3 resultados para social shaping of technology
em DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Resumo:
The hunting behavior of leopard seals Hydrurga leptonyx was monitored opportunistically at Seal Island, South Shetland Islands, during the austral summers from 1986/87 to 1994/95. Leopard seals used several methods to catch Antarctic fur seal pups Arctocephalus gazella and chinstrap penguins Pygoscelis antarctica, and individuals showed different hunting styles and hunting success. One to two leopard seals per year were responsible for an average of 60% of observed captures of fur seal pups. Leopard seals preyed on penguins throughout the summer, but preyed on fur seal pups only between late December and mid-February. Hunting behavior differed significantly between different locations on the island; fur seals were hunted only at one colony, and penguins were hunted in several areas. The relative abundance of prey types, size of prey in relation to predator, and specialization of individual leopard seals to hunt fur seal prey probably influence individual prey preferences among leopard seals. On five occasions, two leopard seals were seen together on Seal Island. Possible interpretations of the relationship between the interacting leopard seals included a mother-offspring relationship, a consorting male-female pair, and an adult leopard seal followed by an unrelated juvenile. In two incidents at Seal Island, two leopard seals were observed interacting while hunting: one seal captured fur seal pups and appeared to release them to the other seal. Observations of leopard seals interacting during hunting sessions were difficult to confirm as co-operative hunting, but they strongly implied that the two seals were not agonistic toward one another. The hunting success of individual leopard seals pursuing penguins or fur seals is probably high enough for co-operative hunting not to become a common hunting strategy; however, it may occur infrequently when it increases the hunting productivity of the seals.
Resumo:
Since 1950, the composition of the U.S. meat diet has shifted markedly from red meats to poultry. For example, from 1970 to 1984, on a percapita basis, beef consumption has declined by 6.4 percent, while chicken and turkey consumptions have increased by 37.9, and 42.5 percent respectively (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1985). The numerous studies of this phenomenon from the demand side (Chavas, 1983; Braschler, 1983; Nyankori and Miller, 1982; Moschini and Meilke, 1984; Wohlgenant, 1985, Thurman, 1987; Chalfant and Alston, 1988) have failed to achieve a consensus as to whether a change in taste contributed to this shift. One reason for the lack of consensus is that the very large price and quantity changes make it difficult to establish whether consumers are on a new indifference map. But there have been no comparable studies of the nature and causes of the technological change that has made these large consumption and price changes possible. A decrease in the relative price of poultry with respect to red meat is in any case a major explanation of recent shifts in meat consumption patterns. The main reason for such a decrease appears to be a higher rate of technical progress in the poultry industry than in the red meat industry. Substantial productivity gains in both the production and marketing of poultry over the last two decades appears to have been translated into lower retail prices for poultry. Although some productivity gains have taken place in the red meat industry, they have not matched the cost reductions in the poultry industry (Chavas, 1987). Thus, a consumption shift from beef to poultry could possibly be interpreted as a response to changing relative prices, the structural change having occurred in the meat industry. This would imply that, if the beef industry desires to maintain or expand its market, it should seek a decrease in the production and marketing costs of beef.
Resumo:
“Our study will show how the pyramidal structure as a permanent feature of every aspect of American society continues to function in the same manner at institutions of higher learning.”