A pilot study on the productivity and behavior of the gestating sow housed in a flex stall

Animal welfare is a controversial topic in modern animal agriculture, partly because it generates interest from both the scientific community and the general public. The housing of gestating sows, particularly individual housing, is one of the most critical concerns in farm animal welfare. We hypothesize that the physical size of the standard gestation stall may limit movement and evoke demands and challenges on the sow to affect the physiological and psychological well-being of the individually housed sow. Thus, improvements in the design of the individual gestation stall system that allow more freedom to move, such as increasing stall width or designing a stall that could accommodate the changing size of the pregnant sow, may improve sow welfare. The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the effects of a width adjustable stall (FLEX) on productivity and behavior of dry sows. The experiment consisted of 3 replications (block 1, n=4 sows; block 2, n=4 sows; block 3, n=8 sows), and multi-parious sows were allotted to either a FLEX stall or standard gestation stall for 1 gestation period. Sow mid-girth (top of the back to bottom of the udder) was measured 5-6 times throughout gestation to determine the best time points for FLEX stall width expansions. FLEX stall width was adjusted according to mid-girth measurements, and expanded to achieve an additional 2 cm of space between the bottom of the sow’s udder and floor of the stall so that sows could lie in full lateral recumbency without touching the sides of the stall. Productivity data recorded included: sow body weight (BW) and BW gain, number of piglets born and born alive, proportions of piglets stillborn, mummified, lost between birth and weaning, and weaned, and litter and mean piglet birth BW, weaning BW, and average BW gain from birth-to-weaning. Lesions were recorded on d 21 and d 111 of gestation. Sub-pilot behavior data were observed and registered for replicate 1 sows using continuous video-records for the l2 hour lights on period (period 1, 0600-1000; period 2, 1000-1400; period 3, 1400-1800) prior FLEX stall adjustment and 12 hour lights on period post adjustment on d 21, 22, 23, 43, 44, 45, 93, 94, 95. A randomized complete block design with a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement for treatments was used to analyze sow productivity and performance traits. Data were analyzed using the Mixed Models procedure of SAS. A preliminary analysis of data means and numerical trends was used to analyze sow behavior measurements. Sows housed in a FLEX stall had more (P < 0.05) total born and a tendency for more piglets born alive (P = 0.06) than sows housed in a standard stall. Sow body weight also tended to be higher (P = 0.06) for sows housed in a FLEX stall compared to sows housed in a standard stall. There were numerical trends for mean durations of sit, lay, lay (OUT), and eat behaviors to be greater for sows housed in a FLEX stall compared with sows housed in a standard stall. The mean duration of lay (IN) behavior tended to be numerically less for sows housed in a FLEX stall compared with sows housed in a standard stall. There were numerical trends for the mean durations of stand and drink behaviors to be greater for sows housed in a standard stall compared with sows housed in a FLEX stall. The mean frequencies of postural changes and mean durations of oral-nasal-facial and sham-chew behaviors were numerically similar between types of gestation stall. Mean durations and numerical trends indicate that time of day influenced all of the behaviors assessed in this study. The results of this pilot study indicate that the adjustable FLEX stall may affect sow productivity and behavior differently than the standard gestation stall, and thus potentially improve sow well-being. Future research should continue to compare the new FLEX stall design to current housing systems in use and examine physiological traits and immune status in addition to behavioral and productivity traits to assess the effects that this housing system has on the overall welfare of the gestating sow.

No right to sext? A critical examination of media and legal debates about teenage girls' sexual agency in the digital age

