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

Emily A Buddle, Heather J Bray, Rachel A Ankeny
{"title":"Values of Australian Meat Consumers Related to Sheep and Beef Cattle Welfare: What Makes a Good Life and a Good Death?","authors":"Emily A Buddle,&nbsp;Heather J Bray,&nbsp;Rachel A Ankeny","doi":"10.1007/s41055-022-00114-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":73041,"journal":{"name":"Food ethics","volume":"8 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9753876/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-022-00114-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

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.

与羊和肉牛福利相关的澳大利亚肉类消费者的价值观:怎样才能生得好,死得好?
全球对牲畜福利的兴趣日益浓厚。以往对动物福利态度的研究主要集中在欧洲和美国,而对澳大利亚的关注相对较少,澳大利亚由于其农业在经济和文化上的突出地位而成为一个重要的地区。在这篇文章中,我们提出了定性研究的结果,澳大利亚肉类消费者如何概念化羊和肉牛福利。该研究在两个首府城市(墨尔本,维多利亚州和阿德莱德,南澳大利亚)和一个小得多的农村中心(昆士兰州图文巴)进行,使用焦点小组(涉及40.9%的参与者)和购物中心拦截访谈(参与者的59.1%),共有66名参与者。定性分析强调,参与者对动物的“美好生活”和“美好死亡”意味着什么有清晰的想法,他们的信念与他们对澳大利亚农业“应该是什么”的期望和文化理解密切相关。在回答开放式问题时,参与者表达的态度依赖于对“田园牧歌”的浪漫化看法,比如经常讨论什么是羊肉和牛肉生产的“正常”,以及与之相关的什么是“自然行为”。许多参与者拒绝任何与“他者”相关的东西,将其归类为不“正常”:我们认为,不被认为是正常的,包括集约化生产、外资所有权和清真屠宰做法,似乎将参与者对动物“美好死亡”的概念置于危险之中,反过来,“美好生活”的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信