1. What Ohioans Think About Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Issues Presentation by Jeff S. Sharp Rural Sociological Summit Columbus, Ohio December 12, 2002

2. Project Background  Funded by OSU Extension, OARDC and the College of FAES  Focus on social issues in agriculture as they relate to the ecological paradigm

3. Project Team  Study conducted by a team associated with Department of HCRD and OSU Extension.  Jeff Sharp, Molly Bean Smith, Bill Flinn, Mark Tucker, Holli Kendall, Linda Lobao, Sherrie Whaley, Greg Davis, Jerry Thomas, Denny Hall

4. Methodology  A stratified sample of 7,976 Ohioans was selected  Stratified by 5 extension districts and metro core county status  Dillman’s TDM utilized with 5 contacts  Response rate = 56.4%

5. Sample vs. State Population (2000 Census)  Close match: gender, age (over 24), households w/ kids, employment status and household incomes  Limitations  sample had lower proportion of renters, lower # of 18-24 year olds, and lower proportion of African Americans than expected compared to state population statistics

6. Outline of Presentation  Overview of some general ag-related findings  Focus on livestock  Familiarity with the issues  Level of concern about large-scale livestock  Brief review of other topical research/findings  Future plans

7. Links to Farming and Rural Areas

8. Parents ever owned or operated a farm

9. Grandparents ever owned or operated a farm

10. Number of farmers known

11. Take a recreational drive through the country

12. Travel to a rural area to experience or view the natural environment

13. Farmers and the Environment

14. Q.Overall, farming positively contributes to the quality of life in Ohio Q.Overall, farming positively contributes to the quality of life in Ohio  2% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  6% Undecided  92% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

15. Q.Ohio’s economy will suffer if it continues to lose farmers  6% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  14% Undecided  80% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

16. Q. Ohio’s most productive farmland should be preserved for agriculture.  2% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  6% Undecided  92% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

17. Q. I trust Ohio farmers to protect the environment.  12% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  29% Undecided  59% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

18. Q. Ohio farmers are generally sensitive to the concerns of nonfarm neighbors.  11% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  45% Undecided  44% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

19. Q. Environmental protection laws regulating farming practices are too strict.  19% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  59% Undecided  22% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

20. Large-scale livestock and poultry

21. Familiarity with Issues  Respondents were asked: Are you familiar with the issues associated with large-scale poultry and livestock facilities?  33 percent of respondents indicated “yes”  66 percent indicated “no”

22. Familiarity by gender

23. Familiarity by place of residence

24. Familiarity by region of the state

25. Concern about livestock  Respondents were asked: How concerned are you about the development of large-scale poultry and livestock production facilities in Ohio?  21 percent very concerned  51 percent somewhat concerned  28 percent not at all concerned

26. Concern among those familiar with the issues  Concern was higher among those indicating they were familiar with the issues  34 percent very concerned  51 percent somewhat concerned  15 percent not at all concerned

27. Level of Concern by age (among those familiar with the issues)

28. Level of Concern by region (among those familiar with the issues)

29. Attitudes about livestock among those familiar w/ the issue

30. Q. Large-scale poultry and livestock production facilities in rural areas are a threat to rural quality of life.  22% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  19% Undecided  59% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

31. Q. There needs to be increased regulation of livestock production in Ohio to protect the environment.  17% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  26% Undecided  57% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

32. Q. Large-scale poultry and livestock facilities pose a serious threat to water and stream quality in Ohio  11% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  18% Undecided  71% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

33. Q. Large-scale livestock facilities positively contribute to the economy of Ohio.  14% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  27% Undecided  59% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

34. Q. In general, increased regulation of the treatment of animals in farming is needed.  23% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  29% Undecided  48% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

35. Q. Animal agriculture raises serious ethical questions about the treatment of animals  24% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  41% Undecided  35% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

36. Modeling results related to livestock measures

37. Models  Dependents  Familiarity with the issues  Livestock Welfare concern  Rural and Environmental Impact Concerns  Overall level of concern

38. Independent Measures  Respondent demographics  Region & metro character  Proximity to livestock  Links and Networks with Farms/Rural  Trust of Farmers

39. Findings: Familiarity w/ Issues surrounding livestock  Age, education, being male are positively related to familiarity  Living in central Ohio has a very strong positive relationship  Parents owning a farm, frequency of conversing with a farmer, and frequency of visiting rural area is positively related  Know of nearby facility has a very strong, positive relationship, living in a county with more livestock sales positively related to familiarity

40. Findings: Concern for livestock welfare  Women indicate more concern  More educated indicate less concern  Southwest Ohioans indicate less concern  Less concern among those w/ parent owning a farm and those frequently meeting farm folks  Strong pro-agrarian attitudes, greater concern  Greater trust of farmers, less concern

41. Findings: Concern rural/environment impacts  Parents own a farm, less concern  Near a facility, less concern but in a county with higher sales, more concern  Pro-agrarian attitudes, greater concern  Greater trust in farmers, less concern

42. Findings: Overall concern  Older respondents indicate greater concern  Living near a facility, more overall concern  Concern about rural/environmental impacts, substantial impact on level of concern  Concern about animal welfare, more modest impact on level of concern

43. Wrap-up

44. Concluding Observations on Livestock  Regional Issue—NW, Central, and SE to some extent  “Social capital” (trust and networks among farmers and nonfarmers) is associated with lower concern  Family histories associated with agriculture appears to temper some concern

45. Concluding Observations on Livestock (cont.)  Agrarianism associated with greater concern (perhaps a conflict between farming as way of life and a business)  Animal welfare concern—it exists; could it grow?  Environmental concern--the strongest factor in this analysis; where will it trend in the future?

46. Other topical report series  Food Safety  Agricultural land-use and the environment  Animal Welfare  Agrarianism and links to agriculture

47. Previews of future analysis  Food Safety:  Over 39 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that food is not as safe as it was 10 years ago  Nearly 62 percent of respondents indicated they were undecided as to whether biotechnology is having a negative impact on the safety of our food supply

48. Future plans  Additional analysis and associated Extension and research manuscripts to be generated through mid-2003  Willingness to do customized analysis for interested parties  Explore possibility of repeating study in 2004 examining these and other emerging FAE issues