Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scientists and Dutch Pig Farmers in Dialogue About Tail Biting: Unravelling the Mechanism of Multi-stakeholder Learning

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pig farmers and scientists appear to have different perspectives and underlying framing on animal welfare issues as tail biting and natural behaviour of pigs. Literature proposes a joint learning process in which a shared vision is developed. Using two different settings, a symposium and one-to-one dialogues, we aimed to investigate what elements affected joint learning between scientists and pig farmers. Although both groups agreed that more interaction was important, the process of joint learning appeared to be rather potentially dangerous for the farmer–scientist relationship. During the symposium, farmers were only moderately open for scientific knowledge and the issue of tail biting had the tendency to run into a deadlock. The setting was an influencing element for the degree of success, because the dialogues did lead to improved mutual trust and understanding of each other’s framing and context. Another element was the degree of usability and absoluteness of scientific facts. They were frequently not concrete enough, too uncertain or not relating to the context of the farmers. In addition, some scientific facts were not recognized by the farmers. Both groups appeared to react and argue from their praxis, including their local environment, way of living, handling and understanding their environment. These praxises appeared to function as a filter, influencing the way of observing the environment, inducing ‘blind spots’ and misunderstandings. Stepping in each other’s praxis might provide concrete and fusing insights, required to realize joint learning processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For a short English summary of the Dutch governmental policy vision on livestock farming in The Netherlands: http://www.government.nl/issues/agriculture-and-livestock/livestock-farming. Last retrieved January 2013.

  2. For a detailed Dutch description of this vision and the route towards it (cluster 2 is about the welfare and health of animals): http://www.uitvoeringsagendaduurzameveehouderij.nl/home/welzijn-en-gezondheid/. Last retrieved January 2013.

  3. In The Netherlands, it was feared that stopping castration would lead to an increase of aggressive behavior such as more fighting and biting. However, when there emerged a market for meat of boars (uncastrated male pigs); many Dutch pig farmers became motivated to stop castration. Also the interviewed farmers appeared to have stopped castration and stated to experience no increase of problems since then.

  4. An innovative housing system for chickens that is developed with respect for the farmer, the animal and the environment. Chickens have the ability to fulfill their natural needs. http://www.rondeel.org/ Last retrieved December 2012.

  5. To illustrate the following example: the Dutch governmental policy on animal welfare in The Netherlands is updated after every 5 years.

    The latest version is from 2012, which is a follow up of the version of 2007 and so on. http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/notas/2012/02/23/nota-dierenwelzijn-en-diergezondheid.html, last retrieved April 2013.

References

  • Argyris, C. (2003). A life full of learning. Organization Studies, 24(7), 1178–1192. doi:10.1177/01708406030247009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Amsterdam: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armitage, D., Marschke, M., & Plummer, R. (2008). Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 86–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batie, S. S., & Schweikhardt, D. B. (2010). Societal concerns as wicked problems: the case of trade liberalisation. In Policy responses to societal concerns in food and agriculture: Proceedings of an OECD Workshop.

  • Benard, M., & De Cock-Buning, T. (Under review). Moving from Monodisciplinarity towards transdisciplinarity: Insights in the barriers and facilitators that scientists faced. Submitted for science and public policy.

