Page 105 of 136
A more detailed discussion of the potential advantages and disadvantages of sheds has been provided by More 2002b, including consideration of cost-benefit issues. It appears highly likely that
shedding would reduce risk of salmonellosis in sheep during preparation for export, and would therefore have a beneficial impact on mortalities in export sheep throughout the supply chain.
However, a more detailed review of all feasible options and potential impacts for control and prevention of salmonellosis should be conducted before any decision should be made to require
shedding in all registered premises
6.8 Age of sheep
Standard 3.9 prohibits preparation of lambs held in paddocks for export between May-October. There appears to be variable evidence for increased mortality risk in lambs no permanent incisors
that may justify exclusion of lambs from export to the Middle East during the period from May-October. Monthly mortality estimates are produced for various age classes of sheep covering
the period from 1997-2009 Norris and Norman, 2010. These figures indicate that adult wethers have a higher mortality risk than hoggets and lambs throughout the May-October period, and that
mortality in wether lambs may be higher than in hoggets for some of the months in the risk period and not different in other months. A similar pattern is shown for rams adult vs hogget vs lamb and
for ewes adult vs lamb Norris and Norman, 2010. The findings do provide sufficient evidence for elevation in mortality risk in lambs in at least part of the risk period and therefore there seems to be
rationale for exclusion of lambs from export during the May-October period. It should be noted that should further research identify explanatory factors for this apparent difference in risk that can be
effectively managed then these restrictions may warrant revisiting.
6.9 Transport distance
Standard 3.9 prohibits preparation of sheep held in paddocks for export between May-October if they have been held on trucks for more than 14 hours.
There appears to be little specific evidence linking longer transport distances 800 km in the initial standards, and greater than 14 hours on trucks in the current standards with increased mortality risk
in export sheep.
In a study of pre-embarkation risk factors, there was no clear association between transport factors for the trip to the registered premise distance travelled, hours on truck, hours off feed and mortality
with sheep travelling up to 850 km and having maximal truck times of up to 26 hours Norris et al., 1989b.
In the LIVE.123 study, increasing distance travelled was associated with an increase in the risk of rejection on arrival at the registered premise and also with an increase in the mortality rate during
the journey based on the number of deaths recorded on arrival at the registered premise Makin,
Page 106 of 136
2010. In addition, longer distances travelled to the registered premise was also associated with elevated mortality risk during the voyage but this effect was not statistically significant. This is likely
to reflect the general risks and stresses associated with land transport. There was no difference in either rejection or mortality rates on arrival between the two seasons May-Oct vs Nov-April.
In terms of general welfare standards and research underpinning transport standards, a recent publication has suggested that healthy adult sheep, transported under good conditions, can tolerate
transport durations of up to 48 hours without undue compromise to their welfare Fisher et al., 2010.
These findings suggest that longer land transportation periods distance or hours travelled may result in increased rejection and mortality rates on arrival at the registered premise. However, there
is less evidence linking road transport measures to mortality risk during the voyage.
It may be reasonable to require more conservative or restrictive measures relating to road transport of sheep to a registered premise based on the expectation that those animals may be entering an
environmenttime-period that may be associated with additional stresses relative to livestock transported for other routine purposes. Animals entering a registered premise may be held in a novel
environment, at relatively high stocking densities, mixed with unfamiliar sheep, and exposed to novel feed stuffs. These factors may also be associated with increased risk of exposure to potential
pathogens. However, there is a need for additional research to justify such requirements based on clear demonstration of risk and benefit associated with various options.
The current ASEL does appear to have a range of requirements that relate to transport of livestock and that are specified separately to the national land transport standards.
There are benefits in terms of clarity, compliance and regulatory lines of responsibility if land transport requirements were left to the national land transport standards and state and territory
authorities.
It is recognised that this is dependent on assessment to show that there is no adverse effect on animal welfare outcomes if any additional requirement in the current ASEL that relates to land
transport were to be removed.
Where there is any uncertainty or if there is an identified welfare benefit of a different standard, then it will be necessary to retain these as additional requirements in the ASEL. This would also require
identification of an appropriate regulatory body to be responsible for monitoring compliance.
6.10 Full mouth wethers, broken mouth sheep and pregnant ewes
