23 research outputs found
Values of Australian Meat Consumers Related to Sheep and Beef Cattle Welfare: What Makes a Good Life and a Good Death?
No full textThere 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
Why would we believe them? Meat consumers’ reactions to online farm animal welfare activism in Australia
No full textThe 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
What’s in my mince? Reader responses to news coverage about novel plant-based protein foods
No full textPublished online: 05 Mar 2024Plant-based protein products have recently become more prominent on Australian supermarket shelves. However, despite rapidly increasing interest in meat-free or reduced-meat diets, limited research has explored responses toward these foods. Our research analyses Facebook comments (n = 1384) in response to two ABC News articles that covered the Australian launch of Naturli’s “Minced” product in 2018. Our qualitative analysis generated seven main themes, with comments relatively evenly split between self-declared meat consumers and those who did not eat meat. Our analysis shows that social media comments can provide real-time access to what we term “critical moments” in ongoing debates as well as values, in this case related to meat and meat alternatives. Hence people’s views on contentious topics relating to food are more robust and less open to persuasion than political and industry actors might hope or expect, and alternatives to use of framing approaches are required for any media analysis in domains where conflict is present.Michelle Phillipov, Emily A. Buddle, Sarah McLean and Rachel A. Anken
Ancestry estimates: Evaluating the reliability of Hefner's cranial morphoscopic method
No full textTo identify unknown skeletal remains, forensic anthropologists provide police with information of who they might belong to, such as ancestry (someone’s familial lineage and geographic origin). The cranium has shape-based traits (morphoscopic traits) that can be scored using visual analysis, and these scores are used to estimate ancestry. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the reliability of Hefner’s (2009) morphoscopic trait scoring method, which assesses sixteen traits, as well as the impact of score disagreement among and within observers on the resulting ancestry estimates. Reliability is determined through intra-observer and inter-observer repeatability tests, whereas the impact of score disagreement is observed by comparing ancestry results generated by statistical programs from each observer’s scores. In general, most traits have high intra-observer agreement, most trait scores are in agreement, and lower inter-observer agreement. Each trait has their own pattern of disagreement, such as a score of 2 and 3 were always confused with each other for the trait anterior nasal spine, but never a score of 1. Score disagreements caused ancestry estimates to change between observers in most cases. Error causing lower inter-observer agreement included experience, tool use, method iteration, prevalence of traits within the study individuals, vague descriptions, and interpretation differences. This is the first study to thoroughly assess and identify sources of error, as well as provide recommendations for improved descriptions/pictorial representation of all sixteen of Hefner’s traits. Overall, Hefner’s method requires pictorial and description improvement for the majority of traits before it can be reliably used among practitioners.University of Manitoba Graduate Fellowship
James Gordan Fletcher Graduate Research AwardMay 202
Australian meat consumers’ understandings of farm animal welfare
No full textThis dissertation investigates Australian meat consumers’ understandings about farm animal welfare and explores their underlying values associated with meat production. Focus groups and interviews were the primary sources of data used to capture how Australian meat consumers conceptualise the issue of farm animal welfare. A total of sixty-six meat consumers across Australia participated in interviews and focus groups, facilitating the documentation of how their values are enacted through their understandings of farm animal welfare. While extensive research into perceptions of farm animal welfare have been undertaken in other developed countries, this thesis is the first to explore Australian meat consumer views on these issues using qualitative research methods. Popular understandings of an issue, and the associated values, are shaped by a variety of sources including the media, popular culture, education, religion and socioeconomic status. Two key influences associated with shaping consumer understandings of farm animal welfare are news media and the work of animal welfare activists. Due to the extensive involvement of the media in communicating about the issue of farm animal welfare in Australia, a framing analysis of Australian print press articles was undertaken as part of this dissertation. This analysis allowed the issue of farm animal welfare to be positioned within the broader social and cultural discourse within Australia. Alongside the changing media landscape, the adoption of social media has changed how animal welfare activists communicate with the public. There is anecdotal evidence of concern from the livestock industry about the role that animal welfare activists have on public understanding of farm animal welfare, and the use of animals in agriculture more generally, particularly since the rising popularity of social media in disseminating news and information. Thus this research also explores participant opinions of farm animal welfare activism, specifically online activism. This research demonstrates that public understandings of farm animal welfare extend far beyond the ways in which an animal is treated on farm or within the meat value chain. This dissertation highlights that concerns about farm animal welfare are related to the quality of life experienced by the animal. Ideas about ‘natural’ and ‘traditional’ production were found to be blurred in the Australian context as, collectively, they were considered to be representative of what participants considered to be ‘normal’ in relation to livestock production. These production methods were understood by participants to provide livestock animals with a better quality of life. In contrast, despite an appreciation for affordable and abundant protein, participants rejected intensive production methods which provided such protein as they were viewed as having negative impacts on animal quality of life. Thus, intensively raised meat is a site of tension, with conflict between participant values of abundant affordable protein and animal quality of life. Furthermore, this research highlights that concerns for animal quality of life are not only related to an animal’s emotional state but are associated with concerns about food safety and quality. Using a ‘risk’ framework, findings are summarised to argue that farm animal welfare is an issue of increasing concern in Australia because modern livestock production practices impact animal quality of life, and in turn place meat quality at risk. These findings have implications for future research into attitudes of other meat value chain participants and communication strategies to generate constructive dialogues with consumers to ultimately re-build trust in meat producers and others in the value chain amongst meat consumers and the broader community.Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Adelaide, School of Humanities, 201
Aboriginal youth, hip hop, and the right to the city: a participatory action research project
No full textThis thesis sets out to explore the extent to which health inequities experienced by Aboriginal youth living in Winnipeg are mediated by the urban environment. Between 2010 and 2011, Aboriginal youth associated with the GAPAYAC undertook a participatory action research process to create stories about the geography of health inequity, to share their ideas for positive change, and to support their social and political aspirations towards their right to a healthy city. The youth researchers (N=8) used participatory hip hop techniques involving visual art, photography, spoken word, music, and dance as tools to 'map' health inequities within and across the city. The results revealed several themes that speak to the youth researchers experiences of health inequity as they related to mobility, place, and exclusion. In turn, the youth researchers mobilized their knowledge through art and performances as vehicles for taking action against health inequity.October 201
"All the elements of a permanent community": A history of society, culture and entertainment in the Cariboo.
