By ANN HINCH

MERRILLVILLE, Ind. — How much does the make and model of a tractor matter? How many people pay extra to buy a truck painted a certain color (or not painted that color)?

Eaters who insist on spending extra on meat at Whole Foods or buying only organic turkey may seem odd or foolish to farmers who don’t see a difference in use of livestock methods on end product. But, said Dr. Nicole Olynk Widmar, this is just as much brand loyalty as is always buying Deere or Chevrolet.

"Are they truly, fundamentally different?" the Purdue University ag economics specialist asked at the recent annual Midwest Women in Agriculture Conference.

A person who is fully committed to a brand is willing to pay for it, she said, and farmers who market to consumers can profit from understanding this better. In fact, there are several research projects in her department that fall under the umbrella of determining consumer preferences, who spends the food money for a home and how attitudes toward animals influence that buying.

The horse is not mainstream food livestock in the United States, but it is the animal Widmar sees as most straddling the line between working livestock and pet to the American consumer. "How do you feed a horse?" she asked.

"Carefully," came one answer, as the rest of the room of farmers laughed.

Widmar, amused, pointed out while many of them might see it as a working animal to be fed and stabled like livestock, it’s equating more in the general public’s minds as a companion animal on level with dogs and cats.

One research chart she displayed showed out of a list of well-known animals, that the surveyed group of consumers were most divided on the "pet or livestock?" question when it came to horses and rabbits. That is, they overwhelmingly named dogs and cats as pets and cows and pigs as livestock, but were conflicted about how to classify the horse or rabbit.

With respect to animal welfare, there also seems to be a "species bias" among those surveyed, she noted. For example, consumers seem more concerned about dairy cows than pigs. While researchers don’t know completely why, she guesses perhaps the cows are more visible than pigs to the average driver passing farms; or, maybe they think of them as a more attractive, cleaner animal?

Understanding consumer perceptions "explains a lot why we’re not having the same conversation" when it comes to food production, Widmar said – especially meat and other animal products. As a practical matter, too, the general public does not know as much about food production as farmers.

"How much do you know about how your clothes are made?" she asked her audience of farmers, to show a comparison. Even without knowing how a shirt is manufactured, she said, people will buy and wear it.

Beliefs about food can run as deep as religious beliefs, Widmar noted, which is why trying to educate adults about food and farming can sometimes be taken about as well as trying to coax someone into a new church. Yet, there are all kinds of efforts to do just this.

This is fine, she said, when an adult seeks that education in some way – going on a farm tour (usually with their children), asking a farmer questions, reading farm blogs – but she notices farmers want to educate those who aren’t asking, too.

Instead of trying to educate the public about how they do what they do, she thinks farmers might do better to try to focus on simply marketing the products they make. The farm industry is trying to engage in an animal welfare debate on completely equal footing with its opponents, even though farmers will always be at a disadvantage for the simple fact meat animals end up slaughtered no matter how well they’re treated.

"We started calling it harvesting," Widmar said – but this only softens the fact of death for so long. "A harvested animal is no less dead than a slaughter (animal)."

So, she encourages farmers to "own" the reality of slaughter. "Consumers don’t buy your animals, they buy product," she explained, adding the farm industry has stopped talking about what U.S. agriculture does well: Produce plenty of safe food at an affordable price. She also pointed out while there are a few hundred million consumers in the United States, only a percentage of these buy the food – such as one person in a household of several people.

"You might have a lot of consumers," she said, "but you don’t have a lot of buyers (in comparison)."

While livestock producers will never satisfy every consumer – Widmar said there will always be a very small percentage of people whose beliefs against meat production will not be swayed – she said surveys show overall, people are more concerned about what they eat than about restricting others’ access to buying animal products.

If consumers want to pay more to feel better about their food by paying extra, she encourages farmers to market to them. If some people are willing to pay an extra $1.50-$4 per pound for organic or antibiotic-free meat, or $4 for a dozen cage-free eggs, there are ways many farmers can find to market what they produce to appeal to the consumers they want, or institute affordable practices that could garner a profit.

"People buy their way out of guilt," she said, noting the Humane Society of the United States raises operating funds from $19-and-higher individual donations every month – many of which come from meat-eaters.