Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Animal Welfare - Senate Select Committee - Report - Export of live sheep from Australia


Download PDF Download PDF

The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ANIMAL WELFARE

Export of Live Sheep from Australia

June 1985

Pursuant to Resolution o f the Senate 31 May 1985— (1) Deemed to have been presented to the Senate and publication authorized on 13 August 1985 and

(2) Ordered to be printed on the authority o f the President o f the Senate, on 13 August 1985

Parliamentary Paper No. 326/1985

•VV

Export of live sheep from Australia

Report by the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare

THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

EXPORT OF LIVE SHEEP FROM AUSTRALIA

Report by the

Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare

Australian Government Publishing Service

Canberra 1985

© Commonwealth of Australia 1985

ISBN 0 644 03800 4

Printed by Canberra Publishing & Printing, Canberra, A.C.T,

MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE

Members of the Committee from 7 December 1983 till 30 June 1985

Senator G. Georges (Queensland), Chairman Senator Jack Evans (Western Australia) Senator J.M. Hearn (Tasmania)

Senator the Hon. D.B. Scott (New South Wales)

Members of the Committee as from 1 July 1985

Senator G. Georges (Queensland), Chairman Senator D. Brownhill (New South Wales) Senator B. Cooney (Victoria) Senator J.R. Siddons (Victoria)

Secretary

P. Barsdell The Senate Parliament House Canberra

Telephone: (062) 726906

Report approved by the Committee on 20 June 1985

iii

$

CONTENTS

Page

Membership of the Committee iii

List of Tables ix

Abbreviations and Acronyms xi

General Conclusions and Recommendations xiii

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1

Appointment of Committee 1

Evidence Presented to the Committee 2

CHAPTER 2 - HISTORY OF THE EXPORT OF LIVE SHEEP FROM AUSTRALIA The Early Carriage of Live Sheep by Ship The Origins of the Present Trade in Live Sheep Opposition to the Trade

Recent Developments

CHAPTER 3 - STRUCTURE OF THE LIVE SHEEP TRADE Introduction Size of the Trade Industry Structure 10

Purchase and Assembly Sector 10

Sea Transport Sector 13

Middle East Sector 13

Investment Base of the Industry 14

Government Investment in the Trade and Plutocratic Influence 14

Vertical Integration in the Industry 15

Co-ordination and Regulation of the Trade 16

CHAPTER 4 - THE PURCHASE AND SELECTION OF EXPORT SHEEP 21 District of Origin 21

Sex and Age Groups 22

Condition 24

Breeds of Export Sheep 24

Shearing of Export Sheep 26

1 Rubbish1 Sheep 27

Export Contracts 29

v

VO VO VO Ln u> uo

Page

CHAPTER 5 - ROAD AND RAIL TRANSPORT TO FEEDLOT 33

Duration of Journey 33

Road Transport Versus Rail 34

Transport Design and Improvements 35

Livestock Mortalities during Transport Phase from Farm to Feedlot 35

Rejection of Livestock at the Feedlot 36

CHAPTER 6 - FEEDLOTS 39

Duration of Feedlotting Period 39

Feedlot Facilities 44

Feed Troughing 44

Length of Feed Troughs 46

Feeding Regime 46

Covered Feed Troughs 47

Water 48

Feedlot Layout and Capacity 48

Dust and Drainage 49

Shelter 50

Feedlot Management 53

Industry Feedlot Statistics 55

On Farm Feedlots and Specialisation 55

CHAPTER 7 - NUTRITION AND FEED FOR LIVE SHEEP EXPORTS 57 Feed Quality 57

Dusting, Powdering and Crumbling of the Pellet 58 Digestibility 59

Low Protein, Low Energy, Insufficient Roughage in the Pellet 62

Feed Standards 63

Feed Pellets: Possible Alternatives and Modifications 64 The Handling and Administration of Fodder 66

CHAPTER 8 - EMBARKATION OF EXPORT SHEEP 69

Dockside Facilities 69

Weather Conditions 72

Embarkation Management - Practices and Malpractices 72 Stocking Densities 75

Mortality Rates During Embarkation 79

CHAPTER 9 - CONDITIONS ABOARD SHEEP CARRIERS 81

The Shipboard Environment 81

Veterinarians Accompanying Shipments 84

Animal and Human Health Considerations 86

Feed and Water 88

Ventilation 92

Livestock Carrier Design and Specification 98

Mortalities Aboard Sheep Carriers 100

vi

Page

CHAPTER 10 - CONDITIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST 107

Unloading at Middle Eastern Ports 107

Road Transport 111

Feedlots in the Middle East 111

Feedlot Facilities 112

Feed 113

Feedlot Management 114

The Environment 115

Sheep Slaughtering Conditions in the Middle East 117 Halal Slaughter 117

Pre Stunning 117

Abattoir Conditions 119

Non Abattoir Slaughter 121

CHAPTER 11 - ANIMAL WELFARE AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 123 Welfare and Profitability 123

Economic Value 124

Fact and Value 125

Animal Welfare and Economic Considerations 126

Utility and Utilitarianism 127

Moral Values, Economic Values and Social Policy 128

CHAPTER 12 - THE BENEFITS, BENEFICIARIES AND COSTS OF THE LIVE SHEEP TRADE 131

Perceived Benefits to Australian Sheepmeat Producers 131 The BAE Analysis of Returns to Producers 133

The Degree of Substitution of Sheepmeats 134

Managed Demand and Substitution 134

Other Difficulties with the BAE Analysis 136

Other Benefits to the Australian Economy and Multiplier Effects 137

Profitability and Competition 138

Barriers to Entry 139

Middle East Investment in the Trade 140

Costs to the Meat Processing Industry 142

Abattoir Closures and Unemployment 142

Meat Processing Costs and Offshore Processing 144 Value Added Prior to Export 145

The BAE Analysis of Employment Effects 146

CHAPTER 13 - THE MARKET FOR SHEEPMEAT IN THE MIDDLE EAST 151 The Middle Eastern Concern for a Secure Food Supply 152 The Demand for Fresh or 1 Hot1 Meat 153

Sheepmeat Subsidies in the Middle East 156

The Iranian Example of a Shift in Consumption Patterns 158

vii

Page

Promotion and Marketing of Sheepmeat in the Middle East 159

Advisory Committee to the AMLC for Market Development and Promotion of Sheepmeats 160

Difficulties of Sheepmeat Promotion 162

New Sheepmeat Marketing Developments 164

Competing Suppliers of Sheepmeat to the Middle East 166 Current and Potential Suppliers by Region 167

Eastern Europe 167

Turkey 168

Suppliers Within the Middle East Region 168

Afghanistan, Pakistan, India 168

North Africa 169

China 169

South America 170

South Africa 170

New Zealand 171

CHAPTER 14 - THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FAT TAIL SHEEP EXPORT INDUSTRY 173

The Establishment of a Fat Tail Cross-Breed Industry 173 Objections to the Proposed Industry 175

CHAPTER 15 - RESEARCH 179

CHAPTER 16 - FUTURE OF THE TRADE 185

General Conclusions 185

Ban on Export during the Australian Winter 186

Reform of Administration, Legislation and Codes of Practice for the Live Sheep Trade 187

REFERENCES 197

APPENDIX LIST OF WITNESSES 225

viii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page

3.1 Capacity of Western Australian Feedlots 11

3.2 Capacity of South Australian Feedlots 11

3.3 Capacity of Victorian Feedlots 12

3.4 Capacity of Tasmanian Feedlots 12

6.1 Tasmania - Duration of Feedlotting 42

6.2 Victoria - Duration of Feedlotting 43

6.3 Tasmania - Feedlot Mortalities 51

6.4 Victoria - Feedlot Mortalities 52

7.1 Analyses of Feed 60

8.1 Specification for Pen Stocking Density 76

9.1 Summary of Sheep Losses at Sea 101

9.2 Sheep Shipments to the Persian Gulf Comparison of Insurance Claims and Masters' Reports 102

12.1 Slaughter of Livestock 1973 and 1983 143

12.2 Slaughter of Livestock 1976-77 and 1980-81 147 15.1 Livestock Export Charge Collections for Research 181

ix

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AAHQS - Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service, (formerly ABAH)

ABAH - Australian Bureau of Animal Health (now

AAHQS)

ABS - Australian Bureau of Statistics

ACTU - Australian Council of Trade Unions

AFAS - Australian Federation of Animal Societies

AFIC - Australian Federation of Islamic Councils

ALEA - Australian Livestock Exporters Association

ALEIAC - Australian Livestock Export Industry Advisory Committee

ALTV - Association of Livestock Transport

Veterinarians

AMIEU - Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union

AMLC - Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation

AMLRDC - Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation

AMRC - Australian Meat Research Committee

ANU - Australian National University

APHQS - Australian Plant Health and Quarantine

Service (Now AAHQS)

AVA - Australian Veterinary Association

BAE - Bureau of Agricultural Economics

CF - Cost and Freight

GIF - Cost, Insurance, Freight

xi

CSIRO - Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization

DOT - Department of Transport

DPI - Department of Primary Industry

DST - Department of Shipping and Transport

(Now DOT)

EIS - Export Inspection Service

FAO - Food and Agricultural Organization

(United Nations)

FAS - Free at Ship

FIRB - Foreign Investment Review Board

FOB - Free on Board

I AC - Industries Assistance Commission

KLTT - Kuwait Livestock Transport and Trading

Company

LAC - Livestock Advisory Committee

LG PA - Livestock and Grain Producers Association of

New South Wales

NFF - National Farmers Federation

RE TWA - Rural Export and Trading (Western Australia)

RSPCA - Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty

to Animals

SLTT - Saudi Livestock Transport and Trading Company

UAE - United Arab Emirates

UNE - University of New England

UNSW - University of New South Wales

xii

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

General Conclusions

The live sheep trade transfers the place of slaughter of six or seven million sheep a year from Australia to the Middle East, which necessitates the transportation of those sheep at least 10 000 kilometres. The Australian Veterinary Association and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty

to Animals argued, on animal welfare grounds, that livestock should be slaughtered as close as possible to the point of production. There is little doubt that sheep suffer during the journey from an Australian farm to an abattoir in the Middle East. Any form of transport puts stress on livestock. Even if

sheep were to adapt to the confined conditions on sheep

carriers, they would still undergo stress, or other forms of suffering, during the process of adaptation to those conditions, or under particular adverse conditions encountered on the journey. In addition, the conditions under which sheep are

slaughtered in the Middle East do not match the conditions in Australian abattoirs, which have regulations to ensure a higher standard of animal welfare.

The Committee came to the conclusion that, if a

decision were to be made on the future of the trade purely on animal welfare grounds, there is enough evidence to stop the trade. The trade is, in many respects, inimical to good animal welfare, and it is not in the interests of the animal to be

transported to the Middle East for slaughter.

The Committee agreed that the animal welfare aspects of the trade cannot be divorced from economic and other

considerations. Consequently, the Committee considered a range of economic and other factors, some of which were: returns to producers, investment in the trade, international trade considerations, changes in the structure of the Australian flock

and the cost to the meat processing industry. After

consideration of all factors, the Committee acknowledges the reality of the situation that any short-term cessation or disruption to the trade would cause considerable dislocation both in Australia and in the Middle East. Consequently, the Committee agrees that the trade will continue for some years and

insists that significant improvements be made to animal welfare in many areas of the trade as recommended in this report.

The implementation of reforms will help to reduce but not eliminate stress, suffering and risk during transportation of sheep to the Middle East. Therefore a long-term solution must be sought. The substitution of the refrigerated sheepmeat trade

for the live export trade offers such a solution. The Federal Government should promote and encourage the expansion of the

xiii

refrigerated sheepmeat trade to the Middle East and other countries, with the aim of eventually substituting it for the live sheep trade.

