Hurt cites

Esarey "To promote this disposition to exchange lands which they have to spare and we









want for necessaries.. .we shall push our trading houses, and be glad to see then good and

influential individuals among them run in debts...they will become willing to lop [debt]

them off by a cession of lands... .they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens of

the United States or remove beyond the Mississippi" (Hurt, 1987, p. 86).

The U.S. government encouraged land allotment through treaties with Cherokee in

1817 and 1819. The allotments granted the heads of the household 640 acres if he/she

lived on the land and cultivated it. This allowed the American government to determine

which and how much land a household could receive. Further, it encouraged assimilation

through farming and private ownership, as opposed to communal land ownership and

farming. The allotment reduced Indian land holdings because not all land was under

cultivation. In total, Indians of the southeast lost 80 to 90% of their total land holdings

(Hurt, 1987, p.93-94).

Americans encouraged Indians to emigrate to lands west of the Mississippi during

the 1820s. Numerous Supreme Court cases, such as Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia in

1830 and Worchester vs. Georgia in 1831, dealt with issues related to land ownership by

Indians and state governments (Hurt, 1987, p.91). Some Cherokees voluntarily moved

in the 1820s and 1830s to Indian Territory in what are now parts of the states of

Oklahoma, Arkansas and Kansas to avoid additional conflict with Americans. Many of

them faced economic hardship initially, but were able to reestablish farm operations.

Many of these Cherokees were the wealthier, more acculturated farmers. By 1837, these

Cherokees were considered the most advanced Indian farmers in the west and had

between 1,000-1,100 farms (Graebner, 1945, p.234). Many other Cherokees moved

farther south into Georgia. Some were rich plantation holders with slaves, while others

remained subsistence farmers. The subsistence farmers were sometimes called









traditionalist because they refused to adopt all the new introduced innovations (Perdue,

1991).

Heated conflict ensued between the American and Indian cultures in the east.

Settlers forcefully and "lawfully" took lands owned by Cherokees. Americans destroyed

Cherokee agricultural lands to motivate them to move west. Eventually those who did not

voluntarily move to Indian Territory were forced to move there in 1838 as a result of the

signing of the Treaty of New Echota in 1835 (Hurt, 1987). The treaty stated that the

United States would purchase all land owned by the Cherokee Nation east of the

Mississippi for five million dollars. The signing of the treaty was highly contentious and

not all Cherokee leaders were present during the signing or willing to move. Thus, many

Cherokees were forced to move in large groups during the winter of 1838 in

dispatchments of 1,000 people each after being held in prisoner camps. The path they

traveled is known as the "Trail of Tears" (Wahrhaftig, 1966).

Overall, tensions increased between Cherokees and white settlers over land

holdings. This conflict eventually led to the emigration of many Cherokee to Indian

Territory. Numerous policies were passed to encourage assimilation through farming. A

distinction became evident between the lifestyle and agricultural activities of the

subsistence and commercial farmers. Communal land ownership and farming were being

replaced by private land ownership and family run farms. The division of labor changed

from farming as being a female oriented activity to that of a male activity. Farming

became less of a subsistence activity and more cash and commercial oriented. This was

due to the introduction of numerous farm implements, the wide use of metal tools,

cultivation of introduced plant varieties, such as cotton, and education programs.









Removal to Statehood: 1838 1907

The effects of the removal were devastating. Approximately 14 of the Cherokees

that emigrated west in 1838 died due to starvation, disease, and cold weather during the

approximately 1,000 mile journey. Those who moved west to Indian Territory are now

identified as the Western Band of Cherokee Nation. Those Cherokees who remained east

during the removal consisted of a small group of armed individuals who resisted removal

and hid in the mountains of North Carolina. They were eventually recognized as the

Eastern Band of Cherokee Nation.

The western Cherokees began to rebuild their life within a foreign temperate terrain

of the Ozark Mountains in what are now parts of Oklahoma, Arkansas and Kansas.

Agriculture was still very much a part of Cherokee life during this time. Some families

relied on subsistence communal farming. Others cultivated large tracts of land with cash

crops such as cotton. The first wave of resettlement took place before the signing of the

Treaty of New Echota. These resettlers consisted primarily of mixed bloods that had

strong European values and plantations in the eastern U.S. They colonized the best

agricultural lands in Indian Territory and cultivated cash crops.

The Cherokee that emigrated in 1838 cultivated more marginal lands, because the

best lands were already claimed. However, compared to many of the other eastern tribes

that moved to Indian Territory, such as the Seminoles and Choctaw, they had more fertile

land to cultivate and were more successful at rebuilding a life with farming. Land

ownership consisted of private and communal ownership. As in the previous period, two

types of agricultural systems developed in Oklahoma among the Cherokee. They

consisted of subsistence farming and plantation-style, specialized commercial production









operations (Employee of Cherokee Nation's Facility Management, personal

communications, August, 2005; Nall, 1977).

By the 1840s the Cherokees were making progress in intensive agriculture in

eastern Oklahoma. Cherokee farmers grew potatoes, beans and peas and raised livestock,

such as cattle and hogs. Missionaries and federal farm agents provided agricultural

education and farm implements to only male farmers (Nall, 1977). For large scale,

wealthier farmers, implements used included mowers, reapers and threshers. The

wealthier had slaves, who cultivated the fields. They also had large plantations, gardens

and fruit orchards, which allowed them to be self-sufficient (Graebner, 1945). Cotton

gins and grist mills were also present. Previous to the 1840's many of the Cherokee

farms in the west, large or small scale, used implements such as iron plows, axes, hoes,

chisels and wedges (Graebner, 1945). Those Cherokees who were poorer and did not

have slaves were described as having small garden plots (three to ten acres) and

cultivated purely for subsistence. Corn was the primary cultivated crop. Other crops

commonly cultivated included beans, melons and sweet potatoes. Men planted, cultivated

and harvested the fields while the women wove, spun, cooked and sometimes maintained

small home gardens (Thoburn & Wright, 1929, p.243). In 1854, a major drought caused

damage to Cherokee crops. Yet, many farm operations rebounded by 1860 and the

Cherokees were considered one of the most successful Indian farmers. Some of the

wealthier Cherokee developed profitable operations without the aid of the government,

which often provided poor quality implements and seeds too late. Many sold grain and

livestock to nearby military posts. Crops included wheat, oats, rye, cotton, peas, potatoes,

turnips, squash and corn. Fruit orchards where also maintained and included apple,









peaches, pears and plums. Livestock included horse, cattle, oxen and sheep. Other

Cherokees still practiced subsistence agriculture (Hurt, 1987; Graebner, 1942).

By 1862, during the Civil War, Cherokees split into two factions and fought for

both the Union and Confederacy. Many Cherokees fled to Kansas during the war. Union

and Confederate troops traveled though Cherokee land within Oklahoma. Many

destroyed crops, farm implements and livestock. The Civil War severely hindered

agricultural activities.

When the Civil War ended, Cherokees returned to their farms. However, many

stopped farming and relied on government aid due to constant theft and requisition by

military troops of crops and livestock (Hurt, 1987). Many of the Cherokees still had

gardens and cultivated corn, potatoes, squash and beans. Some who relied on subsistence

agriculture sometimes did not have enough food for winter (Gaebner, 1945, p. 323).

Many had some livestock for meat and still hunted and fished to supplement their diet.

Some of the Cherokee continued to farm commercially, such as those in the Piney

Community in Delaware County. According to the 1880 census they maintained fruit

trees, cultivated corn, wheat, potatoes and cotton and raised hogs, horses and sheep

(O'Brien, 2001). Most of these Cherokees, over 3,500, were farmers by profession

(Graebner, 1942, p.333).

The American westward expansion eventually led settlers to Indian Territory after

the Civil War ended. Many settlers squatted on Cherokee land and stole and sold cattle

for profit in Kansas. A new federal government philosophy was developed and

implemented by the Bureau of Indian Affairs after the Civil War. This consisted of

reducing Indian Territory and breaking up communally owned land into individual

allotments. Between 1880 and 1890 American commerce in the west was built on









speculative value of Indian lands. Land hawks and Indian agents leased large tracts of

Indian land to incoming American settlers. The Dawes Commission tried to get

Cherokees to agree to the allotment of tribal lands and dissolve the Cherokee

government. Cherokee leaders refused, but the Dawes Commission, through the Dawes

General Allotment Act of 1887, authorized a census of all Cherokee in the west and a

survey of their land (Lewis, 1995). White squatters began to move onto Cherokee lands.

They illegally cultivated crops and allowed their cattle to graze on Cherokee land. The

squatters favored the dissolution of the Cherokee Nation and the creation of a new

America state. A resistance organization among the full-blooded Cherokee, called the

Ketoowa Society, revitalized elements of the old culture. This included ceremonies,

creation of villages in cluster and some communal planting (Thomas, 1961).

The Curtis Act was passed by Congress in 1898. It called for the dissolution of the

Cherokee tribal government and forcible allotment of lands. The government allotted the

head of any household with 160 acres, each single individual above the age of eighteen

80 acre and each minor 40 acres. Like the allotments in the east, this reduced the amount

of land Cherokee owned and required that property ownership become private or held in

trust by the federal government as opposed to tribally owned. Full bloods resisted

enrolling for land allotments, but after the imprisonment of the leaders of the Ketoowa

Society, such as Redbird Smith, many full bloods enrolled. In 1907 most of Cherokee

land became part of the 46th State of the United States -- Oklahoma (Thomas, 1961).

Overall, during this period Cherokees began to adjust to Indian Territory and

continued farming. Some Cherokees farmed commercially while others farmed for

subsistence. Cotton became a major cash crop for commercial farmers. Ranching

became a more prevalent activity during this period. Yet, the Cherokee continuously









encountered setbacks due to theft, drought, destruction of land during the Civil War and

relocation due to allotment. This reduced the number of Cherokees that farmed and the

amount of land owned.

Statehood to present: 1907-2005

After statehood many Americans moved west. Many forests were logged and

bottomlands planted with cotton. Cherokees leased their hillside properties to cattlemen

or to subsistence farmers in tiny tracts to tenants. Further, game was hunted nearly out of

existence (Wahrhaftig, 1978).

Many Cherokees withdrew from politics in response to the lack of recognition by

the federal government of Cherokee Nation as a governing body. As a result the

Cherokees had no control over their land rights and mineral products. The Bureau of

Indian Affairs held Cherokees' allotted titles to land as trust land. The government

allowed incoming frontiersmen to use resources on land they did not own until the 1970s.

Allotted land holdings were not contiguous or always accessible. Many Cherokees had to

sell portions of their allotments or separate extended family units to dwell on the different

land allotments. An influx of Americans came to Oklahoma and purchased large

amounts of land.

During the 1920s, many Cherokees did not have money to buy cattle or grow cash

crops. No loans were available to Cherokee farmers to purchase implements. Many

leased their lands to incoming settlers. Many in the acculturated group continued to farm

commercially, grow cash crops, such as cotton and wheat, feed crops and harvested

lumber. They were able to keep larger amounts of land and remained wealthy. The other

group farmed for subsistence and grew watermelon and cantaloupe for additional cash.









They were predominately poor (Employee of Cherokee Nation's Facility Management,

personal communication, August, 2005).

The drought during the Great Depression in the 1930s put many farmers near

starvation and they were unable to remain economically self-insufficient. Many

Cherokees abandoned farming as a commercial activity. However, many still maintained

gardens and canned their food. In Delaware County, "Cherokees continued to live off the

land. Everyone had a garden and supplemented their diet with fish, crawdads, squirrels,

mushrooms, berries, and nuts.... Awards were given [by the Indian Farm Agent] to the

Cherokee who canned, cured, or dried the most for 'winter use' and who saved the 'most

seed for his or her garden"' (O'Brien, 2001, p.15). According to the U.S. Census of

1930, "Indians [Cherokee] are more commonly owners of the farms they operate than

both whites and Negroes" (Hewes, 1942, p.403) within four counties in northeastern

Oklahoma. The average acreage cultivated was likely ten and many Cherokees had home

garden plots rather than commercial farms (Hewes, 1942, p. 408).