  • Bennett, R. M., Anderson, J., & Blaney, R. J. P. (2002). Moral intensity and willingness to pay concerning farm animal welfare issues and the implications for agricultural policy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15(2), 187–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackstock, K. L., Kelly, G. J., & Horsey, B. L. (2007). Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecological Economics, 60(4), 726–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloisi, W., Cook, C., & Hunsaker, P. (2007). Management and organizational behaviour (2nd European ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boogaard, B. K., Oosting, S. J., & Bock, B. B. (2006). Elements of societal perception of farm animal welfare: A quantitative study in The Netherlands. Livestock Science, 104(1–2), 13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bos, B., & Grin, J. (2008). “Doing” reflexive modernization in pig husbandry: The hard work of changing the course of a river. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33(4), 480–507. doi:10.1177/0162243907306697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botreau, R., Bonde, M., Butterworth, A., Perny, P., Bracke, M. B. M., Capdeville, J., et al. (2007). Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 1: A review of existing methods. Animal, 1(8), 1179–1187. doi:10.1017/S1751731107000535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracke, M. B. M., Hulsegge, B., Keeling, L., & Blokhuis, H. J. (2004). Decision support system with semantic model to assess the risk of tail biting in pigs: 1. Modelling. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 87(1–2), 31–44. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2003.12.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bracke, M. B. M., De Lauwere, C. C., Wind, S. M. M., & Zonderland, J. J. (2013). Attitudes of Dutch pig farmers towards tail biting and tail docking. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26(4), 847–868.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broerse, J. E. W., & Bunders, J. F. G. (2000). Requirements for biotechnology development: The necessity for an interactive and participatory innovation process. International Journal of Biotechnology, 2(4), 275–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brom, F. W. A. (2000). Food, consumer concerns, and trust: Food ethics for a globalizing market. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 127–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, L. (2011). How animal welfare standards create and justify realities. Animal Welfare, 20(1), 21–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chilvers, J. (2009). Deliberative and participatory approaches in environmental geography. In N. Castree, D. Demeritt, D. Liverman, & B. L. Rhoads (Eds.), A companion to environmental geography (pp. 400–417). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

  • Cuppen, E. (2009). Putting perspectives into participation. Constructive conflict methodology for problem structuring in stakeholder dialogues. Uitgeverij POxPress, Oisterwijk: VU University Amsterdam.

  • Cuppen, E. (2011). Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: Considerations for design and methods. Policy Sciences, 45(1), 23–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Marchi, B., Funtowicz, S. O., Lo Cascio, S., & Munda, G. (2000). Combining participative and institutional approaches with multicriteria evaluation. An empirical study for water issues in Troina, Sicily. Ecological Economics, 34(2), 267–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devito, J. A. (2008). The interpersonal communication book. Pearson.

  • Driessen, C. (2010). Farmers engaged in deliberative practices; an ethnographic exploration of the mosaic of concerns in Livestock agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(2), 163–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, W. N. (1988). Methods of the second type: Coping with the wilderness of conventional policy analysis. Review of Policy Research, 7(4), 720–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EFSA. (2007). Scientific report on the risks associated with tail biting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for tail docking considering the different housing and husbandry systems. Appendix to the EFSA journal, 611, 72–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D., Weary, D. M., Pajor, E. A., & Milligan, B. N. (1997). A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare, 6, 186–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadamer, H. (1965). Wahrheit und methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen hermeneutik.

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotnu, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonyou, H. W. (Ed.). (2001). Gonyou, H.W. (Social behaviour in farm animals). UK: CAB International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grin, J., Felix, F., Bos, B., & Spoelstra, S. (2004). Practices for reflexive design: Lessons from a Dutch programme on sustainable agriculture. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1(1), 126–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grin, J., & van de Graaf, H. (1996). Technology assessment as learning. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(1), 72–99. doi:10.1177/016224399602100104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagendijk, R., & Irwin, A. (2006). Public deliberation and governance: Engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva, 44(2), 167–184. doi:10.1007/s11024-006-0012-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haug, C., Huitema, D., & Wenzler, I. (2010). Learning through games? Evaluating the learning effect of a policy exercise on European climate policy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(6), 968–981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hisschemöller, M., & Hoppe, R. (1995). Coping with intractable controversies: The case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 8(4), 40–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horlings, L. G., & Hinssen, J. P. P. (2010). Sustainable innovation in intensive animal husbandry in the Netherlands. Paper presented at the Scaling and Governance, Wageningen.

