Review of Livestock Welfare Indicators Relevant for the Australian Live Export Industry

Fleming, Patricia A.; Wickham, Sarah L.; Dunston-Clarke, Emma J.; Willis, Renee S.; Barnes, Anne; Miller, David; Collins, Teresa

doi:10.3390/ani10071236

Cited by 15 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 93 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the attitudes toward animal welfare and the perceptions towards its assessment within the industry have not been investigated. Frameworks for animal welfare assessment on Australian farms [17] and in export supply chains [18] are under development and, once adopted, should bring more understanding about the affective state of animals in production systems, and potentially alter public perception. To the authors knowledge, despite the public concern, there is little transparency about the daily routine care of animals on board livestock vessels.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Varying Opinions about Animal Welfare in the Australian Live Export Industry: A Survey

Fleming

Wickham

Barnes

et al. 2020

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is significant public interest in the Australian live animal export industry and a need to develop a program that can measure and monitor animal welfare throughout the supply chain. An online survey of stakeholder opinions of this industry and animal welfare measures was carried out in 2015 with 921 respondents: 30% from the public who identified as animal welfare advocates (AWAs); 44% from the public who did not identify as AWAs (general public; GP); 26% live export industry (LEI) workers. AWA and GP respondents expressed greater concern than LEI respondents for animal welfare throughout the supply chain but had less concern for animals at Australian feedlots than in other parts of the supply chain. The majority of AWA and GP respondents believed data collected on animal welfare should be made public and should be collected by independent welfare officers and used to regulate the industry and impose penalties for poor welfare. LEI workers believed that data should be confidential, collected by LEI workers and used by the industry to self-regulate. AWA and GP respondents rated the importance and practicality of a number of welfare indicators greater than LEI workers, while respondents shared an analogous view of the importance and practicality of these indicators. Results can be used to develop welfare assessments that ensure a better understanding between industry members and those not in the industry, while facilitating welfare improvements and promoting greater transparency for the live export industry.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Varying Opinions about Animal Welfare in the Australian Live Export Industry: A Survey

Fleming

Wickham

Barnes

et al. 2020

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar incidents have continued to recur and investigations reveal failures of monitoring and enforcement of ESCAS in destination countries, in both approved and nonapproved facilities, most often revealed by the efforts of the various welfare agencies (38). The ongoing concerns have also led to a recent research review of 71 potential animal welfare indicators, categorized as animal, environmental and resourcebased measures that would be appropriate for use throughout the LEI for feeder and slaughter livestock species in the 3 LEI sectors: (1) Australian facilities; (2) vessel; and (3) destination country facilities (39). The review identified 38 (sector 1), 35 (sector 2), and 26 (sector 3) measures currently being collected plus 20, 25, and 28 measures that are relevant to each LEI sector (sectors 1, 2, 3, respectively), and that could be developed and integrated into a future benchmarking system (39) should the LEI's continue, presumably as a transition industry until importing countries agree that processed meat is a preferred product to live animals.…”

Section: Livestock Transportation Welfarementioning

confidence: 99%

Progress With Livestock Welfare in Extensive Production Systems: Lessons From Australia

Windsor

2021

Front. Vet. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The extensive livestock production industries are vital to the national economy of Australia. Continuing improvements to extensively-raised livestock welfare is desirable, necessary and in some situations mandatory, if the social license for animal sourced food and fiber production is to continue sustainably. However, meeting increasingly high welfare standards is challenging. The changing climate in this millennium, has seen the occurrence of two of the most severe drought periods on record in Australia, resulting in complex welfare issues arising from unforeseen disease, trade and environmental catastrophes. The onset of the first drought coincided with an uncontrolled epidemic of ovine paratuberculosis. It ended just prior to a temporary ban on live export of tropical cattle to Indonesia that induced a major market failure and led to severe morbidity and mortality on some beef properties. The second drought period progressed in severity and culminated in the most extreme bushfires recorded, causing unprecedented levels of mortality, morbidity and suffering in farmed animals and wildlife. Temperature extremes have also caused periodic heat-associated or cold-induced hyopthermia losses, requiring increased vigilance and careful management to reduce both temperature-induced stress during transport and the high ovine peri-parturient losses traditionally observed in extensive sheep farming. Several issues remain controversial, including surgical mulesing of wool sheep to manage flystrike, and the continuing live export trade of sheep and cattle. However, in reviewing the increasingly complex welfare challenges for the extensive livestock population industries that are export trade dependent and remain vulnerable to welfare activism, it appears progress has been made. These include development of prescribed livestock welfare Standards and Guidelines and the introduction of the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS) to address export concerns. Further, the sheep mulesing crisis led to improved producer welfare attitudes and practices, including pain management during aversive husbandry procedures that is now occurring globally. Finally, innovations in animal welfare surveillance and assessment, are additional encouraging signs that suggest improving change management of extensive farm animal welfare is occurring that provides lessons well-beyond Australian shores.

show abstract

“…To appropriately apply behavioral assessments of welfare, it is important to understand several of the most commonly used concepts of animal welfare. As there are numerous tools to measure welfare [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29], there are also numerous constructs of welfare itself [30]. It is possible for the decision of how to define welfare to reflect one's own philosophical view on animal rights and animal sentience, with each concept leading to a different use of behavioral measures.…”

Section: Behavior In Common Concepts Of Animal Welfarementioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Animal Welfare with Behavior: Onward with Caution

Watters

Krebs

Eschmann

2021

JZBG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An emphasis on ensuring animal welfare is growing in zoo and aquarium associations around the globe. This has led to a focus on measures of welfare outcomes for individual animals. Observations and interpretations of behavior are the most widely used outcome-based measures of animal welfare. They commonly serve as a diagnostic tool from which practitioners make animal welfare decisions and suggest treatments, yet errors in data collection and interpretation can lead to the potential for misdiagnosis. We describe the perils of incorrect welfare diagnoses and common mistakes in applying behavior-based tools. The missteps that can be made in behavioral assessment include mismatches between definitions of animal welfare and collected data, lack of alternative explanations, faulty logic, behavior interpreted out of context, murky assumptions, lack of behavior definitions, and poor justification for assigning a welfare value to a specific behavior. Misdiagnosing the welfare state of an animal has negative consequences. These include continued poor welfare states, inappropriate use of resources, lack of understanding of welfare mechanisms and the perpetuation of the previously mentioned faulty logic throughout the wider scientific community. We provide recommendations for assessing behavior-based welfare tools, and guidance for those developing tools and interpreting data.

show abstract

Review of Livestock Welfare Indicators Relevant for the Australian Live Export Industry

Cited by 15 publications

References 93 publications

Varying Opinions about Animal Welfare in the Australian Live Export Industry: A Survey

Varying Opinions about Animal Welfare in the Australian Live Export Industry: A Survey

Progress With Livestock Welfare in Extensive Production Systems: Lessons From Australia

Assessing Animal Welfare with Behavior: Onward with Caution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About