Within Adair County near Stillwell, with the help of school teachers and Extension

Agents, Cherokees developed a prosperous strawberry cooperative and received loans for

farm implements under the Indian Welfare Act. Eventually, in 1946 the cooperative

dissolved and many growers started their own private strawberry operations (Debo,

1951). Although few Cherokees grow strawberries commercially in Stillwell, the town

still holds an annual strawberry festival in remembrance of the strawberry industry.

In 1928 the Merriam Report depicted the overall state of Indians in America. The

report highlighted issues about Indian policy related to agriculture and assimilation. This

included recognizing that there was a lack of experienced educators, farm implements

and loans available to Indian farmers. Further, leasing of lands and allotment were









problematic. After the report, reform policies in the 1930s, such as the Indian

Reorganization Act of 1934, encouraged Cherokees to retain land base, end allotment and

funded programs with an economic base. These policies promoted agricultural education

of women and communal farming (Duffy & Stubbins, 1998; Hurt, 1987). The Civilian

Conservation Corps, established in 1933, helped and taught the Cherokees to restore

overgrazed and farmed lands to a level where the land could be cultivated again (Hurt,

1987).

The BIA attempted to teach the poorer Cherokee to use the latest agricultural

techniques by holding demonstration projects. It tried to teach Cherokees to raise their

own food on their allotments, but many projects were not successful. Many were

dependent on the government for help and community cooperation became less important

for raising food (Fogelson & Kutshe, 1961). Poorer Cherokees had few draft animals or

farm implements. "The restricted Indians as a class do less farming than before the

allotment of land. The practice of renting land, including crop land, to white farmers is

now more common among restricted Indians than formerly... .self-support by subsistence

agriculture is the modest goal held for restricted Indians" (Hewes, 1942, p. 409-410).

Although capital became available to fund farm projects, it was still considered a basic

obstacle to farming (Hewes, 1942).

During the 1940s, the wealthier Cherokees raised big gardens at home using plows.

They had high crop yields, canned fruits and vegetables, smoked and salted pork, sold

cream and milk and churned butter. It was important to preserve food for the family

during the winter. Many of these Cherokees became cattle ranchers. They used half their

land for cattle grazing and the other half to grow corn and hay. They invested and worked

on their own property. Men cultivated fields, while women raised home gardens. The









poorer Cherokees also had cattle and goats, but they did not keep the animals in fenced

pastures. They had smaller tracts of land and raised gardens which had corn, squash,

cucumbers, okra and potatoes. They were primarily subsistence farmers on their

privately owned lands. Children were sent to work off the property to produce additional

income (Employee of Cherokee Nation's Facility Management, personal

communications, August, 2005).

During WWII, the federal government terminated the previous Indian policy. New

federal policy encouraged leasing Indian lands and assimilation (Hurt, 1987). During the

1960s, agricultural farm agents introduced conventional agricultural techniques and

innovations. Cherokees who were still farming commercially were able to benefit from

these innovations, but many lacked capital and credit to purchase large farm implements.

Through thel950s to 1970s the Army Corp of Engineers built dams where

Cherokee settlements were. Many families were again displaced. Many received social

services and others moved to California (Wahrhaftig, 1978). In the 1960s the Cherokee

reunified to become a Nation and gained control over Cherokee affairs. The Cherokee

Nation was designated land within a 14 county jurisdiction in northeastern Oklahoma.

There was a decrease in small farm land holdings and an increase large land holding of

220 acres or more for farming and ranching. A decline in commercial farming was

evident, but many still raised home gardens. There were inadequate resources for

profitable large farms to develop. There was also a shift of political power from country

to town. The acculturated Cherokees entered more fully into the cash economy and

prospered. There was a further breakup of family unit (Wahrhaftig, 1966). The number

of wage laborers increased and some Cherokees worked on others' farms to harvest

beans, peas, strawberries and huckleberries. The need and desire to possess gardens and









farms fell. Most food was and is obtained from grocery stores. The construction of dams

for river flood control and recreation areas increased. New restrictions on land are

enforced because of this, such as hunting and fishing regulations, hog-fence laws and

restricted stream and forest use (Wahrhaftig, 1966).

Many Cherokees in eastern Oklahoma live in what are now growing towns. Yet,

there are still others who live in rural, isolated and fairly inaccessible areas. They tend to

be relatively poor. In 1966 there were 50 Cherokee communities that have between 30 to

60 households organized around churches and stomp grounds, a location of traditional

religious gatherings and ceremonies, with a total population of 9,500 in Oklahoma

(Wahrhaftig, 1966). In the 1970s economic based reports in eastern Oklahoma show that

supporting agricultural development would not be profitable. Under the Indian Financing

Act established in 1974, grants and credit became available to finance Indian enterprises

(Duffy & Stubben, 1998). In the 1970s and 1980s the Cherokee Gardens in Tahlequah

provided employment to members of the Nation. However, the economy has shifted to

draw tourists to Cherokee Nation as an attraction. The Cherokee Heritage Center and

National Museum and Drama in Tahlequah draw many tourists today. The Cherokee

National Museum has replicated two Cherokee settlements from the pre-contact and

colonial period where gardens and farms are recreated and tours available of the villages.

Some Cherokees own large-scale farms today. Home gardens are more prevalent

then large farms, but maintaining a garden is also becoming less common (Employee of

Cherokee Nation's Natural Resources Department, personal communications, August,

2005). In 2002 the Five County Agriculture Project proposal was submitted to the

Nation's government to start teaching youth in rural Cherokee communities how to

maintain and harvest fruit trees. The Nation denied the proposal (Employee of Cherokee









Nation's Natural Resources Department, personal communication, August, 2005). Today

a few Cherokee communities participate in religious activities which honor agricultural

activities through ceremonies such the as the Green Corn Ceremony. Some of these

Cherokees garden communally more for symbolic reasons rather than for subsistence

within various stomp ground in the 14 counties. Further, Cherokee commercial farmers

have access to loans, farm implements, incentive programs and agricultural education

programs. These are available through various USDA programs, such as Farm Service

Agency, Cooperative State Research Extension and Education Services and Natural

Resources Conservation Services. The Cherokee Nation's Natural Resource Department

employs an agricultural liaison. This individual informs Cherokee farmers about USDA

programs and other marketing resources through newsletters, field days, workshops and

fairs.

Today there is no census available about the number of Cherokees farming.

According to the USDA's 2002 Agriculture Census the number of American Indian

farmers as principal operators in Oklahoma is 7,470 and has increased since 1997

(USDA, 2005, p.10). American Indians in Oklahoma cultivate 1.5 million acres of land

on 6,392 farms (USDA, 2002, p.502). According to the census Oklahoma also has the

highest number of American Indian principal operators. Within Cherokee Nation's 14

county jurisdiction there are 2797 farms, which is 44% of all Indian farms in Oklahoma.

There are 3228 principal farm operators, 43% of all Oklahoma American Indian principal

farm operators, and approximately 537,00 acres of land under cultivation or 36% of all

Oklahoma land cultivated by Indians (USDA, 2002, p.502) (Appendix A). Prior to

allotment in the late 1890s before Oklahoma statehood, the Nation owned approximately

1.7 million acres of land. Today the Cherokee Nation owns approximately 100,000 acres









with another 100,000 acres of individual allotted land held in trust by the federal

government (Employee of Cherokee Nation's Strategy Team, personal communications,

June, 2006).

Overall, during this extensive time period the Cherokees of Oklahoma practice

farming at several scales, ranging from home gardening to commercial, large scale

farming. Cherokee farmers have been introduced to numerous innovations such as

tractors, hybrid seeds and new irrigation methods. However, for a large part of this period

some Cherokees were unable to use and incorporate these new innovations into their

agricultural operations because they lacked access to capital. Similar to previous periods

they have experienced numerous changes resulting from Indian agricultural policy and

relocation. Today, farming is a less important component of most Cherokees' lifestyle

compared to previous periods. However, access to resources, such as those provided by

the USDA is evident.

Conclusion

Overall, major agricultural changes have taken place from pre-contact to the

present. Men, instead of women became the primary cultivators of agricultural lands.

Less land became available to Cherokees to supplement cultivation with hunted and

gathered resources. Communal property ownership and farming has changed to private

property ownership and private or single family farms. Numerous farm implements and

domesticated plant and animal species have been introduced into the agriculture system.

Large scale, intensive, sedentary farming techniques, such as monoculture, replaced

mound planting and subsistence farming. Lastly, farming and gardening are no longer a

primary occupation or activity for many Cherokee families.









Theoretical Framework

Classical Economics

Classical economic theory states that farmers' decisions to use certain agricultural

technologies are determined by rationally weighing the costs and benefits associated with

using those technologies (Staaz & Eicher, 1998). The rational actor model of human

decision-making posits that individuals will behave in consistent, well-ordered ways to

maximize personal gains. Preferences are considered exogenous, meaning other people or

institutions do not influence their decision-making (Gowdy, 2004, p. 246). For example,

a farmer may decide to grow a specific crop because it is subsidized by the government

and the economic incentives from the subsidies provide the greatest return.

However, some economists argue that, "individual actors do not act as cost-benefit

calculators who continuously adapt their behavior to changing environmental conditions.

They may or may not respond 'rationally' to incentives" (Gowdy, 2004, p. 249). They

argue that the classical economic model alone does not take into account individuals'

endogenous preferences. Endogenous preferences can include intrinsic values, future

values, personal history, social influences and context (Gowdy, 2004; Osiniski,

Kantelhardt, & Heissenhuber, 2003). According to Osiniski, Kantelhardt, and

Heissenhuber, (2003), the economic model can incorporate endogenous components,

such as assessing the intrinsic values of landscapes by determining how much people are

willing to pay for environmental service. However, transferring the valuation placed on

landscapes is not transferable between regions.

There is evidence that people do act in ways to affect other's wellbeing and are

influenced by other people's preferences. People do make choices based on fairness,

which could keep an individual from maximizing personal benefit (Johnson, Rutstrom &









George, 2006). Fischer, Irlenbusch and Sadrieh's (2004) research show that resource

extraction and exploitation of common pool resources can increase when considering

intergenerational links. However, financial incentives are a stronger motivator of

continuing exploitation.

In Indian society, historically, economic growth and increased income for material

goods were not the primary purpose of exchange between parties. Exchanges did have

economic incentives, but they also served as social and spiritual interchanges. This may

not be the case today, but it is important to consider some of these historical factors when

examining modern Indian decision-making (Duffy & Stubben, 1998).

The classical economic model may offer an incomplete explanation of farmers'

decisions to use particular farming practices (Henrich et al., 2001). Alternative

explanations that include endogenous preferences may provide more robust explanations

of why farmers' engage in particular behaviors. Economic sociologists, beginning with

Weber, do examine some endogenous social factors, such as the effects of others'

behaviors on an individual's decisions. These components are often socioeconomic

factors, such as gender, age, income, participation in farm organizations. Ultimately,

economists embed social factors within the economic model to better understand

decision-making (Swedberg, 1998) and many economic sociologists have highlighted the

importance of adding endogenous factors to the economic model (Zafirovski, & Levine,

1999, Luzar, & Diagne, 1999).

A great deal of research explores the correlation between socioeconomic

characteristics and adoption behavior. Results show varying associations between

agricultural behaviors and socioeconomic characteristics. Knowler and Benshaw (2006)









said that a "more detailed synthesis of these adoption studies indicated that there are few

if any influences on adoption that apply universally" (p.20).

Pattnayak, Mercer, Sills and Yang (2003) found that farmers' age positively

correlates with adoption of agrofoeresty. On the other hand, Mathijis (2003) and

Gockowski and Ndoumbe's (2004) research show that there is a negative correlation

between age and adoption behavior. The adoption of new technologies positively

correlates with land size based on Adesina and Chianu's (2002) research. However,

Gockowski and Ndoumbe's (2004) results show that there is negative correlation

between monocrop adoption and land size of Cameroon horticulturalists. Gockowski and

Ndoumbe's (2004) suggest that the negative correlation may exist due to population

pressure for farmers with smaller land holdings.

