Table 1. Marital status of respondents.

Value

Frequency

Percent

Married

362

59.5

Not Married

245

40.3

Don't Know

1

0.2

TOTAL

608

100.0




Table 2. Interviewer-estimated gender of respondents.

Value

Frequency

Percent

Male

225

37.0

Female

372

61.2

Missing

11

1.8

TOTAL

608

100.0




Table 3. Number of people in respondents' households.

Value

Frequency

Percent

1

105

17.3

2

191

31.4

3

113

18.6

4

114

18.8

5

47

7.7

6

17

2.8

7

11

1.8

8

1

0.2

10

1

0.2

Refused

8

1.2

TOTAL

608

100.0




Table 4. Age of respondents.

Value

Frequency

Percent

81 or older

21

3.5

76-80

24

3.9

71-75

27

4.5

66-70

35

5.7

61-65

33

5.4

56-60

36

6.0

51-55

42

7.0

46-50

58

9.4

41-45

59

9.7

36-40

82

13.5

31-35

70

11.5

26-30

44

7.1

18-25

65

10.8

Don't know

1

0.2

Refused

11

1.8

TOTAL

608

100.0




Table 5. Years of formal education completed by respondents.

Value

Frequency

Percent

Less than high school

76

12.4

High school

211

34.7

Some college

146

24.0

Bachelors

105

17.3

Above bachelors

61

10.1

Don't know

5

0.8

Refused

4

0.7

TOTAL

608

100.0




Table 6. Race of respondents

Value

Frequency

Percent

White

439

72.2

Black

155

25.5

Other

10

1.6

Refused

4

0.7

TOTAL

608

100.0




Table 7. Estimation by respondents of which agricultural industry in Mississippi employs the most workers.

Value

Frequency

Percent

Beef

64

10.5

Cotton

94

15.5

Poultry

284

46.7

Forestry

129

21.2

Don't know

37

6.1

TOTAL

608

100.0




Table 8. Esitmated rank of poultry compared to other Mississippi agricultural industries (dollars generated).

Value

Frequency

Percent

First

154

25.3

Second

206

34.0

Third

128

21.1

Fourth

69

11.3

Don't know

43

8.3

TOTAL

600

100.0




Table 9. Respondents' estimates of number of eggs produced in Mississippi.

Value

Frequency

Percent

Less than 1 billion

167

28.1

1 - 2 billion

45

7.6

2 - 3 billion

20

3.4

Over 3 billion

28

4.7

Don't know

334

56.2

TOTAL

594

100.0




Table 10. Respondents' estimates of Mississippi's ranking in egg production.

Value

Frequency

Percent

1

28

5.5

2

41

8.0

3

62

12.2

4

27

5.3

5

39

7.6

6

8

1.6

7

10

2.0

8

5

1.0

9

4

0.8

10

43

8.4

11

1

0.2

12

6

1.2

13

1

0.2

14

1

0.2

15

11

2.2

17

3

0.6

18

2

0.4

20 or lower

47

9.3

Don't know

169

32.9

Refused

2

0.4

TOTAL

510

0.4




Table 11. Respondents' estimates of Mississippi's ranking in broiler production.

Value

Frequency

Percent

1

21

4.2

2

63

12.7

3

55

11.0

4

20

4.0

5

42

8.4

6

11

2.2

7

4

0.8

8

5

1.0

9

2

0.4

10

37

7.4

12

4

0.8

15

9

1.8

20 or lower

63

12.6

Don't know

157

31.7

Refused

5

1.0

TOTAL

498

100.0




Table 12. Number of times per week that poultry is eaten in household of respondents.

Value

Frequency

Percent

Less than 2 times

147

24.2

2 - 3 times

310

51.0

4-5 times

111

18.2

6 or more times

35

5.8

Don't know

4

0.6

Refused

1

0.2

TOTAL

608

100.0




Table 13. Number of times per week that eggs are eaten in households of respondents.

Value

Frequency

Percent

Less than 2 times

223

36.7

2 - 3 times

168

27.6

4 - 5 times

75

12.3

6 or more times

132

21.7

Don't know

9

1.5

Refused

1

0.2

TOTAL

608

100.0




Table 14. Comparison of the health value of beef and poultry by survey respondents.

Value

Frequency

Percent

Better than beef

393

64.6

The same as beef

163

26.8

Worse than beef

26

4.3

Don't know

25

4.1

Refused

1

0.2

TOTAL

608

100.0




Table 15. Comparison of the respondents' opinion of health value of pork and poultry.

Value

Frequency

Percent

Better than pork

448

73.7

The same as pork

115

18.9

Worse than pork

25

4.1

Don't know

20

3.3

TOTAL

608

100.0




Table 16. Respondents' opinion of poultry products as a good buy for the money.

Value

Frequency

Percent

Yes

563

92.6

No

28

4.6

Don't know

16

2.6

Refused

1

0.2

TOTAL

608

100.0




Table 17. Respondents' reasons for opinions regarding the raising of Mississippi poultry.

Response Category

Number

Good methods of raising/cleanliness of facilities

72

No real reason

71

Seeing or living around chicken houses

56

Unclean or poor-looking facilities

27

Because of laws

24

Successful appearance of the market

23

Never seen or heard anything negative

23

Low number of illnesses resulting from poultry consumption

10

Opinions caused by media

4




Table 18. Respondents' opinions about the influence of television on their view of the poultry industry.

Response category

Number

Learned of negative aspects of the industry
(uncleanliness, bacteria)

50

More aware of the industry in general

32

More aware of care and preparation of poultry products

29

Learned about positive aspects of the industry
(cleanliness, health value)

27

Effects of politics on the industry

4

Learned about labor concerns

3