Recommendations

4.8 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Australian

Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service ensure that research agreed to by the Australian Livestock Export Industry Advisory Committee in February 1984, for which funding has been approved by Australian Meat Research Committee, on regional sources of sheep and subsequent adaptation to conditions on live sheep carriers, be commenced without delay.

4.15 The Committee RECOMMENDS that live sheep under two years of age not be exported until the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service has completed an investigation as to the minimum age that should apply to export sheep.

5.14 The Committee RECOMMENDS that details of sheep

mortalities sustained during transportation from farm to feedlot be forwarded to the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service for collation and analysis.

6.12 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Australian

Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service revise the standards to provide for a period of feedlotting of sheep of not less than seven days prior to export and that it be made clear that this period excludes the days of arrival and departure.

6.15 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Australian

Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service issues instructions to quarantine veterinary officers to prevent sheep, which have not spent the specified time in a feedlot, from being loaded on to a sheep carrier.

6.22 The Committee RECOMMENDS that troughs in feedlots be raised to approximately the height of troughs onboard carriers.

6.29 The Committee RECOMMENDS that feed troughs be covered in export feedlots at Portland and in other places where there are problems or potential problems with weather conditions affecting the adaptation of sheep to a pellet diet.

6.34 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the State Departments of Agriculture assess the capacity of each feedlot and ensure that the capacity is not exceeded at any time.

6.44 The Committee RECOMMENDS that adequate shelter be provided to sheep in the feedlots.

6.51 The Committee RECOMMENDS that details of sheep

mortalities sustained during the period of feedlotting prior to export be forwarded to the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service for collation and analysis.

xiv

6.56 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Australian

Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service, in consultation with the State Departments of Agriculture and the Australian Livestock Exporters Association, draw up national standards for export feedlots.

6.57 The Committee further RECOMMENDS that the State

Governments license export feedlots based on the proposed national standards and, should a feedlot fail to observe these standards, the licence for that feedlot be revoked, suspended or not renewed, as appropriate.

7.9 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Department of

Transport, in consultation with the Australian Livestock Exporters Association and Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service, commission research into the use of binders and other methods to reduce the incidence of pellet crumbling

and dusty feed in feedlots and aboard ships and to establish a minimum standard of pellet cohesion to be incorporated in the Marine Orders and Code of Practice.

7.24 The Committee RECOMMENDS that Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service arrange for research to be done to draw up minimum standards for pellets to maintain body weight and to ensure the nutritional welfare of the sheep in the

feedlot and aboard the carrier.

7.25 The Committee also RECOMMENDS that a uniform pellet testing procedure be carried out either by a government authority or an independent body for each shipment of sheep and that the results of these tests be forwarded to the feedmill,

the shipper, the relevent State Department of Agriculture and the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service.

8.13 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Australian

Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service draw the attention of quarantine veterinary officers to the need to halt loading under unsuitable weather conditions.

8.21 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Australian

Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service, in consultation with State Departments of Agriculture, arrange training programmes for waterside workers who load animals on to carriers.

8.33 The Committee RECOMMENDS that quarantine veterinary officers inspect carriers before departure to ensure that stocking densities are complied with.

8.37 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Livestock Advisory Committee review stocking densities onboard live sheep carriers and, if necessary, the Department of Transport amend the Marine Orders, Part 43, accordingly.

xv

9.21 The Committee strongly supports the recent development of government veterinary officers travelling on about 20 per cent of voyages of live sheep carriers to the Middle East. The Committee RECOMMENDS that the implementation of this scheme be given high priority by the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service.

9.22 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Federal Government encourage live sheep export shipping companies to employ Australian stockmen on live sheep carriers.

9.34 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Department of

Transport, in consultation with the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service, investigate the problem of trough fouling aboard live sheep carriers and revise the Marine Orders

accordingly.

9.40 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Department of

Transport, in Consultation with the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service, assess the welfare benefits of automatic feeding and watering equipment and, if necessary, amend the Marine Orders to require their installation in live sheep carriers.

9.44 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Department of

Transport, in consultation with the Livestock Advisory Commission and the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service, consider the question of optimum volume of reserve feed and water accordingly.

and, if necessary, revise the Marine Orders

9.47 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Department of

Transport assess the merits of different feed handling systems in their ability to reduce crumbling of the pellet.

9.48 The Committee further RECOMMENDS that, on the basis of the Department of Transport assessment, satisfactory feed handling systems be required to be installed in all future carriers entering the trade, and that the Marine Orders Part 43 be revised accordingly.

9.66 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Department of

Transport, in consultation with the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service, undertake, as a matter of priority, an investigation of the effectiveness of ventilation

standards required for sheep carriers, and revise Marine Orders Part 43 accordingly.

9.77 The Committee RECOMMENDS that all live sheep carriers be required to meet the revised standards recommended in this report or be withdrawn from the trade.

16.33 The Committee RECOMMENDS that federal legislation be enacted to give Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service responsibility for the health and welfare of sheep from arrival at an export feedlot to loading onboard a carrier. Under

this legislation and where necessary in consultation with the industry, Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service be required to, apart from the continuation of its present functions:

(i) receive, collate and analyse statistics and other information in relation to transport of sheep to the feedlot, sheep in the feedlot, transport of sheep to the carrier and transport of sheep to the Middle East;

(ii) ensure the maintenance of proper standards of health and welfare of sheep, as set out in legislation,

regulations or codes of practice, from arrival at an export feedlot to loading onboard a carrier; and

(iii) to conduct research or arrange for research to be done into aspects of the live sheep export trade.

xvii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Appointment of Committee

1.1 The Senate appointed the Select Committee on Animal

Welfare on 16 November 1983 to inquire into and report upon:

1 the question of animal welfare in Australia, with particular reference to:

(a) interstate and overseas animals; commerce in

(b) wildlife protection and harvesting;

(c) animal experimentation;

(d) codes of practice of animal

husbandry for all species; and

(e) the use of animals in sport.1

1.2 After preliminary hearings in May and July 1984 , the Committee decided to concentrate on two or three areas of animal

welfare at a time and report its findings and recommendations to

the Senate on the completion of its examination of each area. One of the first two areas to be examined was the live sheep

export trade.

1.3 At the time, there was criticism of the trade from

animal welfare organisations, including the RSPCA and the

Australian Federation of Animal Societies (AFAS). There were

also serious industrial problems, mainly between the industry

and the Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union (AMIEU), which maintained that the trade was the cause of the closure of

1

many abattoirs and, consequently, the retrenchment of many of

its members. The Committee considered that, in the

circumstances, this area of animal welfare should be accorded

priority. Although the Committee initially examined the export

of all livestock, it eventually decided to restrict its

examination to live sheep exports.

Evidence Presented to the Committee

1.4 The Committee took evidence from a wide range of

organisations and individuals on all facets of the trade. A list

of those organisations and individuals is contained at Appendix

1. Inspections were made of two carriers, the 1A1 Khaleej1 and

the 'Mawashi A1 Gaseem1, and of feedlots near Fremantle,

Devonport and Adelaide.

1.5 Unlike many other areas of the Committee's inquiry, where animal welfare organisations have presented

well-documented submissions to the Committee, the Committee soon found that little information about the trade was publicly available and that which was available was either not easily

accessible, scattered among many sources, or out of date. As a

result of the public hearings, in which the Committee questioned

many witnesses about the trade, there is now a considerable amount of information on the trade publicly available from a single source.

1.6 Although the Committee concentrated on animal welfare issues in the inquiry, it decided it could not exclude economic

and other factors, particularly as some animal welfare

organisations called for the trade to be banned. The immediate banning or phasing out of the trade would have significant economic consequences which had to be considered.

2

CHAPTER 2

HISTORY OF THE EXPORT OF LIVE SHEEP

FROM AUSTRALIA

The Early Carriage of Live Sheep by Ship

2.1 In the 1830s a domestic trade in live sheep between

Tasmania and Victoria was established using a fleet of 15 to 20

small ships that carried loads of 300 to 1000 sheep. Average

losses of about 15 per cent were incurred for the one-week

voyage and 1 for want of a proper supply of food and water, or

from stormy weather whole shipments were sometimes almost

entirely lost on the passage or shortly after landing1.1 In

addition it was common for wool break to occur with total loss

of the clip. The export trade in primary products from the

Australian colonies in the nineteenth century was dominated by wool, not sheep.

2.2 Live Sheep were first exported from Western Australia

in 1845 and by 1895 one thousand sheep were being sold for slaughter in Singapore.2

2.3 In 1926 the Commonwealth introduced the Navigation (Deck Cargo and Livestock) Regulations to regulate the export of

livestock. These Regulations dealt with such things as provision of feed and water for the livestock, protection from weather,

drainage and the construction and cleaning of pens and stalls.

They remained largely unchanged until the introduction of the

Marine Orders Part 43 (Cargo and Cargo Handling - Livestock) on

1 July 1983.

3

The Origins of the Present Trade in Live Sheep

2.4 The modern live sheep export trade began in 1945-46

when more than 24 000 sheep were sent from Western Australia to

Singapore. 3 Sheep were also exported to Christmas Island and

Mauritius. In these early days of the trade, sheep were

transported over shorter distances than at present, in ships

that were converted temporarily for the voyage.

2.5 In 1952, the then Department of Shipping and Transport

(DST) formed a Livestock Advisory Committee (LAC) to advise on

livestock carrier requirements. It consisted of representatives

from the Department of Commerce, livestock shipping companies

and ship-fitting companies, under the chairmanship of an officer of the DST. It drew up a series of specifications, including pen construction and ventilation standards.4 in the early 1960s, it

determined stocking capacities and food and water allowances for sheep.5

2.6 The Middle East trade commenced in the early 1960s with

the introduction of two small ships each having a capacity of

about 6000 sheep. The sheep were loaded at Fremantle and

Adelaide and unloaded mainly at ports in the Persian Gulf, principally in Kuwait.6

2.7 Prior to 1970 livestock were carried in small ships or as deck cargo. In 1970 the largest livestock carrier in

operation was the 1Cormoran1 with a capacity of 28 000 sheep. By

the mid-1970s ships capable of carrying 50 000 sheep were coming into service.7 These were mainly converted small oil tankers

that had been redeployed after the 1973 oil crisis and the

advent of the super tankers. Subsequently larger ships were converted to carry up to 125 000 sheep. The introduction of

these new livestock carriers necessitated a review of existing specifications and the membership of the LAC was widened to

4

include representatives from the Animal Quarantine Division of

the Department of Health, the Department of Primary Industry

(DPI), State Departments of Agriculture and pastoralists.

Opposition to the Trade

2.8 In the late 1970s, the trade was beset with industrial

problems. The AMIEU, many members of which were being retrenched

as a result of closures of abattoirs, blamed the expanding live

sheep export trade for those closures. The Union maintained that

the jobs of its members were being exported to the Middle East.

Although the Union did not advocate the abolition of the trade,

it wanted the Federal Government to institute a live-to-carcase

ratio on exports. These industrial problems led to

confrontations between producers and union pickets, who were

preventing sheep from being loaded on to carriers.

2.9 At about the same time, the animal welfare movement

also entered the debate, arguing that the trade should be

abolished on animal welfare grounds. The 'Farid Fares' disaster gave impetus to the movement's campaign. This livestock carrier

was on passage from Devonport to Bandar Khomeini with a cargo of

40 605 sheep. On 27 March 1980 it caught fire and sank

south-west of Kangaroo Island in the Great Australian Bight with

the loss of the entire cargo of sheep. The Federal Government

responded to these criticisms by sending a veterinarian from the

then Australian Bureau of Animal Health (ABAH) to the Middle

East aboard a live sheep carrier to investigate the health,

welfare and handling of the sheep at sea. After some delay, the

veterinarian's report, entitled ' Sea Transport of Sheep', was

released in March 1981.

