Participation in an Educational Dairy Farm Event Related

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

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

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

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

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

Review of Literature Agritourist Motivations • Experiencing agriculture, participating in adventure, relaxing, & leisure enjoyment (Carpio et al. , 2006; Miller, 2006) Environmental Care Views • Closer residents were more likely to complain (Jones et al. , n. d. ) • Water & soil contamination were greatest dairy farm complaint Animal Welfare Views Food Safety Views (Jones et al. , n. d. ) • 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) • 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)

Methodology DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT RESPONDENTS

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 Part 1: Motivations 2: Views 3. 1: Information Variable # of items Cronbach’s α Pilot Post-hoc Health 4 . 96 . 92 Social Desire 4 . 76 . 72 Social Comparison 4 . 89 . 75 Competence 4 . 90 Enjoyment 4 . 89 . 85 Animal Welfare Practices 6 . 77 . 68 Environmental Care Practices 7 . 83 . 77 Food Safety Practices 7 . 83 . 74 Channels Used 13 N/A never = 1 sometimes = 2 always = 3 Sources Trusted 13 N/A not at all = 1 slightly = 2 somewhat = 3 mostly = 4 always = 5 Demographics 22 N/A Multiple Used 3. 2: Information 4 Scale not at all = 1 slightly = 2 somewhat = 3 mostly = 4 always = 5 strongly disagree = 1 disagree = 2 agree = 3 strongly agree = 4

Respondents Age in Years (n =Income 194) (n = 199) Average Annual Household Gender (n = 201) 4. 1% 3. 6% 7. 4% 8. 2% 16. 7% 9. 9% 18. 6% 15. 8% Female 62% 20. 7% 34. 0% < $25, 000 - $49, 999 20 -29 $50, 000 - $74, 999 30 -39 Male - $99, 999 40 -49 38%$75, 000 31. 4% 50 -59 ≥ $100, 000 60 -69 Prefer not to answer 27. 6% 70 -79

Views of Dairy Industry Practices Conclusion 1: Similar Views of the Dairy Industry’s Animal Welfare, Environmental Care, & Food Safety Practices Food Safety p =. 01* d =. 38 Environmental Care p =. 03* d =. 38 Animal Welfare p =. 09 d =. 33 1 2 3 Nonparticipants (N = 142) Participants (N = 44) 4 Mean Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree

Motivation Conclusion 2: Participants Were Motivated to Attend Educational Dairy Farm Events Social Comparison p <. 01* d =. 52 Social Desire p <. 01* d =. 61 Competence p <. 01* d =. 62 Enjoyment p <. 01* d =. 94 Health p <. 01* d =. 54 1 2 3 4 Nonparticipants (N = 142) Participants (N = 44) 5 Mean Scale: 1 = not at all, 2 = slightly, 3 = somewhat, 4 = mostly, 5 = always

Conclusion 3: Prediction of Consumer Participation Health Ag Familiarity Animal Welfare Practices Competence Enjoyment Participation Household Consumed ≥ 3 Gallons Milk/Week 73. 0% of original grouped cases correctly classified with this model.

Conclusion 4: Differences in Food Purchasing Information Channels Consumer Use of Family of Educational &/or Friends Events as as Food Purchasing Information Channel 90. 0% 80. 0% 70. 00% 70. 0% 60. 0% 50. 0% 60. 00% 50. 00% Participants (N = 48) Nonparticipants (N (N = = 154) 40. 0% 40. 00% 30. 00% 20. 00% 10. 00% Never Sometimes Always Scale: 1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Always p < 05*

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

Recommendations Alternative Data Collection Continuation of Theory Development Replication in Other Contexts

Acknowledgements 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

Questions & Comments THANK YOU! Google Images