Meet your meat! How Australian livestock producers are using Instagram to promote 'happy meat'

Emily Buddl

How farm animal welfare issues are framed in the Australian media

Topics related to ethical issues in agricultural production, particularly farm animal welfare, are increasingly featured in mainstream news media. Media representations of farm animal welfare issues are important because the media is a significant source of information, but also because the way that the issues are represented, or framed, defines these issues in particular ways, suggests causes or solutions, and provides moral evaluations. As such, analysis of media frames can reveal how issues are being made public and identify the cues that audiences are given to help them make sense of complex ethical issues. Previous research on media frames and animal welfare has tended to focus on single issues or events; however we sought to identify whether media frames extended across different farm animal welfare-related issues to investigate whether there is any commonality between issues. We analysed articles published in the mainstream press in Australia between 2014 and 2016 related to farm animal welfare, and identified two dominant frames: that governments and the farm animal production industries cannot be trusted to ensure good farm animal welfare; and that consumers can act to improve animal welfare through ethical consumption. These frames have implications for how the Australian public interpret and understand the roles and responsibilities of different actors in the food production system. This research also contributes to discussion about the role of the media in shaping public opinion about ethical issues in agriculture and how, in turn, the media landscape itself is being shaped by consumer attitudes.Emily A. Buddle, Heather J. Bra

“Of course we care!“: a qualitative exploration of Australian livestock producers’ understandings of farm animal welfare issues

The welfare of farm animals is increasingly of concern to meat producers as well as consumers and the broader community; however these groups conceptualize animal welfare in different ways, which is likely to present a barrier to effective communication and resolution of conflicts between these groups particularly as livestock producers face increasing scrutiny by community members. Since most research to date on producer understandings of animal welfare has been based in Europe and North America, we used qualitative methods to examine producers’ understandings of animal welfare in the red-meat (beef and sheep-meat) sectors in Australia. Through the use of interviews, we found that Australian producers linked “good welfare” with productivity and profitability and were willing to adopt new practices to improve animal welfare. Producers were concerned about negative public perceptions of their industry and suggested that education was needed to correct misinformation about the industry. Australian producers place significant emphasis on the relationship between climatic conditions and farm animal welfare, often describing their attempts to do the best they can in periods of adverse weather, a significant finding as awareness of climate change and its effects continues to increase. Our findings contribute to a broader effort to identify shared values between different stakeholder groups (i.e. producers, consumers, and the broader community) to highlight areas of commonality between these groups and provide more effective pathways for improving conversations about how to produce meat humanely and how animal welfare practices can continue to evolve and improve.Emily A.Buddle, Heather J. Bray, Rachel A. Anken

Why would we believe them? Meat consumers’ reactions to online farm animal welfare activism in Australia

The use of social media by animal activist organisations is of interest to those in the livestock production industries because of the perceived increased use and effectiveness of this medium for influencing consumers. Using qualitative data derived from focus groups and interviews, we explore how Australian meat consumers interact with animal welfare activism content posted to social media, either by activist organisations or members of the participants’ networks. Results indicate that meat consumers dismiss online animal welfare activism due to a perceived lack of credibility and being associated with a vegetarian or vegan ‘agenda’. Activists also were considered by participants to be ‘ignorant’, with participants suggesting they needed to experience animal farming first hand. Online activism was described as ‘slacktivism’ by our research participants, who felt that sharing something online does not create actual change in the real world and hence is not an authentic or meaningful form of activism. While farm animal welfare is of increasing concern to Australian consumers, this research suggests that information generated by activist organisations and shared via social media is unlikely to change meat eaters’ perceptions, at least in the current form in which it is being provided.Emily A. Buddle , Heather J. Bray and Rachel A. Anken

Values of Australian Meat Consumers Related to Sheep and Beef Cattle Welfare: What Makes a Good Life and a Good Death?

There has been growing global interest in livestock animal welfare. Previous research into attitudes towards animal welfare has focused on Europe and the United States, with comparatively little focus on Australia, which is an important location due to the prominent position of agriculture economically and culturally. In this article, we present results from qualitative research on how Australian meat consumers conceptualise sheep and beef cattle welfare. The study was conducted in two capital cities (Melbourne, Victoria and Adelaide, South Australia) and a much smaller rural centre (Toowoomba, Queensland) using focus groups (involving 40.9% of participants) and mall-intercept interviews (59.1% of participants), totalling 66 participants. Qualitative analysis highlights that participants had clear ideas of what it means for an animal to live a 'good life' and experience a 'good death,' with their beliefs strongly tied to their expectations and cultural understandings of what Australian agriculture 'should be.' In response to open-ended questions, participants expressed attitudes that relied on romanticised visions of the 'rural idyll' as seen in frequent discussions about what is 'normal' for sheep meat and beef production, and relatedly, what count as 'natural behaviours.' Many participants rejected anything associated with the 'other,' classifying it as not 'normal': we argue that which is not considered normal, including intensive production, foreign ownership, and halal slaughter practices, appear to place participants' conceptualizations of an animal's 'good death,' and in turn the potential for a 'good life,' at risk.Emily A. Buddle, Heather J. Bray, Rachel A. Anken