Meanwhile, qualitative analysis of farmers revealed that farmers strategic approach to cattle purchasing of fitting the system meant that behavioural interventions were of limited consequence: the fact that they chose cattle with low bTB risks was coincidental. It is possible that our results reflect the way our participants were drawn primarily from the dairy sector rather than beef or calf-rearing sectors. Framing cattle purchasing in terms of short-term needs rather than establishing longer-term supply chains may also have elicited less frequent mentions of trust, reciprocity and ‘good farming’. These alternative scenario framings may have enhanced the significance of our ‘good farming rating’ but was nonetheless revealed in our qualitative analysis of our general discussions with farmers during the game. Our methodological approach therefore raises questions for how other research on behavioural insights within agricultural policy might be tested. In fact, a recent review of the agricultural behaviour change literature found relatively few studies of behavioural interventions, most of which relied on education rather than behavioural insights. Moreover, whilst some innovative methodologies were found , others relied on experimental methods that provide little insight into the differences between control and intervention groups . Alternatively, multiple interventions are applied to multiple contexts making delineating their effects methodologically challenging . Whilst calls have been made for greater methodological quality of behavioural intervention studies in agriculture ,fodder system there is a risk that reliance on experimental methods overlooks the many and varied contexts of agricultural activities such as cattle purchasing.
A key contribution of our research is therefore to respond to these concerns and provide complimentary methods to address these challenges. Secondly, whilst ‘good farming’ has been explored conceptually in relation to bio-security, this study responds to Burton and Paragahawewa’s challenge of developing good farming measures for a specific bio-security practice. Although such measures are not without their problems, in relation to cattle purchasing we have shown that good farming measures can play a role in shaping farmers’ cattle purchasing decisions, forming an important part of farmers’ purchasing ‘radar’ used to match cattle to their system. The process of matching purchases to farming systems observed in our study reflects what Burton et al. describe as an attempt to build a ‘cowshed culture’ – a ‘self-reinforcing culture in which animals, humans and the physical structure all contribute to the development of farm specific ways of doing and being’. Designing and reinforcing a system that promotes ‘positive interactions’ between the human and non-human constitutive elements is central to a farm’s success. The purchasing strategy of ‘fitting the system’ therefore reflects an attempt to maintain such positive interactions. Indeed, as Hidano et al. suggest, ‘livestock purchasing practices seem to be shaped in the process of establishing cowshed culture, rather than farmers choosing “best” cows for their farms after considering a whole range of animal characteristics’. In describing how farmers seek to ‘fit the system’ through their cattle purchases, we have also highlighted the trade-offs that farmers must make. The absence of the perfect animal means that fitting the system requires ‘skilled craftwork’ to identify the best animals to fit the system whilst also recognising the limits to this work . These skills are reflective of the kinds of judgments made about stock when purchasing them such as their likely productivity based on their conformation, appearance and behaviour.
However, estimations of good farming are also relevant here. On the one hand, good farming metrics may play a role in helping farmers to decide which stock to buy by providing reassurance that the vendor is not ‘dodgy’ but an ‘honest dealer’ . On the other hand, whilst farmers reacted positively and more enthusiastically to our good farmer rating than traditional metrics of disease control, it was also simplistic and unable to capture all the dimensions of good farming. This may explain why personal contacts and reliance on long-standing trusted trading relationships are preferred by many farmers. Nevertheless, further development and testing of other ways of expressing good farming for bio-security should take place. For example, a pictorial farm portrait may help convey good farming status better than a simple metric. Such an approach, whilst ostensibly less objective, may allow farmers to build their own assessments and be comfortable with their limitations because they reflect their own cultural values. Indeed, as recent bio-security research has suggested, recognising and living with the limits to bio-security boundaries is what makes them work . Finally, In showing how this fitting process works for cattle purchasing, we have also demonstrated how farmers’ decisions reflect a hierarchy of second-order strategies in which first-hand experience of the animals and vendor takes priority over representations of good farming in satisfaction ratings or disease information but which is more important than financial incentives and aversion to financial loss. However, it is also the case that these strategies and the relative importance of different information will vary between different segments of the farming population and according to different disease contexts. However, it may also be the case that the social context of disease management may also play an important role in determining the use of information available at the point of sale but which is not factored into narrowly defined approaches to behavioural ‘nudging’.