2.10 Despite criticisms of the trade and the loss of the

Iranian market of approximately two million sheep shortly after

the beginning of the Iranian-Iraqi war, the trade expanded to

the extent that in 1982-83, approximately seven million sheep

were exported with a free on board (FOB) value of $A190 million.

5

2.11 In December 1981, the Federal Minister for Primary Industry and the President of the ACTU reached agreement on the

live sheep trade. First, it was agreed that a fund should be

established to finance the promotion of carcase sheepmeat in the

Middle East. This proposal was subject to considerable debate

but never really attracted widespread industry support. Second,

they agreed on a proposal for consideration of retraining and

relocation schemes for meatworkers displaced by the trade. This

eventually resulted in the 1982 Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) study, The Abattoir and Meat Processing Industry. Third,

they agreed to send a special mission to the Middle East to

study the live sheep trade.^

2.12 In March-April 1982, the Australian Sheep Meat Study

Mission to the Middle East examined the demand for sheepmeat in

the Middle East. The majority report concluded that there was no

close substitute for freshly slaughtered or 'hot' meat among the

indigenous Arab population. The dissenting report of the AMIEU

members concluded that marketing initiatives by Australian

exporters would expand the consumption of chilled and frozen

mutton.

Recent Developments

2.13 In March 1983, a severe cold snap hit Victoria.

Approximately 15 000 sheep died in the Portland feedlots as a result of cold, stress and exposure.9 This event focussed the

attention of animal welfare organisations and government

authorities on the trade.

2.14 In July 1983, the Minister for Primary Industry

addressed the wider issues of inadequate pre-conditioning and

poor selection of export sheep and expressed concern at the level of mortalities:

6

'...the trade of exporting live sheep for slaughter is open to criticism. The current levels of mortalities cannot be explained, understood nor justified. The industry seems

intent on ignoring these dying sheep and the pleas of the concerned public.'10

On 10 August 1983 the Minister announced the formation of the

Australian Livestock Export Industry Advisory Committee

(ALEIAC). It consisted of representatives from the Australian

Livestock Exporters Association (ALEA), the Australian Meat and

Livestock Corporation (AMLC) , the Sheepmeat Council of

Australia, the Cattle Council, the then ABAH and two nominees of

the Standing Committee on Agriculture. The ALEIAC called for

research into the veterinary problems associated with the trade

and arranged for Dr R. Brennan of the South Australian

Department of Agriculture to do a study. He presented his report, 'Live Sheep Export Trade : Current Knowledge and

Deficiencies in Relation to Sheep Losses' in January 1984 .

2.15 The ALEIAC considered the report, particularly the

deficiencies in current knowledge of the trade. It recommended

that priority be given to research in certain areas, such as the

causes of mortality and weight loss, and made recommendations to

the Australian Meat Research Committee (AMRC) for funding of

research in Western Australia and Victoria.H

7

CHAPTER 3

STRUCTURE OF THE LIVE SHEEP TRADE

Introduction

3.1 The Committee was informed that the export of live

sheep from Australia to the Middle East is the largest, planned,

mass movement of animals by sea in the history of the world.1 As

a result, no comparable research and management problems have

been encountered elsewhere in the world.

Size of the Trade

3.2 In 1983 , 7.3 million sheep with an FOB value of $A2 08

million were exported from Australia.2 Approximately 3.2 million

were loaded in Western Australia, 2.1 million in South

Australia, 1.5 million in Victoria and 0.2 million in Tasmania.

The principal destinations for these sheep were Saudi Arabia

(3.2 million), Kuwait (2.0 million), Libya (0.6 million), Qatar

(0.4 million) and the United Arab Emirates (0.1 million).3 This

contrasts with the year ended 30 June 1977 when 2.2 million

sheep were exported from Western Australia, 1.0 million from

South Australia, 0.3 million from Victoria, and 0.1 million from

Tasmania to give a total of 3.5 million. The principal

destinations were Iran (1.7 million), Kuwait (0.7 million), Saudi Arabia (0.5 million) and Singapore (0.1 million).4 In a

period of six years the trade had doubled.

3.3 The voyage to the Persian Gulf usually takes about

three weeks but that depends on the port of loading and the port

of unloading. For example, a voyage from Portland takes three or

9

four days longer than one from from Fremantle and the passage

through the Suez Canal to Libya can increase the voyage by

several days. In addition, some ships unload sheep at more than

one port in the Middle East. Bunkering and revictualling of

ships, berthing delays, bad weather and political developments

can also extend the duration of the voyage. The distance

travelled ranges from 10 000 to 15 000 kilometres.

Industry Structure

3.4 The export sheep trade has experienced rapid growth in

recent years, passing from the 1 buccaneering1 phase of the early

1970s to the present phase of a large investment base and increasingly complicated management. The industry can be divided

into three sectors: (i) purchase and assembly; (ii) sea

transport; and, (iii) Middle East.

Purchase and Assembly Sector

3.5 The first sector of the industry is the domestic or

Australian sector which involves the selection, purchase,

transport, assembly, feedlotting and loading of sheep.

3.6 The selection and purchasing of sheep are done by

special purchasing teams employed by either the export companies

or the pastoral houses. Private livestock agents are also

involved in securing orders for 1 boat sheep'.

3.7 At present 50 per cent of feedlots are owned by the

four integrated export companies; that is, the Kuwait Livestock

Transport and Trading Company (KLTT), the Saudi Livestock Transport and Trading Company (SLTT), Rachid Fares Enterprises

and Siba International. Most of the others are Australian owned.

10

3.8 Eleven export feedlots in Western Australia have been

approved and had their capacity assessed by the Western

Australian Department of Agriculture as at February 1985. The

ownership and capacity of each are shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1; Capacity of Western Australian Feedlots

Owner Sheeo

RETWA (KLTT) 125 000

Fares 110 000

Siba 70 000

Metro 20 000

Emanuells (x3) 26 000

Ormond Nominees 115 000

Others (x3) 100 000

TOTAL CAPACITY 566 000

Seven South Australian feedlots have had their capacities vetted by the South Australian Department of Agriculture as shown in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Caoacity of South Australian Feedlots

Owner Sheep

Metro (x3) 150 000

Elders (x2) 135 000

Dalgetys 30 000

Reg H. Pearce

Trading Pty Ltd 60 000

TOTAL CAPACITY 375 000

(Note: Wallaroo (x2) and Port Lincoln are no longer used)

11

Two feedlots have been assessed by the Victorian Department of

Agriculture. Their capacities are shown in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3; Capacity of Victorian Feedlots

Owner Sheeo

Pedigree (Portland) 150 000

Kobo (Portland) ]20 000

TOTAL CAPACITY 270 000

There is one feedlot in Tasmania.

Table 3.4: Capacity of Tasmanian Feedlot

Quoiba (Devonport) 100 000

3.9 The live sheep stock feed manufacturers are listed in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5: Feed Manufacturers

Western Australia

Fares Rural Company, Kojonup

Milne Feeds Pty Ltd, Perth

Swan Feeds Pty Ltd, Perth Wesfeeds Pty Ltd, Perth

Maces Feeds, Williams

South Australia

Milling Industries, Adelaide

Johnson and Sons, Adelaide Red Comb Co-op, Adelaide

12

Victoria

Barastoc (Elders), Kerang

R.M. Gillett, Geelong

Metro Deny Fodders, Heywood

Two of the four major exporting companies, Fares and KLTT, own

their own feedmills.

Sea Transport Sector

3.10 The second sector involves the design, commissioning,

deployment and operating of livestock carriers and the management of sheep aboard the carrier. Livestock exporters are

licensed by the AMLC and in 1984 there were 16 licensed

exporters which exported more than 1000 sheep. Currently, there

are 24 ships, approved by the Federal Department of Transport,

to export live sheep to the Middle East, ranging in capacity

from 12 000 to 125 000 sheep. None of the livestock carriers is

Australian owned although Wesfarmers has a small share in one

ship. Twelve ships, with an annual capacity of approximately

4 240 000 sheep, are owned by companies in Kuwait and Saudi

Arabia. Ten years ago most ships were under charter but now charter shipping is a very small proportion of the total.5

Middle East Sector

3.11 The third sector concerns the unloading, feedlotting, transport and slaughter of sheep in the Middle East. The

integrated companies own 50 per cent of the holding capacity in

the receiving/importing countries.

3.12 The distribution, wholesaling and retailing of the sheep are the responsibility of various government and

commercial organisations. In Libya, LUHUM, the Libyan Livestock

and Meat National Company, a state-owned corporation, has total

13

control over this operation. In Kuwait it is controlled by KLTT

and another smaller operator. In Saudi Arabia it is carried out

by SLTT, Mukairish, and KLTT, although the tenure of KLTT in

this market is uncertain. In the United Arab Emirates, the Dubai

company receives trans-shipments from Kuwait and also re-exports

to Muscat. It appears to be largely privately owned with some

government participation. In Bahrain the Ministry of Commerce

and Agriculture is solely responsible for the purchase of sheep.

Investment Base of the Industry

3.13 The main explanation for the rapid growth in the trade

was the significant increase in Middle Eastern oil revenues,

which provided ample funds for investment. There is a large

investment base to the trade. For example, the conversion of an oil tanker to the livestock trade could cost $A32 million or

more above the original purchase price.6 KLTT has an investment

in four livestock carriers of $A150 million with operating costs for each ship of $A15 000 per day.7 The corollary is that

Australian interests have either not had enough capital to invest in ships or were not prepared to risk capital in such a

venture. The investment does not necessarily end with shipping

but can extend to facilities in both Australia and the Middle East.

Government Investment in the Trade and Plutocratic Influence

3.14 Australian investment in the trade is through

Australian pastoral houses and other commercial interests.

Australian Government involvement is mainly limited to

regulatory functions, although trade and diplomatic matters, in so far as they impinge on the trade, also remain within the

Government's area of responsibility.

14

3.15 Middle Eastern companies own much of the infrastructure

of the trade. Unlike Australia, many of these companies are

controlled, directly or indirectly, by or come under the

influence of the governments of their countries of which only

Kuwait has an elected national assembly. Most of the countries

in the Middle East that import live sheep from Australia are

governed by ruling families, who also have strong commercial

interests. These links between the commercial aspects of the

trade and the interests of the Middle Eastern governments,

although not clearly defined, confer commercial advantages on

the Middle Eastern companies, for example through subsidies on

bunker oil for their own ships. Although this does not preclude

competition in the trade, it makes their companies artificially

competitive with Australian or foreign interests.

Vertical Integration in the Industry

3.16 Four companies involved in the live sheep trade are

vertically integrated, that is, involved in the ownership and

operation of some or all of the following aspects of the live

sheep export trade:

. feedlots and feedmills in Australia;

. separate buying organisations in Australia;

. livestock carriers;

. feedlots and other facilities in the Middle East; or

. wholesale and/or retail outlets in the Middle East.

The companies are the Livestock Transport and Trading Co. KSC,

Kuwait (KLTT); Saudi Arabia Livestock and Trading Co., Saudi

Arabia (SLTT); Siba International, based in Italy and

wholly-owned by Italians; and Rachid Fares Enterprises, based in

15

the United Kingdom and Argentina, and whose shareholders have

registered addresses in the Lebanon, Argentina and Australia.

They are responsible for approximately six million of the seven

million sheep exported.8 However, there is evidence that the

cost reduction, which it was hoped would be obtained by vertical

integration, has not eventuated. In addition, profits have been

eroded by increased competition in recent years.

3.17 With the exception of Metro Meat, there appears to be

no horizontal integration in the industry between exporters of

live sheep and carcase exporters.® Although there is vertical

integration, the Middle Eastern importers are not, ipso facto,

tied to Australian supply but can, and do, import sheep from

other countries.

Co-ordination and Regulation of the Trade

3.18 There are a number of organisations that co-ordinate

the industry.

3.19 The Australian Livestock Exporters Association (ALEA)

is the industry organisation composed of the principal exporters. It co-ordinates industry policy on political, welfare

and industrial questions. It does not co-ordinate the conduct of

research on an industry-wide basis or compile industry

statistics.

