Telg, Ricky W. (author), Lundy, Lisa (author), Wandersee, Cassie (author), Mukhtar, Saqib (author), Smith, David (author), Stokes, Phillip (author), and University of Florida
Kansas State University
Texas A&M University
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2018
Published:
United States: New Prairie Press
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 1 Document Number: D10163
14 pages; Article 5, via online journal article, The Cattle and Climate Conversations Workshop for Cooperative Extension and Natural Resources Conservation Service, the last activity funded through a multi-regional United States Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA NIFA) grant, took place in October 2016 in Denver, Colorado, for Extension and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) representatives in the Southwest and Mountain West who work extensively with cattle producers. The purpose of this study was to identify how Extension agents and NRCS personnel in this workshop viewed the issue of “trust,” as it relates to communicating the topic of climate change to cattle producers. Three focus groups, comprised of 29 attendees of the workshop, were conducted simultaneously at the end of the conference. Specific themes about trust included the politically charged nature of climate change, climate change data manipulation, negativity of media surrounding climate change, weathercasters getting predictions wrong, agriculture getting a “black eye” with the public, and participants’ relationships with cattle producers. Findings indicate varying levels of distrust, related to sources of information and influence on the topic of climate change, greatly impact how and whether Extension Service and NRCS employees actually talk “climate change” to cattle producers. Based on the study’s findings, it is recommended that for Extension and NRCS employees to talk about controversial issues, like climate change, it is important to create relationships with clients. In addition, communication and education professionals working with cattle producers should avoid politicizing the topic of climate change if they want climate-related programs to be accepted.
Rumble, Joy N. (author), Rogers-Randolph, Tiffany M. (author), Buck, Emily B. (author), and The Ohio State University
University of Florida
Association for Communication Excellence
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2019
Published:
United States: New Prairie Press
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 15 Document Number: D10429
16 pages., Via online journal., The livestock industry has repeatedly struggled to effectively communicate livestock care and handling practices in order to promote awareness and acceptance. Many consumers still hold on to the historically picturesque view of production agriculture instead of the modern reality. It is necessary for the industry to identify how much is too much to tell or show consumers. Therefore, this study sought to understand the influence of two communication treatments on attitudes toward livestock care and use. Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) served as the theoretical framework for this study. A sample of 1,049 respondents was obtained through non-probability sampling. To fulfill the purpose of this study, the development of an online survey was informed by ELM and measured prior beliefs, personal involvement, and knowledge. An experimental treatment, consistent with persuasive communication within ELM, presented respondents with one of two images of cage-free egg laying housing and accompanying text. One image could be described as “historically picturesque” and the other as “modern reality.” Attitude toward livestock care and use was measured after exposure to one of the images. Respondents held favorable prior beliefs, demonstrated neutral involvement, and answered three or less knowledge questions correctly. Respondents exposed to the modern reality treatment displayed slightly lower attitudes than those exposed to the historically picturesque treatment. The results indicated that both prior beliefs and image exposure had a significant impact on attitude, while personal involvement was not found to be significant.
