Search

    Start Over Subject Term animal production

    1. Consumer attitudes towards production diseases in intensive production systems

    <span class="translation_missing" title="translation missing: en.bibleaves.discover_item">Discover Item</span>
    Collection:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
    Contributers:
    Clark, Beth (author), Panzone, Luca A. (author), Stewart, Gavin B. (author), Kyriazakis, Ilias (author), Niemi, Jarkko K. (author), Latvala, Terhi (author), Tranter, Richard (author), Jones, Philip (author), and Frewer, Lynn J. (author)
    Format:
    Online journal article
    Publication Date:
    2019-01-10
    Location:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 7 Document Number: D10240
    Journal Title:
    PLoS ONE
    Journal Title Details:
    14(1)
    Notes:
    Many members of the public and important stakeholders operating at the upper end of the food chain, may be unfamiliar with how food is produced, including within modern animal production systems. The intensification of production is becoming increasingly common in modern farming. However, intensive systems are particularly susceptible to production diseases, with potentially negative consequences for farm animal welfare (FAW). Previous research has demonstrated that the public are concerned about FAW, yet there has been little research into attitudes towards production diseases, and their approval of interventions to reduce these. This research explores the public’s attitudes towards, and preferences for, FAW interventions in five European countries (Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain and the UK). An online survey was conducted for broilers (n = 789), layers (n = 790) and pigs (n = 751). Data were analysed by means of Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA, exploratory factor analysis and structural equation modelling. The results suggest that the public have concerns regarding intensive production systems, in relation to FAW, naturalness and the use of antibiotics. The most preferred interventions were the most “proactive” interventions, namely improved housing and hygiene measures. The least preferred interventions were medicine-based, which raised humane animal care and food safety concerns amongst respondents. The results highlighted the influence of the identified concerns, perceived risks and benefits on attitudes and subsequent behavioural intention, and the importance of supply chain stakeholders addressing these concerns in the subsequent communications with the public.

    3. Farm reporting in a new age of mythology

    <span class="translation_missing" title="translation missing: en.bibleaves.discover_item">Discover Item</span>
    Collection:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
    Contributers:
    Palmer, Lane (author / Editor, Farm Journal magazine)
    Format:
    Speech
    Publication Date:
    1978-03-15
    Published:
    USA
    Location:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 27 Document Number: B02747
    Notes:
    Mimeographed. Presented at Missouri Agricultural Communication Conference, Columbia, Missouri, March 15, 1978. 11 pages.

    5. The animal agriculture industry, US universities, and the obstruction of climate understanding and policy

    <span class="translation_missing" title="translation missing: en.bibleaves.discover_item">Discover Item</span>
    Collection:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
    Contributers:
    Morris, Viveca (author) and Jacquet, Jennifer (author)
    Format:
    Journal article
    Publication Date:
    2024-02-26
    Published:
    Netherlands: Springer Nature
    Location:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 209 Document Number: D13549
    Journal Title:
    Climatic Change
    Journal Title Details:
    177 : Article 41
    Notes:
    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.

    6. Traceability enables trust

    <span class="translation_missing" title="translation missing: en.bibleaves.discover_item">Discover Item</span>
    Collection:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
    Contributers:
    Henderson, Greg (author)
    Format:
    Magazine article
    Publication Date:
    2022-03-01
    Published:
    USA: Farm Journal Media
    Location:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 207 Document Number: D12982
    Journal Title:
    Drovers
    Journal Title Details:
    March 2022
    Notes:
    1 page. Article located on page 12.

    7. Undergraduate student attitudes to current poultry industry issues over four semesters: surveying an introductory poultry science course

    <span class="translation_missing" title="translation missing: en.bibleaves.discover_item">Discover Item</span>
    Collection:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
    Contributers:
    Meyer, Meaghan M. (author) and Bobeck, Elizabeth A. (author)
    Format:
    Journal article
    Publication Date:
    2023-01-13
    Published:
    USA: Oxford University Press
    Location:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 209 Document Number: D13554
    Journal Title:
    Journal of Animal Science
    Journal Title Details:
    101
    Notes:
    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 &lt; 0.05; 6 out of 16 statements affected), sex (P &lt; 0.05; 5 out of 16 statements), and ultimate career goals (P &lt; 0.05; 4 out of 16 statements). Pre- vs. post-education responses differed significantly in 6 out of 16 statements (P &lt; 0.05), and in 2 out of 16 poultry issue statements, the year of instruction affected student response (P &lt; 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.

    8. Why has animal science not led to improved farm animal health and welfare?

    <span class="translation_missing" title="translation missing: en.bibleaves.discover_item">Discover Item</span>
    Collection:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
    Contributers:
    Sundrum, Albert (author)
    Format:
    Journal article
    Publication Date:
    2024-01-05
    Published:
    Switzerland: Frontiers
    Location:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 209 Document Number: D13548
    Journal Title:
    Frontiers in Animal Science
    Journal Title Details:
    4
    Notes:
    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.