LINDSAY K. NOBBE PURDUE UNIVERSITY APRIL 14, 2011 COMMITTEE: DR. NEIL KNOBLOCH DR. MICHAEL SCHUTZ DR. COLLEEN BRADY Participation in an Educational Dairy.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Ad Hoc Working Group on The World at 7 Billion and Beyond: Promoting a Forward-Looking Vision of People-Centred Development POSSIBLE ROLE FOR FAO relating.
Advertisements

Copyright 2010, The World Bank Group. All Rights Reserved. Importance and Uses of Agricultural Statistics Section B 1.
Australian Livestock ID Systems: What Can We Learn? Prepared by: Glynn T. Tonsor Dept. of Agricultural Economics Michigan State University Ted C. Schroeder.
Through a nationwide telephone survey Bailey Norwood and Jayson Lusk Funding Provided By American Farm Bureau Talking With Consumers About Farm Animal.
Evaluating Minnesota’s Subsurface Sewage Treatment (SSTS) Professional Experience Program Nicholas Haig.
8. Evidence-based management Step 3: Critical appraisal of studies
Marketing Strategies for Pasture-Based Animal Products David S. Conner, Ph.D. Research Specialist C.S. Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems Michigan.
Ohioans & Agriculture: The Social Dimensions Membership Committee, OFBF Board of Trustees Jeff S. Sharp, Ohio State University October 25, 2006.
Findings of MGSP 2008 Survey 2008 MGSP Kickoff 28 October 2008.
Survey Research Measuring Environmental Consciousness and it’s Relationship to Green Behaviors and Sustainable Lifestyles.
Perceptions of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) Presentation by Jeff S. Sharp OLC Annual Meeting & Industry Symposium Plain City, Ohio February.
What Ohioans Think About Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Issues Presentation by Jeff S. Sharp Rural Sociological Summit Columbus, Ohio December 12,
Preliminary Results of MGSP 2008 Survey Center for Economic Analysis Michigan State University 29 July 2008.
Public Relations in College Athletics An Examination of Athletic Directors’ Perceptions of the Role of Public Relations in a College Athletic Department.
Ohioans Views of Agriculture & Local Foods 28 th Annual OEFFA Conference Jeff S. Sharp, Ohio State University March 3, 2007.
A Comparative Analysis of Technical Efficiency of Tobacco and Maize Farmers in Tabora- Tanzania A.Kidane; A.Hepelwa; E.Ngeh & T. W. Hu This study was supported.
Environmental Services from Organic Agricultural System: Policies Promoting Sustainable Agriculture Thanwa Jitsanguan, Ph.D. Bhantinee Sootsukon,Ph.D.
Marketing Information and Research
The Challenges of Information Management in Farm Businesses Tomohiro UCHIYAMA, PhD Research Associate Mie University, Japan.
Group Work  What IEC materials do you use in the community? (type – title)  What is the target audience?  Where is it found?  Which behavior is it.
CHARACTERISTICS AND VOLUNTEERING BEHAVIORS OF PURDUE MASTER GARDENER INTERNS AND MASTER GARDENERS ELIZABETH A. GALL MASTER’S THESIS PRESENTATION.
Motivations of Students in a Freshman Computations and Communications Course Jennifer Kruse, Dr. Dennis Buckmaster, Dr. Natalie Carroll, Dr. Neil Knobloch.
Institute for Transport Studies FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT Institute for Transport Studies FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT Why don’t more people cycle in the city:
Perceived Constraints by Students to Participation in Campus Recreational Sports.
Dr. Pornsri Laurujisawat 9April 09 1Dr.Pornsri Laurujisawat8/25/2015.
Bill Knudson, Marketing Economist MSU Product Center for Agriculture and Natural Resources Overview of Demand for Alternative Pork Products.
1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) IHC Seoul 2006 FAO-MAF Korea Joint Workshop Enhancing Production and Consumption of Safe.
Niaz Ahmed Bhutto, Raheel Ahmed Narejo, Falahuddin Butt, Abdul Samad Shaikh and Rinkal Virwani.
What Ohioans Think About Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Issues South Extension District Jackson, OH February 21, 2003.
Methods of Media Research Communication covers a broad range of topics. Also it draws heavily from other fields like sociology, psychology, anthropology,
Survey conducted by: National Research Center, Inc th St. Boulder, CO (303) The National Citizen Survey™ LOWER PROVIDENCE.
