Farmer's response to societal concerns about farm animal welfare: The case of mulesing

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
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index Translate to english
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 11,793
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Similar books and articles
Joanne Sneddon & Bernard Rollin (2010). Mulesing and Animal Ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23 (4):371-386.
Stefan Mann (2005). Ethological Farm Programs and the “Market” for Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (4):369-382.
Edmond A. Pajor (2011). A New Format for Learning About Farm Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (4):367-379.
Raymond Anthony (2007). Animal Welfare, Trust, Governance, and the Public Good. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 1:275-280.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2010-07-26

Total downloads

16 ( #106,421 of 1,099,722 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #301,057 of 1,099,722 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.