Publications by category
Books
Buller H, Roe E (2018).
Food and Animal Welfare., Bloomsbury Publishing.
Abstract:
Food and Animal Welfare
Abstract.
Buller HJ, Hoggart K (eds)(2004). Women in the European Countryside. Basingstoke, Ashgate.
Buller HJ, Hoggart K (2001). Agricultural Transformation, Food and Environment. Basingstoke, Ashgate.
Journal articles
Booton RD, Meeyai A, Alhusein N, Buller H, Feil E, Lambert H, Mongkolsuk S, Pitchforth E, Reyher KK, Sakcamduang W, et al (In Press). One Health drivers of antibacterial resistance: quantifying the relative impacts of human, animal and environmental use and transmission.
Abstract:
One Health drivers of antibacterial resistance: quantifying the relative impacts of human, animal and environmental use and transmission
AbstractIntroductionAntimicrobial resistance (AMR), particularly antibacterial resistance (ABR) is a major global health security threat projected to cause over ten million human deaths annually by 2050. There is a disproportionate burden of ABR within lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs), but it is not well understood how ‘One Health’ drivers, where human health is co-dependent on the health of animals and environmental factors, might also impact the burden of ABR in different countries. Thailand’s “National Strategic Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance in Thailand” (NSP-AMR) aims to reduce AMR morbidity by 50% through a reduction of 20% in human antibacterial use and a 30% reduction in animal use starting in 2017. There is a need to understand the implications of such a plan within a One Health perspective that mechanistically links humans, animals and the environment.MethodsA mathematical model of antibacterial use, gut colonisation with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing bacteria and faecal/oral transmission between populations of humans, animals and the environment was calibrated using estimates of the prevalence of ESBL-producing bacteria in Thailand, taken from published studies. This model was used to project the reduction in human ABR (% reduction in colonisation with resistant bacteria) over 20 years (2020-2040) for each potential One Health driver, including each individual transmission rate between humans, animals and the environment, exploring the sensitivity of each parameter calibrated to Thai-specific data. The model of antibacterial use and ABR transmission was used to estimate the long-term impact of the NSP-AMR intervention and quantify the relative impacts of each driver on human ABR.ResultsOur model predicts that human use of antibacterials is the most important factor in reducing the colonisation of humans with resistant bacteria (accounting for maximum 72.3 – 99.8% reduction in colonisation over 20 years). The current NSP-AMR is projected to reduce the human burden of ABR by 7.0 – 21.0%. If a more ambitious target of 30% reduction in antibacterial use in humans were set, a greater (9.9 – 27.1%) reduction in colonisation among humans is projected. We project that completely limiting antibacterial use within animals could have a lower impact (maximum 0.8 – 19.0% reductions in the colonisation of humans with resistant bacteria over 20 years), similar to completely stopping animal-to-human transmission (0.5 – 17.2%). Entirely removing environmental contamination of antibacterials was projected to reduce the percentage colonisation of humans with resistant bacteria by 0.1 – 6.2%, which was similar to stopping environment-human transmission (0.1 – 6.1%).DiscussionOur current understanding of the interconnectedness of ABR in a One Health setting is limited and precludes the ability to generate projected outcomes from existing ABR action plans (due to a lack of fit-for-purpose data). Using a theoretical approach, we explored this using the Thai AMR action plan, using the best available parameters to model the estimated impact of reducing antibacterial use and transmission of resistance between populations. Under the assumptions of our model, human use of antibacterials was identified as the main driver of human ABR, with slightly more ambitious reductions in usage (30% versus 20%) predicted to achieve higher impacts within the NSP-AMR programme. Considerable long-term impact may be also achieved through increasing the rate of loss of resistance and limiting One Health transmission events, particularly human-to-human transmission. Our model provides a simple framework to explain the mechanisms underpinning ABR, but further empirical evidence is needed to fully explain the drivers of ABR in LMIC settings. Future interventions targeting the simultaneous reduction of transmission and antibacterial usage would help to control ABR more effectively in Thailand.
Abstract.
Morgans LC, Bolt S, Bruno-McClung E, van Dijk L, Escobar MP, Buller HJ, Main DCJ, Reyher KK (2021). A participatory, farmer-led approach to changing practices around antimicrobial use on UK farms.
J Dairy Sci,
104(2), 2212-2230.
Abstract:
A participatory, farmer-led approach to changing practices around antimicrobial use on UK farms.
Farmer-led, participatory approaches are being increasingly employed in agricultural research, with promising results. This study aimed to understand how a participatory approach based on the Danish stable schools could help to achieve practical, farmer-led changes that reduced reliance on antimicrobials in the UK. Five facilitated farmer action groups comprising 30 dairy farms across South West England met on farm at regular intervals between 2016 and 2018, and worked collaboratively within their groups to discuss how to reduce antimicrobial use. Qualitative data from group discussions and individual semi-structured interviews were collected and analyzed using thematic analysis to explore how the approach helped farmers address and deal with changes to their on-farm practices. Facilitator-guided reviews of antimicrobial use and benchmarking were carried out on each farm to assess any change in usage and help farmers review their practices. The pattern of antimicrobial use changed over the 2 yr of the study, with 21 participating farms reducing their use of highest-priority critically important antibiotics (6 farms were not using any of these critical medicines from the outset). Thirty practical action plans were co-developed by the groups with an average implementation rate of 54.3% within a year. All assessed farms implemented 1 recommendation, and many were still ongoing at the end of the study. Farmers particularly valued the peer-to-peer learning during farm walks. Farmers reported how facilitated discussions and action planning as a peer group had empowered them to change practices. Participants identified knowledge gaps during the project, particularly on highest-priority critically important antibiotics, where they were not getting information from their veterinarians. The study demonstrated that facilitation has a valuable role to play in participatory approaches beyond moderating discussion; facilitators encouraged knowledge mobilization within the groups and were participants in the research as well. Facilitated, farmer-led, participatory approaches that mobilize different forms of knowledge and encourage peer learning are a promising way of helping farmers to adapt and develop responsible practices.
Abstract.
Author URL.
Geiger M, Hockenhull J, Buller H, Kedir MJ, Engida GT, Getachew M, Burden F, Whay H (2021). Comparison of the socio-economic value and welfare of working donkeys in rural and urban Ethiopia. Animal Welfare, 30(3), 269-277.
Bruce A, Adam KE, Buller H, Chan KWR, Tait J (2021). Creating an innovation ecosystem for rapid diagnostic tests for livestock to support sustainable antibiotic use. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 34(11), 1249-1262.
Mkenda VF, Buller H, Bruce A (2021). Exploring the willingness to adopt rapid diagnostic tests to improve antimicrobial medicine use amongst Tanzanian livestock farmers. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, 20(1), 3-19.
Moya S, Chan KWR, Hinchliffe S, Buller H, Espluga J, Benavides B, Diéguez FJ, Yus E, Ciaravino G, Casal J, et al (2021). Influence on the implementation of biosecurity measures in dairy cattle farms: Communication between veterinarians and dairy farmers. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 190, 105329-105329.
Booton RD, Meeyai A, Alhusein N, Buller H, Feil E, Lambert H, Mongkolsuk S, Pitchforth E, Reyher KK, Sakcamduang W, et al (2021). One Health drivers of antibacterial resistance: Quantifying the relative impacts of human, animal and environmental use and transmission. One Health, 12, 100220-100220.
Rees GM, Reyher KK, Barrett DC, Buller H (2021). ‘It's cheaper than a dead cow’: Understanding veterinary medicine use on dairy farms.
Journal of Rural Studies,
86, 587-598.
Abstract:
‘It's cheaper than a dead cow’: Understanding veterinary medicine use on dairy farms
This study offers a detailed and original assessment of the practices of prescription veterinary medicine use on UK dairy farms. The emergence of antimicrobial resistance as a global threat has necessitated an increasing focus on medicine use in agriculture. While an abundance of studies have recently emerged to demonstrate and evaluate strategies for medicine reduction, this paper seeks to understand the context and the on-farm culture within which treatment practices occur on a sample of UK dairy farms. Arguing that the experiential knowledge, on-farm culture and informal information flows are as important as ‘science’ in the practice of treatment decision making and drawing on extensive participant observation fieldwork combined with semi-structured interviews, this paper identifies and discusses three key themes that develop and, in places, challenge our current understanding of farmer treatment practices. These areas - treatment knowledge and understanding, a duty of care and autonomy of treatment practice - are seen to have complex effects on the use of veterinary medicines in dairy cattle and, as such, highlight critical areas for further research and opportunities for policy interventions aimed at improving responsible medicine use.
Abstract.
Buller H, Blokhuis H, Lokhorst K, Silberberg M, Veissier I (2020). Animal Welfare Management in a Digital World.
Animals,
10(10), 1779-1779.
Abstract:
Animal Welfare Management in a Digital World
Although there now exists a wide range of policies, instruments and regulations, in Europe and increasingly beyond, to improve and safeguard the welfare of farmed animals, there remain persistent and significant welfare issues in virtually all types of animal production systems ranging from high prevalence of lameness to limited possibilities to express natural behaviours. Protocols and indicators, such as those provided by Welfare Quality, mean that animal welfare can nowadays be regularly measured and surveyed at the farm level. However, the digital revolution in agriculture opens possibilities to quantify animal welfare using multiple sensors and data analytics. This allows daily monitoring of animal welfare at the group and individual animal level, for example, by measuring changes in behaviour patterns or physiological parameters. The present paper explores the potential for developing innovations in digital technologies to improve the management of animal welfare at the farm, during transport or at slaughter. We conclude that the innovations in Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) offer significant opportunities for a more holistic, evidence-based approach to the monitoring and surveillance of farmed animal welfare. To date, the emphasis in much PLF technologies has been on animal health and productivity. This paper argues that this emphasis should not come to define welfare. What is now needed is a coming together of industry, scientists, food chain actors, policy-makers and NGOs to develop and use the promise of PLF for the creative and effective improvement of farmed animal welfare.
Abstract.
Chan KW, Bard AM, Adam KE, Rees GM, Morgans L, Cresswell L, Hinchliffe S, Barrett DC, Reyher KK, Buller H, et al (2020). Diagnostics and the challenge of antimicrobial resistance: a survey of UK livestock veterinarians’ perceptions and practices. Veterinary Record, 187(12), e125-e125.
Geiger M, Hockenhull J, Buller H, Tefera Engida G, Getachew M, Burden FA, Whay HR (2020). Understanding the Attitudes of Communities to the Social, Economic, and Cultural Importance of Working Donkeys in Rural, Peri-urban, and Urban Areas of Ethiopia. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7
Buller H, Adam K, Bard A, Bruce A, (Ray) Chan KW, Hinchliffe S, Morgans L, Rees G, Reyher KK (2020). Veterinary Diagnostic Practice and the Use of Rapid Tests in Antimicrobial Stewardship on UK Livestock Farms. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7
Van Dijk L, Buller HJ, Blokhuis H, van Nierkerk T, Voslarova E, Manteca X, Weeks C, Main D (2019). HENNOVATION: Learnings from. Promoting Practice-Led Multi-Actor Innovation Networks to Address Complex. Animal Welfare Challenges within the Laying Hen Industry. Animals
Rees GM, Barrett DC, Buller H, Mills HL, Reyher KK (2019). Storage of prescription veterinary medicines on UK dairy farms: a cross-sectional study.
Veterinary Record,
184(5).
Abstract:
Storage of prescription veterinary medicines on UK dairy farms: a cross-sectional study
Prescription veterinary medicine (PVM) use in the UK is an area of increasing focus for the veterinary profession. While many studies measure antimicrobial use on dairy farms, none report the quantity of antimicrobials stored on farms, nor the ways in which they are stored. The majority of PVM treatments occur in the absence of the prescribing veterinarian, yet there is an identifiable knowledge gap surrounding PVM use and farmer decision making. To provide an evidence base for future work on PVM use, data were collected from 27 dairy farms in England and Wales in Autumn 2016. The number of different PVMs stored on farms ranged from 9 to 35, with antimicrobials being the most common therapeutic group stored. Injectable antimicrobials comprised the greatest weight of active ingredient found, while intramammary antimicrobials were the most frequent unit of medicine stored. Antimicrobials classed by the European Medicines Agency as critically important to human health were present on most farms, and the presence of expired medicines and medicines not licensed for use in dairy cattle was also common. The medicine resources available to farmers are likely to influence their treatment decisions; therefore, evidence of the PVM stored on farms can help inform understanding of medicine use.
Abstract.
Doherty S, Reyher K, Barrett D, Bard A, Buller H, Hinchliffe S, Chan R, Tait J, Bruce A, Adam K, et al (2018). Diagnostic technologies and antimicrobial use in livestock systems. Veterinary Record, 183(20), 626-627.
Buller HJ, Blokhuis H, Jensen P, Keeling L (2018). Towards Farm Animal Welfare and Sustainability. Animals, 8(6), n/a-n/a.
Hockenhull J, Turner AE, Reyher KK, Barrett DC, Jones L, Hinchliffe S, Buller HJ (2017). Antimicrobial use in food-producing animals: a rapid evidence assessment of stakeholder practices and beliefs.
Vet Rec,
181(19).
Abstract:
Antimicrobial use in food-producing animals: a rapid evidence assessment of stakeholder practices and beliefs.
Food-producing animals throughout the world are likely to be exposed to antimicrobial (AM) treatment. The crossover in AM use between human and veterinary medicine raises concerns that antimicrobial resistance (AMR) may spread from food-producing animals to humans, driving the need for further understanding of how AMs are used in livestock practice as well as stakeholder beliefs relating to their use. A rapid evidence assessment (REA) was used to collate research on AM use published in peer-reviewed journals between 2000 and 2016. Forty-eight papers were identified and reviewed. The summary of findings highlights a number of issues regarding current knowledge of the use of AMs in food-producing animals and explores the attitudes of interested parties regarding the reduction of AM use in livestock. Variation between and within countries, production types and individual farms demonstrates the complexity of the challenge involved in monitoring and regulating AM use in animal agriculture. Many factors that could influence the prevalence of AMR in livestock are of concern across all sections of the livestock industry. This REA highlights the potential role of farmers and veterinarians and of other advisors, public pressure and legislation to influence change in the use of AMs in livestock.
Abstract.
Author URL.
Horseman S, Hockenhull J, Buller HJ, Mullan S, Barr A, Whay H (2017). Equine Welfare Assessment: Exploration of British Stakeholder Attitudes Using Focus-Group Discussions. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 1-16.
Buller HJ (2017). Exuent: Or, When Killability Defines a Life. Catalyst : a Social Justice Forum, 3, 10-11.
van Dijk L, Buller H, MacAllister L, Main D (2017). Facilitating practice-led co-innovation for the improvement in animal welfare.
Outlook on Agriculture,
46(2), 131-137.
Abstract:
Facilitating practice-led co-innovation for the improvement in animal welfare
Using the egg-laying-hen sector as a case study, the European Union-funded ‘Hennovation’ thematic network has been testing mechanisms to enable practice-led innovation through the establishment of 19 innovation networks of farmers and within the laying-hen processing industry, supported by existing science and market-driven actors. These networks were facilitated to proactively search for, share and use new ideas to improve hen welfare, efficiency and sustainability. This article provides insights into the tools used, including a framework for the facilitation of practice-led collaborative innovation processes. This framework was developed through participatory action research to monitor network performance and self-reflection by facilitators. Practice-led innovation processes are network specific and evolve as the actors within the network come together to share common problems, experiment with possible solutions and learn. The participatory and iterative nature of this process leads to uncertainty in process and end results. This raises methodological challenges in the management of such processes and requires a flexible and adaptive management approach focusing on learning and reflection.
Abstract.
Buller HJ (2017). Something Going On. Antennae: the journal of nature in visual culture, 40, 38-45.
Horseman SV, Buller H, Mullan S, Whay HR (2016). Current Welfare Problems Facing Horses in Great Britain as Identified by Equine Stakeholders. PLOS ONE, 11(8), e0160269-e0160269.
Davies GF, Greenhough B, Hobson-West P, Kirk R, et al (2016). Developing a collaborative agenda for humanities and social scientific research on laboratory animal science and welfare.
PLoS OneAbstract:
Developing a collaborative agenda for humanities and social scientific research on laboratory animal science and welfare
Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the ‘3Rs’), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they design research programmes, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on methods employed by other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including on issues around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, ‘cultures of care’, harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process outlined below underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving communication across different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing the effectiveness of future research at the interface between the humanities, social sciences, science and science policy.
Abstract.
Horseman SV, Buller H, Mullan S, Knowles TG, Barr ARS, Whay HR (2016). Equine Welfare in England and Wales: Exploration of Stakeholders' Understanding. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 20(1), 9-23.
Palcynski L, Buller H, Lambton S, Weeks CA (2016). Farmer attitudes to injurious pecking in laying hens and to potential
control strategies. Animal Welfare, 25(1), 29-38.
van Dijk L, Hayton A, Main DCJ, Booth A, King A, Barrett DC, Buller HJ, Reyher KK (2016). Participatory Policy Making by Dairy Producers to Reduce Anti-Microbial use on Farms. Zoonoses and Public Health, 64(6), 476-484.
Buller HJ (2015). Animal Geographies III: Ethics.
Progress in Human Geography: an international review of geographical work in the social sciences and humanitiesAbstract:
Animal Geographies III: Ethics
There is no animal geography without ethics. The very coupling of the words gives rise to an ethical endeavor; an acceptance that animals have a geography, a making visible of animals within our human geography and scholarship, an acknowledgement that our relationship with animals has consequences. For some, this ethical endeavor extends to politics and includes engaged activism or to individual commitment such as not to eat meat, not to ‘own’ a pet, not to visit zoos and so on. This is a personal choice but at a broader level, animal geography, in recognizing animals as co-respondent subjects gives them a moral placing within the academy that, arguably, they rarely enjoyed before. This final report considers the contribution of animal geography and animal geographers to a more informed ethics of human-animal relations, one that increasingly confounds an over simplistic view of animals as merely moral patients to suggest an ethics which guides a broader, more inclusive moral community.
Abstract.
Buller HJ (2014). Animal Geographies II: Methods. Progress in Human Geography(Online First), 1-11.
Buller HJ (2013). Animal Geographies 1. Progress in Human Geography
Buller H (2013). Animal geographies I. Progress in Human Geography, 38(2), 308-318.
Bock B, Buller HJ (2013). Healthy, happy and humane: evidence in farm animal welfare policy. Sociologia Ruralis, 53(3).
Buller HJ (2013). Individuation, the Mass and Farm Animals. Theory, Culture & Society
Wathes CM, Buller H, Maggs H, Campbell ML (2013). Livestock Production in the UK in the 21st Century: a Perfect Storm Averted?. Animals, 3(3), 574-583.
Wathes CM, Buller H, Maggs H, Campbell M (2013). Livestock production in the UK in the 21st Century: a perfect storm averted?. Animals, 3(1).
Buller HJ, Roe E (2013). Modifying and commodifying farm animal welfare : the economisation of layer chickens. Journal of Rural Studies
Buller H, Roe E (2012). Co-Modifying Welfare. Animal Welfare, 21, 131-135.
Buller H (2012). One Slash of Light, then Gone”: Animals as Movement. Etudes Rurales(189), 139-154.
Cook IJ, Hobson K, Hallett L, Guthman J, Murphy A, Hulme A, Sheller M, Crewe L, Nally D, Roe E, et al (2011). Geographies of food: afters.
Progress in human geography,
35(1), 104-120.
Abstract:
Geographies of food: afters
This third and final ‘Geographies of food’ review is based on an online blog conversation provoked by the first and second reviews in the series (Cook et al. 2006; 2008a). Authors of the work featured in these reviews – plus others whose work was not but should have been featured – were invited to respond to them, to talk about their own and other people’s work, and to enter into conversations about – and in the process review – other/new work within and beyond what could be called ‘food geographies’. These conversations were
coded, edited, arranged, discussed and rearranged to produce a fragmentary, multi-authored text aiming to convey the rich and multi-stranded content, breadth and character of ongoing food studies research within and beyond geography.
Abstract.
Roe E, Buller H, Bull J (2011). Using your eyes and ears: the performance of on-farm welfare assessment. Animal Welfare, 20(1), 69-78.
Buller H (2010). Commentary. Environment and Planning a Economy and Space, 42(8), 1875-1880.
Buller H (2010). Palatable Ethics. Environment and Planning A, 42, 1875-1880.
Buller HJ (2009). The lively process of interdisciplinarity. Area, 41(4), 395-403.
Buller HJ (2008). Safe from the wolf: biosecurity, biodiversity and competing philosophies of nature. Environment and Planning A, 40(7), 1583-1597.
Buller HJ, Cesar C (2007). Eating well, eating fare: farm animal welfare in France. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture, 15(3), 45-58.
Ilbery, B, Morris C, Buller HJ, Maye D, Kneafsey, M (2005). Process and Place: Reconnecting producers and consumers through the marketing and labeling of ‘difference’. European Urban and Regional Studies, 12(1), 63-79.
Ilbery B, Morris C, Buller H, Maye D, Kneafsey M (2005). Product, process and place - an examination of food marketing and labelling schemes in Europe and North America.
EUROPEAN URBAN AND REGIONAL STUDIES,
12(2), 116-132.
Author URL.
Buller HJ, Morris C (2004). Growing goods: the market, the state and sustainable food production. Environment and Planning A, 36(6), 1065-1084.
Buller HJ (2004). The 'espace productif', the 'théâtre de la nature' and the 'territoires de développement local': the opposing rationales of contemporary French Rural Development Policy. International Planning Studies, 9(2-3), 101-119.
Buller HJ (2004). Where the wild things are: the evolving iconography of rural fauna. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(2), 131-141.
Buller HJ (2003). De la terre au territoire: the reinvention of French rural space. Modern and Contemporary France, 11(3), 323-334.
Buller H, Morris C (2003). Farm animal welfare: a new repertoire of nature-society relations or modernism re-embedded?.
SOCIOLOGIA RURALIS,
43(3), 216-+.
Author URL.
Buller HJ, Morris C (2003). Farm animal welfare: a new repertoire of nature-society relations or modernism re-embedded?. Sociologia Ruralis, 43(3), 216-237.
Morris C, Buller H (2003). The local food sector: a preliminary assessment of its impact in Gloucestershire. British Food Journal, 105(8), 559-566.
Lowe, P, Buller HJ, Ward, N (2002). Setting the next agenda ? British and French approaches to the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy. Journal of Rural Studies, 18(1), 1-17.
Wilson, G, Buller HJ (2001). 'The use of socio-economic and environmental indicators in assessing the effectiveness of EU agri-environmental policy. European Environment, 11(6), 297-313.
Chapters
Buller HJ (2018). Farming. In (Ed)
The Edinburgh Companion to Animal Studies, Edinburgh University Press, 100-115.
Abstract:
Farming
Abstract.
Buller HJ (2018). Public Opinion and the Retailer: Driving Forces in Animal Welfare. In Butterworth A (Ed)
Animal Welfare in a Changing World, Walingford: CABI, 100-107.
