Ortigues-Marty, I. (author), Louveau, I. (author), Bee, G. (author), Oltjen, J.W. (author), Kononoff, P.J. (author), McArt, J.A.A. (author), Thomas, C. (author), Fairchild, B.D. (author), Kogut, M. (author), and Huff-Lonergan, E. (author)
Format:
Journal Article
Publication Date:
2025-03-03
Published:
USA: Oxford University Press
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 209 Document Number: D13551
3 pages, Scientific publishing has undergone a tremendous change in recent years. We, a group of Editors-in-Chief of scientific journals owned by scientific bodies, want to communicate some of our values. We represent animal, animal – open science, animal – science proceedings, JDS Communications, Journal of Animal Science, Journal of Applied Poultry Research, Journal of Dairy Science, Poultry Science and Translational Animal Science. Our values motivate our involvement in society-, association-or scientific institution-owned journals in animal science and shape our practices in scientific publishing, in the light of the tremendous changes in the land-scape of scientific publishing over the last decade.
Wilms, Lisa (author), Komainda, Martin (author), Hamidi, Dina (author), Riesch, Friederike (author), Horn, Juliane (author), and Isselstein, Johannes (author)
Format:
Journal Article
Publication Date:
2024-04-15
Published:
USA: Oxford University Press
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 209 Document Number: D13552
11 pages, Virtual fencing (VF) is a modern fencing technology that requires the animal to wear a device (e.g., a collar) that emits acoustic signals to replace the visual cue of traditional physical fences (PF) and, if necessary, mild electric signals. The use of devices that provide electric signals leads to concerns regarding the welfare of virtually fenced animals. The objective of this review is to give an overview of the current state of VF research into the welfare and learning behavior of cattle. Therefore, a systematic literature search was conducted using two online databases and reference lists of relevant articles. Studies included were peer-reviewed and written in English, used beef or dairy cattle, and tested neck-mounted VF devices. Further inclusion criteria were a combination of audio and electrical signals and a setup as a pasture trial, which implied that animals grazed in groups on grassland for 4 h minimum while at least one fence side was virtually fenced. The eligible studies (n = 13) were assigned to one or two of the following categories: animal welfare (n studies = 8) or learning behavior (n studies = 9). As data availability for conducting a meta-analysis was not sufficient, a comparison of the means of welfare indicators (daily weight gain, daily lying time, steps per hour, daily number of lying bouts, and fecal cortisol metabolites [FCM]) for virtually and physically fenced animals was done instead. In an additional qualitative approach, the results from the welfare-related studies were assembled and discussed. For the learning behavior, the number of acoustic and electric signals and their ratio were used in a linear regression model with duration in days as a numeric predictor to assess the learning trends over time. There were no significant differences between VF and PF for most welfare indicators (except FCM with lower values for VF; P = 0.0165). The duration in days did not have a significant effect on the number of acoustic and electric signals. However, a significant effect of trial duration on the ratio of electric-to-acoustic signals (P = 0.0014) could be detected, resulting in a decreasing trend of the ratio over time, which suggests successful learning. Overall, we conclude that the VF research done so far is promising but is not yet sufficient to ensure that the technology could not have impacts on the welfare of certain cattle types. More research is necessary to investigate especially possible long-term effects of VF.
42 pages, The 2006 United Nations report “Livestock’s Long Shadow” provided the first global estimate of the livestock sector’s contribution to anthropogenic climate change and warned of dire environmental consequences if business as usual continued. In the subsequent 17 years, numerous studies have attributed significant climate change impacts to livestock. In the USA, one of the largest consumers and producers of meat and dairy products, livestock greenhouse gas emissions remain effectively unregulated. What might explain this? Similar to fossil fuel companies, US animal agriculture companies responded to evidence that their products cause climate change by minimizing their role in the climate crisis and shaping policymaking in their favor. Here, we show that the industry has done so with the help of university experts. The beef industry awarded funding to Dr. Frank Mitloehner from the University of California, Davis, to assess “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” and his work was used to claim that cows should not be blamed for climate change. The animal agriculture industry is now involved in multiple multi-million-dollar efforts with universities to obstruct unfavorable policies as well as influence climate change policy and discourse. Here, we traced how these efforts have downplayed the livestock sector’s contributions to the climate crisis, minimized the need for emission regulations and other policies aimed at internalizing the costs of the industry’s emissions, and promoted industry-led climate “solutions” that maintain production. We studied this phenomenon by examining the origins, funding sources, activities, and political significance of two prominent academic centers, the CLEAR Center at UC Davis, established in 2018, and AgNext at Colorado State University, established in 2020, as well as the influence and industry ties of the programs’ directors, Dr. Mitloehner and Dr. Kimberly Stackhouse-Lawson. We developed 20 questions to evaluate the nature, extent, and societal impacts of the relationship between individual researchers and industry groups. Using publicly available evidence, we documented how the ties between these professors, centers, and the animal agriculture industry have helped maintain the livestock industry’s social license to operate not only by generating industry-supported research, but also by supporting public relations and policy advocacy.
