公众如何参与有关牛福利的讨论?兽医和动物科学家的观点

IF 1.4 4区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES Animal Welfare Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1017/awf.2023.88
Beth Ventura, Daniel M Weary, Marina AG von Keyserlingk
{"title":"公众如何参与有关牛福利的讨论?兽医和动物科学家的观点","authors":"Beth Ventura, Daniel M Weary, Marina AG von Keyserlingk","doi":"10.1017/awf.2023.88","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Veterinarians and animal scientists can provide leadership on issues relevant to farm animal welfare, but perceptions of these stakeholders regarding societal expectations for welfare are underexplored. This study involved five focus groups of veterinarians and animal scientists (n = 50 in total), recruited at a European meeting focused on cattle welfare. Participants were invited to discuss topics related to cattle welfare and were prompted with questions to elicit their perspectives of public concerns and how the participants felt public input should be included when developing solutions. Discussions were moderated by trained facilitators, audio-recorded and transcribed, and transcripts analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Ultimately, four primary themes were developed: (1) The public as concerned; (2) The public as ignorant; (3) The public as needing education; and (4) The public as helper or hindrance. Groups identified specific farming practices viewed as concerning to the public, including lack of pasture access, behavioural restriction, and painful procedures. Discussions about these concerns and the role of the public were often framed around the assumption that the public was ignorant about farming, and that this ignorance needed to be rectified through education. Participants were generally ambivalent in their beliefs regarding public contributions to solutions for farm animal welfare but suggested that consumers should pay more for products to help shoulder any costs of welfare improvements.","PeriodicalId":7894,"journal":{"name":"Animal Welfare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How might the public contribute to the discussion on cattle welfare? Perspectives of veterinarians and animal scientists\",\"authors\":\"Beth Ventura, Daniel M Weary, Marina AG von Keyserlingk\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/awf.2023.88\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Veterinarians and animal scientists can provide leadership on issues relevant to farm animal welfare, but perceptions of these stakeholders regarding societal expectations for welfare are underexplored. This study involved five focus groups of veterinarians and animal scientists (n = 50 in total), recruited at a European meeting focused on cattle welfare. Participants were invited to discuss topics related to cattle welfare and were prompted with questions to elicit their perspectives of public concerns and how the participants felt public input should be included when developing solutions. Discussions were moderated by trained facilitators, audio-recorded and transcribed, and transcripts analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Ultimately, four primary themes were developed: (1) The public as concerned; (2) The public as ignorant; (3) The public as needing education; and (4) The public as helper or hindrance. Groups identified specific farming practices viewed as concerning to the public, including lack of pasture access, behavioural restriction, and painful procedures. Discussions about these concerns and the role of the public were often framed around the assumption that the public was ignorant about farming, and that this ignorance needed to be rectified through education. Participants were generally ambivalent in their beliefs regarding public contributions to solutions for farm animal welfare but suggested that consumers should pay more for products to help shoulder any costs of welfare improvements.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7894,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Animal Welfare\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Animal Welfare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2023.88\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Welfare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2023.88","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

兽医和动物科学家可以在农场动物福利相关问题上发挥领导作用,但这些利益相关者对社会福利期望的看法尚未得到充分探讨。这项研究涉及兽医和动物科学家的五个焦点小组(总共50人),他们是在一个关注牛福利的欧洲会议上招募的。与会者被邀请讨论与牛福利有关的话题,并被提示提出问题,以征求他们对公众关注的看法,以及与会者认为在制定解决方案时应如何纳入公众意见。讨论由训练有素的主持人主持,录音和转录,并使用反身性主题分析分析文本。最终形成了四个主要主题:(1)有关公众;(2)公众无知;(3)公众需要教育;(四)公众作为帮助者或者阻碍者。团体确定了与公众有关的具体农业实践,包括缺乏牧场,行为限制和痛苦的过程。关于这些问题和公众角色的讨论往往围绕着这样的假设:公众对农业一无所知,这种无知需要通过教育来纠正。对于公众对解决农场动物福利问题的贡献,与会者普遍持矛盾态度,但他们建议消费者应该为产品支付更多的钱,以帮助承担改善福利的任何成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How might the public contribute to the discussion on cattle welfare? Perspectives of veterinarians and animal scientists
Abstract Veterinarians and animal scientists can provide leadership on issues relevant to farm animal welfare, but perceptions of these stakeholders regarding societal expectations for welfare are underexplored. This study involved five focus groups of veterinarians and animal scientists (n = 50 in total), recruited at a European meeting focused on cattle welfare. Participants were invited to discuss topics related to cattle welfare and were prompted with questions to elicit their perspectives of public concerns and how the participants felt public input should be included when developing solutions. Discussions were moderated by trained facilitators, audio-recorded and transcribed, and transcripts analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Ultimately, four primary themes were developed: (1) The public as concerned; (2) The public as ignorant; (3) The public as needing education; and (4) The public as helper or hindrance. Groups identified specific farming practices viewed as concerning to the public, including lack of pasture access, behavioural restriction, and painful procedures. Discussions about these concerns and the role of the public were often framed around the assumption that the public was ignorant about farming, and that this ignorance needed to be rectified through education. Participants were generally ambivalent in their beliefs regarding public contributions to solutions for farm animal welfare but suggested that consumers should pay more for products to help shoulder any costs of welfare improvements.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Animal Welfare
Animal Welfare 农林科学-动物学
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
43
审稿时长
18-36 weeks
期刊介绍: Animal Welfare is an international scientific and technical journal. It publishes the results of peer-reviewed scientific research, technical studies and reviews relating to the welfare of kept animals (eg on farms, in laboratories, zoos and as companions) and of those in the wild whose welfare is compromised by human activities. Papers on related ethical, social, and legal issues and interdisciplinary papers will also be considered for publication. Studies that are derivative or which replicate existing publications will only be considered if they are adequately justified. Papers will only be considered if they bring new knowledge (for research papers), new perspectives (for reviews) or develop new techniques. Papers must have the potential to improve animal welfare, and the way in which they achieve this, or are likely to do so, must be clearly specified in the section on Animal welfare implications.
期刊最新文献
Qualitative Behavioural Assessment of bonobo emotional expressivity across observer groups and zoo housing environments. Human-animal interactions and machine-animal interactions in animals under human care: A summary of stakeholder and researcher perceptions and future directions. Does tail docking prevent Cochliomyia hominivorax myiasis in sheep? A six-year retrospective cohort study. Standard methods for marking caudate amphibians do not impair animal welfare over the short term: An experimental approach. Why are some people in the UK reluctant to seek support for their pets?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1