Poverty measurement: experience of the Republic of Moldova UNECE, Measuring poverty, 4 May 2015.
HOW TO WRITE RESEARCH PROPOSAL BY DR. NIK MAHERAN NIK MUHAMMAD.
What Ohioans Think About Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Issues Presentation by Jeff S. Sharp and Mark Tucker Communications and Technology College.
REVERSE LOGISTICS PRACTICES IN FOOD PROCESSING FIRMS IN NAIROBI
MSU Extension 4-H Field Staff Perceptions of Area of Expertise Teams Elizabeth Scott Doctoral Candidate Agriculture and Extension Education.
Ohioans Views of Livestock: Data from a Statewide Survey Presentation by Jeff S. Sharp OCAMM Columbus, Ohio April 23, 2002.
What Ohioans Think about Agriculture 2007 OLC Annual Meeting & Industry Symposium Jeff S. Sharp, Ohio State University April 3, 2007.
Surveys Presenters: Michael Ames Connor, Lisa McConachie, Meredith Michaud, Donna Webb.
What Ohioans Think About Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Issues Northwest Extension District Findlay, OH November 15, 2002.
Bloom’s Taxonomy Ceanlia Vermeulen.
The Case for Local Foods Mid-Ohio Valley: Ag. Opportunities Conference Jeff S. Sharp, Ohio State University March 17, 2007.
Tirhani Masia University of Venda South Africa
Key Principles for Preparing the DCSD Community Plan 1.Integration – Social, Economic, Environmental Well-being focused on outcomes and people centred.
Unit 1: Introduction to Agriculture. Objectives 1.1 Define terminology 1.2 Determine the impact of agriculture on Arkansas' economy. (rice, soybeans,
M & E TOOLKIT Jennifer Bogle 11 November 2014 Household Water Treatment and Water Safety Plans International and Regional Landscape.
Individual Decision Making Various type of Consumer Problem Solving By Levi Spencer Caleb Pierce.
® ® Focus on Place Types. ® ® Focus on: Approach and Classification Transitions Guidance.
Globally Speaking: The Effect of Internal Message Frames on Attitudes and Cognitive Processing Focused on Internationalizing Agricultural Extension within.
We drive progress in milk production.. Whatever your need, please think first of DeLaval. We aim to always be there, always available, always working.
Characterizing Local and Organic Food Consumers Ohio River Valley Farm Marketing Conference February 23, 2005 Mason, OH.
What Ohioans Think About Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Issues Presentation by Jeff S. Sharp 2003 OEFFA Conference Johnstown, OH March 8, 2003.
Attitudes Toward Food Safety and the Food System Andrew J. Knight, Michelle R. Worosz, Craig K. Harris, and Ewen C.D. Todd Food Safety Policy Center, Michigan.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.
Social Marketing Social Marketing’s Distinguishing Features Case Studies: Food Thermometer Education Evaluating a Social Marketing Intervention: Cardiff.
Evaluation of Psychosocial Support Services for Adolescent and Young Adult Patients at Roswell Park Cancer Institute Allison Polakiewicz, MPA Project Proposal.
2004 National Public Opinion Survey April 5, 2004 Consumers Attitudes About Animal Welfare.
Geographic Mystery Why are dairy farms disappearing?
High School Students’ Motivations and Views of Agriculture and Agricultural Careers upon Completion of a Pre- College Program Kaylie Scherer April 28,
FTO Communications Amy Roady Communications Director Illinois Soybean Association Funded by the Illinois soybean checkoff.
Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnology In the United States in William K. Hallman, PhD. Food Policy Institute Rutgers University.
John Stephanis Managing Director - Selonda S.A. President - FEAP.
Orland Park, IL Key Findings 2016 The NCS is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA.
Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture in Community Development: Lessons from Iowa Corry Bregendahl and Cornelia Flora North Central Regional Center.
U.S. Agriculture: A Changing System
BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS
Controlling Measuring Quality of Patient Care
Iowa State University Extension and Outreach Ag and Natural Resources Spring Training 2018: Facing the Big Questions April 2, 2018.
The Community as a Client: Assessment and Diagnosis
Marketing Strategies for Pasture-Based Animal Products
Presentation transcript:

LINDSAY K. NOBBE PURDUE UNIVERSITY APRIL 14, 2011 COMMITTEE: DR. NEIL KNOBLOCH DR. MICHAEL SCHUTZ DR. COLLEEN BRADY Participation in an Educational Dairy Farm Event Related to Consumers’ Motivations & Views of Dairy Production

Introduction <2% of American population actively involved in agriculture (Arkansas Foundation for Agriculture, 2006) Questioning production practices & safety (Tucker, Whaley, Sharp, 2005; Doerfert et al., 2005) Dwindling Food Supply Confidence Consumer knowledge & confidence in food products & production (MPSI, 2010b; United Soybean Board, 2011) Improve consumer diet (MPSI, 2010b; United Soybean Board, 2011) Inform food purchasing decisions Agricultural Educational Programs Brunch on the Farm Successful based on anecdotal evidence ONLY Example: Dairy Industry

Purpose of the Study To explain & predict consumers’ participation in an educational dairy farm event based on: Motivations Views Channels Sources Dairy Consumption RQ 1 RQ 2 & 3 RQ 4

Conceptual Framework Brunch on the Farm Attendance Consumer Motivations Consumer Views of Dairy Industry Enjoyment Social Desire Social Comparison Competence Health Animal Welfare Practices Environmental Care Practices Food Safety Practices (Deci & Ryan, 1991)(Wimberley et al., 2003)

Theoretical Framework Individuals are active & naturally strive for self-growth, mastery of challenges, & integration of new experiences Focus in education, psychotherapy, work, & sports Self- Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1991) Values: refer to desirable goals, transform actions into situations, are the standards by which actions are determined & judged, and are prioritized Minimal research Basic Human Values Theory (Schwartz, 1996)

Review of Literature Experiencing agriculture, participating in adventure, relaxing, & leisure enjoyment (Carpio et al., 2006; Miller, 2006) Agritourist Motivations Closer residents were more likely to complain (Jones et al., n.d. ) Water & soil contamination were greatest dairy farm complaint (Jones et al., n.d. ) Environmental Care Views Most research on actual animal welfare practices, not views (Center for Food Economics Research [CFER], 2001) Animal welfare important to Indiana consumers (Truitt, 2010) Farmers are responsible for proper treatment (Truitt, 2010) Animal Welfare Views No studies focused on dairy products Bacterial contamination & pesticide residues were a food concern (Jones et al., n.d.) Consumers want to know about practices used to produce safe food (Food Systems Insider, 2010) Food Safety Views

DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT RESPONDENTS Methodology

Data Collection Simple Random Sample (1,201 households)  N = 565 (36% response rate)  Participants (n = 48)  Non-participants (n = 154) Geographic area (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010)  Largest City Pop. = 17,800  Smallest Town Pop. = <200 Mail survey (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009)  4 mailings  8 weeks (Sept.-Nov.) Non-response error was controlled

Instrument PartVariable# of itemsCronbach’s αScale PilotPost-hoc 1: Motivations Health not at all = 1 slightly = 2 somewhat = 3 mostly = 4 always = 5 Social Desire Social Comparison Competence4.90 Enjoyment : Views Animal Welfare Practices strongly disagree = 1 disagree = 2 agree = 3 strongly agree = 4 Environmental Care Practices Food Safety Practices : Information Channels Used13N/A never = 1 sometimes = 2 always = 3 3.2: Information Sources Trusted13N/A not at all = 1 slightly = 2 somewhat = 3 mostly = 4 always = 5 4 Demographics22N/A Multiple Used

Respondents

Conclusion 1: Similar Views of the Dairy Industry’s Animal Welfare, Environmental Care, & Food Safety Practices Mean Views of Dairy Industry Practices p =.01* d =.38 p =.03* d =.38 p =.09 d =.33 Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree

Conclusion 2: Participants Were More Motivated to Attend Educational Dairy Farm Events Mean Motivation p <.01* d =.52 p <.01* d =.61 p <.01* d =.62 p <.01* d =.94 p <.01* d =.54 Scale: 1 = not at all, 2 = slightly, 3 = somewhat, 4 = mostly, 5 = always

Participation EnjoymentCompetenceHealth Ag Familiarity Animal Welfare Practices Household Consumed ≥3 Gallons Milk/Week Conclusion 3: Prediction of Consumer Participation 73.0% of original grouped cases correctly classified with this model.

Conclusion 4: Differences in Food Purchasing Information Channels p < 05* Scale: 1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Always

Implications Consumer Participation Prediction Model More Appealing Program Development & Marketing More Effective & Efficient Key Message Communication

Recommendations Alternative Data CollectionContinuation of Theory DevelopmentReplication in Other Contexts

COMMITTEE: DR. NEIL KNOBLOCH DR. MICHAEL SCHUTZ DR. COLLEEN BRADY SPONSORS: INDIANA SOYBEAN ALLIANCE MILK PROMOTION SERVICES OF INDIANA DEPT. OF YDAE DR. NEIL KNOBLOCH Acknowledgements

Questions & Comments THANK YOU! Google Images