Via online November-December issue. "The Front Gate" section., Cites a new information campaign of the Beef Quality Assurance program as an effective way to counter much of the misinformation about new plant-based and cell-cultured products that challenge the stewardship of the cattle industry.
Cooke, Andrew (author), Mullan, Siobhan (author), Morten, Charlie (author), Hockenhull, Joanna (author), Le-Grice, Phil (author), Le Cocq, Kate (author), Lee, Michael R. F. (author), Cardenas, Laura M. (author), and Rivero, M. Jordana (author)
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2023-06-29
Published:
United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 206 Document Number: D12951
14 pages, Animal welfare encompasses all aspects of an animal’s life and the interactions between animals. Consequently, welfare must be measured across a variety of factors that consider aspects
such as health, behaviour and mental state. Decisions regarding housing and grazing are central to farm management. In this study, two beef cattle systems and their herds were compared
from weaning to slaughter across numerous indicators. One herd (‘HH’) were continuously
housed, the other (‘HG’) were housed only during winter. Inspections of animals were conducted to assess body condition, cleanliness, diarrhoea, hairlessness, nasal discharge and ocular discharge. Hair and nasal mucus samples were taken for quantification of cortisol and
serotonin. Qualitative behaviour assessments (QBA) were also conducted and performance
monitored. Physical health indicators were similar between herds with the exception of
nasal discharge which was more prevalent in HH (P < 0.001). During winter, QBA yielded differences between herds over PC1 (arousal) (P = 0.032), but not PC2 (mood) (P = 0.139).
Through summer, there was a strong difference across both PC1 (P < 0.001) and PC2 (P =
0.002), with HG exhibiting more positive behaviour. A difference was found in hair cortisol
levels, with the greatest concentrations observed in HG (P = 0.011), however such a pattern
was not seen for nasal mucus cortisol or for serotonin. Overall, providing summer grazing
(HG) appeared to afford welfare benefits to the cattle as shown with more positive QBA
assessments, but also slightly better health indicators, notwithstanding the higher levels of cortisol in that group.
10 pages, By-products like sawdust and straw are applied in compost bedded-pack barns (CBP) for cattle. These materials, which are gradually mixed with excreta and undergo a composting process, serve as a lying bed for the cattle. This study aims to assess the perception of consumers and farmers regarding the use of CBP during the grazing season of cattle for raising other animals or for growing food crops. This was examined by combining surveys with consumers from eight European countries and cattle farmers, focus groups with consumers, and in-depth interviews with individual farmers who implemented alternative uses of compost. The results showed that farmers preferred the compost bedded-pack system to the cubicle system in terms of sustainability and market aspects, although the cost of the bedding material required for CBP was seen as a significant negative aspect. Around half of all consumers indicated that the compost can be used for non-edible products and 26% indicated the compost can be used for raising other animals. Furthermore, 5% of consumers felt that compost should not be used for any other purpose. There were statistically significant differences between countries; therefore, regional specificities should be taken into account when marketing products from compost in CBP barns.
9pgs, Divergence in opinion over how farm animals should be cared for is creating a disconnect between livestock farming and the public that risks a loss of “social license” to farm. One proposed solution for the dairy farming community is to engage more constructively with the public to develop a shared vision of the industry's future; however, farmers and veterinarians remain reluctant to validate public opinions on farm animal care, in particular, often viewing them as naïve or impractical. Understanding the interpretive frames through which people make sense of dairy farming could help the dairy farming community engage more constructively with public opinion, thereby reducing conflict and providing opportunities to change communication or practice. Hence, frame analysis was conducted on transcripts of 60 face-to-face interviews with members of the UK public, first defining frames using reflexive thematic analysis, then considering the effect of these frames on those holding them. The results showed that dairy farming was mainly characterized by two entities: the cow and the farmer. Three frames were developed for the cow: she was perceived as i) enduring, which induced a sense of moral responsibility for her well-being among participants; ii) a fellow or companion, which led to feelings of a shared or parallel life with her; and iii) a force of nature, where the cow's connection with the natural world and “otherness” was appreciated, or even longed for. These connections were unexpectedly widespread within the sample, with many participants simultaneously holding two or even three frames. The farmer was seen through two frames: i) traditional; or ii) modernizing, but both frames had positive and negative narratives depending on the perceived care of the cow, causing confusion or even conflict about the care the farmer actually delivered. These findings provide new insights into the interpretive lenses through which the public makes sense of the dairy cow and her care, not least the bond the public themselves feel with the animal. They offer fresh opportunities for the dairy industry to improve engagement through more reflexive communication or modification of farming practices to better fit societal expectations about dairy cow welfare.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 138 Document Number: D05748
Notes:
Drovers CattleNetwork, Lenexa, Kansas. 4 pages., Interview with Nathan Runkle, Mercy for Animals, about livestock abuses reported recently by the organization, based on undercover investigations.
Tarpley, Troy G. (author), Steede, Garrett M. (author), Gorham, Laura M. (author), Krause, Amber (author), Cummins, R. Glenn (author), and Akers, Cindy (author)
Format:
Conference paper
Publication Date:
2017-02
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 163 Document Number: D08158
Notes:
Research paper presented in the Agricultural Communications Section, Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists (SAAS) conference in Mobile, Alabama, February 4-7, 2017. 23 pages.
