Concusions
 On testing the hypotheses presented above, the following fac-
tors were found to be positively related to the adoption of hand
tractors:
 1. Level of agricultural training;
 2. Number of contacts used as a source of information;
 3. Size of farm;
 4. Type of tenure of farmland occupied; and
 5. The following subdimensions of relative advantage of the
 innovation:
 a. saving of time and effort;
 b. lower perceived risk; and
 c. degree of economic profitability.
 The following factors did not influence the adoption of hand
tractors:
 1. Size of household;
 2. Attachment to agricultural organizations;


 3. Praedial larceny;
 4. Time spent in farming;
 5. Use of family labour;
 6. Use of hired labour;
 7. Custom use of large tractor; and
 8. The relative advantage of low initial cost of the hand tractor.

 The study has shown that the hand tractor can be an acceptable
means of mechanizing small vegetable farms within the limita-
tions of its suitability to some farm operations. It is important to
note that the study did not find the high cost and scarcity of
labour as a factor influencing the adoption of the hand tractor.
This could be explained by the fact that family labour was able to
cope with the labour requirements of small farms studied.
 The rate of adoption of the innovation was not included in this
study because of the lack of individual farm records. Future work
should be done while an innovation is being adopted.


Acknowledgement
 The authors thank the participating farmers for their cooperation; Drs. R.A.I.
Brathwaite, W. Harvey and Messrs. I. Bekele and S. Harryram for technical
assistance; Miss J. Marine and Miss A. Veira for assistance in preparation of the
script; and the staff and management of Geo. F. Huggins & Co. Ltd., who made the
presentation of this paper possible. Special gratitude is hereby expressed to Professor
T.H. Henderson who inspired and guided this research work.



References
 1. Ali, R., V. Thomasos, K. Morton-Gittens, W. Augustin-Coryat, K. Beckles,
and G. Bally. 1973. Land capability studies, Phase II, Trinidad and Tobago Report
No. 3--Agriculture in County St. George, Ministry of Planning and Development,
Government of Trinidad and Tobago. p. 5.
 2. Anonymous. 1981. Walking tractors in St. Vincent, CARDI Courier 1(2):2
Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute, Information Unit,
Barbados.
 3. Carr, T.W.A. 1970. Engineering application in horticulture. First Intera-
tional Seminar on Agricultural Engineering, U.W.I. St. Augustine. p. 241.
 4. Harvey, W. O'N. 1983. Mechanization for improved crop production.
Paper presented at Agro-Tech '83. New technologies in food production for the
eighties and beyond. U.W.I. Faculty of Agriculture, St. Augustine, Trinidad and
Tobago, June 26-30, 1983.
 5. Ministry of Agriculture, Lands & Fisheries, Republic of Trinidad and
Tobago. 1979. White paper on agriculture 1978. Government Printery, Trinidad
and Tobago. 96 pp.
 6. McMillan, A.A. 1967. The development of market gardening in Aranguez,
Trinidad. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. U.W.I. Library. p. 361.


PROCEEDINGS of the CARIBBEAN FOOD CROPS SOCIETY-VOL. XX


 APPENDIX
Prices of selected tractors and attachments on the local market at December 1980.
 Make Power (kW) Attachments Price

 Wolseley 3.73 Unit with rotors $ 2,335.60
 Brushcutter 837.50
 Sicklemower 1,725.75
 Furrower 89.46
 Roadwheels 542.20

 Graveley 5.97 Unit with roadwheels 4,105.00
 Brushcutter 1,200.00
 Sicklemower 1,400.00
 Rotavator 1,300.00
 Plough 1,600.00
 Cart 1,000.00
 Ride on Seat 1,000.00
 Planting Drill 475.00

 Ford 35.06 Unit 26,577.00
 Brushcutter 3,2257.00
 Rotavator 4,220.79
 Discplough 4,395.00

 John Deere 39.54 Unit 28,500.00
 Brushcutter 3,825.00
 Discplough 4,400.00
 Rotavator 8,100.00


84