Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

“That’s the Way We’ve Always Done It”: A Social Practice Analysis of Farm Animal Welfare in Alberta

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

Abstract

Although beef and dairy production in Alberta, Canada, enjoys strong public support, there are enduring public concerns, including farm animal welfare. Evolving codes of practice and animal care councils prescribe changes and improvements to many areas of farm management, and may be seen by farmers as an appropriate response to public animal welfare concerns. However, codes of practice do not address every animal welfare concern, and new concerns can arise over time. Drawing on social practice theory and in-depth field research with 36 cattle and dairy farmers, this paper explores the materials, competencies, and meanings of four animal husbandry practices: branding, dehorning, weaning, and on-farm handling and moving. Findings show that branding and dehorning are evolving slowly with attention to pain management, but remain firmly rooted in ranching tradition and communities of practice. Weaning and animal handling practices are evolving more quickly with attention to changing materials, attitudes, and values that are more prevalent within producer communities.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barnes, B. (2001). Practice as collective action. In T. R. Schatzki, K. K. Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, B., & Buller, H. (2013). Healthy, happy and humane: Evidence in farm animal welfare policy. Sociologia Ruralis, 53(3), 90–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, A., & MacRae, R. (2011). Legitimacy & Canadian farm animal welfare standards development: The case of the national farm animal care council. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics, 24(1), 9–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CAA & NFACC. (2013). Code of practice for the care and handling of beef cattle. Canadian Cattlemen’s Association & National Farm Animal Care Council. https://www.nfacc.ca/pdfs/codes/beef_code_of_practice.pdf. Accessed May 3, 2019.

  • Canadian Centre for Food Integrity (CCFI). (2018). 2018 public trust research: Insights to action, downloadable from https://www.foodintegrity.ca/research/download-new-public-opinion-research-online-on-food-farming/. Accessed May 9, 2019.

  • Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D., Jones, K. E., & Parkins, J. R. (2016). Food safety risks, disruptive events and alternative production: A case study of agricultural transition in Alberta. Agriculture and Human Values, 3(2), 359–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DFC & NFACC. (2009). Code of practice for the care and handling of dairy cattle. Dairy Farmers of Canada & National Farm Animal Care Council. https://www.nfacc.ca/codes-of-practice/dairy-cattle. Accessed August, 2017.

  • Dwane, A. M., More, S. J., Blake, M., McKenzie, K., & Hanlon, A. J. (2013). Farmers’ self-reported perceptions and behavioural impacts of a welfare scheme for suckler beef cattle in Ireland. Irish Veterinary Journal, 66, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards-Jones, G. (2006). Modelling farmer decision-making: Concepts, progress and challenges. Animal Science, 82(6), 783–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, C. (2013). The symbolic ideology: Stewardship, husbandry, and dominion in beef production. Rural Sociology, 78(4), 429–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D. (1995). Science, values and animal welfare: Exploring the inextricable connection. Animal Welfare, 4(2), 103–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding animal welfare: A science in its cultural context. Ames: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Qualitative research kit: Analyzing qualitative data. London: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gocsik, E., Saatkamp, H. W., de Lauwere, C. C., & Oude Lansink, A. G. J. M. (2014). A conceptual approach for a quantitative economic analysis of farmers’ decision-making regarding animal welfare. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics, 27(2), 287–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hailu, G., Cao, Y., & Yu, X. (2016). Risk attitudes, social interactions, and the willingness to pay for genotyping in dairy production. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65(2), 317–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamey, A. (2019). The animal ethics of Temple Grandin: A protectionist analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 32, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lund, V., Coleman, G., Gunnarsson, S., Appleby, M. C., & Karkinen, K. (2006). Animal welfare science—Working at the interface between the natural and social sciences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 97(1), 37–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDowell, L. S. (2012). An environmental history of Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. P. (2012). The opinions and recommendations of one particular study group: The pew commission on industrial farm animal production. In W. G. Pond, F. W. Bazer, & B. E. Rollin (Eds.), Animal welfare in animal agriculture: Husbandry, stewardship, and sustainability in animal production. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCulloch, S. P. (2012). A critique of FAWC’s five freedoms as a framework for the analysis of animal welfare. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics, 26(5), 959–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGlone, J. J. (2001). Farm animal welfare in the context of other society issues: Toward sustainable systems. Livestock Production Science, 72(1–2), 75–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, P. (2009). Contemporary contradictions of the global development project: Geopolitics, global ecology, and the ‘development climate’. Third World Quarterly, 30(1), 247–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moggy, M. A., Pajor, E. A., Thurston, W. E., Parker, S., Greter, A. M., Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K. S., et al. (2017a). Management practices associated with stress in Cattle on western Canadian cow–calf operations: A mixed methods study. American Society of Animal Science, 95(4), 1836–1844.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moggy, M. A., Pajor, E. A., Thurston, W. E., Parker, S., Greter, A. M., Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K. S., et al. (2017b). Attitudes of western Canadian cow-calf producers towards the code of practice for the care and handling of beef cattle. The Canadian Veterinary Journal, 58(11), 1209–1211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollin, B. E., Broom, D. M., Fraser, D., Golab, G. C., Arnot, C., & Shapiro, P. (2012). Defining agricultural animal welfare: Varying viewpoints and approaches. In W. G. Pond, F. W. Bazer, & B. E. Rollin (Eds.), Animal welfare in animal agriculture: Husbandry, stewardship, and sustainability in animal production. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rushen, J. (2003). Changing concepts of farm animal welfare: Bridging the gap between applied and basic research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 81(3), 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahakian, M., & Wilhite, H. (2014). Making practice theory practicable: Towards more sustainable forms of consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(1), 25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. K. Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheer, M. (2012). Are emotions a kind of practice (and is that what makes them have a history)? A Bourdieuian approach to understanding emotion. History and Theory, Studies in the Philosophy of History, 51(2), 193–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shove, E., Watson, M., & Pantzar, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Spooner, J. M., Schuppli, C. A., & Fraser, D. (2012). Attitudes of Canadian beef producers toward animal welfare. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, 21(2), 273–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Canada. (2017). Alberta has the most beef cattle in Canada and the second largest total farm area. Catalogue no. 95-640-X. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/95-640-x/2016001/article/14808-eng.htm. Accessed June 29, 2017.

