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, 2010b; United Soybean
Example:
Dairy Industry
2006)
• Questioning production practices & safety
(Tucker, Whaley, Sharp, 2005; Doerfert et al., 2005)
Board, 2011)
• Improve consumer diet (MPSI, 2010b; 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
SelfDetermination
Theory
• 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
• Values: refer to desirable goals, transform
actions into situations, are the standards
by which actions are determined &
judged, and are prioritized
• Minimal research
(Deci & Ryan, 1991)
(Schwartz, 1996)
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
.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
N/A
never = 1
sometimes = 2
always = 3
Sources Trusted
13
N/A
N/A
not at all = 1
slightly = 2
somewhat = 3
mostly = 4
always = 5
Demographics
22
N/A
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%
7.4%
3.6%
8.2%
16.7%
9.9%
18.6%
15.8%
Female
62%
20.7%
34.0%
< $25,000
$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 More 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
of Educational
Events
Consumer
UseUse
of Family
&/or Friends
as as
Food
Food
Purchasing
Information
Channel
Purchasing
Information
Channel
90.0% 80.00%
80.0% 70.00%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
60.00%
50.00%
Participants
Participants
(N =(N = 48)
48)
Nonparticipants (N =
Nonparticipants
(N =154)
154)
40.0% 40.00%
30.0% 30.00%
20.0% 20.00%
10.0% 10.00%
0.0%
0.00%
Never
Never
Sometimes
Sometimes
Always
Always
Scale: 1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Always
p < 05*
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