Explaining the Uneven Penetration ofIndustrialization in the U.S. Dairy Sector

One of the most dramatic trends in American farm-structural change over the past several decades has been the industrialization of livestock production. Many now expect that dairying in the United States will be the next major livestock sector to succumb to the industrialization trend. This paper utilizes a multidimensional definition of industrialization to critically examine evidence for and against the dairy industrialization hypothesis. The authors find that while there is a persistent trend toward larger units of production, and a geographical shift towards states with more industriallike farm operations, the penetration of industrial relations of production has occurred more slowly and incompletely than many have assumed. The paper concludes by noting how unique characteristics of the dairy sector help explain the uneven character of the industrialization process in the United States

A Profile of Wisconsin\u27s DairyIndustry, 1999

In the late winter and early spring of 1999, the Program on Agricultural Technology Studies (PATS)2 surveyed over 1,600 of Wisconsin’s dairy farmers. Because the sample was large, was drawn randomly from the Wisconsin Dairy Producers List, and yielded a relatively high response rate (50 percent), the results provide a scientifically reliable snapshot of the Wisconsin dairy farming sector as of the spring of 1999. This report provides an overview of the initial findings of the overall study. The emphasis of this report is on the characteristics of the Wisconsin dairy farming sector, and on the characteristics of the operators and their families. We pay particular attention to Wisconsin dairy farmers’ use of a wide range of dairy and crop production technologies or practices. In this survey, we also included questions about several emerging technologies, like genetically engineered crops and “information technologies” (such as use of computers and the internet, and precision farming). This report summarizes the results for all dairy farms in the sample (usually on the far right hand side of each table). Because dairy farms in Wisconsin are quite diverse, we also disaggregate the results for dairy herds of different size. The tables below report the characteristics of farms in five herd size categories: 1-24 cows, 25 to 49 cows, 50 to 99 cows, 100 to 199 cows, and 200 or more cows. In each case, herd size measures include both milking cows and dry cows. More detailed reports and indepth analyses of specific issues based on the survey will become available over the coming months

Farmers’ attitudes about farming and the environment: A survey of conventional and organic farmers

Farmers have been characterized as people whose ties to the land have given them a deep awareness of natural cycles, appreciation for natural beauty and sense of responsibility as stewards. At the same time, their relationship to the land has been characterized as more utilitarian than that of others who are less directly dependent on its bounty. This paper explores this tension by comparing the attitudes and beliefs of a group of conventional farmers to those of a group of organic farmers. It was found that while both groups reject the idea that a farmer’s role is to conquer nature, organic farmers were significantly more supportive of the notion that humans should live in harmony with nature. Organic farmers also reported a greater awareness of and appreciation for nature in their relationship with the land. Both groups view independence as a main benefit of farming and a lack of financial reward as its main drawback. Overall, conventional farmers report more stress in their lives although they also view themselves in a caretaker role for the land more than do the organic farmers. In contrast, organic farmers report more satisfaction with their lives, a greater concern for living ethically, and a stronger perception of community. Finally, both groups are willing to have their rights limited (organic farmers somewhat more so) but they do not trust the government to do so.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/83671/1/Sullivan,_S.,_E._McCann,_R._De_Young_&_D._Erickson_(1996)._Farmers_attitudes_about_farming_and_the_environment,_JAEE,_9,_123-143.pd

The OMERACT-OARSI Core Domain Set for Measurement in Clinical Trials of Hip and/or Knee Osteoarthritis

Objective: To update the 1997 OMERACT-OARSI (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International) core domain set for clinical trials in hip and/or knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: An initial review of the COMET database of core outcome sets (COS) was undertaken to identify all domains reported in previous COS including individuals with hip and/or knee OA. These were presented during 5 patient and health professionals/researcher meetings in 3 continents (Europe, Australasia, North America). A 3-round international Delphi survey was then undertaken among patients, healthcare professionals, researchers, and industry representatives to gain consensus on key domains to be included in a core domain set for hip and/or knee OA. Findings were presented and discussed in small groups at OMERACT 2018, where consensus was obtained in the final plenary. Results: Four previous COS were identified. Using these, and the patient and health professionals/researcher meetings, 50 potential domains formed the Delphi survey. There were 426 individuals from 25 different countries who contributed to the Delphi exercise. OMERACT 2018 delegates (n = 129) voted on candidate domains. Six domains gained agreement as mandatory to be measured and reported in all hip and/or knee OA clinical trials: pain, physical function, quality of life, and patient’s global assessment of the target joint, in addition to the mandated core domain of adverse events including mortality. Joint structure was agreed as mandatory in specific circumstances, i.e., depending on the intervention. Conclusion: The updated core domain set for hip and/or knee OA has been agreed upon. Work will commence to determine which outcome measurement instrument should be recommended to cover each core domain

CSR, co-optation and resistance: the emergence of new agnostic relations between business and civil society

This article examines the theoretical implications of the changing relationships between NGOs and businesses that have emerged as a response to the evolving agenda around CSR and sustainable development. In particular, it focuses upon examining whether greater engagement from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in this area reflects a process of appropriation and co-optation of protest by the business community. To examine this process, the article considers two forms of appropriation—appropriation of language and appropriation via participation—as a basis for discussion. While co-optation pressures are identified within both areas, the article argues that co-optation is identified almost as an inevitable outcome of engagement without significant consideration of the ability of movements to identify and respond to these processes. In identifying an alternative approach, the article utilises Mouffe’s framework of agonistic pluralism. Mouffe’s framework, it is argued, provides an understanding of the way in which agonistic relationships are emerging between NGOs and businesses while highlighting the continuance of conflict between parties struggling to influence the contested interpretations of responsible business