Irish cattle farmers’ experiences and perceptions of negative framing of farm animal welfare in the media

peer-reviewedRECORDABSTRACTARTICLE Irish cattle farmers’ experiences and perceptions of negative framing of farm animal welfare in the media RESEARCH-ARTICLE Author(s): A. Duley 1 , , M. Connor 1 , B. Vigors 2 Publication date (Electronic): 04 November 2022 Journal: Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research Publisher: Compuscript Keywords: Agriculture, farm animal welfare, farmer perception, media framing, rural sociology Abstract Increased urbanisation in recent decades has created a knowledge gap between farming and the Irish public. Mainstream media has begun filling this gap through reports on farm animal welfare (FAW) incidents that sometimes frame farming in a negative way. This negative framing can influence how farmers perceive the information communicated in these media stories and colour their experiences. Furthermore, perceived societal pressures may contribute to farmers feeling overwhelmed or negatively impact their mental health. In the context of FAW, the latter is particularly relevant as poor farmer mental health has been associated with poorer animal welfare. However, little is known about how the negative framing of FAW stories influence farmers’ perceptions and experiences. The aim of this study was to explore how negatively framed media stories about FAW incidents affect cattle farmers’ perceptions of animal welfare. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with seven Irish beef and dairy farmers using vignettes displaying negatively framed FAW incidents presented in the media. Five themes were identified: (1) job satisfaction and motivation, (2) impact on the human–animal relationship, (3) the importance of community, (4) negative portrayal of farmers and (5) need for FAW education. Findings suggest that negative framing of FAW in the media, as well as rural restructuring in Ireland, may negatively affect farmers’ motivation which could have indirect implications for the welfare of their animals

Happy or healthy?:How members of the public prioritise farm animal health and natural behaviours

The importance given to minimising health issues and promoting natural behaviours is a polarising issue within farm animal welfare. It is predominantly thought that members of the public prioritise animals being able to behave naturally over other aspects of farm animal welfare, such as addressing health issues. However, public perspectives may be more multi-dimensional than is generally thought, with the importance given to these different elements of welfare dependent on the situation and state of the animals in question. To examine this, a factorial survey using vignettes, which experimentally manipulated the different levels of health (high health vs. low health) and natural behaviour provision (high behaviour vs. low behaviour), was completed by a sample (n = 810) representative of the UK population (on age, gender, ethnicity). Contrary to the predominant view, this study found animal health had the greatest effect on participants' judgements, explaining more of the variance in their assessments of animal welfare than any other factor. However, findings also indicated that participants considered animal welfare to be most positive when both health issues are minimised and natural behaviours are promoted. Attitudes to natural behaviours also varied more between participants, with females, individuals who do not (regularly) eat meat and those with a greater belief in animal mind giving greater priority to natural behaviours. In the context of public and private welfare standards seeking to meet public expectations, this study provides important insights into how public perspectives of animal welfare are more nuanced than previously thought, influenced by the context of the animal, the aspect of welfare in question and personal characteristics

Animal welfare with Chinese characteristics: Chinese poultry producers’ perceptions of, and attitudes towards, animal welfare

Copyright: \ua9 2024 Yang et al.China’s poultry industry faces challenges in adopting and sustaining cage-free systems for poultry production. Effective interventions are crucial to support producers transitioning from cages to alternative systems or maintaining cage-free systems to improve animal welfare. However, little is known about how Chinese poultry producers perceive animal welfare in relation to cage-free systems and the importance of animal welfare in poultry production. Through a qualitative interview study with 30 Chinese farm owners, managers and senior managers from large-scale egg and broiler farms using cages and non-cage systems (collectively referred to as “producers”), this paper explores Chinese poultry producers’ attitudes and perceptions regarding animal welfare and welfare in different poultry housing systems. Template analysis was used to analyse the data from semi-structured interviews, which generated themes related to the participants’ awareness and understanding of the concept of animal welfare, the factors that impacted their choices of different housing systems, and the perceived priorities in poultry production. The responses revealed that the participating producers had a strong awareness and knowledge of animal welfare. However, the participants’ understanding of the term is heterogeneous: generally, egg producers emphasised natural behaviours, whereas broiler producers prioritised health and productivity. Nevertheless, profitability, leadership, and organisational policies primarily influenced housing system choices rather than animal welfare values. Economic motives drove egg producers towards cage-free systems, prompted by consumers’ and companies’ demand for cage-free eggs committed to transitioning away from cages by 2025. In conclusion, tailored interventions for different poultry sectors within China are necessary. While animal welfare values matter, economic incentives seem more promising for steering the shift towards and maintaining cage-free poultry production