Pattnayak, Mercer, Sills and Yang (2003) and McNamara and Wetzstein's (1991)

research show that there is a positive correlation between farm income and adoption

behavior. Gockowski and Ndoumbe's (2004) analysis of others' research show that there

are significant positive relationship and insignificant relationships between these two

variables. Thangata and Alavalapati (2003) show that there is little difference between

income and agroforestry adopters and non-adopters. Lastly and more consistently,

previous findings show that the number of laborers on farms positively correlates with

use of new agricultural technologies or conservation practices (Thangata & Alavalapati,

2003; Gockowski & Ndoumbe, 2004; Wubeneh & Sanders, 2006).

Overall, many socioeconomic characteristics correlate with farmer adoption

behavior. The direction and significance of these correlations are inconsistent for the

most part and can be location specific.









Social Psychology Theories

Social psychology focuses on the endogenous components that influence people's

behaviors. This research examines endogenous components in the theory of planned

behavior (TPB). TPB builds upon and is a combination of two social psychology

theories, the theory of reasoned action (TRA) and self-efficacy, which I describe below.

The Theory of Reasoned Action

Ajzen and Fishbein's (1980) theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that

individuals, as rational agents, use information at any given time available to them to

make decisions about intentions to perform behaviors. A behavior is the observable

response in a given situation with respect to a given target (Ajzen, N.D.). Examples of

behaviors include women breastfeeding their newborn babies, voters choosing candidates

in an election and college students attending classes. Intentions are the motivating factors

that affect and influence a behavior. They are the conscious decision-making process

used by individuals to determine if he/she will engage in the behavior. Intentions are

indicative of how much effort people are willing to invest in order to perform a behavior

(Ajzen, 1988). An individual's intention is the primary determinant of his/her behavior.

The stronger an individual's intentions to commit a specific behavior, the more likely

he/she will do so. Intentions are determined based on two factors, an individual's attitude

towards a behavior (a personal factor) and subjective norms (a social factor).

Attitudes are a person's judgment about whether a specific behavior is positive or

desirable, or negatively or undesirable (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Two components

influence attitudes towards a behavior, behavioral beliefs (b) and the evaluation of the

behavior (e). Behavioral beliefs (b) are an individual's most prominent beliefs about the

outcome that a specific behavior will produce (Robinson & Doverspike, 2006). For









example, an individual might believe that walking on a treadmill for 30 minutes daily

will reduce his/ her blood pressure (b) and believe that lowering his/her blood pressure is

good (e).

Ultimately, the individual's attitude toward the behavior reflects his/her assessment

of the outcome associated with the behavior and whether the outcome is perceived as

positive or negative. For example, a person may believe that farming traditionally

preserves his/her cultural roots (b), and that preserving his/her culture is good (e). The

individual then may have a positive attitude toward farming traditionally. Figure 2-1

depicts this relationship.

A = I (b) (e)

Figure 2-1: The relationship between attitudes (A), behavioral beliefs (b) and the
evaluation of the outcome (e) (Ajzen, I. (nd). The Theory ofPlanned
Behavior. Retrieved March 15, 2005, from
http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/index.html)

The other factor that influences an individual's intention to perform a behavior is

subjective norms. Subjective norms are the perceived social pressure to engage in a

behavior. This consists of two components, normative beliefs (n) and motivation to

comply with influential others (m). Normative beliefs are an individual's beliefs about

what important individuals or groups, known as referents, consider to be desirable or

undesirable behavior. An example of a normative belief is when a farmer's grandfather,

whose opinion he/she considers important, does not approve of traditional farming.

Notice the normative belief consist of a referent's (grandfather) belief and also the

importance of the referent to the individual. For example, the referent may have a

positive view of traditional farming. However, if the referent's opinion is not important









to the individual then this normative belief will not be influential in determining an

individual's subjective norm.

A subjective norm is the social pressure to engage in a behavior (SN). This occurs

when an individual believes that an important referent (n) supports a specific behavior

and the individual wants to comply (m) with the referent's beliefs. See Figure 2-2 for the

relationship between these variables.

SN = I (n) (m)

Figure 2-2: Relationship between subjective norms (SN), normative beliefs (n) and
motivation to comply (m) (Ajzen, I. (nd). The Theory ofPlanned Behavior.
Retrieved March 15, 2005, from
http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/index.html)

The TRA tries to explain how personal and social factors can influence and

determine the behavior of an individual. People will engage in or perform a behavior if

they evaluate the behavior positively (attitudes) and they feel social pressure to perform

the behavior (subjective norms). Behavioral beliefs influence an individual's attitude

towards performing a behavior. Likewise, normative beliefs influence an individual's

subjective norm. The intention to adopt a behavior is based on the combination of

individual's attitude toward the behavior and subjective norms. The strength of the

individual's intention to perform a behavior determines the actual performance of the

behavior. The stronger the intention to engage in a behavior, the more likely an

individual will perform a behavior. Figure 2-3 depicts the TRA's causal linkages

between factors.























Figure 2-3. The causal linkages between variables associated with theory of reasoned
action (Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and
predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.)

Researchers test TRA among a variety of behaviors and intentions, such as

participation in environmental programs (Luzar & Diagne, 1999), use of educational

curriculums (Codd & Cohen, 2003; Meyer, Roberto, Boster & Roberto, 2004), and health

related behaviors (Dodge, Ford & Perko, 2003).

Sapp (2002) discusses the importance of the hierarchy of effects principal

developed by Ajzen and Fishbein in influencing behavior. The hierarchy of effects

principal surmises that cause and effect are rational in that knowledge, attitude and

intentions can predict and determine behavior. Individuals can make rational decisions to

engage in a behavior based on these factors. However, inconsistencies between attitudes

and behaviors are observed in past research. "Conditions such as contrary

beliefs... countervailing values, addictions motivated by both physical and social

conditions ... and abnormal psychology can create nonrational behavior" (Sapp, 2002,

p.38). Sapp discusses how the lack or limitations of knowledge can lead to these attitude-

behavior inconsistencies or nonrational behavior instead of the above conditions. The

inconsistencies may actually be related to "an inability to engage in behavior that









accurately reflects attitudes and intentions" (Sapp, 2002, p.38). According to Sapp

(2002) and Sanderson's (2004) research results, a lack of knowledge about adoption

behavior can impede an individual's ability to adopt a behavior or intention to adopt a

behavior. Therefore a certain amount of knowledge is needed to be able to successfully

perform a behavior.

The TRA rests on the idea that intention can be expressed as a behavior when the

behavior is under an individual's volitional control (Ajzen, 1991). Yet, what happens if

an individual perceives that there are barriers keeping him/her from performing a

behavior? What if he/she believes that performing a behavior is not in his/her control?

Theory of Self-efficacy

In the mid-1990s Bandura (1995) developed the social cognitive theory ofself-

efficacy. The theory focuses how perceived behavioral controls (PBC) influence an

individual's decision-making process. The theory accounts for situations when an

individual believes he/she does not have full control (volition) over his/her decisions to

perform a behavior. This theory is used among disciplines such as education, marketing,

health sciences and engineering.

Perceived behavior controls (PBC) refer to an individual's perceived ease or

difficulty in performing a specific behavior. PBC include barriers or facilitators that

influence an individual's ability to engage in a behavior. It consists of two components.

They are confidence and control beliefs. Confidence refers to an individual's belief in

his/her capabilities to organize and complete a course of action. An example of

confidence includes a mother's belief that she can successfully breastfeed her child for

six months. Control beliefs are an individual's perception of the presence of factors that

may facilitate or impede performing the behavior (Ajzen, I., ND). For example, an









individual may not believe that he/she can build a ten story building if he/she does not

have the adequate skills and training in engineering. A farmer may believe that the/she

cannot farm traditionally if there is a drought.

Research indicates that self-efficacy can influence an individual's decision-making

process and ability to perform a behavior. For example, studies show that students with

high self-efficacy have higher grades in school than those with lower self-efficacy

(Schunk, 1991). In addition to academic performance, self-efficacy is also a predictor of

adoption and maintenance of breast self-examinations (Luszczynska, & Schwarzer,

2003). Some studies show that self-efficacy is the primary, but not the sole, determinant

of an individual's intentions and behaviors (Sanderson, 2004; McGinty, 2006). Self-

efficacy may also predict the persistence of a behavior in the future (Luszczynska, &

Schwarzer, 2003; Schaefers, Epperson & Nauta, 1997). Schaefers, Epperson and Nauta's

(1997) research shows that self-efficacy is one of the determinants, but not the prime

determinant, of women's persistence in engineering as an academic major. Other factors

that influenced persistence behavior include academic ability, supports and barriers and

interest congruency, or the degree of fit between women's personality and demands of an

occupation.

Various research show that self-efficacy can be influential of adoption and

persistence behavior with direct benefits. However, results show that self-efficacy is only

sometimes a prime determinant of adoption and persistence behavior.

Theory of Planned Behavior

In 1998, Ajzen incorporated Bandura's theory of self-efficacy into the TRA to

better understand the effects of decision-making on human behavior when individuals do

not have full voluntary control over their decision making process (Sapp, 2002). The









theory of planned behavior (TPB) is the result of this combination (Figure 2-4). Within

the TPB perceived behavioral controls can influence intentions and behavior directly.

The TPB has been applied to educational development, commerce, career choice

and development and adoption of non-risk health behaviors (Pavlou & Fygenson, 2006;

Brickell, Chatzisarantis, & Pretty, 2006; Ahuja & Thatcher, 2005; Robinson &

Doverspike, 2006). The TPB often accurately predicts behavior based on attitude,

intention, PCB, and subject norms. The TPB's predictive power increases especially

when an individual perceives that he/she does not have control over his/her decisions to

perform a behavior. This theory has been tested once among farming populations with

regard to farmers' adoption of agricultural practice (McGinty, 2006). McGinty's results

show that self-efficacy and attitudes do positively influence Bahian farmer's adoption of

agroforesty. Self-efficacy was the primary determinate of farmer's intentions to adopt

agroforestry. Farmers' persistence or adoption of agricultural behaviors can be

influenced by their perceived behavioral barriers.

Researchers have not tested this theory with American Indian farming populations

to determine its predictive power in adoption and maintenance of traditional and

conventional practices. I think the TPB is more applicable to exploring American Indian

farmer behavior than the TRA due to their past historical experiences with agricultural

policy and their minority status. There may be barriers or facilitators that American

Indian farmers perceive as influencing their use certain agricultural technologies.



























Control
Beliefs

Figure 2-4. The causal linkages between variables associated with theory of reasoned
action (Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and
predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; Ajzen, I.
(nd). The Theory ofPlanned Behavior. Retrieved March 15, 2005, from
http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/index.html)

Ajzen (1991) suggests that the TPB can incorporate additional predictor variables

as part of the model if they can account for significant variance over and above the TPB

variables. Conner and Armitage (1998) review the possibility of extending the TPB with

additional variables derived from other theoretical frameworks and research evidence. A

few variables are recognized as increasing TPB predictive power. Some include past

behavior and habit, moral norms and self-identity. There is growing evidence to support

the addition of variables to the TPB to increase the understanding of how they relate to

the other predicator variables associated with the TPB and behavior. This study also

explores the role of an additional variable, self-identity, added to the TPB in predicting

Cherokee farmers' use of TAP.









Self-identity

Within social science disciplines the definition of identity has been explored since

the 1950's when E.H. Erickson first published his work about identity. Erikson's

definition of identity includes internal or psychological and external or sociological

dimensions. He defines identity as "an individual's awareness of the sameness and

continuity of his/her individuality as it relates to the sameness and continuity of one's

meaning for others" (Schwartz, 2001, p.8). This multidimensional definition of identity

includes three forms of identity that can co-exist and vary in significance over different

situations and points in time in an individual's life. Ego identity is "a person's

consciousness of individual identity and unconscious striving for continuity in character".

Personal identity consists of "goals values and beliefs that one shows the world". Social

identity is "sense of inner solidarity with a groups ideals" (Schwartz, 2001, p. 10).

With these broad and inclusive definitions of identity, Erikson sets the stage for

research addressing theory and methodology related to identity among social scientists.

Numerous definitions and theoretical models try understanding and determining the

meaning of identity within different contexts. Research related to physical activity,

voting behavior and use of physician use of telemedicine or information technologies

examine the influence of identity on behavior (Jackson, Smith Conner, 2003; Gramberg

& Holmberg, 1990; Ellis, Robb, Burke, 2005; Gagnon, et al, 2003).

Psychologists have diverged into two different groups when discussing and

researching identity. The first group focuses on the social components that influence

self-identity. Styker defines identity as a part of social orientation and influences or "the

linkages of social structures with identities" (Styker & Burke, 2002, p. 287). Burke

focuses on the "internal process of self-verification" (Styker & Burke, 2002, p.288).









Combining Styker and Burkes' definitions, self-identity includes factors that influence a

person's perception of him/herself based on an internal understanding or external

influences (Styker & Burke, 2002). Conner and Armitage (1998) define self-identity as

"the salient part of an actor's self which relates to a particular behavior. It reflects the

extent to which an actor sees him- or herself fulfilling the criteria for any role" as affected

by internal or self and external or social influences (Conner & Armitage, 1998, p. 1444).

Identity theory implies that people will behave in ways that conform to their self-

image. The stronger a person's self identity, the more likely the individual will behave

consistently with that identity. Wilson, Urban, Graves and Morrison's research (2003)

with mid-western farmers illustrate this relationship. One component of the research

examines the degree to which Central Illinois farmers' identities are related to their daily

agricultural practices. Sixty percent of the farmers in the study use plow till farming.

Many of these farmers "spurn or nominally adopt no-till farming" (Wilson, Urban,

Graves & Morrison, 2003, p.28). The rejection of no-till farming is associated with their

beliefs that plow tillage is efficient and effective. No or minimum tillage is also

associated with government intervention or outside control. Many of these farmers

distrust the government and external authorities for various reasons and try to reject their

programs when they can. No-till is also rejected because it is seen "to dirty the rural

landscape" (p.28). Seventy percent of these farmers associated no-till farming as

countering farm aesthetics. This research implies that these farmers' self-identity is

related to rejecting external and government intervention and preserving farm aesthetics.

Their rejection of no or minimum tillage practices reinforces this identity. On the other

end, the adoption of no or minimum tillage by other farmers also reinforced their identity

as promoters of environmental conservation. I build upon Wilson's research to consider









the influence of self-identity on the types of agricultural practices used by farmers. In my

study if a farmer identifies him/herself as a traditional farmer, then he/she may use

farming practices that reinforce this identity as a traditional farmer.

I explore American Indian farmers' self-identity as it relates to being a traditional

farmer. I encourage farmers to provide a definition of what constitutes being a traditional

farmer. It is not my aim to determine what the agreed upon view of traditional is. My

aim is to understand how farmers identity themselves in relation to being a traditional

farmer. It will be challenging to measure farmer's self identity as being a traditional

farmer because what is viewed as traditional differs among farmers. The manner in which

I measure it may not truly capture what each farmer means by traditional.

Numerous studies incorporate self-identity into the TPB (Jackson, Smith, &

Conner, 2003; Fekadu, & Kraft, 2001; Pierro, Mannetti, & Livi, 2003). When self-

identity is incorporated into the model, significant relationships exist between an

individual's self-identity, the intention to use a behavior. Pierro, Mannetti and Livi's

(2003) research shows this relationship. They conducted two independent studies to see

the effects that identity can have upon people's intentions to attend Latin American dance

classes and purchase low-fat food. The results from both studies show that the identity

variables are significant and independent predictors of intentions to perform the behavior.

They increased the explanatory power of the TPB. However, the variables associated

with the TPB overall explained more of the variance in intentions then the identity

variable. I incorporate self-identity as an extension to the theory of planned behavior to

determine how it may influence American Indian farmers' use of TAP.









Diffusion of Innovation

Rogers' (1995) diffusion of innovation theory, published in 1962, describes the

factors that may motivate people to adopt new technologies over time. The theory is

used to explain the adopter's of new technology behavior in the form of ideal types. For

example, those individuals who are most likely to adopt a new technology first are called

early adopters. Early adopters consist of opinion leaders, who are respected by their peers

in a local setting. They are the first individuals within a local setting to adopt a new

innovation and then provide an evaluation of the innovation to peers. On the other hand,

"laggards are the last in a social system to adopt an innovation.... The point of reference

for the laggard is the past.. .Decisions are often made in terms of what has been done

previously... [they] tend to be suspicious of innovations and change agents" (Rogers,

1995, p. 265).

Various disciplines and subject matters use this theory to examine adoption

behavior. This includes rural sociologist's study of farmers' adoption of new agricultural

innovations (Jacobson, Sieving, Jones, & Van Doom, 2003). Research in education

examines the spread of new teaching ideas (Wilson, & Stacey, 2003). Business

marketing analysts assess consumer and organizational adoption of new products such as

computers, pharmaceuticals and phones (Attewell, 1992; Berndt, Pindyck, & Azoulay,

2003).

Rogers defines diffusion as "the process by which an innovation is communicated

through certain channels over time among members of a social system" (Rogers, 1995, p.

5). An innovation is an idea or practice that is perceived as new by an individual. It is not

so important that the idea is new in terms of the amount of time that has passed since its









discovery. Rather, the information or idea should be new to the individual and/or social

system that encounters it.

The primary factor influencing an individual's decision to adopt or reject an

innovation is his/her access to information (Hooks, Napier, & Carter, 1983). Information

and resources include education and contact with knowledgeable sources of innovation,

such as county extension agents or other farmers. The information transfers to

individuals through communication channels. The relationship between the source of the

innovation and receiver of the innovation determines the effectiveness of this transfer of

information. This thesis explores two channels of communication from this theory. The

first is mass media channels. They are a means of transmitting messages through mass

media such as radios, televisions, newspapers and magazines. The other source is the

interpersonal channel, which involves face-to-face interactions and exchanges between

individuals. Examples of interpersonal communication include farmer-to-farmer, or

extension agent -to-farmer, community elders-to- farmers (Rogers, 1995, p. 18).

Many researchers use this theory to examine factors that influence farmers to adopt

new farm technologies. Some include conservation practices, precision technologies and

conventional agricultural practices (Floyd, et al., 2003; Hooks, Napier, Carter, 1983;

Sevier & Lee, 2005; Carletto, de Janvry, & Sadoulet, 1999; Weir, & Knight, 2004). The

results are inconclusive in either fully supporting or rejecting the theory's effectiveness in

explaining adoption behavior. However, what does appear to be consistent is that that

there are associations between this theory and economic and social psychology theories.

The innovation diffusion theory is more effective in explaining farmer behavior when

used in combination with the economic and social psychology theories (Lynne,

Shonkwiler, & Rola, 1988; Nowak, 1987; Floyd, et al., 2003). Rogers (1995) also









indicates that this theory can complement other theories to better understand adoption

behavior.

My research explores the channels of communication farmers rely upon as sources

of information about traditional and conventional farming practices. I also explore how

these resources influence farmers' adoption or maintenance of traditional and

conventional agricultural practices.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

This literature review explores various theoretical frameworks that explain why

certain factors may impact individuals' decision-making to engage in specific behaviors.

I developed research questions and associated hypotheses to determine how the various

theory-based variables influence American Indian farmers' decision-making to use

(TAP). Figure 2-5 shows this relationship.

Research Questions

To what degree do socioeconomic characteristics explains farmers' use of TAP?

3. To what degree do attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral controls and
self-identity explain farmers' use of TAP?

4. To what degree does access to different types of resources explain farmers' use of
TAP?

5. Which theoretical model best explains farmers' use of TAP?

Hypotheses

1. A relationship will exist between farmers' socio-economic characteristics and their
use of TAP.

6. A strong positive relationship will exist between farmers' attitudes towards the use
of TAP, subjective norms, self-efficacy, control beliefs, self-identity and their use
of TAP.

7. A positive relationship will exist between farmers' access to resources and their use
of TAP.









8. The theory of planned behavior will better explain why farmers' use TAP than any
of the other theoretical models.


Figure 2-5. Association between theoretical models and farmer behavior. Note: Self-
identity is used within this research as an extension of the theory of planned
behavior.

Definitions

* Attitude: a person's judgment that performing the behavior is good or bad

* Control beliefs: beliefs about the presence of factors that may facilitate or impede
performance of a behavior.

* Diffusion of innovation: process by which new ideas are communicated through
certain channels over time among the members of a social system

* Farmer: An individual who actively cultivates land for food production. This
definition is not based on farm/garden size, amount of time spent cultivating or
amount of sales related to production. This definition is inclusive of cash crop
farmers and subsidence farmers or gardeners.

* Perceived behavioral control: an individual's perceived ease or difficulty in
performing a specific behavior and their confidence in their ability to perform the
behavior

* Self-efficacy: Individual's confidence about their capabilities to produce effects






48


* Self- identity: the extent to which an actor sees him- or herself fulfilling the criteria
for any role" as affected by internal (self) and external (social) influences (Conner
and Armitage, 1998, p. 1444)

* Subjective norms: perceived social pressures that the individual believes are
exerted on him/her to perform a specific behavior.

* Traditional agricultural practices (TAP): agroecological management behaviors that
a farmer performs which are transmitted from one generation to another;
agricultural innovations used before 1960














CHAPTER 3
METHODS

Research Design

I used an explanatory case study design because I wanted to examine the complex

interactions between numerous variables. This design allowed me to achieve a better

understanding of how numerous theory-based variables can influence farmer behavior. I

also used this design because I tested three theories under conditions that differ from

those of previous studies (de Vaus, 2001; M.E. Swisher, personal communications,

November, 2004). I selected the cases and allocated them to comparison groups based

on the outcome variable. The outcome variable I placed the cases into a high TAP,

medium TAP or low TAP group posteriori. The groups depict maximum variability.

This research examines multiple cases. This provides a more rigorous test of the

theories than a single case design. I used a sequential and retrospective design, where

each case involves collecting information related to an extended period of time (de Vaus,

2001, p.229). The study examined cases as holistic units of analysis. I assessed

characteristics of individuals as a whole as opposed to exploring embedded or sublevel

characteristics of the individual in detail. Each case consists of one Cherokee farmer or

gardener who currently cultivates crops (fruit, vegetable and grain) primarily for human

consumption.

According to Swisher (personal communications, November, 2004) internal

validity in research is "the degree to which the research design eliminates other

explanations than the ones proposed in the hypothesis or proposition." Internal validity









assesses the degree to which the design illustrates casual direction between the predictor

and outcome variables. Case studies sometime have low internal validity because they,

unlike experimental designs, do not create interventions to create control and treatment

groups. The retrospective nature of the case selection threatens the internal validity.

However, I took certain measures to increase internal validity.

I address this concern by evaluating multiple cases, creating comparison groups,

assessing linkages through several instruments and data sources and using an idiographic

approach to examine cases. I reduced the number of possible alternative causal

explanations by comparing multiple cases. I created comparison groups based on the

outcome variable and compared them to each other, based on the predictor variables. The

use of comparison groups and their contribution to internal validity is comparable to

experimental designs, except in case study designs the groups are created posteriori. I

examined how different predictor variables affect multiple cases within each comparison

group. This inferred causality.

"Idiographic explanation focuses on particular events, or cases, and seeks to

develop a complete explanation of each case. By developing a full, well-rounded causal

account, case studies can achieve high internal validity" (de Vaus, 2001, p. 233-234).

Unlike nomothetic explanations, which focus on a restricted range of variables, the

idiographic approach decreases the possibility of alternative explanations and offers a

fuller explanation of each case. I assessed the interrelation between the variables by

measuring numerous predictor variables in combination with each other (de Vaus, 2001).

Further, I include a historical context of Indian agricultural policy and Cherokee

agriculture to decrease the effects of history and examine how history may influence

behavior. I reduce the effects of maturation by including questions within the instrument









packet that examine the potential effects that history can have on participants responses.

Questions related to age and numbers of years farming examine maturation.

"External validity is the extent to which results of the study can be generalized

beyond the study" (de Vaus, 2001, p.28). It is important to differentiate between two

types of generalizability in case studies. Some researchers refer to statistical

generalizability when discussing external validity. Statistical generalizability is the

ability to generalize the findings of the research to a broader population than the sample.

Statistical generalizability can increase by using probability and random sampling. Case

studies sometimes do not aim to achieve statically generalizability. The findings from a

case study do not always offer explanations of phenomena to a population outside of

those who are studied. Rather, case studies focus on achieving theoretical

generalizability. Theoretical generalizability refers to the ability to generalize findings

from a study to a theory. The cases tell us about the effectiveness of the theory as an

explanation of the phenomena under study.

Replication enhances the external validity of case studies (Yin, 2003). I used

multiple cases in this research both to achieve theoretical replication, by assigning groups

on maximum variability, and literal replication, by comparing cases within each group.

A major strength of the study is that it incorporated explanatory breadth by examining the

complex interactions between numerous variables. "Our ability to incorporate

complexity is a direct reflection of how well we understand and can explain the

phenomena we want to study" (M.E. Swisher, personal communications, November,

2005).

Artificiality and sensitization are threats in this study. Some associate artificiality

with experimental designs. This can also be an issue with case studies and can affect









responses and behaviors within case studies. For example, people may respond

differently to questions in an interview or questionnaire because they may try to give the

researcher a response he/she wants to hear. I tried to reduce artificiality by encouraging

that participants interact in a setting comfortable to the participant- non experimental

conditions. Sensitization is an uncontrollable threat. Inclusion in the study may alter

responses.

Sample Framework and Sample Selection

The theoretical population of this study is American Indian farmers in the United

States. Farmers are individuals who actively cultivate land for food production. This

definition does not consider farm size, amount of time spent farming or value of sales. I

used this definition in order to include individuals in this study who are either cash crop

producers or home gardeners. All cases include American Indian farmers or home

gardeners who cultivated land within the study site and had the same tribal affiliation.

Many American Indian Nations/Tribes in the U.S. are from distinct traditions, languages,

and historical backgrounds. American Indian Nations are not really a single ethnic group,

but rather a collection of many ethnic groups (Champagnes, 1999). I restrict my study to

a single federally recognized tribe within the United States that has tribal members who

currently farm or garden since the phenomena under study has a strong cultural

component.

I contacted 23 federally recognized tribes recommended by a key informant

working with Native Women in Agriculture to select a tribe within the USA. Ten tribes

of the 23 possessed cases which fit the parameters of the sample selection. Many of the

other tribes did not have many or any farmers but instead had ranchers. Two of the ten

tribes officially rejected the proposal to conduct research with tribal members. Seven









tribal governments either were non-responsive or said that the tribe would claim

ownership and publication rights over any material written about the tribe. One tribe, the

Cherokee Nation, did fit the parameters for case selection and was willing to work with

me. We agreed that the Cherokee Nation would review the thesis and determine whether

it would be officially endorsed by the Nation upon completion of the research.

The accessible population is Cherokee farmers of Oklahoma within the Cherokee

Nation's 14 county jurisdiction in northeastern Oklahoma. These farmers were also my

sampling frame. Cherokee is self-defined. The farmer/home gardener claimed to be

member of Cherokee Nation. I did not ask them if they held tribal membership cards due

to sensitivities associated with this issue.

Cherokee farmers of Oklahoma are of the same sociolinguistic background and

descendents of Cherokees who emigrated west during the 1820's and 1830's. There is

currently no census information available that is specific to the Cherokee Nation farmers.

According to the USDA Agriculture Census of 2002, there are currently 2797 farms,

3228 principal farm operators and approximately 537,00 acres of land under cultivation

by American Indian operators in the 14-county jurisdiction. This is likely an incorrect

estimation of Cherokee farmers because numerous American Indian tribal members who

are not Cherokee also live within this region. The USDA does not census home gardener

populations because they are not considered farmers. The unit of analysis is the

individual farmer who is the primary decision-maker of the agriculture system. I chose

this unit of analysis so that I could measure the variables associated with the theories

under study.

Cherokee farmers are an excellent population to explore the theories under

examination. The effects of the variables associated with these theories are not well









understood in the context of this population. Cherokee farmers use a variety of

agricultural practices. I test the effects of the independent variables across a wide range

of behaviors.

I used a non-probability snowball sampling technique to identify cases. "Snowball

refers to the process of accumulation as each located subject provides other subjects" (M.

Brennan, personal communication, March 2005). The exact number of Cherokee farmers

within Oklahoma is unknown as is specific location of all Cherokee farms or home

gardens. The population can be difficult to access, especially within rural areas. The

Cherokee Nation's Department of Natural Resources provided contacts of potential

participants. The snowball technique continued by asking research participants for

recommendations and contact information of additional individuals who fit the

parameters of the preliminary case selection. These include being a member of Cherokee

Nation and currently farming or home gardening within 14-county jurisdiction. The use

of non-probability sampling can affect the external validity of the research (Sullivan,

2001). However, since this case study design relies on theoretical generalizability, using

this sampling technique does not affect external validity.

The initial goal was to select 90 cases total. Each of the three groups, high TAP

users, medium TAP users and low TAP users, should posses 30 cases. I could not reach

this goal due to time and resource constraints. Overall, I examined 34 cases. I collected

information from 42 cases but missing data and inability to fulfill sample selection

parameters led me to discard eight cases.

Data Collection

I assessed secondary data sources such as USDA Agriculture Census and reviewed

research projects and historical resources provided by members of the Cherokee Nation









before I entered the field to gain a better understanding of the population and region of

study (Babbie, 1998; Sullivan, 2001). The Cherokee Nation's Natural Resources

Department and the Tahlequah Chamber of Commerce provided maps of the 14 county

jurisdiction, historical information, demographic information, library references and local

festival and events important to members of the Cherokee Nation.

I entered the field for a period of one month in August 2005 where I administered

the research instruments. Four employees of the Cherokee Nation's Natural Resources

Department and an employee of the Strategy Department were key informants who were

familiar with the population of study. They helped me access initial cases and offered

insight into local etiquette and the historical context of Cherokee farming (Krannich, &

Humphrey, 1986).

Many individuals were recruited over the phone, at the Bell community Pow Wow,

by other participants and at stomp dances. I asked participants if they were interested in

participating in the research. I contacted approximately 55 individuals, of which 42

agreed to participate in the study. I contacted consenting participants to schedule an

interview and complete a self-completion questionnaire at a place and time of

convenience to the participant. Upon meeting with participants, I gave them a letter of

informed consent. They were given an introduction to the purpose of the research, the

consent process and instructions about how the meeting would progress, with a general

reference to the length of the process.

I gave participants the self-completion questionnaire which consisted of scales,

indices and one or multiple check-box response format questions. I offered to administer

this portion of the packet verbally if it made the participant more comfortable. One

participant chose that the questionnaire be administered verbally. I reviewed the index









that measured the outcome variable when the participants finished the self-completion

questionnaire, which took most participants approximately 15-30 minutes. I assigned

participants to groups based on the outcome variable. If any one group had over 30

participants, then the meeting would have ended and I would not have administered the

interview portion. This never happened because no one group reached the maximum

limit of 30. I then administered a structured interview, which lasted approximately 45

minutes. The interview consisted of open-ended responses, scalar-like questions, and

one-check response question. I asked participants if they had any questions at the end of

the interview and if they had any contacts who might be interested in participating in the

research. I also mentioned that the results of the study would be sent to them in a manner

which they preferred. If the meeting took place at the location of the farm or garden, I

asked participants if they were willing to show me their garden/farm. Nine of the

participants showed me their cultivated land. I did not ask the other participants to show

me their garden/farm because we either did not meet in a location where the land was

cultivated or because of time restraints.

Methods

Instrument Development

I developed instruments to measure the independent (attitudes, normative beliefs,

self-efficacy, control beliefs, subjective norms, self-identity, access to resources and

socioeconomic characteristics) and dependent variable (behavior or use of TAP) for this

research. Instruments did not exist to measure the specific phenomena under study nor

were adapted to study participants. I developed a Likert scale to measure attitude,

indices to measure self-efficacy, control beliefs, subjective norms, normative beliefs, self-

identity, access to resources and behavior which were included in a self-completion









questionnaire. The self-completion questionnaire also contained check box response

questions to measure socioeconomic characteristics. I developed a structured interview to

additionally measure behavior, control beliefs, self-efficacy, attitudes, subjective norms,

access to resources, self-identity and socioeconomic characteristics They were displayed

in an open response format questions and scalar response question format (Appendix B).

Scales and Indices

Scales and indices are often used to measure multi-dimensional variables like those

in this research. They are composite measures that generate responses to a set of related

items to create a single data point. Overall, "A scale or index assigns a numerical value

to a concept, attitude, perception, opinion or some other complex attribute of a person"

(M.E. Swisher, personal communications, March, 2006). I developed one Likert scale to

measure farmers' attitudes towards traditional farming. Ajzen defines "attitudes towards

a behavior" as "the degree to which performance of the behavior is positively or

negatively valued" (Ajzen, ND). Other definitions of attitude exist which are

multidimensional, but these definitions are difficult to operationalize and the relationship

between the multidimensional components are not fully understand (Tesser and Shaffer,

1990).

"A scale is a multiple-item measuring device in which there is a built-in intensity

structure, potency, or natural levels of feeling to the items that make up the scale"

(Sullivan, 2001, p.160). The Likert scale measured the intensity and range in value of

farmers' attitudes towards traditional farming by posing multiple statements. The scale

consisted of a range of scalar responses to a particular statement. I used a five-point scale

with response options including strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly

disagree. I gave each response item for each question a point value. I gave high point









values to positive attitudes towards traditional farming, while less positive and negative

views were assigned lower point values. I added the point values together to give each

participant a summative attitude score (Sullivan, 2001). The scale measured the degree

to which participant attitude is positive or negative toward traditional farming.

I did the following to standardize the scale. I developed a range of 153 statements

with two faculty members from the University of Florida. I placed these statements in

five categories: very positive, positive, neutral, negative and very negative. A panel of 15

colleagues scored the 153 items in a scalar response format with choices ranging from

very weak to very strong to determine how favorable or unfavorable each statement was.

I then selected statements with the highest item-total correlation using Cronbach's

alpha. I asked a panel of 12 experts from the southeastern United States to respond to the

remaining 40 items. I chose respondents based on their familiarity with agriculture and

also on their explicitly stated view about traditional farming. Four respondents stated that

they had a positive view of traditional farming, four stated that they had neutral views

and four stated that they had negative views. I ran two t-tests for each item to determine

which of the statements best differentiated between positive and negative attitudes to

increase the discriminatory power of the scale. I eliminated statements based on neutral

responses and inconsistency between the general opinion and the marked responses.

I used p-values to determine the items for each scale that significantly differentiated

between attitudes. Sixteen items remained and maintained fairly equal positive and

negative responses. I calculated Cronbach's alpha for the scale after data collection. I did

not delete any to increase the Cronbach's alpha and item-total correlations. The final

Cronbach's alpha was 0.91 and the average item-total correlation was 0.42 (Appendix C,

Table 1).









"An index is a composite measure in which separate indicators of the phenomenon

are combined to create a single measure...scores on each individual indicator are

summed to give an overall score on the composite phenomenon" (Sullivan, 2001, p.159-

160). I developed an unweighted unidimensional index to measure the behavior.

Behavior is the manifest, observable response in a given situation (Ajzen, ND). The

index consisted of multiple behaviors identified by an expert panel familiar with various

agricultural practices. The term traditional is not clearly defined among different

American Indian cultures. I operationalized the behavior, TAP, with the help of an expert

panel, as those practices that are not conventional agricultural practices developed post

WWII. These post WWII practices are well defined. Members of the expert panel listed

conventional agricultural practices that could be used in both home gardens and farms in

order not to exclude cases based on size of land holdings. For example, I did not measure

behaviors such as tractor use or combine use because home gardeners with small acreage

of cultivated land would likely not engage in these behaviors.

