Page 188 of 201
The systems being developed and trialled by the Australian dairy industry provide a potential model for consideration by other industries.
This two-component approach provides an efficient and effective way for industry RD funds to underpin base-level capacity and system development while encouraging and facilitating
third party providers and individual exporters to be innovative and develop additional commercial IP that is external to the core system and that links to the core system to access
records.
12.12 Success in meeting objectives
All objectives were achieved. Nine of thirteen objectives were achieved completely. There were two objectives that were partially achieved Objectives 3 and 13 and two objectives
where the project requirements were met without requiring all activities to be completed Objectives 4 and 5.
The project was preceded by extensive consultation with industry to ensure that the innovative approach developed for this project would be supported by industry. The
approach was based on involvement of industry personnel particularly AAVs to perform disease investigations and particularly necropsies during export voyages. This approach
required the support and commitment of exporters who were responsible for employing AAVs and the AAVs themselves. Industry stakeholders were very supportive of the
approach and AAVs were very happy to be involved.
The systems and processes developed for this project have worked effectively to allow AAVs to perform mortality investigations and contribute information and biological samples to the
research project.
Sufficient samples and information on mortalities were collected to allow description and characterisation of the most important causes of death in cattle exported from Australia on
long haul voyages with a focus on Middle East destinations.
The innovative approach developed for this project was based on a careful review of pros and cons of different strategies. Previous studies have tended to have a small number of
highly trained research personnel with members of the research team accompanying specified voyages to conduct necropsies and collect samples.
113
This approach was considered to severely limit the number of voyages that could be enrolled and would
consequently limit the usefulness of the information. The benefit of this approach was that the data that was collected would be more likely to be complete and of a uniformly high
quality, because the project team members would be highly motivated to perform all tasks as per protocol.
We chose to involve AAVs because this meant that we could enrol many more voyages and collect data from more cattle.
We recognised that the use of AAVs for collection of data would pose problems that would require careful management.
113
Norris et al. 2003; Makin et al. 2009
Page 189 of 201
The use of AAVs for collection of research information and data provided an opportunity for variation between AAVs with respect to approach to classification diagnosis, recording,
necropsy and sample collection. We attempted to address this with development of the handbook and associated training, including provision of the DVD on how to conduct a
necropsy and also by ensuring that every ship had a fully stocked veterinary kit, so that every AAV could perform all procedures they were being asked to complete. Detailed
information was provided on how to package, label, and store samples, completed forms and electronic data and images for importation into Australia.
We consulted widely with exporters and AAVs about the procedures. Industry feedback from the pilot voyages indicated there were concerns that AAVs were being asked to undertake
too much for the project and that proj ect activities might interfere with the AAV’s ability to
complete routine tasks during the voyage. We responded by simplifying the necropsy procedures as much as possible, reducing the expectation with respect to the number of
dead animals that AAVs were being asked to necropsy and generally simplifying processes to minimise the time required by AAVs to complete research tasks.
Our approach meant we had to be prepared to simplify procedures and forgo some data and information that may be of interest because we had to avoid overloading AAVs with
unrealistic expectations. We had to focus on those priority activities that would provide maximal benefit for the research objectives while designing tasks for the AAV in a way that
minimised their time commitment and ensure they would both complete research tasks and all of their regular daily tasks as well. Our review of AAV job descriptions and legislative
requirements indicated that all of the procedures we were asking AAVs to do were already part of their routine tasks, with the exception of collection of biological samples and filling in
the research specific forms we provided.
Compliance with project procedures was not uniformly achieved and deteriorated through the duration of the project.
There was a high level of interest and engagement initially and good compliance with the post-mortem requirements and completion of the necropsy dead cattle report form and
collection of post mortem samples. There was generally poor compliance with the separate daily health report form that was intended to provide simple data collection on general
health and morbidity measures. AAVs did not fill in the daily health report form, perhaps because the information was similar to that being compiled each day for the daily voyage
report that was sent to DAFF and because they were focused mainly on the dead animal form and on completing necropsies and collecting necropsy samples.
None of the project team anticipated the unfortunate events of 2011, that led to cessation of livestock exports to Indonesia and the implementation of ESCAS across the export industry.
These events were associated with a great deal of stress and uncertainty within the industry and had an impact on industry commitment to and willingness to participate in this project.
Over the duration of the project, it became more difficult to enrol voyages into the project. In addition, AAVs on participating voyages tended to complete necropsies on a smaller
proportion of voyage mortalities over time. The erosion of commitment to the project procedures was almost certainly exacerbated by delays in the time from end of voyage to
completion of all pathology investigations on samples collected during that voyage. In some
Page 190 of 201
cases it was several months before samples were imported back into Australia. Since this work was largely being done by a PhD student there were additional inefficiencies because
field work requirements prevented timely completion of laboratory work.
As this report was prepared, the overwhelming sense was that industry has strongly supported and helped to complete a large and innovative project and this has delivered
significant advances in our knowledge and understanding of drivers contributing to mortality in export cattle.
