1. Perceptions of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) Presentation by Jeff S. Sharp OLC Annual Meeting & Industry Symposium Plain City, Ohio February 24, 2003

2. Contact Information  Jeff S. Sharp  311 Ag. Admin. Bldg.  2120 Fyffe Road  Columbus, OH 43210  E-mail: sharp.123@osu.edu  Phone: 614-292-9410

3. Outline of Presentation  Project background  General ag-related findings  Livestock related attitudes  Familiarity with the issues  Level of concern about large-scale livestock  Conclusions & future plans

4. Project Background  Data are from the 2002 Version of the Ohio Survey of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Issues  A biennial survey of Ohioans funded by  OSU Department of Human & Community Resource Development  OSU Extension, OARDC, College of FAES  Focus on social issues in agriculture as they relate to the ecological paradigm

5. Survey Methodology  A stratified sample of 7,976 Ohioans was selected from rural and Urban Ohio  Response rate of 56.4% was achieved  Over 4,000 respondents

6. Survey Sample Compared to State Population Statistics  Sample closely matches 2000 Census statistics on:  gender, age (over 24), households w/ kids, employment status and household incomes  Limitations  sample had lower proportion of renters, lower # of 18-24 year olds, and lower proportion of African Americans than expected compared to state population statistics

7. Respondents by place of residence

8. Ohioans Social Links to Farming and Rural Areas

9. Parents ever owned or operated a farm

10. Grandparents ever owned or operated a farm

11. Number of farmers known

12. Observation on Ohioans Social Links to Ag.  Despite a very small proportion of Ohioans residing on farms, many Ohioans have connections to agriculture through family histories or regular social interaction  These relationships can be an important social resource—for teaching about agriculture, for garnering support, etc.

13. Views of Agriculture, Farmers and the Environment

14. Q.Overall, farming positively contributes to the quality of life in Ohio Q.Overall, farming positively contributes to the quality of life in Ohio  1% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  7% Undecided  92% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

15. Q.Ohio’s economy will suffer if it continues to lose farmers  5% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  15% Undecided  80% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

16. Q. I trust Ohio farmers to protect the environment.  12% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  29% Undecided  59% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

17. Q. Ohio farmers are generally sensitive to the concerns of nonfarm neighbors.  11% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  45% Undecided  44% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

18. Q. Environmental protection laws regulating farming practices are too strict.  19% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  59% Undecided  22% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

19. Observation on Farmers and the Environment  There is a tremendous repository of good will toward farming and farmers among Ohioans but…  There appears to be a sizable amount of indecision regarding farming’s impact on the environment  The Ohio Survey will be monitoring this indecision to identify any trends

20. Ohioans Views of Large-Scale Livestock and Poultry

21. Familiarity with Livestock Issues  Respondents were asked: Are you familiar with the issues associated with large-scale poultry and livestock facilities?  33 percent of respondents indicated “yes”  67 percent indicated “no”

22. Familiarity by place of residence

23. Familiarity by region of the state

24. Concern about livestock  How concerned are you about the development of large-scale poultry and livestock production facilities in Ohio?  21 percent very concerned  51 percent somewhat concerned  28 percent not at all concerned

25. Concern among those familiar with the issues  Concern was higher among those indicating they were familiar with the issues  34 percent very concerned  51 percent somewhat concerned  15 percent not at all concerned

26. Level of Concern by region (among those familiar with the issues)

27. Level of Concern by age (among those familiar with the issues)

28. Observations on Familiarity & Concern  Very strong regional pattern to who was familiar with the issue in 2002  Some association between age and level of concern  Also find that persons living in cities, and persons aware of a livestock facility near where they live also express higher levels of concern

29. Ohioans Attitudes about livestock among those familiar w/ the issue

30. Q. Large-scale poultry and livestock production facilities in rural areas are a threat to rural quality of life.  22% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  19% Undecided  59% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

31. Q. There needs to be increased regulation of livestock production in Ohio to protect the environment.  17% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  26% Undecided  57% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

32. Q. Large-scale poultry and livestock facilities pose a serious threat to water and stream quality in Ohio  11% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  18% Undecided  71% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

33. Q. Odors are the most serious problem with large-scale poultry and livestock facilities in Ohio  43 percent Strongly Disagree or Disagree  16 percent Undecided  42 percent Agree or Strongly Agree

34. Q. Large-scale livestock facilities positively contribute to the economy of Ohio.  13% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  27% Undecided  60% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

35. Q. In general, increased regulation of the treatment of animals in farming is needed.  34% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  23% Undecided  43% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

36. Q. Animal agriculture raises serious ethical questions about the treatment of animals  37% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  29% Undecided  34% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

37. Observations on Ohioans Attitudes of Livestock  There is substantial concern about the environmental impacts of large-scale livestock  Additional analysis shows that Ohioans that view economic benefits of livestock have lower environmental concerns

38. Observations (cont.)  Livestock welfare concern is mixed among Ohioans, but is found to have a modest impact on overall levels of concern about livestock developments

39. Concluding Observations  Through 2002 this was a regional issue  “Social capital” (trust and networks among farmers and nonfarmers) is associated with lower concern  Family histories associated with agriculture appears to temper some concern

40. Concluding Observations on Livestock (cont.)  As we track this issue into the future, will recent changes in the regulatory environment impact environmental concerns  Will also be tracking animal welfare concern, how is it changing and is it influencing other views or behaviors

41. Future plans of interest  The 2004 version of the Ohio Survey of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Issues is currently in development  Some questions related to livestock concern and animal welfare concern will be repeated from 2002  Results from this project should begin to be available in Fall of 2004.

42. Future Plans (cont.)  New project, under leadership of Bob Birkenholz and Bill Flinn, to conduct case study research examining differences between contested and less contested large-scale livestock developments in Ohio  Collect both interview and survey data in select communities to understand social dimensions of why facilities are opposed or not.