USA: Center for Food Integrity, Gladstone, Missouri.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 202 Document Number: D11946
Notes:
Online from CFI. 29 pages., The Center "examines the most important emerging trends in animal protein, the latest digital ethnography research on consumer mindset and traditional and social media chatter, and provide specific insight to guide strategy going forward."
6 pages, The quality of beef cattle stockmanship typically is evaluated through quantitative and qualitative measurements of animal behavior. The Stockman's Scorecard is an observation instrument that has been developed to directly measure the actions of beef cattle stockmen. This article documents a pilot project for determining the content validity, internal consistency, and intrarater reliability of the scorecard as an evaluation instrument. Our results show that the scorecard is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring the actions of stockmen. The instrument can be a valuable tool for Extension educators in evaluating their stockmanship programming impacts.
19 pages, via Online journal, This article discusses the interplay of public policy and market-driven initiatives to improve farm animal welfare (FAW). Over the last couple of decades, the notion of ‘market-driven animal welfare’ has become popular, but can the market deliver the FAW that consumers and politicians expect? Using the Danish pork sector as the empirical setting, this article studies efforts to improve private FAW standards following changes to general regulations. The analysis shows that ethical misgivings regarding the adequacy of current and prospective FAW standards are tempered by the economic considerations that guide the practices of some actors. The study also shows that efforts to improve FAW standards are contingent on collaboration and coordination across globalised markets among actors with divergent interests. The findings have important implications for market practices and public policy in relation to FAW.
19 pages., Via online., In a comparative case study, researchers analyzed two social media conflicts between farmers and animal right advocates to understand how conflicts establish, escalate, and return dormant through issue and identity framing and the discursive use of emotions. "The binary opposition is initially established through issue framing but escalates into an identity conflict that involves group labeling and blaming."
19 pages., Via online journal., This article discusses two main issues: the historical invisibility of the role of animal
agriculture in climate change and whether it is useful to include explicit violent images
or “moral shock” of farmed animals in environmental advocacy campaigns to fight
against climate change and environmental devastation. The claim will be explored
at two levels: ethical and strategic. According to the current literature available, it
will be argued that we have sound arguments to believe that using images of farmed
animal suffering (including explicit violent images and moral shocks) is both an ethical
and effective approach to reach the end of speciesist oppression and to mitigate
climate change.
12pgs, In the UK, the pig industry is leading the way in the adoption of welfare outcome measures as part of their farm assurance scheme. The welfare outcome assessment (WOA), known as Real Welfare, is conducted by the farmers’ own veterinary surgeon. For the first time, this has allowed the pig industry to evaluate welfare by directly assessing the animal itself and to document the welfare of the UK pig industry as a whole. Farmer perspectives of the addition of a welfare outcome assessment to their farm assurance scheme have yet to be explored. Here, we investigate how the introduction of the Real Welfare protocol has been perceived by the farmers involved, what value it has (if any), whether any practical changes on farm have been a direct consequence of Real Welfare and ultimately whether they consider that the welfare of their pigs has been improved by the introduction of the Real Welfare protocol. Semi-structured interviews with 15 English pig farmers were conducted to explore their perceptions and experiences of the Real Welfare process. Our findings fall into three key areas: the lived experience of Real Welfare, on-farm changes resulting from Real Welfare and suggested improvements to the Real Welfare process as it currently stands. In all the three areas, the value farmers placed on the addition of WOA appeared to reflect their veterinary surgeon's attitude towards the Real Welfare protocol. If the vet was engaged in the process and actively included the farmer, for example through discussion of their findings, the farmers interviewed had a greater appreciation of the benefits of Real Welfare themselves. It is recommended that future similar schemes should work with veterinary surgeons to ensure their understanding and engagement with the process, as well as identifying and promoting how the scheme will practically benefit individual farmers rather than assuming that they will be motivated to engage for the good of the industry alone. Retailers should be encouraged to use Real Welfare as a marketing tool for pig products to enhance the perceived commercial value of this protocol to farmers.
