| 1. |
- Alanärä, Anders, et al.
(författare)
-
Utsättning av djur för jakt och fiske
- 2021
-
Bok (populärvet., debatt m.m.)abstract
- SLUs vetenskapliga råd för djurskydd har fått i uppdrag av Jordbruksverket att sammanställa aktuell forskning kring utsättning av djur för jakt och fiske samt att belysa eventuella kunskapsluckor på området. Uppdraget omfattar gräsand, rapphöna, fasan och laxfiskar. Bruket att föda upp fåglar och fiskar för utsättning i syfte att gynna jakt och fiske ifrågasätts inte sällan av etiska skäl, men den diskussionen ligger utanför fokus för denna rapport. Utsättning av fågel och fisk är en antropogen verksamhet som, till skillnad från många andra typer av mänsklig påverkan, syftar till att gynna arterna i fråga. Det kan handla om naturvårdsinsatser, att återinföra försvunna arter eller att på andra sätt berika ekosystemet, inte sällan med ökade möjligheter till jakt eller fiske som slutändamål. Ofta förbereds och åtföljs utsättningar av habitatförbättrande åtgärder som inte endast gynnar de utsatta individerna och deras artfränder, utan även har positiva konsekvenser för biologisk mångfald och ekosystemet i stort. I utarbetandet av regelverket knutet till utsättning av fågel och fisk är det viktigt att även beakta de positiva föresatserna och de konsekvenser som verksamheten kan medföra. Annars riskerar man att engagemang och incitament förloras, till men för biologisk mångfald och en rik och levande landsbygd.
|
|
| 2. |
- Algers, Anne, 1961, et al.
(författare)
-
Open Knowledge about Slaughter on the Internet-A Case Study on Controversies.
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Animals : an open access journal from MDPI. - : MDPI AG. - 2076-2615. ; 7:12, s. 1-11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Knowledge about slaughter of animals for human food is often perceived as controversial and therefore not made widely available. An open educational resource on the Internet about the slaughter of animals has created tension at launch but also resolved tension. Aiming to explore how this resource at the boundary between academia and society is perceived, a study was carried out with participants from slaughterhouses, universities, authorities and NGOs. Focus group sessions were video recorded and transcripts were coded using an interpretive thematic analysis. The results show that an open educational resource in addition to contributing to learning and awareness raising can also induce dialogue (and thus resolve tension) about animal welfare and contribute to animal welfare resilience. Our results also indicate that participants had diverse opinions about the influence of multimedia on attitudes towards animal slaughter. The use of additional instruments such as comment fields may lead to more knowledgeable citizens and socially robust knowledge, but has to be carefully weighed against the risk of false or fake data.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Berg, Charlotte, et al.
(författare)
-
48 Monitoring Animal Welfare at Slaughterhouses
- 2012. - 1500
-
Ingår i: Sustainable Agriculture. - Uppsala : Baltic University Press. - 9789186189105 ; , s. 349-351
-
Bokkapitel (populärvet., debatt m.m.)
|
|
| 5. |
- Berg, Charlotte, et al.
(författare)
-
Editorial : Wildlife Welfare
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in Veterinary Science. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 2297-1769. ; 7, s. 1-3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Animal welfare relates to the feelings, behavior, and the health status of animals. Nevertheless, animal welfare legislation rarely prescribes what animals should feel or experience, but rather what humans should do to protect the animals in their care from unnecessary suffering, and e.g., specifications to provide them with suitable housing conditions and appropriate feed to ensure a reasonably good life. This obviously applies to domesticated animals and wildlife kept in enclosures, but not to free-roaming wildlife. Wildlife welfare has received far less attention than welfare for farm or companion animals, although attempts have been made. In recent years the extent of interest in wildlife welfare has grown, as more people have realized that humans have a substantial influence on the lives and welfare of wildlife individuals. Humans, as individuals and as a species, intentionally or unintentionally influence the welfare of wildlife in many different ways, some of which are discussed in this special issue.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Berg, Håkan, et al.
(författare)
-
Integrated Rice-Fish Farming : Safeguarding Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for Sustainable Food Production in the Mekong Delta
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1044-0046 .- 1540-7578. ; 36:8, s. 859-872
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- A comparison of agricultural practices, with a specific focus on pesticide use, between rice and rice-fish farmers in the Can Tho' and Tien Giang provinces of the Mekong Delta in 2007, shows that integrated rice-fish farming can provide a competitive alternative to intensive rice mono-cropping, if the farmer restricts the use of pesticides and takes full advantage of the ecosystem services provided by the rice-field ecosystem. In Can Tho', rice-fish farmers had significantly higher income (43.6 million dong ha(-1) year(-1)) than other farmer groups, while this was not seen among rice-fish famers in Tien Giang (32.4 million dong ha(-1) year(-1)), which partly could be due to a high use of insecticides (0.9 kg active ingredient ha(-1) crop(-1)) and comparatively low fish yield among these farmers. The study emphasizes the need to rethink current agricultural systems and to provide opportunities for more diverse systems that maintain and enhance a range of ecosystem services and protect human health. Future production systems should not be optimized to only provide a single ecosystem service, such as rice, but designed to deliver a variety of interlinked ecosystem service such as rice, fish, pest control, and nutrient recycling.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Elmberg, Johan, 1960-, et al.
(författare)
-
Potential disease transmission from wild geese and swans to livestock, poultry and humans : a review of the scientific literature from a One Health perspective
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Infection Ecology & Epidemiology. - : Taylor & Francis Open: Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial / Co-Action Publishing. - 2000-8686 .- 2000-8686. ; 7:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- There are more herbivorous waterfowl (swans and geese) close to humans, livestock and poultry than ever before. This creates widespread conflict with agriculture and other human interests, but also debate about the role of swans and geese as potential vectors of disease of relevance for human and animal health. Using a One Health perspective, we provide the first comprehensive review of the scientific literature about the most relevant viral, bacterial, and unicellular pathogens occurring in wild geese and swans. Research thus far suggests that these birds may play a role in transmission of avian influenza virus, Salmonella, Campylobacter, and antibiotic resistance. On the other hand, at present there is no evidence that geese and swans play a role in transmission of Newcastle disease, duck plague, West Nile virus, Vibrio, Yersinia, Clostridium, Chlamydophila, and Borrelia. Finally, based on present knowledge it is not possible to say if geese and swans play a role in transmission of Escherichia coli, Pasteurella, Helicobacter, Brachyspira, Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and Microsporidia. This is largely due to changes in classification and taxonomy, rapid development of identification methods and lack of knowledge about host specificity. Previous research tends to overrate the role of geese and swans as disease vectors; we do not find any evidence that they are significant transmitters to humans or livestock of any of the pathogens considered in this review. Nevertheless, it is wise to keep poultry and livestock separated from small volume waters used by many wild waterfowl, but there is no need to discourage livestock grazing in nature reserves or pastures where geese and swans are present. Under some circumstances it is warranted to discourage swans and geese from using wastewater ponds, drinking water reservoirs, and public beaches. Intensified screening of swans and geese for AIV, West Nile virus and anatid herpesvirus is warranted.
|
|
