Search

    Start Over Subject Term industry Subject Term animal welfare

    2. A website content analysis of corporate animal welfare messaging

    <span class="translation_missing" title="translation missing: en.bibleaves.discover_item">Discover Item</span>
    Collection:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
    Contributers:
    Morris, Olivia (author), Miller, Jefferson D. (author), and Whitehead, Isabel (author)
    Format:
    Journal article
    Publication Date:
    2019-11
    Published:
    Association for Communication Excellence
    Location:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 121 Document Number: D11053
    Journal Title:
    Journal of Applied Communications
    Journal Title Details:
    103(4)
    Notes:
    via online journal., The purpose of this study was to identify and describe the nature of corporate positions on animal welfare available on the websites of five meat producing companies in the U.S. The results of the content analysis illustrated that there were common topics among the dialogs the companies were willing to open related to their animal welfare positions. The companies typically took a general approach to animal welfare topics, commonly focusing on their corporate policy and their commitment to animal welfare. While each company focused on a unique combination of topics, companies commonly avoided mentioning more specific and possibly controversial topics and instead chose to focus on big-picture topics such as a commitment to sound animal welfarepractices. Each company used a particular set of frames to couch individual animal welfare messages for consumers. The most common frame led was that the company is an industry leader in animal welfare. Eighteen thematic terms related to livestock production and handling emerged through the content analysis. Of those, animal handling and humane were clearly the most commonly used terms. Future research should include matching these content analysis results with the existing communication strategies of each company, conducting more content analyses on animal protein companies’ other media outlets, as well as further exploring the presence of frames, topics, and terminology in news coverage in comparison to the online messages of animal protein companies.

    4. Consumers' evaluation of animal welfare labels on poultry products

    <span class="translation_missing" title="translation missing: en.bibleaves.discover_item">Discover Item</span>
    Collection:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
    Contributers:
    Powers, Rexanna (author), Li, Nan (author), Gibson, Courtney (author), Irlbeck, Erica (author), and Association for Communication Excellence (ACE)
    Format:
    Online journal article
    Publication Date:
    2020-02
    Published:
    United States: New Prairie Press
    Location:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 131 Document Number: D11300
    Journal Title:
    Journal of Applied Communications
    Journal Title Details:
    104(1)
    Notes:
    18 pages., via online journal, As the public has expressed increasing concerns regarding the humane raising and handling of farm animals, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and industry organizations have developed a series of standards enforcing animal welfare in the poultry industry. Labels and value-added claims were created and defined to differentiate products and to inform consumers’ purchasing decisions. This study identified five labels related to animal welfare that are frequently found on food packages in the U.S. grocery stores, including both the mandatory labels and third-party, voluntary labels. Using a controlled online experiment (N=249), we examined the labels’ effects on consumers’ perception of humane treatment and purchasing tendencies toward egg products. Results showed that while most consumers lack knowledge regarding the labels’ meaning and certification standards, they rely on the labels with simplistic terms (e.g., "certified humane," "cage free") as heuristic cues to judge the ethical treatment of hens on the farm. However, the selected labels did not lead consumers to pay a higher premium for the labeled products. We discussed the implications for regulators, food marketers, and agricultural communicators.

    7. The impact of stakeholders' roles within the livestock industry on their attitudes to livestock welfare in southeast and east Asia

    <span class="translation_missing" title="translation missing: en.bibleaves.discover_item">Discover Item</span>
    Collection:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
    Contributers:
    Sinclair, Michelle (author), Zito, Sarah (author), and Phillips, Clive J. C. (author)
    Format:
    Journal article
    Publication Date:
    2017-01-25
    Published:
    International
    Location:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 162 Document Number: D08055
    Journal Title:
    Animals
    Journal Title Details:
    7(2)
    Notes:
    12 pages.

    8. ‘Would it sell more pork?’ pig farmers’ perceptions of real welfare, the welfare outcome component of their farm assurance scheme

    <span class="translation_missing" title="translation missing: en.bibleaves.discover_item">Discover Item</span>
    Collection:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
    Contributers:
    Hockenhull, J. (author), Main, D.C.J. (author), and Mullan, S (author)
    Format:
    Journal Article
    Publication Date:
    2019-05-20
    Published:
    Netherlands: Elsevier
    Location:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 206 Document Number: D12782
    Journal Title:
    Animal
    Journal Title Details:
    Volume 13, Issue 12, Pages 2864 - 2875
    Notes:
    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.