Miocene waterfowl and other birds from central Otago, New Zealand

Copyright © The Natural History Museum 2007Abundant fossil bird bones from the lower Bannockburn Formation, Manuherikia Group, an Early-Middle Miocene lacustrine deposit, 16–19 Ma, from Otago in New Zealand, reveal the “St Bathans Fauna” (new name), a first Tertiary avifauna of land and freshwater birds from New Zealand. At least 23 species of birds are represented by bones, and probable moa, Aves: Dinornithiformes, by eggshell. Anatids dominate the fauna with four genera and five species described as new: a sixth and largest anatid species is represented by just one bone. This is the most diverse Early-Middle Miocene duck fauna known worldwide. Among ducks, two species of dendrochenines are most numerous in the fauna, but a tadornine is common as well. A diving petrel (Pelecanoididae: Pelecanoides) is described, so extending the geological range of this genus worldwide from the Pliocene to the Middle Miocene, at least. The remaining 16 taxa are left undescribed but include: a large species of gull (Laridae); two small waders (Charadriiformes, genus indet.), the size of Charadrius bicinctus and Calidris ruficollis, respectively; a gruiform represented by one specimen similar to Aptornis; abundant rail (Rallidae) bones, including a common flightless rail and a rarer slightly larger taxon, about the size of Gallirallus philippensis; an ?eagle (Accipitridae); a pigeon (Columbidae); three parrots (Psittacidae); an owlet nightjar (Aegothelidae: Aegotheles sp.); a swiftlet (Apodidae: Collocalia sp.); and three passerine taxa, of which the largest is a member of the Cracticidae. The absence of some waterbirds, such as anserines (including swans), grebes (Podicipedidae) and shags (Phalacrocoracidae), among the abundant bones, indicates their probable absence from New Zealand in the Early-Middle Miocene.T. H. Worthy, A. J. D. Tennyson, C. Jones, J. A. McNamara and B. J. Dougla

Synopsis of the pelidnotine scarabs (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae, Rutelinae, Rutelini) and annotated catalog of the species and subspecies

The pelidnotine scarabs (Scarabaeidae: Rutelinae: Rutelini) are a speciose, paraphyletic assemblage of beetles that includes spectacular metallic species (“jewel scarabs”) as well as species that are ecologically important as herbivores, pollinators, and bioindicators. These beetles suffer from a complicated nomenclatural history, due primarily to 20th century taxonomic and nomenclatural errors. We review the taxonomic history of the pelidnotine scarabs, present a provisional key to genera with overviews of all genera, and synthesize a catalog of all taxa with synonyms, distributional data, type specimen information, and 107 images of exemplar species. As a result of our research, the pelidnotine leaf chafers (a paraphyletic group) include 27 (26 extant and 1 extinct) genera and 420 valid species and subspecies (419 extant and 1 extinct). Our research makes biodiversity research on this group tractable and accessible, thus setting the stage for future studies that address evolutionary and ecological trends. Based on our research, 1 new species is described, 1 new generic synonym and 12 new species synonyms are proposed, 11 new lectotypes and 1 new neotype are designated, many new or revised nomenclatural combinations, and many unavailable names are presented. The following taxonomic changes are made: New generic synonym: The genus Heteropelidnota Ohaus, 1912 is a new junior synonym of Pelidnota MacLeay, 1819. New species synonyms: Plusiotis adelaida pavonacea Casey, 1915 is a syn. n. of Chrysina adelaida (Hope, 1841); Odontognathus gounellei Ohaus, 1908 is a revised synonym of Pelidnota ebenina (Blanchard, 1842); Pelidnota francoisgenieri Moore & Jameson, 2013 is a syn. n. of Pelidnota punctata (Linnaeus, 1758); Pelidnota genieri Soula, 2009 is a syn. n. of Pelidnota punctata (Linnaeus, 1758); Pelidnota lutea (Olivier, 1758) is a revised synonym of Pelidnota punctata (Linnaeus, 1758); Pelidnota (Pelidnota) texensis Casey, 1915 is a revised synonym of Pelidnota punctata (Linnaeus, 1758); Pelidnota (Strigidia) zikani (Ohaus, 1922) is a revised synonym of Pelidnota tibialis tibialis Burmeister, 1844; Pelidnota ludovici Ohaus, 1905 is a syn. n. of Pelidnota burmeisteri tricolor Nonfried, 1894; Rutela fulvipennis Germar, 1824 is syn. n. of Pelidnota cuprea (Germar, 1824); Pelidnota pulchella blanda Burmeister, 1844 is a syn. n. of Pelidnota pulchella pulchella (Kirby, 1819); Pelidnota pulchella scapularis Burmeister, 1844 is a syn. n. of Pelidnota pulchella pulchella (Kirby, 1819); Pelidnota xanthogramma Perty, 1830 is a syn. n. of Pelidnota pulchella pulchella (Kirby, 1819). New or revised statuses: Pelidnota fabricelavalettei Soula, 2009, revised status, is considered a species; Pelidnota rioensis Soula, 2009, stat. n., is considered a species; Pelidnota semiaurata semiaurata Burmeister, 1844, stat. rev., is considered a subspecies. New or comb. rev. and revised status: Plusiotis guaymi Curoe, 2001 is formally transferred to the genus Chrysina (C. guaymi (Curoe, 2001), comb. n.); Plusiotis transvolcanica Morón & Nogueira, 2016 is transferred to the genus Chrysina (C. transvolcanica (Morón & Nogueira, 2016), comb. n.). Heteropelidnota kuhnti Ohaus, 1912 is transferred to the genus Pelidnota (P. kuhnti (Ohaus, 1912), comb. n.); Odontognathus riedeli Ohaus, 1905 is considered a subspecies of Pelidnota rubripennis Burmeister, 1844 (Pelidnota rubripennis riedeli (Ohaus, 1905), revised status and comb. rev.); Pelidnota (Strigidia) acutipennis (F. Bates, 1904) is transferred to the genus Sorocha (Sorocha acutipennis (F. Bates, 1904), comb. rev.); Pelidnota (Odontognathus) nadiae Martínez, 1978 is transferred to the genus Sorocha (Sorocha nadiae (Martínez, 1978), comb. rev.); Pelidnota (Ganonota) plicipennis Ohaus, 1934 is transferred to the genus Sorocha (Sorocha plicipennis (Ohaus, 1934), comb. rev.); Pelidnota similis Ohaus, 1908 is transferred to the genus Sorocha (Sorocha similis (Ohaus, 1908), comb. rev.); Pelidnota (Ganonota) yungana Ohaus, 1934 is transferred to Sorocha (Sorocha yungana (Ohaus, 1934), comb. rev.); Pelidnota malyi Soula, 2010: 58, revised status; Xenopelidnota anomala porioni Chalumeau, 1985, revised subspecies status. To stabilize the classification of the group, a neotype is designated for the following species: Pelidnota thiliezi Soula, 2009. Lectotypes are designated for the following names (given in their original combinations): Pelidnota brevicollis Casey, 1915, Pelidnota brevis Casey, 1915, Pelidnota debiliceps Casey, 1915, Pelidnota hudsonica Casey, 1915, Pelidnota oblonga Casey, 1915, Pelidnota pallidipes Casey, 1915, Pelidnota ponderella Casey, 1915, Pelidnota strenua Casey, 1915, Pelidnota tarsalis Casey, 1915, Pelidnota texensis Casey, 1915, and Scarabaeus punctatus Linnaeus, 1758. The following published infrasubspecific names are unavailable per ICZN Article 45.6.1: Pelidnota (Odontognathus) cuprea var. coerulea Ohaus, 1913; Pelidnota (Odontognathus) cuprea var. rufoviolacea Ohaus, 1913; Pelidnota (Odontognathus) cuprea var. nigrocoerulea Ohaus, 1913; Pelidnota pulchella var. fulvopunctata Ohaus, 1913; Pelidnota pulchella var. sellata Ohaus, 1913; Pelidnota pulchella var. reducta Ohaus, 1913; Pelidnota unicolor var. infuscata Ohaus, 1913. The following published species name is unavailable per ICZN Article 11.5: Neopatatra synonyma Moore & Jameson, 2013. The following published species name is unavailable per application of ICZN Article 16.1: Parhoplognathus rubripennis Soula, 2008. Synopsis of the pelidnotine scarabs (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae, Rutelinae, Rutelini) 3 The following published species name is unavailable per application of ICZN Article 16.4.1: Strigidia testaceovirens argentinica Soula, 2006, Pelidnota (Strigidia) testaceovirens argentinica (Soula, 2006), and Pelidnota testaceovirens argentinica (Soula, 2006). The following published species names are unavailable per application of ICZN Article 16.4.2: Homonyx digennaroi Soula, 2010; Homonyx lecourti Soula, 2010; Homonyx mulliei Soula, 2010; Homonyx simoensi Soula, 2010; Homonyx wagneri Soula, 2010; Homonyx zovii Demez & Soula, 2011; Pelidnota arnaudi Soula, 2009; Pelidnota brusteli Soula, 2010; Pelidnota chalcothorax septentrionalis Soula, 2009; Pelidnota degallieri Soula, 2010; Pelidnota lavalettei Soula, 2008; Pelidnota lavalettei Soula, 2009; Pelidnota dieteri Soula, 2011; Strigidia gracilis decaensi Soula, 2008, Pelidnota (Strigidia) gracilis decaensi (Soula, 2008), and Pelidnota gracilis decaensi (Soula, 2008); Pelidnota halleri Demez & Soula, 2011; Pelidnota injantepalominoi Demez & Soula, 2011; Pelidnota kucerai Soula, 2009; Pelidnota malyi Soula, 2010: 36-37; Pelidnota mezai Soula, 2009; Pelidnota polita darienensis Soula, 2009; Pelidnota polita orozcoi Soula, 2009; Pelidnota polita pittieri Soula, 2009; Pelidnota punctulata decolombia Soula, 2009; Pelidnota punctulata venezolana Soula, 2009; Pelidnota raingeardi Soula, 2009; Pelidnota schneideri Soula, 2010; Pelidnota simoensi Soula, 2009; Pelidnota unicolor subandina Soula, 2009; Sorocha carloti Demez & Soula, 2011; Sorocha castroi Soula, 2008; Sorocha fravali Soula, 2011; Sorocha jeanmaurettei Demez & Soula, 2011; Sorocha yelamosi Soula, 2011; Xenopelidnota bolivari Soula, 2009; Xenopelidnota pittieri pittieri Soula, 2009. Due to unavailability of the name Pseudogeniates cordobaensis Soula 2009, we describe the species as intentionally new (Pseudogeniates cordobaensis Moore, Jameson, Garner, Audibert, Smith, and Seidel, sp. n.)