For Michie and West , this suggests that a range of behavioural interventions that may include both regulatory and persuasive techniques is required in order to be developed addressing different behavioural mechanisms is required . For others, the main problem with attempts to alter behaviour through the provision of information is that they fail to secure ‘norm internalisation’ , providing only short-term solutions. This is particularly the case when they relate to collective action to manage risks that affect everyone such as disease control . The answer to this problem may lie in moving away from ‘neuroliberal’ solutions that ‘infantalise’ people as unable to deal with complexity towards approaches that seek to engage them in co-producing their futures rather than by-passing their irrationality . As Drury et al. show, when people view an existential threat in terms of the way it affects a community, they mobilise and coordinate collective solutions and ensure the community as a whole benefit rather than just the most able. The implications of these critiques for cattle purchasing is that behavioural change interventions may be most effective when they are designed and produced by the communities affected by them . Indeed, our research revealed that farmers’ purchases were already oriented towards disease management priorities when they reflected the priorities within private forms of regulation that had been developed within and by the farming industry rather than priorities that had been imposed by external regulators. This suggests that rather than focus on changing individual behaviour, changes to the organisation of regulation in which the private sector creates its own systems of bTB control and incentivized through contractual agreements with farmers may prove a more effective strategy of managing the movement of cattle. Advocacy for tree planting and ‘woodland creation’ in response to climate change has reached fever pitch in the UK and beyond – in many ways becoming the raison d’ˆetre of contemporary forest policy. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published their special report on ‘Climate Change and Land’ in August 2019 , which stressed the importance of afforestation for its potential to deliver high impact on climate change mitigation. Echoing this at the national level, the UK Climate Change Committee ‘Net Zero’ report was published in May 2019, recommending planting 30,000 to 50,000 ha of trees annually to meet commitments made under the Paris Agreement.
These reports gained significant attention in national media highlighting the need for afforestation and emphasising the need for changing diets and moves away from livestock agriculture . Numerous other articles have appeared across national, regional, and local popular press related to tree planting for climate change mitigation or reporting contemporary ecological and forest sciences in this subject area . In one particularly high-profile instance, July 2019 saw several media outlets reporting the publication of ‘The global tree restoration potential’, a paper by a group of environmental scientists led by JeanFrancois Bastin, in the journal Science .1 National media headlines associated with this publication highlighted the ‘mind blowing potential’ of forest restoration to remove green-house gasses from the atmosphere . Related posts on social news websites became among the year’s most ‘upvoted’ posts within days . This narrative, drawing together a verifiable climate change mitigation technique with the widely popular act of tree planting, has proved extremely popular amongst political leaders. During the UK’s 2019 General Election, for example, political parties sought to outdo each other with manifesto commitments to ever larger tree planting promises. Tree planting targets themselves have had impactful media coverage , and form a significant element of governmental policy .It is widely felt that much of the proposed afforestation across the UK will need to be undertaken on land currently used for agricultural production. ‘Marginal’ upland areas typically used for extensive livestock production are often highlighted as key opportunity spaces. As a climate change mitigation strategy,fodder system for sale large-scale tree planting is often deemed to compete for land with agricultural production and is frequently considered to run counter to the cultural attachment of farmers and farming to the land . Land availability and the related socio-cultural context, attitudes, and goals of the farming community are therefore central constraints here. There has been much analysis in this arena with explanations of poor engagement with woodland creation and management amongst the farming sector centring on the roles of economics, knowledge, cultural norms and practices, governance design and advisory services . These constraints are reflected in the very low rates of afforestation in the UK in recent years . In western societies the media wields considerable power in disseminating ideas and defining what is considered normal, or ‘popular common sense’ in relation to specific issues. Mass media actors and society interact in complex dialogues, co-producing public understanding and setting political agendas, including in relation to sustainability and land management challenges .
Within this, diverse media outlets interact in different ways with their target audiences. Sectoral, local, and other membership-oriented media have a distinct role in reflecting, defining, and evolving or maintaining particular sets of understandings and values within relevant social groups . Whilst the media is not generally the immediate or direct motivation for farm-level ‘decision making’ , coverage of issues affecting the agricultural sector shapes farmer behaviour and decisions by representing issues in particular ways, expressing certain values, including or excluding topics, and outlining risks and opportunities for change . Thus, the farming media actively ‘frames’ agricultural practice by purposively including, emphasising, and promoting particular aspects of farming business and life, whilst omitting others. Given the context of an increasingly frantic drive for afforestation and the importance of attitudes towards trees amongst the farming community, in this paper we examine how tree planting, or ‘woodland creation’, is featured within and represented by the UK’s farming print media. Whilst digital media and sources of information are increasingly prominent within the agricultural sector, print media sources – especially dedicated ‘trade’ outlets – remain important sources and communication channels . Hence, the framing and communication of woodland planting and its relation to climate change mitigation within these outlets is highly likely to both reflect and shape farmer culture, preferences, and goals in relation to this issue. A number of agricultural and other land management debates have been examined through the ‘lens’ of print media analysis – including with a focus on sector-specific press. Rust et al. , for example, analysed the framing of sustainable agricultural practices in the UK farming press to understand if this influenced farmers to adopt these practices. This analysis found sustainable farming practices were most frequently framed from an economic or agronomic perspective which farmers identified as common drivers of adoption. However, the study also highlighted the limited trust placed in the farming press by some farmers, who believed that, due to the need for continued advertising revenues, reporting tended to favour agribusiness.