During the course of the project we encountered problems in accessing data and information relevant to the project objectives. The major reasons for this were that the export supply
chain is complex and has multiple different providers performing services at steps along the way and there is no centralised data repository where data and information may be sourced.
In some cases, exporters and AAVs assumed that project team members were collecting data from another source. In some cases, concerns over privacy and commercial
sensitivities meant that individuals were reluctant to provide information. In the early stages of the project when there were relatively few eligible voyages, there were industry concerns
over the ability of stakeholders to be able to recognise which ships or exporters might have been responsible for particular voyages when preliminary results were being released. Over
time as more voyages were added to the project and results were aggregated, these concerns were ameliorated. The fragmented nature of data flows within the export supply
chain provided a substantial challenge for the project team. There were datasets that we had hoped to collect and that we were not able to obtain because of these issues. For example,
we were unable to obtain copies of daily voyage reports for enrolled voyages and this meant we did not get detailed data on daily mortalities and daily conditions on board the ship during
an export voyage including deck measures of temperature and humidity. We were not able to obtain details of all treatments and protocol testing results for cattle being sourced and
prepared for export or during the voyage. This meant we were unable to assess the effects of specific treatments or vaccines that may have been administered to cattle before export or
treatments administered during export. These issues did limit our ability to explore particular associations of interest, however they did not prevent the project from achieving all of the
objectives.
The two areas where we did not achieve everything we had intended to, were in relation to collection of data to describe morbidity part of Objective 3 and conducting on-farm
investigations in conjunction with assembly feedlot investigations to increase our understanding of disease epidemiology part of Objective 13.
We developed sick animal data collection sheets and dead animal necropsy forms as part of our systems and procedures to facilitate collection of information on morbidity and
mortality. We also had hoped to obtain copies of daily health reports and end of voyage reports for all enrolled voyages, which would have served as a source of additional
information on morbidities. We were not able to obtain copies of daily or end of voyage reports from the Government, because of privacy restrictions, and exporters appeared to be
reluctant to provide copies of these reports because of commercial sensitivities. A critical part of the embedded data collection systems was the requirement to limit systems to those
that could be effectively embedded into routine operations conducted by AAVs while they were going about their regular day-to-day activities. Following our experiences with the pilot
voyages and early stage 3 voyages, we chose to focus completely on mortality data because
Page 191 of 201
of concerns from AAVs and exporters about AAVs spending too much time collecting information for the research study while they were employed on routine export voyages with
a full set of commercial and legislative responsibilities. It was not possible for AAVs to routinely collect sick animal information in addition to their other tasks. If this project were
being undertaken now, we would make every effort to design project data collection forms to meet regulatory reporting needs daily and end of voyage reports and lever morbidity and
mortality data where possible off the back of these necessary compliance tasks. We tried to do this in the W.LIV.0252 project for morbidity information, but were not able to achieve this
effectively.
The intent for Objective 13 was to explore potential risk factors that may be operating at either assembly depot level or at property of origin level. In designing this objective it was
always recognised that on-farm activities would be constrained by cost and practicality. It simply was not possible to plan for on-farm visits and to travel to sufficient farms at a time
when animals were being handled and might be available for examination andor sampling. Constraints were associated with time, labour, access and cost. As a result, we focused on
collecting samples from animals at assembly depots.
On both these occasions we made decisions based on protecting priority data collection in selected areas, that unfortunately had the effect of omitting some data collection from other
desired areas. The overall impact of these issues on the broader success of the project was relatively small.
The two objectives where project requirements were met without requiring all of the proposed objective to be completed were Objectives 4 and 5. At the time the project started,
we were proposing an open dialogue with industry to seek options for how research data might best be collected from systems that were embedded into routine day-to-day
operations. We hoped that research activities would principally involve AAVs, but acknowledged that activities might involve both AAVs and stockpersons. If both groups were
involved in research activities it would be very important to clarify responsibilities separately and in a complementary manner for AAV and stockperson to avoid confusion and redundant
or inefficient actions. As discussions progressed it became apparent that AAVs would be the primary focus for research activities and therefore Objectives 4 and 5 were focused very
clearly on AAV responsibilities.
With the benefit of hindsight, we would add substantially more resources in the design phase for communication, industry liaison, fine-tuning systems to embed them more directly into
routine operations and for technical support of laboratory procedures. Having additional resources directed to these activities would allow the project team to complete key pathology
testing in a more efficient manner and generate interim reports for results for communication to AAVs and exporters. Additional communication resource would also allow more effort to
be directed at general communication with stakeholders including additional investment in newsletters, web-based communication and emails or phone calls, as well as face-to-face
visits with co-operating exporters. It is possible that additional timely feedback and communication may have helped to maintain commitment to the project over time. This
information should be considered by researchers in future considering some form of similar joint or collaborative approach to industry research.
Page 192 of 201
In summary this project was large, complex, innovative and successful. It has laid the foundation for future field research driven by industry for industry benefit. It has generated
substantial improvement in our understanding of cattle mortality risk on long haul voyages and particularly mortality due to respiratory disease. It has also contributed substantially to
improved resources and systems for monitoring and reporting animal health and welfare outcomes.
13 Conclusions and recommendations
