**5. Conclusions**

This paper documents qualitative data that indicates that livestock transport is a key area of concern for Australian meat consumers and is viewed as having negative impacts on animal welfare. The spontaneous responses provided by participants indicate that transport is more prominent among the concerns of meat consumers than other practices that may impact negatively on animal welfare, such as painful procedures. Participants used emotive language to describe their perceptions of transport, including "disgust" and "sadness", and the idea that animals were treated "cruelly" during transport. Negative associations with animals being closely packed together during transport was a strong theme that emerged from the data. Animals themselves were also described as appearing "stressed" and "troubled" during transport. We contend that the high visibility of truck transport in urban areas, and the media and political attention given to the live-export issue in Australia, are likely contributors to the prominence of transport as an area of concern. We also sugges<sup>t</sup> that this concern may be arising for a variety of reasons, including, due to anthropomorphic tendencies, genuine concern for the welfare of farm animals, and/or emotional responses related to the discomfort experienced by meat consumers when they are reminded of the meat-animal connection, given that animals being transported are on their way to a slaughter facility.

The evidence from our work and research by others [19] suggests that the livestock transport sector has to some extent lost consumer trust. We did not anticipate that transport would be as prominent in our research as it in fact was, nor did we expect to document the high visibility of livestock transport trucks in urban areas as described by our participants. Given the importance of transport to the red-meat production industry, these results sugges<sup>t</sup> that the sector may need to reconsider some of their practices so that they are more in line with community expectations and with current animal welfare science, and to increase transparency and communication about the practices, which they utilise to ensure good animal welfare.

**Author Contributions:** E.A.B. conducted interviews and focus groups, transcribed and analysed the data, and was lead writer on the paper. H.J.B. conceptualised the research, conducted interviews and focus groups, analysed the data, and contributed to writing the paper. R.A.A. conceptualised the research, and contributed to thematisation of the data, as well as writing the paper.

**Funding:** This study was funded by the Australian Research Council Linkage program via LP130100419, with partners Elders Pty Ltd., the South Australian Research and Development Institute, Gunners Fine Meats Pty Ltd., and Coles Pty Ltd.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors wish to acknowledge Wayne S. Pitchford for his supervision of Emily A. Buddle during her PhD.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
