1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

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)

5. 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)

6. 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

7. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT RESPONDENTS Methodology

8. 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

9. Instrument PartVariable# of itemsCronbach’s αScale PilotPost-hoc 1: Motivations Health4.96.92 not at all = 1 slightly = 2 somewhat = 3 mostly = 4 always = 5 Social Desire4.76.72 Social Comparison4.89.75 Competence4.90 Enjoyment4.89.85 2: Views Animal Welfare Practices6.77.68 strongly disagree = 1 disagree = 2 agree = 3 strongly agree = 4 Environmental Care Practices7.83.77 Food Safety Practices7.83.74 3.1: 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

10. Respondents

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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.

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

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

16. Recommendations Alternative Data CollectionContinuation of Theory DevelopmentReplication in Other Contexts

17. 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

18. Questions & Comments THANK YOU! Google Images