Developing a tool to assess the health-related quality of life in calves with respiratory disease: content validation

Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is a major welfare and productivity issue for calves. Despite the extensive negative impacts on calf welfare and performance, BRD remains challenging to detect and treat effectively. However, the clinical signs of disease are only one aspect of the disease that is experienced by the individual. The assessment of emotional experience in animals is not straightforward, but it is increasingly recognised that the quality of behaviour and demeanour of an individual is a reflection of their internal emotional state. The aim of the present study was to complete the content validation stage of the development process for a health-related quality of life (HRQOL) tool. This was based around indicators from an existing conceptual framework containing twenty-three indicators in two domains (clinical signs and behavioural expression). The content validation stage involves engaging with key stakeholders. For this study, this took the form of a survey and discussions with focus groups, which are standard methods in this field. A survey and stakeholder focus groups were conducted to assess the usefulness of each indicator and its relevance for inclusion within a HRQOL tool. In the survey, participants were asked to rate the usefulness of each of the indicators using a 4-point scale which were then dichotomised into ‘useful’ and ‘less useful’. Based on the ‘useful’ result, each indicator within the domains was ranked. A similar approach was taken with the responses from the focus groups. Focus group participants were asked to select indicators that they felt were of use and the result of this was used to rank each of the indicators. The ranks of the indicators from both the survey and the focus groups along with the transcripts from the focus groups were used to determine the indicators from each domain to include within the HRQOL tool. Indicators within the clinical signs domain that were included were nasal discharge, cough, respiratory effort, ocular appearance (discharge and vibrancy), body and head posture and ear carriage. For the domain of behavioural expression, the indicators included were movement to feed, responsiveness, spatial proximity, volume of feed intake, motivation at feed and vigour. The next stage will be to validate the construction of the HRQOL tool through its use in practice. The inclusion of indicators that allow the experiential aspects of disease to be recorded in health assessments will likely increase the ability of farmers and others to detect respiratory disease in calves