3.20 The Association of Livestock Transport Veterinarians (ALTV) is a group of seven veterinarians who have at various

times been retained as veterinary consultants by major exporters. Veterinarians involved with the trade are also represented through the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) which convened a special working party on the trade in 1980 .

16

3.21 Livestock agents involved in the purchasing and selling

of export sheep are usually affilitated to the Australian

Council of Livestock Agents (ACLA) although the larger pastoral

houses are also members of ALEA.

3.22 The principal rural organisation involved with the

trade has been the Sheepmeat Council of Australia. The immediate

past president, Mr Ralph James, was a member of the 1982

Australian Sheep Meat Study Mission to the Middle East. The

Sheepmeat Council and the Cattle Council are also represented on

the ALEIAC. The National Farmers' Federation (NFF) and the State

farmer organisations, such as the Victorian Farmers and Graziers

Association, have become involved in local disputes such as at

Portland where graziers have ignored AMIEU bans and loaded

export sheep themselves. Transport operators, feedlot operators

and feed manufacturers have no industry organisations to

represent their particular interests.

3.23 The Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (AMLC) is a statutory authority which issues export licences under the

Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation Act 1977. Licences are

issued only to exporters who meet standards which have been

designed to maintain export quality. Orders issued under the Act

are intended to ensure that the animals exported conform to

importers specifications. If they are not met, the AMLC can withdraw the exporters' licences.10

3.24 The Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine

Service (AAHQS), formerly the Animal and Plant Health and

Quarantine Service and before that the Australian Bureau of

Animal Health (ABAH) , is a division of the DPI, with

responsibility for quarantine and animal health and welfare. It

administers regulation 86D of the Quarantine (Animals)

Regulations under the Commonwealth Quarantine Act 1908 which

provides that:

17

1(3) A person shall not export a consignment unless the consignment has been examined at the port of shipment during the period of 48 hours immediately preceding shipment by a quarantine officer who is a veterinary

surgeon.

(4) Subject to sub-regulations (5) and

86F (2), a quarantine officer who examines a consignment in accordance with sub-regulation (3) shall grant such certificates relating to the freedom of the consignment from disease

or otherwise as the circumstances require.1

The administration of these Regulations at the loading port is

undertaken by various State veterinary services acting as agents

of the Commonwealth.11 These State veterinary officers acting as

quarantine officers, inspect the sheep in the feedlot for health

and fitness to travel and are present at the wharf during

loading. They are also required to ensure that conditions on the ship are satisfactory prior to, and during loading.12 under the

Commonwealth Quarantine Act 1908 and associated Regulations,

they issue the export certificate, without which the ship cannot

put to sea.

3.25 In 1983, the Minister for Primary Industry appointed the Australian Livestock Export Industry Advisory Committee

(ALEIAC) . The ALEIAC is chaired by an officer of the AAHQS and

has consultative functions only. It serves as a vehicle for discussion between government and industry. It has no provision

for representation from the AVA, AMIEU, RSPCA or other animal

welfare organisations.

3.26 The ABAH was responsible for the publication in 1981 of 1 Sea Transport of Sheep', which attempted to document procedures

and husbandry practices used in the trade and provided

recommendations for their improvement. Subsequently it published

1 Standards for the Preparation and Carriage of Sheep by Sea1 which provided a basis for industry self-regulation and closer supervision by veterinary staff.13 The Standards were drafted in

consultation with industry and government.

18

3.27 The AAHQS provides administrative support for the

Sub-Committee on Animal Welfare of the Standing Committee on

Agriculture. This Sub-Committee had its inaugural meeting in

1980 and has among its members representatives from State

Departments of Agriculture. It has developed a number of model

codes of practice including codes on road, rail, and sea

transport of livestock and on intensive husbandry of sheep,

which provide minimum standards for the export process. At

present these model codes have no legal status. In Victoria,

codes of practice based on the model codes may be admitted as

evidence in court proceedings. The Western Australian

Government, however, does not intend to introduce any element of

enforcement into the codes.

3.28 The Livestock Policy Section of the DPI administers the

Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations. These require that the

export of sheep and cattle must be authorised on a shipment by

shipment basis by the Minister for Primary Industry or a

designated officer. The purpose of these Regulations is to regulate or prevent primary industry exports as the need arises,

for example the current restrictions on the export of merino

rams.

3.29 The Department of Transport (DOT) administers Marine

Orders Part 43, 1 Cargo and Cargo Handling - Livestock' pursuant

to the Navigation (Orders) Regulations of the Navigation Act

1912. The Marine Orders prescribe minimum standards for the

transportation of animals by sea, subject to the safety of the

ship, and were formulated by the LAC.

3.30 The Marine Orders provide for the inspection of a ship

prior to loading livestock to ensure that the ship meets the

requirements specified in the Marine Orders. It provides for aspects of animal welfare not directly attributable to the need

ror containment and control of livestock such as the approval of

a government veterinary officer in regard to the animals'

19

fitness to travel. In addition, inspections are carried out to

ensure that the ship complies with the requirements of the Safety of Life at Sea Convention 1974.15 All new ships fitted

for live export are inspected by a DOT marine surveyor to ensure

that the design and construction of the sheep pens, alleys and

loading ramps conform to the Regulations. The Regulations

provide for the furnishing of a Masters Report in which every ship's master reports the daily mortality level of animals at the end of the voyage. If the mortality level exceeds

three per cent, the reasons for the high level of mortality are

examined by Government authorities prior to loading being

permitted on the next voyage.

3.31 The transport, assembly and loading of sheep within

Australian jurisdiction also comes within the scope of State

.Legislation for the prevention of cruelty to animals. The powers

of inspection and action that can be taken by inspectors under

this legislation vary from State to State. For example, under the Western Australian Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act

192 0 , a special constable appointed under the Act has the right

to board livestock carriers for the purpose of inspection and he

may launch prosecutions for breaches of the Act. This right of inspection of ships does not apply in other States.

3.32 The co-ordination and regulation of the industry

outlined above applies almost exclusively to the industry within

Australia, except that the carriers must meet minimum standards. Once ships leave Australian waters, Australian influence, both

government and private, over welfare conditions for export sheep

at sea and in the Middle East appears to be limited. There are

only rudimentary welfare regulations operating in the Middle East.

20

CHAPTER 4

THE PURCHASE AND SELECTION OF EXPORT SHEEP

District of Origin

4.1 In New South Wales, sheep for the live export trade

have traditionally come from the western, low rainfall areas,

but in 1984 there was an increasing interest in sheep for the

trade from the high rainfall tablelands.

4.2 The constraint of distance and the cost of transport

precludes sheep for the trade being obtained in Queensland other

than from the southern border areas.

4.3 The south-eastern high rainfall areas of Western

Australia have provided most of the 1 boat sheep' from that State.

4.4 In South Australia, sheep have generally been obtained

from the high rainfall areas but, at certain times of the year,

up to 15 per cent of export sheep have come from the drier

pastoral areas.1

4.5 There has been conflicting evidence given on the

advantages and disadvantages of sheep for the live export trade

being obtained from the high rainfall or the low rainfall areas. The New South Wales Department of Agriculture stated:

1 The selection of sheep from the lower

rainfall areas of the state has the addeu advantage in that sheep from these areas are more accustomed to a diet based on dry

roughage, as much of the animal grazing is

21

dry roughage. This is an added advantage the pre-conditioning of these sheep feedlots to shipboard diets.12

in in

4.6 Both Dr Dobson of the South Australian Department of

Agriculture and representatives of the A CL A commented that sheep

obtained from the pastoral or low rainfall areas do not adapt well to the confinement of feedlots or ship pens.3

4.7 There is little empirical work available on the

correlation of region of origin of sheep and their adaptation to

intensive conditions. As lack of adaptation is one cause of

losses in the trade, the Committee believes that priority should

be given to research that will help to reduce these losses.

4.8 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the AAHQS ensure that

research agreed to by the ALEIAC in February 1984, for which

funding has been approved by the AMRC, on regional sources of sheep and subsequent adaptation to conditions on live sheep

carriers, be commenced without delay.

Sex and Aae Groups

4.9 The Livestock Policy Section of the DPI regulates the export of live sheep under the Customs (Prohibited Exports)

Regulations. Section 3.1 of the 1 Instruction to Regional Offices

for Issue of Export Permit' states that: 1 Exports of merino ewes

are prohibited to all countries except New Zealand'. In addition, exports of entire Merino rams to all countries except

New Zealand are subject to quotas and certain other

restrictions. Sterilised Merino rams may be exported.

4.10 The original specification for export sheep was for old Merino wethers, that is four years or older, with a good sound

mouth and an adequate body weight and length of wool. Sheep with broken mouths were not selected for export because it was

22

considered doubtful that they would survive the journey. It now

appears that the average age of export wethers has dropped

considerably. Dr John Lightfoot of the Western Australian

Department of Agriculture commented that:

'(In Western Australia) , the full mouth wether, once the mainstay of the wool

industry, could now be classified as an

endangered species ... On average there would be fewer than 30 animals remaining per

farm. '4

4.11 In Western Australia, the average age of wethers

shipped since 1981 has been less than three years with a growing

proportion of export sheep being less than eighteen months.5

This may also have been influenced by the specification set out

by the buyers. Four years ago most contracts stated that export

sheep were to be aged 1 up to 4 years.15

4.12 The AMLC provided information on the percentage of

sheep exported to the Middle East which were under two years or

age: in 1983, 3.4 per cent; in 1984, 2.6 per cent and in 1985 to

April, 3.3 per cent. These are minimum percentages and they do

not include sheep under two years of age included in lines of sheep of mixed ages.7

4.13 According to the AMLC, Kuwait, which is the second

largest importer, continues to import all ages. However, it told

the Committee that:

1 we export animals less than three years of age. They say they are doing this because they feel that the older animals are not the best to give to their consumers and they

would prefer to give them the better animal. They still want the "hot" animal, the hot meat, but they would like them to be not

quite as old and heavy as we have given them in the past.18

23

4.14 The Committee received evidence that young sheep

usually adapt to the conditions of the trade better than older

sheep. However, care is needed in order not to select sheep too

young as they would have difficulty coping with the additional

stress of the voyage.9

4.15 The Committee RECOMMENDS that live sheep under two

years of age not be exported until the AAHQS has completed an

investigation as to the minimum age that should apply to export

sheep.

Condition

4.16 Condition, not price, is the main criterion for

selecting sheep for live export.10 A standard specification is

for a 50 kg hard-fat wether. This means that 50 kg is the total

live weight of a sheep in its state of purchase or delivered at

the feedlot. Hard-fat indicates that it has been fat for some

t i m e . A l l specifications have a minimum weight and the minimum

individual weight and the fat score is invariably nothing under

three (store condition) and preferably four (forward store

condition). There is no indication that five score (over-fat)

animals are used, as AAHQS standards specify that special care

is to be taken with their preparation and there is a lower

stocking density onboard ship. These welfare considerations have to be balanced against profitability as the heaviest possible

sheep are needed to achieve the greatest cost efficiency of the livestock carrier.12

Breeds of Export Sheep

4.17 About 90 to 95 per cent of export sheep are Merino

wethers.13 The main non-Merino breeds are the Polwarth and

Corriedale, loaded from either Portland or Tasmania.I4

24

4.18 Representatives of the ACL A told the Committee that

there is no data available for the relative success of different breeds in their adaptation to shipboard conditions. 15 Dr Batey

of the ALTV commented on cross-bred animals:

1 The limited experience would suggest that the animals do adapt very, very well, but there appears to be something of a breed

difference and this does become apparent during the process. For instance, the long wool breed crosses such as the Border

Leicester, the Romney Marsh and the Coopworth and the like tend to travel better than some of the fat breeds.'15

4.19 Dr John Lightfoot of the Western Australian Department

of Agriculture believed that while the Merino is an ideal sheep for live export:

'More farmers are recognising that first cross lambs from Merino ewes can give earlier turn-off and more flexibility in production systems.'17

4.20 The level of sales of British based rams such as Border Leicester, Poll Dorset and Suffolk in Western Australia indicate

the popularity of British breeds used as terminal sires in flocks managed for the live export trade.16

4.21 There has been little, if any, research done on the

genetics of sheep that are best adapted to shipboard and feedlot

environments. There has been no attempt to develop a breed of

sheep for live export, although the possibility of fat-tail

cross-breeds is examined in Chapter 15. This is a response to a

marketing specification, not to a management or welfare specification.

