Concern 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.

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.

Social media sites have become common sources of information about current affairs, and animal-activist organisations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), use these networks as campaign tools to raise awareness against animal agriculture. The aim of the present study was to understand how an animal-welfare issue was discussed in Twitter, in Australia. Twitter Application Programing Interface data featuring keywords and hashtags were initially collected between April and May 2014 to examine tweets on animal-welfare issues in the absence of a triggering event. In July 2014, PETA released footage portraying ill-treatment of sheep in Australian shearing sheds, generating 9610 tweets in 7 days, including themes such as disgust, condemnation of the cruelty, and calls to boycott the wool industry. PETA’s social-media campaign began 24 h before comment in conventional news media online, highlighting the role of social media in leading conventional media campaigning. Associated Twitter activity from the wool industry was limited. It is concluded that Twitter is not currently an effective medium for conversations between producers and the community about farm-animal welfare, despite encouragement from industry. While there are positives for producers and industry to be on Twitter, including the promotion of their business and communication within their micro-publics, Twitter as a platform may not be ideal for generating a dialogue between producers and the community. Further research into how people engage with the content, not just through the study of retweets and amount of traffic, is required to understand whether social media has potential to change attitudes towards animal production.

Meat production has come under increasing scrutiny from consumers and citizens who feel that certain practices are unethical and negatively affect farm-animal welfare. Animal welfare can be viewed as both a scientific and social concept, and purchasing products with animal welfare claims can be considered an act of ‘ethical consumption’. The present paper reviews research that examines consumer attitudes to animal welfare and highlights tensions between consumer and citizen attitudes and behaviours, and assumptions that are made within these studies. We present our own research into motivations to purchase free-range eggs as an example of research that attempts to unpack these assumptions, in particular, that such purchases are made out of concern for animal welfare. We present a further example of our own research that attempts to identify how attitudes to meat production are socially constructed. We conclude with recommended strategies to engage the broader community in discussions about animal production, so as to improve industry–community communication about farm-animal welfare in meat-production industries.