Illinois
Fertilizer Conference Proceedings
January 22-24, 2001
| Home | 2001 Index | Search |
| Home | 2001 Index | Search |
Steven A. Simms1
Maintaining public acceptance of fertilizer usage for high-yield agricultural production is important. According to Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute, high-yield agriculture is the only way the world's growing food demands can be met.2 The Hudson Institute estimates world food production must triple to keep up with demands of the next 40 years.3 To meet these demands without high-yield agriculture, according to the Hudson Institute, more than 20 million square miles of wildlife habitat would have to be destroyed, which would threaten more than 30 million wildlife species.4 If the world wants to preserve its wildlife, rain forests, wetlands, and old-growth forests and also provide its people with a protein-rich diet, high-yield agriculture must triumph, and fertilizers are an essential part of the equation.
However, according to the Hudson Institute, the world's most advanced societies are attempting to legislate low-yield agriculture, with increasingly more government research dollars being funneled into low-yield "sustainable" agriculture.5 All the while, environmental activists try to shape public opinion and blame agriculture and fertilizers for everything from blue baby syndrome to hypoxia.
According to agenda-setting theory, as the mass media begin to report on or cover any subject, increasingly the general public begins to think about the subject.6 Once the public begins to focus on an issue, it welcomes information to fill the knowledge void. Mass media attention surrounding fertilizer and agriculture is on the rise. A recent Lexus/Nexus search indicates that mass media articles about hypoxia and agriculture have nearly tripled since 1997. As the mass media focus attention on these fertilizer-related issues it will be important for the general public to hear agriculture's story. Without an industry-generated public information campaign, the general public may develop negative attitudes toward high-yield agriculture and help hasten dangerous regulations that threaten high-yield agriculture and agriculture's ability to meet the world's food needs into the coming decades, while preserving wildlife habitat.
Prior to embarking on a public-education campaign about fertilizers and agriculture,
it's important to know what kind of information consumers need that would help
plug their
knowledge gap and create positive, long-lasting attitudes about fertilizers'
contribution to society. A review of the current literature available through
a typical Internet search indicates that there is no research in the public
domain that specifically addresses the general public's attitude toward fertilizer
and agriculture. To fully understand the public's attitude toward fertilizer,
formal research is needed.
Once it's known what kind of information the general public needs in order to understand and appreciate the benefits of fertilizers, mass media messages can be crafted that will be most effective in shaping public opinion. Without such an effort, high-yield agriculture is threatened, which could ultimately doom American agriculture and world food security.
To begin to fully understand the public's attitudes toward fertilizer usage and related issues such as water quality and hypoxia, two focus groups were conducted in the Peoria media market. The focus group sessions were conducted on June 13 and 14, 2000. One session was held on each date. The sessions were conducted in the evening at Jumers Hotel in Peoria. Participants were randomly contacted by phone and received $50 for participating. Participants were nonagricultural-related consumers. Each session lasted about 90 minutes. One group had nine participants, the other 10. The sessions were conducted by two professional moderators from Jefferson Davis and Associates of Cedar Rapids, IA. Public relations staff from Illinois Farm Bureau viewed the sessions via closed circuit television from an adjacent room.
Based on the results of the focus group, a survey questionnaire was developed and administered via phone to 404 randomly selected residents in the Peoria market, which includes Peoria, Tazewell, and Woodford Counties. The interviews were conducted between September 14 and 26, 2000, and the average length of each interview was 13 minutes. Respondents represented the general consumer public with no affiliation with a farming enterprise, agricultural chemical dealership, water treatment organization, or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Respondents were between 21 and 65 years of age. Due to sample size, sample plan, and method of selection, total results of the study are accurate at the 95 percent confidence level, with a margin of error of no greater than plus or minus 5 percent.
After analysis of the results from the general questionnaire, a radio and
television commercial was developed and is currently on the air in Peoria.
Once the campaign has been completed in February 2001, a general survey will
be conducted among consumers in the Peoria media market to determine if people
have a better understanding of fertilizers and the benefits they offer as a
result of hearing or seeing the advertising message.
Results from the focus groups indicated that residents feel their tap water is not as clean as it should be, and some felt it was not safe to drink. However, there were also those who drink tap water because they assume the water has been purified or comes from a well. Most of the participants identified the source of their tap water as coming from the Illinois River. Most participants had negative feelings about the quality of the water and the condition of the Illinois River. Many participants indicated that they no longer use the Illinois River for recreational activities, although they did so in the past.
The focus group participants felt that factories were the number one contributor to poor quality of tap water and river water. The use of chemicals in agricultural operations was identified as the number two contributor. Sewage was identified as the third largest contributor.
When probing what participants meant by "chemicals in agriculture," it became clear that the participants lump all agricultural inputs—pesticides, fertilizers, and herbicides—into one category and do not draw (or readily understand) a distinction among them.
When discussing the specifics of fertilizers with participants, they readily recognize that fertilizers used on home gardens and residential lawns can have the same impact on water quality as fertilizers used in commercial agriculture. Interestingly, eight out of 10 participants in the first focus group and all nine participants in the second focus group voted that farmers are more responsible than homeowners for controlling potential damage caused by fertilizer use.
Focus group participants put fertilizers into two categories, natural and chemical. Natural fertilizers include organic fertilizers and manure; chemical fertilizers are man-made and inorganic fertilizers, from the participants' perspectives. They considered natural fertilizers better for the environment than chemical, but many quickly indicated that manure run-off from farm fields into rivers and streams can also damage water quality. Most felt that farmers have moved away from using natural fertilizers to using more chemical fertilizers.
Participants easily identify benefits associated with fertilizer usage in agriculture and believe that the benefits outweigh the risks. Benefits readily identified are:
The moderator asked the second group to reflect on this idea as a benefit: Using fertilizer allows farmers to produce more on a smaller area of land, which leaves more land to use as wildlife habitat and recreational areas. This benefit did not resonate with focus group participants. In fact, they felt there was plenty of "government land" that can be used for wildlife habitat purposes.
Participants were unsure whether fertilizer usage is detrimental to food quality or whether it enhances food quality.
Risks associated with fertilizer usage in agriculture included its impact on water quality and the possibility of it exacerbating allergy problems when some people are exposed to it.
Participants then discussed hypoxia. They were asked if they had ever heard of hypoxia or knew what it was. Participants in both groups were unfamiliar with the term and did not know what it meant. The moderator provided a definition of hypoxia and then asked the participants what they think caused it. According to them, factory pollution was the major cause of hypoxia. The second major cause, according to the participants, was run-off due to agricultural production. Some also felt that fertilizer usage on home gardens contributed to hypoxia, as did dumping oil and gas into the river. The groups felt that hypoxia must not be a major problem right now if they haven't heard about it, but they felt it could become more serious as time passes.
Participants had plenty of ideas on how to solve the hypoxia "problem." These solutions included: using fewer chemical fertilizers and more natural fertilizers; adding more water purification facilities along the river; and severely prosecuting and levying stiff fines on factory polluters. They felt the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration were the entities that should enforce any regulations that help end hypoxia.
Analysis of the results of the general survey indicated that water quality is not a top-of-the mind concern with respondents. When asked about issues of concern to them, respondents mentioned a variety of other issues before water issues; issues such as crime, education, jobs, infrastructure, etc. However, when asked to specifically talk about various issues concerning water quality, none of the presented issues could be dismissed out of hand. Respondents expressed a high level of concern for the quality of their drinking water and the condition of the Illinois River, and they remotely associated factory water pollution, ag chemicals, and ag runoff into streams as culprits to decreasing drinking water quality.
Respondents were asked about their knowledge of ag inputs such as fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides. In general, respondents group fertilizers, insecticides, and pesticides together, not drawing a real distinction between them.
As with the focus group data, results from the general survey suggest that the overwhelming majority of the respondents (82 percent) has not heard of hypoxia. However, the 18 percent who were spontaneously aware of hypoxia cite "farm runoff" as the main reason for hypoxia. When these 18 percent were asked to identify a culprit that causes hypoxia, agricultural reasons were mentioned quite regularly: 22 percent said "farm runoff"; 22 percent said "pollution"; 15 percent said "chemicals (not specific)"; 10 percent said "Mississippi River runoff"; 9 percent said "fertilizers"; 7 percent said "lack of oxygen in the water"; 7 percent said "oil leaks"; 6 percent said "industrial output"; 4 percent said "nitrogen"; and 25 percent didn't know what causes hypoxia.When the 82 percent of the sample who weren't aware of hypoxia were asked what they think causes hypoxia, they clearly did not know and took a "wild guess" to identify a reason. The two major reasons identified were "pollution" (21 percent) and unspecified "chemicals" (14 percent). Specific ag-oriented causes were identified as "fertilizers" (9 percent) and "farm output" (8 percent). It is potentially important to note the proportion of those who have not decided on the causes of hypoxia can most likely be swayed or influenced.
Most of the respondents may not be aware of hypoxia or know the cause, but when the concept is introduced to them, 74 percent of the respondents feel that people in the Midwest should be concerned about this problem.
Finally, the survey measured respondents' reactions to a series of positive fertilizer statements, negative fertilizer statements, and neutral fertilizer statements:
Based on the results of the survey, a communication strategy was established
to develop a radio and TV commercial that reinforces as many of the positive
statements as possible and downplays as many of the negatives as possible (in
a 30-second ad). It was also determined to keep the message simple, due to
the lack of clear understanding about the complex issue of water quality.
The copy developed for the TV and radio ad reads:
Fertilizers are important to our lives ... they keep our lawns
and gardens Farmers have always used fertilizers ... but modern technology helps Farmers also protect rivers and streams from fertilizer runoff by
using Just like you, farmers are concerned about water quality and are
doing A message from Illinois Farm Bureau and the Fertilizer Research
and |
The media campaign was launched on January 8, 2001. Four TV stations (WEEK-NBC, WHOI-ABC, WMBD-CBS, and WYZZ-FOX) and seven radio stations (WFYR-FM, WGLO-FM, WJPL-FM, WMBD-AM, WPBG-FM, WSWT-FM, and WWCT-FM) are currently being utilized. The campaign will conclude February 4, 2001. According to audience measurement data, at the conclusion of the campaign, the campaign will have reached 99 percent of adults 25-54 years of age, and the average person will have been exposed to the message 21.2 times for an average of 5.3 times per week.
1Steven A. Simms has worked in public relations for Illinois Farm Bureau since 1982. Currently, he is promotion and graphic arts director for IFB and is responsible for consumer advertising campaigns and other PR activities conducted by IFB. He has a B.S. in communication research from Illinois State University, Normal (1979).
2–5 Avery, Dennis T., (December 5, 1998). Taken from a paper and speech presented to the Beckman Center of the National Academy of Sciences, University of California at Irvine during a panel discussion entitled Plants and Population: We Have the Time. Do We Have the Will?
6 McCombs, M.E., and Shaw, D.L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.
