20 pages, Several U.S. federal government agencies collect and disseminate scientific data on a national scale to provide insights for agricultural trade, research, consumer health, and policy. Occasionally, such data have potential to provide insights to advance conversations and actions around critical and controversial issues in the broad agricultural system. Such government studies provide evidence for others to discuss, further interpret, and act upon, but to do so, they must be communicated well. When the research intersects with contentious socio-political issues, successful communication not only depends on tactics, but as this study illuminates, it also depends on relationship quality between research producers, study participants, and end-users. USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) conducted first-of-its kind national studies on cattle and swine producers’ use of antimicrobials. The use of antimicrobials in animal agriculture is considered a critical and controversial issue pertaining to antimicrobial resistance. In recognition of the anticipated wide-ranging interests in these studies, APHIS sought to understand stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences of the federal government research process and products with aim of improving their science communication and relations. This study reports on findings from in-depth interviews with 14 stakeholders involved in the antimicrobial use studies to make recommendations for improving communication and relations between the agency and its stakeholders. From this research, we draw implications that are transferrable to numerous types of government science communication efforts within agricultural sectors.
20 pgs., Several U.S. federal government agencies collect and disseminate scientific data on a national scale to provide insights for agricultural trade, research, consumer health, and policy. Occasionally, such data have potential to provide insights to advance conversations and actions around critical and controversial issues in the broad agricultural system. Such government studies provide evidence for others to discuss, further interpret, and act upon, but to do so, they must be communicated well. When the research intersects with contentious socio-political issues, successful communication not only depends on tactics, but as this study illuminates, it also depends on relationship quality between research producers, study participants, and end-users. USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) conducted first-of-its kind national studies on cattle and swine producers’ use of antimicrobials. The use of antimicrobials in animal agriculture is considered a critical and controversial issue pertaining to antimicrobial resistance. In recognition of the anticipated wide-ranging interests in these studies, APHIS sought to understand stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences of the federal government research process and products with aim of improving their science communication and relations. This study reports on findings from in-depth interviews with 14 stakeholders involved in the antimicrobial use studies to make recommendations for improving communication and relations between the agency and its stakeholders. From this research, we draw implications that are transferrable to numerous types of government science communication efforts within agricultural sectors.
4 pgs., Objective: The Western Center for Agricultural Health and Safety (WCAHS) at the University of California, Davis implemented a multifaceted rapid response to COVID-19 in the western United States. This paper describes the center's response from mid-March through June 30, 2020. Methods: A comprehensive needs assessment was conducted with agricultural stakeholders. Agriculture-specific COVID-19 resources were developed and disseminated, and a farmer/employer survey was launched. Results: The WCAHS COVID-19 resources web page, worksite checklist, and training guide were shared on over 50 web pages nationally. As of June 30, 2020, 282 online surveys have been received. Ongoing informal discussions with agricultural stakeholders indicate a disconnect between the experiences of farmers/employers and farmworkers in relation to COVID-19 prevention at the worksite. Initial survey responses indicate that implementing social distancing is one of the greatest challenges at the worksite. Confusion over local, state, and federal guidelines and which to follow is another concern. Conclusion: The WCAHS response to COVID-19, in close collaboration with agricultural stakeholders, represents a useful model for a rapid response to a public health crisis by regional centers. Key elements to its success include rapid personalized communication with a wide range of agricultural stakeholders, an actively engaged External Advisory Board, the development of industry-specific resources and information, recurring and iterative engagement with stakeholders as new COVID-19 information emerged and resources were developed, and the identification of the unique gap WCAHS was positioned to fill. The multipronged dissemination approach enhanced the reach of WCAHS COVID-19 resources.