25

Shearing of Export Sheep

4.22 The AAHQS standards specify:

'2.5 Sheep should be shorn in sufficient time before export to enable the animals to

recover from the stress and/or injuries associated with shearing. It is desirable that shearing operations be completed not less than 7 days prior to shipment but

acceptable alternative practices could reduce this period.1

4.23 These standards were published in 19 82 but the ALBA

advised the Committee that the industry-wide standard is a minimum of 14 days off-shears before receival into feedlot.19

The ALBA also advised that most feedlots have shearing sheds^O

and there is evidence that some sheep are shorn in feedlots and

do not stay there for the required 14 days.

4.24 The reason for not holding sheep off-shears in feedlots

was amply demonstrated at Portland in March 1983 when 15 000

sheep died in feedlots as a result of cold stress. This disaster

prompted the Victorian Department of Agriculture to introduce

new standards:

1 Following that incident we had discussions with the feedlot operators and implemented the number of points we intimated today that have changed that situation. The sheep that were arriving in those times were bare shorn

sheep which are much more susceptible to cold stress. There were even sheep being shorn on the lot at the time and so we implemented the 14 day period. Sheep are not accepted on the feedlot unless they have been off-shears 14 days.'21

No other State has specific requirements for the shearing of sheep prior to receival in the feedlot.22

26

4.25 However, typical export sheep travel to the Middle East

from one to two months off-shears, although at certain times they can have three to four months' wool.23

4.26 The attitude of the industry is that a heavier fleece

has no economic value to exporters, because they are not able to

shear the fleece and the increased weight affects stocking density.24 The relevant AAHQS standard is as follows:

'2.6 Sheep should not be forwarded for export if their wool length could adversely affect their ability to travel in reasonable

comfort. An average fleece wool length of no longer than approximately 25mm is

satisfactory and would enable the animals to be stocked at D.O.T. density requirements.

2.7 Sheep with an average wool length greater than approximately 25mm are to be stocked at a density less than the D.O.T. requirements which is suitable to their comfort as

determined by the Government veterinary officer.1

4,27 It is difficult to determine how these standards are

administered and how well the regulations are adhered to. This

is discussed further in Chapter 15.

'Rubbish' Sheep

4.28 The Government veterinary officer responsible for the inspection of export sheep at the dockside has the option to

reject animals 'whose welfare would be adversely affected if

they were permitted to embark' .25

4.29 The Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals : Sea Transport of Livestock (Draft) specifies that animals which would be unacceptable for loading include those:

27

with clinical evidence of disease or parasitism;

. in poor body condition;

. with physical defects;

. less than one week off shears (or a long coat in

animals destined for hot humid climates);

. which are heavily pregnant;

. which are lame, blind or injured.

4.30 The AAHQS standards specify that these sheep should not

be forwarded for assembly. Culling takes place mainly at the

export feedlot both on arrival and on departure but a final

inspection and culling takes place at the dockside.

4.31 The selection of sheep initially takes place at the farm but there have been comments about the prevalence of

1 rubbish sheep' in the industry. Veterinary consultant Dr Peter

Arnold commented at the 1984 annual meeting of the Sheepmeat

Council of Australia:

1 The farmer has got to stop giving us

rubbish. In the fortnight between sale and pick-up he has the responsibility for those sheep - and that is not happening ... Those

diet responsibilities belong to the farmer. Most farmers do it but you don't need too

many to do a bad job to have a bad mortality rate. ' 26

According to Dr Arnold, deaths are occurring in the first three days out to sea - too short a time for the ship to have

influenced the sheep's condition.27

28

4.32 The ACLA responded that, as a general rule, the farmer was not giving the live export industry rubbish.28 it

acknowledged that the farmer is responsible for the sheep

between sale and pick-up but rejected the allegation that, in

this period, sheep are often put into paddocks without

sufficient feed or are neglected. 1 It does not often happen. It

happens in isolated cases and where it does happen it works against the vendor.129 The purchasers could reject any sheep at

the time of delivery that did not meet the specification. The

condition of maltreated sheep would become obvious after a few days.30 However, when sheep are in short supply for a particular

shipment, as occurs when several carriers are in port at the

same time, agents sometimes are less discriminating in the quality of the sheep they purchase.

4.33 Mr Lloyd Beeby of the AMLC in a letter to The Land of

31 May 1984 commented that 1 the very great majority of farmers

supplying sheep to this trade take their responsibilities very seriously, a small proportion do not1 and that 1 there may be a

few producers in Australia who could exercise greater care'.

Export Contracts

4.34 The AFAS commented in its submission that there is

indifference to the mortalities aboard the carrier because 1 the

Arabs pay for the number that leave Australia alive. If they

only paid for the number that land alive in the Middle East it might be a different story.121 Dr T. Kempton, a livestock

nutritionist, agreed:

1 If a shipper is paid when the stock are

loaded, as at present, there is less

incentive to prepare them well compared to a shipper whose payment is based on the number and quality of livestock delivered.132

29

4.35 The Committee has received evidence that contracts vary

considerably, that some are based on numbers and others based on

weight, that payment may be FOB or part payment at port of

destination. The ALEA told the Committee that Middle Eastern

buyers:

1 pay for the number that are loaded here in all cases, but in some cases there is a

performance bond or only a proportion paid at that stage and the remainder is paid on the number that arrive and their weight.133

4.36 The KLTT itself monitors live weight by weighing sheep

in trucks after unloading in Kuwait.34 The ALEA agreed that

there was an inducement to keep the live weight up but not always in all contracts.35 The ideal would be contracts based on

both live weight and numbers.

4.37 According to the AMLC, payment on shipped weight had

been replaced by payment on actual weight unloaded except for

some integrated companies that worked in numbers and not

weights. It argued that this meant the exporter had a very real

incentive to ensure weight loss and death were kept to a

minimum.36

4.38 There is the problem of payment, either FOB or a

percentage payment, being withheld until delivery in the Middle

East. The ALEA responded that most supplier companies in

Australia insist on immediate payment and that it is accepted in international trade that payment is on an FOB basis. 37 This is

also complicated by the procedures within the integrated

companies which are 1 absorbing all their losses of both weight and deaths within their own system.138

4.39 Mr Phillip King, then head of Rural Export and Trading (WA) (RETWA), the Australian subsidiary of KLTT, confirmed that

KLTT did not use contracts:

30

11 give the company an indication of what the price will be, we determine where we will load the vessel, and it is loaded, and it

pay s.'3 9

There is a long-term contract in the sense that the subsidiary RETWA has a shipping programme for the next twelve months.40

4.40 Dr Temple Grandin recommended that contracts should be

based on the number of live sheep delivered and not on weights.

1 Contracts based on weights encourage salt feeding and

detrimental changes in feed formulation which are designed to increase gut fill.'41 The Committee put this criticism to Dr

David Franklin of the ALE A who replied that it was totally

incorrect:

11 really find it difficult to imagine a feed miller putting in something which presumably would cost extra just to get weight. Most of the feed rations are formulated along certain

lines and particular purposes. The story of putting in salt can be fairly dangerous when you are talking about large numbers of

animals. I do not believe it is a practice which is followed anywhere in the trade.142

4.41 Mr Lloyd Bee by of the AMLC also dismissed the

criticism.43

4.42 It should be mentioned that the AMLC is responsible for

the product quality of Australian livestock exports. It looks at

the standards laid down in the livestock contract such as breed,

type and weight and it is required to ensure that those minimum

standards are met.44

31

CHAPTER 5

ROAD AND RAIL TRANSPORT TO FEEDLOT

Duration of Journey

5.1 The ABAH Model Code of Practice for Road Transport

recommends that for:

1 mature ruminant animals (sheep, cattle, goats and buffalo) , a rest period of between 12 and 24 hours should be provided after each 36 hours of travel. The period of travel may be extended to 4 8 hours if a full 24 hour

rest period is then provided.'!

These recommendations are identical for rail transport.2

5.2 The Committee has received conflicting evidence on the

maximum duration of the journey from farm or saleyard to the

export feedlot. The AMLC stated that sheep are purchased

sometimes many thousands of kilometres from the port of loading

and are then transported by road or rail to an assembly area or depot.3

5.3 One submission indicated that the rail journey from

Armidale, NSW to the Adelaide feedlots could take three to five

days.4 The Brennan Report indicated that it could take from two

and a half to four and a half days to complete the journey from southern Queensland to Adelaide, a distance of approximately

2000 kilometres. This would include 24 hours for yarding prior to departure, actual road transport of 20 hours, arrival at

feedlot after curfew of 12 hours and eight hours for holding in

yards for drafting and vaccination. This makes a

33

total of 64 hours, that is nearly three days, without food and

possibly without water. It does not include various additional

delays which may occur.5

5.4 The ACLA supplied the following details of the maximum

time for the journey to port from a number of centres : Dubbo,

16 hours; Cootamundra, 15 hours; Armidale, 22-24 hours;6 Bourke 24 hour s. 7 The ACLA believed that 24 hours was the maximum

duration of the journey although it was suggested that there may be occasions when sheep going to Portland would take slightly

longer.8 In Tasmania the maximum duration of the journey is

about six hours.9

5.5 Some sheep are not sent from Queensland or northern New

South Wales direct to Portland or Adelaide. They are held

further south for six to 12 months and are shorn before being sent to Portland. There is also some evidence of specialist

export operations being established on properties within reasonable distances of the feedlots.10

5.6 The stress of road transport has been implicated as a predisposing cause in the development of salmonellosis.H There

is also the view that the duration of i nappe tance following

transport is proportional to the length of starvation during transport.12

5.7 The AVA commented that 1 prolonged periods of transport

are contrary to the best interests of the welfare of animals and under certain circumstances may be inimical to the economic

interests of the owners as well1.13

Road Transport Versus Rail

5.8 The NSW Department of Agriculture said that when sheep

were first transported from New South Wales the majority went by train, but this has been reduced to about ten per cent.14

34

5.9 There is also evidence that, in Victoria, mortalities

for rail transport are five times greater than for road

transport; 0.1 per cent compared with 0.02 per cent. 15 This has

been attributed to the enforced, prolonged deprivation of food and water for the sheep.16

5.10 The AMLC emphasised that the rail system;

1 particularly in some states, has not given due consideration to the animal welfare needs of the livestock. Hence producers and buyers have tended to adopt road in preference to

rail as, in many instances, they are not

prepared to accept the manner in which their livestock are treated.117

5.11 Rail truck quality varies considerably among the

States. The NSW Department of Agriculture suggested that in NSW

the older trucks should be removed.18

Transport Design and Improvements

5.12 There is inadequate knowledge and control of stock crate design.19 There are suggestions that the standard of stock

crate design employed in Western Australia should be used as a model for construction in the eastern States^O and that there is

room for improvement in the design of loading and unloading

facilities.

Livestock Mortalities during Transport Phase from Farm to

Feedlot

5.13 The available mortality statistics are meagre. There is no uniform recording system. Transport casualty classifications

range from dead sheep only, to dead, moribund, lame, injured and 1 downer1 sheep. The Western Australian Department of Agriculture

and the ALE A were not able to supply statistics to the

35

Committee. The Victorian Department of Agriculture was able to

do so from spot checks on a confidential basis. 21 Other

estimates ranged from 0.04 per cent to 0.15 per cent although

Elders told the Committee that it incurred mortalities of 0.2

per cent for 1983-84.22 This lack of statistics hinders research

into sheep losses, both for the trade and also for the

transportation of livestock within Australia.

