The future of veterinarians in dairy herd health management

The future of the Veterinary Practice in Dairy Health Management has changed and will change more drastically from our point of view in the next years. The consumer’s pressure and the Media are more and more concerned about animal welfare, traceability of animal products and safety of products of animal origin. On the other hand the Farmers in Europe have to produce under strong rules (competing with other countries outside Europe), which are normally very expensive to put in practice, and the veterinarians should adapt their knowledge to the new challenges, because without their work and cooperation, dairy farming will have no future. In that sense, the old veterinary practice has to go in other ways, otherwise the Veterinarians will loose clients and the animal population in Europe will be reduced. The Dairy farmers will ask for support in other areas besides clinical: efficacy, management, welfare, profitability, nutrition, prophylaxis, economics, reproduction, environmental protection, grassland management, etc. Cattle practitioners should be able to give answers in several subjects and this sets the challenge to our profession - Veterinary preparation has to be very strong in single animal species, particularly in Dairy or beef cows. The cattle practitioner has to look beyond, but he should never forget that “the single animal” has to be looked at as one unit of the herd, which means that without a very good knowledge of the single animal he will be insufficiently prepared to solve herd problems, and the Herd is the sum of several animals. We all know that very often one single animal allows us to implement herd strategies and develop prophylactic programs. We are convinced that the veterinary profession, and in our case the Cattle Medicine should have the ability to evolve, otherwise the Veterinarian as we know him will miss the train in the next years.

The sight of silence : the conceptualisation of silence in the visual cultures of sign language communities

Deaf people are perceived by hearing people as living in a silent world. Yet, silence cannot exist without sound, so if sound is not heard, can there be silence? From a linguistic point of view silence is the absence of, or intermission in, communication. Silence can be communicative or noncommunicative. Thus, silence must exist in sign languages as well. Sign languages are based on visual perception and production through movement and sight. Silence must, therefore, be visually perceptible; and, if there is such a thing as visual silence, how does it look? The paper will analyse the topic of silence from a Deaf perspective. The main aspects to be explored are the perception and evaluation of acoustic noise and silence by Deaf people; the conceptualisation of silence in visual languages, such as sign languages; the qualities of visual silence; the meaning of silence as absence of communication (particularly between hearing and Deaf people); social rules for silence; and silencing strategies.

On the concept of the public: the local museums’ case

Globally, the public is understood as the whole of a service’s users. In the specific case of the museums, the users are all those who make use of the service offered by the museum institution. Thus, the museum’s public corresponds not only to the visitors (people who enter or have entered the museum), but also to the part of those who, in some way, with no relationship of presence within the museum, have enjoyed the services or property made available by it (for instance the ordering of books or other material by catalogue, visit to travelling exhibitions, end users of pedagogical actions carried out in schools…) On the other hand, when we refer to the public, it is necessary to make another distinction: between the real or effective public and the potential public. The former is the group of individuals who have visited or have used the museum, while in the second case are included all the people who, due to their specific characteristics, are susceptible to become the real or effective public.

Museums and quality, from the concept of the museum that carries out functions to the museum that provides services

Quality management Self-evaluation of the organisation Citizens/customers satisfaction Impact on society evaluation Key performance evaluation Good practices comparison (Benchmarking) Continuous improvement In professional environments, when quality assessment of museums is discussed, one immediately thinks of the honourableness of the directors and curators, the erudition and specialisation of knowledge, the diversity of the gathered material and study of the collections, the collections conservation methods and environmental control, the regularity and notoriety of the exhibitions and artists, the building’s architecture and site, the recreation of environments, the museographic equipment design. We admit that the roles and attributes listed above can contribute to the definition of a specificity of museological good practice within a hierarchised functional perspective (the museum functions) and for the classification of museums according to a scale, validated between peers, based on “installed” appreciation criteria, enforced from above downwards, according to the “prestige” of the products and of those who conceive them, but that say nothing about the effective satisfaction of the citizen/customers and the real impact on society. There is a lack of evaluation instruments that would give us a return of all that the museum is and represents in contemporary society, focused on being and on the relation with the other, in detriment of the ostentatious possession and of the doing in order to meet one’s duties. But it is only possible to evaluate something by measurement and comparison, on the basis of well defined criteria, from a common grid, implicating all of the actors in the self-evaluation, in the definition of the aims to fulfil and in the obtaining of results.