Animal advocates in the U.S. often wonder whether their messages will resonate differently in states with more animal agriculture compared to those with less. This comprehensive study provides evidence that geography might not matter as much as we think when it comes to public attitudes about farmed animal welfare.

Researchers surveyed nearly 2,000 residents across 10 states, comparing the five highest animal agriculture states (Iowa, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, and Indiana) with the five lowest (Rhode Island, Hawaii, Nevada, Maryland, and Massachusetts). They used what’s called an “extreme groups” approach, deliberately choosing states at opposite ends of the spectrum to maximize any potential differences.

The results reveal that residents of high and low animal agriculture states largely share the same views on most farmed animal welfare issues. There were no measurable differences between the groups on several critical topics, including:

• Knowledge of factory farming practices;
• Who should be responsible for farmed animal welfare;
• Killing practices on industrial farms;
• How much mental capacity they attribute to farmed animals; and
• Personal connections to animals.

Where differences did exist, they were small and didn’t represent fundamental disagreements. For example, people in high animal agriculture states were slightly more accepting of body part removal practices like debeaking, but residents in both types of states still generally opposed these practices.

The study found that residents of high animal agriculture states knew somewhat less about animals used for food, underestimated how many farmed animals live on industrial operations, and were less favorable toward animal protection advocates. However, these gaps didn’t translate into dramatically different worldviews about animal welfare.

What proved more important than where people lived were individual factors like knowledge and personal values. Across all states, people who knew more about factory farming and animals used for food held more supportive views of animal welfare protections. Similarly, those who strongly endorsed beliefs that eating meat is “normal, natural, necessary, and nice” (the 4Ns) were less supportive of welfare improvements. These individual predictors worked the same way regardless of state residency. Knowledge increased support for animal protections whether someone lived in Oklahoma or Massachusetts. This suggests that educational approaches and value-based messaging can be effective nationwide.

The researchers also note that their “extreme groups” approach should’ve been highly sensitive to any real differences between states. If substantial regional variation existed, this methodology would likely have detected it. The absence of major differences suggests that geography truly isn’t a primary barrier to animal protection efforts.

These findings offer several actionable insights for animal protection efforts:

• Advocates shouldn’t assume they need dramatically different strategies for different regions. While some local adaptation may be helpful, the core messages about animal welfare appear to resonate similarly across diverse geographic contexts.
• The research reinforces the importance of education-based approaches. Since knowledge consistently predicts more supportive attitudes regardless of location, helping people learn about modern farming practices remains a valuable strategy everywhere. The study suggests that people in high animal agriculture states may particularly benefit from learning more about animals used for food and the prevalence of industrial farming.
• Advocates can feel confident that public opinion provides a foundation for animal protection efforts across all states. Even in areas with extensive animal agriculture, residents generally oppose harmful practices and support welfare improvements. The differences between regions are quantitative rather than qualitative. People in all areas share fundamental concerns about animal suffering.

This research provides encouraging evidence that animal advocates in the U.S. can pursue consistent approaches across different states without worrying that geography presents insurmountable barriers. While some regional adaptation may be useful, the fundamental challenge isn’t convincing people in agricultural states to care about animals — it’s helping people everywhere translate their existing concerns into support for specific protections and changes in their own behavior.