Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (forthcoming)
|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)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Christine Leeb (2011). The Concept of Animal Welfare at the Interface Between Producers and Scientists: The Example of Organic Pig Farming. Acta Biotheoretica 59 (2):173-183.
Anne Algers, Berner Lindström & Edmond 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.
Edmond A. Pajor (2011). A New Format for Learning About Farm Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (4):367-379.
M. B. M. Bracke, K. H. De Greef & H. Hopster (2005). Qualitative Stakeholder Analysis for the Development of Sustainable Monitoring Systems for Farm Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (1):27-56.
Stefan Mann (2005). Ethological Farm Programs and the “Market” for Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (4):369-382.
David J. Mellor (2009). The Sciences of Animal Welfare. Wiley-Blackwell.
Andrea Bradley & Rod MacRae (2011). Legitimacy & Canadian Farm Animal Welfare Standards Development: The Case of the National Farm Animal Care Council. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (1):19-47.
Joanne Sneddon & Bernard Rollin (2010). Mulesing and Animal Ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23 (4):371-386.
Alexandra Wells, Joanne Sneddon, Julie Lee & Dominique Blache (2011). Farmer's Response to Societal Concerns About Farm Animal Welfare: The Case of Mulesing. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (6):645-658.
Added to index2010-07-26
Total downloads15 ( #85,872 of 722,698 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,006 of 722,698 )
How can I increase my downloads?