Abstract:
Public Opinion and the Retailer: Driving Forces in Animal Welfare
Abstract.
Buller HJ (2017). Animal Geographies. In Richardson D, Castree N, Goodchild M, Kobayashi A, Liu W, Marston R (Eds.)
Douglas Richardson (Editor-in-Chief), Noel Castree (Co-Editor), Michael F. Goodchild (Co-Editor), Audrey Kobayashi (Co-Editor), Weidong Liu (Co-Editor), Richard A. Marston (Co-Editor), Chichester: Wiley, 1-8.
Abstract:
Animal Geographies
Abstract.
Buller HJ (2017). Antimicrobial use: Response. In Mullan S, Fawcett A (Eds.) Veterinary Ethics: Navigating Tough cases, Sheffield: 5M, 432-433.
Buller HJ (2016). Closing the Barn Door. In Bjorkdahl K, Druglitro T (Eds.) Animal Housing and Human Animal Relations, London: Routledge, 199-210.
Jones O, Kirwan J, Morris C, Buller H, Dunn R, Hopkins A, Whittington F, Wood J (2016). On the alternativeness of alternative food networks: Sustainability and the co-production of social and ecological wealth. In (Ed)
Interrogating Alterity: Alternative Economic and Political Spaces, 95-109.
Abstract:
On the alternativeness of alternative food networks: Sustainability and the co-production of social and ecological wealth
Abstract.
Buller HJ (2014). Reconfiguring wild spaces: the porous boundaries of wild animal geographies. In Marvin G, McHugh S (Eds.) Routledge Handbook of Human-Animal Studies, London: Routledge, 233-245.
Buller HJ (2013). Animal Welfare: from Production to Consumption. In Blokhius H, Miele M, Veissier I, Jones R (Eds.) Welfare Quality: Science and Society improving animal welfare, Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Buller HJ (2013). Introducing Aliens, Re-introducing Natives. A conflict of interest for biosecurity. In Dobson A, Barker K, Taylor S (Eds.) Biosecurity: the socio-politics of invasive species and infectious diseases, London: Earhscan.
Buller HJ (2012). Greening and Agriculture. In Curry N, Moseley M (Eds.) A QUARTER CENTURY OF CHANGE IN RURAL BRITAIN AND EUROPE, Cheltenham: Countryside and Community Press.
Buller HJ (2012). Nourishing Communities: animal vitalities and food quality. In Birke L, Hockenhall J (Eds.) Crossing Boundaries: creating knowledge about ourselves with other animals.
Buller HJ (2011). Nourishing Communities: celebrating animal subjectivies through animal feeding. In Birke L, Hockenhull J (Eds.) ‘Crossing Boundaries: creating knowledge about ourselves with other animals’ (provisional title), under negotiation.
Jones O, Kirwan J, Buller H, Dunn R, Hopkins A, Whittington F, Wood J (2010). On the alternativeness of alternative food networks: sustainability and the co-production of social and ecological wealth. In Fuller D, Jonas A, Lee R (Eds.) Interrogating Alterity: Alternative Economic and Political Spaces, Basingstoke: Ashgate.
Buller HJ (2009). Agricultural animal welfare. In al RKE (Ed) International Encyclopaedia of Human Geography, Oxford: Elsevier, 127-132.
Buller HJ, Morris C (2009). Beasts of a Different Burden: Agricultural Sustainability and Farm Animals. In Seymour S, Fish R, Watkins S (Eds.) Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Sustainable Farmland Management, Wallingford: CABI, 135-148.
Buller HJ (2009). Du côté de chez Smith : reflections on an enduring research object. In Diry JP (Ed) Les étrangers à la campagne : Quelles définitions ? Quelles représentations ? Quelles approches scientifiques, Clermont Ferrand: Presses Universitaires Blaise Pascal, 35-46.
Buller H (2009). What can we tell consumers and retailers ?. In Butterworth A, Jones B, Blokhuis H, Veisier I (Eds.) Delivering Animal Welfare and Quality: Transparency in the Food Production Chain, Wageningen, NL: European Union / Welfare Quality, 43-46.
Buller HJ, Morris C (2007). Animals and Society. In Pretty, J, Benton, al TE (Eds.) Handbook on Environment and Society, London: Sage.
Buller HJ, Lowe PD (2007). Des agricultures nationales aux campagnes locales : les bases d'une nouvelle coalition pour une réforme progressive de la PAC. In Billaud J-P (Ed) Nouvelles ruralités, nouvelles urbanités en Europe, Brussels: Peter Lang, 413-422.
Wood JD, Richardson RI, Scollan ND, Hopkins A, Dunn R, Buller HJ, Whittington F (2007). Quality of meat from biodiverse grassland. In Hopkins JJ, Duncan AJ, McCracken DI, Peel S, Tallowin JRB (Eds.) High Value Grassland, Cirencester: British Grassland Society, 107-116.
Hopkins A, Buller H, Morris C, Wood JD (2005). Eating biodiversity: Investigating the links between grassland biodiversity and quality food production. In (Ed) Pastoral Systems in Marginal Environments: Proceedings of a Satellite Workshop of the XXth International Grassland Congress, July 2005, Glasgow, Scotland.
Buller HJ (2004). Getting between the vertical: Europeanisation of French environmental policy. In Jordan A, Liefferink D (Eds.) The Europeanisation of Environmental Policy, London: Routledge.
Buller HJ (2002). Agriculture and the environment: integration or polarisation. In Lenschow A (Ed) Environmental policy integration: the greening of sectoral policies in Europe, London: Earthscan, 103-126.
Buller HJ (2001). Is this the European model ?. In Buller H, Hoggart K (Eds.) Agricultural Transformation, Food and Environment, Basingstoke: Ashgate, 1-9.
Conferences
Buller HJ (2009). The environmental impacts of industrial animal agriculture.
Buller HJ (2008). Adding Value in Pasture Based systems: reflections on Britain and France. Adding Value in Meat Production’.
Reports
Buller HJ, Ilbery, B, Maye, D, Morris, C (2007). 'Eat the View': an Evaluation. Countryside Agency, Cheltenham, Countryside Agency.
Buller HJ (2006). A review of recent and current French initiatives in
rural economy and land use research. ESRC.
Buller HJ, Cesar, C. (2006). Retailing Animal Welfare products in France. European Union 'Welfare Quality' Research Project.
Buller HJ, Morris, C. White, B, Silcock, P (2003). Cotswold Farming Study. Cotswold AONB Partnership, Cheltenham, Cotswold AONB Partnership.
Buller HJ, Morris, C. White, E (2003). The Demography of Rural Areas:
a literature review. DEFRA, London, DEFRA.
Buller HJ, Winter, M. Morris, C, Dwyer, J. (2002). An Enhanced Role for Forestry
in Sustainable Rural Development. The Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.
Winter DM, Buller H, Morris C, Powell J, Dwyer J, Hjerp P (2002). An Enhanced Role for Forestry in Sustainable Rural Development., University of Gloucestershire and Institute of European Environmental Policy.
Buller HJ, Morris, C. White, B (2002). England's Rural Development Programme. Mid-Term Evaluation: Lessons from the Land Management Initiatives programme. Countryside Agency, Cheltenham, Countryside Agency.
Buller HJ (2002). Europe's Rural Futures: France. Wildlife Fund for Nature, Wildlife Fund for Nature.
Buller HJ (2002). Management and protection of. NATURA 2000 sites in EU Member States. Scottish Natural Heritage, Edinburgh, Scottish Natural Heritage.
Publications by year
In Press
Booton RD, Meeyai A, Alhusein N, Buller H, Feil E, Lambert H, Mongkolsuk S, Pitchforth E, Reyher KK, Sakcamduang W, et al (In Press). One Health drivers of antibacterial resistance: quantifying the relative impacts of human, animal and environmental use and transmission.
Abstract:
One Health drivers of antibacterial resistance: quantifying the relative impacts of human, animal and environmental use and transmission
AbstractIntroductionAntimicrobial resistance (AMR), particularly antibacterial resistance (ABR) is a major global health security threat projected to cause over ten million human deaths annually by 2050. There is a disproportionate burden of ABR within lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs), but it is not well understood how ‘One Health’ drivers, where human health is co-dependent on the health of animals and environmental factors, might also impact the burden of ABR in different countries. Thailand’s “National Strategic Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance in Thailand” (NSP-AMR) aims to reduce AMR morbidity by 50% through a reduction of 20% in human antibacterial use and a 30% reduction in animal use starting in 2017. There is a need to understand the implications of such a plan within a One Health perspective that mechanistically links humans, animals and the environment.MethodsA mathematical model of antibacterial use, gut colonisation with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing bacteria and faecal/oral transmission between populations of humans, animals and the environment was calibrated using estimates of the prevalence of ESBL-producing bacteria in Thailand, taken from published studies. This model was used to project the reduction in human ABR (% reduction in colonisation with resistant bacteria) over 20 years (2020-2040) for each potential One Health driver, including each individual transmission rate between humans, animals and the environment, exploring the sensitivity of each parameter calibrated to Thai-specific data. The model of antibacterial use and ABR transmission was used to estimate the long-term impact of the NSP-AMR intervention and quantify the relative impacts of each driver on human ABR.ResultsOur model predicts that human use of antibacterials is the most important factor in reducing the colonisation of humans with resistant bacteria (accounting for maximum 72.3 – 99.8% reduction in colonisation over 20 years). The current NSP-AMR is projected to reduce the human burden of ABR by 7.0 – 21.0%. If a more ambitious target of 30% reduction in antibacterial use in humans were set, a greater (9.9 – 27.1%) reduction in colonisation among humans is projected. We project that completely limiting antibacterial use within animals could have a lower impact (maximum 0.8 – 19.0% reductions in the colonisation of humans with resistant bacteria over 20 years), similar to completely stopping animal-to-human transmission (0.5 – 17.2%). Entirely removing environmental contamination of antibacterials was projected to reduce the percentage colonisation of humans with resistant bacteria by 0.1 – 6.2%, which was similar to stopping environment-human transmission (0.1 – 6.1%).DiscussionOur current understanding of the interconnectedness of ABR in a One Health setting is limited and precludes the ability to generate projected outcomes from existing ABR action plans (due to a lack of fit-for-purpose data). Using a theoretical approach, we explored this using the Thai AMR action plan, using the best available parameters to model the estimated impact of reducing antibacterial use and transmission of resistance between populations. Under the assumptions of our model, human use of antibacterials was identified as the main driver of human ABR, with slightly more ambitious reductions in usage (30% versus 20%) predicted to achieve higher impacts within the NSP-AMR programme. Considerable long-term impact may be also achieved through increasing the rate of loss of resistance and limiting One Health transmission events, particularly human-to-human transmission. Our model provides a simple framework to explain the mechanisms underpinning ABR, but further empirical evidence is needed to fully explain the drivers of ABR in LMIC settings. Future interventions targeting the simultaneous reduction of transmission and antibacterial usage would help to control ABR more effectively in Thailand.
Abstract.
2021
Morgans LC, Bolt S, Bruno-McClung E, van Dijk L, Escobar MP, Buller HJ, Main DCJ, Reyher KK (2021). A participatory, farmer-led approach to changing practices around antimicrobial use on UK farms.
J Dairy Sci,
104(2), 2212-2230.
Abstract:
A participatory, farmer-led approach to changing practices around antimicrobial use on UK farms.
Farmer-led, participatory approaches are being increasingly employed in agricultural research, with promising results. This study aimed to understand how a participatory approach based on the Danish stable schools could help to achieve practical, farmer-led changes that reduced reliance on antimicrobials in the UK. Five facilitated farmer action groups comprising 30 dairy farms across South West England met on farm at regular intervals between 2016 and 2018, and worked collaboratively within their groups to discuss how to reduce antimicrobial use. Qualitative data from group discussions and individual semi-structured interviews were collected and analyzed using thematic analysis to explore how the approach helped farmers address and deal with changes to their on-farm practices. Facilitator-guided reviews of antimicrobial use and benchmarking were carried out on each farm to assess any change in usage and help farmers review their practices. The pattern of antimicrobial use changed over the 2 yr of the study, with 21 participating farms reducing their use of highest-priority critically important antibiotics (6 farms were not using any of these critical medicines from the outset). Thirty practical action plans were co-developed by the groups with an average implementation rate of 54.3% within a year. All assessed farms implemented 1 recommendation, and many were still ongoing at the end of the study. Farmers particularly valued the peer-to-peer learning during farm walks. Farmers reported how facilitated discussions and action planning as a peer group had empowered them to change practices. Participants identified knowledge gaps during the project, particularly on highest-priority critically important antibiotics, where they were not getting information from their veterinarians. The study demonstrated that facilitation has a valuable role to play in participatory approaches beyond moderating discussion; facilitators encouraged knowledge mobilization within the groups and were participants in the research as well. Facilitated, farmer-led, participatory approaches that mobilize different forms of knowledge and encourage peer learning are a promising way of helping farmers to adapt and develop responsible practices.
Abstract.
Author URL.
Geiger M, Hockenhull J, Buller H, Kedir MJ, Engida GT, Getachew M, Burden F, Whay H (2021). Comparison of the socio-economic value and welfare of working donkeys in rural and urban Ethiopia. Animal Welfare, 30(3), 269-277.
Bruce A, Adam KE, Buller H, Chan KWR, Tait J (2021). Creating an innovation ecosystem for rapid diagnostic tests for livestock to support sustainable antibiotic use. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 34(11), 1249-1262.
Mkenda VF, Buller H, Bruce A (2021). Exploring the willingness to adopt rapid diagnostic tests to improve antimicrobial medicine use amongst Tanzanian livestock farmers. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, 20(1), 3-19.
Moya S, Chan KWR, Hinchliffe S, Buller H, Espluga J, Benavides B, Diéguez FJ, Yus E, Ciaravino G, Casal J, et al (2021). Influence on the implementation of biosecurity measures in dairy cattle farms: Communication between veterinarians and dairy farmers. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 190, 105329-105329.
Booton RD, Meeyai A, Alhusein N, Buller H, Feil E, Lambert H, Mongkolsuk S, Pitchforth E, Reyher KK, Sakcamduang W, et al (2021). One Health drivers of antibacterial resistance: Quantifying the relative impacts of human, animal and environmental use and transmission. One Health, 12, 100220-100220.
Rees GM, Reyher KK, Barrett DC, Buller H (2021). ‘It's cheaper than a dead cow’: Understanding veterinary medicine use on dairy farms.
Journal of Rural Studies,
86, 587-598.
Abstract:
‘It's cheaper than a dead cow’: Understanding veterinary medicine use on dairy farms
This study offers a detailed and original assessment of the practices of prescription veterinary medicine use on UK dairy farms. The emergence of antimicrobial resistance as a global threat has necessitated an increasing focus on medicine use in agriculture. While an abundance of studies have recently emerged to demonstrate and evaluate strategies for medicine reduction, this paper seeks to understand the context and the on-farm culture within which treatment practices occur on a sample of UK dairy farms. Arguing that the experiential knowledge, on-farm culture and informal information flows are as important as ‘science’ in the practice of treatment decision making and drawing on extensive participant observation fieldwork combined with semi-structured interviews, this paper identifies and discusses three key themes that develop and, in places, challenge our current understanding of farmer treatment practices. These areas - treatment knowledge and understanding, a duty of care and autonomy of treatment practice - are seen to have complex effects on the use of veterinary medicines in dairy cattle and, as such, highlight critical areas for further research and opportunities for policy interventions aimed at improving responsible medicine use.
Abstract.
2020
Buller H, Blokhuis H, Lokhorst K, Silberberg M, Veissier I (2020). Animal Welfare Management in a Digital World.
Animals,
10(10), 1779-1779.
Abstract:
Animal Welfare Management in a Digital World
Although there now exists a wide range of policies, instruments and regulations, in Europe and increasingly beyond, to improve and safeguard the welfare of farmed animals, there remain persistent and significant welfare issues in virtually all types of animal production systems ranging from high prevalence of lameness to limited possibilities to express natural behaviours. Protocols and indicators, such as those provided by Welfare Quality, mean that animal welfare can nowadays be regularly measured and surveyed at the farm level. However, the digital revolution in agriculture opens possibilities to quantify animal welfare using multiple sensors and data analytics. This allows daily monitoring of animal welfare at the group and individual animal level, for example, by measuring changes in behaviour patterns or physiological parameters. The present paper explores the potential for developing innovations in digital technologies to improve the management of animal welfare at the farm, during transport or at slaughter. We conclude that the innovations in Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) offer significant opportunities for a more holistic, evidence-based approach to the monitoring and surveillance of farmed animal welfare. To date, the emphasis in much PLF technologies has been on animal health and productivity. This paper argues that this emphasis should not come to define welfare. What is now needed is a coming together of industry, scientists, food chain actors, policy-makers and NGOs to develop and use the promise of PLF for the creative and effective improvement of farmed animal welfare.
Abstract.
Chan KW, Bard AM, Adam KE, Rees GM, Morgans L, Cresswell L, Hinchliffe S, Barrett DC, Reyher KK, Buller H, et al (2020). Diagnostics and the challenge of antimicrobial resistance: a survey of UK livestock veterinarians’ perceptions and practices. Veterinary Record, 187(12), e125-e125.
Geiger M, Hockenhull J, Buller H, Tefera Engida G, Getachew M, Burden FA, Whay HR (2020). Understanding the Attitudes of Communities to the Social, Economic, and Cultural Importance of Working Donkeys in Rural, Peri-urban, and Urban Areas of Ethiopia. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7
Buller H, Adam K, Bard A, Bruce A, (Ray) Chan KW, Hinchliffe S, Morgans L, Rees G, Reyher KK (2020). Veterinary Diagnostic Practice and the Use of Rapid Tests in Antimicrobial Stewardship on UK Livestock Farms. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7
2019
Van Dijk L, Buller HJ, Blokhuis H, van Nierkerk T, Voslarova E, Manteca X, Weeks C, Main D (2019). HENNOVATION: Learnings from. Promoting Practice-Led Multi-Actor Innovation Networks to Address Complex. Animal Welfare Challenges within the Laying Hen Industry. Animals
Rees GM, Barrett DC, Buller H, Mills HL, Reyher KK (2019). Storage of prescription veterinary medicines on UK dairy farms: a cross-sectional study.
Veterinary Record,
184(5).
Abstract:
Storage of prescription veterinary medicines on UK dairy farms: a cross-sectional study
Prescription veterinary medicine (PVM) use in the UK is an area of increasing focus for the veterinary profession. While many studies measure antimicrobial use on dairy farms, none report the quantity of antimicrobials stored on farms, nor the ways in which they are stored. The majority of PVM treatments occur in the absence of the prescribing veterinarian, yet there is an identifiable knowledge gap surrounding PVM use and farmer decision making. To provide an evidence base for future work on PVM use, data were collected from 27 dairy farms in England and Wales in Autumn 2016. The number of different PVMs stored on farms ranged from 9 to 35, with antimicrobials being the most common therapeutic group stored. Injectable antimicrobials comprised the greatest weight of active ingredient found, while intramammary antimicrobials were the most frequent unit of medicine stored. Antimicrobials classed by the European Medicines Agency as critically important to human health were present on most farms, and the presence of expired medicines and medicines not licensed for use in dairy cattle was also common. The medicine resources available to farmers are likely to influence their treatment decisions; therefore, evidence of the PVM stored on farms can help inform understanding of medicine use.
Abstract.
2018
Doherty S, Reyher K, Barrett D, Bard A, Buller H, Hinchliffe S, Chan R, Tait J, Bruce A, Adam K, et al (2018). Diagnostic technologies and antimicrobial use in livestock systems. Veterinary Record, 183(20), 626-627.
Buller HJ (2018). Farming. In (Ed)
The Edinburgh Companion to Animal Studies, Edinburgh University Press, 100-115.
Abstract:
Farming
Abstract.
Buller H, Roe E (2018).
Food and Animal Welfare., Bloomsbury Publishing.
Abstract:
Food and Animal Welfare
Abstract.
van Dijk L, Buller HJ, Blokhuis HJ, van Niekerk T, Voslarova E, Manteca X, Weeks CA, Main DCJ (2018). HENNOVATION: Learnings from Promoting Practice-Led Multi-Actor Innovation Networks to Address Complex Animal Welfare Challenges within the Laying Hen Industry.
Buller HJ (2018). Public Opinion and the Retailer: Driving Forces in Animal Welfare. In Butterworth A (Ed)
Animal Welfare in a Changing World, Walingford: CABI, 100-107.
Abstract:
Public Opinion and the Retailer: Driving Forces in Animal Welfare
Abstract.
Rees GM, Barrett DC, Buller HJ, Mills HL, Reyher KK (2018). Storage of prescription veterinary medicines on UK dairy farms: a cross-sectional study.
Buller HJ, Blokhuis H, Jensen P, Keeling L (2018). Towards Farm Animal Welfare and Sustainability. Animals, 8(6), n/a-n/a.
2017
Buller HJ (2017). Animal Geographies. In Richardson D, Castree N, Goodchild M, Kobayashi A, Liu W, Marston R (Eds.)
Douglas Richardson (Editor-in-Chief), Noel Castree (Co-Editor), Michael F. Goodchild (Co-Editor), Audrey Kobayashi (Co-Editor), Weidong Liu (Co-Editor), Richard A. Marston (Co-Editor), Chichester: Wiley, 1-8.
Abstract:
Animal Geographies
Abstract.
Hockenhull J, Turner AE, Reyher KK, Barrett DC, Jones L, Hinchliffe S, Buller HJ (2017). Antimicrobial use in food-producing animals: a rapid evidence assessment of stakeholder practices and beliefs.
Vet Rec,
181(19).
Abstract:
Antimicrobial use in food-producing animals: a rapid evidence assessment of stakeholder practices and beliefs.
Food-producing animals throughout the world are likely to be exposed to antimicrobial (AM) treatment. The crossover in AM use between human and veterinary medicine raises concerns that antimicrobial resistance (AMR) may spread from food-producing animals to humans, driving the need for further understanding of how AMs are used in livestock practice as well as stakeholder beliefs relating to their use. A rapid evidence assessment (REA) was used to collate research on AM use published in peer-reviewed journals between 2000 and 2016. Forty-eight papers were identified and reviewed. The summary of findings highlights a number of issues regarding current knowledge of the use of AMs in food-producing animals and explores the attitudes of interested parties regarding the reduction of AM use in livestock. Variation between and within countries, production types and individual farms demonstrates the complexity of the challenge involved in monitoring and regulating AM use in animal agriculture. Many factors that could influence the prevalence of AMR in livestock are of concern across all sections of the livestock industry. This REA highlights the potential role of farmers and veterinarians and of other advisors, public pressure and legislation to influence change in the use of AMs in livestock.
Abstract.
Author URL.
Buller HJ (2017). Antimicrobial use: Response. In Mullan S, Fawcett A (Eds.) Veterinary Ethics: Navigating Tough cases, Sheffield: 5M, 432-433.
Horseman S, Hockenhull J, Buller HJ, Mullan S, Barr A, Whay H (2017). Equine Welfare Assessment: Exploration of British Stakeholder Attitudes Using Focus-Group Discussions. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 1-16.
Buller HJ (2017). Exuent: Or, When Killability Defines a Life. Catalyst : a Social Justice Forum, 3, 10-11.
van Dijk L, Buller H, MacAllister L, Main D (2017). Facilitating practice-led co-innovation for the improvement in animal welfare.
Outlook on Agriculture,
46(2), 131-137.
Abstract:
Facilitating practice-led co-innovation for the improvement in animal welfare
Using the egg-laying-hen sector as a case study, the European Union-funded ‘Hennovation’ thematic network has been testing mechanisms to enable practice-led innovation through the establishment of 19 innovation networks of farmers and within the laying-hen processing industry, supported by existing science and market-driven actors. These networks were facilitated to proactively search for, share and use new ideas to improve hen welfare, efficiency and sustainability. This article provides insights into the tools used, including a framework for the facilitation of practice-led collaborative innovation processes. This framework was developed through participatory action research to monitor network performance and self-reflection by facilitators. Practice-led innovation processes are network specific and evolve as the actors within the network come together to share common problems, experiment with possible solutions and learn. The participatory and iterative nature of this process leads to uncertainty in process and end results. This raises methodological challenges in the management of such processes and requires a flexible and adaptive management approach focusing on learning and reflection.
Abstract.
Buller HJ (2017). Something Going On. Antennae: the journal of nature in visual culture, 40, 38-45.
2016
Buller HJ (2016). Closing the Barn Door. In Bjorkdahl K, Druglitro T (Eds.) Animal Housing and Human Animal Relations, London: Routledge, 199-210.
Horseman SV, Buller H, Mullan S, Whay HR (2016). Current Welfare Problems Facing Horses in Great Britain as Identified by Equine Stakeholders. PLOS ONE, 11(8), e0160269-e0160269.
Davies GF, Greenhough B, Hobson-West P, Kirk R, et al (2016). Developing a collaborative agenda for humanities and social scientific research on laboratory animal science and welfare.
PLoS OneAbstract:
Developing a collaborative agenda for humanities and social scientific research on laboratory animal science and welfare
Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the ‘3Rs’), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they design research programmes, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on methods employed by other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including on issues around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, ‘cultures of care’, harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process outlined below underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving communication across different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing the effectiveness of future research at the interface between the humanities, social sciences, science and science policy.
Abstract.
Horseman SV, Buller H, Mullan S, Knowles TG, Barr ARS, Whay HR (2016). Equine Welfare in England and Wales: Exploration of Stakeholders' Understanding. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 20(1), 9-23.
Palcynski L, Buller H, Lambton S, Weeks CA (2016). Farmer attitudes to injurious pecking in laying hens and to potential
control strategies. Animal Welfare, 25(1), 29-38.
Jones O, Kirwan J, Morris C, Buller H, Dunn R, Hopkins A, Whittington F, Wood J (2016). On the alternativeness of alternative food networks: Sustainability and the co-production of social and ecological wealth. In (Ed)
Interrogating Alterity: Alternative Economic and Political Spaces, 95-109.
Abstract:
On the alternativeness of alternative food networks: Sustainability and the co-production of social and ecological wealth
Abstract.
van Dijk L, Hayton A, Main DCJ, Booth A, King A, Barrett DC, Buller HJ, Reyher KK (2016). Participatory Policy Making by Dairy Producers to Reduce Anti-Microbial use on Farms. Zoonoses and Public Health, 64(6), 476-484.
2015
Buller HJ (2015). Animal Geographies III: Ethics.
Progress in Human Geography: an international review of geographical work in the social sciences and humanitiesAbstract:
Animal Geographies III: Ethics
There is no animal geography without ethics. The very coupling of the words gives rise to an ethical endeavor; an acceptance that animals have a geography, a making visible of animals within our human geography and scholarship, an acknowledgement that our relationship with animals has consequences. For some, this ethical endeavor extends to politics and includes engaged activism or to individual commitment such as not to eat meat, not to ‘own’ a pet, not to visit zoos and so on. This is a personal choice but at a broader level, animal geography, in recognizing animals as co-respondent subjects gives them a moral placing within the academy that, arguably, they rarely enjoyed before. This final report considers the contribution of animal geography and animal geographers to a more informed ethics of human-animal relations, one that increasingly confounds an over simplistic view of animals as merely moral patients to suggest an ethics which guides a broader, more inclusive moral community.
Abstract.
2014
Buller HJ (2014). Animal Geographies II: Methods. Progress in Human Geography(Online First), 1-11.
Buller HJ (2014). Reconfiguring wild spaces: the porous boundaries of wild animal geographies. In Marvin G, McHugh S (Eds.) Routledge Handbook of Human-Animal Studies, London: Routledge, 233-245.
2013
Buller HJ (2013). Animal Geographies 1. Progress in Human Geography
Buller HJ (2013). Animal Welfare: from Production to Consumption. In Blokhius H, Miele M, Veissier I, Jones R (Eds.) Welfare Quality: Science and Society improving animal welfare, Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Buller H (2013). Animal geographies I. Progress in Human Geography, 38(2), 308-318.
Bock B, Buller HJ (2013). Healthy, happy and humane: evidence in farm animal welfare policy. Sociologia Ruralis, 53(3).
Buller HJ (2013). Individuation, the Mass and Farm Animals. Theory, Culture & Society
Buller HJ (2013). Introducing Aliens, Re-introducing Natives. A conflict of interest for biosecurity. In Dobson A, Barker K, Taylor S (Eds.) Biosecurity: the socio-politics of invasive species and infectious diseases, London: Earhscan.
Wathes CM, Buller H, Maggs H, Campbell ML (2013). Livestock Production in the UK in the 21st Century: a Perfect Storm Averted?. Animals, 3(3), 574-583.
Wathes CM, Buller H, Maggs H, Campbell M (2013). Livestock production in the UK in the 21st Century: a perfect storm averted?. Animals, 3(1).
Buller HJ, Roe E (2013). Modifying and commodifying farm animal welfare : the economisation of layer chickens. Journal of Rural Studies
2012
Buller H, Roe E (2012). Co-Modifying Welfare. Animal Welfare, 21, 131-135.
Buller HJ (2012). Greening and Agriculture. In Curry N, Moseley M (Eds.) A QUARTER CENTURY OF CHANGE IN RURAL BRITAIN AND EUROPE, Cheltenham: Countryside and Community Press.
Buller HJ (2012). Nourishing Communities: animal vitalities and food quality. In Birke L, Hockenhall J (Eds.) Crossing Boundaries: creating knowledge about ourselves with other animals.
Buller H (2012). One Slash of Light, then Gone”: Animals as Movement. Etudes Rurales(189), 139-154.
2011
Cook IJ, Hobson K, Hallett L, Guthman J, Murphy A, Hulme A, Sheller M, Crewe L, Nally D, Roe E, et al (2011). Geographies of food: afters.
Progress in human geography,
35(1), 104-120.
Abstract:
Geographies of food: afters
This third and final ‘Geographies of food’ review is based on an online blog conversation provoked by the first and second reviews in the series (Cook et al. 2006; 2008a). Authors of the work featured in these reviews – plus others whose work was not but should have been featured – were invited to respond to them, to talk about their own and other people’s work, and to enter into conversations about – and in the process review – other/new work within and beyond what could be called ‘food geographies’. These conversations were
coded, edited, arranged, discussed and rearranged to produce a fragmentary, multi-authored text aiming to convey the rich and multi-stranded content, breadth and character of ongoing food studies research within and beyond geography.
Abstract.
Buller HJ (2011). Nourishing Communities: celebrating animal subjectivies through animal feeding. In Birke L, Hockenhull J (Eds.) ‘Crossing Boundaries: creating knowledge about ourselves with other animals’ (provisional title), under negotiation.
Roe E, Buller H, Bull J (2011). Using your eyes and ears: the performance of on-farm welfare assessment. Animal Welfare, 20(1), 69-78.
2010
Buller H (2010). Commentary. Environment and Planning a Economy and Space, 42(8), 1875-1880.
Jones O, Kirwan J, Buller H, Dunn R, Hopkins A, Whittington F, Wood J (2010). On the alternativeness of alternative food networks: sustainability and the co-production of social and ecological wealth. In Fuller D, Jonas A, Lee R (Eds.) Interrogating Alterity: Alternative Economic and Political Spaces, Basingstoke: Ashgate.
Buller H (2010). Palatable Ethics. Environment and Planning A, 42, 1875-1880.
2009
Buller HJ (2009). Agricultural animal welfare. In al RKE (Ed) International Encyclopaedia of Human Geography, Oxford: Elsevier, 127-132.
Buller HJ, Morris C (2009). Beasts of a Different Burden: Agricultural Sustainability and Farm Animals. In Seymour S, Fish R, Watkins S (Eds.) Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Sustainable Farmland Management, Wallingford: CABI, 135-148.
Buller HJ (2009). Du côté de chez Smith : reflections on an enduring research object. In Diry JP (Ed) Les étrangers à la campagne : Quelles définitions ? Quelles représentations ? Quelles approches scientifiques, Clermont Ferrand: Presses Universitaires Blaise Pascal, 35-46.
Buller HJ (2009). The environmental impacts of industrial animal agriculture.
Buller HJ (2009). The lively process of interdisciplinarity. Area, 41(4), 395-403.
Buller H (2009). What can we tell consumers and retailers ?. In Butterworth A, Jones B, Blokhuis H, Veisier I (Eds.) Delivering Animal Welfare and Quality: Transparency in the Food Production Chain, Wageningen, NL: European Union / Welfare Quality, 43-46.
2008
Buller HJ (2008). Adding Value in Pasture Based systems: reflections on Britain and France. Adding Value in Meat Production’.
Buller HJ (2008). Safe from the wolf: biosecurity, biodiversity and competing philosophies of nature. Environment and Planning A, 40(7), 1583-1597.
2007
Buller HJ, Ilbery, B, Maye, D, Morris, C (2007). 'Eat the View': an Evaluation. Countryside Agency, Cheltenham, Countryside Agency.
Buller HJ, Morris C (2007). Animals and Society. In Pretty, J, Benton, al TE (Eds.) Handbook on Environment and Society, London: Sage.
Buller HJ, Lowe PD (2007). Des agricultures nationales aux campagnes locales : les bases d'une nouvelle coalition pour une réforme progressive de la PAC. In Billaud J-P (Ed) Nouvelles ruralités, nouvelles urbanités en Europe, Brussels: Peter Lang, 413-422.
Buller HJ, Cesar C (2007). Eating well, eating fare: farm animal welfare in France. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture, 15(3), 45-58.
Wood JD, Richardson RI, Scollan ND, Hopkins A, Dunn R, Buller HJ, Whittington F (2007). Quality of meat from biodiverse grassland. In Hopkins JJ, Duncan AJ, McCracken DI, Peel S, Tallowin JRB (Eds.) High Value Grassland, Cirencester: British Grassland Society, 107-116.
2006
Buller HJ (2006). A review of recent and current French initiatives in
rural economy and land use research. ESRC.
Buller HJ, Cesar, C. (2006). Retailing Animal Welfare products in France. European Union 'Welfare Quality' Research Project.
2005
Hopkins A, Buller H, Morris C, Wood JD (2005). Eating biodiversity: Investigating the links between grassland biodiversity and quality food production. In (Ed) Pastoral Systems in Marginal Environments: Proceedings of a Satellite Workshop of the XXth International Grassland Congress, July 2005, Glasgow, Scotland.
Ilbery, B, Morris C, Buller HJ, Maye D, Kneafsey, M (2005). Process and Place: Reconnecting producers and consumers through the marketing and labeling of ‘difference’. European Urban and Regional Studies, 12(1), 63-79.
Ilbery B, Morris C, Buller H, Maye D, Kneafsey M (2005). Product, process and place - an examination of food marketing and labelling schemes in Europe and North America.
EUROPEAN URBAN AND REGIONAL STUDIES,
12(2), 116-132.
Author URL.
2004
Buller HJ (2004). Getting between the vertical: Europeanisation of French environmental policy. In Jordan A, Liefferink D (Eds.) The Europeanisation of Environmental Policy, London: Routledge.
Buller HJ, Morris C (2004). Growing goods: the market, the state and sustainable food production. Environment and Planning A, 36(6), 1065-1084.
Buller HJ (2004). The 'espace productif', the 'théâtre de la nature' and the 'territoires de développement local': the opposing rationales of contemporary French Rural Development Policy. International Planning Studies, 9(2-3), 101-119.
Buller HJ (2004). Where the wild things are: the evolving iconography of rural fauna. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(2), 131-141.
Buller HJ, Hoggart K (eds)(2004). Women in the European Countryside. Basingstoke, Ashgate.
2003
Buller HJ, Morris, C. White, B, Silcock, P (2003). Cotswold Farming Study. Cotswold AONB Partnership, Cheltenham, Cotswold AONB Partnership.
Buller HJ (2003). De la terre au territoire: the reinvention of French rural space. Modern and Contemporary France, 11(3), 323-334.
Buller H, Morris C (2003). Farm animal welfare: a new repertoire of nature-society relations or modernism re-embedded?.
SOCIOLOGIA RURALIS,
43(3), 216-+.
Author URL.
Buller HJ, Morris C (2003). Farm animal welfare: a new repertoire of nature-society relations or modernism re-embedded?. Sociologia Ruralis, 43(3), 216-237.
Buller HJ, Morris, C. White, E (2003). The Demography of Rural Areas:
a literature review. DEFRA, London, DEFRA.
Morris C, Buller H (2003). The local food sector: a preliminary assessment of its impact in Gloucestershire. British Food Journal, 105(8), 559-566.
2002
Buller HJ (2002). Agriculture and the environment: integration or polarisation. In Lenschow A (Ed) Environmental policy integration: the greening of sectoral policies in Europe, London: Earthscan, 103-126.
Buller HJ, Winter, M. Morris, C, Dwyer, J. (2002). An Enhanced Role for Forestry
in Sustainable Rural Development. The Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.
Winter DM, Buller H, Morris C, Powell J, Dwyer J, Hjerp P (2002). An Enhanced Role for Forestry in Sustainable Rural Development., University of Gloucestershire and Institute of European Environmental Policy.
Buller HJ, Morris, C. White, B (2002). England's Rural Development Programme. Mid-Term Evaluation: Lessons from the Land Management Initiatives programme. Countryside Agency, Cheltenham, Countryside Agency.
Buller HJ (2002). Europe's Rural Futures: France. Wildlife Fund for Nature, Wildlife Fund for Nature.
Buller HJ (2002). Management and protection of. NATURA 2000 sites in EU Member States. Scottish Natural Heritage, Edinburgh, Scottish Natural Heritage.
Lowe, P, Buller HJ, Ward, N (2002). Setting the next agenda ? British and French approaches to the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy. Journal of Rural Studies, 18(1), 1-17.
2001
Wilson, G, Buller HJ (2001). 'The use of socio-economic and environmental indicators in assessing the effectiveness of EU agri-environmental policy. European Environment, 11(6), 297-313.
Buller HJ, Hoggart K (2001). Agricultural Transformation, Food and Environment. Basingstoke, Ashgate.
Buller HJ (2001). Is this the European model ?. In Buller H, Hoggart K (Eds.) Agricultural Transformation, Food and Environment, Basingstoke: Ashgate, 1-9.