No full textNo abstract available.The original print copy of this thesis may be available here: http://wizard.unbc.ca/record=b118590
A Review of Legal Regulation of Religious Slaughter in Australia: Failure to Regulate or a Regulatory Fail?
No full textWhile religious slaughter is not a new practice in Australia, it has recently attracted public concern regarding questions of animal welfare following unfavourable media coverage. However, the details of religious slaughter practices, including related animal welfare provisions, appear to be poorly understood by the Australian public, and no existing literature concisely synthesises current regulations, practices, and issues. This paper addresses this gap by examining the processes associated with various types of religious slaughter and associated animal welfare issues, by reviewing the relevant legislation and examining public views, while highlighting areas for further research, particularly in Australia. The paper finds shortcomings in relation to transparency and understanding of current practices and regulation and suggests a need for more clear and consistent legislative provisions, as well as increased independence from industry in the setting of the standards, enforcement and administration of religious slaughter. A starting point for legal reform would be the relocation of important provisions pertaining to religious slaughter from delegated codes to the responsible act or regulation, ensuring proper parliamentary oversight. In addition, more active public engagement must occur, particularly with regard to what constitutes legal practices and animal welfare standards in the Australian context to overcome ongoing conflict between those who oppose religious slaughter and the Muslim and Jewish communities
“I Feel Sorry for Them”: Australian Meat Consumers’ Perceptions about Sheep and Beef Cattle Transportation
No full textConcern for livestock welfare is significantly increasing in many parts of the world. One area of concern is the transportation of livestock. Using qualitative research methods, this research explores the concerns of Australian meat consumers related to livestock transportation practices, both on land by truck and on sea by ship. Participants were predominantly concerned about animals being “crammed” into trucks and ships, and the long distances over which livestock were transported. Likely contributors to these reactions are the high visibility of truck transport in urban areas, and recent media and political attention to the live-export issue in Australia. We argue that participants’ concerns about transport are arising for a variety of reasons, including anthropomorphic tendencies, genuine concern for the welfare of farm animals, and emotional responses related to the discomfort experienced by meat consumers when they are reminded of the meat-animal connection. Given the importance of transport to the red-meat production industry, these results suggest that the sector may need to reconsider some of their practices and increase transparency and communication about the practices, which they utilise to ensure good animal welfare
Designing a "good life" for livestock: Could gene editing improve farm animal welfare in low- and middle- income countries?
No full textGene editing's successful application to benefit farm animals' welfare is unlikely in the short to medium term, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), given the high costs and low rates of success to date in research settings.Reasons: 1. Gene editing is biased toward outcomes that can be easily measured and assessed. More complex traits associated with animal welfare such as behavior or condition are less likely to be targeted using gene editing. 2. Gene editing has been designed for use in vertically integrated production systems as livestock breeding is centralized and breeds themselves are highly standardised in these systems. Many LMICs lack vertically integrated production systems, have higher numbers of smallholder farmers, lack investment by companies and NGOs to promote these technologies, lack gene editing researchers, and have limited local support for biotechnology research and training.Potential downsides of gene editing: 1. Where the intensification of livestock production is growing, gene editing is likely to further accelerate intensification and disadvantage farmers relying on less intensive production systems. 2. Genetic diversity across traditional breeds is valuable and should be maintained. It is not clear how gene editing could affect this diversity.There may be specific applications that could lead to improvements in animal welfare in certain LMICs, for example: 1. Using gene editing to bias sex ratios could be particularly valuable in India, given the country's extensive dairy industry. 2. Sex selection in layer hens in Egypt, given hens there are raised in an increasingly vertically integrated production system. 3. Producing polled cattle and eliminating the need for mechanical dehorning as currently occurs in many locales.Many farm animal welfare issues in LMICs are less likely to be addressed through applications of gene editing as opposed to lower technological measures such as better access to veterinary services, better management practices, improved biosecurity, and poverty reduction
