Same Pig, Different Conclusions: Stakeholders Differ in Qualitative Behaviour Assessment

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics

Volumn 27, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 1019-1047

  Duijvesteijn, Naomi ^a,b   Benard, Marianne ^c   Reimert, Inonge ^b   Camerlink, Irene ^b  

^a TOPIGS Research Center IPG   (Netherlands)

^b WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c ATHENA INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Animal welfare; Dialogue; Perspectives; Pigs; Qualitative behaviour assessment

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL WELFARE; ASSESSMENT METHOD; PIG; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; STAKEHOLDER;

ANIMALIA; SUIDAE;

EID: 84914146353     PISSN: 11877863     EISSN: 1573322X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10806-014-9513-z     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Benard, M., & Cock Buning, T. (2013). Exploring the potential of Dutch pig farmers and urban-citizens to learn through frame reflection. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1–22. doi:10.1007/s10806-013-9438-y.
2. Benard, M., & Cock Buning, T. Engaging society in pig research. Lessons learned on how to facilitate multi-stakeholder dialogues to enhance animal welfare in pig production. Journal of Responsible Research and Innovation (under review).
3. Benard, M., Schuitmaker, T., & Cock Buning, T. (2013). Scientists and Dutch pig farmers in dialogue about tail biting: Unravelling the mechanism of multi-stakeholder learning. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1–22. doi:10.1007/s10806-013-9471-x.
4. ®project. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica,50(Suppl 1), S10.
5. Boogaard, B. K., Oosting, S. J., & Bock, B. B. (2006). Elements of societal perception of farm animal welfare: A quantitative study in The Netherlands. Livestock Science,104(1), 13–22.
6. CBS (2013). Landbouwtelling 2011. Statline database. www.statline.cbs.nl.
7. Dehlholm, C., Brockhoff, P. B., & Bredie, W. L. (2012). Confidence ellipses: A variation based on parametric bootstrapping applicable on multiple factor analysis results for rapid graphical evaluation. Food Quality and Preference,26(2), 278–280.
8. Dunn, W. N. (1988). Methods of the second type: Coping with the wilderness of conventional policy analysis. Review of Policy Research,7(4), 720–737.
9. Eijsackers, H., & Scholten, M. (Eds.). (2010). Over zorgvuldige veehouderij. Veel instrumenten, één concert: Wageningen UR.
10. Festinger, L., Rieken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
11. Fraser, D., Weary, D. M., Pajor, E. A., & Milligan, B. N. (1997). A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare,6, 186–205.
12. Gadamer, H. (1965). Wahrheit und methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen hermeneutik.
13. Hisschemöller, M., & Hoppe, R. (1995). Coping with intractable controversies: The case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis. Knowledge, Technology & Policy,8(4), 40–60.
14. Hopster, H. (2010). Dierenwelzijn: geen hype, maar blijvende transitiedrive. In H. Eijsackers & M. Scholten (Eds.), Over zorgvuldige veehouderij. Veel instrumenten, één concert: Wageningen UR.
15. Hubbard, C., & Scott, K. (2011). Do farmers and scientists differ in their understanding and assessment of farm animal welfare? Animal Welfare,20(1), 79–87.
16. Lassen, J., Sandoe, P., & Forkman, B. (2006). Happy pigs are dirty!—Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science,103(3), 221–230.
17. Marie, M. (2006). Ethics: The new challenge for animal agriculture. Livestock Science,103(3), 203–207.
18. Markljung, E., Braunschweig, M. H., Karlskov-Mortensen, P., Bruun, C. S., Sawera, M., Cho, I.-C., et al. (2008). Genome-wide identification of quantitative trait loci in a cross between Hampshire and Landrace II: Meat quality traits. BMC Genetics,9(1), 22.
19. Miele, M., Veissier, I., Evans, A., & Botreau, R. (2011). Animal welfare: Establishing a dialogue between science and society. Animal Welfare,20, 103–117.
20. Napolitano, F., De Rosa, G., Braghieri, A., Grasso, F., Bordi, A., & Wemelsfelder, F. (2008). The qualitative assessment of responsiveness to environmental challenge in horses and ponies. Applied Animal Behaviour Science,109(2), 342–354.
21. Phythian, C., Michalopoulou, E., Duncan, J., & Wemelsfelder, F. (2013). Inter-observer reliability of qualitative behavioural assessments of sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science,144(1), 73–79.
22. ®Assessment Protocol for pigs (sows and piglets, growing and finishing pigs). Lelystad: Welfare Quality Consortium.
23. Raftopoulos, A., & Machamer, P. (2012). Perception, realism, and the problem of reference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Rokeach, M. (1973). Nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
25. Rousing, T., & Wemelsfelder, F. (2006). Qualitative assessment of social behaviour of dairy cows housed in loose housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science,101(1), 40–53.
26. Rutherford, K., Donald, R. D., Lawrence, A. B., & Wemelsfelder, F. (2012). Qualitative behavioural assessment of emotionality in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science,139(3), 218–224.
27. Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.
28. Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,58(5), 878–891.
29. Stockman, C., Collins, T., Barnes, A., Miller, D., Wickham, S., Beatty, D., et al. (2011). Qualitative behavioural assessment and quantitative physiological measurement of cattle naïve and habituated to road transport. Animal Production Science,51(3), 240–249.
30. Te Velde, H., Aarts, N., & Van Woerkum, C. (2002). Dealing with ambivalence: Farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,15(2), 203–219.
31. Temple, D., Manteca, X., Velarde, A., & Dalmau, A. (2011). Assessment of animal welfare through behavioural parameters in Iberian pigs in intensive and extensive conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science,131(1), 29–39.
32. Termeer, C. J. A. M., Breeman, G. E., van Lieshout, M., & Pot, W. D. (2010). Why more knowledge could thwart democracy: configurations and fixations in the Dutch mega-stables debate. In Knowledge democracy. Consequences for science, politics, and media (pp. 99–111). Heidelberg: Springer.
33. Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2008). Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science,116(1), 126–136.
34. Vinken, H., & Soeters, J. (2004). Comparing cultures: Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective. Leiden: Brill.
35. Walker, J., Dale, A., Waran, N., Clarke, N., Farnworth, M., & Wemelsfelder, F. (2010). The assessment of emotional expression in dogs using a free choice profiling methodology. Animal Welfare,19(1), 75–84.
36. Wemelsfelder, F. (2007). How animals communicate quality of life: The qualitative assessment of behaviour. Animal Welfare,16(Suppl 1), 25–31.
37. Wemelsfelder, F., Hunter, E. A., Mendl, M. T., & Lawrence, A. B. (2000). The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioural expressions in pigs: First explorations of a novel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement. Applied Animal Behaviour Science,67(3), 193–215.
38. Wemelsfelder, F., Hunter, T. E. A., Mendl, M. T., & Lawrence, A. B. (2001). Assessing the ‘whole animal’: A free choice profiling approach. Animal Behaviour,62(2), 209–220.
39. Wemelsfelder, F., Hunter, A. E., Paul, E. S., & Lawrence, A. B. (2012). Assessing pig body language: Agreement and consistency between pig farmers, veterinarians, and animal activists. Journal of Animal Science,90(10), 3652–3665.