Introductory animal science–based instruction influences attitudes on animal agriculture issues1 E. A. Bobeck,*2 D. K. Combs,† and M. E. Cook*3 *Animal Science Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison 53706; and †Dairy Science Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison 53706
ABSTRACT: The demographics of incoming university animal science majors have shifted from students with a farm background to urban students with no history of direct livestock contact. Research completed before the Internet was a central source of information indicated that incoming urban students tend to express no opinion or a neutral opinion regarding livestock agriculture issues. Due to the changing background of incoming students enrolled in introductory universitylevel animal science classes, we sought to determine 1) if livestock background (self-identified as raised in a farm or urban setting), sex, or animal science career interest influenced the opinions of incoming students regarding critical issues involving livestock farming practices and 2) if 15 wk of introductory animal science instruction changed student opinions. A total of 224 students were given 2 identical anonymous surveys (start and end of 15 wk) with 5 demographic questions and 9 animal issue statements. For each statement, students marked their opinion by placing a vertical line on a continuous 130 mm horizontal line, where a vertical line placed at 0 mm = strongly agree and 130 mm = strongly disagree. Data were analyzed by ANOVA to deter-
mine any significant effects of instruction, background, sex, and future career preference on survey responses. Before instruction, urban students were less agreeable than farm students that animal farming was moral and humane and that farmers are concerned about animal welfare and livestock are of value to society (P ≤ 0.05). Urban students were more likely than farm students to purchase organic foods or food based on environmental/welfare standards (P ≤ 0.05). Introductory animal science instruction resulted in students becoming more agreeable that animal farming was humane, farmers are concerned about animal welfare, and animal agriculture is a value to society (P ≤ 0.05). Postinstruction, students were more likely to buy food products based on price (P ≤ 0.05). Males found farm practices more humane than females (P ≤ 0.05), but sex differences were not evident for other questions. Future professional career plans did not affect student opinions. Data showed that incoming urban students tend to be more neutral with regards to animal farming issues, and introductory animal science instruction fosters a more agreeable attitude towards animal farming practices, especially in students with urban backgrounds.
Key words: animal agriculture, career goals, instruction, opinion, gender, university student © 2014 American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. J. Anim. Sci. 2014.92:856–864 doi:10.2527/jas2013-6918 INTRODUCTION
a rural student population to an urban student population with no history of direct farm animal contact. In 2005, In the past 10 yr, the demographics of incoming the percentage of students enrolled in an introductory university animal science majors at the University of animal science class who were not majoring in the aniWisconsin-Madison (UW-Madison) have shifted from mal sciences was 11% (total student n = 102). This grew to 23% in 2009 (total n = 106) and 44% in 2011 (total 1The authors of this study wish to thank Michelle Piccione, Taylor n = 115). National statistics report that less than 1% of Jarmes, and Jacob Breaker for help in data compilation for analysis. U.S. households are involved in any aspect of agricul2Present address: Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, tural animal production, yet 75% of U.S. citizens surMicrobial Science Building, Madison, WI 53706 3Corresponding author: [email protected] veyed in a nationwide telephone interview would vote Received July 16, 2013. to enact stronger welfare laws (Prickett et al., 2010). Accepted November 30, 2013.
