United States: Texas Tech Univeristy, Lubbock, Texas
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 204 Document Number: D12460
Notes:
115 pages, Lab grown meat is a new technology being developed as a potential alternative protein source. Although some research has been done about public perception of lab grown meat, no studies to date have analyzed social media content regarding this topic. Still yet, no studies have observed the effects of message themes on public perception of lab grown meat. This two-part study first sought to analyze the Twitter messages discussing lab grown meat using Meltwater, a social media monitoring software. Secondly, the study sought to better understand measures of uncertainty and risk and benefit perceptions after viewing a themed blog post about lab grown meat. In part one, a relevant keyword search from August 28, 2018 to February 28, 2019 collected over 11,000 Twitter messages. Sentiment of messages was analyzed with 47% of messages being neutral. Meltwater identified trending themes that were all closely tied to lab grown meat, and top content posters with the most amount of potential reach were identified. All top posters were found to be news entities or organizations instead of personal Twitter accounts. In part two, participants were randomly assigned one of three themed blog posts against lab grown meat, neutral, or support lab grown meat. Perception questions were asked after viewing the blog post, and a total of 238 responses were collected. Results indicated message theme had a statistically significant effect on risk perception, benefit perception, and intention to share, but not on message evaluation or measures of uncertainty. Further discussion as well as suggestions for future research are included.
Authors emphasize how factors that influence media coverage of climate science intertwine and diverge in the United States and United Kingdom. Journalism and public concerns have shaped decisions in climate science and policy , just as climate science and policy have shaped media reporting and public understanding.
Discourse about industrial animal agriculture contributing to global climate change. Examines how interest groups have responded to the release of "Livestock's Long Shadow," a 2006 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
29 pages., Online via ResearchgGate., This study linked an analysis of media content in five countries to a survey of the authors of articles reported in those countries. "It finds that climate journalism has moved beyond the norm of balance towards a more interpretive pattern of journalism. Quoting contrarian voices still is part of transnational climate coverage, but these quotes are contextualized with a dismissal of climate change denial." Researchers concluded that coverage is overlooking "the more relevant debates about climate change."
22pgs, In nine of the last 10 years, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reported that the average funds generated on-farm for farm operators to meet living expenses and debt obligations have been negative. This paper pieces together disparate data to understand why farm operators in the most productive agricultural systems on the planet are systematically losing money. The data-driven narrative we present highlights some troubling trends in US farm operator livelihoods. Though US farms are more productive than ever before, rising input costs, volatile production values, and rising land rents have left farmers with unprecedented levels of farm debt, low on-farm incomes, and high reliance on federal programs. For many US farm operators, the indicators of a “good livelihood”—stability, security, equitable rewards for work—are largely absent. We conclude by proposing three axes of intervention that would help US agriculture better sustain all farmers' livelihoods, a crucial step toward improving overall agricultural sustainability: (1) increase the diversity of people, crops, and cropping systems, (2) improve equity in access to land, support, and capital, and (3) improve the quality, accessibility, and content of data to facilitate monitoring of multiple indicators of agricultural “success.”.
