13 pages, Agricultural fairs provide one of the last frontiers, and largest stages, for showcasing livestock agriculture to the public. However, public funding, attendance revenue, animal biosecurity, and public health concerns are all aspects worthy of conversation and increased research attention given the interaction between livestock animals and the general public in fair and festival settings. A prominent social media listening and data analytics platform was used to quantify online and social media chatter concerning agricultural fairs during a 27-mo period. A general search for online media referencing agricultural fair keywords was designed; social and online media mentions of agricultural fairs (n = 2,091,350 mentions) were further queried according to their reference to livestock, fair food, or the major agricultural product producing species of dairy and beef cattle (n = 68,900), poultry (n = 39,600), and swine (n = 31,250). Numbers of search results were found to be seasonal and Twitter was the single largest domain for all fair-related results; in contrast, the majority of livestock-related media was generated by news sources rather than from Twitter. On a weekly basis, the percentage of fair livestock mentions with species-specific reference was highly variable ranging from 0% to 86.8% for cattle, 0% to 85.7% for poultry, and 0% to 76.9% for swine. In addition to quantifying total search hits or mentions, the positivity/negativity of the search results was analyzed using natural language processing capabilities. The net sentiment quantified is the total percentage of positive posts minus the percentage of negative posts, which results in a necessarily bounded net sentiment between −100% and +100%. Overall net sentiment associated with mentions of agricultural fairs was positive; the topics garnering the highest positive sentiments were fair food and cattle (both 98% positive). Online discussion pertaining to agricultural fairs and swine was overall positive despite references to swine flu outbreaks. In conclusion, livestock and animal products had positive net sentiment over the time period studied, but there are multiple aspects of agricultural fairs worthy of further investigation and continued vigilance, including zoonotic disease risk and public perceptions of livestock industries.
Kim, Kacy K. (author), Williams, Jerome D. (author), and Wilcox, Gary B. (author)
Format:
Book chapter
Publication Date:
2017
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: D08832
Notes:
Pages 42-60 in Yoon, Sukki and Oh, Sangdo (eds.), Social and environmental issues in advertising. United Kingdom: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, London. 169 pages.
DeRosier, Christopher (author), Sulemana, Iddisah (author), James, Harvey S. Jr. (author), Valdivia, Corinne (author), Folk, William (author), and Smith, Randall D. (author)
Format:
Online journal article
Publication Date:
2015
Published:
SAGE Journals
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 32 Document Number: D10599
19 pages., via online journal., We empirically examine the reporting on biotechnology in Kenyan and international newspapers between 2010 and early 2014. We identify news articles that reported on biotechnology and analyze their use of words to determine whether there is a balance in the reporting of perceived risks and benefits. We also consider how the sources used in news articles and how the publication of the Séralini study of rats fed genetically modified maize affect the balance of reporting of perceived risks and benefits. We find that in Kenyan news reporting, more articles mention perceived benefits than risks, but when risks are mentioned, new articles contain more references to risks than to benefits. We also find that sources affect the reporting of perceived risks and benefits and that the Séralini study increased the likelihood that perceived risks are reported in Kenyan news reporting, but not in international newspapers.
18 pages, Digital agriculture has been developing rapidly over the past decade. However, studies have shown that the need for more ability to use these tools and the shortage of knowledge contribute to current farmer unease about digital technology. In response, this study investigated the influence of communication channels—mass media, social media, and interpersonal meetings—on farmers’ adoption, decision-making, and benefits obtained using technologies. The research uses data from 461 farmers in Brazil and 340 farmers in the United States, leaders in soybean production worldwide. The results show differences and similarities between these countries. LinkedIn has the highest positive association in Brazil between the communication channels and the digital agriculture technologies analyzed. In the United States, YouTube has the highest positive correlation. The overall influence of social media among Brazilian farmers is higher than among American farmers. The perceived benefits of using digital tools are more strongly associated with mass media communication in the United States than in Brazil. Regarding farm management decision-making, the study showed a higher relevance of interpersonal meetings in Brazil than in the United States. Findings can aid farmers, managers, academics and government decision makers to use communication channels more effectively in evaluating and adopting digital technologies.
20 pages, Knowledge of agricultural practices has declined in recent years, resulting in consumers becoming uncertain of where and how their food has been produced and the marketing tactics used to promote the product. Historically, the U.S. population’s rich agricultural heritage coincided with higher levels of agricultural literacy. Some scholars, however, have maintained that U.S. culture has begun to lose touch with its agricultural foundations. More recent evidence has demonstrated that consumers acquire knowledge about their food from various media, most notably the Internet and social media. Often these sources use incorrect information and promote food and agricultural marketing trends that may not be grounded in scientific data. In response, this historical narrative analyzed a reform effort that occurred in U.S. food labeling policy and practice in the 1900s, which contributed to food labeling issues and consumer distrust in the agricultural industry. Based on the findings of this investigation, we concluded that food labels were initially intended to provide consumers with more profound knowledge of the food they purchased. However, key legislative acts such as the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act and the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act shifted the food labeling movement into a branding device to differentiate products and brands. We recommend that agricultural practitioners explore new ways to communicate their message more effectively. We also call for producers to incorporate more personal and emotional appeals when marketing agricultural products to better compete with third-party branding efforts.
10 pages., Due to the Library's response to COVID-19, this document is currently only available through online access. If no link is provided in this record, the ACDC will make this document accessible through our collection once we are able to return to our office., This article explores some issues that have been important in the climate change mitigation debate in Australia. Findings suggest that opinion leaders believe the policy has been slow to progress due to media promotion of the uncertainty associated with climate change science, the weakness of leadership, and the political cost of unpalatable policy.
Traces the expansion in number of media options available during the past 30 years and expresses appreciation to readers for their readership of Successful Farming magazine in that competitive environment.
USA: Economic Research Service, U.S Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 30 Document Number: D10576
Notes:
37 pages., ERS staff report - No. AGEX831007. Also available online from Hathi Trust Digital Library., via library catalog., Food manufacturers spent $7 billion in advertising in 1997. Most of
this advertising focused on highly processed and highly packaged
foodswhich also tend to be the foods consumed in large quantities
in the United States relative to Federal dietary recommendations
such as the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Advertising expenditures on meat, fruits, and vegetables are negligible. In contrast, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture spent $333.3 million on nutrition
education, evaluation, and demonstrations. This is approximately
what the food industry spent on advertising just for coffee, tea, and
cocoa, or for snacks and nuts; slightly more than half (60 percent)
the amount spent on advertising for carbonated soft drinks, and less
than half the amount spent promoting beer, or candy and gum, or
breakfast cereals.