856 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/92/2/856/4702630 by University of Connecticut user on 14 June 2018
857
Student opinions of animal agriculture
Surveys of incoming university freshmen regarding their opinion of critical animal welfare issues show that urban students were more likely than rural students to take neutral positions (Walter and Reisner, 1994). Both urban and rural students, regardless of agricultural experience, held a more positive view of agriculture and increased knowledge of husbandry practices after completion of a 2-wk animal agriculture course (Nordstrom et al., 2000; Walter and Reisner, 1994). In the decade since the Nordstrom et al. (2000) study, the Internet and social media have increasingly become a source of information (both correct and incorrect) for the development of opinions on issues including animal welfare and the use of animals in agriculture (Pew Research Center, 2013). Due to the rapidly changing background of incoming students enrolled in Animal Science/Dairy Science 101 (AS/DS 101) at UW-Madison, we sought to determine 1) if livestock animal background, sex, or interest in an animal-related future career influenced the opinions of incoming students on critical animal farming issues and 2) if 15 wk of instruction involving basic principals and issues involving animal farming could change student opinions. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Survey and Instruction Components Experimental data collection methods and anonymous surveys were approved through the UW-Madison Education Research Institutional Review Board (IRB). Animal Science/Dairy Science Livestock Production 101 (4 credits; one 15-wk semester) is a core class and requirement for all students majoring in Animal and Dairy Sciences and meets the science requirement for any major on campus. Two separate classes of incoming AS/DS 101 students (n = 114 in 2010 and 118 enrolled in 2011, respectively; Table 1) were administered identical surveys at the beginning and end of the semester (instructional period) with 5 questions regarding demographics (used for group separation for final statistical analysis; Table 2) and 9 statements related to animal use issues (Table 3 contains complete list of issue statements). All students attending class on the first day of AS/DS 101 received a handout that included a consent form and a survey. Students who were 18 yr of age or older were given the opportunity to complete the survey (17 and under were excluded as per UW-Madison Education Research IRB). All students had the right to refuse to take the survey. Demographic questions included sex, year in school, future career goals (either animal science related or not, hereafter labeled “career”), and animal experience (A) I grew up on a farm, B) I did not grow up on a farm but I Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/92/2/856/4702630 by University of Connecticut user on 14 June 2018
Table 1. Student enrollment data obtained from the Registrar’s Office regarding the demographics of students enrolled in Animal Science/Dairy Science 101. Data comprises all enrolled students from both survey years (2010 and 2011) and is divided by sex, major, and year in school. Number in each group equals number of students. Data from both years were used in the analysis to determine the effects of instruction on student opinions on issues involving animal use Major Animal Scientist male1 Animal Scientist female1 Agriculture Scientist male2 Agriculture Scientist female2 General Scientist male3 General Scientist female3 Other male4 Other female4 Total 1Animal
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Total
14 70 3 6 1 8 4 9 115
6 21 2 2 3 9 3 2 48
1 17 4 2 1 11 5 4 45
1 2 0 0 1 8 2 2 16
22 110 9 10 6 36 14 17 224
Scientist category includes Animal and Dairy Science majors.
2Agriculture Scientist includes Agriculture Business Management, Agron-
omy, Applied Agriculture Economics, Horticulture, and Life Science Communications majors. 3General Scientist includes Biology, Biological Systems Engineering, Zoology, Genetics, Biochemistry, Immunology, Molecular Biology, Nutritional Science, and Wildlife Ecology majors. 4Other includes Economics, History, Mathematics, Philosophy, Spanish, Afro-American Studies, Consumer Affairs, Art, English, Journalism, Religious Studies, Social Welfare, and Undeclared majors (defined as students who have yet to officially declare a major with their respective school).
have farm animal experience (i.e., extended family has a farm, own a horse and board it, work as a large animal vet assistant, etc.), or C) I grew up in the city with little/no farm contact). Instruction comprised three 50-min class periods per week for 15 wk plus one 3-hr hands-on laboratory per week. Curriculum during the instructional period was broken down into 4 categories as follows: 1) Social issues, which included domestication, ethics/welfare, humane slaughter, biotechnology, organic/conventional farming, animals/environment, and companion animals, 2) Biology, which included nutrition/growth, physiology/ adaptation, genetics/breeding, reproduction, muscle biology/meats, disease/safety, and lactation, 3) Agribusiness, which included low input/high input agriculture, international agriculture, market futures, animal byproducts, careers, breeding technology, and meat/milk marketing, and 4) Animal handling, which included understanding behavior and direct handling of swine, dairy, beef, poultry, sheep, and equine species. Anonymously marked surveys (no identifiers were associated with the survey) were distributed to 2 separate semesters of students (Fall 2010 and Fall 2011) and answers were pooled for data analysis. When responding to the opinion-based statements, students were asked to place a vertical line on a 130 mm
858
Bobeck et al.
