12 pages., via online journal, Animal welfare and environmental impacts have been emphasized in the sustainable production of livestock. Labels are useful tools for clearly providing such attribute information to consumers. The aim of this study was to evaluate how human values influence consumer segments for beef with information on animal welfare and environmentally friendly production. Using a choice experiment, we examined whether animal welfare and environmentally friendly labels, country of origin and price impact consumer choice. As results, five heterogeneous consumer classes were identified using a latent class model: label conscious, domestic beef preferring, price conscious, animal welfare preferring and not interested in production method. Almost 90% of consumers were interested in and willing to pay for beef with animal welfare or environmentally friendly label. The classes with significant preferences for such labeled beef were affected by “openness to change”, “self-enhancement” and “security”. Improving consumer attitudes and strengthening consumer perception towards labeled beef by marketers and policy makers will be required.
Chris Clemons (author), James R. Lindner (author), Bruce Murray (author), Mike P. Cook (author), Brandon Sams (author), and Gwendolyn Williams (author)
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2018-04-15
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 149 Document Number: D10105
Via online issue. Pgs. 283-252, The purpose of the study was to examine the confluence of agricultural literacy, what it means to
be agriculturally literate, and if a gap between agricultural literacy and being agriculturally
literate existed. Two primary research questions framed this study: 1) How do agriculture
professionals define agricultural literacy? 2) What does it mean to be agriculturally literate? While
the terms literacy and literate are often used synonymously they have important and different
meanings. This study used the Delphi Study Technique for determining consensus. The Delphi panel
consisted of engaged agricultural professionals from seven states. These professions represented
a broad spectrum of agricultural careers and experience. Each panel member was recognized as
a leader in his or her field. The findings indicated that participants did not discern a difference
between agricultural literacy and being agriculturally literate in regards to reading, writing, and
speaking about agriculture. This study supports the conclusion that the terms agriculturally literate
and agricultural literacy are used interchangeably. Agricultural professional may not be aware of
the inherent differences between possessing agricultural literacy and being agriculturally literate.
