Search results

This chapter reviews factors responsible for climate change, impacts of the change on animal health, zoonotic diseases, and their linkage with One-Health program.

This chapter is based on the available literature related to climate change and its effect on animal health and production from different points. The causes and change forcers of climate change, direct and indirect effects of the change on animal health management, host–pathogen–vector interaction, and zoonotic diseases are included. Inter-linkage between climate change and One-Health program are also assessed.

Beside natural causes of climatic change, greenhouse gases are increasing due to human activities, causing global climate changes which have direct and indirect animal health and production performance impacts. The direct impacts are increased ambient temperature, floods, and droughts, while the indirect are reduced availability of water and food. The change and effect also promote diseases spread, increase survival and availability of the pathogen and its intermediate vector host, responsible for distribution and prevalence of tremendous zoonotic, infectious, and vector-borne diseases. The adverse effect on the biodiversity, distribution of animals and micro flora, genetic makeup of microbials which may lead to emerging and re-emerging disease and their outbreaks make the strong linkage between climate change and One-Health.

Global climate change is receiving increasing international attention where international organizations are increasing their focus on tackling the health impacts. Thus, there is a need for parallel mitigation of climate change and animal diseases in a global form.

Most research on climate change is limited to environmental protection, however this chapter provides a nexus between climate change, animal health, livestock production, and the One-Health program for better livelihood.

One Health is defined as an approach of integrating animal, human, and environmental health to mitigate diseases. One Health promotes public health by studying all factors, such as agriculture, food, and water security, mechanisms of toxicity and pathogenesis of acute and chronic diseases, sociology, economics, and ecosystem health (to name a few). Such an approach is essential because human, animal, and ecosystem health are inextricably linked; therefore, with this One Health approach, we are called to work together to promote, improve, and defend the health and well-being of all by enhancing cooperation and collaboration between physicians, veterinarians social scientists, economists, psychologists, legal professionals, philosophers, and other scientific health and environmental professionals. As such, the One Health movement and approach is a growing vision in global health and is gaining increasing recognition by national and international institutions, organizations, stakeholders, NGOs, and health policymakers. Likewise, the role of world-class universities is pivotal in discovering One Health scientific knowledge and translating them to policy and evidence-based practices. Universities have responsibilities to train future professionals capable of solving global health issues through interdisciplinary scientific knowledge, integrative approaches to teaching, research collaboration, community linkages, and leadership. This chapter discusses the importance of One Health and the role of higher education institutions’ One Health partnerships to improve global health.

Dirty work involves contacting “polluting” substances; engaging in unpleasant tasks; and dealing with disvalued people, beings, or other objects. As Hughes (1984) observes:(E)very occupation is not one but several activities; some of them are the “dirty work” of the trade. It may be dirty in one of several ways. It may be simply physically disgusting. It may be a symbol of degradation, something that wounds one's dignity….(I)t may be dirty work in that it in some way goes counter to the more heroic of our moral conceptions. Dirty work of some kind is found in all occupations. (p. 343)

Agriculture and associated services are central to the rural economy of the United Kingdom. Rural veterinary enterprises are important providers of services to livestock producers, but are now facing concerns over their future economic viability. The objectives of this chapter are to outline the changes occurring in the veterinary and agricultural sectors, and to explore the main issues affecting veterinary enterprises in a changing business environment.

This is a conceptual chapter contextualised mainly within the United Kingdom. As such, the methodological approach comprises a critical review of current academic literatures, as well as government reports and relevant media articles.

The findings demonstrate that the commercial success of rural veterinary enterprises is critical to ensuring the future provision of high-quality animal health services to both farmers and government. The current issues facing farmers are likely to affect their willingness and resources to invest in veterinary services. Furthermore, farmers may have doubts as to vets’ ability to provide business-focussed services that add value. In addition, many public services are outsourced to private veterinary enterprises, and forthcoming policy changes are expected to lead to reduced income from public sources for both vets and their livestock farming clients. While wider issues affecting agriculture are beyond the control of private veterinary practitioners, veterinary enterprises will need to ensure that they can deal with such challenges and, where required, adapt their services accordingly.

The chapter is based on a review of extant literatures, and the scope of the research is therefore limited to existing knowledge about the farm animal veterinary business landscape.

The chapter summarises current knowledge of the challenges facing rural veterinary enterprises. While some of the issues described are specific to the veterinary sector, many are also relevant to other rural SMEs providing knowledge-intensive services to farmers. The chapter also describes areas requiring further empirical research.

Purpose – This chapter considers the social politics of H5N1 (“avian influenza”), the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, and the response to it within the context of the history of pandemic influenzas and the continuing need for robust preventative public health systems more generally. In particular, the author considers how the borders between nations, species, and individuals are thrown into relief and called into question by influenza outbreaks and their management.

Methodology/approach – This work relies on literature review, media research, and critical and interpretative sociological methods.

Findings – While panic surrounding new and potentially highly virulent influenza strains is reasonable, such panic is not sustainable and belies the fact that every year presents the danger of a pandemic. This chapter argues that, if public health systems only respond to immediate panic and fail to consider how quickly airborne diseases can cross all sorts of borders, they do not attend to the real need for far-seeing, long-term, internationally collaborative disease prevention and disaster preparedness.