Table 2. Demographics of the analyzed subset of students from Table 1 who attended class and took the surveys at the beginning and end of the semester. The analyzed subset contained only students who answered that they had a strictly farm background (survey 1, n = 47; survey 2, n = 42) or strictly urban background with no livestock animal contact (survey 1, n = 70; survey 2, n = 52). Students were excluded (45%) if they indicated urban with farm animal/horse/veterinary contact due to highly varied experiences. Compiled data was from year 2010 and 2011 and consisted of 117 surveys before instruction (survey 1) and 94 surveys after instruction (survey 2) Survey 1 Farm male1 Farm female1 Urban male2 Urban female2 Career Yes male3 Career Yes female3 Career No male3 Career No female3 Survey 2 Farm male1 Farm female1 Urban male2 Urban female2 Career Yes male3 Career Yes female3 Career No male3 Career No female3
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Total
6 21 8 28 11 47 3 2
3 4 2 9 1 10 4 3
2 8 4 9 3 15 3 2
2 1 4 6 2 4 4 3
13 34 18 52 17 76 14 10
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Total
7 21 7 23 12 42 2 2
4 4 2 6 1 8 5 2
1 4 1 6 0 8 2 2
1 0 1 6 1 5 1 1
13 29 11 41 14 63 10 7
1Farm male and female refer to students who indicated they grew up on a farm. 2Urban male and female refer to students who indicated they grew up in a city with no farm animal contact. 3Career Yes and Career No refer to the students’ future careers, where “yes” denotes an anticipated future career in or related to Agriculture and “no” denotes anticipated future career not in or related to agriculture.
continuum from agree to disagree (left to right) that indicated their personal agreeability or disagreeability (opinion) of the statement. The responses of each student were then quantified by measuring the distance (in millimeters) of their vertical line from the left side of the continuum, where agree = 0 mm and disagree = 130 mm. A continuous line was used as a response format (as opposed to discrete categories) because the statements were declarative in nature, and previous work has found that a continuous scale increases statistical sensitivity in the response (DeVellis, 2003). After the survey was marked by the students, final responses in millimeters were then converted to percent agreeability from 0 to 100%, where, in accordance with the original data collection method, 0 = disagree and 100% = agree. The following equation was used to produce final percent agreeability numbers: 100 – [100 × (mm response/130 mm)]. Relative agreeability or disagreeability with each statement was determined by dividing final reDownloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/92/2/856/4702630 by University of Connecticut user on 14 June 2018
sponses from 0 to 100% agreeability into 5 regions, where 0 to 20% = strongly disagree, 21 to 40% = disagree, 41 to 60% = neutral, 61 to 80% = agree, and 81 to 100% = strongly agree. Assigning 5 regions of agreeability through division of the continuum was only for ease of discussing the findings and comparison to other existing student survey literature, and students were not made aware of these regions when surveys were distributed.
Statistics Pooled survey results quantified as millimeters measured from 0 to 130 (left to right) were converted to percent (%) agreeability as discussed above and analyzed as three 2 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments (Proc Mixed; SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC): instruction versus livestock contact background, instruction versus sex, and instruction versus career. Only surveys where students marked strictly farm or urban backgrounds were used because the livestock animal experience of “did not grow up on a farm but have animal experience” was considered highly variable due to the imprecise wording used in the surveys. Proc Mixed was used for its ability to control for unequal group sizes. Year in school was not used in the final analysis due to small sample size. Data were considered significantly different at P ≤ 0.05.
