History of Child Welfare and Protection Social Work in Northern Ireland: Finding Continuity amongst Discontinuity in Case Files from 1950-1968

This article reports on research carried out on 200 child welfare files from the largest welfare authority in Northern Ireland from 1950-1968. The literature review provides a commentary on some of the major debates surrounding child welfare and protection social work from the perspective of its historical development. The report of the research which follows offers an insight into one core, and less well-known period of child welfare history in Northern Ireland between the two Children and Young Persons Acts (1950 & 1968). Using a method of discourse analysis influenced by Michel Foucault, a detailed description of the nature of practice is offered. This paper is offered as a work in progress, with further work being planned for dissemination of more detailed analysis of the method and outcomes. The research seeks to ask a few core questions based on problems identified in the present with our current understandings of child welfare and protection histories. While recognising the limitations of this study and the need for broader analysis of the wider context surrounding child welfare practice at the moment, it is argued that some salient conclusions can be drawn about continuity and discontinuity in practice which are of interest to practitioners and students of child welfare social work.

Effective monitoring for ractopamine residues in samples of animal origin by SPR biosensor and mass spectrometry

Ractopamine (RCT) is a member of the beta-2-agonist (beta-agonist) family. It is licensed for use as an animal growth promoter in more than 20 countries worldwide, including the United States and Canada, but is either not licensed or prohibited by over 150 others, including those within the European Union. The issue of the use of RCT in livestock bound for human consumption has risen to prominence recently following the decision by The People's Republic of China to ban the import of pork from a number of processing plants after finding traces of RCT in shipments from the U.S.A.

Tails of animal attraction: Incorporating the feline into the family

Increased urbanization and female employment have led to the cat overtaking the dog as the companion animal of preference. However, thisarticle looks beyond lifestyle changes as reasons for the popularity of the cat. The article explores the emotional consumer-socialization processinvolving the incorporation of the cat into the family. Subjective personal introspection (SPI) and supporting vignettes of female humans in theirfamilies (all of which were high-involvement owners) explore the hows and whys of feline incorporation. The study identifies several categories ofincorporation. The findings suggest that this complex process involves many factors — namely, consumer socialization, intergenerationalinfluence, brand loyalty, commitment, near-instant loyalty, immediacy, distress, anthropomorphism, and nostalgia. These factors underpin theintimacy and care the human–feline relationship expresses. The ability for humans and cats to bond in a way that fosters emotional intimacy canbe considered one of the purest forms of relationships.© 2007 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Survival of pathogenic bacteria during mesophilic anaerobic-digestion of animal waste

The survival of pathogenic bacteria was investigated during the operation of a full-scale anaerobic digester which was fed daily and operated at 28-degrees-C. The digester had a mean hydraulic retention time of 24 d. The viable numbers of Escherichia coli, Salmonella typhimurium, Yersinia enterocolitica, Listeria monocytogenes and Campylobacter jejuni were reduced during mesophilic anaerobic digestion. Escherichia coli had the smallest mean viable numbers at each stage of the digestion process. Its mean T90 value was 76-9 d. Yersinia enterocolitica was the least resistant to the anaerobic digester environment; its mean T90 value was 18.2 d. Campylobacter jejuni was the most resistant bacterium; its mean T90 value was 438.6 d. Regression analysis showed that there were no direct relationships between the slurry input and performance of the digester and the decline of pathogen numbers during the 140 d experimental period.

Welfare risk assessment:The benefits and common pitfalls

Risk is defined as a situation involving exposure to danger. Risk assessment by nature characterises the probability of a negative event occurring and quantifies the consequences of such an event. Risk assessment is increasingly being used in the field of animal welfare as a means of drawing comparisons between multiple welfare problems within and between species and identifying those that should be prioritised by policy-makers, either because they affect a large proportion of the population or because they have particularly severe consequences for those affected. The assessment of risk is typically based on three fundamental factors: intensity of consequences, duration affected by consequences and prevalence. However, it has been recognised that these factors alone do not give a complete picture of a hazard and its associated consequences. Rather, to get a complete picture, it is important to also consider information about the hazard itself: probability of exposure to the hazard and duration of exposure to the hazard. The method has been applied to a variety of farmed species (eg poultry, dairy cows, farmed fish), investigating housing, husbandry and slaughter procedures, as well as companion animals, where it has been used to compare inherited defects in pedigree dogs and horses. To what extent can we trust current risk assessment methods to get the priorities straight? How should we interpret the results produced by such assessments? Here, the potential difficulties and pitfalls of the welfare risk assessment method will be discussed: (i) the assumption that welfare hazards are independent; (ii) the problem of quantifying the model parameters; and (iii) assessing and incorporating variability and uncertainty into welfare risk assessments. © 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare.