LINDSAY K. NOBBEPURDUE UNIVERSITY

APRIL 14 , 2011

COMMITTEE:DR. NEIL KNOBLOCH

DR. MICHAEL SCHUTZDR. 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 Compariso

n

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-Determinatio

n 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

InstrumentPart Variable # of

itemsCronbach’s

αScale

Pilot

Post-hoc

1: Motivatio

ns

Health 4 .96 .92not at all = 1slightly = 2

somewhat = 3mostly = 4always = 5

Social Desire 4 .76 .72

Social Comparison 4 .89 .75

Competence 4 .90 .90

Enjoyment 4 .89 .85

2: Views

Animal Welfare Practices 6 .77 .68 strongly disagree = 1

disagree = 2agree = 3

strongly agree = 4

Environmental Care Practices

7 .83 .77

Food Safety Practices 7 .83 .74

3.1:Informatio

n

Channels Used 13 N/A N/A never = 1sometimes = 2

always = 3

3.2: Informatio

n

Sources Trusted 13 N/A N/A not at all = 1slightly = 2

somewhat = 3mostly = 4 always = 5

4 Demographics 22 N/A N/A Multiple Used

Respondents

Male38%

Female62%

Gender (n = 201)

8.2%

31.4%

34.0%

18.6%

4.1%3.6%

Age in Years (n = 194)

20-2930-3940-4950-5960-6970-79

16.7%

27.6%

20.7%

15.8%

9.9%

7.4%

Average Annual Household Income (n = 199)

< $25,000

$25,000 - $49,999

$50,000 - $74,999

$75,000 - $99,999

≥ $100,000

Prefer not to answer

Conclusion 1: Similar Views of the Dairy Industry’s Animal Welfare, Environmental Care, & Food Safety

Practices

Animal Welfare

Environmental Care

Food Safety

1 2 3 4

Nonpartic-ipants (N = 142)

Mean

Vie

ws

of

Dair

y I

nd

ust

ry

Pra

cti

ces

p = .01*d = .38

p = .03*d = .38

p = .09d = .33

Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree

Conclusion 2: Participants Were More Motivated to Attend Educational Dairy Farm Events

Health

Enjoyment

Competence

Social Desire

Social Comparison

1 2 3 4 5

Nonpartic-ipants (N = 142)

Mean

Moti

vati

on

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

Enjoyment

CompetenceHealthAg Familiarity

Animal Welfare PracticesHousehold

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

Never Sometimes Always0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Consumer Use of Family &/or Friends as Food Purchasing Information Channel

Participants (N = 48)Nonparticipants (N = 154)

Never Sometimes Always0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

Consumer Use of Educational Events as Food Purchasing In-

formation Channel

Participants (N = 48)Nonparticipants (N = 154)

p < 05*

p < 05*

Scale: 1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Always

Implications

Consumer Participation Prediction Model

More Appealing Program Development &

MarketingMore Effective &

Efficient Key Message Communication

Recommendations

Alternative Data Collection

Continuation of Theory Development

Replication in Other Contexts

COMMITTEE:DR. NEIL KNOBLOCH

DR. MICHAEL SCHUTZDR. COLLEEN BRADY

SPONSORS:INDI ANA SOYBEAN ALLIANCE

MILK PROMOTION SERVICES OF INDIANADEPT. OF YDAE

DR. NEIL KNOBLOCH

Acknowledgements

Questions & CommentsTHANK YOU!

Google Images