Demographic Summary Of the 224 students who were enrolled in the class at the beginning of the semester, 86% were declared science majors, 77% were female, and 51% were incoming freshmen (Table 1). Of those enrolled, 212 students attended class and actually took part in the first survey at the beginning of the semester. Within the 212 students who completed the first survey, 45% (95 students) classified themselves as “did not grow up on a farm but have animal experience,” and this subset was removed from analysis due to the highly variable experience and/or contact with livestock animals. Hence, the remaining subset of 117 of the total 212 students (55%) that returned the first survey classifying themselves as being strictly urban or strictly farm background was used for the final data analysis of both pre- and postinstruction surveys (Table 2). The demographics of this strictly urban or farm subset resembled the larger population when based on sex and future career interest. Strict urban students made up 33% of the total group of all students who took the first survey and 60% of the subset of students used in the final analyzed subset. Strict farm students made up 22% of the all students taking the first survey and 40% of the students used in the final analyzed subset. Of the final analyzed subset, 73% were female and 79% expressed interest in a career related to animal science.
859
Student opinions of animal agriculture
Table 3. Responses to survey statements analyzed by 3 demographics categories: grew up in farm or urban setting, sex, and intended future career. Before and after refers to instruction, where “before” results correspond to surveys given at the beginning of the semester and “after” results correspond to identical but new surveys administered at the completion of the semester. “Career Yes” indicates future career involving animal science whereas “Career No” indicates career will not involve animal science. Numbers shown are mean agreeability for each statement from 0% to 100% agreeability (0% = disagree and 100% = agree) with pooled SEM and main effects/interaction P-values shown for each question Agreeability (0–100%) Statement 1. I t is morally acceptable to farm animals.
2. M odern animal producers are concerned about animal welfare.
3. M odern animal agriculture practices are humane.
4. B reeding animals for valuable traits is acceptable.
5. When possible, I purchase organic animal products.
6. I purchase animal food products based on price.
7. I purchase animal food products based on environmental and welfare standards (organic, cage-free, etc.). 8. Animal farm size has grown too large.
9. F arm animals are valuable to society.
Category
Before1
After1
Pooled SEM
Farm Urban Female Male Career Yes Career No Farm Urban Female Male Career Yes Career No Farm Urban Female Male Career Yes Career No Farm Urban Female Male Career Yes Career No Farm Urban Female Male Career Yes Career No Farm Urban Female Male Career Yes Career No Farm Urban Female Male Career Yes Career No Farm Urban Female Male Career Yes Career No Farm Urban Female Male Career Yes Career No
92.9 79.8 83.4 89.5 83.6 90.5 75.2 57.7 63.1 68.5 64.7 63.5 76.8 57.4 62.5 71.8 63.8 69.2 90.6 69.2 74.4 87.3 76.9 81.0 25.2 54.6 44.4 38.4 43.6 39.6 60.2 57.8 57.8 62.5 58.4 61.8 30.8 51.7 46.9 33.0 47.2 28.2 49.3 55.2 52.8 51.9 54.5 45.2 95.2 85.8 89.4 87.4 89.1 87.9
94.0 82.8 87.2 88.8 87.9 85.9 89.5 78.9 82.2 89.0 82.8 88.6 87.1 74.8 79.0 84.9 81.0 78.0 92.9 82.4 85.8 90.4 86.8 87.1 19.3 46.5 36.1 31.6 34.8 35.6 72.1 67.4 68.0 73.0 68.7 71.6 22.7 45.4 36.2 34.6 35.2 38.5 37.5 41.5 40.2 39.5 40.4 38.3 96.3 89.4 93.2 93.5 93.2 93.4
1.80
1Indicates survey responses before and after instruction.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/92/2/856/4702630 by University of Connecticut user on 14 June 2018
2.00 2.20 2.15 2.85 2.77 1.92 2.31 2.62 2.23 2.15 2.46 2.92 3.62 4.00 2.69 3.00 3.31 2.85 3.31 3.62 2.85 3.23 3.46 1.31 1.46 1.69
P-value Instruction 0.42 Instruction 0.60 Instruction 0.97 Instruction
ABSTRACT: The demographics of incoming university animal science majors have shifted from students with a farm background to urban students with no history of direct livestock contact. Research completed before the Internet was a central source of information indicated that incoming urban students tend to express no opinion or a neutral opinion regarding livestock agriculture issues. Due to the changing background of incoming students enrolled in introductory universitylevel animal science classes, we sought to determine 1) if livestock background (self-identified as raised in a farm or urban setting), sex, or animal science career interest influenced the opinions of incoming students regarding critical issues involving livestock farming practices and 2) if 15 wk of introductory animal science instruction changed student opinions. A total of 224 students were given 2 identical anonymous surveys (start and end of 15 wk) with 5 demographic questions and 9 animal issue statements. For each statement, students marked their opinion by placing a vertical line on a continuous 130 mm horizontal line, where a vertical line placed at 0 mm = strongly agree and 130 mm = strongly disagree. Data were analyzed by ANOVA to deter-
mine any significant effects of instruction, background, sex, and future career preference on survey responses. Before instruction, urban students were less agreeable than farm students that animal farming was moral and humane and that farmers are concerned about animal welfare and livestock are of value to society (P ≤ 0.05). Urban students were more likely than farm students to purchase organic foods or food based on environmental/welfare standards (P ≤ 0.05). Introductory animal science instruction resulted in students becoming more agreeable that animal farming was humane, farmers are concerned about animal welfare, and animal agriculture is a value to society (P ≤ 0.05). Postinstruction, students were more likely to buy food products based on price (P ≤ 0.05). Males found farm practices more humane than females (P ≤ 0.05), but sex differences were not evident for other questions. Future professional career plans did not affect student opinions. Data showed that incoming urban students tend to be more neutral with regards to animal farming issues, and introductory animal science instruction fosters a more agreeable attitude towards animal farming practices, especially in students with urban backgrounds.
Key words: animal agriculture, career goals, instruction, opinion, gender, university student © 2014 American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. J. Anim. Sci. 2014.92:856–864 doi:10.2527/jas2013-6918 INTRODUCTION
a rural student population to an urban student population with no history of direct farm animal contact. In 2005, In the past 10 yr, the demographics of incoming the percentage of students enrolled in an introductory university animal science majors at the University of animal science class who were not majoring in the aniWisconsin-Madison (UW-Madison) have shifted from mal sciences was 11% (total student n = 102). This grew to 23% in 2009 (total n = 106) and 44% in 2011 (total 1The authors of this study wish to thank Michelle Piccione, Taylor n = 115). National statistics report that less than 1% of Jarmes, and Jacob Breaker for help in data compilation for analysis. U.S. households are involved in any aspect of agricul2Present address: Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, tural animal production, yet 75% of U.S. citizens surMicrobial Science Building, Madison, WI 53706 3Corresponding author: [email protected] veyed in a nationwide telephone interview would vote Received July 16, 2013. to enact stronger welfare laws (Prickett et al., 2010). Accepted November 30, 2013.
