|
Unethical Practices in Exhibiting Animals as Observed by West Virginia Extension Agents and High School Agriculture Teachers
Jean
M. Woloshuk, Ed.D., Stacy
A. Gartin, Ph.D. AbstractThe purpose of this study was to determine the frequency of unethical practices in exhibiting animals observed by West Virginia extension agents and high school teachers. A researcher-created demographic sheet and a fifty-eight-statement Lickert type questionnaire were sent to all extension agents and high school agriculture teachers in West Virginia (N=154). Descriptive data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSSpc). Frequencies, t-values and means were used to describe and analyze the research results. There are unethical practices in West Virginia concerning cruelty to animals but these practices are not a problem that has a high rate of occurrence. The practices that occur more often are those concerning adults and parents, whether they are talking about a judge or trying to buy a first place animal. Females observe unethical practices more frequently than do males, and extension agents observe unethical practices more frequently than do agriculture teachers. The most frequently observed unethical practices were: “Youth and adults questioning the integrity of the livestock judge;” “Parents or teachers getting animals ready to show;” and “Talking about the other children and judges (continuation of what they hear at home)." Introduction
Man has been faced with the dilemma of distinguishing between right and wrong since the beginning of time. One of the first questions of ethics was a biblical report centered on the Garden of Eden. Since then, many theologians have given their thoughts on what they believe to be ethical. Aristotle was one of the first great philosophers to study the subject of ethics. Ethics have helped shape our society. One of the very first laws that were ever to be reported was the Code of Hammurabi, which made bribery a crime. Ever since then, there have been laws made that have ethical content. Our ancestors realized that young people are the future. The 4-H and National FFA Organization programs are based on a learning by doing approach to educating their students. This learning by doing approach is based on sound managerial and ethical practices. In the early 1900’s, most 4-H clubs were organized as boys and girls agricultural clubs, which taught scientific methods in agricultural production (Wessel & Wessel, 1982). Since then, the 4-H program has taken great strides towards educating the youth in its program about making ethical decisions and the skills necessary for life long learning. 4-H’s mission is to develop youth to reach their fullest potential through developing life skills, learning by doing and utilizing the knowledge of the land-grant university system (National 4-H, 2000). Another popular youth organization is the Future Farmers of America (FFA) or National FFA Organization. The FFA has been making positive differences in young peoples’ lives for over 71 years. It has accomplished this by developing their potential for leadership, personal growth and career success (National FFA, 1999). National FFA Organization is an integral part of the high school agriculture program. The high school agriculture curriculum educates students in the areas of animal science, agricultural mechanics, plant and soil science and leadership. The learning by doing concept requires students to be actively involved in a supervised agricultural experience program. Some of the 4-H and FFA members have livestock projects or their experience programs, which allows them to participate in youth livestock exhibitions. The raising and exhibiting of livestock began more than 200 years ago when the Collings brothers and others first led their bovine beasts out onto the show ground of Smithfield, England. This practice was very valuable and purposeful for the advertising of their stock. People came great distances to view the results of man’s efforts to produce a superior bullock that possessed the prepotency to pass his size, fleshing, and appearance on to his progeny. The fair or show was a prime area of communication (Dietrich 1967). Since, there has been an increasing popularity surrounding livestock exhibitions. Because of this popularity, livestock exhibitors have recently been under close scrutiny due to some individuals who have been caught cheating. Cheating at livestock events continues to be of great concern. According to Jeff Goodwin (1995), people have let their competitiveness cloud their judgment of right and wrong. Goodwin is one of the leading experts on show ring ethics in the United States. He has conducted several research studies pertaining to ethics in livestock exhibitions. He has a well-respected video series that addresses some of the show ring unethical practices. In 1994 livestock show ethics gained public attention because residues of clenbuterol were found in several animals at major livestock shows in the United States. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) acted on concerns about possible adverse effects of clenbuterol on public health (Rodrigquez, 1995). Not all unethical practices involve drugs. A boy in Texas, whose pig was 10 pounds under the weight limit to be eligible to show, shoved a water hose down the pig’s throat and turned on the water. The pig gained the 10 pounds it needed but died a few minutes later. Another example was in Ohio when the Grand Champion Lamb was found with vegetable oil residue in its glands. The boy did this to make the animal appear more muscular. Another instance occurred in Texas where a seventeen year old girl and her family were caught administrating a human tranquilizer to her market steer. The attempt was to make the animal calmer in the show ring. In another state there was a young man who had his picture put on the front page of the newspaper with his state prize-winning hog. The problem with the picture was that the boy did not raise the best hog in the state. In fact, he had never raised a hog in his life (Goodwin video series). Unethical practices also are being committed in West Virginia, but we cannot document to what extent. Purpose
of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine frequency of unethical practices in exhibiting animals as observed by West Virginia extension agents and high school agriculture teachers. It also was conducted to provide information to all individuals who are involved with youth livestock exhibitions. Objectives of the Study1. To identify the unethical practices observed by extension agents and agriculture teachers at West Virginia livestock exhibitions. 2. To rate the unethical practices according to their seriousness. 3. To compare differences in the perceived seriousness of unethical practices by profession, gender. Methodology
Population of the StudyThe respondents for this study (N=70) consisted of extension agents and high school agriculture teachers in West Virginia on the current mailing lists from the West Virginia University Extension Service headquarters and the West Virginia University Agriculture Education (2000) who have youth livestock responsibilities. There were 37 agents and 33 teachers that participated in the study. Design, Instrumentation and Data CollectionThe data were collected using the descriptive method of research. Information was collected from the population via a two-part mail questionnaire. The first mailing contained a letter of introduction explaining the purpose of the study and a survey form on which each extension agent and agriculture teacher was asked to identify the five most unethical practices that they have witnessed at a youth livestock exhibit. Information obtained on the initial questionnaire was reviewed and sorted, similar responses were combined, and whenever needed, statements were edited without altering the meaning. The responses were grouped to form a second questionnaire, which included every statement that was mentioned by at least one respondent to be a major unethical practice that was witnessed at a youth livestock exhibit. This second questionnaire asked the respondents to rate 58 identified unethical practices on a Lickert-type scale, (1= never observed, 2= very seldom observed, 3= occasionally observed and 4= frequently observed) for their observations of the 58 practices. The researcher and his advisor signed the personalized letter. A postage paid, self-addressed envelope was provided to encourage returns. The cover letter thanked those who participated and explained the importance of their responses. Data AnalysisData
were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSSpc)
at West Virginia University. Descriptive
data were analyzed in the form of percentages, measures of central
tendency, and frequencies. Based
on standard deviations, frequencies and means, data were recorded and
reported in tabular form. A
descriptive narrative was used in combination with the tabulated figures
to explain the findings. Validity and Reliability of the InstrumentFaculty members at West Virginia University examined the second phase mail questionnaire for content and face validity. Internal consistency was determined by calculating Cronbach’s alpha. The reliability of the instrument was 0.94. Findings
Demographics
Data were collected regarding
gender and years of experience as an extension agent or high school
agriculture teacher. Nine
respondents were female and fifty-seven were male as noted in Table 1.
Four of the respondents did not report their gender.
Mean years of experience for extension agents was 18.6 years and
for high school agriculture teachers the mean was 12.9 years.
Years of experience ranged from 0-32 years in both professions.
