SUMMARY: Animal welfare is perhaps the most-important issue currently facing the live export trade. Opposition to the industry in Australia is almost-entirely based on
animal welfare concerns.
2.2.2.3 Assessing animal health and welfare
In order to assess, manage andor modify animal health and welfare, it is necessary first to be able to measure it. A range of methods are now available Broom and Johnson, 1993; Ewing et al., 1999,
including:
A. Behavioural and physiological evaluation • Behavioural: Preference tests; orientation, startle and reflex responses; responses to pain;
movement difficulties, movement prevention; consequences of frustration and lack of control including aggression, stereotypies, apathy and unresponsiveness
• Physiological: Heart rate; respiratory rate and body temperature; assessment of the adrenal axes, particularly the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal stress-response; general neural response,
including neurotransmitters; enzymes and metabolic products; muscle and other characteristics; measures of immune system function, including white cell numbers, antibody production, T-
lymphocyte function
B. Evaluation of production practices and performance • Production practices: Critical evaluation of specific production practices
• Performance: Reproductive success, life expectancy, weight changes, disease and injury incidence measures.
C. Evaluation of environmental design • Critical evaluation of all aspects of the environment, including physical, dietary and social.
SUMMARY: A range of methods are used to assess animal welfare, including behavioural and physiological evaluation, evaluation of production practices and
performance, and evaluation of environmental design.
2.2.2.4 Assessing animal health and welfare during live export
Current measures of animal welfare during live export To this point, the welfare of animals during live export has been measured in two different ways:
• Using mortality rates; and • By critically evaluating specific environments, such as the suitability of specific truck or pen
designs.
26
The former of these measures is undertaken, on a continuing going basis, particularly during the sea voyage. The latter has generally been undertaken as part of a focused evaluation, such as LiveCorp-
funded research and development.
SUMMARY: To this point, animal welfare during live export has been assessed using two methods:
• Through the use of mortality rates, generally with each consignment although often only during the sea voyage; and
• Based on a critical evaluation of specific environments, such as the suitability of specific truck or pen designs.
Mortality as a measure of animal health and welfare during live export There has been considerable support for the use of mortality as a measure of animal welfare during
live export. For example, the reporting of voyage mortality rates is a requirement under Marine Orders 43 Independent Reference Group, 2002, and rates have been used as a key monitor of
industry performance for some years Norris and Norman, 2001; Norris and Norman, 2002. Moreover, the rationale for creation of the Independent Reference Group and indeed for this review,
has been expressed directly in terms of mortality rates eg, ‘Following recent livestock export incidents involving unacceptably high mortalities …’Independent Reference Group, 2002.”
Although mortality is only a crude indicator of animal welfare, it is likely to remain the primary measure of health and welfare during live export for several reasons:
• Firstly, mortality rates are a robust measure of performance. In a commercial environment, mortality rates can be determined simply, objectively, without bias and without significant cost.
Furthermore, because mortality relates to the whole consignment, sampling issues
8
need not be considered and historical data are readily available.
9
• Secondly, at this stage it would appear that there is no alternative measure of animal welfare that could reasonably be adopted during live export. In most settings, mortality rate is generally
accepted as a relatively insensitive
10
measure of welfare. Although this problem could be overcome with the use of alternative measurements, they could only realistically replace or
complement mortality rate if they too were simple and able to be measured objectively, without bias and at minimal cost. At this stage, alternative measures such as various physiological
indicators of stress do not meet all of these criteria.
8
With many measures, population information is inferred on the basis of sample data. In such situations, rigorous methodology is required to ensure that the sample is representative of the
broader population. In contrast, because mortality rates are generally measured on a population basis, sampling issues are not relevant.
9
All sheep and cattle export mortality data since 1997 is available from LiveCorp http:www.livecorp.com.audownload25All20Cattle20with20morts.pdf
and http:www.livecorp.com.audownload25Sheep20with20morts.pdf
10
That is, the number of deaths is less than the total number of animals receiving less-than-optimal standards of care. A measure of high sensitivity would identify most of the animals affected by poor
welfare, whereas measures of low sensitivity would identify a smaller proportion of the animals affected by poor welfare.
27
This issue of sensitivity should be considered further. When livestock are run in open paddocks, death is generally a rare event following less-than-ideal standards of care. Despite the welfare of
many animals being poor, mortality on-farm is low and therefore is considered a relatively insensitive basis for measurement. However, the situation is different in the case of live export. During live
export, animals are under greater welfare and disease challenge, being exposed to a wide range of unfamiliar pathogens and stresses as a result of transport, social change, unfamiliar environments
and high stocking densities. As a consequence, and in the face of less-than-ideal standards of care, there is the potential for disease course to be shorter and mortality rates higher than would occur
under on-farm conditions. Consequently, the sensitivity and related utility of mortality rate as a measure of animal welfare during live export is likely to be higher than would be the case with
animals run in open paddocks.
The above mentioned discussion provides a critical evaluation of mortality as the basis of the proposed outcome standards. It does not imply, or intend to imply, that acceptable levels of mortality
and therefore welfare cannot be achieved during live export. As indicated throughout this document, acceptable mortality rates can be achieved in practice, provided mortality thresholds are set low, and
risks are understood and managed appropriately.
SUMMARY: Mortality is only a crude estimate of animal welfare. Nonetheless, it is likely to remain the primary measure of health and welfare during live export:
because:
• It is robust; and • There is not yet any practical alternative.
Other measures of animal health and welfare during live export As indicated in the previous section, there is currently no robust and practical alternative to mortality
as a measure of animal health and welfare during live export. However, additional measures would be helpful, providing additional information about animal welfare at defined stages of export. It is
recommended that industry support RD to identify additional measures of health and welfare that would be suitable for use during live export.
It is further recommended that the industry continue to support RD projects about export-related environments, with the specific aim to improve animal welfare. The recent investigation of the MV
Becrux is a useful example, where a potential welfare problem that is, animals’ access to feed and water whilst penned at sea was identified More, 2002, and RD funds are since been used to
evaluation and, as necessary, resolve these concerns.
RECOMMENDATION 3: It is recommended that the industry support RD to identify additional measures of health and welfare that would be suitable for use during live
export. Further, it is recommended that industry continue to support RD projects about export-related environments, with the specific aim to improve animal welfare.
28
2.2.2.5 Recommended animal health and welfare outcomes