856 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/92/2/856/4702630 by University of Connecticut user on 14 June 2018
857
Student opinions of animal agriculture
Surveys of incoming university freshmen regarding their opinion of critical animal welfare issues show that urban students were more likely than rural students to take neutral positions (Walter and Reisner, 1994). Both urban and rural students, regardless of agricultural experience, held a more positive view of agriculture and increased knowledge of husbandry practices after completion of a 2-wk animal agriculture course (Nordstrom et al., 2000; Walter and Reisner, 1994). In the decade since the Nordstrom et al. (2000) study, the Internet and social media have increasingly become a source of information (both correct and incorrect) for the development of opinions on issues including animal welfare and the use of animals in agriculture (Pew Research Center, 2013). Due to the rapidly changing background of incoming students enrolled in Animal Science/Dairy Science 101 (AS/DS 101) at UW-Madison, we sought to determine 1) if livestock animal background, sex, or interest in an animal-related future career influenced the opinions of incoming students on critical animal farming issues and 2) if 15 wk of instruction involving basic principals and issues involving animal farming could change student opinions. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Survey and Instruction Components Experimental data collection methods and anonymous surveys were approved through the UW-Madison Education Research Institutional Review Board (IRB). Animal Science/Dairy Science Livestock Production 101 (4 credits; one 15-wk semester) is a core class and requirement for all students majoring in Animal and Dairy Sciences and meets the science requirement for any major on campus. Two separate classes of incoming AS/DS 101 students (n = 114 in 2010 and 118 enrolled in 2011, respectively; Table 1) were administered identical surveys at the beginning and end of the semester (instructional period) with 5 questions regarding demographics (used for group separation for final statistical analysis; Table 2) and 9 statements related to animal use issues (Table 3 contains complete list of issue statements). All students attending class on the first day of AS/DS 101 received a handout that included a consent form and a survey. Students who were 18 yr of age or older were given the opportunity to complete the survey (17 and under were excluded as per UW-Madison Education Research IRB). All students had the right to refuse to take the survey. Demographic questions included sex, year in school, future career goals (either animal science related or not, hereafter labeled “career”), and animal experience (A) I grew up on a farm, B) I did not grow up on a farm but I Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/92/2/856/4702630 by University of Connecticut user on 14 June 2018
Table 1. Student enrollment data obtained from the Registrar’s Office regarding the demographics of students enrolled in Animal Science/Dairy Science 101. Data comprises all enrolled students from both survey years (2010 and 2011) and is divided by sex, major, and year in school. Number in each group equals number of students. Data from both years were used in the analysis to determine the effects of instruction on student opinions on issues involving animal use Major Animal Scientist male1 Animal Scientist female1 Agriculture Scientist male2 Agriculture Scientist female2 General Scientist male3 General Scientist female3 Other male4 Other female4 Total 1Animal
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Total
14 70 3 6 1 8 4 9 115
6 21 2 2 3 9 3 2 48
1 17 4 2 1 11 5 4 45
1 2 0 0 1 8 2 2 16
22 110 9 10 6 36 14 17 224
Scientist category includes Animal and Dairy Science majors.
2Agriculture Scientist includes Agriculture Business Management, Agron-
omy, Applied Agriculture Economics, Horticulture, and Life Science Communications majors. 3General Scientist includes Biology, Biological Systems Engineering, Zoology, Genetics, Biochemistry, Immunology, Molecular Biology, Nutritional Science, and Wildlife Ecology majors. 4Other includes Economics, History, Mathematics, Philosophy, Spanish, Afro-American Studies, Consumer Affairs, Art, English, Journalism, Religious Studies, Social Welfare, and Undeclared majors (defined as students who have yet to officially declare a major with their respective school).
have farm animal experience (i.e., extended family has a farm, own a horse and board it, work as a large animal vet assistant, etc.), or C) I grew up in the city with little/no farm contact). Instruction comprised three 50-min class periods per week for 15 wk plus one 3-hr hands-on laboratory per week. Curriculum during the instructional period was broken down into 4 categories as follows: 1) Social issues, which included domestication, ethics/welfare, humane slaughter, biotechnology, organic/conventional farming, animals/environment, and companion animals, 2) Biology, which included nutrition/growth, physiology/ adaptation, genetics/breeding, reproduction, muscle biology/meats, disease/safety, and lactation, 3) Agribusiness, which included low input/high input agriculture, international agriculture, market futures, animal byproducts, careers, breeding technology, and meat/milk marketing, and 4) Animal handling, which included understanding behavior and direct handling of swine, dairy, beef, poultry, sheep, and equine species. Anonymously marked surveys (no identifiers were associated with the survey) were distributed to 2 separate semesters of students (Fall 2010 and Fall 2011) and answers were pooled for data analysis. When responding to the opinion-based statements, students were asked to place a vertical line on a 130 mm
858
Bobeck et al.