5.14 The Committee RECOMMENDS that details of sheep

mortalities sustained during transportation from farm to feedlot

be forwarded to the AAHQS for collation and analysis.

5.15 A research project funded by the AMRC to analyse

mortalities, including transport mortalities, is being undertaken in Western Australia.23

Rejection of Livestock at the Feedlot

5.16 At the feedlot the sheep are drafted by both feedlot management and a representative of the exporter. The ALEA

stated:

'We insist on total freedom of drafting off any that are not acceptable and there have been cases where we have sent back truck

loads, either because we do not consider that they were the sheep that were bought or

because we doubt that the buyer has inspected them - we are dissatisfied. We want to cull them at that stage because our investment in the sheep is minimal at that stage. Once the animal gets on to the feedlot, that is a

quarantined area. The animal is then

anthraxed and any culls after that must be held for six weeks before they can be

moved.124

5.17 The sheep that are rejected fall into three categories. The damaged or badly crippled are humanely destroyed

immediately. The lame are put onto grass in a separate paddock

36

and kept under observation. Underweight sheep are put onto feed for inclusion in the next shipment.25 The rejects may be traced

to their source if there is a line of 100 or more available, but

this is often difficult to do because a shipment may include

sheep from up to 200 suppliers.2* > Tracing is also dependent upon

the legibility of the wool brands, if they are used.

5.18 The ACLA stated that if the sheep are rejected at the

feedlot the owner bears the cost of their disposal but if the

shipper has taken delivery at the farm gate, they are his responsibility.27

5.19 The ACLA commented that feedlot delivery was introduced by the shippers2* * and has been the established practice in

Western Australia and South Australia since the trade began.

On-farm delivery is only occurring to any extent in New South

Wales. In all other cases the vendor takes responsibility for

delivering stock to the feedlot. It is perceived that 1 if the

producer has the responsibility for losses he will prepare his sheep better1.2^

37

CHAPTER 6

FEEDLOTS

6.1 Sheep intended for export are usually assembled and

held in a feedlot near the port of loading for a minimum of four

to five days, as prescribed in AAHQS standards, but often for

longer periods. There are several reasons for holding sheep in

feedlots prior to loading onboard a ship. There is the task of actually assembling up to 125 000 sheep on a specific date or

series of dates, with always the possibility of unexpected

delays in the arrival of the ship. The sheep also have to be

inspected and possibly innoculated under quarantine regulations.

Then there are welfare considerations; sheep having been

subjected to the stress of up to 36 hours in a truck or train

need rest before experiencing further stress in a new

environment onboard ship. The sheep also need time to adapt to a

more intensive system and to a different type of feed.

Duration of Feedlottina Period

6.2 The duration of the feedlotting period is principally determined by the time the majority of sheep take to adapt to a

new feed regime. The length of the period is a compromise

between welfare and economic factors: 1

1 The combination of conditions that lead to the maximum profitability of an animal production operation involving many animals is not necessarily the same as the

combination of conditions that leads to the maximum welfare of the animals individually. For example, calculating that preparation in a feedlot costs 25c/head/day, 100 000 sheep will cost the operator $25 000 each day.

39

Reducing the time in the feedlot by one day is financially balanced by the death of

approximately 570 sheep (0.57 per cent). Depending on contractual arrangements, it may be more profitable to let sheep die than to allow an additional day in the feedlot for additional adaptation to pellets or rest. In 1983, insurance was used extensively by exporters and importers to cover mortality losses during transhipment from Australia to

the port of cargo discharge.Ί

6.3 The above quotation may under-estimate the present cost

of feedlotting as the Committee understands that the present

daily cost is about 30 cents a sheep. However, premiums for

mortality insurance would have risen in recent years because of

the levels of mortalities claimed by exporters.

6.4 The basic consideration for adaptation to shipboard feed is the change in gut microflora. According to Dr D.

Franklin, who represented the ALBA, it takes between seven and

21 days for a complete change although most sheep adapt fairly

well in five to seven days. Research done by Dr Fels has shown that it takes up to 30 days for complete adaptation by every sheep.

6.5 The AAHQS standard is:

'2.9 Exporters should allow a minimum period of 4-5 days to prepare sheep off pasture to accommodate to the dry shipboard ration and to rest after travel.1

6.6 The source of the sheep can affect the adaptation

period. The Western Australian Department of Agriculture studied

14 different sources of sheep, sheep from different properties

with different backgrounds, and they found an 1 enormous variation' in the acceptability of pellets and shy feeding. Some sheep readily adapted to pellets and ate them immediately,

whereas other groups of sheep needed more time to adapt.2

40

6.7 The ACLA told the Committee that shippers ask livestock

agents not to buy sheep from the pastoral area that have come

off herbage. They prefer sheep taken off grass because their

experience has shown that those sheep adapt and travel well

while sheep coming off herbage tend to have problems.3

6.8 The Victorian Department of Agriculture believed that

sheep arriving at the Portland feedlots during summer and autumn

(November to May) off dry pasture could be prepared in a seven

day feedlot period, whereas in winter and spring, sheep o n

green pasture would need a minimum of ten days.4

6.9 Dr Al-Dukhayyil, Managing Director of SLTT, stated that

his company, on veterinary advice, specified that sheep were to

spend a minimum of seven days in a feedlot before they were

loaded on board a ship.

6.10 Tables 6.1 and 6.2 show the periods of feedlotting for individual shipments in Tasmania and Portland respectively.

Apart from the two shipments from Tasmania in early 1983 which

were not held in feedlots and, as the Committee understands,

suffered high mortality levels, the average feedlotting period

exceeded the prescribed AAHQS standards. However, the Victorian

statistics refer to the period beginning when the first sheep

entered the feedlot and ending when the last sheep left the

feedlot. The average time spent in the feedlot was therefore

probably between four and six days fewer than the number of days set out in the table.

41

Table 6.1: Tasmania - Duration of Feedlottinq

of

Date Ship

Departure

Number Duration of Loaded Feedlotting (days)

January 1983 A1 Yasrah 79 6 93 No feedlot

March 19 83 Qm Alqora 37 319 No feedlot

April 1983 Danny F 33 000 6

January 1984 Mawashi A1 Gasseem 90 356 7

May 1984 Fernanda F 85 745 10-14

January 1985 Mawashi A1 Gasseem 90 507 8

March 1985 A1 Qurain 50 057 6-8

Source : Tasmanian Department of Agriculture

42

Table 6.2; Victoria - Duration of Feedlottina

Date of Departure Ship

Number Loaded (Por tl and)

Duration of Feedlotting (days)

28/10/82 A1 Shuwaikh 100 000 12

7/11/82 A1 Qurain 100 000 12

25/11/82 A1 Yasrah 90 000 14

11/12/82 A1 Shuwaikh 110 000 10

24/12/82 A1 Qurain 111 000 11

14/1/83 A1 Yasrah 21 750 7

23/1/83 A1 Shuwaikh 120 000 13

7/3/83 A1 Shuwaikh 123 000 12

27/3/83 A1 Qurain 69 000 12

19/4/83 A1 Shuwaikh 126 000 15

20/5/83 A1 Yasrah 98 000 10

16/6/83 A1 Qurain 118 000 13

16/7/83 A1 Shuwaikh 87 000 13

7/8/83 A1 Yasrah 94 500 13

13/9/83 A1 Qurain 88 500 12

4/11/83 A1 Yasrah 103 000 14

23/11/83 A1 Shuwaikh 119 000 16

9/12/83 A1 Qurain 110 000 10

29/12/83 A1 Yasrah 99 000 13

151/84 A1 Shuwaikh 121 000 10

1/2/84 A1 Qurain 88 000 (P) 7

21/2/84 A1 Yasrah 60 000 (P) 7

11/3/84 Al Shuwaikh 122 000 10

29/3/84 A1 Qurain 112 000 11

3/5/84 Al Shuwaikh 124 000 11

17/5/84 Al Qurain 64 000 (P) 8

7/6/84 Al Yasrah 104 000 11

19/6/84 Al Shuwaikh 57 000 (P) 8

4/7/84 Al Khaleej 36 000 8

21/7/84 Al Yasrah 106 000 10

(P) denotes part-loading at Portland.

Source : Victorian Department of Agriculture

6.11 It is obvious that the official standard of four to

five days is inadequate and should be revised. The standards should also state that the specified period in the feedlot not include the days of arrival and departure from the feedlot.

43

6.12 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the AAHQS revise the

standards to provide for a period of feedlotting of sheep of not

less than seven days prior to export and that it be made clear

that this period excludes the days of arrival and departure.

6.13 Further research is also necessary in this field and

the main areas of research are outlined in the Brennan Report. The Committee noted that the Western Australian Department of

Agriculture has being doing research in this field.

6.14 The Committee received information from a number of

sources about the practice of 1 topping up', where extra sheep

are purchased to meet a shortfall in a shipment. Consequently, these sheep are not held in the feedlot for the required period

to allow them to adapt to the new feed. Brennan refers to this

practice in his report^ and Dr Al-Dukhayyil, Managing Director

of SLTT, admitted that it had occurred twice with his company's

shipments. However, SLTT has given strict instructions to its

agents forbidding this practice and it is adding a demurrage

clause into contracts which makes the supplier responsible for

any delay in the departure of a ship caused by sheep, which have

been received late in the feedlot, being held there for seven

days.

6.15 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the AAHQS issues

instructions to quarantine veterinary officers to prevent sheep,

which have not spent the specified time in a feedlot, from being

loaded on to a sheep carrier.

Feedlot facilities

Feed Troughing

6.16 According to the ALEA, about 85 to 90 per cent of

feedlots have feed troughs. The others spread the feed on the ground. Brennan reported, however, that 'on ground feeding is

still practiced in many instances'.6

44

6.17 At the feedlot near Devonport in Tasmania, where there

were no troughs, it was explained that ground feeding was more

natural for the sheep and encouraged 1 shy feeders' to eat dry feed.

6.18 Dr Temple Grandin reported, however, that feeding on the ground is undesirable because it may predispose sheep to

salmonella infection or it may allow the feed to become

contaminated.7

6.19 Sheep are kept in feedlots for five days or longer to

enable them to adapt to the new feed regime. This includes the

need to adapt to dry feed and to eating from a trough. If

troughs are not used in the feedlot, the sheep have to adapt to

them, as well as many other facets of a confined shipboard

environment, onboard ship.

6.20 If ground feeding is provided initially to sheep in a

feedlot, sheep should still be introduced to troughs at some

stage in the feedlotting process.

6.21 The Committee received information about the fouling of

troughs in feedlots. It was suggested that feed troughs should

be raised off the ground to prevent sheep from lying in and

fouling them. It was also pointed out that sheep have to feed

from raised troughs onboard ship. The Committee is of the view that feeding arrangements in feedlots should approximate those

on the carriers to facilitate adaptation to those conditions.

The Committee understands, however, that only one feedlot has raised troughs.8

6.22 The Committee RECOMMENDS that troughs in feedlots be

raised to approximately the height of troughs onboard carriers.

45

Length of Feed Troughs

6.23 There was not unanimity of opinion among witnesses on

the ratio of trough length to feedlot capacity. Both Dr Arnold

and Dr Franklin of the ALTV criticised the current ratio in

feedlots. It was explained that more troughs were needed for

rationed feeding than for ad lib feeding. With rationed feeding, some sheep ate more than their quota thereby depriving other

sheep of enough feed. Mr W. Gee, Acting Director of the AAHQS,

told the Committee that research in this area is presently being

done. The Committee is of the view that, in feedlots which use

rationed feeding, there should be enough troughing for all sheep

to feed simultaneously, unless the results of the research show

unequivocally that sheep are not disadvantaged by not being able

to feed at the same time.

