The Benefits of Improving Animal Welfare from the Perspective of Livestock Stakeholders across Asia.

In this study, 17 focus group meetings were held with livestock industry leaders in geographically dispersed areas of China, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, India and Bangladesh, regarding animal welfare issues, potential solutions and attitudes. Livestock leaders were asked 'what do you see as the benefits to improving animal welfare' and later to discuss the potential benefits and rank them according to their associated importance. While differences existed by country, the most important perceived benefit area across all countries was financial in nature, primarily focussed on the potential to increase the productive output of the animals and to improve meat and product quality. However, doubt existed around the ability to increase profit against the cost of improving animal welfare, particularly in China. Human health benefits and the tie to human welfare and community livelihood were considered most important in India and Bangladesh, and animal-focussed benefits were not significant in any countries, except India and, to a lesser extent, Bangladesh. Thus, improving animal welfare for the sake of the animals is unlikely to be a compelling argument. The results presented here can be used to create meaningful mutual ground between those that advocate improvement of animal welfare and the stakeholders that have the ability to implement it, i.e., the livestock industry.

Attitudes of the public towards halal food and associated animal welfare issues in two countries with predominantly Muslim and non-Muslim populations.

Halal food is that which is permissible or lawful for Muslims to consume. Meat products must abide by a number of requirements in relation to their preparation, condition and content to be considered halal. We conducted a survey in order to assess the knowledge of, and attitudes towards, halal meat products in two contrasting countries, one with a majority non-Muslim population (Australia, respondent n = 565), where the most commonly followed religion is Christianity, and one with a majority Muslim population (Malaysia, n = 740). The most common reasons for avoiding halal food were animal welfare, religion and meat quality. Malaysians generally believed that halal processes led to improved meat quality, whereas Australians did not. The general consensus was in favour of legally controlling animal welfare during slaughter, supported by both Muslims and Christians. Malaysians were more aware of the main tenets of halal slaughter than Australians. However, some non-compulsory, incorrect practices were thought to be required practices by respondents in both countries, but especially in Australia. Muslims were more concerned about humane treatment of animals during halal slaughter. They generally believed that stunning is never allowed and that this view was acceptable, whereas people from other belief systems generally held the view that this was unacceptable. Religion and education were the most common factors associated with attitudes, beliefs and consumer habits concerning halal. Information from this study can help to improve understanding of attitudes to halal and provide insights to policy makers seeking to address animal welfare concerns.

Australian Public Opinions Regarding the Live Export Trade before and after an Animal Welfare Media Exposé.

The long distance export of livestock from Australia to Asia has long aroused controversy for suspected animal welfare concerns during and after the voyage. However, there is little or no information on the attitude of the Australian public towards this trade. A total of 522 Australians were surveyed in Brisbane to find out about their understanding of the trade, their attitudes towards it and the influence of demographic factors. Approximately one half of respondents were surveyed just before a media exposé of cruelty on sheep shipments in 2017 from Australia to the Middle East and one half just after the exposé, to see the impact of media depiction of cruel treatment of live export sheep. Most respondents believed that they were familiar with the industry, and more after the media exposé than before. More respondents had negative than positive feelings about the trade, and just over a quarter had no feelings. Twice as many thought it should be ended than maintained, particularly women, but 40% said that it depends, mainly on ethics and animal-based reasons. Those that thought it should not be ended mainly did so to support farmers and the country’s economy. Almost one half had seen the media exposé, particularly older respondents, and expressions of sadness, empathy for the animals and anger were the most common responses to such footage. Although it increased the number of people saying that they were familiar with the trade, it did not affect people’s view of the trade, except that fewer indicated that ending the trade was dependent on other factors. It is concluded that the majority of Australian respondents in one capital city had negative views towards the live export trade, and that a media exposé had some influence on this view.