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.