Feeding Regime

6.24 A central component of the process of adaptation to a

pellet diet is the feeding regime, but the question of

adaptation duration and optimum feeding regimes has not been adequately researched.9 There is also the relative merits of a

gradual introduction to pellets or ad lib feeding.

1 It is very important in your adaptation period, if you are limiting fodder or

restricting starch intake that you make available equal access to every animal.110

Truscott et al. have suggested that feed be offered on an ad lib basis so that all sheep have access to the fodder. H There is

also concern that allowance should be made in the feeding regime

for climatic conditions such as, for example, additional hay at Portland during bad weather, and for the physiology of different groups of sheep such as cross-bred lambs off green feed.

46

Covered Feed Troughs

6.25 Many feedlots do not have covered feed troughs. Wet

pellets disintegrate and any prolonged period of wet weather

upsets the programme of adapting sheep to a pellet diet. Failure

to adapt sheep to such feed may increase the mortality level at

sea. This is contrary to good animal husbandry and welfare.

6.26 Officers of the Victorian Department of Agriculture

expressed concern to the Committee about the lack of cover for troughs at the feedlots at Portland. 12 The AAHQS expressed a

similar disquiet about Portland, which is prone to wet and cold

weather in winter months, but indicated that the covering of

troughs is not necessary for all feedlots in other areas which

are not subject to the same type of adverse weather conditions.

6.27 Brennan reported that 1 there is a general resistance

within the industry to use covered feed troughs' . Dr Turner of

the Victorian Department of Agriculture told the Committee:

'We have been working with our own officers in the Department seeking to lay down what might be an acceptable standard as feed

trough coverage. For me to say that that was required, as it was pointed out to me by one of the exporters, is probably not right. What we should be seeking is a national

standard.'H

Although national standards for the live sheep export trade are

desirable, the existence or lack of a national standard should

not prevent the adoption of measures to solve particular local

problems. Both the Victorian and Federal authorities have

acknowledged the need for covered feed troughs at the Portland

feedlot. The absence of a national standard should not impede

the installation of feed trough covering at those feedlots.

47

6.28 The Committee is of the view that feed troughs in

export feedlots should be covered where there are problems or

potential problems with weather conditions affecting the

adaptation of sheep to a pellet diet.

6.29 The Committee RECOMMENDS that feed troughs be covered

in export feedlots at Portland and in other places where there

are problems or potential problems with weather conditions

affecting the adaptation of sheep to a pellet diet.

Water

6.30 The provision of water to feedlots is generally

considered to be adequate. The ALTV did comment, however, that

1 there can be a lack of a backup system1.14

6.31 The Committee is of the view that government

authorities should ensure that feedlots have an adequate water

system which can maintain supply if breakdowns in the system

occur.

Feedlot Layout and Capacity

6.32 Individual export companies have their own

specifications for yard shape, yard size, flock size, stocking

density and location of facilities. There is little research work available on any of these specifications and there is

difference of opinion as to the merits of a highly intensive as

opposed to a semi-intensive feedlot. The trend is away from the

older highly intensive feedlot pens to the semi-intensive paddocks of five acres holding 1000 to 2000 sheep.15 in Perth,

Siba manage a highly intensive system where the sheep are placed

on grating floors and totally confined within a shed complex.

48

6.33 There is evidence that some feedlots accept more sheep

than their normal capacities. For example, the ALTV commented

that ' there are many feedlots that take (sheep) beyond their normal limits'.16

6.34 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the State Departments of

Agriculture assess the capacity of each feedlot and ensure that

the capacity is not exceeded at any time.

Dust and Drainage

6.35 The ALEA indicated that most, if not all, feedlots have

sprinklers to keep dust down to minimum levels.17 The Victorian

Government indicated that sprinklers had been in operation at

both Portland feedlots for a number of years.18 The Committee

encountered a dust problem at the feedlot near Devonport,

Tasmania. No sprinkling system was installed but attempts were

made to suppress the worst of the dust by watering the forcing

yards and 1 aneways near the loading ramps.

6.36 Dust was far more severe at the Elders Feedlot at The

Levels near Adelaide at the time of the Committee's visit.

Although the weather conditions were abnormal, it appeared that management had not done enough to establish windbreaks and to

dampen the ground to reduce the intensity of the dust storm.

Although some of the dust might have originated outside the

feedlot, much of it seemed to be generated by the movement of

sheep within the feedlot.

6.37 Drainage is also a problem for some feedlots. When the Committee inspected the feedlot at Fremantle, water was lying in

the paddocks and spread onto the main lane way. Gateways and

other heavily trafficked areas had become pugged. Under these conditions there is a potential danger of footrot occurring

although the incidence of footrot in Western Australia is very

low. Grandin reports that, to help control salmonella infections

49

and other diseases, puddles that sheep can walk through and

defecate in should be filled in.19 At Portland, the feedlot

management have complied with a request from the Victorian

Department of Agriculture to fence off areas with bad

drainage.20

Shelter

6.38 Although very little accurate data has been collected on the need for shelter in feedlots, the lack of shelter at the

Kobo Feedlot at Portland in March 1983 contributed to the death

of 15 000 sheep in conditions of high winds and low

temperatures.21

6.39 Dr P. Arnold told the Committee that shelter in

feedlots was inadequate;

1 We are concentrating 100 000 or more sheep in one area and the animals have virtually nowhere to go. So therefore we must be

totally responsible for sheltering them from the extremes of their environment. Very few feedlots have organised, catered-for, shelter to protect 100 000 sheep.'22

6.40 As a result of that disaster the Victorian Government required that no bare shorn sheep were to be accepted in the

feedlot; that increased rations of hay be provided during cold,

windy periods; that shelter belts be planted on the feedlots and

that shelter sheds be erected. Shelter belts have been planted at Portland but they are a long-term solution to a pressing,

immediate problem. The feedlot companies purchased scrubland

adjoining the feedlot and the use of this as shelter has reduced losses. Five shelter sheds have also been erected.23

6.41 The Victorian and Tasmanian Departments of Agriculture provided the Committee with details of feedlot mortalities.

These are shown in Table 6.3.

50

Table 6.3: Tasmania - Feedlot Mortalities

Date Ship No. i of sheep A B C

January 1983 A1 Yasrah 79 693 10 11

March 1983 Om Alqora 37 319 7 - 2

April 1983 Danny F 33 000 8 23 12

January 1984 Mawashi A1 Gasseem 90 3 56 32 130 75

May 1984 Fernanda F 85 745 21 97 23

January 1985 Mawashi A1 Gasseem 90 507 33 32 32

March 1985 A1 Qurain 50 057 12 32 25

A: Number of mortalities during transport to the feedlot.

B: Number of mortalities in the feedlot.

C: Number of mortalities during loading from feedlot to

ship.

NOTE: Figures given for mortalities include sheep which are

euthanased because of serious transport injury or

serious illness.

Source : Tasmanian Department of Agriculture

51

Table 6.4: Victoria: Feedlot Mortalities

Date of Departure Vessel Number Loaded

(Portland)

Feedlot Mort­ al ities

Rejects by D of A

Prepar­ ation 1 losses %

28/10/82 A1 Shuwaikh 100 000 100 679 0.8

7/11/82 A1 Qurain 100 000 180 6 90 0.9

25/11/82 A1 Yasrah 90 000 315 515 0.9

11/12/82 A1 Shuwaikh 110 000 105 472 0.5

24/12/82 A1 Qurain 111 000 285 531 0.7

14/1/83 A1 Yasrah 21 750 40 316 1.6

23/1/83 A1 Shuwaikh 120 000 118 641 0.6

7/3/83 A1 Shuwaikh 123 000 366 1302 1.3

27/3/83 A1 Qurain 69 000 15 000 3189 20.8

19/4/83 A1 Shuwaikh 126 000 1439 2250 2.9

20/5/83 A1 Yasrah 98 000 1700 4219 6 .0

16/6/83 A1 Qurain 118 000 1770 5130 4.8

16/7/83 A1 Shuwaikh 87 000 801 1049 2.0

7/8/83 A1 Yasrah 94 500 230 2312 2.6

13/9/83 A1 Qurain 88 500 43 8 1057 1.6

4/11/83 A1 Yasrah 103 000 332 722 1.0

23/11/83 A1 Shuwaikh 119 000 1718 1398 2.6

9/12/83 A1 Qurain 110 000 270 996 1.1

29/12/83 A1 Yasrah 99 000 127 618 0.7

15/1/84 A1 Shuwaikh 121 000 100 715 0.7

1/2/84 A1 Qurain 88 000(P) 42 666 0.8

21/2/84 A1 Yasrah 60 000(P) 62 366 0.7

11/3/84 A1 Shuwaikh 122 000 102 633 0.6

29/3/84 A1 Qurain 112 000 306 900 1.0

3/5/84 A1 Shuwaikh 124 000 102 97 3 0.8

17/5/84 A1 Qurain 64 000(P) 64 305 0.6

7/6/84 A1 Yasrah 104 000 100 440 0.5

19/6/84 A1 Shuwaikh 57 000(P) 38 194 0.4

4/7/84 A1 Khaleej 36 000 116 254 1.0

21/7/84 A1 Yasrah 106 000 164 994 1.0

(P) denotes part-loading at Portland.

Source : Victorian Department of Agriculture

6.42 At Portland, the danger to the welfare of the sheep is wind, rain and cold. In other feedlots there is the problem of

heat in summer. One solution to the maintenance of a

satisfactory environment under all weather conditions has been

the intensive shedding of sheep. The Siba complex at Perth has a

52

capacity approaching 80 000 sheep. Each shed houses 6000 sheep

and provides all food and water within a completely enclosed

environment. Dr Batey testified that those sheds did experience

lower mortalities but this could also be explained by the use of young sheep.24

6.43 Feedlots are used to rest sheep after transport to the point of assembly and prior to the rigours of shipboard

conditions. At the same time, sheep are adapted to a new feed

regime. The value of feedlotting sheep is wasted if sheep are

not protected from the stress of adverse weather conditions.

Adequate protection from extremes of weather conditions must be

supplied to the sheep in feedlots. The nature of that shelter

will vary from one feedlot to another depending on the situation

of each and the varying weather conditions to which each is

subject.

6.44 The Committee RECOMMENDS that adequate shelter be

provided to sheep in the feedlots.

Feedlot Management

6.45 The health and welfare of sheep in export feedlots are dependent, not only upon feedlot facilities, but also upon the

quality of feedlot management. Good management will make a

feedlot with poor facilities work reasonably well but,

conversely, a well designed feedlot with incompetent management may work quite inefficiently.25

6.46 Responsibility for the welfare of the sheep in the

feedlot rests with the feedlot management.26 it was alleged from

a number of sources that in some feedlots welfare matters were

subordinated to other considerations. The main problem has been

that no person, with either the authority or influence within

the company, has been designated to oversight animal welfare from feedlot to loading onboard the carrier.

53

6.47 It was suggested by the ALTV that this task should be

done by a company veterinarian. They argued that company

veterinarians are aware of local problems and have enough

influence or authority to take action in the interests of animal

health and welfare.27 The AVA has commented that situations

occur where government veterinarians report a malpractice to a

senior person in the shipping company and can only request that

it be stopped. The AVA believes that the veterinarian should be given the necessary authority to stop that malpractice.28

6.4 8 There has been a reluctance to innovate in animal

welfare and management practices because failure might give a

commercial advantage to competitors. Where innovation has

occurred, it has been on a trial and error, rather than on a scientific, basis. The ALEA acknowledged this,29 but added that

1 over the last three to four years, conditions have changed

quite dramatically to the point where there is an increased

interest in pure scientific research in areas within the trade'.30 The majority of that research has been done within the

company itself, and not on a co-ordinated industry basis.31

6.49 A major research project funded by the AMRC will

examine the scale of feedlot mortalities and its causes.32

6.50 The Western Australian Government estimated feedlot mortalities at one per cent but this figure has not been

confirmed.33 The Victorian Government and the ALEA supplied

details of losses at the Kobo feedlot, Portland, from October

1982 to July 1984. Mortalities were 0.92 per cent and rejects were 1.19 per cent giving total 1 losses' of 2.11 per cent.34

6.51 The Committee RECOMMENDS that details of sheep

mortalities sustained during the period of feedlotting prior to

export be forwarded to the AAHQS for collation and analysis.

