Rural residents share opinions on animal welfare
Nebraska Rural Poll shows just 20% say changes in regulations are needed.
LINCOLN—Nearly 70% of rural Nebraskans define animal welfare in terms similar to those promoted by advocacy groups, but most don’t think increased regulation of the state’s livestock practices is necessary to ensure proper care of animals in the state, according to the Nebraska Rural Poll.
The 16th annual University of Nebraska-Lincoln poll, taken last March and April, asked participants a variety of questions about animal welfare issues, at a time when animal-welfare advocates are pushing in many states for increased regulation of how livestock animals are treated.
According to the poll, 95% of rural Nebraskans agree than animal welfare means providing adequate food, water and shelter to livestock animals. More significantly, though, 69% agree it also includes providing adequate exercise, space and social activities for the animals.
That’s significant because it largely coincides with the “Five Freedoms” promoted by the Animal Welfare Council in England, said Randy Cantrell, rural sociologist with the Nebraska Rural Initiative. Those freedoms have served as a benchmark for animal-welfare advocates in England and the United States.
“Rural Nebraskans are willing to consider more than just the physical health of livestock as being important to their overall welfare,” Cantrell said.
Sixty-two percent of respondents said they were familiar with current animal care practices used to raise livestock and poultry, and 40% indicated they are currently raising beef cattle or have in the past. Ninety-seven percent agreed or strongly agreed that livestock and poultry production are important to Nebraska’s economy.
The poll also found that 84% of rural Nebraskans believe livestock farmers and their veterinarians know how best to care for their animals, and 74% believe animal welfare is better protected on family farms than on large corporate farms.
“There’s a notion that corporate farms don’t have the same attachment to individual animals that family farms do,” Cantrell said.
Fifty-seven percent of respondents agreed that increased regulation of Nebraska’s livestock practices would raise the cost of production and, ultimately, food.
The poll asked two related questions about rural Nebraskans’ opinions on the adequacy of current regulations or the need for more regulations on livestock practices.
Averaging the results, nearly 1 in 5 respondents said more regulations were needed, while slightly more than 2 in 5 said current regulations were adequate. There was also a large group of respondents—almost 2 of every 5—that were uncertain or had no opinion about whether more regulations are needed.
That large bloc of undecideds is central to any attempts to legislate animal welfare regulations, the Rural Poll team members said.
“One key will be the effectiveness of the political messages” from advocates of increased regulation and from representatives of the livestock industry, said Brad Lubben, UNL Extension public policy expert.
There are notable demographic differences in how rural Nebraskans perceive animal welfare and its regulation. Those differences are likely to play a role in any campaign over animal welfare regulations, Lubben said.
People who own pets—60% of the survey group—were more likely than those without pets—71% to 66%—to agree that animal welfare means providing adequate exercise, space and social activities in addition to basic care. They also were less likely—52% to 61%—to agree with the statement that current regulations are adequate.
Some gender differences also are notable. More women than men—73% to 64%—endorsed the expanded definition of animal welfare. Also, more men than women—67% to 48%—agreed with the statement that current regulations are sufficient. Similarly, more women than men—36% to 21%—agreed with the statement that more regulation of livestock practices is needed.
Respondents in agricultural occupations were more likely than those in other occupations to agree with the statement that current regulation is adequate. For example, 77% of those in ag occupations took that position, while only 44% of those in sales or office support jobs did.
Similarly, 69% of respondents in ag occupations disagreed with the statement that more regulation is necessary, while only 20% of those in food service or personal care occupations took that position.
Respondents 65 and older were more likely than those 30 to 39—82 and 68%, respectively—to agree that animal welfare is better protected on family farms than corporate farms.
“This is setting up to be a really interesting debate,” Cantrell said.