UK farmers have faced mounting pressures in recent years, with policy changes, payment losses, and general uncertainty being layered onto a job that is demanding even in the best of times. In addition, a staggering 90% of young farmers cite mental health as the biggest hidden danger facing UK farming today. While efforts to encourage open dialogue and address this topic are promising, more is needed to understand the issue’s complexity.

One element of farmers’ mental health we were interested in exploring was the emotional impact of sending animals to slaughter. This seemed especially salient amidst growing concerns over a general rise in industrial and concentrated animal agriculture.

In collaboration with Stock Free Farming, we set out to explore the potential toll of sending animals to slaughter on farmers’ mental health, alongside related topics. Using empirical methods, we investigated farmers’ first-hand experiences and perceptions and contextualized these using concepts from moral philosophy and applied ethics. Our approach – from data collection, to analysis, to reporting – hinged on keeping farmers’ voices central in the conversation.

This insight provides an overview of the study, which was published in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. As such, this is just a snapshot of some of the results. We strongly encourage you to download the PDF version of this paper, where you can see a more detailed breakdown of our findings and what they mean in context.

The final report also makes robust policy recommendations to address the key barriers preventing farmers from reducing livestock numbers and diversifying their income stream. They are grounded in this study’s findings, and have been co-developed with input from livestock farmers.

This study ran an online survey with 287 UK participants who currently or previously worked in agriculture or related fields, 115 of which were current or former livestock farmers.

Due to the sensitive nature of the subject, participants were signposted at the end of the survey to relevant mental health resources, including farming-specific support organisations where available.

The survey included a number of multiple choice questions as well as one fully optional open-ended question where participants could anonymously share their experiences with emotional suppression, poor mental health, and sending animals to slaughter.

We received a higher-than-expected volume of responses to this question. These thoughtful responses provide a personal and farmer-centered tone to the study, allowing for richer, contextual insights.

The hidden cost of livestock farming is widely felt.

• 49% agree that sending their animals to slaughter is a horrible day.
• 45% say they sometimes suppress feelings of compassion towards their animals.
• 26% of respondents surveyed agreed that raising animals to be killed has negatively impacted their mental health.

There may be a culture of silence around these difficulties.

• We had farmers rate their own agreement with a number of quotes from fellow livestock farmers to better understand the array of complex feelings related to sending animals to slaughter. These agreement rates are presented below:

• We then had these same farmers estimate the extent to which fellow livestock farmers would agree with each quote.
• Farmers surveyed consistently underestimated the percentage of fellow farmers who experienced difficult feelings around sending animals to slaughter.
• Farmers surveyed overestimated (by 74%) the number of farmers agreeing with the statement “I’m happy as it’s money in the bank” when it comes to sending animals to slaughter.

There is an appetite for diversification – if financially viable.

• 63% of livestock farmers said they would consider decreasing the number of animals on their farms if there were other viable options that could bring in equal or higher income.
• 70% of farmers surveyed agreed they would support government efforts to provide farmers capital to invest in non-livestock related activities.

For researchers, advocates, and farmers, we provide the following actionable recommendations: