Step Up, Speak Out

In my last Industry Insights post, we talked about the “Crate Debate.” This is just one of a handful of animal welfare debates facing our industry, and recent research from Purdue University yielded some “red flag” results for pork producers. Dr. Nicole Olynk Widmar (Agricultural Economics), Dr. Candace Croney (Animal Science) and Melissa McKendree (Agricultural Economics) conducted a survey of U.S. consumers related to perceptions of livestock – specifically pork – production. What they found may come as a shock.

Of the 798 survey participants, nearly one-third had never been to a farm that raised animals for the food system, and only 31 percent had visited such a farm within the last five years – which is representative of the nearly 98 percent of Americans who are not directly involved in agricultural production.

These researchers also looked at the consumers’ sources of information regarding animal welfare issues. This chart breaks down the responses:



http://nationalhogfarmer.com/animal-well-being/consumer-survey-outlines-pork-perception-issues

There are a few important take-away messages from this.

 

When asked which sources they frequented the most, they cited the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). In fact, more people turned to the HSUS and PETA for animal welfare information than industry groups, government agencies and scientific sources combined. (Source)

 

This is not good news for those of us in animal agriculture. However, there is another number that caught my eye...

 

56% of respondents indicated that they did not have a source for animal welfare information. (Source)

 

This tells us that there is an untapped group of consumers that we can reach with the positive story about pork production. Why is this important?

 

Fourteen percent of consumers stated that they had reduced pork consumption by an average of 56 percent from their previous consumption over the past three years due to animal welfare concerns. (Source)

 

If these numbers are a true reflection of the U.S. population, that adds up to a lot of pork! And at the end of the day, the concern is both the ineffectiveness of communication between the ag industry and consumers, as well as the effectiveness of the messages coming from animal welfare organizations. 

 

This is not to say we are not trying to improve our connection with consumers. In fact, in the latest issue of Seedstock EDGE, you will find a story about Operation Main Street – a training platform introduced by The Pork Checkoff in 2004. Through this program, swine producers across the nation are connected with local community groups to present information about modern pork production. This has become a forum where consumers can ask specific questions about production practices, the safety of pork and other important topics in the swine industry.

 

This is just one example of many where the agricultural community is reaching out to educate consumers about what exactly it is we do. As we move forward, it will be important to keep asking ourselves not if we are doing enough, but also if we are doing it the right way. If one method of communication doesn’t seem to be helping us reach our audience, we will have to change our tactics. Otherwise, that 56% could swing the other way.

 

Click here to read the article on the National Hog Farmer website, which also covers survey results regarding the concern toward different segments of operation within the swine industry and opinions toward specific production practices.

 

What do you think we need to do to reach consumers with the story of pork production? To share your thoughts, comment below or shoot me an e-mail. Find my contact info here. 

Industry Insights: Marking the Morrill Act

Most of the year, I call my home Madison, Wis. In the heart of the University of Wisconsin campus, cresting Bascom Hill, sits a statue honoring a man most Americans would agree was a visionary leader – Abraham Lincoln.

He is not emblazoned at the University of Wisconsin for his role in holding together a divided country through what was arguably one of its most tumultuous eras, though he could be. The reason he’s honored there is for his role in shaping not only our university, but modern agriculture.

During the dark days of the Civil War, 150 years ago this month, Lincoln signed the Morrill Act, legislation that created the land-grant university system, into law. The act granted 30,000 acres of land to each state for each member of Congress that state had. The money raised from the sale of the land, a combined $7.5 million nationwide, was to be invested by each state to create new institutions or boost existing programs focused on agriculture, industry and home economics.

Today’s land-grant institutions are agricultural research powerhouses. Over the past 150 years, they’ve supported research that has driven agricultural productivity to impressive levels. While the topics of research have changed, the mission of the land-grant system has not. Land grants do research that aims to both add to our understanding of the world and, perhaps more importantly, serve the people of their state and nation.

As institutions, land grants were created with hopes that the education they promised would be open to all, helping to boost the human capital of the population, particularly in agriculturally-dominated, rural areas. Relevant to anyone with involvement in youth livestock programs, Cooperative Extension and its 4-H program were born out of the land grant philosophy of taking knowledge to the people, wherever they were.

While they boast a legacy of discovery and continue to serve agriculture and the broader population, most land-grant colleges, like many other state-supported institutions of higher education, are fiscally-challenged in a very significant way. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, state support for higher education dropped over 25 percent from 1990-2010 as states struggle to make ends meet. At the federal level, deficit reduction efforts also threaten grant dollars that have helped fund research at the land-grant level for many years.

Faced with these challenges, land grants have been forced to innovate. Obtaining extramural dollars, increasing private giving and finding savings wherever possible have been parts of the solution to budget woes in many states. But funding challenges have also caused tuition to grow at rates that some fear will make a college education at some of our nation’s premier public schools out of reach for many. Extension programs, too, are dealing with budget cuts that impact local livestock programs.

Many of us have a story to tell about the importance of the work these institutions do. If we hope to see the next 150 years of land-grant agricultural colleges have just as much impact as the first, it’s time we start telling that story to our elected officials and, maybe more importantly, the general public. This anniversary is the perfect opportunity for that.