Contribution to the field – The author offers a critical and wellness- and prevention-oriented perspective on what priorities should be emphasized in the rapidly growing fields of disaster studies and disaster preparedness, which, by their nature, tend to be crisis oriented and focused on the micro-term, with planning done on a case-by-case basis. Such a narrow focus can render preventative health systems inflexible and unable to rise to the challenge of a disease that can spread easily through casual contact.

Rarely acknowledged, particularly in business and communications, is that animals have interests in decisions that affect them. This chapter raises questions about how stakeholding is defined and explains why the circle of ethical consideration has been limited to human beings but should be expanded when so much of what we do impacts animals – animals who often labor for our benefit, not theirs, whose bodies are used as food, whose skins are used for fashion and furniture, and who are experimented upon, all without their consent, nor representation of their interests beyond essential physical needs. Animals as laborers/workers for our interests is an important expansion to business and public relations (PR) ethics. While labor is deeply raced and gendered, it also is species dependent. Many practices allowed with animal workers would never be permitted or certainly regarded with concern, if among human beings. Freeman's (1984) two-tiered sense of stakeholders is applied and the argument made that animals should be included in the array of stakeholders, the argument being they are not only silent but also silenced as have been marginalized human groups. This chapter offers a textual analysis of the cover of the December 09, 2013 issue of Time magazine and a response article which serve as a case study for considering animals as stakeholders integral to PR–corporate social responsibility–diversity, equity, and inclusion intersection. I examine deer in the urban landscape and ask whether their perspectives are included in decisions about population, habitat, and health. If communications are to be ethical, inclusive, and socially responsible, animals must be affirmed as part of DEI commitments. Action steps/recommendations for doing so are included.

The last few decades have seen the rise of a new field of inquiry – human–animal studies (HAS). As a rich, theoretically and disciplinarily diverse field, HAS shines a light on the various relations that humans have with other animals across time, space and culture. While still a small, but rapidly growing field, HAS has supported the development of multiple theoretical and conceptual initiatives which have aimed to capture the rich diversity of human–animal interactions. Yet the methodologies for doing this have not kept pace with the ambitions of such projects. In this chapter, we seek to shed light on this particular issue.

We consider the difficulties of researching other-than-human beings by asking what might happen if methods incorporated true inter-disciplinarity, for instance if social scientists were able to work with natural scientists on multi-species ethnographies. The lack of established methodology (and the lack of cross disciplinary research between the natural and social sciences) is one of the main problems that we consider here. It is an issue complicated immensely by the ‘otherness’ of animals – the vast differences in the ways that we (humans) and they (animals) see the world, communicate and behave. This chapter provides the opportunity for us to consider how we can take account of (if not resolve) these differences to arrive at meaningful research data, to better understand the contemporary world by embarking upon more precise investigations of our relationships with animals.

Drawing upon a selection of examples from contemporary research of human–animal interactions, both ethnographic and scientific, we shed light on some new possibilities for multi-species research. We suggest that this can be done best by considering and applying a diversity of theoretical frameworks which deal explicitly with the constitution of the social environment.

Our methodological exploration offers the reader insight into new ways of working within the template of human animal studies by drawing upon a range of useful theories such as post-structuralism and actor network theory (ANT) (for example, Callon, 1986; Hamilton & Taylor, 2013; Latour, 2005; Law, Ruppert, & Savage, 2011) and post-humanist perspectives (for example, Anderson, 2014; Haraway, 2003; Wolfe, 2010). Our contribution to this literature is distinctive because rather than remaining at the philosophical level, we suggest how the human politics of method might be navigated practically to the benefit of multiple species.

Due to the modernization of medical technology and better standard of living today, the world is better equipped to fight a pandemic today than it was in 1918, when Spanish flu swept the globe and infected up to one-third of the world's population (Population Reference Bureau (PRB), 2020). While science and medical advances have given humanity new advantages in fighting disease, some demographic trends today may increase the risk for spreading contagions and our vulnerability to viruses. This is mainly due to the sheer volume of today's population movements, from migration and travel as people fly within and across countries. This vast mobility may make it faster and easier for viruses to spread around the world. COVID-19, which purportedly started in 2019, was a global pandemic that now affects the whole world due to high mobility among countries. This has caused many countries across regions in the world to implement a lockdown in their respective countries to avoid the spread of COVID-19. This pandemic may have introduced a new norm in society today.

The author presents the meat of the most common species consumed in Europe and their role in nutrition. The work focuses on the meat of mammals and birds; it does not deal with the importance of protein sources from other taxonomic categories. European meat consumption habits and consumer preferences are presented, taking into account religious, cultural and geographical differences. It examines the possibility of influencing and changing consumer behavior based on consumer opinions. It separately examines the reasons for the less preference of meat or the complete rejection of meat consumption among consumers. This chapter also points out the demographic effects, lifestyle changes and the economic effects of income conditions. It presents examples of the role of government propaganda and the marketing activities of producers or processors in encouraging consumption.

Studies repeatedly have found social disparities of health at many levels of spatial aggregation. A second body of empirical research, demonstrating relationships between an area's racial and class composition and its environmental conditions, has led to the rise of an environmental justice movement. However, few studies have connected these two sets of findings to ask whether social disparities in health outcomes are due to local environmental disparities. This chapter investigates whether the association between racial and socioeconomic composition and multiple health conditions across New York City zip codes is partly mediated by neighborhood physical, built, and social environments.