  • Hubbard, C., & Scott, K. (2011a). Do farmers and scientists differ in their understanding and assessment of farm animal welfare? Animal Welfare, 20(1), 79–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, C., & Scott, K. (2011b). Do farmers and scientists differ in their understanding and assessment of farm animal welfare? Annimal Welfare, 20(1), 79–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2003). Breaking the waves in science studies: Comment on H.M. Collins and Robert Evans, ‘The third wave of science studies’. Social Studies of Science, 33(3), 389–400. doi:10.1177/03063127030333004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, L. M. (2007). The importance of learning processes in wind power development. European Environment, 17(5), 334–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloet, R. R. (2011). Realizing societal ambitions in innovative research programs. The case of the Dutch ecogenomics consortium. Uitgeverij BOXpress, Oisterwijk: VU University Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kupper, F., & De Cock Buning, T. (2011). Deliberating animal values: A pragmatic-pluralistic approach to animal ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 24(5), 431–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassen, J., Sandoe, P., & Forkman, B. (2006). Happy pigs are dirty!—conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science, 103(3), 221–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marie, M. (2006). Ethics: The new challenge for animal agriculture. Livestock Science, 103(3), 203–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miele, M., Veissier, I., Evans, A., & Botreau, R. (2011). Animal welfare: Establishing a dialogue between science and society. Animal Welfare, 20, 103–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, P. d. A., Schot, P. d. J. W., & Misa, T. J. (1995). Constructive technology assessment: A new paradigm for managing technology in society. In Managing Technology in Society. The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment (pp. 1–12). Londen, New York: Pinter Publishers.

  • Moinard, C., Mendl, M., Nicol, C. J., & Green, L. E. (2003). A case control study of on-farm risk factors for tail biting in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 81(4), 333–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muro, M., & Jeffrey, P. (2012). Time to talk? How the structure of dialog processes shapes staeholder learning in particpatory water resources management. Ecology and society, 17(1), 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regeer, B. (2010). Making the invisible visble. Analysing the development of strategies and changes in knowledge production to deal with persistent problems in sustainable development. Boxpress, Oisterwijk: VU University Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. (2003). Future subjunctive: Backcasting as social learning. Futures, 35(8), 839–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roelofsen, A., Boon, W. P. C., Kloet, R. R., & Broerse, J. E. W. (2011). Stakeholder interaction within research consortia on emerging technologies: Learning how and what? Research Policy, 40(3), 341–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. Newyork: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Te Velde, H., Aarts, N., & Van Woerkum, C. (2002). Dealing with ambivalence: Farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15(2), 203–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Kerkhof, M., & Wieczorek, A. (2005). Learning and stakeholder participation in transition processes towards sustainability: Methodological considerations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(6), 733–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2008). Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science, 116(1–3), 126–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veldkamp, A., Van Altvorst, A. C., Eweg, R., Jacobsen, E., Van Kleef, A., Van Latesteijn, H., et al. (2009). Triggering transitions towards sustainable development of the Dutch agricultural sector: TransForum’s approach Agron. Sustain. Development, 29(1), 87–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webler, T., Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. (1995). “Right” discourse in citizen participation: An evaluative yardstick fairness and competence in citizen participation. In V. T. Covello, J. Mumpower, S. F. Spicker, & P.-J. M. Stallen (Eds.), Technology, risk, and society (Vol. 10, pp. 35–77). Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zonderland, J. J. (2010). Talking tails—quantifying the development of tail biting in pigs. Wageningen: Wageningen University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zonderland, J. J., Bosma, B., & Hoste, R. (2011). Financiële consequenties van staartbijten bij varkens. In R. 543 (Ed.). Wageningen Lelystad Livestock Research.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Athena Institute for Research on Innovation and Communication in Health and Life Sciences, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Marianne Benard, Tjerk Jan Schuitmaker & Tjard de Cock Buning

Authors
  1. Marianne Benard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tjerk Jan Schuitmaker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tjard de Cock Buning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marianne Benard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Benard, M., Schuitmaker, T.J. & de Cock Buning, T. Scientists and Dutch Pig Farmers in Dialogue About Tail Biting: Unravelling the Mechanism of Multi-stakeholder Learning. J Agric Environ Ethics 27, 431–452 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9471-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9471-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation