Search

    Start Over Subject Term meat production

    3. What do consumers read about meat? an analysis of media representations of the meat-environment relationship found in popular online news sites in the UK

    <span class="translation_missing" title="translation missing: en.bibleaves.discover_item">Discover Item</span>
    Collection:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
    Contributers:
    Mroz, Gilly (author) and Painter, James (author)
    Format:
    Online journal article
    Publication Date:
    2022-10-03
    Published:
    UK: Taylor & Francis
    Location:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 205 Document Number: D12679
    Journal Title:
    Environmental Communication
    Notes:
    19 pages, Previous scholarship suggests that elite media have tended to pay little attention to the adverse environmental impacts associated with meat consumption and production. Through content analysis of 116 articles from 2019, published on eight popular online news sites consumed by a wide range of demographics in the UK, including lower-income groups (the sector most likely to eat meat), we identify common anti-meat and pro-meat environmental narratives, solutions and recommendations, and the dominant sentiment towards both meat consumption and production. We observed a significantly greater presence of anti-meat consumption and/or production narratives than pro-meat. Over half the articles showed anti-meat consumption sentiment, with only 5% predominately in favour. 10% were against unspecified or industrial production practices, 28% were against industrial-scale farming but supported sustainable methods; and none were entirely in favour of the meat industry. These findings are reflected in the dominant recommendation, present in over 60% of articles, to eat less meat. Our results add substantially to previous media research, particularly showing the increased volume of coverage of the meat-environment nexus, varying levels of contestation around meat eating, and the division of responsibility between consumers and industry.

    4. ‘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.