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.
Dan, Viorela (author), Osterheider, Angela (author), Raupp, Juliana (author), and Department of Communication Studies and Media Research, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Oettingenstrße
Format:
Online journal article
Publication Date:
2018-12-22
Published:
[place of publication not identified]: SAGE Publishing
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 151 Document Number: D10124
34 pages., via online journal, he use of antibiotics in agriculture contributes to antimicrobial resistance. We surveyed German farmers (n = 336) on their intention to adopt alternative antimicrobial agents (AAA) and used the diffusion of innovations approach as a theoretical guide. (1) Farmers’ views regarding the relative advantage and complexity of AAA, (2) their use of and trust in information sources and channels, and (3) various individual and organizational characteristics were entered as predictors in two explorative models. While farmers’ intention to adopt AAA was generally very high, selected variables in all three categories predicted variations in the intensity of the adoption intention.
Garrett M. Steede (author), Courtney Meyers (author), Nan Li (author), Erica Irlbeck (author), Sherice Gearhart (author), and Texas Tech University; University of Minnesota - Twin Cities
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2018
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 149 Document Number: D10103
Article 4; pgs. 1-16, On January 1, 2017, the final rule of the Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD) was put into place requiring
antibiotics approved for both humans and animals to be discontinued for growth promotion. This change was
brought on by the role growth promoters in livestock production play in the development of antibiotic
resistance. Antibiotic resistance increases the costs associated with human health care by increasing the length
of stays in the hospital and requiring more intensive medical care for patients. The purpose of this study was to
explore sentiment and characteristics of social media content and the characteristics of the key influencers
whose opinions had the greatest amount of reach on social media in regard to antibiotic use in livestock and
antibiotic resistance. Nuvi, a social media monitoring program, provided sentiment for each tweet and coded
64.8% of the content (n = 129) as negative compared to 38.2% (n = 76) humans coded as negative. The
contrast between human coders and Nuvi indicates there could be discrepancies between how Nuvi codes
content and the way a human might interpret the content. No key influencer discussed antibiotic use in
livestock positively. Findings suggest agricultural communicators should not rely completely on the output
from sentiment analysis programs to evaluate how the public discusses issues related to agriculture,
particularly controversial issues. Further, agricultural communications practitioners should prioritize
monitoring the content shared by key influencers in an effort to better understand the content being shared by
the most influential users. Recommendations for future research are provided.
