.. ‘
l. \. $5. .I.
3..) ‘h 9.} 4 v A 113.3!
vlsvllt<ial{.fl“1.fi.
tent}. \3! I: avll‘ .

x: i
i 53.1!

3...!)
ii... “gal.

22.5.. .va 32d"

\ti}
X\.;l::l$(

‘ i

1. .ifivzbufign

. t\“, “I.
a .

flaw m
Baum

it!"
. 5L

N553 .15
12.9511 \lnlnfiré.
girl)... itcii,
R

2......‘ciqSLS-11uv .

21...... I:
t ‘\.l.:.v:u
23(4).- 5 .-

 

 

mas. ' LIBRARY
., c _ Michigan State
' “I D I University

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

ALTERNATIVE FOOD AND ANIMAL GEOGRAPHIES IN
NEWSPRINT MEDIA: DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF URBAN
CHICKENS IN THE US

presented by

MARGARET H. F ITZPATRICK

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Masters of degree in Community, Agriculture,
Science Recreation and Resource
Studies

 

 

fig 7,), 7w

 

- Major Professor’s Signature
‘j / .1 2/ 0‘?

Date

MSU IS an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5I08 K:lProj/Aoc&Pres/ClRC/Dateouo.indd

ALTERNATIVE FOOD AND ANIMAL GEOGRAPHIES IN NEWSPRINT MEDIA:
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF URBAN CHICKENS IN THE US

By

Margaret H. Fitzpatrick

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTERS OF SCIENCE

Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies

2009

ABSTRACT

ALTERNATIVE FOOD AND ANIMAL GEOGRAPHIES IN NEWSPRINT MEDIA:
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF URBAN CHICKEN IN THE US

By
Margaret H. Fitzpatrick

The purpose of this research was to explore concepts and themes within the newsprint
media on urban chicken keeping in the US, to find how the media affect the acceptance
and proliferation of the practice among the general public. Urban chicken-keeping is an
alternative practice that challenges the dominance of industrial agriculture and strives to
re—examine our relationships with food animals. The newsprint media continue to cover
the increasing popularity of raising chickens in US cities. The sample included 94
articles about urban chicken-keeping from various small to large US newspapers. A
social constructionist approach to discourse used framing to analyze data and explain the
impact of the newsprint media on readers. The results demonstrate how the media
market dominant perspectives of livestock and agriculture as “out of place” in cities, and
mischaracterize the practice as exclusively part of a new local and organic food
movement. The results also suggest that media hold alternative perspectives on livestock
and agriculture in the cities, and, on some levels, encourage the acceptability of urban
chicken-keeping and support further citizen actiOn to allow for the practice. The
conclusions are meant as a project to identify gaps in the media portrayal. Suggestions
are made for alternative food practitioners so that they may counteract the limited media

presentation with outreach and education on important aspects of this alternative practice.

DEDICATION

To my parents, Richard and Patricia Fitzpatrick, who have supported me in all my
journeys, and to Grandma Mary Fitzpatrick and Nana Genevieve Thein who were women

ahead of their time.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks to my committee members Phil Howard, Linda Kalof and Paul
Thompson. Phil has been an incredible advisor and provided excellent recommendations
at crucial times in the research process, all the while, being incredibly supportive of my
eclectic research interests. Linda was responsible for sparking my interest in the study of
human-animal relationships; this brought me much challenge but also great fulfillment.
This line of study led to many opportunities including the Animal Studies Fellowship
which enabled the completion of this thesis. Paul’s research was an initial, and ongoing,
inspiration to my own research and, he too was always available to provide valuable

input

I would like thank two colleagues in particular, Amy Smith and Kathryn
C olasanti, who were essential in improving my coding scheme and, subsequently, the
quality of my research. Also, the whole extended community food and agriculture
graduate body who were a constant source of support and always available for editing

and presentation run-throughs.

 

(ii

'I
LL,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................................ 4
Alternative Food Geographies ........................................................................... 5
Animal Geographies .......................................................................................... 8
Conceptualization of Urban Spaces ....................................................... 8
Formation of Place .............................................................................. 10
Urban Moral Geography ...................................................................... 11
“Distancing,” a Bridge between Food and Animal Geographies ................... 13
Urban Livestock Agriculture .......................................................................... 15
Urban Agriculture and Livestock Globally ......................................... 15
Urban Agriculture and Livestock in North America, US .................... 17
CHAPTER 3
METHOD .................................................................................................................... 20
Methodology .................................................................................................... 20
Discourse .............................................................................................. 23
Ideology ............................................................................................... 25
Framing ................................................................................................ 26
Study Methods ................................................................................................. 32
Sampling .............................................................................................. 32
Coding ................................................................................................. 33
Analysis ................................................................................................ 38
Validity & Reliability ..................................................................................... 41
CHAPTER4
RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 44
Ordinance Information .................................................................................... 47
Food Production .............................................................................................. 49
Contention ....................................................................................................... 49
Nuisance .......................................................................................................... 51

Urban Space .................................................................................................... 52

Pet vs. Livestock ............................................................................................. 55

Ecological Ethic .............................................................................................. 56

Humane ............................................................................................................ 57

Humor .............................................................................................................. 58

Distant Production .......................................................................................... 59

Taste ................................................................................................................. 61

Health .............................................................................................................. 61

Household Budget ........................................................................................... 62

Personalities .................................................................................................... 63

Local ............................................................................................................... 64

Emotion ........................................................................................................... 65

Community ..................................................................................................... 65

Organic ............................................................................................................ 66
CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................. 67

Public Reading of Food and Agriculture Movements .................................... 69

Distant Production, Problems and Personal Solutions ........................ 70

Identity Formation, Local and Organic Types .................................... 71

Alternative Values alongside Conventional Motivations and Means .73

Discursive Forces at Work in the Media ......................................................... 74

Conceptualization of Urban Spaces .................................................... 75

Ordinance, Contention, Nuisance ....................................................... 76

Representation of the Chicken ............................................................ 79

Further Research ............................................................................................. 82
CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 85

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................ 89

Appendix A—Research Memos ..................................................................... 90

Appendix B—Coding Tables .......................................................................... 99

Appendix C—Data Sources .......................................................................... 105

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... l 11

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Data sources. Date of publication and author of newspaper articles arranged
from oldest to most recent ............................................................................................ 45

Table 2. Concept and theme occurrences. Number of times a concept or theme occurred
among the sample of newspaper articles listed in descending order ........................... 47

Table 3. Research memo 6/17/2009. Former and improved codes after first meeting with
Amy ............................................................................................................................. 92

Table 4. Research memo 6/ l 9/ 2009. Former and improved codes after second meeting
with Amy .................................................................................................................... 95

Table 5. Research memo 6/ 29/2009. Improved codes after meeting with Kathryn ...97

Table 6. Final concepts. Description of study concepts through definitions, rules,
examples and notes ..................................................................................................... 99

Table 7. F inal themes. Description of study themes through definitions, rules, examples
and notes ................................................................................................................... 104

Table 8. Full data sources. Reference information of newspaper articles including dates of
publication, authors, source newspapers, and titles, arranged from oldest to most
recent ......................................................................................................................... 105

vii

"-r1
TI”!

5

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Repackaging memo. This figure illustrates the document used to summarize
concepts and themes that occur within an article, one was created for each data unit
(newspaper article) ...................................................................................................... 40

Figure 2. Concept-ordered display. This figure illustrates the document used to
summarize data for each concept or theme across data units (newspaper articles) ....41

Figure 3. Frequency of newspaper articles over sample period. This figure illustrates the
number of newspaper articles published from May 2006 to May 2009 ..................... 46

Figure 4. Mind map of results. This figure illustrates the final organization of results
under concepts and themes as the researcher interpreted them to relate to each other,
producing two sections: “Reading food and agriculture movement” and “Discursive
forces.” ........................................................................................................................ 69

Figure 5. Research memo May 15, 2009. This figure illustrates how Blecha’s (2006)
concepts were listed and combined to fit the emergent concepts and themes of the current
study ............................................................................................................................ 91

viii

{-1.1

h."-

Inc

I

‘l‘e

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

There is increasing dissatisfaction with industrial food systems and concern for
the welfare of farm animals among the general public. Rising numbers of people are
interested in matters of food safety and ecological sustainability. Many lay observers
have noted the growing market for organic fruits and vegetables as a signal of widespread
public concern about industrial food production. The industrial food system in the United
States is increasingly consolidated and commodified (Lobao & Meyer, 2001). This has
led to a concentration of economic power, social disempowerment and deleterious
ecological consequences (Goodman 2000, cited in Hinrichs, 2003). This has contributed
to academic and practitioner interest in alternatives which challenge the dominance of

industrial food.

Peoples’ concern for animal welfare is also apparent. On January 30, 2008, the
Humane Society of the United States released evidence of the mistreatment of cows in
non-mobile condition, which was recovered through a long-term undercover investigation
of a meat packing company in California. This “downer cow incident” led to the largest
meat recall to date in response to public outrage of slaughter methods thought to be
unsafe and cruel. Industrial meat production is ecologically unsustainable, detrimental to
human health, as well as cruel to the sentient beings involved (Horrigan, Lawrence, &
Walker, 2002; Mason & Finelli, 2006). Public outrage in response to such animal
welfare violations has caused academic and activist to re-examine our relationship with

food animals and seek out less cruel and more sustainable alternatives.

 

ref

(0"
nu

71‘.

HA

‘ul

Lil

L’E

Ct]

v
I

it
it

Currently, the mass media portray alternatives such as farmers’ markets,
community gardening and urban agriculture, all of which have been studied by
researchers of alternative agri-food movements. The mass media play an important role
in introducing these alternatives to the broader public, but little is known about how they
represent specific phenomenon. This study seeks to explore how one form of mass media

in particular, newsprint media, portray an alternative practice: urban chicken-keeping.

Urban residents in the US are welcoming chickens, goats, rabbits, and bees back
to the city. In the broad sense this practice is termed urban livestock agriculture.
Globally, keeping urban livestock is a common practice, however, the global North has a
tradition of discouraging this practice. Urban livestock agriculture in the US was initially
explored in an ethnographic study by Jennifer Blecha (2007). She found that the practice
of keeping urban livestock allowed people to express an alternative set of beliefs towards
city ecologies and human—animal relationships with the hope of changing a system in
which they were dissatisfied. These findings suggest that this practice is potentially
transfonnative to the way people think about and, therefore, engage animal agriculture or

consume animal products in the US.

The newsprint media have acknowledged this increasing popularity of urban
livestock. The newsprint media report on motivations, benefits, problems, and concerns
about keeping such animals in densely populated areas. Raising chickens, in particular,
continues to receive a large amount of mass media spotlight. The growing interest in this
practice has been termed the ‘furban chicken movement,” but is no doubt situated within

broader urban agriculture and alternative agri-food movements, It is important to analyze

the mass media coverage of urban chickens to better understand how alternatives to

industrial agriculture are portrayed to the broader population.

The goal of the study was to conduct an analysis to achieve an understanding
about the effect of the newsprint media on the perception and proliferation of this practice
among readers. My findings show that the portrayal of urban chickens is limited. It
presents alternative values and practices alongside conventional perspectives, motivations
and means. In the end, these findings are used craft suggestions for alternative food
scholars and practitioners to guide them in balancing the limited media presentation with

their own public outreach and education.

2 "w
8“.

310‘s

CHAPTER 2

Review of Literature

This literature review reveals connections between scholarly research on
alternative food geographies and animal geographies through the practice of urban
livestock agriculture. The two bodies of literature challenge and provide practical
grounding for each other. Many scholars of animal geographies critique literatures for
“backgrounding” animals, or in other words, considering them as static and passive
pieces of the backdrop in which the society occurs; this has been shown to be the case in
certain environmental literatures (Wolch, 1998). The humane, ethical treatment of farm
animals is a persistent concern for scholars and advocates of the alternative agro-food
movement. While this literature may not objectify animals, it backgrounds animals by
grouping them with the environmental components. This study also evaluates the
importance of including animals in social and cultural theory (Tovey, 2003; Whatmore,
1999; Wolch, 1998; Wolch, 2002; Wolch & Emel, 1995). This acknowledges the call to
include animals as the integral part of the world that they are (Wolch and Emel, 1995).
Using the literature of animal geographies allows the researcher to bring animals center

stage, as an integral subject of the research.

The interdisciplinary literature of alternative food geographies maintain a diverse
theoretical base but also devote much attention to activist literature which strives to
create alternatives in the world in which we live. This provides a practical and balanced

basis for the pursuit of less cruel and sustainable alternatives in animal agriculture.

l“.

Animal studies has been critiqued as being stuck in a theoretical phase, so the use of

alternative food geographies literature pulls it back down to earth, to a study of practice.

These literatures are complementary in the way that they describe the subject of
study (agriculture or animals) and the harmful effects of distancing. I first describe
alternative food geographies, specifically the turn towards local food as a way to
counteract the spatial, social, political, and moral effects of distancing within the food
system. Second, I discuss the study of “new” cultural animal geographies to provide a
background on how animals have been incorporated or excluded from urban identities,
spaces and places. Third, I take a moment to expand on the concept of distancing and
explain how divergent ideas and perspectives inform one-another and shape though and
theory. Finally, I discuss urban agriculture and urban livestock agriculture as practices
that bridge these two literatures and help facilitate opportunities for this and future

research.

Alternative Food Geographies

The term “alternative food geographies” was first used by Whatmore and Thome
(1997) and refers to a broad set of food and agriculture related relationships and practices
set in opposition to those which are conventional (Maye, Kneafsey, & Holloway, 2007).
One way of looking at alternative food geographies is through the perspective of
alternative economics. Literature on alternative economics has given forecast and
analysis by studying economic alternatives to capitalism. The purpose of alternative
economics is to “challenge the discursive dominance of capitalism, currently neo-liberal

capitalism, as the primary economic practice” (Blecha, 2007, p. 80). Instances of people

sis

pItj

SUE

Cu

enacting alternatives are viewed as “spaces. of hope” which could be proliferative
(Gibson-Graham 1996 in Leyshon & Lee, 2003, p. 23). The transforrnative potential of
small alternatives within dominant economic systems or practices is substantial. Leyshon
and Lee (2003) are optimistic about the proliferative capacity these spaces of hope.
Drawing from Leyshon and Lee’s work, Maye et al. also describe the topology of the
neoliberal model as a “uniform global economic geography” rather than attentiveness to

the specificities of space and location (2007, p. 5).

This refers not just to economic systems generally, but directly applies to describe
the form and function of food production. The topology of the dominant food system can
also be described as uniform: increasingly concentrated, commodified and globalized.
Alternative food projects can be viewed as these proliferative spaces which hope to
counter the “prevailing power relations in the food supply system” (Holloway, et al.,
2007, p. 90). Holloway et al. (2007) encourage us to acknowledge how alternative food
projects contribute, perhaps without intention, to fuel resistance and form challenges to
prevailing food systems. I will briefly review how scholars have conceptualized such

spaces as localized, community-embedded food systems.

Numerous scholars have described the socio-spatial effects of the dominant food
system. In Civic Agriculture, Thomas A. Lyson uses “distancing” to describe “the
process that separates people from the source of their food and replaces diversified
sustainable food systems with a globalized, commodified system” (2004, p. 39). In
Coming in to the F oodshed, Kloppenburg Hendrickson and Stevenson describe a similar
phenomenon stating, “The distance from which their food comes represents their
separation from the knowledge of how and by whom what they consume is produced,

6

proitSSCS 3
apprcpildlt’
mkih'
turner
lihppenb
ihhucc

humon

In
muflhc
under
mane
humus
tribe:
StilIegIta
high

Wuuu

processes and transported” (2004, p. 34). Striving for a more localized food system is
appropriate response to the realization of distancing (Kloppenburg, et al., 1996). In this
stride, the “foodshed” is conceptualized as the flow of food from its source of production
to the site of consumption within a particular landscape, place or community
(Kloppenburg, et al., 1996). From the spatial analysis of the foodshed one of the most
obvious concerns was the energy necessary to transport food over long distances, and its

burden on the environmental resources.

From the inception of efforts to regionalize or localize food, they were not simply
spatially oriented but also realized the importance of social, economic and moral
considerations. Kloppenburg et al. describe the necessity of embedding these efforts in a
moral economy and restoring social links within the food system (1996, pp. 36-37).
Lyson also makes a significant contribution to the holistic view of local agriculture. He
describes local food systems as food production set within a community, adhering to
ecological approaches, and governed through democratic processes in which economic
and political power are dispersed (Lyson, 2004). Given this context, localities should be
considered alternative spaces for of production. These ideas have matured through
development of the literature. Scholars urge practitioners to remain critically reflective
of efforts so that they actually contribute to environmental soundness (Hinrichs, 2003;
Winter, 2003), improve social linkages (Hinrichs, 2003), establish social and cultural
fairness (Allen, 2004; Winter, 2003), and build community (DeLind, 2002; Delind, 2006;
DeLind & Bingen, 2008) rather than recreate micro-scaled systems of domination and

uniformity.

Ara
commit}
to counter.
eitirortmei
IIitrLchs. 3
.aclurd g

the current
Animal G

Ih.
geograph}
“new cult
pilitical cc
7351. Ina
lull? mad;
Emel. I99
LIHULIgII jr
Illb‘dn m0]

literature,

Academics, activists, and citizens have mobilized towards the realization of
community food systems through efforts for local food as “a banner in which people try
to counteract trends of economic concentration, social disempowerment, and
environmental degradation in food and agriculture landscapes” (Goodman 2000, cited in
Hinrichs, 2003, p. 33). Farmers’ markets, community supported agriculture, and
backyard gardening are projects that create alternatives that challenge the dominance of

the current industrial food system.

Animal Geographies

There is also a newly emerging area of study focusing on the culturally-oriented
geography of animals. According to Jennifer Wolch this area has two sub-sections; the
‘new’ cultural geography, which emphasizes the social construction of urban spaces, and
political ecology, which looks at how political and economic arenas are linked (2002, p.
725). In an effort to include animals in social and cultural theory, a call many scholars
have made (see Tovey, 2003; Whatmore, 1999; Wolch, 1998; Wolch, 2002; Wolch &
Emel, 1995), the study of animal cultural geographies has re-animated urban studies
through inquiry in: identity and subjectivity, animals and urban place formation, and
urban moral reckoning (Wolch, 2002). These three areas guide the review of this

literature.

Conceptualizations of urban space.

The conceptualization of urban spaces is related to intertwining human and
animal identities. Researchers have studied how human and animal identities shape one-

another. This involves, first, looking at how animals are represented in human culture or,

in other words, how they are socially defined by us (Philo & Wilbert, 2000). The most
thoroughly theorized and discussed conceptual spaces in animal and environmental
studies are Nature and Culture. The study of Nature/Culture has evolved from the long-
standing Westem perspective of man’s superiority and attempts to tame, control and
civilize all things natural (Spiegel, 1988). Emblematic of this dominant perspective is the
human/animal divide. In addition to this, Wolch and others (1998; 2000) have focused
on country/city or rural/urban distinction as a mirror image of Nature/Culture, with a

unique and diverse set of human-animal relationships.

To explore the rural/urban distinction, Chris Philo (1995) re-examined discourses
surrounding the debates of removing meat markets and slaughter houses from London
and Chicago in the early twentieth century. Through the examination of primary
research, Philo demonstrates how long-term processes of constructing conceptual
categories and actual places of “urban” and “rural” allowed some animals, such as pets,
to remain and others, such as livestock, to be excluded. He finds that medical, hygienic,
organizational and moral discourses, “coded animals. . . [livestock]. . .as impure, polluting,
disruptive and discomforting occupants of urban spaces...” (Philo, 1995, p. 677). These
discourses have much to do with the formation of different ideas about what is urban and
rural. It is the source of the belief that livestock animals are out of place within cities.
This continues to be a predominant understanding today. Other scholars have echoed the

broader trend of “denaturalizing” cities introduced here (Wolch, 1998).

While dominant urban human identities have been increasingly welcoming of pets
and unwelcoming of livestock, other studies have shown how gender, race, culture and
class shape and define unique relationships. One project conducted focus groups with

9

women from Los Angeles and found three conceptual categories of animal: pet, food
animal, and wildlife (Wolch, et al., 2000). Researchers found that some women who are
ethnic minorities commiserated and empathized with what they perceived as a shared
outsider status belonging to pets and wildlife. However, as the researchers state, “Food
animals were simply necessary for survival; people had to distance themselves from their
unfortunate fate” (Wolch et al., 2000, p. 129). This constructed food animals as the
ultimate urban ‘other.’ In another study, researchers found that recent Latina
immigrants kept backyard chickens as a way to retain a connection to the rural landscapes
in which they once lived (Wolch & Lassiter, 2002). Human identities contribute to what

animals are deemed acceptable and unacceptable in urban areas, thus animal identities.
Formation of Places.

In addition to the conceptualizations of urban spaces, there is scholarship on the
social and cultural construction of urban and the discursive and practical forces guiding
the orderings of humans and animals. Spatial orderings are governed by our constructed
beliefs about what animals should occupy what places (Philo & Wilbert, 2000). The
medical, hygienic, and organizational discourses guide the proper placement of livestock:
proximately or remotely to the perimeters of human existence (Philo, 1995; Philo &

Wilbert, 2000).

The research of Andrea Gaynor (1999, 2007) analyzed city records in Australia
and identified components such as gender and class to explain attitudes and practices
regarding animals. Additionally, it offers a discourse of modernity by which cities can

operate on the principles of efficiency, cleanliness, and a reliance on increasing and

10

improving technologies used by mobile and individualist populations (Gaynor 1999, in
Blecha, 2007). Gaynor (2007) also makes a significant contribution to this area of
scholarship by describing diverse positions on urban livestock. She found that people
held diverse perspectives on urban livestock rather than a generalized interest in
achieving distance from animals (Gaynor, 1999, p. 32). This draws attention to
individuals, primarily of lower class, who resisted the conventional view due to the need
of animals for food. Both Philo and Gaynor found city zoning to be practical ways to

shape the ordering of livestock animals (Gaynor, 1999; Philo, 1995).
Urban Moral Geography.

The constructed beliefof man’s superiority, which is emblematic of the
human/animal divide, also supports a false dualism of Subject/object which has
significant moral implications. Scholars have broadly explored the moral implications of
viewing animals as objects in various parts of contemporary human society, particularly
their mistreatment in industrial agriculture (Mason & Finelli, 2006). This was also
discussed in Philo’s study of early twentieth century. Human-centered moral discourses
concerning the affect of sights of animal sexuality and cruelty on woman and children
were used to support the removal of animal markets in London and Chicago. With
slaughterhouses, Philo (1995) identified discomfort felt by residents due to animals
slaughter in such a proximate location to where they work and live, as an additional

reason for slaughterhouse exclusion.

James Serpell (1986) was the first scholar to apply the idea of “distancing

devices” to human-animal interactional patterns. Distancing devices are ways in which

11

we, as humans, attempt to cope with the discomfort associated with the mistreatment or
killing of other animals. Serpell identifies a few types of distancing devices, such as
detachment and its “natural partner,” concealment. Detachment involves physically or
psychologically sectioning-off certain animals as morally inconsequential. The differing
relationship humans have with food animals compared to pets is illustrative of
detachment. Concealment involves hiding animals and their suffering through visual
means, a means of scale, and/or verbal means. For example, factory farm buildings

conceal everything that happens inside.

In response to these historical forces that have built an unjust geography, is a call

to recOgnize animals as individuals or subjects rather than objects (Nassbaum, 2007;
Whatmore, 1999). Pets are often thought of as the ideal example of viewing animals as
SUbJeC ts. However, Yi-Fu Tuan’s analysis of pet-keeping shows subtle examples of
human domination of pets (Tuan, 1984). Through interviews and participant observation
with hobby farmers as well as readings of small holding magazines, Lewis Holloway
(2001) explored the moral geography of the simultaneous ascription of “livestock” and
“pet” to animals kept on small farms. Although this is a practice that does not occur in an
urban landscape, the research contains valuable information about the moral geography
of animals. The research found that hobby farmers believed their practices to be ethically
S'“lJerior to conventional farming, although he found issues of slaughter and consumption
Of these pets animals ethically problematic (Holloway, 2001). The levels of distancing
differed between hobby farms and conventional farms. Hobby farms reproduced a small
level 0f distancing, where as conventional farms produce an obvious and extreme level of

distancing between animals and humans.

“Distancing,” a Bridge between Food and Animal Geographies

“Distancing” was discussed within the context of food geographies and animal
geographies. The strictly spatial conception of “distancing,” attributed to Kloppenburg et
al. (1996) and Lyson (2004) within food and agriculture studies, has matured through
food systems localization literature. Scholars realize that a strictly spatial idea of
localization aimed at counteracting effects of distancing is a theoretically shallow and a
problematic thrust to alternative agri-food movements (Allen, 2004; Dupuis & Goodman
2005; Hinrichs, 2003; Winter 2003). Many scholars have taken on the task of describing
a theoretical base that takes into account local inequities and ecological damage that are

not necessarily overcome by spatially proximate production.

Animal studies scholars have used distancing in the psychological sense,
attributed to Serpell (1986), to argue towards moral conclusions about human-animal
relationships. In The Sexual Politics of Meat: A F eminist- Vegetarian Critical Theory,
Carol Adams (2000) argues that discursive devices distance humans from the animals
they eat . Furthermore, when food animals are slaughtered they become ‘absent
referents,’ their presence is not only distant discursively, but absent altogether.

According to Adams, this allows humans to eat meat without considering its moral

implications_

Geographers have pushed boundaries, moving beyond the spatial to study social
and moral geographies. Whatmore and Thome (1997) used Actor Network Theory
(ANT) ‘0 demonstrate that an exclusively spatial analysis of food and agriculture

g€0graphies is theoretically shallow. These scholars described an example in fair trade

13

whereby food labeling provides a consumer with a narrative in which the producer
receives an equable return. Food labeling serves as a psychological worm hole that
enables people to shorten the physical distance between producer and consumer.

Hinrichs (2 003) uses ANT to demonstrate how food system localization, using a
local/global binary, is socially and environmentally problematic. The use of ANT
instructs us to think about “distancing devices,” previously described in the psychological
sense, as devices that work in concert with the spatial relationship humans have with food
and agriculture with social and moral consequence. Holloway (2001) describes the moral
implications of physical and psychological distance between hobby farmers and their

animals_ His research further supports the connection between these two types of

dISIanC ing

The limitations of spatial proximity of food system localization literature, the use
Of PSYChological distancing devices to draw moral conclusions, and the use of ANT in
geography literature to bridge physical and psychological distance are significant
developments in these literatures. For these reasons, I argue for the compatibility of these
ideas of distancing from divergent origins. The moral implication of animal placement
Within agricultural systems guides and informs this study. The practice of raising
chickens in urban areas of the US provides the context in which food production and
animal lives happen. The further discussion of urban livestock agriculture globally and in

the US Will focus on this specific phenomenon.

l4

Urban Livestock Agriculture, Globally and in US

Urban agriculture and urban livestock agriculture are practices that bridge
literatures from alternative food and animal geographies. Urban agriculture movements
seek environmental soundness and social equity. Local food discourses have subsumed
urban agriculture as a way of reconnecting urban people to rural farmers and promoting
ways urban residents can be self-sufficient and use less energy in food transport.
HOWCVCI‘, urban agriculture continues to contend with dominant conceptualizations of
urban Spaces. Historical discourses and practical forces have zoned out many agricultural
activities from cities. Agricultural activities involving animals evoke an especially strong
r eSPOI‘lSe. Decisions to practice urban livestock agriculture. are met with greater

r eslStElnce by those who hold the dominant perspective of urban as strictly human, sterile,

mOdern environments.
Urban Agriculture and Livestock Globally.

Globally, agriculture has always been a part of city life (van Veenhuizen, 2006).
Urban agriculture is defined as “[g]rowing plants and raising animals for food and other
uses within and around cities and towns, and related activities such as the production and
delivery of inputs, and the processing and marketing of products” (van Veenhuizen,
2006, P- 2). Luc. J. A. Mougeot was the first to acknowledge that location is not the most
important characteristic of urban agriculture rather it is “its integration into the urban
economic and ecological system" (2000, p. 9). Urban agriculture is a new field and
primarily studied in so called developing nations as one way to encourage food security,

productive urban livelihoods, and environmentally sustainable development (Mougeot,

15

2005). On a global stage authors recognize the dominant public perception of urban
agriculture as “the oxymoron par excellence,” but also acknowledge that, “it is part of a
larger set of trends that are transforming our living urban (and rural) space on a massive

and unstoppable scale” (Mougeot, 2005, p. 25).

Globally, the research agenda for urban livestock has closely followed that of
urban agriculture and how the activities contribute to food security, urban livelihoods,

and environmentally sustainable development. More specifically urban livestock

agriculture can be characterized as:

Urban livestock systems that occur in a large variation of forms and functions, in
and around densely populated areas, and they strongly interact with surrounding
communities, poor as well as wealthy, at several levels of system hierarchy, as

well as with rural areas. (Schiere, Rischkowsky, Thys, Schiere, & Matthys, 2006)

Keeping food animals has always been part of city life and the persistence of this practice
indicates its benefit to practitioners (Schier et al., 2006, p. 355). Urban livestock
agriculture research finds that, "mainstream thinking tends to exclude livestock from
cities across the board" (Schier et al. 2006, p. 357). This closely echoes the study of
urban animal geographies with the exclusionary dominant perspective but also the

acknowledgement of diverse positions on urban livestock.

Schier et al. (2006) encourage the acknowledgement of both the advantages and
disadvatltages of urban livestock agriculture. Advantages include freshness, economics
0f function, potential profitability for producers, and affordability for consumers.

DisadvElntages include disease, noise pollution, odor, pests, damage to property, and

16

identification with so called backwardness. The framework of non-linear thinking
recognizes the trade-offs, net benefits and comparative advantages associated with all
activities in urban areas. Furthermore, the authors demonstrate how these trade-offs are
already present with many other urban activities and highlight the potential of urban

livestock agriculture to help alleviate some urban problems such as food waste disposal.
Urban Agriculture and Livestock in North America, US.

Urban agriculture is a new area of study and development in North America.
Community and backyard gardening have long been present in US cities, even though
POPUIal‘ity has fluctuated due to a range of factors (Lawson, 2005). The most recent
iteration of urban agriculture in North America has broad objectives that include using

vacant land, improving low-income neighborhoods, developing self-sufficiency among
residents, recycling food waste, and reducing food transportation (Kaufman & Bailkey,
2000) - Through interviews of practitioners and other community members, Kaufman and
Bailkey describe the institutional climate or "the readiness of external groups to accept
and support this vision" (2000, p. 7) as a major factor that affects the success of such
activities. One of many obstacles that were identified by this study was the uninformed
or negative perceptions of urban agriculture held by the general public and government

officials (Kaufman & Bailkey, 2000, p- 59)-

Scholars and activist have worked with city and other regional governments to
Create conditions and regulations that allow a greater degree and variety of urban
agriculture activities. Scholarly support put food systems on the urban policy agenda

(Kanman, 2008; Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999). The American Planning Association’s

l7

Policy Guide to Community and Regional Planning recognizes urban agriculture as a part
of an effort to build more self-reliant and sustainable community food systems (Bingen et
al., 2009). At the local level, this may involve the changing of city, county, or township

ordinances. This was necessary as part of an effort to allow the creation and maintenance

of community gardens in Madison WI. (Felsing, 2001).

In the global North, academia has largely ignored the study of urban livestock
agriculture (Blecha, 2007). This is because of the lack of the focus on development and
improving the living standard in poor countries, the persistent Western dualism of
rural/urban that supports the dominant perception of agriculture as out of place in cities,

and the desired invisibility of this alternative practice (Blecha, 2007, pp. 31-37).

There are few studies exploring urban livestock in the US. Bellows et al. (2000)
completed a small study on practices in the state of New Jersey. The purpose of the study
was to spur policy development for community food security. Although this is an initial
study on the practice, their findings are valuable beyond this context. They describe the
keeping of urban livestock as a largely unknown and/or illegal activity. The connotation
of this practice is not "part of the dominant culture," and the mainstream perception of
this activity is “marginal, primitive, dangerous, and dirty" (Bellows, et al., 2000, p. 8).
Socially, urban livestock farming is largely associated with lower economic classes and
ethnic groups associated with recent immigration. This research suggests that conflict

can mani fest over the enforcement of municipal regulations that prohibit or restrict urban

livestock,

l8

Iii'estoci.
obseri atit
drawn
as amp?
t‘SILiI‘IhIIc‘
found that
and attitur

wlahu

Ih
amen
themes of
alvut I10“

readers.

Blecha (2007) recognized the value of further academic examination of urban
livestock. She completed an initial study through in-depth interviews and participant
observation with backyard chicken keepers and non-traditional student participants at an
educational farm. Blecha also describes urban agriculture and urban livestock in the US

as examples of alternative spaces of production. Her questions and findings have been
established within literatures of alternative economies and animal geographies. She
found that keeping urban livestock allowed people to express alternative sets of beliefs

and attitudes towards agri-food systems, capitalist economic relations, urban ecologies, as

well as human—animal relationships.

The abundance of mass media lends itself as an appropriate way to study the
recent representation of urban livestock agriculture in the US. Examining concepts and
themes of alternative food and animal geographies helps to uncover new information

about how the newsprint media has introduced this otherwise little-known practice to its

readers .

l9

1h
:eerch q
and} sis. 1
approach I
leaping. '
media. IIIL
questions .
net sprint
tracts in
senttusncs
Ihe metht‘

IIISIIIl (I10
llflhodol

TU
OnioIogjca
if: epistem
It‘storiga] E
SmEula. d
Milli but

phiSicaI b(

CHAPTER 3
Method

The methodology used in this study had an important role in developing the
research questions and guiding the study methods including sampling, coding and
analysis. Social movement and communications literatures were used to create a tailored
approach to analyze the discourse present within newsprint media on urban chicken-
keeping. The process of framing is used to explain the power and impact of newsprint
media, thus the effect on public perception of this little-known practice. The research
Questions developed from a general exploration of concepts and themes present in

ne“(Sprint media on urban chickens to the consideration of specific methodological
aspects including how the concepts and themes market dominant ideologies, emphasize
seriousness, blame parties, form identities, encourage action, or make the article exciting.
The methodology guided the design of study methods and allowed the researcher to

lUStify choices made to set boundaries for the research project.

Methodology

To build this methodology it is important to start by stating my epistemological,
ontological, and theoretical orientation. 1 most closely identify with constructionism as
an ePiStemology, maintaining that knowledge is constructed in specific social and
historical contexts; concurrently I reject the tenets of positivism specifically that a
Singular, discoverable truth exists. Ontologically, I accept the existence of a physical
reality but, in a postmodern vein, recognize various forms of representation beyond

PhYSical bodies and language including sound, vision, and scent (Haraway, 1991; Sanders

20

t Arlule.
jHLr-atta).
lnonlcdgt

s

nitrite 01

As

theoretica

me

tin

That 18 cc
construcri
historical.
SOt‘IEtI Sin
Illt dome1
aliIt [0 dc
anIIIlIiIS a

Whitibuu

16am}. as

& Arluke, 1996; Whatmore, 1999), as well as the existence of objects of knowledge
(Haraway, 1991). This allows for a decentering of humans as the primary constructors of
knowledge and allows animals to contribute to so-called human culture and have a

culture of their own.

As a theoretical orientation, critical inquiry guides my research. This critical

theoretical orientation is based upon the belief that:

The traditional scientific process ultimately creates knowledge that is used to
maintain (justify, fortify, reconstruct) the status quo in which all those forced to
the peripheries of the social system (women, people of color, sexual minorities,
and the lower socioeconomic classes) are continually oppressed through the
reproduction of the hierarchical dominant ideology. (Hesse-Beiber & Leavy,

2006,p.3l)

That is certainly the case for animals, who are unacknowledged by our dominant ways of
constructing knowledge and creating culture. Juliet Clutton-Brock (2007) defines the
historical-cultural aspects of domestication as when animals are “incorporated into the
social structure” and “absorbed into the culture of the human owners.” She contends that
the domesticated animal is a cultural artifact but also possesses a culture of its own that is
able to develop and evolve. Therefore, critical inquiry calls attention to the studyiof how
animals are culturally incorporated due to their faint, yet significant, “voice” in

contributing to knowledge and culture.

Thus far I have been describing a social constructionist perspective in which

reality, as we know it, is “shaped by cultural and linguistic constructs” (Patton, 2002, p.

21

WITH

lino

ml-
at
an:

50;

96). While not one of the neglected forms of representation above, language is one way
humans construct meaning and create culture. This process of constructing meaning and
creating culture is not an isolated event. Hesse-Biber and Leavy describe the
construction of knowledge about reality in a way heavily influenced by the ideas of
Michel Foucault: “being social creatures, our ideas are not simply created in our minds,
but are rather a part of a larger social and political context with its own materiality”
(2006, p. 31). As Donald Matheson describes it, we “participate in language sometimes
individually and sometimes in groups but we participate in historically evolved and
sedimented processes of communication through language” (2005, p. 9). This highlights

the dynamism of ideas but also their interconnectedness over time and space.

By acknowledging the idea of a language as part of a “larger social and political
context with its own materiality,” those wishing to study the social construction of
knowledge, particularly dominant ideologies, are led to explore public discourses (Hesse-
Biber & Leavy, 2006, p. 31). This allows investigation into “the implications of those
constructions for. . .lives and interactions with others” (Patton, 2002, p. 96). Public
discourses exist and interact through a myriad of cultural representations, and it is by
studying these representations that we can gain knowledge in order to say something
about the implication of those constructions within society. In other words, discourse
analysis seeks to study how language, for instance in textual documents, is connected to
social and cultural life (Matheson, 2005). Furthermore, Critical Discourse Analysis
“seek[s] not just to understand how language works in society, but in whose interests and
with what effects on the world that is constructed in language” (Matheson, 2005, p.12); it

is therefore a rich and worthwhile site and subject of critical inquiry.

22

Discourse analysis is often an interdisciplinary activity (Matheson, 2005) which
makes the methodology of this project diverse, but not divergent. Different
methodological traditions emphasize certain aspects that are useful to my methodology as
a whole. Many scholars have found content analysis of media as a worthwhile pursuit to
explore human-animal relationships (Kalof & Fitzgerald, 2003; Lerner & Kalof, 1999) as
well as media discourses related to food issues (Lockie, 2006; Ten Eyck & Williment,
2003, 2004). Conducting content analyses in these separate, but related, areas have quite
different theoretical traditions. I seek to contribute to both areas with the methodology

outlined below.

I most strongly emphasize the social constructionist approach to discourse
analysis and find social movements to be a well-developed literature to guide this content
analysis. However, communication studies literature on discourse analysis is
complementary and helps the researcher think about the impact of textual documents as
communication. Both will be employed to an extent. This project focuses on discourse
analysis of the newsprint media, specifically newspaper articles which have unique
methodological considerations. To further discuss this methodology and its unique
considerations, it is important to differentiate between three terms: discourse, ideology

and frame.

Discourse.

Within the broader, interdisciplinary discussion of discourse analysis scholars find
it important to distinguish what is meant by discourse. In the introduction to the edited

book Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences, Ruth Wodak (2008)

23

anda

lilo,-
lease
III-ah
more

mm:

highlighted the importance of clearly defining discourse within the theoretical approach
being used due to the number of definitions that exist and originate from many
disciplinary threads. She laid out key definitions which included those of influential
thinkers such as Michel Foucault and Jiirgen Habermas. Wodak summarized Foucault’s
definition of discourse as “a set of relationships existing between discursive events”
which allows the “cultural critic to identify both static and dynamic relationships between
discursive events and to address the cause and consequences of historical change” (2008,
p. 5). According to Foucault, change only happens through a shift in power structure;
power is key and discipline is a technique used to produce conforming people (Wodak,
1996). A concise definition of discourse, used in a recent study drawing upon the
communications literature on discourse, would be: “ways of talking about something,
organizing knowledge and thereby classifying and regulating people” (Haralambos et al.
1996, cited in Lockie 2006, p. 314). This certainly draws on Foucault’s ideas of power

and discipline.

For Habermas the overarching goal of communication is to reach understanding
and agreement. Habermas distinguished discourse from communicative action. Rather,
discourse is when we “talk about the norms of action themselves [and] about utterances”
(Wodak 1996, p. 29). To quote Habermas: “[i]n discourses we seek to restore, through
reasoning, a problematized harmony which has prevailed in communicative action”
(Habermas 1989, cited in Wodak, 1996, p. 29). Habermas’ definition of discourse is
more appropriate when drawing from social movement literature. Actors of social

movements seek understanding from the general public about issues, for instance

24

injustices, which present themselves in “everyday normative language games” (Wodak,

l996,p.29)

Wodak (1996) contrasted the theoretical foundations provided by Foucault and
Habermas and finds them both useful depending upon the specific context of the
empirical work. I will use this recommendation and keep them both in mind. Social
movement literature identifies another set of terms that must be clearly defined and
differentiated: ideology and frame. This will ultimately be very instructive to

methodological concerns for analyzing newsprint media.
Ideology.

Social movement literature is very clear about what ideology is, and what
questions and methods can be used to explore it. Ideology is a “system of meaning that
couples assertions and theories about the nature of social life with values and norms
relevant to promoting or resisting social change" (Oliver & Johnston, 2000, p. 43). The
make-up of these “systems of ideas” is a combination of personal experience and cultural
knowledge provided, in part, by newsprint media (William A. Gamson, 1995); Rude uses
the terminology of inherent and derived ideology to differentiate between two sources for
constructing meaning (Rude, 1980 in Mooney & Hunt, 1996). The construction of
ideology is dynamic, people are “actively engaged in the production and maintenance of

meaning” (David A. Snow & Benford, 1992, p. 136).

To directly study these systems of ideas it is necessary to go beyond the textual
documents and consult the active constructors—people. As Oliver and Johnston explain,

"[i]deologies are complex systems of thought that cannot be communicated accurately in

25

SICCli pit
discoun-
moraine

zil‘t SIS

are inca]
imports
snurcc '0
shape 50
influencs
media at
SOCIOIOE
explored
lHOUght

OI Ilamjr

“Plain Ill
Tame" ll

Emmi Gt

framlill'orj

stock phrases or sound bites..." (Oliver & Johnston, 2000 p. 48). While mass media
discourses contribute to ideologies, it would be misinformed, according to social
movement literature, to say that anyone could study ideologies themselves through the

analysis discourse within mass media.

This is not to say, however, that media studies are useless or that the mass media
are incapable of having great influence on the public construction of knowledge on
important issues. As mentioned at the beginning of this section, newsprint media are a
source of cultural knowledge used to formulate derived ideology. Popular mass media
shape social agendas, are important to developing and maintaining controversies, and
influencethe hopes and fears of the public (Ten Eyck & Williment, 2004). Also, mass
media are cultural tools to substantiate knowledge on issues (Ten Eyck, 2003).
Sociological movement and communication studies literatures have theorized and
explored ways in which news media “affects the process of constructing meaning”
through the “selection, organization, and presentation” of information through the notion

of framing (Altheide, 1996, p. 18).
Framing.

Framing theory is an excellent way to conceptualize the influence of media and
explain how textual documents, and specifically newspapers, can be studied. The term
"frame" in the sense that it is used in the social movement tradition was popularized by
Erving Goffman (1974) in his work entitled Frame Analysis. Goffman claimed that a

framework, or a schema of interpretation, “allows its user to locate, perceive, identify,

26

Lift

3.".

ctl

th.

OI

eta

I99

and label a seemingly infinite number of concrete occurrences defined in its terms,”

answering the question: “[w]hat is it that’s going on here?” (1974, pp. 21, 25).

Following from Habermas‘ idea of discourse, social movement actors seek not
only understanding, but also action on behalf of the issue or perceived injustice. In
disentangling notions of ideology and framing, Oliver and Johnston state, “[t]rames are
an aspect of cultural knowledge, stored in memory, that permit social actors to move in
and out of different experiences as if there were not completely new” (2000, p. 40). In
other words, frames allow an actor to evoke cultural knowledge in order say something
beyond the obvious. This is necessary to recruit participants to understand and to act
collectively; there is a need to convey a direct message that will resonate, so much so,
that it will mobilize individuals. To this end, authors expand on collective action frames
or “ways of understanding that imply the need and desirability of some form of action”

(Gamson, 1995, pp. 231-232).

Collective action frames have three functions: punctuation, attribution, and
articulation, which further define and describe what frames actually do. Snow and
Benford describe the function of punctuation as to “underscore and embellish the
seriousness and injustice of a social condition or redefine as unjust and immoral...”
(1992, p. 137). Attribution answers “who” or “what” is responsible for the unjust
condition thus helping lead to diagnostic and prognostic conclusions (Mooney & Hunt,
1996; Snow & Benford, 1992). Articulation allows activists to “tie together” different
events and experiences to render a message meaningful to an audience (Snow & Benford,

1992, pp. 137-138).

27

Now that I have established what framing is and what it allows actors to do within
a social movement it is reasonable to move on to discuss how they are used. Frames are
used by actors of social movements to provide a pre-fabricated way to consume a
message. Similar to the production and maintenance of meaning, scholars have long
recognized framing as a dynamic process. Snow and others discuss different types of
processes, termed frame alignment, by which frames are utilized to increase movement
participation (Snow, Worden, Rochford, & Benford, 1986). Mooney and Hunt add how

frames can be blended and change over time (Mooney & Hunt, 1996).

Pertinent to this study is the use of framing within the newsprint media. William
A. Gamson (1995) discusses collective action frames within the media and lays out
characteristics necessary for the frames to be successful. These characteristics include:
an entity to blame, the promotion of the idea of collective agency, and a well defined
identity to a movement. Gamson discusses the way in which newsprint media use these
characteristics to cover social issues. The media usually focus on human actors and
down play other structural forces through the use of narrative, the dramatic format which
is exciting for the audience to read. Newsprint media tend to “discourage a sense of
agency” and “induce collective helplessness” (Gamson, 1995, p. 235), although they can
support collective agency through coverage of successful instance of collective action.
Newsprint media can also misrepresent the intended identity of a movement; they can
“reinforce one part that a movement wishes to encourage at the same time that it
contradicts or undercuts other parts” (Gamson, 1995, p. 235). He gave the portrayal of
nuclear disarmament as an example. Nuclear disarmament was portrayed in media as a

white youth movement when the movement actors wished to emphasize the issue as

28

CL

OI

C0

hi:

IS:

SC‘t

Inll

cutting across all color, ethnicity and gender boundaries. Collective frames are often
adversarial in that they set up opposing sides, a “we” and a “they.” Within this
established opposition, especially when a group is attacking “the dominant cultural code
of what is normal...” (Gamson, 1995, p. 240), mass media themselves may be targeted as

an opposing actor or seen as a necessary ally.

In addition to clarifying how the newsprint media frame issues, it is important to
identify how social movement researchers elicit these frames from textual documents.
Mooney and Hunt (1996) extracted three master frames by analyzing historical texts
about American agrarian mobilization in order to draw conclusions about the
continuity/discontinuity of master frames over time. Here, frames were emergent from
historical texts. Wright, Ransom, and Tanaka (2005) look at claims and claim-makers
within media coverage of BSE disease to shed light upon how confidence, or skepticism,
is constructed. Here, the analysis was guided by the research questions and a range of
social movement concepts such as claims-making, the role of the expert, competing

interests, and framing.

Communication studies contribute to the study of framing within mass media,
also tracing the notion of “frame” to its use by Goffman in 1974. These two literatures
are complementary, each having their own strengths. Communications studies theorize
the impact of media and develop ways to study newsprint media at a variety of levels,
from lexical choice to broader concepts and themes. Using this tradition, Lockie
describes framing as “the repetitive use of particular ways for presenting information that
help the reader, or viewer, or listener interpret the meaning and significance of that
information” (2006, p. 314). It is here, in the ability to choose one frame over another,

29

at“

01

that journalist can indicate how the message is to be understood. Lockie, who conducted
a content analysis on organic foods in media discourses, acknowledges a power

dimension to journalism: “Framing allows journalists to focus on objective and balanced
presentation of facts while still contributing — whether consciously or unconsciously — to

the pursuit of particular political projects” (2006, p. 314).

Focusing on the frame allows the researcher to explore the ways journalists
"negotiate their difficult task of making exciting copy that will attract audiences, staying
on side with their sources, giving clear and authoritative accounts and avoiding
accusation of bias or inaccuracy" (Matheson, 2005, p. 29). This is similar to thinking of
journalists as interpretive communities (Ten Eyck & Williment, 2003) that are guided by
professional conventions. When studying newsprint media it is important to
acknowledge that as journalist seek to cover events or phenomenon with “news value.”
News values include consequence, timeline, proximity, prominence and human interest;
these characteristics determine what are, and are not, newsworthy events; newsworthy
events are the ones that make into print (Miller & Reichert, 2000). Given this realization,
the news media should not be critiqued for overlooking events that lack news value; this
is simply how news is reported. However, it may be useful to note who or what is being

overlooked to make recommendation for others.

Within both literatures, framing theory allows the researcher to be very clear
about what type of conclusions analysis can lead to. Many empirical studies, using a
discourse analysis methodology to study mass media, contain an important caveat that
highlights the importance of avoiding causal claims about the media’s influence.
William A. Gamson and Andre Modigliani argue that, “By examining discourse and

30

public opinion as parallel systems, we deliberately avoid making certain causal
assumptions” (1989, p. 2). Also, the study of media discourse should not be equated. with

perspectives or attitudes of the public:

It would be simplistic to draw any direct causal inferences, in either direction,
between media reporting and public understanding and attitudes. Nevertheless,
mass media representations of food-related issues do provide a useful focus to
analyze the ways in which words, symbols, and meaning are deployed in bids to
influence others and thus to order, or structure, food production-consumption

networks. (Lockie, 2006, p. 313)

The same would apply in the constructionist discourse analysis of human—animal

networks.

This methodology draws attention to a number of things. It highlights concepts
within the text as content selected by newspapers—consciously or unconsciously— to
market dominant ideologies or pursue political projects. It points to the importance of
themes within the text, not simply as ways newspapers report but as a presentation style
selected to have a desired resonance with the reader. Themes can also hold information
about ways in which newspapers choose to present actors to blame, opposing sides, or
encourage action. Finally, it draws the researchers’ attention to the way in which the
above categories interact to create “patterns and commonalities of knowledge and
structure” across various articles (Wodak, 2008, p. 6). These methodological conclusions

are used in the coding and analysis (see Coding & Analysis).

31

Sn

f0

pr.

Iii

ter

ll:
Fr.

Ilt’

Study Methods

A content analysis is "any technique for making inferences by systematically...
identifying special characteristics of messages" (Holsti 1986, cited in Berg, 2004). In this
project, the senders of the messages are large circulation newspapers throughout the US.
For data, this research collected articles about urban livestock agriculture, which

primarily covered people raising chickens in urban areas.

Sampling.

The sampling period for this analysis was May 2006 to May 2009. To retrieve
newspaper articles the Lexis-Nexis database was used to perform searches using the
terms urban agriculture AND animal* OR chicken*, urban AND chicken", and city
AND chicken" within US newspapers (* being a wildcard character). After collected,
the articles were screened for relevance to urban animal agriculture, and those that were
not relevant were excluded. Also 6 editorial articles were excluded to maintain a
consistent voice of newspaper staff rather than citizens. This search process supplied 94
articles from small to large newspapers throughout the US including The New York
Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, Houston Chronicle, Star Tribune, The San
Francisco Chronicle. The Plain Dealer, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and many

newswires from The Associated Press. The unit of analysis was the news article.

Sampling was motivated by viewing urban livestock as a trend within broader
alternative agri-food and urban agriculture movements, movements unique to the US.
Maye et al. (2007) characterize two schools of alternative food practice: one being

distinctly European, and the other more relevant to North America based on David

32

Goodman’s (2003) initial observations. The European school is focused on the place-
based historical and cultural tradition of food products, and the US focuses more on
opposition to the social and political effects of dominant supply chains (Maye et al,
2007). While the European and US trends towards urban livestock have been similarly
on the rise, due to differences within alternative food practices it was considered wise to
exclude European news articles. This justifies the choice to limit my search to US
newspapers. Also in terms of feasibility, 94 was a reasonable sample size to code articles

in their entirety (see Coding) with the given time constraints of a thesis project.
Coding.

The steps to analyzing the data included identifying concepts and themes,
developing codes, repackaging the data, creating displays, and drawing conclusions. This
is based upon Miles and Huberrnan’s (1994) view of qualitative analysis involving three
main steps: data reduction, data displays, and conclusion drawing. After the articles were
screened for relevance, they were read a second time for content, paying close attention
to emergent concepts and themes, during which notes were taken in the margins where a
possible code may apply. The unit of analysis was the newspaper article and the level

coded was the paragraph.

Here, it is useful to explain the specific sources that were instructive to
developing the concepts, themes and tags for this research project. Concepts from
Jennifer L. Blecha’s dissertation (2007), which she developed through interviews and
participant observation with people keeping urban livestock, were instructive in

developing concepts and themes for this research project. I extracted the concepts from

33

815

and

for.

Wilt
ICSE
will

(“61

near
taint

“Ere

Blecha’s dissertation; not all of Blecha’s concepts were present in the newsprint media,
and some were combined to fit the purpose of the current research (Appendix A -—
Research Memos). Additional concepts and themes that were not previously accounted

for, or that attended to in this research methodology, were added.

Simple codes were developed by creating a tag and a definition. Thus began the
iterative process of applying the tag and adjusting the definitions until the data filed under
that concept was complete and consistent. At the beginning of the coding process a
colleague from each focal area, animal studies and community food and agriculture
studies, gave feedback on the analysis in progress. Each read 10% of the data; articles
were selected using a random number generator (\Wtwrandomorg). First, the colleagues
read the articles while taking notes on emergent concepts and themesi(same process as
researcher). Second, I met with each to discuss their notes in relation to the developing
code book. This called attention to concepts in each area of study that were initially

overlooked (Appendix A — Research Memos).

One colleague also applied the working codes on a subset of the data in order to
improve the operational definitions (rule) of concepts and themes. This process involved
applying the tags to one or two articles, meeting and discussing our discrepancies. The
codebook was changed to reflect our new common understanding of the operational
definitions of concepts and themes. Then the tags were applied again, and at a second
meeting discrepancies were discussed. This cycle was performed once more, at which
point the colleague and I agreed discrepancies were few and the operational definitions

were greatly improved.

34

note
cont
text
furl
idea
of Cl
occr
can
text

ll Cit

incl
cont

bud

Two tables with the concept and theme names, definitions, rules, examples, and
notes were constructed (Appendix B — Coding Tables). The first table listed all the
concepts and the second listed all the themes. Concepts had to do with the content of the
text and usually appeared explicitly and often in similar ways. These concepts were
further separated into two broad categories: concepts developed as food and agricultural
ideas, and, concepts developed as animal ideas. There is overlap between these two sets
of concepts; where the concept was placed is simply representative of where it first
occurred to the research, not a statement of which literature first identified or takes
ownership of the concept. Themes, on the other hand, were about the presentation of the
text and were often implicit and appeared in a variety of ways. All concepts and themes

were relevant in the analysis of the data.

Concepts developed with my understanding of alternative food literature
included: food and agricultural knowledge, distrust in industrial agriculture, regain
control, health, taste, organic, local, ecological ethic, community building, and household
budget (Appendix B — Coding Tables). Three interrelated codes dealt with notions
distant agricultural production. “Food and agricultural knowledge” was defined as the
absence of, or desire to reconnect with, agricultural skills or knowledge; information for
this code was identified when the text described an absence of food knowledge or skills,
or described a desire to reconnect by growing or raising food. “Distrust of industrial
agriculture” was defined as a critical perspective of the dominant industrial-scale
agriculture production, food processing, and distribution system; data for this code were
identified when the text described a dependence on industrial agriculture, including

grocery stores, and a general distrust of the safety of this system. “Regaining control”

35

was defined as the desire to regain control over food by being a producer rather than a
consumer; data for this code were identified when the text stated the desire to grow or

raise your own food, become self-sufficient, or become less of a consumer.

Continuing the description of food and agricultural concepts, “health” was
defined as physical, mental, or spiritual well-being of humans, and data were identified
when the text stated a production scheme contributed to or deducted from the well-being
of humans. “Taste” was defined as expectations of freshness, flavor, color, and texture of
eggs of meat foods, and data were identified when the text stated that certain food has
superior taste or freshness, flavor, color, texture. “Organic” was defined as best practices
of growing food and raising animals that reduce or eliminate the use of chemicals, and
data were identified when the text stated the idea of organic, cultivation by organic
methods, or the benefit of food being free of antibiotics, pesticides, hormones. “Local”
was defined as proximate production of food, and data were identified when the text
mentioned the idea of local food, the people who champion this idea, or the proximate
cultivation including processing and packaging. “Ecological ethic” was defined as
concern for ecological sustainability, and data were identified when the text expressed a
concern for the environment and the necessity to protect it through ecologically sound or
sustainable practices that may involve energy efficiency or waste reduction.

“Community building” was defined as creating or strengthening relationships between
individuals and families within a neighborhood, and data were identified when the text
stated that raising chickens promoted the creation and strengthening of non-transactional
relationships between individuals and/or families within a neighborhood. “Household

budget” was defined as the acquisition, or balance, of resources (financial and otherwise)

36

at a h
mone

house

pets. ]
(Appe

aspet

their
the se
ClllCl'il
prntis
inhurr
PM is
Spaces
model
does c
mace
W de
(Itscn'j
Idea 0;

Cage g‘

at a household level; data were identified when the text stated that raising chickens saves

money or is costly, contributes income, or contributes eggs as a specific need for the

household.

Concepts developed with my understanding of animal studies literature included:
pets, personalities, humane, conceptualization of urban spaces, nuisance, and production
(Appendix B — Coding Tables). The “Pets” concept was defined as referring to chickens
as pets or companion animal, and data were identified when the text referred to a chicken
as a pet, referenced the chicken providing companionship, or used names to refer to an
individual chicken. “Personalities” was defined as the description of an individual
chicken’s personality, and data were identified when the text described the behavior or
the sentiment of an individual or a small group of chickens, or explicitly stated that
chickens have personalities. “Humane” was defined as ethical care and responsible
provisioning for chickens, and data were identified when the text referred to humane or
inhumane treatment, or described requirements for adequate or inadequate care and
provisioning which is linked to the animal’s well being. “Conceptualization of urban
spaces” was defined as conceptualization of urban space to be strictly human with
modem or progressive time dimensions; data were identified when the text stated what
does or does not belong in an urban area, or city should or should not be like, in terms of
space and time. “Nuisance” was defined as the idea of chickens as disturbances or pests,
and data were identified when the text explicitly termed chickens as pests or nuisances, or
described them as a disturbance to the neighborhood. “Production” was defined as the
idea of chickens as food, and data were identified when the text stated that chickens (rare

case goats) are livestock, farm animals, poultry, or mentioned eggs or chicken meat as

37

food (in rare cases milk and honey). The miscellaneous concept was used to collect
concepts and themes unaccounted for at the time, or stand-out negative cases (see

Validity/Reliability).

Themes, which focused on the presentation of the text, included: strong emotion,
ordinance, contention, and humor (Appendix B — Coding Tables). “Emotion” was
defined as emotion suggesting a bond of companionship between humans and chickens,
and data were found when the text used emotion as a descriptor of a relationship between
owner and chicken. “Contention” was defined as disagreement on any aspect of the
practice raising chickens; data were identified when the text described disputing opinions
or opposition between chicken owners, neighbors, and city officials about any aspect of
raising chickens. “Ordinance Information” was defined as current and proposed laws
prohibiting or allowing chickens and other animals in the city; data were identified when
the text described an ordinance allowing or disallowing chickens, or, listed further details
about stipulations and requirements of ordinances, zoning, permits, laws, city code, etc.
“Humor” was the use of humor related to the chicken or other farm animals, and data
were identified when the text used puns and metaphors or referenced common jokes,

fables or children’s songs related to chickens and other farm animals.

Analysis.

Data coding and repackaging was performed in the qualitative data analysis
software NVivo (QSR International, 2009). When the tags of concepts were applied in a
clear and consistent manner, the next step was repackaging the data. “Repackaging,”

means that the tags were used to pull data from each article, reduce and organize it in a

38

way that allowed something to be said about the research questions. The first step in data
reduction was to write summary statements for each concept and theme within an article.
For instance, NVivo pulled all data coded “pets” and organized the data segments
(paragraph level) under the author of each article. Then the researcher read the data, and
created a summary statement. The result was a “Repackaging memo” for each article

(Figure 1).

39

COIN

lneu

 

Memo- linked to Author...

Concept 1

Concept 2

Concept 3

 

Figure 1. Repackaging memo. This figure illustrates the document used to summarize
concepts and themes that occur within an article, one was created for each data unit
(newspaper article).

After summary statements for concepts and themes were written for each article a
display was created for each concept or theme to compare data across articles (Figure 2).
The display was ordered by concept (Miles & Huberrnan, 1994). This was a useful way
to organize the data so that I could easily look at information for a specific concept and
compared data across units. A grand summary statement was written at the bottom of
each column to represent how the concept or theme, as a whole, was portrayed across the

articles.

40

Fig
SUI

I?

C:

 

Article Concept‘l

 

Andrea Higgins

 

Anne Fisher

 

 

 

Ben Karp

 

Summary Statement -

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Concept-ordered display. This figure illustrates the document used to
summarize data for each concept or theme across data units (newspaper articles).

At this point, methodological questions were consulted to further guide the
analysis. The questions asked: “How does content or presentation: market dominant
ideologies, emphasize seriousness, blame parties, form identities, encourage action, or
make copy exciting?” These are certain aspects of the data deemed important by the
research methodology. Through a process of reflecting on the grand summary statement

and these methodological questions, conclusions were drawn.

Validity & Reliability

Maxwell describes validity as “the correctness or credibility of a description,
conclusion, explanation, interpretation, or other sort of account” (2005, p. 106). A
researcher may strive for the goal of validity by confronting specific qualitative validity

threats (ways I may be wrong) with evidence being collected throughout the research

41

"Seal
confr
be WI
categt
furrnl
and ti
of res:
stud) .
\‘alual

lI‘it’ill‘t‘l

project (Maxwell, 2005). In content analysis, the brunt of validity threats comes to bear
on the interpretation of text by the researcher and the drawing of conclusion from

analysis. This largely has to do with researcher bias.

Maxwell mentions two “validity tests” which are useful for this project.
“Searching for discrepant evidence and negative cases” is a valuable way to continually
confront the threat of researcher bias by attending to the evidence indicating ‘how might I
be wrong.’ One example of how this happened in this study was the use of miscellaneous
category to catch minority events that were divergent from hypothesis that I was
formulating. These negative cases were a constant reminder of ‘how I might be wrong’
and significantly affected how conclusions were drawn. Another way in which the threat
of researcher bias was attended to was the consultation of colleagues, from each area of
study, about the analysis in process. As Maxwell put it, “Asking other for feedback is a
valuable way to check your own biases and assumptions and flaws in your logic or

methods” (2005, p. 112).

The second validity test mentioned is the use of "quasi-statistics” as a way
researchers of content analysis can “assess the amount of evidence in your data that bear
on a particular conclusion or threat...” (Maxwell, 2005, p. 1 13). For instance
percentages are a common ways that researchers back-up the strength of a qualitative
conclusion; chickens are viewed as pets in 75% of all articles. In the end, Maxwell
contends, when designing and reporting on a qualitative study the research must report
“evidence that could challenge your conclusions or make the potential threats
implausible” (2005, p. 109) clearly and fully in order for those who are reading or
witnessing the research to judge if the conclusions are trustworthy or not.

42

A moment is necessary to discuss the relationship between reliability and validity.
Many quantitative content analysis studies use inter-coder reliability as a component of
the methods, which is directly related to the validity of the project. Maxwell describes
this relationship: “Quantitative and experimental researchers generally attempt to design,
in advance, controls that will deal with both anticipated and unanticipated threats to
validity” (2005, p. 107). This is the utility of reporting a measure of inter-coder
reliability. However, because my research design was built upon social constructionist
foundation contending that knowledge is constructed and emphasizing the interpretive
nature of data, it would go against its tenets to expect and strive for a high level of
agreement between researchers; in fact, it is the potential differences between researcher
interpretations that contribute to the validity of the study. Of course, this contribution

from differences can only be made if feedback from colleagues is sought.

Thinking more in terms of my research paradigm the process of inter-coder
agreement, in which a second researcher attempts to understand and apply codes in which
the primary research has designed, has great importance to the study. The negotiation
that occurs between researchers, attempting to understand codes and then apply them, can
greatly improve the definitional and operational clarity of the codes. First, this can
illuminate concepts or themes in which the researcher was overlooking. Second,
improving the operational clarity of the codes ensures that all relevant data makes its way
to the analysis. Reporting the process through which this happened (see Coding), the
number of iterations and changes, significant and seemingly insignificant, can improved
the trustworthiness of the analysis and conclusion, thus contributing to validity. It is for

these reasons, that a percentage of agreement will not be reported in this study.

43

Table

Appel

this is

pasa
articl
this ;

(title:

CHAPTER 4
Results

Data sources included 94 articles which were coded and analyzed for this study.
Table 1 shows all the data sources with date of publication and author (for full title see
Appendix C). The articles are numbered 1-94, from the oldest to the most recent article;
this is how the data sources are referenced in the results section. Figure 3 shows the
distribution of articles over the three years sampled. There is an increasing frequency
over the sample period. This chart is to simply familiarize the reader with the articles
sampled. No conclusions are drawn on the change of content or presentation across the
three years. The articles are primarily about urban chicken-keeping, although four
articles discuss other animals including bees, rabbits and goats. The results are organized
under each concept or theme for clarity. Data are presented primarily in the form of
passages from the news articles. The frequency in which the code occurred among
articles and titles also provide an idea of the centrality of concepts and themes throughout
this portion of the mass media (Table 2). Table 2 lists the occurrences in descending

order; this is the order in which concepts and themes are discussed.

44

rs -. . . .1ltl..t-l-.ll
EC U~2fi~ $592.37. ...~...A~ .\ .~\.\-\

0 l ..I It i l (_‘ aniflnr..- V I :f
21:;— ._ row-1.1 «.33»; A3.— NC . 5.0).1vuvé ’44.... £33». .3-.. 7 I \t N
cU241..— ::<. 3:39:01; . .-.I .C . 9..., v .17... _ £32331. CW
23.7.3.3. , O...» . II , -I I..- .1 5.42:5... 2:! ICCflLcfl; , rel

:.-?I:p— .hrvn.

 

.582
$9: 8 3020 82c woman?» 83%
Connemara: mo 55:“ new 5:853

mo cann— .mooSom Sum .~ oEeh

 

l

L‘

I!
u

 

 

 

Number of articles
a?

 

10 i . .. .
5 ..... I I I
I

0 I I- - I I ,,,,, I
egos» (($06 a 2: £9.64 6c“ Q®\\.é\ @Q 0‘56?) 56° (($995 «$0 $99 I
gséo $9 eei 90$” $9 99‘ (90636 3“ as“ i
3 month increments I

 

 

Figure 3. Frequency of newspaper articles over sample period. This figure illustrates the
number of newspaper articles published from May 2006 to May 2009.

46

Table 2. Concept and theme occurrences. Number of times a concept or theme occurred
among the sample of newspaper articles listed in descending order.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Concept and Theme Occurrence
Concept/Theme Article
Occurrence

Ordinance Information 91
Food Production 84
Contention 83
Nuisance 79
Urban Space 66
Pets 62
Ecological Ethic 60
Humane 60
Humor 55
Food and Agriculture Knowledge 42
Taste 38
Health 38
Regain Control 33
Household Budget 30
Livestock 3O
Personalities 26
Local 24
Emotion 23
Community 22
Organic 18
Distrust of Industrial Agriculture 16

 

 

 

Ordinances Information

Discussion of ordinances or the legality of raising chickens was present in 91 of
the total 94 articles in the sample. Of these, 50 titles indicated the subject of legality.
This demonstrated the centrality of the topic within the data. The data under this concept
defined the function of ordinances—to protect the public from health threats and

nuisance, thus preventing complaints. One passage read:

In Salt Lake County, the chicken-raising movement has the backing of Mayor

Peter Corroon, who argues the proposed ordinance for urban hens would promote

47

sustainable living, while including sufficient safeguards to protect health and

minimize any neighborhood nuisance. (75)

This function was used in many articles to justify allowing or disallowing animals, or

regulation of its practice.

The discussion of ordinances and other rules imply direction to ordinance trends,
changing or drafting new ordinances to allow or disallow chickens and other livestock.
This was done by citing other cities’ policies and recent changes in rules. Articles that
provided direction (of ordinance trends) referenced cities with long-standing chicken
friendly ordinances, or ones that have recently changed to allow chickens (46 %). A
typical example states, “The majority of large cities allow chicken-keeping, with
conditions. Detroit, Portland, Maine, and Washington, DC, are among the few that don't.
New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago all allow an unlimited number” (47). Even
though this passage mentioned cities that prohibit chickens, the use of “majority allow”
and “few don’t” relays direction. There were also articles that solely reported on
surrounding cities that did not allow or had recently banned chickens and/or other

livestock (1 7 %).

This data also frequently referred to the persistence of this practice despite legal
prohibitions. For example, an article titled “Chicken Noise has Some Within Cities
Crying Foul, Owners Maintain Urban Birds Despite Laws,” reported, “Clucking chickens
and early-rising roosters persist in some Northwest Arkansas subdivisions, despite cities

giving urban chickens the heave-ho long ago” (37). In addition to this, there were many

48

F0

pr:

DU

su;

6X}

C0

to:
alsc
the
con

Oldc'

accounts of people being caught raising chickens when it was illegal; this suggests the

same type of persistence.
Food Production

Eggs were the most prominent motivation for raising chickens. A majority of
articles presented the concept of eggs, meat, milk and honey as food (95 %). The food
products, primarily eggs, of this small-scale practice were recognized to be superior in
nutrition, taste, ecological soundness and humane treatment of animals when compared to
conventional products. There was often a sense of appreciation and pride for this

superior product. For instance, one passage read,

For Chris Magnuson of Robbinsdale, it's satisfying to cook with eggs laid by her
three hens. ‘I feel more connected and pride of ownership,’ she said. ‘When I

make pancakes, I love cracking our own chicken eggs.’ (25)

My discussion ofsubsequent concepts (taste, health, ecological ethic, and humane)

explore additional reasons for this sense of pride in the home-raised products.

Contention

The concept of contention was present in 88% of the articles sampled and
contained information about disputes over some aspect of urban chicken ownership. It
also contained accounts of law enforcement upon the owners of illegal chickens within
the city limits; the enforcement of ordinances was usually a result of neighbor
complaints. The neighbor complaint resulted in a “city response,” which was typically an

order to remove birds from the city limits. In some cases, enforcement agencies granted

49

temporary allowance while the city revisited the ordinance. The city response caused a
“resident response.” This consisted of appealing to the city to keep the chickens, usually
in the way of an appeal to the city council or attempts to secure a zoning variance. A

typical account was presented as follows:

They were surprised to get a Sept. 5 letter from the city saying a complaint had
been received. The planning and zoning office said the chickens and coop
violated zoning allowing animal husbandry in agricultural, but not residential

districts, of the city.

The city told the Dorstens in a Sept. 29 letter the rooster's departure was not
enough. The code does not allow administrators to consider the intent of the

owners, such as raising a farm animal versus keeping a pet.

An appeal of zoning administrators' order was filed Tuesday, Oct. 14, with a
Board of Zoning Appeals hearing set Oct. 28. If the Dorstens don't like the board

decision, they can appeal to court. (53)

In these accounts many chicken owners attempted to organize to change the laws

prohibiting chickens.

Various nuisances were usually reported as the cause of initial complaints.
Nuisances are discussed further in the next section. In addition to nuisances the articles
presented other social factors as attributing to neighbor conflict. Class and culture
clashes were noted by a few articles as contributing to neighbor conflict and the

perception of raising chickens.

50

David Garcias, Imperial Beach's code compliance officer, said he gets about a
dozen complaints a year regarding backyard chickens. Garcias said many involve
Latino and Asian immigrants who may not realize what was allowed in their

home countries is not allowed in Imperial Beach.

Class bigotry seems to be the unstated force behind most urban chicken
opposition, said Dennis Harrison-Noonan, a chicken owner and carpenter from
Madison, Wis. Harrison-Noonan has kept busy building coops since his city

allowed backyard chickens in 2004. (34)

The discussion of class was not a common occurrence, but its presence is worth noting.

Nuisance

Nuisance was also a prevalent concept, it occurred in 88 0/0 of the articles
sampled. Nuisances related to keeping urban chickens included odor, noise, attraction of
pests or predators, loose animals, sight of slaughter and transmission of disease. Many of
the articles openly discussed these nuisances. For example, one article reported, “On the
other hand, there are chicken foes who worry about whether the animals would be noisy,
smelly and attract pests” (61). In addition to this, stipulations of model and proposed
ordinances discussed within the articles made nuisances evident. Stipulations included a
limit to the number of animals, rooster bans, enclosure requirements, and required

distances from neighbor’s pr0perty.

Public health and the transmission of disease was a stand-out concern. The
presentation of risk from raising urban chickens varied considerably. The testimony on

the transmission of common bacterial and viral vectors ranged from a drastic increase in

51

risk to marginal risk with the proper management of birds and manure. Also, there was

discussion of avian flu. For example, one article read,

Gary Riggs, a veterinarian in Barberton, Ohio, who specializes in birds, says
backyard chickens are at higher risk for avian flu because they are not ‘under the
intense bio-security control that commercial producers have.’ It's a good idea for
cities to require permits, he says, so they can react quickly if there's a flu

outbreak. (12)

An opposing presentation of risk is viewed in another article, which read,

Thomason said there is no bird flu in the United States. Also keeping chickens in
backyards would be a controlled environment and preventing the mixing of wild
ducks and geese and chickens reduces transmission in the case of an outbreak of

avian flu, he said. (1)

These are drastically different accounts of risk. The newsprint media discussion
expressed public concern and proposed measures to minimize risk, such as roofs on

enclosures and permitting to track the presence of animals.

Conceptualization of Urban Spaces

The articles held a range of conceptualizations about cities; the concept of
conceptualization of urban spaces was present in 70 % of the articles sampled. Some
articles portrayed chickens and other livestock as not belonging in the city. One article
reported a resident saying, “We live in a city. They belong on a farm,” (59) and another

read, “I moved to the city to have nothing to do with that style of life, and here it is

coming to my back yard” (25). There were general concerns about noise and smell of
farm animals, and roosters were especially unwelcome because of noise. There was also
fear that chickens would lead to other livestock in the city. For instance, one council
member described it as a “slippery slope,” (30) and an animal control officer said, “When
we go out and tell them they can’t have chickens at all in Springdale, they are usually
surprised, but if we let chicken in, it would lead to pigs and then goats and we can’t let
that happen” (37). Overall, this perspective viewed raising chickens as a rural activity,
which was incongruous, inappropriate, disrupting, and/or incompatible with an urban

setting. This perspective was present in 29 out of 66 articles containing this concept.

Another perspective in the articles viewed raising chickens as a rural activity that
should be allowed in the city. One article reported a chicken owner saying, “I wanted to
bring a little bit of the country into the city” (47). One newspaper had a news series with
this theme. It explained this as, “In our occasional series, Country in the City, we'll
explore how once-popular rural practices are taking hold in cities and suburbs. Later this
spring and into summer, we'll take a look at the resurgence of vegetable gardening and
the upswing of interest in keeping bees” (25). The appeal of keeping chickens under this
perspective was the idea that the practice was revolutionary, radical, novel or counter-

cultural.

Yet another perspective viewed chicken-keeping as belonging in cities now, as

well as in the past, as a practice with merit. One article read:

Some people. . .they kind of like the nostalgia of keeping chickens in their yard

because their great-grandparents did, or a lot of people say, ‘bringing a little

53

PC

country into the city,’ I don’t see it that way. I don’t think it should be black or
white. I see some gray there, that you can have a lot of urban gardening for
people to at least supplement their food supply, if not produce a good amount of

it. (36)

Passages falling into this category often countered allegations of noise and smell
associated with chickens by comparing them to acceptable urban pets and wildlife (see
Pet vs. Livestock). This perspective was present in 41 out of 66 articles containing this

concept.

A slightly different way of viewing what does and does not belong in urban areas
was to consider urban chicken-keeping as either progressive or regressive. Some data
recognized that this was once a popular practice but claimed that times have changed.

For example, one article reported a councilman as saying:

I grew up in the center of Lebanon, between Sixth and Seventh (streets), and we
had a grocery store. And we had chickens. Over the period of years, Lebanon has
changed, (and) unfortunately many people today in the urban community don’t

take care of their properties the way they should. (72)

Other passages acknowledged raising chickens as a dated practice but also recognized its

persistence. One reporter reflected:

When US. District Judge Harold Barefoot Sanders died last year at 83, The New
York Times remarked that he was born ‘in a Dallas young enough for little H.B.
to raise chickens in the back yard.’ Well, my kids are doing so today in our back

yard; it's legal to have hens in Dallas, but not roosters. (68)

54

CG

CG

SE

th

CI

Others passages presented raising chickens as a progressive practice because of its
contribution to efforts striving to create ecological sustainability and healthy

communities.
Pets vs. Livestock

The articles held a set of concepts that looked at the representation of the chicken.
One of the most apparent representations was the conflicting notions of chickens as
livestock and chickens as pets. A pet versus livestock was an open debate due to its
assumed relevance to rules and ordinances. One article recognized this by saying,
“Because they straddle the line between livestock and pets, chickens are allowed in some
unexpected places” (1 9). Mostly attributed to the chicken-owners, many articles
presented chickens as pets (66 % of articles). Sometimes the reports referred to the
chickens directly as pets. In one passage, an owner attempted to persuade the reporter by
saying, “They have names. They are our pets” (34). Other passages stated it as if it was
commonly agreed upon, “They’re really easy pets,” (36). Moreover, others argued that
chickens and goats are superior pets. For example, discussing a goat, this passage read,
“Now they’re [neighbors] like, ‘He’s better than a dog. He doesn’t bark” (43). The
articles also suggested that chickens are pets through names. For example, a reporter
said, “The hens are Lu-Lu, Lady Penelope, Dorothy and Trudy. Then there is Scrappy,
the aptly named rooster that rules the coop behind Shelly Danko-Day’s house in
Highland Park” (57). As pets the hens had a productive role but the articles also

emphasize that role of providing companionship.

55

dis

31

If

an

1h

CC

SE

Many articles represented chickens as livestock or farm animals (32 0/0 of
articles). This terminology was used in variety of contexts but especially when
discussing permitting and ordinances. For instance, one article reported, “’There is quite
a movement,’ says Doug Kelley, director of Denver Animal Care and Control, which
issues city permits for livestock such as chickens” (80), or, “The city ordinance
regulating the owning of farm animals was written in 1994 and forbids all nondomestic
animals, including cattle, swine, sheep, goats, fowl and horses” (72). In some instances,
the representation as livestock had a negative connotation, such as this passage, "My
concern is the value of my house. . .We're talking about livestock” (3 7). Giving a similar
negative connotation, one article read, “They believe they [chickens] are farm animals

and believe they should stay on the farm” (66).
Ecological Ethic

The articles presented one motivation to raising urban chickens as a concern for
the environment. The concept of environmental ethics occurred in 67 % of the articles
sampled. Ecological services provided by chickens included the reduction of food waste,
manure for fertilizer, and insect or weed control. One article reported, “Olivia's mother,
Stacey Collins, added that she will use the chicken droppings as compost for her garden,
and then feed the chickens older vegetables” (1 7). The data presented these services as
having specific appeal to gardeners; they recognized chicken keeping and gardening as
interrelated activities. Following from the last example, the report continued, "It's really
quite a lovely circle of being able to use things and keep nature the way it should be”
(17). Broader goals often stated in the data included “reducing carbon footprint by
saving fuel from food transport” and "getting back to nature.” The data also associated

56

the practice with a sustainable lifestyle. For instance, a reporter summarized, “They
describe chickens as a fun and feathery part of an environmental, self-reliant lifestyle”

(35).
Humane

The welfare of hens was presented as a concern in the majority of articles. The
concept of humane occurred in 63 % of articles sampled. Some owners explicitly stated
that their practice, of raising urban chickens, was more humane than industrial
production. For example, one article read, “I can raise (chickens) in a more humane way.
Have you ever seen how they treat those chickens on those (commercial) farms? It’s
awful” (57). Other passages displayed a strong sense of responsibility to provide good
conditions and treatment for their hens. For instance, one article read, “Chickens are very
sensitive to getting sick. It’s important keeping the poop cleaned up and the air
circulating and giving them enough room and clean water,” (46). Another article read,
“Probably the biggest deal is setting up your coop, getting your area prepared for you
animals before you get them, because they need to have adequate space” (3 6). However,
there were a few instances in which the data portrayed a lack of concern for chicken
welfare. For example, one article described a chicken-owners experience when she failed

to properly secure her chicken coop. It read:

Noble’s seven-member brood was thinned out considerably in July, when five
were killed by weasels, she said. The same predator later got the two initial
survivors, she said. Noble plans to get more chickens in spring, and said she will

put a door on the coop. ‘Live and learn,’ she said. (57)

57

Overall, the data emphasized the proper treatment of chickens and the value of chicken

lives, even though this passage suggests otherwise.
Humor

Humor was another way of representing chickens and other animals in these
articles. The concept of hLunor was present in 59 % of the articles sampled. This
included puns, jokes, metaphors and references to songs and folklore. The use of humor
was common in titles (40 % of articles) as well as in the body of articles (40 % of
articles). The humorous remarks were mostly about chicken or animal behavior.
Examples of titles that used this type of humor include: “Mankato council scratches
urban chickens proposal,” “Chickens routed from roost, for now: West Side henhouse
runs afoul of city ban,” “Residents of city crow about their chickens,” “Chicken policies
peeking at council,” and “Couple’s chickens ruffle city feathers.” In addition to this,
there were food-related uses of humor. For instance, one article read, “Still, you can't
make an omelet without breaking a few bureaucratic eggs. And Tobias says she still plans
to offer a second. class at the Gardens on June 7” (21). Similarly another article read,
“There are plenty of ways to rebuild a city. The universal message: Don't put all your
eggs in one basket” (77). Occasionally, puns had to do with the femaleness of hens.
Title demonstrating this include: “Hot Chicks: Legal or Not, Chickens are the chic new
backyard addition” and “Urban chickens: Crowing rooster spoiled the hen party at a

Hillside home.”

58

 

Distant Production

There were three interrelated concepts having to do with distant agricultural
production. The concept of food and agriculture knowledge, which states that people are
disconnected with the knowledge of where their food comes from and there is a desire to
reconnect through practice, occurred in 45 % of the articles sampled. On many
occasions, the data cited raising urban chickens as one way to reconnect. One article

reported:

On the other hand, Ms. F orys sees owning chickens as a way to reconnect with
where her meals come from. ‘Over the past two generations we’ve become
completely separated from our food,’ she said. ‘There’s something really wrong

with that.’ (20)

Youth were of particular interest in discussing the absence of this knowledge; chicken-
keeping was presented as a way to re-instill this food knowledge. On raising urban
chickens, one article read, “It's been great for my daughter and her friends who don't have
an appreciation [for] where food comes from,” and later, “It’s education at its most basic
to know where food comes from” (67). The articles provided many sources of further
information on the subject of raising backyard or urban chickens including classes, tours,

websites, books, and magazines.

A minority of articles contained the concept of distrust in industrial agriculture;
17 % of articles sampled presented this criticism of industrial agriculture. The data
contained general criticisms such as, “concerns about mass food production” (3 6) or

“major reservations about industrial agriculture” (25). They also mentioned specific

59

problems with the food system such as food safety, humane treatment of animals, food
security, rising prices of food, and provision of quality (further detail provided in other
sections). Raising hens was presented as a practice to cope with the distrust in industrial

agriculture or mass produced foods. As explained in this article:

For this generation of backyard farmers, the attraction is not so much a desire for
an endless supply of free eggs or even nostalgia for a lost way of life. Rather, it's
driven by growing disgust among a segment of the population for industrial mass-

produced food. (70)

These reports presented chicken-keeping as helping to ease concerns and worries about

the one or all of the issues listed above.

Simply stated, raising chickens for eggs was presented as part of growing your
own food. This concept, occurring in 35 % of the articles sampled, was often described
as “raising your own food,” being “self-sufficient-reliant-sustaining,” or having “more
control” over food. This was a shifi to viewing urban dwellers as producers, as this
article read, “Right now, we usually buy them [eggs] at the growers market or someplace
local. But we thought we'd try it ourselves.” (36). While the data consistently supported
the goal of self-sufficient citizens, not all data agreed that raising urban chickens was a
necessary part of achieving this goal. In one example, a person saw the practice as
unnecessary. The passage read: “For people who want fresh eggs, we have the Farmers
Market that we're investing in and farmers outside town who we're supporting through
our greenbelt program” (30). Other negative cases similarly supported people being able

to grow their own food but not raise urban chickens. This was rare.

6O

 

Taste

Within the articles, supporters of this practice lauded the eggs, meat and milk for
its superior quality. The concept of taste occurred in 4O % of the articles sampled. This
was done by simply using “fresh” as a descriptor of the eggs or by giving an in-depth
description of superior flavor, texture and color. One report read, “I have to tell you that
the eggs are wonderful. . .When you bake with them, they're so much fluffier. They taste
better. The yolks are really this beautiful orange-yellow color” (36). A common way
this appeared in articles was by comparison between home-raised and store-bought
products. For example, “There are others, of course, who just want some nice scrambled
eggs for breakfast, and nearly everyone agrees that fresh eggs taste better. . .Much
better. . .The thought of buying a store-bought egg? I can't go back” (93). Only one
article reported that not everyone can taste the difference between home-raised and store-

bought

Health

Food from raising one‘s own chickens is viewed as healthier; the concept of
health occurred in 44 % of the articles sampled. This was presented as “higher nutrition,”

“more wholesome,” “free of preservatives.” For example, one passage read:

The best part is, the more weeds, grass, and insects your chickens munch, the
healthier they, and your eggs will be. (Recent trials by Mother Earth News
showed pastured, homegrown eggs to be vastly higher in omega-3s, beta-

carotene, and Vitamin E, and lower in cholesterol, than factory-farmed eggs). (1 1)

61

There were many similar claims with less supporting evidence. On occasion, the practice
of raising chickens, and urban farming in general, was presented as a path to greater
community health. There was only one article that reported an opposing view on the
health and safety of backyard eggs. In this passage a chicken-owner discussed the
members of her household, it read, “They'll eat the eggs, and if I'm gone for a few days,
they'll help, although some of my roommates are more scared of eggs from the back yard
than from the grocery store” (25). Generally, this practice was associated with healthy
living. The title of one article read, “Urban chickens the latest healthful living trend”

(93). This distinction is slight but worth making.

Household Budget

Some practitioners sold extra eggs to neighbors, crossing the line of community-
based interaction to a transactional relationship. The concept of house hold budget
occurred in 34 % of the articles; this frame reported the practice as a way to supplement
income or groceries. However, there were conflicting reports on whether this was a
cheap, costly or a break-even activity. A reporter did the math saying, “It isn’t a money
making operation when dealing with small flocks. Blake said it costs more to feed the
chickens than the couple will likely get back in eggs. He pays $16 for a 50-pound bag of
feed” (34). Other passages claimed that keeping chickens saved money on grocery bills.
The cost of this activity also depended on the desired quality of the egg: as a source of

cheap protein or “top of the line” organic eggs.

The current cost/benefit analysis was sometimes irrelevant. In some cases, the

practice of raising chickens was a form of preemptive self-sufficiency in the face of rising

62

food costs. One article reported, “I think, in the long run, food is going to get more
expensive, so I try to grow as much as I can. . .I like eggs, and I'm trying to not patronize
grocery stores as much” (57). Expenses involved in raising chickens were reported to
include chicks or chickens, equipment and monthly feed. The largest, and most variable,

expense was the chicken coop.

Personalities

The concept of personalities, which suggested that chickens were represented as
having personalities, occurred in 28 % of the articles sampled. This was explicitly stated
in some instances. For example, one article read, “People think chickens are dumb, but

999

they have lots of ‘chickenality (46). Chickens were generally described as being
entertaining and docile. In addition to this, individual personality traits were listed. A

reporter wrote:

For Watts, chickens cross the road from livestock to pets, with distinct
personalities. Buttercup is a big eater; Effie is adventurous; Minnie is the beauty;
Tilda is small and sweet; and bossy Meg is tops in the pecking order. Watts looks
forward to the day when the fugitives can resume their ‘eggcellent’ adventure in

the backyard coop. (77)

This passage also demonstrates the typical relatedness of personalities to previously

discussed concept of pet.

Descriptions of typical and unique chicken behavior were common. This
included descriptions of rooster calls, the softer hen noises, scratching in the dirt, and

observations about social hierarchy. But there were also unique behaviors and rituals

63

 

reported. A reporter described an owner saying, “She coos about how they recognize her
when she enters the pen, how one in particular likes to jump into her arms” (49), or,
“Every morning, the hens greet her with three fresh eggs and purr and bawk for treats --

plump raisins they eat from her palm” (23); these are both seemingly unique interactions.

The claim to personality and unique descriptions of behavior gave a sense of
individuality to chickens. However, one passage gave an opposing representation. The

article that read:

One Australian company took a different approach to that. Rentachook, founded
six years ago, is basically a ‘chicken rental’ business. Customers buy two hens
and a coop, plus a feeder, waterer, food and straw but can return the animals and
equipment within six weeks if they find it's more than they can handle. Rentals

are $360, of which all but $100 is refundable. (55)

Rather than reinforcing a perspective of individuality, this showed chickens as an

expendable commodity. This representation was rare.

Local

The lifestyle association was even more prominent with the concept of local food;
this concept occurred in 26 % of the articles sampled. Raising urban chickens was
viewed as a closely associated trend to local food, as part of the local food movement or
local living. One article read, “Growing interest in the local food movement and urban
farming has made city chickens a hot issue nationally” (78). Another article reported,

“Fresh eggs are the latest rage hatched by urban local food enthusiasts who say nothing

64

 

 

beats an egg with a deep golden yolk, still warm from the henhouse” (85). This was the

sole way the idea of local food was presented.

Other “types” of people, which are not mutually exclusive to the local types
previously presented, associated with urban chicken-raising were youth in 4—H raising
animals to show in county and state fairs and recent immigrants. These were rarely

mentioned, only in a few articles.

Emotion

One way the presentation of the articles contributed to the representation of the

 

chicken was through emotion. The concept of emotion occurred in 24 % of the articles
sampled. Drawing upon the pet-like relationship, emotion was used to suggest the bond
of companionship. On occasion positive emotions such as love or friendship were used
to describe the relationship between the humans and the laying hens. One article
reported, “We really love these four,” and “They are so sweet and loving...” (60).
Negative emotions described situations in which the owner had to part with the chickens,

a chicken was hurt, or a chicken went missing. For example, one article read:

‘It makes me sad, but at the same time, the good thing is ifI can get the law
changed, then they won't be illegal anymore,’ she said, during a recent afternoon

visit to their pen. She gave Lila, top hen in the pecking order, a nuzzle. (4)

Community

The practice of raising chickens was presented in some articles as a community-

building activity. The concept of community was present in 23 % of the articles sampled.

65

This typically involved sharing eggs, but keeping chickens also allowed community
members to share knowledge, experiences, stories, work, and gatherings. One report

read:

Chickens are good for the life of the city. My chickens get people talking to each
other, talking to me. Children in the area are interested in the chickens. Elderly
resident remember growing up with chickens when they were young. Chickens

really are a good community builder. (23)

Children were involved in many of the claims to community-building through chicken-
keeping (12 out of 24 articles). One article read, “It's been fascinating. . .All my
neighbors know about them, and some of the neighborhood kids love to come over and

collect the eggs. They're really curious about them, and they love to feed them” (94).
Organic

Organic eggs were often presented as a motivation and benefit of raising
chickens; the concept of organic occurred in 19 % of the articles sampled. Chicken-
keepers with this motivation wanted food free of unwanted chemicals, hormones and
additives. In addition to this, urban chicken-keeping and organic living were presented as
associated and mutually increasing trends. For example, one article reported, "The
biggest growth I see is the organic group that wants to know where their eggs are
from. . .A lot of urban people fall into that family" (14) or “The measure is headed back to
a council committee so aldermen can further discuss what to do about the birds that are

part of a growing organic food trend in cities” (12).

66

l

CHAPTER 5

Discussion

This section discusses the results, places the findings in conversation with the
literature already introduced, draws conclusions about the impact of newsprint media on
the readers, and states its implications for food movements and further research.
Empirical, theoretical and methodological literatures are used as starting points for the
discussion. This evokes knowledge already produced so that this study may build on it,
and calls to mind ways in which researchers have studied newsprint media to guide

conclusions drawn in the current study.

The results point to interesting conclusions about how newsprint media portray
this alternative practice to readers. Specifically, the results demonstrate how the mass
media market dominant perspectives of livestock and agriculture as “out of place” and
unwelcome in cities. They also mischaracterize the practice of keeping urban chickens
solely as part of new local and organic food movements. However, the results also
suggest that mass media hold alternative perspectives on livestock and agriculture in the
cities, and, on some levels, encourage the acceptability of urban chicken-keeping and

further citizen action to allow for the practice.

Stating the implications for food movements is particularly important to this
study. This study does not intend to critique the way news is reported. Journalist seek
stories that are newsworthy and should not be criticized for overlooking aspects of
phenomenon that social scientist find important and interesting. However, recognizing

this, the discussion hopes to identify gaps in the mass media portrayal of urban chicken-

67

 

keeping and state possible implications this has for alternative food and agriculture
movements, so that in the end, practitioners may disseminate information to supplement

the mass media portrayal.

The discussion is organized into two sections: how the public is reading food and
agriculture movements, and, the discursive forces in media. These two sections were
arrived at through reflection on results and the definitions of discourse. The results for
concepts and themes of the study and organized into a mind map (Figure 4). Some
concepts were strongly related, others were less so, and some were not related at all. This

process allowed me, as the researcher, to view the interaction of concepts and themes,

 

leading to a useful way to organize the discussion. The concepts and themes settled into

two groups; results spoke to either Habermas’ or Foucault’s definition of discourse.

68

 

 

 

 

 
  
  

Personalities pets Discurswe forces

 

 

Humor

  
   
 
 
    
   
 
      

Ordinance
lnfonnation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conceptualization Local
of Urban Space .
Nuisance Ecological Organic
I Health

  

Household
Budget

 

Community
'.-»

»v~
Distrust of ‘ f ‘
Industrial Regain
Agriculture ‘ Control . Kngxlcecdge
Taste

Reading food and agriculture movements

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

M0“? 'e'ated ................................... 5393mm" 0‘
two sections

 

Less related

 

 

 

Figure 4. Mind map of results. This figure illustrates the final organization of results
under concepts and themes as the researcher interpreted them to relate to each other,
producing two sections: “Reading food and agriculture movement” and “Discursive

forces.”

Public Reading of Food and Agriculture Movements

Findings elaborate on how the public is reading food and agriculture movements.
This section of results relates back to Habermas’ definition of discourse as the way we
attempt to reach understanding on important issues. Data under concepts developed as
food and agriculture spoke to how the alternative food movement is interpreted by

readers who are unfamiliar. The results demonstrate that the interpretation is a

69

superficial, glossy presentation with little depth. Newsprint media do a poor job of

describing the underlying motivations of the alternative food movement.

Three main conclusions were drawn related to how the public reads food and
agriculture movements through newsprint media on backyard chickens. First, media are
diagnostic and prognostic of the industrial food system; the solution characterized in
keeping urban chickens. Second, media provide a generalized identity for urban chicken
keepers. Third, media market a set of alternative values but do so alongside conventional

motivations and means.
Distant production, Problems and Personal Solutions.

Backyard chicken-keeping is framed as a personal solution to distant production
but not presented as contributing to systemic change. The concepts of distant production
emphasize media’s competency with alternative food discourse, including the use of
Kloppenburg et al. and Lyson’s ideas of distancing. Data under “food and agricultural
knowledge” presented the absence of knowledge about food production, and the skills to
produce, as a widely acknowledged problem. The articles contain a wide range of
specific concerns about conventional food production including ecological sustainability,
health, taste, and the humane treatment of animals; food production which does not take

these values into consideration is a problem.

The practice of raising chickens is presented as one way to counter the
undesirable effects of “distancing” and cope with concerns about industrial food
production. This is largely framed as a personal solution, calming anxieties and

educating children. Researchers determined that journalists strive to maintain good

70

 

 

standing with common sources, including many corporate and governmental entities
(Miller & Reichart, 2000). In this way journalist tend to maintain the status quo, in the
context of this study industrial agriculture is the status quo. Recognizing this, urban
chicken keeping is not presented as being able to challenge the dominance of industrial

agriculture; the practice is not recognized as contributing to systemic change.

Another way to discuss this relationship, focus on individual rather than systemic
change, is the newsprint media’s presentation of a more self-sufficient urban dweller.
The articles fail to connect this individual self-sufficiency to broader change within the
food system. A few passages directly undercut the systemic change potential of this
practice by viewing it as completely unnecessary. One article pointed-out that fresh eggs

are always available at the farmers market.

Through this thesis I strived to present, as Blecha has through her research, urban
chicken-keeping as an alternative space of production to maintain culture ties or express
dissatisfaction with dominant food systems. Scholars of alternative economics and food
geographies acknowledge the doubt associated with small spaces of hope to be
transforrnative against the prevailing powers of the dominant system (Holloway, 2007).
The presentation of newsprint media on urban chicken-keeping echo this doubt of
transforrnative potential, viewing it as only being able to confront the immediate effects

of food system distancing.

Identity formation, local and organic types.

Local and organic “types,” or the stereotypical people associated with local and

organic causes, are presented as the generalized identity of urban chicken keepers but this

71

 

 

is a narrow view of actual participants of the practice. The presentation within newsprint
media strongly typifies the person who raises urban chickens. To a lesser degree, data
under concepts of ecological ethic, health, and taste present urban chicken-raising as part
of a sustainable, healthy, new-urban cuisine lifestyle. Furthermore, the pervasive
association of the practice with local and organic types elaborated on the narrow

definition of who are raising chickens in urban areas.

Jennifer Blecha (2007) noted the practice of urban chicken keeping among white,
well-educated, middle- and upper-middle class residents of Seattle and Portland. This
identity is re-enforced and this audience targeted through the presentation of these
articles. The literature on urban livestock agriculture in North America identifies a
diverse population of practitioners including “working” or lower—class and recent
immigrants hoping to maintain links to their culture and rural life (Gaynor, 1999; Bellows
et a1, 2000; Wolch & Lassiter, 2002). These practitioners were nearly absent from news
print media. Few divergent “types” are associated with the practice or urban livestock.
Possible examples are youth raising chickens with 4-H and recent immigrants, but these
representations are sparse. Newsprint media portray a relatively narrow scope of people

keeping backyard chickens. This mischaracterizes the practice of urban chicken-raising.

Considering alternative food practices and urban agriculture as oppositional
movements, activist-scholars have put forth an agenda of social inclusivity and equity;
this is a large part of the movement’s identity. Patricia Allen (2004) discusses the way in
which historically dominant ideologies have reinforced inequalities in race, gender and
class, some of which the alternative agri-food movement has not addressed or overcome
sufficiently. The media present a partial identity of urban chicken keepers which

72

 

conflicts with reality and the all-inclusive identity alternative food movement claims.
The homogenous presentation of urban chicken-keepers in media is potentially damaging
to broader alternative food movement recruitment and action. Associating this practice
with “new” food movements also downplays the historical persistence of the practice in

urban areas. This will be discussed in length in the following sections.

Alternative Values alongside Conventional Motivations and Means.

Newsprint media on backyard chickens strongly markets alternative food values
through concepts of ecological ethic, humane, taste, health and community. However,
they presented individualistic motivations and promoted pet-keeping as a means, which is
rather acceptable or conventional. For instance, many articles presented one benefit of
raising chickens as the abundance of eggs to share with neighbors which has a
community-building effect. Improving neighborhoods and communities through learning
about and growing food is an important objective of alternative food movements. Urban
chicken keeping is presented as a community-building activity but also framed as a way
to save and make money. The media discuss the cost/benefit analysis of raising eggs and

selling the eggs to neighbors.

In her study Blecha (2007) concluded that the relatively small amount of attention
paid to the cost/benefit analysis by the peOple raising chickens was evidence that
practitioners were operating by non-capitalist economics. The focus of eggs for income
is interpreted as evidence of a re-injection of capitalist values or a focus on transactional
relationships within food markets. In this way, the newsprint media market the social

value of community but also appeal to the individualism that capitalism supports. Pet-

73

 

 

keeping is the promoted means to pursue these alternative food values, such as
community, ecological sustainability, and health, and is socially acceptable and non-

threatening to the status quo of industrial agriculture.

Discursive Forces at Work in Media

In this second section, the findings relate back to Foucault’s definition of
discourse as power-knowledge that regulate people thinking and their relationships. Data
demonstrate the presence of dominant perspectives which spoke to the regulation
Foucault discusses in his definition. Furthermore, the centrality of ordinances to the
media discussion took regulation from a discursive realm to a practical realm. Meaning
the centrality of ordinance contained information about how discursive forces govern our
thinking and how this translates to the actual placement of activities. Dominant
perspectives on urban space and dominant ways of categorizing animals largely regulate

the reader’s thinking.

Three main conclusions were drawn about how discursive forces are at work
through newsprint media. First, media present dominant and alternative perspectives on
the proper placement of agriculture and animals. Second, the legality of keeping
chickens is central in the media, but cases of resistance and change are also present.
Third, the categorization of chickens as livestock or as pets impacts human identities, the
social acceptability of the practice, and the moral context of human—animal

relationships.

74

 

 

Conceptualization of Urban Space.

There is a range of conceptualizations of urban space including both dominant
and alternative perspectives within the newsprint media on urban chicken keeping. This
research finds further evidence of the pervasiveness of the dominant perspective of
livestock as “out of place” in urban areas but also finds elements that begin to dismantle
the perspective’s hold on society. The potential effects of this on the readers are L

discussed.

The dominant perspective, of livestock as “out of place” in urban areas, is present

 

in the newsprint media. The historical development of this perspective is explained in J
animal geographies and urban agriculture literatures (Philo, 1995; Mugeot, 2005, Schiere

et al 2006). Within newsprint media this perspective is taken for granted in order for the

reporter to say something beyond the “obvious.” As Oliver and Johnston noted, “Frames

are an aspect of cultural knowledge, stored in memory, that permit social actors to move

in and out of different experiences as if they were not completely new” (2000, p. 40). In

the same way journalist accept the notion of livestock as out of place in cities as common

knowledge. There is little need to explain why residents may be upset about chickens

moving in next-door; rather the onus is placed on defending the practice. Even some

supporters of urban chicken-keeping subscribe to this dominant perspective, being

attracted by its “radical” nature. This overlooks the historical persistence of urban

 

livestock agriculture, which urban agriculture literature states very clearly: urban

livestock has always been part of city life (Schiere, et al., 2006).

75

The alternative perspective of agriculture and animals as having advantages and
disadvantages is also present. The assumed cultural knowledge of the dominant
perspective is contested within newsprint media. Resistance to this perspective is evident
in arguments within media that begin to dismantle this dominant perspective.
Comparisons of livestock to acceptable pets and wildlife in cities expose the flaws in the
dominant perspective logic. For instance, the noise of chickens is compared to cackling
crows or barking dogs. The alternative perspective views noise and usable manure as
reasonable trade-offs for the benefits of healthier, environmentally sound, better tasting,
more humane eggs and animal companionship.

Maintaining the status quo, of urban spaces too, suggests that the dominant
perspective in newsprint media will regulate most readers’ thinking. The presentation of
an alternative perspective will most likely resonate with readers already familiar.
However, ideas that expose flaws within the dominant perspective, especially the
comparisons of chicken to acceptable pets and wildlife, may make convincing bids to
readers. Il’a reader is on the fence the contestation may allow the reader to think non-
linearly.

Ordinances, Contention, and Nuisance.

Findings among these concepts of ordinance information, contention, and
nuisance describe the legality of keeping chickens in urban areas, which regulates the
readers’ thinking. The occurrence of these three concepts of ordinances, contention and
nuisance are among the highest out of all the concepts and themes. Ordinances are
informed by the historically dominant perspective of agricultural animals as out of place

in cities; the centrality in the newsprint media regulates readers’ thinking to view this

76

 

 

perspective is correct. However, representations of resistance and change are also present

and can counteract this effect.

The prevalence of the ordinance concept emphasizes the legality of the practice.
It is important to view ordinances as practical structures to guide the placement of
animals which are historically informed by dominant discourses. This is evident in the
animal geographies and urban agriculture literatures (Gaynor, 1999, 2007; Philo, 1995).
Data under “ordinance information” define the function of ordinances to the reader as
protecting residents from possible nuisance caused by livestock including odor and noise.
The centrality of ordinances within newsprint media emphasizes this function,

reinforcing their necessity, possibly inflaming concerns and fears held by the public.

The data under “contention” identify a process of neighbor complaint, city
response, and resident response. This narrative was often told within newsprint media.
Upon complaint, the ordinances are enforced or city officials choose to revisit the rules.
Real limitations do exist such as time and financial resources in terms of revising or
adding enforcement responsibilities to city budgets. However, this demonstrates the
power of the law making and enforcing bodies to the reader. As the methodological
literature stated news media tend to do, this presentation of top-down power has potential
to “discourage a sense of agency” and “induce collective helplessness” (Gamson 1995, p.

235), This effectively regulates readers’ thinking to the dominant perspective.

The presentation of “contention” and “nuisance” is where the dominant and
alternative perspectives of urban spaces battled it out in the textual world. It is already

established that the dominant perspective of urban space as strictly human and

77

unwelcoming of livestock is assumed by newsprint media. However, the conflict seen
within newsprint media agrees with Gaynor’s (1999, 2007) findings in Australia and

supports diverse positions on the matter.

While the data of these concepts and themes emphasize the legality and the power
of the law makers, the data under “ordinance information” simultaneously downplays the
importance of legality by giving countless examples of people continuing the practice
despite the law. Residents are taking action into their own hands by keeping chickens in
urban areas; some are simply unfortunate to get caught. This finding aligns with the
observation of Bingen et al. that, “Continuing reports of ‘guerilla’ initiatives confirm that
in the absence of deliberate and open public policy discussions. city residents are willing
to take ‘garden action’ into their own hands” (2009, n.p.). This resistance presented in

newsprint media might mitigate the previously mentioned regulation of readers’ thinking.

The media imply ordinance trends progressing towards allowing urban chickens.
This could encourage fiu'ther action from residents. Rather than media “discouraging a
sense of agency” and “inducing collective helplessness” (Gamson 1995, p. 235), they can
support collective agency through coverage of successful instance of collective action.
Media showcase successful efforts to overturning chicken prohibitions. One such high
profile cases is the efforts of an organization known as the “Poultry Underground” in

Madison, WI, which in spring of 2004 changed chicken-related rules.

It is clear that ordinance construction is a direct response to nuisance; the function
of ordinances, after all, is to protect the public from nuisance. There is some

reinforcement of this “need to protect” but many passages take a non-contentious stance

78

and acknowledged that it was just a matter of making it work through rules. This is

reminiscent of Schier et al.’s take on urban livestock agriculture:

“Those trained in the linear mode of thinking tend to recommend removal of
animals if they smell; they will tend to prohibit all livestock even if only a number
cause problems. Non—linear thinking is more creative. It distinguishes between
stakeholders, functions of animals and urban contexts before deciding whether
urban livestock keeping is good, bad or in-between.” (Schiere, Tegegne, & van
Veenhuizen, 2000, p. 4)
All urban activities have tradeoffs. Council people described specific concessions that
would make the practice acceptable. This may be evident of the progress made with city
planning and government officials to think in this non-linear way about urban agriculture
in general (Kaufman, 2008). Public health and disease was a standout nuisance with
drastically different representations. Other studies have looked at the presentation of risk
in the mass media and find that, depending on the claim-makers or experts cited, risk can
often be a volatile but influential theme; mass media coverage can affect fears held by the

general public (Ten Eyck & Williment, 2004; Wright, et al., 2005).
Representation of the Chicken.

The representation of chickens and goats among concepts and themes of pets,
personalities, emotion, and humor support previous empirical research on human—
animal identities. The notion of chickens and goats as pets is pushed by chicken-keepers

but resisted by journalist and public officials. Some accepted the simultaneous ascription

79

of “pet” and “livestock.” Also, the comedic representation affects the characterization of

urban chicken keeping and thus contributes to the human and animal identity equation.

The representation of chickens as pets or as livestock is one way these animals are
represented in newsprint media. As mentioned in the results, this is an open debate
among the articles because of its assumed relevance to ordinances; owners believe that if
the animals are pets then they are not subject to ordinances prohibiting livestock. The
representation of chickens as pets (66 %) occurs in more articles than references to them
as livestock (32%). The terrning of chickens as pets is associated with urban chicken
owners and supporters, exclusive to the alternative perspective of urban space which is
welcoming of these animals. Also, the animal’s position comes to bear on the human’s
identity. The identity of chickens to a great extent socially defines the practice and thus
the human. Is the chicken a pet or livestock? Is the practice, then, pet-keeping or animal

husbandry? Is the human a pet owner or a farmer?

While representation of chickens as pets is more prominent (number of
occurrence) than the representation as livestock, the second is used in a broader set of
contexts throughout the media. The representation as livestock is used by journalist, and
others, especially in the discussion of ordinances, rules, and the general legality of the
practice. This suggests that the historic and official representation of chickens and goats
is that of livestock. This demonstrates a persistent emphasis on productive capabilities
and economic value of food animals. This presentation of livestock broadly and
officially used can be viewed as regulating the categorization of animals in the readers,

even though some make a bid to view animals differently.

80

It is important to note the perspective present within the media that did not see
these representations as conflicting. Holloway (2001) studied the simultaneous ascription
of “pet” and “livestock,” and its moral implications. Practitioners of hobby farmers
presented the same belief as urban chicken-keepers: their practice was morally superior
compared to conventional production. However, Holloway (2001) finds the relationships
of hobby farmers still problematic because of the productive intentionality and the
recreation of distancing at a micro—scale; the most problematic aspect of this being the
eventual slaughter for meat. Humane treatment of animals is a concern present
throughout these articles, often also stated as a motivation of chicken keepers. The
presence of this simultaneous ascription of “livestock” and “pet” in the media markets
this as a morally superior option to the reader, but Holloway suggests this complex

relationship is still riddled with moral discrepancies.

Personalities of the animals are also described. This could be seen as the media’s
acknowledgement of animal subjectivity, such that we associated with other pets.
However, Hollway (2001) again warns the presumptuous acceptance of this conclusion.
He holds that the explanation of animal personalities is very one-sided and
anthropomorphic, which does not necessarily signify an improvement in the moral status
of these animals. The presentation of emotion alongside concepts of chickens as “pets”

and “personalities” makes a stronger bid for more intimate human—animal relationships.

Another point of analysis, however, is the way in which the terrning as “pets” and
especially the assigning of names to chickens plays up the novelty of the practice, thus
making the copy more exciting and entertaining. Personalities of chickens are generally
described as funny and entertaining. Humor is certainly used to make copy exciting and

81

entertaining. This could be simply a comedic representation of the chicken, which is

supported by some of the personality accounts. However, as Blecha noted:

Raising farm animals in US cities might easily be seen as an eccentric hobby, or
at best an insignificant tilt at the corporate food windmill. This view, however, is
a perfect example of capitalocentrism, or more specifically corporate-food-
centrism, that frames alternatives as ‘deviant or exotic or eccentric.’ (Jennifer L.

Blecha, 2007, p. 85)

The use of humor could, then, be scrutinized as de-emphasizing the seriousness of the
practice, delegitimizes the diagnostic and prognostic aspects of articles. This could place
emphasis on the practice as being an eccentric hobby. However, this point of analysis
should be tempered with the principle of news value—humor could be the only way the
journalist feels that this practice will get any news attention, thus bring the activity to

broader populations.
Further Research

This discussion indicates further research to be conducted. Much of this research
has been limited by the “desired invisibility” of the practice due to its illegal status.
However, as this practice becomes more acceptable and incorporated into ordinances, this
invisible practice may be made visible again. Permitting schemes seem to be a popular
way to track who is keeping chickens within a municipality. If access is allowed, this
could be used to conduct survey research with the purpose of clarifying the
demographics, attitudes and motivations of chicken-keepers. Evaluation among these

participants could also increase the effectiveness of ordinances or other rules regulating

82

urban li\

percepti

respons
putenti
urban 2
could I
commit
inten'il
happen
happen
intervit

by Kat

in clari
Chicke
"Ely di
have b
eXplori

Cthke;

PaClfic

urban livestock agriculture. Survey research could also be used to firrther explore the

perceptions of community members who are not keeping chickens.

This research identified a process of complaint, city response, and resident
response within the newsprint media. This process is deserving of further study for its
potential to clarify claims used to argue for or against allowing agricultural animals in
urban areas. This could target a range of actors including chicken-keepers (which again
could be identified with permitting schemes), government officials, and other active
community members attending public hearings or city council meetings. Topical
interviews, which explore “what, when how, why or with what consequences something
happened” (Rubin & Rubin 2005) could be used to explore the process that already
happened or which is still in progress. This would be a great follow-up to the qualitative
interviews with urban agriculture practitioners and other community members conducted

by Kaufman and Bailkey (2000).

There is a wide range of chicken keepers, but, as the newsprint media was useful
in clarifying, different segments are viewed in drastically different ways. New urban
chicken-keepers champion local and organic lifestyles but recent immigrants may have
very different motivations for keeping chickens. The identities of these different groups
have been researched initially (Belcha, 2007; Wolch & Lassiter, 2002), but could be
explored further. Moreover, research on how the new trend is affecting long-time urban

chicken keepers is important to developing urban agriculture in cities.

Jennifer Blecha (2007) has described the imaginaries of urban chicken-keepers in

Pacific North West and school farm in MI, but more qualitative research could be

83

conducted in other unique circumstances including the formation of urban community
egg co-Ops. Cooperative or community-supported operations are interest of many
alternative food scholars, community eggs co-ops could be another way to explore

potential alternative to the dominant food system.

84

CHAPTER 6
Conclusion

The examination of the portrayal of urban chicken keeping in the newsprint media
provides valuable empirical evidence for gaps in the media coverage. Like other studies
conducted on the media (Lockie, 2006), this study should not be viewed as an indictment
of the media; this is how news is reported and it is not likely to change any time soon.
The gaps in the media on the portrayal of urban chicken keeping were simply not
newsworthy in terms of the journalistic profession. However, this is how many people
are being introduced to the alternative practice for the first time and the newsprint media
certainly have an effect on readers, giving them the illusion that the limited portrayal is
the full extent of this practice. That is why the conclusions for scholars and practitioners
are vital to this study; because their role is to balance out the newsworthy aspects of this
practice with those that are also very important to its transforrnative potential. This study
points to places that scholars and practitioners should be aware of in order to counter the
shortcomings of the media representation of this possible alternative practice. Because
urban chicken keeping has potential to provide the context in which agriculture and
animal lives take place, which urban people are all too often distanced from—with
deleterious effect— the results of this study highlight areas that should be of particular

interest to alternative food practitioners.

The media diagnoses problems with the industrial food system and gives one
solution in raising urban chickens. It also markets alternative food values but suggests

individualistic motivations and means of pursuing these objectives. Becoming more self-

85

sufficient is great goal on a household level but practitioners should emphasize how this
small practice of food production connects individuals to those in their community and
producers rurally and globally. It’s important to create and strengthen these linkages

between all participants of the food system.

The media present a partial and narrow identity of people keeping chicken in
urban areas. The narrow presentation of identity of urban chicken-keepers is a reminder
to practitioners that agriculture in cities is not completely novel. The people of particular
class and culture who are absent in the newsprint media hold valuable knowledge and are
important to vibrant and successful urban agriculture system in any city. As practitioners
promote urban agriculture activities, including raising chickens and other animals, it is

important to keep these overlooked populations in mind.

The media holds the dominant perspective but perhaps more importantly it sows
the seeds for dismantling its hold on society. The dominant perspective on urban space
and the perception of this activity as eccentric are obstacles to enacting alternatives.
These will be ongoing struggles to view urban agriculture as an activity with its own
merit. Even if policy comes around, as the media suggests in this study, it is still

necessary to win over the minds of the public.

The focus on legality of raising chickens reinforces the power of ordinance
drafting bodies as having the final say but residents are taking chicken action despite the
laws. The development of ordinances as presented in the newsprint media, as the
analysis suggest, is hopeful because most articles implied that ordinances are changing to

allow for this practice. However, given the previous conclusion of overlooked segments

86

of chicken-keepers, it is yet to be seen how this new found legality effect all people
keeping chickens. The heightened visibility of urban chickens may welcome these people
to share their knowledge but could increase skepticism about further regulation. The
focus on ordinances did emphasize their function to protect residents from nuisance. This
increased regulation could include USDA oversight on egg and meat production or
banning of roosters and could further encourage pe0ple on the fringe to avoid

participating in permitting schemes all together.

Finally, the representation of chicken in the media, as pets or livestock, zany pets
or serious food producers does come to bear on the social acceptability of the practice.
The convergence of these two categorizations can be an opportunity to confront our
contradictory treatment of animals. The media was only able to skim the very surface of
this notion with owners proclaiming the practice as more humane and attempting to see
the animals as individuals. But, it is clear that urban chicken keeping is providing a
newfound context of lives’ of food animals. Alternative food practitioners should view
this as an opportunity to engage with animal ethics. Chicken keepers made a bid to view
food animals differently in the news media, although this was severely undercut by the
presentation of the media. This is something practitioners should encourage people to

consider.

Overall, this research allowed me to study an alternative food practice, while also
involving animals as an integral part rather than background elements. The consideration
of food animals was centrally involved in the purpose of the study and this was

maintained throughout the methods, discussion and conclusion. My take on distancing,

87

as a psychological and physical process, also contributes a specific articulation to theory

on alternative agriculture and animals.

This theoretical articulation informed the purpose of the research: how can raising
urban chickens in the US provide the context in which food production and animal lives
happen? Viewing this practice as a potentially transforrnative activity outlined the main
objective of this research to explore how the newsprint media affect the acceptance,
proliferation and appeal among the general public. This research has yielded suggestions
for scholars and practitioners as they promote urban agriculture activities. These can be
summarized as: 1) the historical and global persistence of urban livestock agriculture, 2)
the whole spectrum of chicken-keepers and their diverse narratives, and 3) the real
potential of this practice as a small, but significant, space of hope for alternative food and

improved human-animal relationships.

88

APPENDICES

89

APPENDIX A

Research Memos

Four research memos are listed to further explain the process of code
development used for this study. The first memo is a diagrammatic representation of the
process used to combine and alter pervious concepts to fit to the purpose of the current
study. The next three memos are written notes taken after meeting with colleagues
consisting of detailed suggestions for changes in codes. The tables document the former

code and the improved code.

90

05 E 9 3:3an use 3%: ohm; 330:8 683 @285 25: 8852: Esme mic. doom .2 .32 082: 558% ..n 3er

43:3 €8.50 05 .«o 882.: 28 $388 Eowbfio

 

 

38:8 Duo

 

9:36 $3.25 .m> 33 9.53 can... ..8 83 .mEEw Eugen}...

 

0.5m. .860.on

 

_

   

 

 

army 583m
20: 3:01.
am: 8:833.
83850
.20....03.

 

  

 

 

 

Amomdwfiv .68:ch mm 29 ..o mocfimfimm.
3.52.03 «£333.52

encap— Hoc Ammov 88m :35.

me<>>no$ 8.638. 52 as... 83.8.

%ch no: -6de 250:. 2:9: .m> coma Co oncom.
92.208 03.3222. .9 2.5558.
8... =35 w 888%.. :35

an: 969.08 M. 9.3805 .8 E3025 :91.

25.5.9 coamtoamcg 85%.???
auo_oom._..m< :35

 

8.3 £9.65 Rec .obmmmoooc «o: I Aomov 2590.

$0.: .83.
89.an 3:88. :85 .0 mc_.__xm-mo.
Ev 5.8:.

@9899 8889.. 53% 5.; $85.
mEoumam noon.

mEoocoo m.m;oo_m_

 

 

91

 

 

000000.000. .30. 0... .0 0.... p50
...>.0..:m 000.. .00.. ..0 .00000 wixfl
m. .. 0.55 . .5. =25 2. a... ..0

0.0... 00:50

000. ..0... 0.2.3 .0000 00.0.0.0

.0. :88. 3.00 0 0006.: 0:0 000...
.0300. .00 0:00.050 05 33 30.00..

.0008 00% 0:0 .:0.0Esm..:0m 0.. 0. 0.000..
030.... .05 9000000.... 00:00.: .0 00:00:00
300.... 80::000. 0.600 0 0:0 00.8000...

.0 E050. 2.05080 05 530.00 000.3 ..0
0.0w000 0... .0 .230 .0 0w00.305. .0 000038

0.00000...

00 00.0 :5 0:50:00 0 8 00:50:50.
..00::000. 0. 0.7.00 0 0:0 000. ..0 0:0...
0:: 030.305. $5.00. 0:0 00.00000...
.0.B.:0..w0 ..0 000:. 35000:.

J00... .000 0... :0 2.0000000 0.000..
00.0000. 00.. .0... 0000000... .5305

 

0.00.05.

 

. :0 00:00:0000 0 0.09.8000 0.0. 05 :25,

0.3.

 

525...:

80.00.00

 

0000000.: 2.80.5

 

0.000 .250...

 

 

RENE Q0 050: £03000-

 

 

SE... 5.? 3000:. 6.... .0»... 00000 00.6.9... 0:0 .085“. 68$:th 080:. 50.0003. .m. 0305

3:00:00 86:00 0.0:.

..0..0:.m 9:. 000.0: 0.. 0. 000: .. .00000 3805.300 0.. 0. 00.0800 00. 003 500000.: .530 .0... .:0:.00.w0 0... 0. 0500 . 0:0 .32

moomk. <0 080.). £08003.

92

 

...0000.w.00:= 000.020.. 0 00
:0w0n .0... 0.0530 50.050 ..0 0:0.»
50.003. 0... 0:00.005 3.0 00.). .0.

 

00.. 00.0 .000 .00: 0.50.002 :0
0:00.200 0000.. 2.3 050.3. E00

.3505 .000. .88. 858

0000 ..0... 0.2.3 500.0 :0.0....0

.00 :0000. ..00 0 00.>0.0 0:0 0000
.0>0...0. .00 0:00.25 0... 0000 30.001.

 

80.0.0. ass. 2:8 08. so
0.0..3 5.3 00.00::00 0.0.: 0.03 03

._ ..o 3:2. B 2.53 0008 .5... .

 

000.. w:.0.0.\w:.30.m .0000 :0000000 500....
805.000. 0. 8.000 0 0:0 0...... .0 030.305.
000.. ..0 02.0000 :0 00....0000 0.0. 0... :0;

0m00.305. .0 0.....0 000.
5.3 60:500. 0. 0.0000 .0 00:00.?

0w00.30:v.
.0< 0:0 08. ._

 

0.0E0xm

 

0.3.

 

80.5.00

 

8000.0.

5000020 30.05

 

 

000 U 00>0.0E.

 

 

.00::..:00 m 0.00...

93

 

.00:000.0:0. .30. 0... .0 0.00
0::0 ... . :0 000. ...0 ..0 .0550
0:30. 0. .. is... . ...00 =0...0 0: 5..

 

.0505. .3 0.0.. 0 003 2. 8....
0.50.0...0 000.0. 00.. 9.3 63...?

 

...UESmEOU «.09 mm“: 0.0.0009 “VF—m JCUBEDw

 

 

 

0.00 ...0.003 000. w:..0:..:..0 ...00 08000.. ..0b:00 80w 0. 000. :30 ..0... 0:50:00 0 0.0.50 :0... .050. .00:00.0 .0..:00
50:00. 0.000.. 00.0..30.w 0. 0..000 0... 00.0.0 0.0. 0... 5...... 0 w:.0.. 0.. 0000 .03. .0..:00 w:.:.0w0~. w:.:.0w0~. .m
30.0.:
a 0:0 000. :30 ..0...
00:00.0 0. 0......0 0.0.0000 :. 00.00.
0. .:0:.0>0:. 0... 0:0 .0000 .00 000.0.
0.0 00.... 0.00.00: 0... ,00000 .00:. :.
90.0.0 0.000% w:.0:.0:..
80020 .00”. ...U»: 030 .0 0.00:0 .E0.000 0.....0 0.0.00 0... .0 0.50.0 .0.0:0w 0.0.000 :0..:...E0.0 0:0 w...00000.0
a 0:0 0.0058000 r.000. 0 0050.000 0 0:0 00.00 0.000% w:.0:.0:. .0.:..:0..w0 000. 0:0 :0..0:00.0 0.2.:0tw0 0.000 .w< .0...0:0:.

0.0 00... 000 0.00.... :00.0...0 0E0m

 

.0...0:0:. :0 00505000 0 00....0000 0.0. :0..3

 

.0530... 0.055.... 2....V 0.50.0

 

..0 00.55 .m

 

 

00:00:00 0 0.00...

94

 

.000. 00 0ww0 .0 0:00.020 .0 00: 05 50:0 0.5.:00\0.0E.:0
8.0.0.0900; 0.0 0:00.00... .05 00.0.0 0.0. 05 :0..>>

:0..0:00.0
000... .0. 000: 050.0...0 .0 000.

80.0.
:0..0:00.0

 

0000 .0:...0...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00.. 0... 000
00 00000.00... 000.0...0

E... 00.0.: 0.00 0... 0.0000 .0:0.>.0:. :0 0. .000. 0. 00.00: 000: .0 00.05.500.000 w:.0.>0.0 .0:..:0 500200.003. 0 :0... .050. cm... 0.0..
0:0. 0:0 .0... .3202. ..3. 08.0.5 0... 000:0.000. .0 .00 0 00 5.0.00 0 0. E000. ...0. 05 :0..>> .00 0 00 0. 0050.0. 0. 3:00.050 00 0:00.020
0000 33.0....

00.000...
E... 00.0.: 0.00 0... 0.0000 .0...0:0.:00:.00 .08.:0 5.0.0.0903: 0 :05 .050. gun—v 0.00
0:0. ,0:0 .0. 30.05 ..3. m:.0.>0.0 .0 .00 0 00 :00.0...0 0 0. 0.0.0. 0.0. 0... :0..3 .00 0 00 0. 00.0.0. 0. 3:00.200 00 0:00.055

.:0.. 05 000 5.0.5 .0:0.>..0:. :0 0. .000. 0. 0.00: 0 000: ...0. 05 :00? 0:0..0...0 0. :03» 0.0 00807. @256 mu:..:|0zl
0.0.:0xm. 0.3. :0...:...0n.

0000 0.0.0..

 

 

000m 03% 050: 00.0003.

 

.0:... 5.3 w:..00.: 000000 .800 00000 00>0.0.:. 0:0 .0:..00 doom 8:0 0.00:. 00.0003. .0 0300

0.0.. 0.00:.0.0.0\0:0.:.00

00:00.00 ...03 .0:... . . Dun. .0 0.05008 :0 .0: 0. 0.... 00.5.00 0.00.. 00:0:.0.0 :0 0. .05 w:.0:0.0.00:: :0 0. 0800 o
Dun. 0. .00.:00 0:0 0.00.8.0 00000 I w:.w:0.0.. .0: 0.0.003. o

0.00 5.3 000.07. 0:50.00 0. 0:0..00ww:0 0.00.... w:..0..:.0:.0~. o

”0020:. 00000 0. 00000.30 ..0Em

.w:.00.0>00 000.. 0>0.. :9. .05 0.03.00 00.0,. 05 5.3
00000000.. 0.. 0.:000 0.5 :00000.::: .0 :0.000: 00 0.08.00.05.00? .0 000. 05 .0030... 0..0 0:... 000000 0 0:2. 5.3 w:..00.: .05...

00cm .33 080.). 00.0003.

 

 

.2882 9:3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . oo 8 Eu: 0 a 9 85 SE a 8 3535: men .moocumE:
2:3 338%“. “mom 3 meow—03° a fix: £050 a magnum—”Eu ofinmontomowbxuwaxo ~on 05 awn? 8 33a 3 m_m§:< 536 85332

.mosmmm

5330th 8 REE“
.fimou 3539 255E 5:38 5 8 HERE :58 85 szzv
<2 2955 BSE mo .25. 55:... 5:58 53“ 05 555 330:3 650 8:. =a-.§~0 mags—8&2
fimoucou 262

. E3
:03 PEEEa 2: 9 362:. 3:: Ea 206328980 A225
2633.55.“ Stun 08:33.: ‘5 Susan? .8 355253. $5586 8 28.950 5m 20:58:.
52: a 98 285:: 5:82 a 33238 osm Eonbmg 28835 .5 23:5: 8 when: “x8 05 5:3 £563on Ea 28 Eugm 0:5?
250 not: .5
23350 ..8 £53305 Ea A225
...oéquzu 5:3 28 0630353623? “8 WEQEBSUE monEmov ho 28.050 5.. E058;
aozE u can 05:55.28: : 35238 cam EoEumob 055:5: .8 05:5; 2 ran: “x8 2: 555 303303 Ba 88 7855 05:5:
250 SEE”—
MO 5.3% 05 Eat
SE32 Ea Eat—0.5:. .0535 HE? @238 doe.“ mm 80E 5125

$093 5508 39: 98 $55 @835 @5532 5 wwwu 5 28630 («o 3: 05 SEE. Fiofltm—mgfiw 55:85 .908

he: c5 05 Joe: S: 3:55 2: 0E: 38: 2F .EEEUSBE EN 28320 85 36% “x8 05 5:3 .5; vow: 88.020 me SE 8va 5:268;
#50 35%..

 

62.5.28 v 93¢

 

 

:3 z 305 051400005003

5.83003: 00
50.030 £05
00 0: 00: :05
0:00:00 0::

:0 0000000 0:
0:0 E0080 0
0: 0000 00;:

 

0: a: 00500 0_ 03% 000500030: 0:: 0: 00:00:30.3 Am>zv

0 :0 8:003:08: 00 502020 0:: 00000000 08: 0:0 :0; 000:003: :0 0:00: 00 0_0E_:< 00:0032
in0:00:

0000:0300

03:30: 0:0 0E00000 0:00.030 w::0_0:
00 80:00 >50 5000 03350 DB 0:0 0:00;»3: 0:0:50 50.030
:005000 50:00:00 :0 0:2:30 w:_3:0_0 0005000 0:0: 0;: 5:3

00:00:: 05 .«0 000000 5:0 :0 000x050
9:03: m:_50:0 :0 ::0E00:w005

0 00 0x0: 0:: 00

5085005
05 :0 000000.:
0: 0000 00:... ..

@2000
505300

 

29:00:”,—

 

03M

 

8:05:00

 

 

0000 0055::

 

 

00330 \0 0502 0000003:

 

 

.8903: 505 3000:: :000 00000 0889:: .oooQom \0 080:: 00000001 .0 03§

A8805 33:03 8000:0005 :0 w::0=0£ 0:0 0:0 3:000:00 £0003 0:00:00 :0 0000.: 00:0 00:0 503000
00w00h00: 00 0300 00000 05 00:: :2020000 00:0:0w 0 002 5380:0000 0000 0: 8:000 000:: 0: 00000:: 0:; :05 :00 0w:E: w:0:00
0300:8500 @009 0:0 A8503: >00 :03 0000 0 50:: 0mg: (:0 0w:0: 0005 0 mg 5000 :0_020:00 3:0:0w 0: 0:: 002 0020 5:532

0:0: 00 00: 03000008 0:: 00 0:0: 0200:
S502 :000 00:52 0000 50: 0 00 :00300 0:0 0:0 8:003: 0:0 50:00:00 00000 0: 003000 000E 2 5900M £05 00500:: :00”?

ooomEN \c 080—2 00000032

97

 

$38 05 no 32955 Bu: 8865: $82

 

215.3 25....

69:
$623 2953 2 ha 2?

zinc.
05 $80 £3.25 05 E. 33:

 

 

 

 

 

:6ow
0:0 5 wwwo =w mafia: 2255 Sac 550
Ea 3325 .23 on 8 magma mwn8 9:82;? 5 358 £30“ mic—Em "Emu 65o ho cow—039 221v
:Eofiwa 396 oEE: :oEEoo 832$“: ‘5 E2382: EB mfia mom: can 05 5:3 05 8 3.28 BEE. mo 3.: 25. 5:5:
$98.50 262

 

.35538 m 033.

 

 

.mEmEmASme Econ

.33 axetowug ...mutafifiue
mugs: AS: MEK 6&3
3.959: a 35:: 232$
525$ £363 :9.» $53
$9: £3.53 3: 5:: on

2 2:3 2 38.28 5 ha? 3
nmtmxs we 58 ES 38 has
«286me Eamx‘zobumsxmy
38.3% 30:3633 an;

...ozafiozm
5on :02: a 28 288::
:28: 2 35228 25

.wfiun

:25 97:55 2: 8 382%
is: £923 wE:o_m_>o.a
28 28 0&5?“qu

.o 03:32“. 5% 85:52.62
montumov do dang—58.:
28:55: 8 055::

8 338 ~on 05 555

$8320 5%
$252255 25 Emu 225m

225 Eoanfi 25:5:

 

 

MESESEQMSVSEQ
.33 ‘32:“ 3.5% 83
Estatonmm «93x .umhfiufi
x -EwESeEeQexitu

.mEa S: SE 95:

.muczmcoflom 3m: fimvcoxuiu
35 88% go 3325 mo
95% :95 a 8 2:232: .8
.3 EoEczom 05 S 8223

bzmnoflua
Pcoono 3:222:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\a MEmESEmnxz a. 55x 8 m3:— EzoEnn E 25... 05 montomuv «x8 05 555 an Mo 53:83 2F Q Ma: 82.285;
.5225
33262 5 2 “£8 2
do; 05 02. 8:8: mom: 5 3552388
25 MO #3535 9:235 coy—22o on“
he Demo—u 38m? .2325 52 8.9: mom 2: Enema 39:22?— 5 «on a as $5330 .8525 :253E8
t8 mica: $622: 2E. £8 .28 Sm n322.5 gem a 2 E28 :8“ 05 55$ .5 82 n ma GEE—QED :95 no;
382 Bmfiaxm 23x :oESLoD mg bmoucou

 

 

298:09 ESE

 

 

.88: 28 83888 .81: .maowwfluc @585 398:8 35% mo aeratomoo .3388 Rafi .b «Eek

83$ ”:68

m vans/Ema?

99

 

:5: 5:9: 85: MES§V¢
5.5.2.9: : :::o:.w:wh:=:
:: a: 33939

M553“ 6382:: 5:8

12:3 32%.. 3.38:5.
a: 3835:. :33: 5532
335:: 85:5.» 5 353::

.332 85:29:? 5
8.2:: 8 “SEQ—E E03 85

 

ASS: wEEM 5 @2523... 393.3%: .. £3 ‘98:}. ., 3:859 85: :8 2-580 szzv 3058:0022
«SHEER 5:3:
-5: :QEQQE 5 M553: MO
:e\mwmw 3: :5 $3.? .:ou8w 05 Eat ban—o8: .905: :8 2:: 389

:o.::u:: 3:: 295: 8:8 mi:
35.5.: 3: 8c: 8:233:
MESS: 8,355.35 5 a:
Luiwzu~m\o «BESS: mi ficesx

:8 :8588 .2895

:23 B58: flows: 8:88
28E 28 55$ 22::
55:23 :0: 28 05 Joe:

08: :c 25: mm 82: 522:0
5 wwwo 5 28.030 5 om:
2: 55:8 85532828

$23583: o8 282:0

 

 

 

2 33.2355: 83:95 at:

 

has... ..Eu 8 E o>= 03..

 

8:3 885 :8: 05 5:3

 

9 :38 .5 5282833050

 

a: 3.35 5:55 a: 2:: 8: 3:25 05 2:: :8: BE. 85 88.; “x8 2: 5:3 25.: .8 .8825 we .82 2:. Aommv :25:on
Eetummmfi E :3: 8.83::
6:30.59 3 3:: x .858
:o\u~:w:$:.5vm: 8:65: 83 .cooEonst:
8:33: a: 36:: bad» 3 05 9 8:89:86 8. w:
:8 8:255:12: 3.5: .2882 Eu 3 .58 .5 58:82::
5:: 89:32: 8282523 MES: b8“. biuoamo J3: ”w 3“: QMEquo 28.8 $8:
a: 2 a: 35:: v... :35 8 $8.25 8 52 2060 36:98 :8: m5 555 5 80:89:82: 8 28320 Am>Zv 882:2
n3§§ . 528: $2229.. .m> 9230583
M3858: 333.85 2 r58: 0: mo: 8 85 8:3 ME: :8 A 8:28 his:
5%.: 5: 8:: =5 M33523 90:. .8:— 2205 >52: . v harem .mw, 85:3
5: 2280: 33: 2:85:82 QZ< .28 2523 £2.25: 88% ”83 on 5: 2:05 55:05.: 0E: 0280805
52:3: 53:: WE: : MES: :05 802 885 350 MO 5 230% DJ 5 80.8 :38 . 5 :85:— 5? 38%
\e 83:8 2: :2 a: :5» :3 : E8: 8 :o w:o_3 $5222; .8 E w:o_3 5: 80: 5 80: 2.8% 5 :25; .325 on 5va 38m

.855 5 5232823050

 

 

.3228 o 2.3

100

 

.00—335:0: 35%

23o 0.3 :50 2:898
:08 .50 .80 55:00 :28:
m. H. .035 . .5: :95. 8 a...

 

$0: 05:: 8 083

0: 00:5 0:00.050 :88: 08:
0:3 5:053 :80 ...0883
08: 05:55.; 05 mole

.8558
8 :0 $0— 08000: ::8
.E0_0E:m.:0m 0:500: .:08
:30 :05 00.85308 0: 050:

8:50:00
8 55:0 :85 :058: 50.50::
8 9.0: x: :08 :05 55:00

88:99

 

 

.:0:0::0: :08 08:. :58
8:00:00 28 :08 :30 :05
00::05 0: >538 M0300:
E :050: m_ 50505.: 05
:8 £30 :8 :88: 0.8 5::

:30 .50» w:_0::o:m 0:.=0>.. 05 008:0 :8: 05 :0; 9.5.83: 0: 0:00: 05. 55:00 m558w0m .:
$058 E002»
508% :5 .5 D880 05 .«0 wig—0:5 508% 55:85::

.mww0
.5 >753 8|8w ::8 058285020

8.5:: 8:05» 8 28 £058
E0008 wig—0:: .0:—£50.58

::8 ”57.00005 :08
28 5:03:05 05:30.58

 

 

80 m:0v_0_:0 05 $80 30.2.:

0.. 8.83 :28. v.5... .

:8 35:80: :8: 05 5:3

0: 0:80: :0 00522

. .802 8 3:008 08 .65 8.58:2: :0 00:02.0:0: 0.80m-_8_:m=::_ 585:5: mommma .w<
38.0.08: 05 00080 80:. 5 80 0:05: 5:25 050m 8 008580: 20: 5:3 05 .5 03:00:80: 805:0 8.532: :0 fish—0.5 .m
5.558054%: . :w: :
w5:::8 855:: M595: :00_0._..:%:MM8 :MMM:
20 a 8M 0 3:: 02:55 5 . ..
5 53.“: “Sikh—“0:: 3mm: 85 0:0:30 50.020 :0 5.0%
50.3.5.0 6.3:: 0.0.8505 8.5.x 52:82E
:82 :8 38:0 .. .2 0:0:0..:U
Mia 88: .020 880
.a 80: 9:02:82 :0 0:00.020
a; 300: 0:3 5.08:3. E8: :08 w:_m_8:\w£30:w 528
:W: w 0.“: :0Mm0 : .m ...Eoc 0:80 :08 5:80:20 :w=0:5 60::000:
8 0 sum. 5: 8 Li... w =5 22.3 5.3 852.80 9 0:.30 a 05 0...... 00.00.55. 88.8.:
:. : : 8 8 . 05:: 0:03 03 g: to 5:0: :0 0w:0_30:0_ :08 .5 00538 :0 2:5 :08 5:3 80:58: 0w:0_30:v_

.0... 85 88: .v

 

...::0.U 81:85

 

 

ENEISQ

 

02%

 

:DENEQVQ

 

88:53: 5:03:05 E885

 

 

3:558 0 03.:

WI

 

38:8 :38.
has: 05 E owl—3m a seem at“:
55 .m.D 05 $28. 836 E

 

.wiwmxofl 8 wfimwuooa
£02323 03::on 06
he ,8“: £5 53:85 2?»

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

om: mo ~83 3:58 a ”:58: 0303 2.: £08 :82 mo SE
was 9:55 53.25 595 05 $0.55.: an: 2: 5:3 coo.“ mo gen—BE 82:on Cod woof.— Boo:
.omcom SEE
m5: 359—23 mzwm ESQ
fieQuEamce .mmoacoaafin 83585 35 .mococto: £02053
AEEESQQ 2 E53? 5%» 55 a can mocznmo: Egan: £02056§ we RE wEon n08 mEBEosu no em:
wmcamuei 28‘ .8 .333 @535 8.85.6: 53on can we Eamon 2: ho £ 55:55 05 3355:» .5 8.62 2m
mi 33: umutmgmxs ESE nzocofifim Eon“ mEoocoQ of» 2&ch 05 .2590 we 36 2.255 main“ 93 “58
E thmh 83 v.38 his $5: $25 $08 .23 Sm 82 2: .823 :8“ 05 5:3 mEBEw he 80:an .mom 5&8 9:390
.mwwo 28¢ wficow \moqco
>2: ham 95:30 5qu0
555 m0 8:0» x02:
.09.: .23 wwwu Em. 35
. . m5: 3:28 2:83 Eofio :60 .23on
ES Lox 8:: 2t :5 456 98 E . , . .
. 560 83: mmoccmot 5 $58 “8.: go mmwo
So «:3 I nMMmF washing =£ 0:0 32w :55 @2333
a E Saskaxzcu a & m_>an_ SB .m :2: 5 88“ 5:33 ma: coo“ £560 ‘8 23x3 Ea £28 cage
.< . . 2 5 n— 35 33% ca: 2: no; .823mb mo mcozfiuoaxm Cmm-vb 33%
. Emmg
EwE. 55.5 3.22::
a mu wicfifiuu 8 368
mm 8: 93 Sc fl b.6533:
2: >8 E85 5:020 m m
3.31an .6 «8.x...mwumniko MO .mwwo nousnoaimafi SEE: .3 509:?»
05 Eat 8x8 8 $595.80
:52 5 ~38: SEEN NEwEM 55 3:28: can 553
«£28 couusvoa a 28:3;
.NQZ rahuxhoiuegs m. 85 858 v08 933.2 a
thS 3232 .393 3 2:: 06.305 m5; 2% ..v .5505 S .88 wctzvoa mo 8:989 ho 369:2.» .mBEnm
. . 06 698 83% “x2 05 52>» 8:28 .85.: Jaufibfi 5945 F23:

 

 

.3325”. c 033.

102

 

 

 

_8_ 203508 EB... cumegov £3 :maoocéoomir E828 BE .2388: 23.3

 

. a 93 v08 92:25:“ Eob
venofiavv 82> town‘s 20530:: 5586 ..nozosuoa 236%.. $3250 .2288: 38:8 E81,. none—gov 225 226.605.. smack: Lon: 33280 $32

 

 

45.8wa wage
urn. $5.5 5:69 M~ S REES
.833 a MERE ma :3 M35

.En Cocoa 05 :0 53:2:
32% : mo .38: :55
5:5 9:38 55> 5.5830
wEv—wfixocofi a rcfl :

.2238: 05 .5.“ Bo:
£62? a ma wwwo 8:53:09
no 6:505 m33£b=8
5.56598 “58 go

9E2 E .358 m_ 8 £258
32% 286E» wEflE

.05.
20:88: a E Aommzofio
98 36555 82:82 mo

 

 

 

 

:2: 33% i8 05 5:3 6253 he "consign 2F 8:5 :9ch 22350:
.voofionswfic a 55:»
«22:5 SE5 mfizflzuE
. :85 m9 223 2
who.» if 35.52 Avwwiowmd Emma—m:
339: .3835.» 3.5; S . 5:9: £8355 human—53
238 53 M2329: 8:525 __ 32:5 Ezozummcabéo: ‘8
8k 3.2.5.:ua 5me 35»th bEzEEon. Noam a 8m wacufiwcobm v5 .8585 Br .voofonswfiz a 55::
Le .Ewmzum 3.3.30: $:.3.=.§ 31.0.. mag—QED MO 3.3.25 3.9.35 mos—>58 “moan—88m mus—Ea Una 253929:
@233 5&qu $3 $5.»va 2: fits Ami 8 53 33 gm “2.86:6 $5.8 .2353 8529mm? ASE/SUV
M558 3 2:5 Eocxmsz :2: 9:5 flee—Eon och 3.: 85m 23. 05 can? wficofiwcubm a 9:320 wiESm bE=EEoU
£85598 band
:0on 325:: 05.. 33 .5526“:
28.020 waive. :2.— oh MO 833 can :o.:==om
MuscOHme—wwwufim EHfiHMo 5 55650 355 0292:
. sum. 5 m. . u a _ 5 3E 35 $385 oEmESmsm
3 when :8: 5:53:325 8 28330 cm: E050 =cm 8 58m A Ewe 8o swan: u
BawoBum Msuwzgmfi a... :8. uni—Eu.“ 52% EB 3538 H. W885 “Magmwwuo: 2: uh"
mi Efixmwxnwuem ”NAM“ QR“: “momfiafi Moflwowflmm Meow—«E wee—5235 “.2: he E859 E32333 _8_wo_80 and
w .n . F .N . ~ H x .n 50 a 83898 .x8 05 5:3 EoE:oh.>=o 05 Em E0250 Scum: umfim _8_wo_oom

 

 

 

 

 

 

.8228 o 2.5

103

 

32*“?ch 2.3 :5 $32.6
\o no}: 2.. 3::e\b~u.6mmnm

LSOHM mce:

E2:
.3023 REE a 3m 2?

:fime 05
$05 :uquo 05 Ev EB:

.3813
25 E wwwo =m wEEa:

:flofiwfl mango uEE:

dis—Em
8.5 $50 was mcoquu fits
on 2 MEZE $5; 956.20
5 83¢ .moxoq =oEEoo
moo—55%“ ho fioznuuoe

was 2:5 mom: c8“ 05 555

2.255
E8 550 8 53.25 05
8 @822 5:5: we on: 2F

225 88::

 

.«wanb «Samara .8 $3.3.»
.3§:.€3\o :333: anvx

6mm 2 mm

Eoc wEwS: 3E 5:5 :28
£393 6.5qu”. ..8 wanton
2:62 8:6 3:8 be:

.Avomomoa

8 8053 So duo".

b6 .35 éEtum .mchn
Joan—25:0 we 3:25:32
Ea 22:2an Soon £52.
55.3 .8 wigs" 5.5
65o 5 28.050 wagozamfi
.5 w53o=~ 85:65

5 8353c an: 555

:06 2: E £8:qu
3.32? S w—EEEoE
ess— comoaoa Ea “gonzo

Rae
cough—£5 85:65

 

ism—5&3 5»

\e 33.; MSEmnlew=u “#29:
.6322: 6:2 3.25228

3 3 2M: 2‘»st totstwuwxa.

docs—En umzozcoohw

8 gm can £5an

.23: 838 ES 28.030
05 “no.“ x2: Ban 3on
Bus? «En c305 wwwa
$352: 2258 wEmoaaO

283%: 98
mEoucoo .28.qu mfimfit
we Seams b5 Soon mEoEo
DE 98 foe—Eu: 50:30
5225 5953 5:533
.5 22:50 wczzmmfi

 

mcoquu
wEmE 3:85 05 mo

 

 

mi :0 Emmauokfi when as muntomov E8 05 5:3 Seams >5». co EoEoEwmmE pZoUV concoEoU
:8620 was
$3.5 :33 33 .3385 5:30 5953 3:30.522 Amvcoonu can SEE:
ta.» méawm: 3 $339.59 :9; “Eamon a mo hofitomou a mm 5253 EsmcoEunEoo
n36: “scion 3 55 v8 98 ES. Ba 35 mEE. .. 5.:ch mom: ~on 05 5:3 18 vcon a wccmuwwsm :ozoEm 325 5:25 waobm
382 29536 25.x coat—coo 1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

852: EEK

 

 

.88: 98 83888 £28 .maoESmov await 3:85 35% go nozgtomon— .382? REL N m3£

104

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

803 33528.. 5 $8905: 95 88.020 mm :03 95mg 220: $2.“— Ea—tom wclmsz 053 525qu o—
.mEEfi EB» 133:. 5550 Bo=a 8 8305 mEqu
b6 ”ha 2 go £8583 3m 8 b3: 33 45
wwwlo :05 Sm m5: :35 8:2 2 gang—52v $.95 SEEK 3am 3mm ‘33:: Emma: RENE—N. ¢
3.83 EO “8325 .8 SB $06 5355 8 mono: cook
mmoonv «no.8 Mo 9:: ofi 5 ”8:05 53.5 35> 302V 35:. in; 302 hie—m 5:25.. coon: A: w
ham :8 as: v 8 woven: Ga :32 38m 2 mm v5.5 <2 coon: :a N.
8553 b5 ”menu—2:0 m: wfiaoox :o wczcsoo mzfimm
mace €305 dfiEé geomeo 2: €555 .38: Em 88: S 0
but 55:. onto 8.8 350 v5 93.25 26» 29630
28.qu :o 22 ED Swamioz 8on :w w
080: 022:: a A8733 mBoZ bin Max:502" mo=azb «:3. 803:» v
3 Eng 5: 05 8:2: “882 wEBEU 6:832”. 53;:
8:: uwSEu 9 women: .6550 A935 055th wEEoE :onqu 2.33am Fox coon: E. m
.53in um: 32% mango Eat Exes—a 883:? “on.
mEEoEso coonu 30:32 32 EU .xE 25:0 395 3868m< Nag—=50 .255 ooonmB N
E 08. Ed 03 .8 ~85 g :32. EMMEQEC $62 595‘ ::< :5:qu Egg ooomEe _
mEE zocsou b5 :53“; ”025:8 2 can cog—3:0
2:? hommmmBoZ ho£=< 3.5 55:52
3.930% SuQ Nit

 

 

.382 «m2: 8 .320 88m cowgtw £25 98
,anmamBo: 858 £853 dogging mo 83w @5535 83:8 H3336: mo sewage? monouomum .3058 Saw =sm .m m3§

mooaom Sam

0 XHQmema.‘

105

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:35 :u 2:83 8 :3: 29A =w Ea :ouaEEoBu
0E3. 6:: 8an Eu» 2:: < ”zoom 50> 953— :O

 

 

 

 

 

b6 5 28.qu :8 £8 _80mo£ AfiwEgiv £502 :32 52 502.502 NW3. 88:. :m vm
=aI _U :o 3.8 9 5:30 :2. mu: m 8:8: 8EE :5 owSEU fl 3x5! #82 ”SQ _ ZN mm

:5: >230: :3 8 03:: mo :53 ”:3qu .5: :8 when
5550 _U o 0:5 E = no 08 383:3 8 :o 5m 8:5 .83 a. 28m $2: 33683: 2F £5,302 noontm. mm
3:028: 25' :33 a. 88m 32: vBfluomm< 2F 25:62 boom: :3 _N

Eu Ewe. 0:503 :8 mcoono mono: 39% 52:0
EGO—23 be; E :08 n J03 be; :0 :oono < 95> 302v moéh xx; 302 SE 05:05.5 Scmata on
an: :o>o vow—Bu: «Ea: 2:0: ,:32:o=<v =mU EEO: :oEOn Us; beefing. @—

fionswfi: NEE—fl Stu Eoc £255 :5a was

355:8 >62 “vacancy. 28.25 .38933 :83m 5
32555 page a E .82 8% a 53 533 2225 £85: 52 8823 M:

mwo: :5 $8 5:: :55 0:53 8 En 9:058 b6 05 .

fl :5 .83 3.33: 2: 38m baa :55 “new 9qu
308 2:25:53 9:: 33:: 35:50 280: $95 “Eaton MEEI 38—. RENEE S

:5 voSEmg—m on “.58 52;? £5: ofl 2 v5 mmam DE

0:... ”325.58.. :23 £53.25 950:: 2298: 5.5m
3%: to ma 28.qu 839 $502 baa 5:30 5:5: 3133M RENEE @—

?8 won: .Bnom $9: .958 .830: Scum—o .6550

36 zoos—Em “22:5 Er: SEES: 855:5 3oz
$08 ASNwEnx—zv E52 892 ::< :oBEofi .< :89.— SoQQo m—

afia—mm 8 Eo__u3_u.b_o 80::8 3.2 28.25 wimfix
39m mm 386:? 9 E3 32: 3660mm< 2:. :Bflw EEO >95an 3

3:028.— 55523 :35 222 6:55 :8: Bo: MEN—2
.80 £8.25 :35 3E S Emmi ”flotm coon— ofifith 8:3 2mm 2F <2 Sofie—R m _
mug: wfimfi: ><DOH <w: :8! bx; 8onva N.

3 mngxumn :05 8 .32.. 05 mo 50:8 a warn 30:03:

:35 i=8 :08 28m 320 5 E0550 :8650
55.5 :oono EEoEaUV 32% mam “mum 5:0: «EEm >86ch _ _

 

 

62.528 m 22:

106

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 m. mMM0 :30 E05 m:.m.E .05 0200: 8:535 0:0E
00 00.3.5.5: B525 0:: 00.0.0 :. a: wing: 05 3000
05%;.03 05:03: 005ng :8 ”mi E05 300.050

 

 

 

 

 

 

0000.. 9 0:00.. 0:00.030 :35 5009. 08 :0 A02 6030:0200 8003. 0% 0302 E005. 058:0». moonNR ow
00:. 8 0.008 8:8 05.2 H... .0 0E :. 0:00.350 9.8.0.5 :088:Sm-:00t0::< :.0m=< E00.m. M9.0.). 8062.. am
0:00 50.020 00.0.0 .0.:< ..0>0 w:.0.0=.0 080m 053 .000». 0... 8:5 305 08300030. 0:... 2.30302 833R mm
03:. 0:. 00: 00:5 :85 5550:: 0.00M 0.3.40 0.00500800800 08:00.3 5E5 .n E003. 835.. ..m

05:30 ”.58 mibo 0.0.0.0 55.3 2:8 mm: 00.0: 50.030
agate 08 82x02 320 .852 0:92:03? «BEEN: .8330 3

.0:: m:. 05 30:03.0 .30 00:80: 000:0 ”:0 E02... wfiwwm.
0.020 .05 80: :8 0.05.: .08. 0.0.:050 :0050: 0...... .080“. 54.900 «030.0 mm

EME =0> .0:: 00.5.: 05 0.00:... :5 .50: b05808 00

500.020 0000. 8 5050... :. .%0. 0.0. 09.0 05 :. 8.0...0
no: a 29.25 :08. :8 no: 8 5.. 0555-82: 002: 5.4. 2: «0 3N use: 83% x

53.03 0. 0:03 00:03:40.0 H.508 00.0808 0:. n.
85508 50.2% 385mm 0.0 E: 2.552 882% mm
3.000 :00.0...0 :35 “003 DU 00355.5 80*. 00:... moEfi «M00530 0:30.302 .3333 Nm
00000.: 002% E3 @853. 60:23:06 2.53.0502. E235 00:0 .808on .m

“.38 00:50:00 £502.00 5.00... 00.0 06 0:0 200.050
5.: 50.020 20w...0.20 0302 584‘ ::< E03002 NW: «033% cm

.0830: :0 50:. 8:03 00.0 0000.. 0:8 bx: 00...: :0:
..0500 90 00 00:80.0 Emmaéé 0302 505‘ ::< E03002 >03 wooQQm mm

B as: 0.0 32.0.02 2:: EN 058 .5 Ba. 2 “50.020
2. 2 a: 09.25 80828. 05233 525: <2 80.0% mm

m... a. 0.5. b: 2: a 28.2% 0.5.2 a: .3020
Emma ..0500 H.000: S: . Engagzv E05002 3.3 322%? um

:. .50.. 0:50.. 00 050:0E :5 0: 000000 :2: 50.020 0302 58.x ::<

0000 :2 0:40.00 E8 €2.03: :35 00.0 08 :. m m. 8.30m 302 059.302 0.00 0.30.. .583? on
050 0m 0.005 Eon. .0: 5:80 0E8 :5 .wE... uoom .22 #:2355820 0:2..C 5% 05.0: EU. woomBQm mm

 

 

035:8 a 030:.

107

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

50: 0.05:0 w:0E0 0.00... .mw5.:.m 0:00.050 3.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.05:0 .05:.=0. 0 :m50 0 00000 .0 0:0.0.> E0. m302 5.00 :0tn0n. ::0::30m. 3:02 8.53:. on

005... 00:088.. 0.20m 050m. ”0:50.00: 5 58.050 :0..

w5a000. :m50w0 w:..E 0:00: W550 .0230 0.500 3:...
m0.:.0 m3 0500 5 000. 0 505.. 0:00.050 0:3 .000: 0.0 0:05 amok. 00:0.0omm< 0:... 0:03. ::00w .8095: mm
.38 00.0: 0: W500.00.: 30:0 0: fl.0:m 000.0: 0:0.0>0.0. 0.000 50:. 050m .0.::00 «8&0... . 0m

.50 ”0:0.:0.m.w0. 0:: :0 :00.0.:0 0:: J98 0500 0:3
205.5 8:5. :52 :0: 5%: Basso: 2:02 8885: mm

5:8 :05. :0: .30.. 50:: 0:0 0:0: 03: @500 .w5.=:

>2... .0250 0: 0.500 wow :55 0:00.050 :0::D 00.0
:0: 50.0.:0 5.05 0:80:52. 000:: 00:05 .50“. :m m5EE0... 00.30.. woofito. mm

:0 00.000 0: ..0500 .50 0...>m:5m. «0.050 0 0:0... .

0:00.050 0:0 0.00: 00:52 058:... 5m ..030n. :0.. wooQto. .n

8 53 02:20:50 5. 2 =0: 0.0 000:0: 53 00.:

0.0: 29:00»... :< ”00.05002 0:0 .0:00~. 0: 0.30000
m:0:m00: .m:00.0.:0 :0 :0: 0>0: :0: 0000 3.0 0.0... <2 ”8Q .Qo on
0:00.050 0:000:52. 002:. 00:5. .005. .:m m:.EE0.n. 00.30.. wooQKR 00

AE 0000. 0:: :0. 0000... “..0500 50 0: >0: 0...>m:5m
0:00.050 :30 :00 3:00.00: .0 0:02 0:.3 .000: 0... 0:0:w 000:: 020.0003: 0:... 0:.30302 8082.0 wv
0:00.050 50:... 50:< 30:0 50.0 3:00.03. 3:02.350... 030000-50: :w5:w::.n. 00:3 :0202 0:05 wooQto be
0:0.0>0.0 00... 00.50 5 a 5 5: m ”05.00.00 0.009 50:. 50.. :0:... .88.on :0

:0>0 0:0 05:0: :00.0.:0 ”0.0500350 0 0:0:3b0>m.
33:0: 0:.3 .000: 0... 0:05 30k. 030.0034. 0:... 0530302 882$: 9.

0:0 58.050 0000. 3:00.00: :0. >05 050:0m ..0 .50
238 .08 :0 30m 50:» - 0:00.050 :0::D 059:... 00.0.. :.0m 0:... :0.::0:m :0.E0:0.. wooQ . :w 00
:00 53:50: .00“. 0m 50:: 00 A22 r50:00:52. 055:... :Sm 800. :0m ”cog...” m0

r0.0 50:: :. 000: 0:0 me .300w 0:0: 0: 0.:0 0: 0: ::03

3:00.00: 0:800:52 ”:00w 50:: 30» 3.00.: 30. A50
.38 0:0 00: :8 00...: 55:3 5 0: .02 50:59 56-0.0.0... 0:... w:0::0:0 m3. 808$» me

E3 20.0.80 50 E00350 w5:30 :0 00:5. w:.0.0:.0
:0. 0:0:0 :0 .500 5.50:“. :0.:0 :0:0 0.0 5:55.00 0:... 5.5% :02 8.50... .0

 

 

085:8 0 050:

108

 

 

28320 8 a as; 2 .6550 go 02 .832029 Easy. a :52 $25 2352 SAVES Q

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mEv—uEu Sm ”game‘s—h Eocfifi d5 Eamzxnmcaon—V 962 DEC .5553 2F 5:53 .22. oooQon mm
85590 cow—020 My“. cums—o0 moifiaxo c>o£ 32:; 8:3 saw 2a. E902 .3 Escon— ooomktm :.
coo; Bonn o_ 8 Eofismcoo 3 88330 mom hot—on 2F ow=< F83— ooch— \m on
0:520? 820 202 E68 3.28m :35 5 cfiw
8328 3:9 :32 £5 8&3 Essen 552 259; a.
you 29 $0358 uoEon biwt £0 £8 BABE $3;
:30 Box 380 fiance 8 mm? 0:0 A855 9502 wEEoE 2230 “EH 555 new oocfiofim we

 

 

 

Ba.
05 own—Eu 8 tote :m E mouamcwmm o2 3.554.» «>185
£23m 0553». M353“ EC 053 28330 £2950

05:05—83 COEDéBEH «ESE EEO 320 oooQoQN he

 

 

 

#5 25 :05 E 88.020 «mom also of. hog—3 3:02 coonQN we
8:2 9 $528; Bo=m 8 EwES 20> >33th EB
.6560 EU 2F uaofiwcs E 5 go: .5: “o cosmozc <

 

 

 

109

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.0 2: s 3E5 he 853% m: 38c tam Essa; Afiwzasc $62 se< SE a. oSQNQN 8
$3ch Sam—2 econ on 2 38.020 no imager—

mnoono Em can 35 6 “mo an. 92:22 2.3 381— % 88m $05 tapiocmmax BF othBQZ ooomESN we

gamma 53830 5.5:. 3:828 .6569 8818—2 2:5 .804 a. 88m £05 @82983‘ 2:. gig/oz gems—R no

6 5 28.2% a... 32:. 2 %8 o :20 as 0 Ex :5 6 83 2% “>32 EEO: Eamon J33. 8853 8

2325 Sea 2:8? 2239mm GEE 53mg 3.25.8 2: Ea: 5;. 833: 3

.8 mac: 2: gags—2V 2:55 :3 €5.32 88»: 8

hon 0:0 ““2325 9.659; 805568 owfiso 5589
EU 05 EB accowm Mafia—tam :0 $2. .38—QED

 

ammo has 23 HE. 5 2E 3.5 :52 $3 sows: .96: 885. «.n

35231 “mafia—own 555 E 332 :oZm mama—020

 

 

 

 

53¢ E EEn 28620 59: ED 9:5302 goQQ _ mm
mmflm 325m 0555‘ $59.2; 95 comma 885. um

 

 

 

 

 

.82: 92695 £8.83 95 Emma—o #3035956: b6 5

 

 

donate". a 038.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

000503000 n0.0.0.0300 0. 300 000800.00E 0... @0008.
£000.00. 60.0w0 to 0000. 0>00 00.0.0 0:35:03
00 0.03:0 00.303 .00.... M0:.0> b00005 .m> 28.0.00

 

2E0. 30002080003033 00>00D 000003 .000 08$on .5

0.0.0.000. 0.05 wfiww... 000 0.000000% 0000: 9002.00
.0005 0.00 95> 302v 0302 0.0....0m. 000.03. 0.02 $8.0m? 0w

0 00mg. 00 20 000000w 000.5 ”08.0.5 30.0 8.00.. 00.0
000.0055 08.0.00 00%: 0.0:000 05000 000.002.: 00.3 .000... 0% 008w 0005 080.083. 00... 00.30302 oooQNQv on
0.00.0630. .390. .000 aim—0000.3. .00..00m .0502. 000.002.: wows: 0003. «6on8.» mm

30 05 00 0. 00 8000.000 .000. 05 50.3. $0 0.0.0.000

0000. 000 000.002 0. 0.0..030 EU “000.0...0 .0w0.
00.3.0000 000.0...0 00.0.0502. 0.082-253 0000.0 0.0.0... 5.0.. 88.5.0 3.

0 4.008.020 0000. 0. .003 $080.00 0>0m 0.8.00.0 00000

:00 05 .30. 05 ..0 .080 00.. 0.0.0.0 0.0000 0 .00 0E3

.000“. 0.. 00 30 00.. .20 >00 2%.... 00> ”000500. 0050..

0000.050 .0.>0 00 0.0 m.00>0..0m. 0>.m:.0xm. 300020.003
.0000 3.000200.— 0 0. 000A. 00 .30. 000 .0038. 30.0. 0302 b.0Q 000.00 000E30m .8007. RENEE» mu

:0 :00 >00 >00... 00.0%.: .00.. 03.0.00 0. 00.0. 033
“0000 m0.00N 30.08.). 302. .0802. 00.000003? 0000M. 000x aoonSv mm

$.03 0 0. .0w 3.0 $00.05 00.0.00 90.2.3. 000.005
b.0 Eot .0502 0000.“. 000000006 .0053 00000w...000. 0.00% 00:000. 0860:. 5

0.00... 0>0E0._ 0. 00.00 m 00>.m.~ 505002 ”08.0.00 00:0...
0.0 .032 00.0.0.0 .080. 00300 2F 000.05: 0080 800000 8

030. 0. 00000 05 a: 00.0. 000000.60 08.0.00 0.0.0.005
M00500 08.0.00 000...: 000000.. 0000‘. 0.00.. 0.0b0m 00.3 .000. a. 008m 000:. 00.0.0003. 00... 00.30302 00.530 00
28.0.00 95> 302.. 0302 0.0.03. L000.03. 00.5 08680 E.

0000. 0. $000.00. >00 30:0 8 00.03 00.000 00.000005
00.0.0030. 00 0:800 0000.020 .90 28> 302. 0302 0.0.05 0000005 0000 Sam: .0 E
000 00.0.4.0 .080 00:. 0000000.. 95> 302. 0302 0.0....0m. 000.05. 00.5 08m: Qm on

02m 0003 “300 00. .0000. E00. 0050. 0000.050
..00000 00 m0.0.000 00.0..00 08.0.00 0000.0... 00.0‘. 0.0m 00.0 00.005 £00023 80$ch n»
000.0200 00000.0... $0.30.... 5.3 90:03.2. 0000mm.n.-.mon. 0.00. gm 00000. 000405 8.53% E

 

 

 

.8228 0 23

 

 

110

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8223 290.03 mom acacia}, 2:. E35 was: 259.3% 3

25: 020 05 08 88.25 ,8: S Ewe; ”33:5 82
gob wE>= 3:28: 382 05 28.25 53.5 25» .801— fi 88m $05 3368?. 2:. bags“. :52. oooQNZm 3
38.25 :35 (8 $8 30:“ 8 £33 0v. 2:5 .801. a. 83m $3; n0§00mm< 2? 238302 ooon—R No
3?: DE 022: 28.020 3228 8 62mm 0:3 :30; av 23m 38m caflocmml‘ 2: 0:39:02 ooontm 3
28320 wcifi co 8:: 83 AoEOV gamma mane—zoo EH 8632 :30 coon: Sm co

8 353 23050 ”flozoac b6 he 0:? Bo: 930m
.830me m chuw “mom 5250 2: $an .2 5:93:29 cooQQm ow

ohm coon Mocoba a oEooEB Laws. o: :83 523
£5.3sz win—:5 {oi—om ”ovoo 26: m :o E choN

 

 

 

 

 

 

63528 w 033

Ill

REFERENCES

112

REFERENCES

Adams, C.J. (2000). The sexual politics of meat: A feminist-vegetarian critical theory
(10th ed.). New York: Continuum.

Allen, P. (2004). Together at the table: Sustainability and sustenance in the American
agrifood system. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Published in cooperation with the Rural Sociological Society.

Altheide. D. L. (1996). Qualitative media analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Bellows, A. C., Robinson, V., Guthrie, J., Meyer, T., Peric, N., & Hamm, M. W. (2000).
Urban livestock agriculture in the state of New Jersey, USA. Urban Agriculture
Magazine, 1 (2), 8-9.

Bingen, J ., Colasanti, K., Fitzpatrick, M., & Nault, K. (2009). Urban agriculture. Praeger.

Blecha, J. L. (2007). Land of eggs and honey: Alternative urban imaginaries. University
of Minnesota, Minnesota.

Blecha, J. L. (2007). Urban life with livestock: Performing alternative imaginaries
through small-scale urban livestock agriculture in the United States. Unpublished
Ph.D., University of Minnesota, Minnesota.

Clutton-Brock, J. (2007). How domestic animals have shaped the development of human
societies. In L. Kalof & B. Resl (Eds), Cultural history of animals in antiquity
(Vol. 1). Oxford: Berg.

DeLind, L. B. (2002). Place, work, and civic agriculture: common fields for cultivation.
Agriculture and Human Values. 19(3), 217-224.

Delind, L. B. (2006). Of bodies, place, and culture: Re-Situating local food. Journal of
Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 121-146.

113

DeLind, L. B., & Bingen, J. (2008). Place and civic culture: Re-Thinking the context for
local agriculture. Journal of A gricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21(2), 127-
151.

Felsing, R. D. (2001). How community gardens are treated in the planning documents
and zoning ordinances of selected cities. Madison, WI: The Madison Ad-Hoc
Committee on Community Gardens, Department of Urban and Regional Planning,
University of Wisconsin - Madison.

Gamson, W. A. (1995). Constructing social protest. In H. Johnston & B. Klandermans
(Eds), Social movements and culture (pp. 85-106). Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota Press.

Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear
power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1-37.

Gaynor, A. (1999). Regulation, resistance and the residential area: The keeping of
productive animals in twentieth-century Perth, Western Australia. Urban Policy
and Research, 17, 7-16.

Gaynor, A. (2007). Animal agendas: Conflict over productive animals in twentieth-
century Australian cities. Society & Animals, 15(1), 29—42.

Goodman, D. (2003). The quality 'turn' and alternative food practices: reflections and
agenda. Journal of Rural Studies, 19(1), 1-7.

Haraway, D. J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New
York: Routledge.

Hesse—Beiber. S. N., & Leavy, P. (2006). The practice of qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hinrichs, C. C. (2003). The practice and politics of food system localization. Journal of
Rural Studies, 19, 33-45.

114

Holloway, L. (2001). Pets and protein: Placing domestic livestock on hobby-farms in
England and Wales. Journal of Rural Studies, 17(3), 293-307.

Holloway, L., Kneafsey, M., Cox, R., Venn, L., Dowler, E., & Tuomainen, H. (2007).
Beyond the ’alternative' - 'conventional' divide? Thinking differently about food
consumption-production relationships. In D. Maye, L. Holloway & M. Kneafsey
(Eds), Alternative food geographies: Representation and practice (pp. 77-93).
London: Elsevier.

Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R. S., & Walker, P. (2002). How sustainable agriculture can

address the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(5), 445-456.

International, Q. (1999-2009). NVivo (Version 8.0.3320 SP4): QSR International Ltd.

Kalof, L., & Fitzgerald, A. (2003). Reading the trophy: Exploring the display of dead
animals in hunting magazines. Visual Studies, 18(2).

Kaufman, J. (2008). Food in planning: A seven year odyssey from off the planning table
to on the planning table. Paper presented at the Symposium on the Role of Food
and Agriculture in the Design and Planning of Buildings and Cities. Retrieved
from
http://www.ryerson.ca/foodsecurity/projects/urbandesign/Jerome%20Kaufman.pd
f

Kaufman, 1., & Bailkey, M. (2000). Farming inside cities: Entrepreneurial urban
agriculture in the United States: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper.

Kloppenburg, 1., Hendrickson, J. 1., & Stevenson, G. W. (1996). Coming in to the
foodshed. Agriculture and Human Values, 13(3), 33-42.

Lawson, L. J. (2005). City bountiful: A century of community gardening in America.
Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lemer. 1. E., & Kalof, L. (1999). The animal text: Messages and meaning in television
advertisements. The Sociological Quarterly, 40(4), 565-586.

115

Leyshon, A., & Lee, R. (2003). Introduction: Alternative economic geographies. In A.
Leyshon, R. Lee & C. C. Williams (Eds), Alternative economic spaces (pp. 1-27).
London: Sage Publications.

Lobao, L., & Meyer, K. (2001). The great agricultural transition: Crisis, change, and
social consequences of twentieth century US farming. Annual Review of
Sociology, 27, 103-124.

Lockie, S. (2006). Capturing the sustainability agenda: Organic foods and media
discourses on food scares, environment, genetic engineering, and health.
Agriculture and Human Values, 23(3), 313-323.

Lyson, T. A. (2004). Civic agriculture: reconnecting farm, food and community.
Medford, MA: University Press of New England.

Mason, 1., & F inelli, M. (2006). Brave New Farm? In P. Singer (Ed), In Defense of
Animals: The Second Wave (Reprinted in The Animals Reader: The Essential
Classic and Contemporary Writings ed., pp. 104-122). Malden, Oxford: Carlton

Blackwell.

Matheson, D. (2005). Media discourses: Analysing media texts. New York: Open
University Press.

Maxwell, 1. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interpretive approach (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication. '

Maye, D., Kneafsey, M., & Holloway, L. (2007). Introducing alternative food
geographies. In D. Maye, L. Holloway & M. Kneafsey (Eds), Alternative food
geographies: Representation and practice. London: Elsevier.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Miller, M. & Reichert, B. (2000). Interest group strategies and journalistic norms: New
media framing of environmental issues. In S. Allen, B. Adam, and C. Carter.
(Eds), Environmental risks and the media. London: Routledge.

116

Mooney, P. H., & Hunt, S. A. (1996). A repertoire of interpretations: Master frames and
ideological continuity in US. agrarian mobilization. The Sociological Quarterly,
37(1), 177-197.

Mougeot, L. 1. A. (Ed.). (2005). Agropolis: The social, political and environmental
dimensions of urban agriculture. Ottawa and London: International Development
Research Centre and Earthscan.

Nassbaum, M. (2007). The moral status of animals. In L. Kalof & A. Fitzgerland (Eds),
The Animals Reader: The essential classic and contemporary writings (pp. 30-
36). Oxford: Berg.

Oliver, P. E., & Johnston, H. (2000). What a good idea! Ideologies and frames in social
movement research. Mobilization: An International Journal, 4(1), 37-54.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3 ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Philo, C. (1995). Animals, geography, and the city: Notes on inclusions and exclusions.
Environment and Planning D-Society & Space, 13(6), 655-681.

Philo, C., & Wilbert, C. (2000). Animals Spaces, Beastly Places: An introduction. In C.
Philo & C. Wilber (Eds), Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: New geographies of
human-animal relations. New York: Routledge.

Pothukuchi, K., & Kaufman, J. L. (1999). Placing the food system on the urban agenda:
The role of municipal institutions in food systems planning. Agriculture and
Human Values, 16(2), 213-224.

Sanders, C. R., & Arluke, A. (1996). Regarding Animals: Temple University Press.

Schiere, H., Rischkowsky, B., Thys, E., Schiere, 1., & Matthys, F. (2006). Livestock
keeping in urbanised areas, Does History Repeat Itself? In R. van Veenhuizen
(Ed.), Cities farming for the future: Urban agriculture for green and productive
cities. Silang, Philippines: RUAF Foundation, IDRC & IIRR.

117

 

Schiere, H., Tegegne, A., & van Veenhuizen, R. (2000). Livestock in and around cities.
Urban Agriculture Magazine, 1(2), 1-4.

Serpell, J. (1986). In the Company ofAnimals. New York: Basil Blackwell Inc.

Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1992). Master frames and cycles of protest. In A. D.
Morris & C. M. Mueller (Eds), Frontiers of social movement theory (pp. 133-
155). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Snow, D. A., Worden, S. K., Rochford, E. B., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment
processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American
Sociological Review, 51(4), 464-481.

Spiegel, M. (1988). The dreaded comparison. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.

Ten Eyck, T. A., & Williment, M. (2003). The national media and things genetic -
Coverage in the New York Times (1971—2001) and the Washington Post (1977-
2001). Science Communication, 25(2), 129-152.

Ten Eyck, T. A., & Williment, M. (2004). The more things change... : Milk
pasteurization, food irradiation, and biotechnology in the New York Times. Social
Science Journal, 41(1), 29-41.

Tovey, H. (2003). Theorising nature and society in sociology: The invisibility of animals.
Sociologia Ruralis, 43(3), 196-215.

Tuan, Y.-F. (1984). Dominance and affection: The making of pets. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.

van Veenhuizen, R. (2006). Introduction. In R. van Veenhuizen (Ed.), Cities farming for
the future: Urban agriculture for green and productive cities. Silang, Philippines:
RUAF Foundation, IDRC & IIRR.

118

 

Whatmore, S. (1999). Hybrid geographies: Rethinking the "human" in human geography.
In D. Massey, J. Allen & P. Sarre (Eds), Human geography today. Cambridge:
Polity Press.

Whatmore, S. & Thome, L. (1997). Nourishing networks: Alternative geographies of
food. In D. Goodman & M. Watts (Eds) Globalising food: Agrarian questions
and global restructuring. New York: Routledge.

Winter, M. (2003). Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism.
Journal of Rural Studies, 19, 23-32.

Wodak, R. (1996). Disorders o/‘discourse. New York: Addison Wesley Longman
Limited.

Wodak, R. (2008). Introduction: Discourse studies - important concepts and terms. In R.
Wodak & M. Krzyzanowski (Eds), Qualitative discourse analysis in the social
sciences (pp. 1-29). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wolch, J. (1998). Zoopolis In J. Wolch & 1. Emel (Eds), Animal geographies: Place.
politics, identity in the nature-culture borderlands (pp. 119-138). London: Verso.

Wolch, 1. (2002). Anima urbis. Progress in Human Geography, 26(6), 721-742.

Wolch, 1., Brownlow, A., & Lassiter, U. (2000). Constructing the animal worlds of inner-
city Los Angeles. In C. Phil & C. Wilbert (Eds), Animal spaces, beastly places:
New geographies of human-animal relations (pp. 71-97). New York: Routledge.

Wolch, 1., & Emel, J. (1995). Bringing the animals back in. Environment and Planning
D-Society & Space, 13(6), 632-636.

Wolch, 1., & Lassiter, U. (2002). From barnyard to backyard to bed: attitudes toward
animals among Latinas in Los Angeles. In G. Hise & W. Deverell (Eds), Land of
sunshine: the environmental history of greater Los Angeles. Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press.

119

 

Wright, W., Ransom, E., & Tanaka, K. (2005). The "all-American meal": Constructing
confidence in the case of BSE. Illness, Crisis & Loss, 13(2), 95-115.

120