Farmer’s Response to Societal Concerns About Farm Animal Welfare: The Case of Mulesing [Book Review]

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (6):645-658 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The study explored the motivations behind Australian wool producers’ intentions regarding mulesing; a surgical procedure that will be voluntarily phased out after 2010, following retailer boycotts led by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Telephone interviews were conducted with 22 West Australian wool producers and consultants to elicit their behavioral, normative and control beliefs about mulesing and alternative methods of breech strike prevention. Results indicate that approximately half the interviewees intend to continue mulesing, despite attitudes toward the act of mulesing being quite negative. This indicates that attitudes alone are unlikely to be good predictors of this goal directed behavior. Most respondents believed mulesing was more effective and involved less cost, time, and effort than the currently available alternatives to prevent breech strike. Further, they felt relatively little social pressure, as they believed few consumers were concerned about mulesing. However, they noted that if consumer sentiment changed they would likely change their practices. Thus, attitudes are likely to be only one of several factors influencing intentions to change farm practices to address societal concerns about animal welfare. Further, mulesing appears to be goal - directed behavior , suggesting that other factors depicted by the Model of Goal-directed Behavior (MGB; Perugini and Bagozzi In: Br J Soc Psychol, 40: 79–98, 2001 ) may be worth exploring in this context. Finally, these results provide insight into how policy makers may influence farmers to change practices in response to societal pressure for improving farm animal welfare

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,616

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Mulesing and Animal Ethics.Joanne Sneddon & Bernard Rollin - 2010 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23 (4):371-386.
The sciences of animal welfare.David J. Mellor - 2009 - Ames, Iowa: Wiley-Blackwell. Edited by Emily Patterson-Kane & Kevin J. Stafford.
Ethological farm programs and the “market” for animal welfare.Stefan Mann - 2005 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (4):369-382.
A New Format for Learning about Farm Animal Welfare.Edmond A. Pajor - 2011 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (4):367-379.
Animal Welfare, Trust, Governance, and the Public Good.Raymond Anthony - 2007 - The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 1:275-280.
Ethical issues associated with sheep fly strike research, prevention, and control.Michael C. Morris - 2000 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 (3-4):205-217.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-11-18

Downloads
20 (#656,480)

6 months
5 (#247,092)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Attitudes of Canadian Pig Producers Toward Animal Welfare.Jeffrey M. Spooner, Catherine A. Schuppli & David Fraser - 2014 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27 (4):569-589.

Add more citations