  • Statistics Canada & Canadian Dairy Commission. (2017). Number of farms, dairy cows and heifers. http://dairyinfo.gc.ca/index_e.php?s1=dff-fcil&s2=farmferme&s3=nb. Last Accessed June 28, 2017.

  • Stull, D. D., & Broadway, M. J. (2013). Slaughterhouse blues: The meat and poultry industry in North America. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. B. (2013). From field to fork: Food ethics for everyone. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasseur, E., Borderas, F., Cue, R. I., Lefebvre, D., Pellerin, D., Rushen, J., et al. (2010). A survey of dairy calf management practices in Canada that affect animal welfare. Journal of Dairy Science, 93(3), 1307–1315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ventura, B. A., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., & Weary, D. M. (2015). Animal welfare concerns and values of stakeholders within the dairy industry. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics, 28, 109–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, J. (2016). Animal welfare: Freedoms, dominions and “a life worth living”. Animals, 6(6), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weenink, D., & Spaargaren, G. (2016). Emotional agency navigates a world of practices. In D. Weenink, G. Spaargaren, & M. Lamers (Eds.), Practice theory and research: Exploring the dynamics of social life. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whay, B. (2007). The journey to animal welfare improvement. Animal Welfare, 16, 117–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikman, I., Hokkanen, A. H., Pastell, M., Kauppinen, T., Valros, A., & Hänninen, L. (2016). Attitudes of beef producers to disbudding and perception of pain in cattle. Animal Welfare, 25, 429–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winder, C. B., LeBlanc, S. J., Haley, D. B., Lissemore, K. D., Godkin, A., & Duffield, T. F. (2016). Practices for the disbudding and dehorning of dairy calves by veterinarians and dairy producers in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Dairy Science, 99(12), 10161–10173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windig, J. J., Hoving-Bolink, R. A., & Veerkamp, R. F. (2015). Breeding for polledness in Holstein cattle. Livestock Science, 179, 96–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaffino, H., Jessica, C., LeBlanc, S. J., DeVries, T. J., Nash, C. G. R., Gibbons, G. J., et al. (2014). Prevalence of and factors associated with hock, knee, and neck injuries on dairy cows in freestall housing in Canada. Journal of Dairy Science, 97(1), 173–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), as well as Genome Canada and Genome Alberta, with funding from the project titled ‘Increasing feed efficiency and reducing methane emissions through genomics: a new promising goal for the Canadian dairy industry’ (GE3LS component, handled through the University of Alberta RES0030198). With research ethics approval from the University of Alberta (Pro00066044) we also thank our research participants who provided substantial time and invaluable insight.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology, University of Alberta, 515 General Services Building, Edmonton, AB, T6G2H1, Canada

    Emilie M. Bassi, Ellen Goddard & John R. Parkins

Authors
  1. Emilie M. Bassi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ellen Goddard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John R. Parkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John R. Parkins.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bassi, E.M., Goddard, E. & Parkins, J.R. “That’s the Way We’ve Always Done It”: A Social Practice Analysis of Farm Animal Welfare in Alberta. J Agric Environ Ethics 32, 335–354 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-019-09777-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-019-09777-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation