"Of course we care!": A qualitative exploration of Australian livestock producers' understandings of farm animal welfare issues

被引:41
作者
Buddle, Emily A. [1 ]
Bray, Heather J. [2 ]
Ankeny, Rachel A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Adelaide, Sch Humanities, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
[2] Univ Western Australia, Sch Biol Sci, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
基金
澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
Animal welfare; Livestock producers; Attitudes; Perceptions; Farmers; Sheep; Beef cattle; 5; FREEDOMS; ATTITUDES; FOOD; PERCEPTIONS; CITIZENS; PIG; MOTIVATIONS; OPINION;
D O I
10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.02.024
中图分类号
P9 [自然地理学]; K9 [地理];
学科分类号
0705 ; 070501 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:50 / 59
页数:10
相关论文
共 72 条
[1]   Assumptions of the Deficit Model Type of Thinking: Ignorance, Attitudes, and Science Communication in the Debate on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture [J].
Ahteensuu, Marko .
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS, 2012, 25 (03) :295-313
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2018, FARM POLICY J
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2007, WELFARE QUALITY REPO
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2006, MARKETING RES APPL O, DOI DOI 10.1108/S1548-6435(2006)2
[5]  
Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2019, ABARES INS SNAPSH AU
[6]  
Australian Lot Feeders Association (ALFA), 2020, FREQ ASK QUEST
[7]  
Barad K. M., 2007, M UNIVERSE HALFWAY
[8]  
Bazeley P., 2015, QUAL RES PSYCHOL, V12, P492
[9]   Attitudes of different stakeholders toward pig husbandry: a study to determine conflicting and matching attitudes toward animals, humans and the environment [J].
Bergstra, Tamara J. ;
Hogeveen, Henk ;
Stassen, Elsbeth N. .
AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES, 2017, 34 (02) :393-405
[10]   Animal welfare: the attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers [J].
Bock, B. B. ;
van Huik, M. M. .
BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL, 2007, 109 (11) :931-944