Critique Analysis of the Article "Building Capacity Within Extension To Address Animal Agriculture In A Changing Climate"

Critique analysis of the Article “Building Capacity within Extension to Address Animal Agriculture in a Changing Climate” The article title is relevant for the piece of work. The author of the article states in the abstract that ‘The Animal Agriculture in a Changing Climate’ (AACC) project was developed to build capacity amongst agriculture extension officers so that they can be able to tackle the challenge of climate change in their field effectively. From that abstract, one can agree that the chosen title of the article fits well. The abstract is also well stated. It indicates that the program is about increasing climate change awareness amongst extension officers and other livestock advisors. The program is also a case study of how a small team of experts can be used to disseminate information to the public on a certain matter. Reading through the article, one notes that the abstract is a good represented of what is covered.

            The hypothesis of the article is that climate change has affected agricultural production. And in this case climate change is addressed to animal agriculture. The article notes that animal production is hampered directly through reduced crop production. This argument is true since animal feeds rely on good harvests of crop production. The author points out that lack of extension expertise to address climate change needs to be tackled. The author’s objective is to highlight the success or rather the feedback from the team that conducted the climate change education project. The author indicates how the team approached the issue, from creating a small team of 14 experts and going on to first engage the relevant audience in order to tailor the program to them.

            The article does have substantive figures on the issue of how much animal production contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. The author notes that the sector is blamed for about 4% to 6% contribution of greenhouse gases in the USA. Other sources seem to back up this figure. Animal agriculture is said to contribute an estimate of 3% greenhouse emissions. (Smith, 28). Smith also states that production of beef animals contributes thrice the amount of emissions as that by dairy cattle.

            The author states that the animal production sector has received negative press coverage and the call for consumers to avoid animal meat products. This is an issue of concern to many and the author cannot dismiss it easily by saying the sector has “negative press coverage”. Evidence from epidemiological studies across Europe and America point to the health effects of red meat and processed meat consumption.  The consumption leads to increased cases of cardiovascular diseases, cancer cases and type 2 diabetes. (Battaglia, 48). It is therefore fair enough for the public or press to attribute some concern on meat products and by extension the sector of animal production. The article does make some points that are rather ambiguous or they needed an explanation beyond just stating them. A case in point is where the article states that climate change in agricultural production should be approached by ‘adaptation rather than mitigation’. This is stated in the abstract and on page 8 of the article, paragraph 2. No further explanation is made on this point. One is left to infer for themselves on exactly what adaptation as a strategy to climate change means.

            There is also the clarity of the graphs used in the article. These graphs can be found on pages 6, 7 and 8 of the article. The graphs seek to present results of the surveys done on the participants of the climate change program. Graphs are supposed to be visual representatives of data. They should be easy to understand and view. However, that’s not the case with graphs used in this article. One can call them as ‘a bit difficult’ for the visual eye. It takes some moment to process what the graphs seek to convey. Maybe the author should have considered using easy graphs like, bar graphs, line graphs or even pie charts. Those one are more common and easier to understand.

            The author notes that the availability of educators and their priorities was a key challenge in conducting the agricultural and climate change education. This is noted on page 3 of the article. The author does not state the other priorities that the educators had, which hampered the delivery of the program initiative. It is only stated that time was a key constraint and that providing readily accessible learning material is what was well done.

            There are points which are made about data from the program but they are not further explained. Two examples stand out here. One, there was an online education course offered to the participants. Only 38% of the participants managed to complete the course. The article does not state the challenges or the reasons for the low completion rates. Another unexplained data point is the drop in survey responses between the year 2014 and 2016. The survey response rate dropped from 19.4% to 18.7% in that period. Again, the author does not at least give a reason for the decline in that figure.

            However, a positive compliment is in order. The article has a good flow. The author takes us though the abstract statement, to the selection of the team that is to conduct the program. The team then is seen to first do some feasibility study by engaging stakeholders in animal production. The team then subdivides itself into working groups according to regions. Each regional team then spearheads the engagement across the animal production stakeholders by identifying key needs and unique local climate conditions.

            The article also points out that in the course of educating extension and farm officers, a website was set up to deliver the materials via e-learning. Video recordings and other related material to animal production and climate change were provided. A good number of participants were also noted on the website. The article states that as of September 2016, the website had regular visits of 5900 users and total page views of over 21,000 people. This is a good outcome.

            From the above point, one notes that the agricultural specialists made a good move to set up a website and therefore they didn’t just rely on face to face group meetings. The team can be said to have been digitally conscious in the current decade of internet and smartphone uptake by the wider public.

            The author manages to keep objectivity in the article by highlighting the key achievements of the animal production/climate change program while presenting the necessary figures even when they are not as likeable. For example, the author is honest enough to point out that only 321 participants registered in the first four years of the online study course.

            A good conclusion is also done in the ‘discussion’ part of the article. The author reports that it is not that there is a lack of science and education materials, but that this materials need to be effectively structured to capture audience engagement. A conclusion is also made that tailoring climate change programs to specific regions can highly be effective. And farm advisors should also be targeted in any agricultural education as they are depended on as much as traditional extension officers.

Works Cited

Smith D, Mukhtar S. “The Role of Animal Agriculture on Greenhouse Gas Emissions”             2011:pp.12-37 http://aglifesciences.tamu.edu/baen/wp-            content/uploads/sites/24/2017/01/L-5535.-The-        Role-of-Animal-Agriculture-on-          Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions.pdf

Battaglia R, Baumer B, Conrad B, Darioli R, Schmid A & Keller U,Health Risks             Associated       with Meat Consumption: A Review of Epidemiological Studies ,             (2015):pp.47-58