24 pages, This research examines how sheep farmers and industry actors in the United Kingdom (UK) understand and conceptualize what animal welfare scientists term ‘positive animal welfare’. It explores their awareness of the concept, and how they interpret it using a qualitative approach. Participants were recruited using a snowballing, purposive sample approach, resulting in 25 sheep farmers and 11 industry actors (veterinarians, farming organizations, advisors, and supply chain) being interviewed. To collect data, a combined approach involving semi-structured interviews and a facilitated workshop were used between April 2021 and March 2022. Data were then thematically analyzed using a hybrid of inductive and deductive coding process. The findings suggested that the perceptions of farmers and industry actors in the study regarding positive welfare differ from contemporary academic discourses. Overall, around 7 of the farmers equated positive welfare with “positive stockmanship”, while six of them expressed “good animal welfare” definitions associated with the Five Freedoms. In contrast, most industry actors (6) expressed interpretations associated with high welfare standards (going above minimum recommended practices) and positive mental experiences (3). Emerging discourses revealed the link between self-identity, social identity and what positive welfare is, the importance of knowledge exchange, and the need for practical indicators through language rephrasing. There is a clear need to enhance and improve knowledge dissemination strategies, particularly in the UK, where much research is being conducted on positive animal welfare.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 181 Document Number: C36378
Notes:
Drovers CattleNetwork via online. 3 pages., Author comments about a CNN Eatocracy feature that included an observation that the 4-H organization serves to desensitize children to the suffering of animals.
International: Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: D01515
Notes:
Pages 93-107 in Cass R. Sunstein and Martha C. Nussbaum (eds.), Animal rights: current debates and new directions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 338 pages.
19 pages, via online journal, Dairy farms pose many hazards to farmers and their employees, including the risk of injury caused by handling animals. On many farms, there is a lack of consistent information and training related to farm safety topics, including stockmanship, or safe animal handling. The purpose of this qualitative research was to explore effective communication strategies that support the application of stockmanship practices and more broadly support health and safety measures and the adoption of new behaviors by farmers and their employees. Research was conducted in three stages via in-depth farm tours and in-person interviews, a qualitative survey, and follow-up phone interviews with dairy farmers. Findings identified four values and moral norms important to dairy farmers and four barriers to implementation of farm safety practices. The research also revealed publications and in-person meetings as key channels of communication and on-farm consultants as important influencers. From the research findings, three major recommendations emerged. These include using a train the trainer educational model, engaging with professionals and encouraging farmer-to-farmer communication, and leveraging digital resources.