Advances in digital photography and distribution technologies enable many people to produce and distribute images of their sex acts. When teenagers do this, the photos and videos they create can be legally classified as child pornography since the law makes no exception for youth who create sexually explicit images of themselves. The dominant discussions about teenage girls producing sexually explicit media (including sexting) are profoundly unproductive: (1) they blame teenage girls for creating private images that another person later maliciously distributed and (2) they fail to respect—or even discuss—teenagers’ rights to freedom of expression. Cell phones and the internet make producing and distributing images extremely easy, which provide widely accessible venues for both consensual sexual expression between partners and for sexual harassment. Dominant understandings view sexting as a troubling teenage trend created through the combination of camera phones and adolescent hormones and impulsivity, but this view often conflates consensual sexting between partners with the malicious distribution of a person’s private image as essentially equivalent behaviors. In this project, I ask: What is the role of assumptions about teen girls’ sexual agency in these problematic understandings of sexting that blame victims and deny teenagers’ rights? In contrast to the popular media panic about online predators and the familiar accusation that youth are wasting their leisure time by using digital media, some people champion the internet as a democratic space that offers young people the opportunity to explore identities and develop social and communication skills. Yet, when teen girls’ sexuality enters this conversation, all this debate and discussion narrows to a problematic consensus. The optimists about adolescents and technology fall silent, and the argument that media production is inherently empowering for girls does not seem to apply to a girl who produces a sexually explicit image of herself. Instead, feminist, popular, and legal commentaries assert that she is necessarily a victim: of a “sexualized” mass media, pressure from her male peers, digital technology, her brain structures or hormones, or her own low self-esteem and misplaced desire for attention. Why and how are teenage girls’ sexual choices produced as evidence of their failure or success in achieving Western liberal ideals of self-esteem, resistance, and agency? Since mass media and policy reactions to sexting have so far been overwhelmingly sexist and counter-productive, it is crucial to interrogate the concepts and assumptions that characterize mainstream understandings of sexting. I argue that the common sense that is co-produced by law and mass media underlies the problematic legal and policy responses to sexting. Analyzing a range of nonfiction texts including newspaper articles, talk shows, press releases, public service announcements, websites, legislative debates, and legal documents, I investigate gendered, racialized, age-based, and technologically determinist common sense assumptions about teenage girls’ sexual agency. I examine the consensus and continuities that exist between news, nonfiction mass media, policy, institutions, and law, and describe the limits of their debates. I find that this early 21st century post-feminist girl-power moment not only demands that girls live up to gendered sexual ideals but also insists that actively choosing to follow these norms is the only way to exercise sexual agency. This is the first study to date examining the relationship of conventional wisdom about digital media and teenage girls’ sexuality to both policy and mass media.

From the human rights-based approach to an ecological approach on how to achieve successful inclusion in international disability education

The barriers that people with disabilities face around the world are not only inherent to the limitations resulting from the disability itself, but, more importantly, these barriers rest with the societal technologies of exclusion. Using a mixed methodology approach, I conduct a quest to revealing several societal factors that limit full participation of people with disabilities in their communities, which will contribute to understanding and developing a more comprehensive framework for full inclusion of people with disabilities into the society. First, I conduct a multiple regression analysis to seek whether there is a statistical relationship between the national level of development, the level of democratization, and the level of education within a country’s population on one hand, and expressed concern for and preparedness to improve the quality of life for people of disabilities on another hand. The results from the quantitative methodology reveal that people without disabilities are more prepared to take care of people with disabilities when the level of development of the country is higher, when the people have more freedom of expression and hold the government accountable for its actions, and when the level of corruption is under control. However, a greater concern for the well-being of people with disabilities is correlated with a high level of country development, a decreased value of political stability and absence of violence, a decreased level of government effectiveness, and a greater level of law enforcement. None of the dependent variables are significantly correlated with the level of education from a given country. Then, I delve into an interpretive analysis to understand multiple factors that contribute to the construction of attitudes and practices towards people with disabilities. In doing this, I build upon the four main principles outlined by the United Nations as strongly recommended to be embedded in all international programmes: (1) identification of claims of human rights and the corresponding obligations of governments, hence, I assess and analyze disability rights in education, looking at United Nation, United States, and European Union Perspectives Educational Rights Provisions for People with Disabilities (Ch. 3); (2) estimated capacity of individuals to claim their rights and of governments to fulfill their obligations, hence, I look at the people with disabilities as rights-holders and duty-bearers and discuss the importance of investing in special capital in the context of global development (Ch. 4); (3) programmes monitor and evaluate the outcomes and the processes under the auspices of human rights standards, hence, I look at the importance of evaluating the UN World Programme of Action Concerning People with Disabilities from multiple perspectives, as an example of why and how to monitor and evaluate educational human rights outcomes and processes (Ch. 5); and (4) programming should reflect the recommendations of international human rights bodies and mechanisms, hence, I focus on programming that fosters development of the capacity of people with disabilities, that is, planning for an ecology of disabilities and ecoducation for people with disabilities (Ch. 6). Results from both methodologies converge to a certain point, and they further complement each other. One common result for the two methodologies employed is that disability is an evolving concept when viewed in a broader context, which integrates the four spaces that the ecological framework incorporates. Another common result is that factors such as economic, social, legal, political, and natural resources and contexts contribute to the health, education and employment opportunities, and to the overall well-being of people with disabilities. The ecological framework sees all these factors from a meta-systemic perspective, where bi-directional interactions are expected and desired, and also from a human rights point of view, where the inherent value of people is upheld at its highest standard.