Norris-Parish, Shannon L. (author), Leggette, Holli R. (author), Pesl Murphy, Theresa (author), Parrella, Jean A. (author), Richburg, Audra (author), and Herring, Andy D. (author)
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2024-01-12
Published:
UK: Oxford University Press
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 208 Document Number: D13252
9 pages, Animal scientists face an increasing need to communicate with the lay public because of the public’s interest in the origin and production of animal-sourced foods. Consumers’ increased interest infers a critical need for effective communication skills among animal science graduates. Effective communication skills are mandatory if students are to explain scientific information and mitigate misinformation about livestock production. The purpose of our study was to investigate the communication styles and communication effectiveness of upper-level animal science students enrolled in a beef cattle production and management course at Texas A&M University across five semesters (N = 241; spring 2018 = 61, summer 2018 = 15, Fall 2018 = 54, spring 2019 = 55, and fall 2019 = 56). Male animal science students (n = 25; 32.9%) preferred assertive and direct communication (a driver communication style) and female students (n = 32; 19.4%) preferred collaborative and accommodating communication (an amiable communication style). Students were moderately experienced with beef cattle production (M = 3.09, SD = 1.07) before enrolling in the course; however, former beef cattle experiences did not influence their preferred communication style [F(10, 230) = 0.36, P = 0.96]. Researchers also observed students’ communication skills during an end-of-semester beef cattle production and management project presentation and identified strengths and weaknesses. Students demonstrated strong, in-depth animal industry knowledge, an ability to connect beef production techniques to management success, and critical thinking skills when answering questions. Oral communication skills warranting improvement included integrating visual aids and/or visual slides to support findings, using improved stage presence and confidence, and sharing responsibilities when presenting as a team. Finally, completion of a supplemental communication training module, intended to develop oral communication skills, significantly improved [F(1, 55) = 4.16, P = 0.046] students’ beef cattle production and management project presentation scores. As students become aware of their communication preferences and tendencies, they become equipped to adjust their communication practices and techniques when needed. Through this study, we gained insight into students’ communication tendencies and skills, which can be used to provide curricular recommendations and enhance students’ workforce readiness.
17 pages, o sustain the economic viability of a livestock farm in a global market, characterised by a price undercutting competition, farmers are forced to adapt to what the market demands. At the same time, they have to care for the functionality of the farm system as a whole and of the subsystems, such as the farm animals, so that they for their part they can contribute to an economic success. Now, that animal health and welfare (AHW) has become an increasingly important issue for citizens and consumers, not only the decision makers but also the disciplines of animal science are challenged to improve an unsatisfying AHW level that has been neglected for long. However, to reduce AHW problems requires a quite different approach than to increase productive efficiency. A common sense can be assumed concerning the need to strive for an optimal cost-to-benefit ratio while balancing positive and negative impacts of production processes on economic and AHW target figures. However, what is often not adequately considered is the fact that economic and biological demands have to be balanced within a living system, e.g. in the individual animal and farm system. These function as the relevant reference systems in all cases where measures to reduce AHW problems are considered. Furthermore, there is a large gap of scientific knowledge, however, not in the traditional sense. While the predominant approaches, scientists generate context-invariant, and thus generalisable disposal knowledge in diversified subdisciplines, problem solving requires contextualisation, orientation and action-guiding knowledge within transdisciplinary approaches. The reason is that AHW problems are highly context-sensitive as well as multifactorial. They develop within the farm specific interconnectedness of manifold and highly varying factors, emerging a complexity that does not allow predictive statements via inductive approaches but requires an iterative procedure to approach to a farm specific AHW level, which is balanced with the overarching goal of economic viability. Recommended action guiding knowledge has to be of high external and ecological validity, before farmers might consider it to be implemented in farm practice. From the reflection about the discrepancy between the knowledge needed to reduce AHW problems and what is offered by animal science, it is concluded that not only the farm systems but also the predominant approaches of animal science have to be transformed. Otherwise, there is not a big chance to considerably reduce AHW problems in farm animals.
7 pages, Graduate education is an important aspect of the life of most academic scientists and a serious responsibility because it comes with the obligation to help students achieve their career and life goals. It can also be very fulfilling for the graduate mentor in terms of personal satisfaction and advancement of the research program. Learning to be a good major professor is an active process that depends on developing a formal framework of education and modifying that framework for each student based on past experiences and experimentation, advice from colleagues, and the individual personality of the student. Perhaps most important is for the graduate mentor to buy into the success and well-being of the student. Among the characteristics that a major professor could seek to instill in his or her students are critical and independent thinking, self-confidence, a thick skin, teamwork, laboratory skills and understanding, and the ability for hard work. Work to make science joyful by celebrating accomplishments, creating a fun environment in the lab, and stressing the societal value of science as compared to personal rewards or ambition.
6 pages, With most of the student attrition occurring early in undergraduate educational programs (Braunstein et al., 1997) it is necessary to interest and motivate students early on. The demographics of animal science students have shifted to students with minimal background in food producing animals. This presents a unique challenge as the current student population represents a diverse array of backgrounds and prior experiences. As a result, students enroll in undergraduate animal science programs with various expectations for their undergraduate degree and a focus primarily on careers in veterinary medicine. To engage all students, interest and motivation need to be generated. This review will use motivational frameworks as outlined by the self-determination theory, expectancy value theory, and interest, to explain the impact of the proposed solutions. Active learning classroom strategies are linked to increased knowledge compared with traditional, passive classrooms (Wells et al., 2019). Active learning shifts from a traditional teaching model to a student-centered model, which transitions instructors to facilitators of learning. This review summarizes current proposed pedagogies that have been researched in animal science classrooms such as experiential learning, flipped classrooms, hands-on animal experience, undergraduate research experiences, mentorship opportunities, capstone experiences, service-learning experiences, team-based learning, and cooperative learning. The limitations of these proposed pedagogies and the future research needed are also discussed.
11 pages, Individual background and demographics affect student perceptions of animal production. Understanding how science-based education alters these opinions is a critical aspect of improving university instruction as well as increasing consumer engagement in the poultry industry. The study objectives were to quantify the effects of student background, career interests, and science-based instruction on opinions regarding current issues in the poultry industry. Undergraduate students enrolled in a one semester poultry science course at Iowa State University between 2018 and 2021 were anonymously surveyed at the start and end of the semester as part of a 4-yr study. Students who opted to take the survey answered three demographic questions indicating their 1) livestock experience, 2) sex, and 3) career goals. The body of the survey consisted of 16 “poultry issue statements” where students were directed to mark a vertical dash on a 130 mm horizontal line indicating their level of agreement with each statement. Post-survey collection, the line was separated into 5 sections for discussion: responses within 0%–20% indicated strongly disagree, 21%–40% disagree, 41%–60% neutral, 61%–80% agree, and 81%–100% indicated strongly agree. Responses were analyzed using Proc Mixed in SAS Version 9.4 with a Tukey–Kramer adjustment for all pairwise comparisons using main effects including demographic categories, education (pre- or post-instruction), and year the survey was taken. Responses to various issue statements were affected by students’ livestock experience (P < 0.05; 6 out of 16 statements affected), sex (P < 0.05; 5 out of 16 statements), and ultimate career goals (P < 0.05; 4 out of 16 statements). Pre- vs. post-education responses differed significantly in 6 out of 16 statements (P < 0.05), and in 2 out of 16 poultry issue statements, the year of instruction affected student response (P < 0.05). These data indicate that individual student background, sex, and differing career interests impact opinions of current topics in the broiler and layer industries. Further, science-based education as well as the year the course was taken over consecutive semesters significantly altered student opinions.
17 pages, Environmental education (EE) programs, when combined with human-wildlife interactions (HWI), can trigger emotions, an essential part of attitudes that influence pro-environmental behaviors (PEB). We used participant observation and a post-event evaluation survey to investigate emotional response to HWI among participants from marine educational programs at the University of Georgia Marine Education Center and Aquarium, Savannah, GA. We found that during HWI participants demonstrated positive (e.g., empathy) and negative emotions (e.g., frustration) with animals, including misconceptions and negative perceptions toward snakes and horseshoe crabs. In addition, outdoor exploration, contact with wildlife (direct or indirect), biofacts exhibitions and live animal presentations were the practices that most engaged participants in the programs, indicating that animals (e.g., turtles and crabs) can increase participants’ interest in educational activities. By incorporating wildlife in EE practices, educators can engage individuals in activities and stimulate their emotional attachment to animals, which can encourage changes in perceptions, leading to PEBs necessary for environmental conservation.