Table 2. Demographics of the analyzed subset of students from Table 1 who attended class and took the surveys at the beginning and end of the semester. The analyzed subset contained only students who answered that they had a strictly farm background (survey 1, n = 47; survey 2, n = 42) or strictly urban background with no livestock animal contact (survey 1, n = 70; survey 2, n = 52). Students were excluded (45%) if they indicated urban with farm animal/horse/veterinary contact due to highly varied experiences. Compiled data was from year 2010 and 2011 and consisted of 117 surveys before instruction (survey 1) and 94 surveys after instruction (survey 2) Survey 1 Farm male1 Farm female1 Urban male2 Urban female2 Career Yes male3 Career Yes female3 Career No male3 Career No female3 Survey 2 Farm male1 Farm female1 Urban male2 Urban female2 Career Yes male3 Career Yes female3 Career No male3 Career No female3
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Total
6 21 8 28 11 47 3 2
3 4 2 9 1 10 4 3
2 8 4 9 3 15 3 2
2 1 4 6 2 4 4 3
13 34 18 52 17 76 14 10
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Total
7 21 7 23 12 42 2 2
4 4 2 6 1 8 5 2
1 4 1 6 0 8 2 2
1 0 1 6 1 5 1 1
13 29 11 41 14 63 10 7
1Farm male and female refer to students who indicated they grew up on a farm. 2Urban male and female refer to students who indicated they grew up in a city with no farm animal contact. 3Career Yes and Career No refer to the students’ future careers, where “yes” denotes an anticipated future career in or related to Agriculture and “no” denotes anticipated future career not in or related to agriculture.
continuum from agree to disagree (left to right) that indicated their personal agreeability or disagreeability (opinion) of the statement. The responses of each student were then quantified by measuring the distance (in millimeters) of their vertical line from the left side of the continuum, where agree = 0 mm and disagree = 130 mm. A continuous line was used as a response format (as opposed to discrete categories) because the statements were declarative in nature, and previous work has found that a continuous scale increases statistical sensitivity in the response (DeVellis, 2003). After the survey was marked by the students, final responses in millimeters were then converted to percent agreeability from 0 to 100%, where, in accordance with the original data collection method, 0 = disagree and 100% = agree. The following equation was used to produce final percent agreeability numbers: 100 – [100 × (mm response/130 mm)]. Relative agreeability or disagreeability with each statement was determined by dividing final reDownloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/92/2/856/4702630 by University of Connecticut user on 14 June 2018
sponses from 0 to 100% agreeability into 5 regions, where 0 to 20% = strongly disagree, 21 to 40% = disagree, 41 to 60% = neutral, 61 to 80% = agree, and 81 to 100% = strongly agree. Assigning 5 regions of agreeability through division of the continuum was only for ease of discussing the findings and comparison to other existing student survey literature, and students were not made aware of these regions when surveys were distributed.
Statistics Pooled survey results quantified as millimeters measured from 0 to 130 (left to right) were converted to percent (%) agreeability as discussed above and analyzed as three 2 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments (Proc Mixed; SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC): instruction versus livestock contact background, instruction versus sex, and instruction versus career. Only surveys where students marked strictly farm or urban backgrounds were used because the livestock animal experience of “did not grow up on a farm but have animal experience” was considered highly variable due to the imprecise wording used in the surveys. Proc Mixed was used for its ability to control for unequal group sizes. Year in school was not used in the final analysis due to small sample size. Data were considered significantly different at P ≤ 0.05.
Demographic Summary Of the 224 students who were enrolled in the class at the beginning of the semester, 86% were declared science majors, 77% were female, and 51% were incoming freshmen (Table 1). Of those enrolled, 212 students attended class and actually took part in the first survey at the beginning of the semester. Within the 212 students who completed the first survey, 45% (95 students) classified themselves as “did not grow up on a farm but have animal experience,” and this subset was removed from analysis due to the highly variable experience and/or contact with livestock animals. Hence, the remaining subset of 117 of the total 212 students (55%) that returned the first survey classifying themselves as being strictly urban or strictly farm background was used for the final data analysis of both pre- and postinstruction surveys (Table 2). The demographics of this strictly urban or farm subset resembled the larger population when based on sex and future career interest. Strict urban students made up 33% of the total group of all students who took the first survey and 60% of the subset of students used in the final analyzed subset. Strict farm students made up 22% of the all students taking the first survey and 40% of the students used in the final analyzed subset. Of the final analyzed subset, 73% were female and 79% expressed interest in a career related to animal science.
859
Student opinions of animal agriculture
Table 3. Responses to survey statements analyzed by 3 demographics categories: grew up in farm or urban setting, sex, and intended future career. Before and after refers to instruction, where “before” results correspond to surveys given at the beginning of the semester and “after” results correspond to identical but new surveys administered at the completion of the semester. “Career Yes” indicates future career involving animal science whereas “Career No” indicates career will not involve animal science. Numbers shown are mean agreeability for each statement from 0% to 100% agreeability (0% = disagree and 100% = agree) with pooled SEM and main effects/interaction P-values shown for each question Agreeability (0–100%) Statement 1. I t is morally acceptable to farm animals.
2. M odern animal producers are concerned about animal welfare.
3. M odern animal agriculture practices are humane.
4. B reeding animals for valuable traits is acceptable.
5. When possible, I purchase organic animal products.
6. I purchase animal food products based on price.
7. I purchase animal food products based on environmental and welfare standards (organic, cage-free, etc.). 8. Animal farm size has grown too large.
9. F arm animals are valuable to society.
Category
Before1
After1
Pooled SEM
Farm Urban Female Male Career Yes Career No Farm Urban Female Male Career Yes Career No Farm Urban Female Male Career Yes Career No Farm Urban Female Male Career Yes Career No Farm Urban Female Male Career Yes Career No Farm Urban Female Male Career Yes Career No Farm Urban Female Male Career Yes Career No Farm Urban Female Male Career Yes Career No Farm Urban Female Male Career Yes Career No
92.9 79.8 83.4 89.5 83.6 90.5 75.2 57.7 63.1 68.5 64.7 63.5 76.8 57.4 62.5 71.8 63.8 69.2 90.6 69.2 74.4 87.3 76.9 81.0 25.2 54.6 44.4 38.4 43.6 39.6 60.2 57.8 57.8 62.5 58.4 61.8 30.8 51.7 46.9 33.0 47.2 28.2 49.3 55.2 52.8 51.9 54.5 45.2 95.2 85.8 89.4 87.4 89.1 87.9
94.0 82.8 87.2 88.8 87.9 85.9 89.5 78.9 82.2 89.0 82.8 88.6 87.1 74.8 79.0 84.9 81.0 78.0 92.9 82.4 85.8 90.4 86.8 87.1 19.3 46.5 36.1 31.6 34.8 35.6 72.1 67.4 68.0 73.0 68.7 71.6 22.7 45.4 36.2 34.6 35.2 38.5 37.5 41.5 40.2 39.5 40.4 38.3 96.3 89.4 93.2 93.5 93.2 93.4
1.80
1Indicates survey responses before and after instruction.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/92/2/856/4702630 by University of Connecticut user on 14 June 2018
2.00 2.20 2.15 2.85 2.77 1.92 2.31 2.62 2.23 2.15 2.46 2.92 3.62 4.00 2.69 3.00 3.31 2.85 3.31 3.62 2.85 3.23 3.46 1.31 1.46 1.69
P-value Instruction 0.42 Instruction 0.60 Instruction 0.97 Instruction
