10 pages, This study was carried out to reveal the sources of communication and social network of organic and conventional hazelnut producers in Samsun province. The primary and basic material of the study is the data obtained from the surveys, interviews and observations of the organic and conventional hazelnut producers in Çamlıca, Yüksekyayla villages and Ağcagüney town. Both producer groups were compared in terms of their social networks and communication channels especially on the use of different fertilizers by making suggestions on how to develop it. The results of the research showed that socio-economic status of the organic hazelnut producers was better than conventional producers in terms of land size, income, cooperation capacity, risk management and agricultural supports. Social Network Analysis (SNA) has shown the graphs of communication networks among the producers, their relationships with different public, private and mass media information sources and especially revealed leader farmers whom functioned as source of information transfer (or even blocker) among them. The relationships in organic hazelnut producers’ communication network in the village are strong, dense and information sources are varied. On the contrary, the relationships in communication network of conventional hazelnut producers were looser, strong and information sources were uniform. The main source of technical information for both groups of producers was the experienced leader farmers; as for organic producers, the heads of the local organic producers' union was the main information source in terms of commercial, legal and organizational aspects. In other words, both organic and conventional producers rely on knowledge and experience of producers who take on the role of opinion leader within the village. Therefore, innovation and knowledge transfer to farmers can be delivered through these opinion leaders. As a result of the research, it can be said that institutional information sources do not adequately support organic and conventional hazelnut growers. Thus, organic producers developed their local knowledge source based on their on-farm trials and experiences and shared this knowledge within their peer groups. However, this information needs to be supported with scientific findings.
6 pages., Gene editing (GE) and gene modification (GM) technologies demonstrate noticeable differences. GE technologies introduce changes in DNA, which are intrinsic to the species, while GM technologies incorporate changes from foreign species. The potential benefits of GE have been highlighted in a number of recent scientific studies, pointing to the opportunities that are opening up in addressing the food availability problems as a result of the growing world population. However, the implementation of GE technology in food production would rely on public awareness, acceptance, and attitudes toward genetically modified and genetically edited food products. Based on the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), we surveyed Lithuanian consumers, farmers, and producers for their awareness, attitudes, and behavioural intentions towards GM and GE food. The 251 consumers, 50 farmers, and 56 food producers participated in the survey. Consistent across all samples (consumers, farmers, and producers, respectively), GM technology-related products’ self-assed awareness was significantly higher than the level of self-assed awareness of GE products. Awareness of GEO in all samples is relatively low. The level of support for GMO and GEO is also low in all groups of respondents. All groups – consumers, farmers, and producers – are less negative about food produced from GE than from GM raw materials. There was a statistically significantly higher overall likelihood for future use of GEO than the GMO. Producers would be less likely than consumers and farmers to use GMOs in the future. The same inclinations are observed with regard to GEO, with statistically significant differences in the sample of consumers, farmers, and producers.
16 pages, Poultry production holds an important place in Arkansas economically and as a food source. The viability of poultry production ultimately hinges on consumer demand and the perceptions that drive their purchases. With this in mind, this study surveyed consumers to assess their perceptions of poultry production in Arkansas. The instrument used to survey consumers was created by the researcher and an expert committee at the University of Arkansas. Consumers were surveyed through direct communication at grocery stores in Northwest Arkansas. Data gathered from the study were analyzed using descriptive and correlational statistics. Consumers were uncertain as to whether or not conventionally produced poultry possessed unsafe levels of antibiotics and hormones (M = 3.68, SD = 1.45). Consumers also thought the majority of poultry farms in Arkansas were factory farms (M = 4.15, SD = 1.37). Consumers perceived organic poultry as a more healthy food than conventionally produced poultry (M = 4.47, SD = 1.39). Based on these results, specific recommendations were made to maintain the viability of poultry production in Arkansas. Marketing and communication efforts should be tailored to improve consumer understanding of antibiotic and hormone use in poultry production and the healthiness of conventionally produced poultry. Messaging and marketing should depict the reality of conventional poultry production, and agricultural communicators should work to improve logic and reason for combating campaigns that misinform the public about agriculture. This research also highlights the need for further research to better understand the ways consumers develop perceptions of poultry production.
Scopus via University of Illinois online catalog - article subject search. 1 page., This study examined the impacts of farming demonstration events on participants. Findings identified five factors important for the success of demonstration events.