Mean
Ratings of Unethical Practices as it Relates to Animal Ownership,
Preparation, and Subject Matter Skills Observed at Youth Livestock
Exhibitions by West Virginia Extension Agents and Agriculture Teachers
by Profession and by Gender Data in Table 2 indicate the overall mean ratings, standard deviations and t-test results from the extension agent and agriculture teacher respondents to the survey as it relates to animal ownership, preparation, and subject matter skills. The most frequently observed unethical practice overall with a mean score of 3.07 was “Parents or teachers getting animals ready to show.” There were two of the ten (20%) statements in this category that had mean score of 2.51 or higher. These ratings fell in the categories of “occasionally observed.” These statements ranged from “Youth knowing very little about the animal they take into the show ring,” (M=2.91); and “The grooming of show animals by professionals rather than the youth,” (M=2.69). Of the ten statements, seven received mean ratings of 1.59 to 2.26: “Letting semi-professional groomers and trainers in the show area where they can influence the animal being exhibited,” (M=2.26); “Buying back animal in someone else’s name,” (M=2.25); “Generally not caring for the animals during the fair shows that they didn’t do it at home,” (M=2.13); “Exhibiting project animals that 4-H’ers have not previously cared for or managed,” (M=2.06); “Youth showing animals which they do not actually own, showing for someone on a contractual basis,” (M=2.06); “Exhibiting & showing animals which have not been cared for by the owner during the required period of time.” (M=2.01); and “Parent who was most knowledgeable about livestock and would not render aid to help a child with animal. The parent was washing his child’s animal –while the child rested” (M=1.59). Of the ten statements listed in this category, two of them were statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Extension agents observed the following actions significantly more often than the agriculture teacher respondents: “Parents or teachers getting animals ready to show,” and “Buying back animal in someone else’s name.” Data were also analyzed to determine if significant differences between male and female teachers and agents existed. Table 2 also shows standard deviations and t-test results from the male and female respondents to the survey. Of the ten statements listed in this category, two were significant at the 0.05 level. In every case, females observed the following actions more often than did the male respondents: “Letting semi-professional groomers and trainers in the show area where they can influence the animal being exhibited,” and “Youth showing animals which they do not actually own, showing for someone on a contractual basis.” The practices identified in this category were related to actions undertaken by youth and adults participating in the livestock exhibitions statewide. Mean Ratings of Unethical Practices as it Relates to Animal Welfare Issues Observed at Youth Livestock Exhibitions by West Virginia Extension Agents and Agriculture Teachers by Profession and by Gender Table 3 illustrates the mean ratings of unethical practices as it relates to animal welfare issues observed at youth livestock exhibitions. There was one statement in this category that had a mean score of 2.51 or higher: “Withholding feed and water from animal to lower weight and make animal appear trim”(M=2.51). This rating fell in the category of “occasionally observed.” There were 14 statements in this category with mean scores ranging from 2.41 to 1.6. Of the 20 statements listed in this category, three of them were statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Extension agents observed the following actions significantly more often than the agriculture teacher respondents: “Pulling a lamb’s head in the air to the point that its feet leave the ground after being instructed not to;” “Using rubbing alcohol on market lambs after irritating the skin with a curry-comb to “Brace” lambs. This burning sensation caused lambs to “brace;” and “Steroid use to increase muscling.” Data were also analyzed to determine if significant differences between male and female teachers and agents existed. Table 3 also shows standard deviations and t-tests results from the male and female respondents to the survey. Of the 20 statements in this category, 4 were significant at the 0.05 level. Again, in every case, females observed the following actions more often than did the male respondents: “Withholding feed and water from animals to lower weight and make animal appear trim;” “Pulling a lamb’s head in the air to the point that its feet leave the ground after being instructed not to;” “Extreme tail docking;” and “Small animals, especially rabbits, being unattended for days at a time.” These unethical practices concern cruelty to animals but are not problems that have a high rate of occurrence but could impact the future of youth livestock exhibitions and programming. Mean Ratings of Unethical Practices as it Relates to Potential Fraudulent Actions Observed at Youth Livestock Exhibitions by West Virginia Extension Agents and Agriculture Teachers by Profession and by Gender Data in Table 4 indicate the overall mean ratings, standard deviations and t-test results from the extension agent and agriculture teacher respondents to the survey as it relates to potential fraudulent actions observed at youth livestock exhibitions statewide. There was one statement in this category that had a mean score of 2.51 or higher: “Paying extreme prices for a feeder pig or calf just to win. This doesn’t teach sound production agriculture” (M=2.79). This rating fell in the category of “occasionally observed.” Data were analyzed to determine if significant differences between male and female teachers and agents existed. Of the 10 statements listed in this category, three were significant at the 0.05 level. Females in all cases observed the following actions more often than did the male respondents: “Paying extreme prices for a feeder pig or calf just to win. This doesn’t teach sound production agriculture;” “Registering all animals in farm name so kids have many to choose from, instead of owning and working with one that is their own;” and “Retagging animals to replace with another animal that has been purchased.”
Table 2 Mean
Ratings of Unethical Practices as it Relates to Animal Ownership,
Preparation, and Subject Matter Skills Observed at Youth Livestock
Exhibitions by West Virginia Extension Agents and Agriculture Teachers
by Professions and by Gender
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||