I measured multiple behaviors to operationalize TAP in order to increase the

reliability and consistency of my results. This reduced the weakness associated with the

use of a single measure of a general behavior, which often results in inconsistent and

unreliable results (Ajzen, 1988, p 54). I included thirteen items in the behavior index.

The index used a scalar response format with five categories, almost never, rarely,

sometimes, often and almost always. I calculated the summative scores for each

participant. Low scores indicated high use of TAP while high scores indicated low use of

traditional practices. The index originally had 13 items, but while collecting data it

became evident that two items were not inclusive of small plot cultivators, crop insurance

and pest scouting. They were deleted from the index. I deleted additional items, seeds or









cultivators that are readily available commercially and mechanical land preparation, after

data collection in order to further increase the reliability of the instrument. Nine items

remained in the index for analysis (Appendix C, Table 2).

I created one and two dimensional indices to measure subjective norms, normative

beliefs, self-identity, self-efficacy, control beliefs and resource access. I used an expert

panel to create these indices. The Delphi method is a technique used to identify items

about which there is consensus among a group of experts (Adler & Ziglio, 1996). This

approach aims to get experts' opinions about a subject by using a series of questions with

controlled opinion feedback (Adler & Ziglio, 1996). I first compiled a list of nine experts

in agriculture. These experts included farmers, agricultural extension agents and

agricultural service providers. I created a list of topics and questions that related to each

variable measured. I then asked the expert panel to list 7-10 items that would answer the

questions for each variable. Next, I created a rule to determine which items to keep on

the list. I kept the items that 40% of respondents said were important. I then created a list

which included these top responses and sent them back to the panel and had each person

rank the items for importance on a 1-5 scale. I then took the mode for each item and kept

the most consistent four to six answers. These items were included in the final indices

that measured the variables (Appendix C, Tables 3 through 12).

I developed two indices to measure self-identity, control beliefs and access to

resources. I created a modem identity index and traditional identity index to measure

self-identity. I created a modem control belief index and traditional control belief index

to measure control beliefs. Lastly, I created a modern resource access index and

traditional resource access index to measure access to resources. I developed two indices

for each of these variables to determine if the modern and traditional indices are









diametrically opposite to each other. For example, if an individual scores high on the

traditional self-identity index, can he/she also score high on the modem self-identity

index? Can farmers have both positive scores on both traditional and modern self-

identity? Are these categories mutually exclusive?

Reliability accesses how consistently the instrument will produce the same results

(Carmines & Zeller, 1979). I am confident of the reliability of my scales and indices

because of the process I used to develop them. These instruments have high internal

consistency and are replicable. Internal consistency is the degree to which items in a

scale or index actually measures the same construct as intended to measure. Cronbach's

alpha (Sullivan, 2001) is a measure of internal consistency based on the correlation

between all possible split-halves of the items. It also provides the correlation between

each item and the total score of the scale or index and provides an overall coefficient of

scale reliability. I deleted items from the scale and indices that did not correlate well

with the other items, thus improving the reliability and raising the Cronbach's alpha

value.

Unlike scales, index inter-item reliability is not determined a priori. These

instruments may exhibit lower reliability than scales because they assume that all items in

the instrument are related without testing if this is true a priori (M.E. Swisher, personal

communications, March 2006). I calculated internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha

and total inter-item correlation after data collection to determine if the items in the

indices were related to each other and to improve reliability of the indices. I removed

items from some of the indices to improve the reliability of instruments (Table 3-1).

I also improved the replicability of this study by developing clear operational definitions

of the variables and constructs.









I am confident in the validity of some of these instruments. I address construct

validity by operationalizing the variables under study and then creating instruments based

on the opererationalized definitions. I increase face and content validity by having an

expert panel and colleagues help develop the scales and indices and also by referring to

past research which tried to measure similar constructs within different settings. Two of

the indices became problematic during the data collection process. This reduced the

validity of the instruments.

Table 3-1: Cronbach's alpha and item total correlation values for measured indices
Construct Item total Cronbach's Items removed Items
correlation Alpha* remaining
index
Behavior: Use 0.33 0.79 (1) crop insurance 9
of TAP (2) mechanical land
preparation
(3) pest scouting
(4) seeds or cultivators that
are readily available
commercially
Self- efficacy .49 .88
Subj ective NONE NONE All subjective norm index 1
Norm items except one-item placed
with normative beliefs index
Normative .46 .76 (1)Family 4
Beliefs** (2)Other farmers and
neighbors
(3)Tribal Elders
Traditional .45 .69 (1) I use a small or family 3
Self- Identity business to run my farm.
(2) I rely on internal
resources available to me on
my farm.
(3) I am thrifty.
(4) I take few risks.
Modem Self- .47 .88 (1) I rely on external 9
identity resources available to me
from off my farm
(2) I rely on high inputs
(3) I take risks.
(4) I want to expand the
acreage on my farm/garden









Table 3-1. Continued
Construct Item total Cronbach's Items removed Items
correlation Alpha* remaining
index
Modem .39 .70 (1) Internet 2
Resource
Access
Traditional -- -- (1)Events (e.g. field days, 2
Resources workshops, conferences,
Access*** tradeshows)
(2)Publications about
traditional practices
Traditional .52 .88 (1) Access to knowledge and 8
Control advice
Beliefs
Modem .48 .88 None 9
Control
Beliefs
* These are the final scores after items were removed to improve internal consistency
**Normative beliefs index was completely removed from study due to high non-response
by participants. These scores depict reliability scores with participants who did respond
to index.
*** Cannot calculate Cronbach's alpha based on two items

Other Questionnaire Items

The self-administered questionnaire included closed response items in addition to

the scale and indices (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). I did not develop scales or indices to

measure socioeconomic characteristics because reliable instruments have already been

developed to measure these variables. Since this research dealt with some sensitive

topics, such as income, respondents were asked to answer these questions on their own

instead of verbally in an interview setting. This technique aimed to produce less social

desirability bias for these items (Fowler 1993) (Appendix C, Table 13).

Interview

I conducted structured interviews with each of the 34 research participants.

Interviews allow for clarification and probing and communication with the participants

(M.E. Swisher, personal communications, March, 2006). A structured interview entails









developing questions before the interview takes place and during the interview questions

are asked in a specific order. "The structure is provided to obtain consistency from one

situation to the next" (Sommer & Sommer, 1986, p. 115).

The interview included questions that addressed all variables under study and used

scalar response questions and open-response format questions. I took procedural steps to

ensure that the interview instruments were valid measurements of the conceptual

constructs and that they provided accurate information (M.E. Swisher, personal

communications, March, 2006). I began by stating my research hypotheses and included

subsections related to each variable understudy explicitly. I then listed the appropriate

interview topics for each hypothesis and subsection. I developed several questions for

each topic with the help of colleagues and past research related to the topics. I reviewed

these questions extensively to eliminate the unnecessary ones. A panel of two experts

reviewed the instruments. The experts included a University of Florida professor, with

expertise in research design and methods, and Cherokee Nation Natural Resources

Department's Agriculture Liaison, who has expertise in local and Cherokee agriculture

(Appendix B, Table 14).

The benefits of structured interviews include better reliability and validity than

semi-structured or unstructured interviews (Bartels, Nordstrom & Koski, 2006). I

increased the reliability by providing written instructions to develop consistency in how

the interview was administered and that all participants received the same information

(Fowler, 1993). Further, I solely administered the interviews. This contributed to the

fairly consistent delivery of the interview questions.

I developed multiple instruments to measure the same construct, such as scales,

indices and interviews. This increased concurrent validity and the overall validity of the









instruments. Overall, the indicators appear to measure the concepts. I believe my

operationalization makes sense.

Interview data could be subject to measurement error if the interviewer does not

elicit cooperation or adequate interpersonal communication. The interviewer can also be

a source of error by inconsistent estimates (Fowler, 1993). I was successful at eliciting

cooperation from the participants. I taped 32 interviews to reduce measurement error.

Pilot Study

I conducted a pilot study with four Cherokee farmers who represented the case

selections I wanted to study. I made slight modifications to the instrument packet. I

accounted for these changes during the pilot study. I included pilot study participants'

results in the final study due to the slight modifications made to the instrument packet.

See Appendix D for the full instrument packet.

Limitations

There are several limitations to this research project. First, using a retrospective

case study design limits my ability to determine causality between independent and

dependent variables and thus reduces internal validity. I took several measures to

overcome this limitation, such as designing comparison groups, assessing multiple cases

and measuring the variables with multiple instruments. Secondly, I may not have truly

measured what I intended to measure in terms of the outcome variable TAP. TAP may

not be mutually exclusive of conventional agricultural practices according to some

participants.

Third, I should have elicited more direct feedback from colleagues and the expert

panel with the structured interview and pilot-test participants. I did not do this because of

my lack of experience as a researcher. Fourth, the sample size is small. This inhibits my









ability to make a more complete evaluation of differences between groups. Fifth, two

indices had high levels of non-response and as a result had to either be withdrawn from

the study (normative beliefs) or reduced to a one-item question (subjective norm). Non-

response may be indicative of sampling bias. This can be due to non-random error where

certain types of people are more likely to not respond than others. I do not know how

these cases differ than those who did respond. Lastly, pilot test participants were all part

of one user group. The instruments would more reliably measure the constructs under

study if I pilot tested the instruments with cases representing all user groups.

Data analysis

I tested for differences between the three groups based on the outcome variable

TAP using a Mann-Whitney U test. I determined if the groups were different based on

the predicator variables to measure the first, second and third hypotheses. I used the

Mann-Whitney U test to test difference between groups with ratio, interval and ordinal

data. I did not use a student t-test to test for differences between groups with interval and

ratio data because the groups had small samples, the sample size as a whole was small,

and the number of smalls in the groups were uneven. The Mann-Whitney U test is a more

conservative measure of group differences than the student t-tests (Sheskin, 2004). I used

Fisher's exact test to test difference between groups with nominal data. I ran a logistic

regression to test the fourth hypothesis. I conducted this type of analysis because the

outcome variable was converted from an interval measurement to a nominal level of

measurement.

Definition

* Attitude: a person's judgment that performing the behavior is good or bad

* Behavior: Behavior is the manifest, observable response in a given situation









* Control beliefs: beliefs about the presence of factors that may facilitate or impede
performance of the behavior (traditional and modern agricultural practices) (Ajzen,
ND).

* Normative beliefs: the perceived behavioral expectations of important referent
individuals or groups (Ajzen, ND).

* Perceived behavioral controls: "people's perceptions of their ability to perform a
given behavior" (Ajzen, ND). This definition consists of two parts: a person's
confidence and perceived control beliefs over performing behavior

* Self-efficacy: an individual's confidence in his/her capabilities to produce effects

* Self-identity: the salient part of an actor's self which relates to a particular
behavior (Stryker, S., & Burkes, 2002). I will use a modified version ofFekadu
and Krafts (2001) self-identity measurements.

* Resource access: accessibility and reliability on traditional and non-traditional
mass media and interpersonal communication resources

* Subjective norms: "perceived social pressure to engage or not to engage in a
behavior" (Ajzen, ND).

* Traditional agricultural practices: those practices which were existent post WWII
conventional agricultural practices














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Behavior and User Groups

I used an index to measure farmers' use of traditional agricultural practices. Thirty-

four farmers' behavior were recorded and scored. The summative score for each farmer

was used to determine the group he/she was placed in. I determined a priori the manner

in which farmers would be placed into different groups. I determined the highest and

lowest summative scores possible for the index and then equally dividing those points by

three and determined the range of scores that would define each group. The highest

possible summative score with the remaining nine questions was 45 points (nine

questions x five, the highest response score possible). The lowest score possible was nine

points. A total of 36 points were possible. I divided 36 by three which allowed each

group 12 points. I placed farmers posteriori into a group based on their score. I did not

try to base scores on specific TAP. Rather, as discussed previously, I used specific post-

WWII practices in the indices. Therefore, low scores indicated high use of TAP. Farmers

in this group are high TAP users. Medium scores indicated neither high nor low use of

TAP, and farmers in this group are medium TAP users. High scores indicated low use of

TAP and farmers in this group are low TAP users.

The distribution for all participants as one group is approximately normal.I placed

6% or two of the participants in the low TAP user group, 21% or seven participants in the

medium TAP user group, and 74% or 25 participants in the high TAP user group. No

statistical tests can adequately determine if there is a difference between the low TAP









user group and the other groups based on mean scores with a sample size of two for the

low TAP user group. Therefore, I combined the low TAP user group with the medium

TAP user group, collapsing the three original groups to two. This combined group is

now the low TAP user group. Both groups show an approximately normal distribution

(Table 4-1).

Table 4-1: Descriptive data summary for Cherokee TAP user groups created from the
behavior index measuring use of traditional agricultural practices, Cherokee
Nation, Oklahoma, 2005.
High TAP user Low TAP user
Group group
Range of possible point value 9-21 21.01-45
# of participants 25 9
% of total participants in group 73.53% 26.47%
Mean 15.25 28.34
STD 3.61 5.11
SEM 0.72 1.70
Shapiro wilk W= 0.95 0.89

I ran a Mann-Whitney U test to determine if there was a difference between the

high and low TAP user groups. There was a significant difference between groups (z= -

4.39, p=<0.01, a = 0.05) (Table 4-2 and Figure 4-1).

I also measured use of TAP with four open response questions in the interview

(Table 4-3). The questions were:

Name what you think are the five most important traditional Cherokee
farming/gardening practices?

You mentioned in the questionnaire that you use practice X. Have you
always used this practice?

What did you use before this?

Why did you start using this practice?







70


Table 4-2: Values of U, Z, and p Mann-Whitney U test for behavior index based on high
and low TAP user groups (a = 0.05),Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005
Rank Sum Rank Sum U Z P
High TAP Users Low TAP Users
Use of TAP 325 153 0.00 -4.39 <0.01

40-

35-

2 30-
o
a 25-

E 20-

I 15- I

10

5-
high low

Groups

Figure 4-1: Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on use of traditional
agricultural practices, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005

Interview responses to question one show a similarity between TAP user groups.

Both groups named planting traditional crops and no use of synthetic substances as

important traditional Cherokee farming practices. A few participants from the high TAP

user group did not know what practices were important traditional Cherokee farming

practices. Individuals from both user groups who adopted conventional agricultural

practices said they did this because they were easier to use than the practices they

previously used. For interview question two, "Have you always used this practice?",73%

of the low TAP user group said they have always used the practice. 68% of high TAP

user group members said that they have always used the practice.









Table 4-3: Interview responses of high and low TAP user groups for questions
measuring use of traditional agricultural practices, Cherokee Nation,
Oklahoma, 2005.
Low TAP user High TAP user
# of participants 9 25
in TAP user group
five most **(3) plant traditional crops **(4) use organic
important TAP* **(3) no use of synthetic fertilizer
substances **(4) don't know
**(2) use the farmers **(3) plant
almanac traditional crops
**(3)plant a garden
**(2) adequate soil
preparation
**(2) no use of
synthetic substances
Why did you start *(3)easier *(5) easier
using practice
X?*
only practices listed two or more times total by user group participants is listed
** depicts actual number or participants with this response

Hypothesis One

1. A relationship will exist between farmers' socio-economic characteristics and their
use of TAP.
On average, participants in the high TAP user group were 53 years old, mostly

males (60%) and speak a little Tsalagi or Cherokee. The most consistent level of

education completed by this group is high school and the primary occupation is non-

farmer/rancher work. These farmers cultivate on average 24 acres and averaged 29 years

of experience farming. The five most common crops grown by this group were tomatoes,

squash, radishes, onions and corn.

On average participants in the low TAP user group were 66 years old, mostly males

(89%) and speak a little Tsalagi or Cherokee. The most consistent level of education

completed by this group was two-four year college and primary the occupation is

farmer/rancher. These farmers cultivated on average 598 acres of land and averaged 50









years of experience farming. The five crops most commonly grown by this group were

tomatoes, corn, cucumbers, squash and soybeans.

I used a self-completion questionnaire and interview to measure socioeconomic

characteristics. Items consisted of scalar response questions, one or multiple check-box

response and open response questions. I used an alpha level of 0.05 for all tests

measuring statistical significance. I used Mann-Whitney U test to measure differences

between groups for ratio, interval and ordinal data (Table 4-4). I used the Fisher's Exact

test to determine difference between groups for nominal level data that had cell counts of

five or higher (Table 4-5 and Table 4-6).

There were no statistical differences between groups for the following

socioeconomic variables: participation in agricultural organizations, hired laborers, non-

hired laborers, number of total laborers, language use, participation in tribal activities,

2004 household income, 2004 net farm income and gender. There is a difference

between user groups (a = 0.05) for the following socioeconomic variables: age, hours a

week farming, number of years farming, numbers of acres cultivated and selling of crops.

Participation in agricultural organizations and participation in tribal activities are worth

noting because their of low p-values 0.09 and 0.08, respectively. The low TAP users are

older than the high TAP users. The low TAP users spend more time farming than the

high TAP users. The low TAP users have farmed longer than the high TAP users. The

low TAP users cultivate more acreage than the high TAP users. The low TAP user group

is more likely to sell their crops than the high TAP user group.












Table 4-4: Values of U, Z, and p in Mann-Whitney U test for socioeconomic characteristic based on high and low TAP user groups (a
= 0.05), Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005

Rank Sum Rank Sum Valid N Valid N
Low TAP High TAP U Z p-level Low TAP High TAP
Users Users Users Users

Age 349.5000 211.5000 49.5000 -2.36472 .018050 24 9

Hours/Wk 387.5000 207.5000 62.5000 -1.95180 .050971 25 9
Farming

Yrs Farming 341.0000 187.0000 41.0000 -2.39357 .016691 24 8

Acreage 278.0000 187.0000 47.0000 -2.14967 .031589 21 9
Cultivated

Participation 365.5000 195.5000 65.5000 -1.71796 .085813 24 9
Agricultural
Activity

Hired Laborer 399.5000 195.5000 74.5000 -1.48337 .137987 25 9

Non-Hired 399.5000 195.5000 74.5000 -1.48337 .137987 25 9
Laborers

Total Laborer 400.5000 194.5000 75.5000 1.44433 .148655 25 9

Language 448.0000 147.0000 102.0000 .40988 .681898 25 9

Participation 392.0000 203.0000 67.0000 -1.77614 .075720 25 9
Tribal Activity

Household 301.0000 134.0000 70.0000 -.68313 .494530 21 8
Income 2004

NetFarm 343.5000 184.5000 67.5000 -1.50887 .131343 23 9
Income 2004









Table 4-5: Contingency Table and Fisher's exact test for gender based on high and low
TAP user groups (a = 0.05), Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005
Count Males Females
Total %
Col %
Row %
High 15 10 25
TAP 44.12 29.41 73.53
Users 65.22 90.91
60.00 40.00
Low 8 1 9
TAP 23.53 2.94 26.47
Users 34.78 9.09
88.89 11.11
23 11 34
67.65 32.35


Test
Likelihood
Ratio
Pearson


ChiSquare
2.877


2.523


Fisher's Exact Test Prob
Left 0.1184
Right 0.9844
2-Tail 0.2137


Prob>ChiSq
0.0899


0.1122
Alternative Hypothesis
Prob female is greater for groups =high than low
Prob female is greater for groups =low than high
Prob female is different across groups


Table 4-6: Contingency Table and Fisher's Exact Test for selling crops based on high
and low TAP user groups (a = 0.05), Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005
Count Yes No
Total %
Col %
Row %
High TAP 3 21 24
Users 9.09 63.64 72.73
33.33 87.50
12.50 87.50
Low TAP 6 3 9
Users 18.18 9.09 27.27
66.67 12.50
66.67 33.33
9 24 33
27.27 72.73









Table 4-6 Continued
Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq
Likelihood 9.131 0.0025
Ratio
Pearson 9.682 0.0019
Fisher's Exact Test Prob Alternative Hypothesis
Left 0.0047 Prob No is greater for groups =high than low
Right 0.9997 Prob No is greater for groups =low than high
2-Tail 0.0047 Prob No is different across groups

Five of the 14 variables used to evaluate how well the economic model explains

Cherokee farmers' use of TAP are significantly different between user groups (a = 0.05)

(Table 4-4; Table 4-6). Age (p=0.02), hours a week farming (p=0.05), number of years

farming(p=0.02), numbers of acres cultivated (p=0.03) and selling of crops (p<0.01)

differed between high and low TAP user groups. Five of the socioeconomic variables

fail to reject hypothesis one (a = 0.05). Nine of the socioeconomic variables show

evidence to reject hypothesis one (a = 0.05).

Hypothesis Two

2. A strong positive relationship will exist between farmers' attitudes towards the use
of TAP, subjective norms, self-efficacy, control beliefs, self-identity and their use
of TAP.

Attitudes

I used a scale to measure participants' attitudes toward traditional agriculture.

There were 16 items in the scale. I used each farmer's summative score for comparison

tests. There were two cases where two responses on a single question were marked. I

took the average point value of the responses checked by each of the two participants and

scored the missing item with an average point value of the two items checked by

participants.









I handled missing responses by reviewing the raw data to determine if there was

any consistency among participant's responses and missing datum points. There was

none. I did not throw out any questions due to missing data.

For participants with missing datum points, I determined the average of the

person's score and used this value to replace with the missing datum. I replaced the

missing value because the individual's sum score total was needed to conduct other

analyses and because omitting the missing data scores would give the individual a falsely

low score.

One participant from the high TAP user group had several missing data. As a

result, I did not include this participant's responses for the attitude variable for analysis.

There was a total of five missing data points for all other participants. I dealt with each

missing point by using the average of the individual's score to replace the individual's

missing point.

I then ran a Mann-Whitney U test to determine if there was a difference between

groups in relation to their attitudes toward traditional agriculture (Table 4-7). There is a

difference between high and low TAP user groups' attitudes towards traditional

agriculture (z=2.46, p=0.01, a = 0.05). The high TAP user group has a significantly

more positive attitude toward traditional agriculture than the low TAP user group (Figure

4-2).

Two open response questions in the interview were used to measure attitude (Table

4-8). "Which do you think is better, traditional farming or non-traditional/modem

farming/gardening?" Why?"









70-


60-






20
)high low50-
E 40-


30- *


20-
high low


Groups

Figure 4-2: Summary score for high and low TAP user groups based on attitude toward
of traditional agriculture, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005

56% of high TAP users compared to 22% of low TAP users believe traditional

farming is better than non-traditional/modern farming. Some members from both user

groups believe that traditional farming is better because it is healthier for the body and

those are the practices they were taught to use. Additional responses from the high TAP

user group for traditional farming is better include its low impact on the environment,

preserves the connection with the land/Earth and it is good for their culture. 56% of low

TAP users compared to 24% of high TAP users believe non-traditional/modern farming

is better than traditional farming. Members from each TAP user group believe that non-

traditional/modern farming is better because it is easier to use. Additional responses from

the low TAP user group include it's a better methods, it saves time and traditional

farming cannot produce enough to feed the population. Some individuals from both

groups were neutral or believed both types of practices are good.














Table 4-7: Values of U, Z, and p in Mann-Whitney U test for theory of planned behavior variables based on high and low TAP user
groups (a = 0.05), Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005

Rank Sum Rank Sum Valid N Valid N
High TAP Low TAP U Z p-level High TAP Low TAP
Users Users Users Users

Subjective 460.5000 100.5000 55.5000 2.12219 .033830 24 9
Norms

Attitude 500.5000 94.5000 49.5000 2.45927 .013927 25 9

Self-efficacy 428.0000 167.0000 103.0000 -.37084 .710758 25 9

Self-efficacy 442.0000 153.0000 108.0000 .17566 .860561 25 9
Interview

Traditional 428.5000 132.5000 87.5000 .82866 .407301 24 9
Identity o0

Modem 372.0000 223.0000 47.0000 -2.55686 .010567 25 9
Identity

Modem 445.5000 115.5000 70.5000 1.51585 .129568 24 9
Control Beliefs

Traditional 394.5000 166.5000 94.5000 -.54571 .585272 24 9
Control Beliefs

Modem 379.0000 149.0000 79.0000 -.73983 .459409 24 8
Resource
Access

Traditional 405.5000 122.5000 86.5000 .41343 .679291 24 8
Resource
Access









Table 4-8: Interview responses of high and low TAP user groups for questions
measuring attitudes towards traditional agriculture, Cherokee Nation,
Oklahoma, 2005.
Low Why High Why*
TAP user TAP user
Number of 9 25
participants
Traditional 22% (1) healthier for 56% (4) low negative environmental
Farming body impact
(1) can use (4) preserves connection with
practices by his/her land/Earth/ Mother Earth
self; taught how to (3) preserves nutrients/ healthier
use them when for body
young (2)good for culture/heritage
(1) guidance comes from God
(1) don't know
(1) replenish soil
(1) always practice this way
(1) taught that is successful
(1) high labor
Non- 56% (3) saves time 24% (1) have some products which
traditional/ (2) it's a better help and enhance garden, such as
Modem method( precision insecticides and fertilizers
farming agriculture, soil (1)so much research by
tests, insecticides, agriculture extension done on
herbicides, plants, they know more than 1-2
pesticides) people
(2) traditional (1) have more plant varieties to
farming cannot pick from
produce enough to (1) less work
feed all people (1) raise more food in smaller
(2) its easier area for benefit of people
(1) no-till saves (1) it is easier
fuel, energy, labor,
increases profits
Neutral 11% 8% (1)no point of view
toward (1) looks at moon signs
question
Both are 11% (1)traditional: 12% (1) traditional: for personal use,
good ancestors made it keeps you in touch with land and
work and we should crops and is more cost efficient
take advantage of (1)nontraditional: for
their knowledge commercial use, can farm more
(l)modem: makes land, less labor intense and get
good yields and more done
modem varieties (1)don't know difference
could help us between traditional and modem
farming
(_)both have advantages
depicts actual number or participants with this response








Self-efficacy

I used eight items in the index to determine each participant's self-efficacy score.

A potential response option for this index was "no Cherokee practice." Some participants

marked this box. As a result, I determined the mean scores for each participant by taking

the individual's sum total score and dividing it by the number of responses which

excluded the "no Cherokee practice" option. This was important to do because when a

participant marks "no Cherokee practice" for an item it implies that he/she believes that

the practice (item) listed was not historically developed and used by Cherokees. If I

assigned a point value to this belief, the mean score would inaccurately assign a higher or

lower mean score than what it should be.

One participant was not included in this analysis because he/she did not believe that

any of the practices (items) listed were historically developed and used by Cherokees.

Confidence in performing traditional practices cannot be measured if the individual does

not believe that the practice is traditional. This is another reason why I compiled the

mean scores in the manner described above. There was one missing datum point. I took

the participant's average score and replaced the missing datum point with the average

score. See Appendix E Table 1 for self-efficacy data.

I then ran a Mann-Whitney U test to determine if there was a difference between

groups (Table 4-7). There is no difference between high and low TAP user groups' self-

efficacy (z= -.37, p=0.71, a = 0.05). The high TAP user group has a significantly more

positive attitude toward traditional agriculture than the low TAP user group (Appendix E,

Figure 1).

I used one scalar response question in the interview to measure self-efficacy. "If

you wanted to farm/garden traditionally, how well prepared are you to do that?" Both

TAP user group members mean responses is that they are somewhat prepared to farm






81

traditionally. I also ran a Mann-Whitney test to determine if there was a difference

between groups based on interview responses. There was no difference between groups

(z=0.17, p=0.86, a = 0.05) (Table 4-7).

Modem Control Beliefs

There were nine items in the index used to determine each participant's modern

control beliefs score. I used mean scores for analysis. One participant's score was not

included in this analysis because the participant wrote on this section of the questionnaire

that this section was not applicable. This same respondent wrote this same phrases on

numerous other portions of the questionnaire. There was one missing datum point among

other participants. I determined the participant's average score for modern control beliefs

and replaced the missing datum point with this average score. I ran a Mann-Whitney U

test to determine if there was a difference between groups. There is no significant

difference between high TAP user and low TAP user group's modem control beliefs

(z=1.52, p=0.13, a = 0.05) (Table 4-7; Appendix E, Figure 2).

Traditional Control Beliefs

There were eight items in the index used to determine each participant's traditional

control beliefs score. I used mean scores for analysis of traditional control belief. I did

not include one participant's score, the same as in modern control beliefs, in this analysis

because the participant wrote on this section of the questionnaire that this section was not

applicable. There were no missing datum points.

I ran a Mann-Whitney U test to determine if there was a difference between groups.

There was no significant difference between high TAP user and low TAP user groups

with regards to traditional control beliefs (z=-0.55, p=0.59, a = 0.05) (Table 4-7;

Appendix E, Figure 3).






82

I measured traditional control beliefs with two open response questions in the

interview "What are the kinds of things you can't control that keep you (might keep

you) from using traditional farming/ gardening practices?", "Why?" Responses to the

first question are provided in Table 4-9.

Table 4- 9: Interview responses of high and low TAP user groups for question measuring
traditional control beliefs, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005.
Low TAP user High TAP user
# of participants 9 25
in TAP user group
Prevention from use of TAP (3) weeds (7) weather
(2)land quality (6) drought
(2)pests (5) time
(1)time (4) land quality
(l)weather (2) weeds
(l)amount of space (2) health (of farmer)
(1) drought (1)age
(l)nothing (1)using herbicides
(1) erosion (1) using pesticides
(1) lose land
(1) don't know
* depicts actual number or participants with this response, some participants provided
multiple reasons which are also included here

Both TAP user groups identified weather, drought, land quality, time and weeds as

things that could keep them from farming traditionally.

Subjective Norms

The index was not used for analysis because of data for the subjective norms index.

There was one item in the questionnaire which measured subjective norms. There was no

missing data associated with this scalar response question. I used participants' scores

from this one item to measure subject norms. I did not include one participant's

responses in the analysis because he/she responded to the question by writing on the

questionnaire "I don't know." This was the same participant who responded to the

control beliefs indices with "not applicable."







83

I ran a Mann-Whitney U test to determine if there was a difference between

groups. There is a significant difference between high TAP user and low TAP user

groups subjective norms (z=2.12, p=0.03, a = 0.05) (Table 4-7).The high TAP user

group has a higher subjective norm score than the low TAP user group (Figure 4-3).



2- U


E 1
0

C'
0-


uc -1- U


-2- *


high low

Group

Figure 4-3: Score for high and low TAP user groups based on subjective norms,
Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005

I measured subjective norms with two open response questions in the interview.

"Do you think you should use traditional farming/gardening practices?" "Why?" See

Table 4-10 for responses.

80% of high TAP users and 67% of low TAP users said they should use traditional

farming practices. Some respondents from both TAP user groups related its importance to

various aspects of preservation. High TAP users also said that they should use TAP

because it is good for the environment, keeps them connected to the earth and they like

to farm traditionally. 16% of high TAP users and 22% of low TAP users do not think

they should use traditional farming practices. 4% of high TAP users and 11% of low

TAP users think they should use traditional farming practices sometimes.






84

Table 4-10: Interview responses of high and low TAP user groups for question
measuring subjective norms, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005
Low Why High Why*
TAP TAP
user user
Number of 9 25
participants
Yes 67% (3) keeps old ways alive 80% (4) better for environment
(1) keep supporting (3) preserve for future
people generations
(1) to survive financially (3) stays closer to the earth
(1) the basics of (3) likes to garden/farm that way
gardening (1) safer
(1) has worked for many (1) knows how to do it
generations (1) its small scale
(1) worked for (1) learns about/develop
grandmother and for traditional sustainable food
him/her production
(1) to be a successful farmer
Sometimes 11% (1) safer for 4% (1)there are many improvements
environment; harder to now to make things easier
do; preserve it for future
generations
* depicts actual number or participants with this response, some participants provided
multiple reasons which are also included here

Normative Beliefs

Similar to subjective norms, there were missing data on the normative beliefs

index. The index was not used in analysis as a result. Unlike subjective norms, there

were no additional items measuring normative beliefs for statistical analysis within the

instrument packet.

Two open response questions in the interview were used to measure normative

beliefs. "Who supports traditional farming/gardening in your community?" "Why?"

Responses to the first question are provided in Table 4-11.






85

Table 4-11: Interview responses of high and low TAP user groups for question measuring
normative beliefs, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005.
Low TAP user High TAP user
# of participants 9 25
Supporters of traditional farming** *(7) other farmers (6)nobody
(5)neighbors
(3) don't know
(3) community
* depicts actual number or participants with this response, some participants
provided multiple reasons which are also included here
**only practices listed two or more times total by user group participants are listed

Low TAP users said that other farmers support traditional farming in their

community. High TAP users said that nobody, neighbors, and community support

traditional farming. Three high TAP users said that they did not know who supported

traditional farming in their community.

Traditional Self-Identity

I used three items in the index to determine each participant's traditional self-

identity score. I used mean scores for analysis of traditional self-identity. I removed one

participant's response from the analysis due to high level of missing data. There were no

missing datum points among other participants.

I ran a Mann-Whitney U test to determine if there was a difference between groups.

There was no significant difference between high TAP user and low TAP user groups

traditional self identity (z=0.18, p=0.41, a = 0.05). (Table 4-7 and Appendix E, Figure

4).

Modern Self-Identity

I used nine items in the index to determine each participant's modem self-identity

score. I used mean scores for analysis of modern self-identity. I removed two

participant's responses from the analysis. One participant's responses had high levels of

missing data. The other participant responded to this index as not applicable. This was







86

the same participant that responded in the same manner to the control beliefs measures.

There were no missing data among other participants.

I ran a Mann-Whitney U test to determine if there is a difference between groups.

There is a significant difference between high TAP user and low TAP user groups

modern self-identity (z=-2.56, p=0.01, a = 0.05). The low TAP user group has a higher

modern self-identity scores than the high TAP user group (Figure 4-4).

4-

3.5-

3-

o 2.5

) 2
E
1.5-

1 U

0.5-
high low

groups

Figure 4-4: Mean score for high and low TAP user groups based on modern self-identity,
Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005

I used five open response questions in the interview to measure traditional and

modern self-identity.

Do you think of yourself as a traditional farmer/gardener or as a modem
(non-traditional) farmer/gardener?

Why?

What does traditional or non-traditional/modern farmer mean to you?

Do you like it (or would you like it) when/if people call you a traditional
farmer/gardener or non-traditional/ modem farmer/gardener?

Why or why not?






87

Table 4-12 provides user group responses to "Do you think of yourself as a

traditional farmer/gardener or as a modern (non-traditional) farmer/gardener?" and

"Why?"

Table 4-12: Interview responses of high and low TAP user groups for questions
measuring self-identity, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, 2005.
Low Why* High Why*
TAP TAP
user user
# of participants 9 N/A 25 N/A
in TAP user group
Considers self 22% (1)shares knowledge 52% (4) uses TAP
traditional farmer (1) done it this way for (2)don't use machinery, use
long time hands
(1) way parents do it (2) always done it that way
(1) don't know
(1) uses few modem
techniques
(1) gets information about
gardening from God
Considers self non- 33% (1)use no till and 20% (2) uses modern tools
traditional/ irrigation (1) don't know
Modem farmer (1)farm to survive (1)takes short cuts can't
(l)try to use most always plant according to
improved method moon
Considers self both 44% (2) uses both types of 16% (3) uses both type of
traditional and agriculture practices practices
modern farmer (2) easier to use modern (1) traditional is healthier
tools + (2)grows like (1)but don't have enough
elders/ancestors knowledge, expertise to
consider self traditional
Considers self 0% N/A 12% (2) don't know
neither traditional (1) does not garden much
nor modern farmer
* depicts actual number or participants with this response

52% of high TAP users and 22% of low TAP users identify themselves as

traditional farmers. A shared response as to why they use this practices is that they have

always farmed in a traditional manner. 20% of high TAP users and 33% of low TAP

users consider themselves as modern farmers. Interestingly, 44% of low TAP users and

16% of high TAP users see themselves as both traditional and modem farmers.