54

Industry Feedlot Statistics

6.52 Statistics of feedlot operations, including

mortalities, rejects, live weights, and age groups are kept

within individual companies but are not forwarded to a central

body from which industry statistics can be compiled. The ALEA

acknowledged the need for compiling such statistics provided that they were used for the benefit of the industry.35 The ALEA

indicated that the AAHQS would be an appropriate body to

undertake such a task.

6.53 Statistics of this part of the export operation need to

be added to statistics of preceding and succeeding stages, to

provide a basis for research into causes of death and other

areas of concern.

On-Farm Feedlots and Specialisation

6.54 There is evidence that specialisation of sheep

production for the live export trade has occurred, especially in

Western Australia.36 it is, however, difficult to estimate the

number of enterprises specialising in this way.

6.55 There is also evidence of the lot feeding of wethers, including wether weaners for the export trade.37 This latter

practice is not very extensive. It is not practised, according to the ACLA, in NSW. However, in Victoria there have been some

experiments in preparing sheep for the trade but these have not proved to be viable.38

6.56 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the AAHQS, in

consultation with the State Departments of Agriculture and the

ALEA, draw up national standards for export feedlots.

55

6.57 The Committee further RECOMMENDS that the State

Governments license export feedlots based on the proposed

national standards and, should a feedlot fail to observe these

standards, the licence for that feedlot be revoked, suspended or

not renewed, as appropriate.

56

CHAPTER 7

NUTRITION AND FEED FOR LIVE SHEEP EXPORTS

7.1 1 Shy feeders' is a term commonly used in the live sheep export trade. It refers to inappetence or the inability or

unwillingness to eat fodder aboard ship or in the feedlot. One

explanation for this inappetance is the quality and type of the

fodder used and its administration. Professor McManus of the

University of New South Wales gave evidence that export sheep

arrived at feedlots in conditions of stress. He regarded it as important that sheep be introduced to a diet which was not only

nutritionally correct but was palatable. If the sheep did not

eat, they would enter a fasting or starving state.

Feed Quality

7.2 There is evidence that prior to 1980 there was no feed quality control available to the industry. In that year Dr P.

Arnold and Dr. D. Franklin approached Professor R. Leng of the

University of New England to assess the quality of feed given to

export sheep. Professor Leng analysed samples until mid-1984.1

7.3 The marine surveyors of the DOT are empowered to stop

the loading of sheep if, on the advice of the quarantine

veterinary officer, feed quality is not satisfactory.2 The Chief

Marine Surveyor in the DOT told the Committee that fodder has

never had to be replaced onboard a ship.

1 Many have been borderline, from comments surveyors have made but I have certainly not been consulted by veterinarians on the matter or told that it was unsatisfactory. I cannot

57

remember a ship being detained until the fodder was replaced - not in the past 12

years.15

Several deficiencies in feed quality have been reported to the

Committee.

Dusting. Powdering and Crumbling of the Pellet

7.4 The Chief Marine Surveyor advised the Committee that

marine surveyors at the loading ports had reported that pellets

have been seen 1 to be powdering and falling to pieces.14 Another

witness, a licensed special constable under the Western

Australian Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, also reported the disintegration of pellets.5 Dr Temple Grandin reported that

some batches of Western Australian pellets were 50 per cent dust

when they reached the trough aboard ship.5 Crumbling and dusting

of the pellet has been recognised as a problem by the AMLC and

the South Australian Department of Agriculture, among others. 7

7.5 Pellet dust may clog the automated feed distribution system aboard ship. It is less palatable and nutritious^ and may

cause 1 pinkeye1 and respiratory problems. The cause of crumbling

has been attributed to the mechanical rubbing in the handling equipment and the lack of a suitable binding agent.®

7.6 The ALEA responded that there has been much more

research done on fodder production since early 1983 and that the dust problem has been reduced substantially. However, the

ingredients of the pellets, such as grain, hay and oat husks would produce dust if put through the system by themselves .3-0

The handling systems have changed radically over the last two to three years. Pneumatic air systems have given way to belt

systems, pully systems or screw worm augers.H In addition the particle size has been increased which has diminished the dust problem.12

58

7.7 Binding agents are used to prevent crumbling of the

pellet. There are active binders and passive or inert binders.

Among the latter are wheat proteins, advocated by Professor

Leng, but as yet unaccepted by the industry because of the fear of lactic a c i d o s i s molasses, the use of which has become

quite w i d e s p r e a d and, possibly, sodium bentonite, regarded by

some authorities as a binding agent. Of active binders, the

example has been given of alkali binding agents which induce chemical changes in the pellet material.15 Binding agents

encourage voluntary feed intake and enhance digestibility, but

there is a delicate balance between a pellet that will not

crumble and one that is too hard for the sheep to eat.15

7.8 There is also evidence that, in order to reduce dust,

the pellet material should not be hammer milled or ground but

should be available as chaffed materials.17 At least one feed

mill has discarded hammer mills and invested in production

equipment for chaffed materials.

7.9 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the DOT, in consultation

with the ALEA and AAHQS, commission research into the use of

binders and other methods to reduce the incidence of pellet crumbling and dusty feed in feedlots and aboard ships and to

establish a minimum standard of pellet cohesion to be

incorporated in the Marine Orders and Code of Practice.

Digestibility

7.10 The digestibility of pellets varies widely. The ALEA

stated that optimum in vivo digestibility was in a range of

50-60 per cent in the rumen sac after an elapsed time of 24

hours. At times, however, it has been as low as 30 per cent.18

Other evidence indicated that it could be lower than 20 per

cent. Pellets of low digestibility accounted for five to ten per cent of the samples taken by Professor Leng.19 Determining the

59

digestibility of a feedstuff is not a simple procedure. The in

vitro method of analysis attempts to simulate in a laboratory,

the digestive system of a sheep. It is time-consuming and e x p e n s i v e ^ but accounts for about 90 per cent of all

analyses.21 The protein content is often analysed but the

digestible energy is rarely analysed. In Western Australia,

analyses are done by the Department of Agriculture, not by the industry.22

7.11 The results of some analyses conducted on commercially

prepared feedstuffs, as used by the Sheep and Wool Branch of the

Western Australian Department of Agriculture in the course of

experiments done in 1982 on the behaviour of sheep during

export, are as follows:

Table 7.1: Analyses of Feed

Experiment Crude Protein (DM%) Crude Fibre (DM%)

In-Vitro Digestibility (DM%)

1 12.8 13 .0 65

2 12.9 13.0 65

3 9.9 11.8 68

Source: WA Department of Agriculture, Supplementary Evidence, 9 November 1984, Attachment 3.

7.12 Dr D. Franklin, representing the ALEA, said that a low level of digestibility had only been a problem in Victoria at a

fairly new mill which has now improved its equipment and handling systems.23 He stressed, however, that high rather than

low digestibility may be more significant because it may indicate a high grain content which may lead to digestive

problems, such as acidosis. This was confirmed by Professor Leng. 24 Low digestibility may not be a problem if sheep are

given enough feed to meet their energy needs. In fact, it may be a safer feed.25

60

7.13 Particle size is important for digestibility. If

composite particles are too fine, it can lead to the condition

1 parakeratosis', a thickening of rumen papillae, which is a

major site of nutrient absorption from this organ. In vitro

studies do not account for what happens in the rumen because

particles are being removed from that system all the time. If a

fibre particle is too fine it will be swept out of the rumen sac

before it has been digested.

7.14 There is the further complication that the pellet

manufacturing process requires a small particle size.26 The ALEA

commented that exporters have created problems for the

feedmills, which have traditionally manufactured pig and poultry

pellets, because the latter do not need the same type of

roughage. The particle size can be changed by changing the size of the screen on the hammer mill.27

7.15 It has been argued that the percentage of digestible fibre is determined by economics.28 For example, if a diet is

administered which is high in energy, approximately 16.5

megajoules, the sheep would require approximately 50 per cent

less feed which is about 8 megajoules of energy. If it is highly

digestible the sheep may only require 10 megajoules. It is a

trade-off between price and quality (digestibility).

7.16 The Committee received information that Australian feed

manufacturers were being driven by market forces to put lower

and lower nutrient quality into their products. Professor Leng

commented that the pellet price was always too cheap at about

$120 per tonne. The millers had attempted to correct these feed problems but were constrained by the price level.29

61

Low Protein. Low Energy. Insufficient Roughage in the Pellet

7.17 The ALEA stated:

'At times we have found that the protein

level has been slightly too low. We will then immediately advise the manufacturer or whoever, depending on who owns it. The

necessary adjustment would then have to be made to bring it back up. There will be

slight variations in the nutritive value of hay from different areas. The nutritive value of grain, oats or barley will vary from one year to another and from one area to another

so you have to regularly test this.130

7.18 The Victorian and Western Australian Departments of

Agriculture conduct tests for crude protein level. The latter

commented that the exporters tend to use protein as an index of

feed quality. Energy content of the ration is also important,31

but is meaningful only when considered in terms of

digestibility, that is, available energy.

7.19 Low energy content interacts with a number of other

environmental and nutritional variables such as previous nutrition, exercise, temperature, response to noise or restraint

and cumulative stress. There is little available research on

these interactions.

7.20 Some pellets have insufficient roughage or fibre. There

is a conflict between the need for fibre and a pellet which can be handled in big bulk feeding systems.32 a sheep requires

structural fibre but the pellet specification may completely

overlook this and the pellet analysis also may not refer to it.

The optimum type or length of roughage has not yet been

determined.33 Ruminants in university laboratories have made do

with minimal roughage, with materials which are basically powders, but the experience of the industry is that roughage is

necessary to help digestion. This roughage requires a minimum length and size.34

62

7.21 Professor Leng commented that fibre is a difficult

material to include in the pellet in terms of both economics and

logistics, but is more effective than ground fibre in inhibiting

acidosis. He suggested that the problem could be overcome by the use of bentonite and buffers.35

7.22 There is also evidence that manufacturers produce

pellets which contain high levels of low quality fillers such as rice hulls with 12 or 13 per cent digestibility36 in an effort

to reduce cost. 37 Mould may also become a problem in the feed

bins if moisture levels are high and the bins are not cleaned

out after each voyage.

Feed Standards

7.23 There is no single uniform feed standard for the

livestock export industry.38 Standards do apply to feed for

Australian domestic livestock consumption. Livestock export feed

standards should at least match these domestic standards. The

considerable variation in the analysis of the pellet produced,

compared with the specification of the pellet requested by the exporter,39 indicates the need for a uniform standard to act as

the basis for some form of regulation. The uniform standard

would redress the problem of the efficiency of in vitro testing

procedures in that it could specify a standard testing procedure.

7.24 The Committee RECOMMENDS that AAHQS arrange for

research to be done to draw up minimum standards for pellets to

maintain body weight and to ensure the nutritional welfare of the sheep in the feedlot and aboard the carrier.

63

7.25 The Committee also RECOMMENDS that a uniform pellet

testing procedure be carried out either by a government

authority or an independent body for each shipment of sheep and

that the results of these tests be forwarded to the feedmill,

the shipper, the relevant State Department of Agriculture and

the AAHQS.

Feed Pellets: Possible Alternatives and Modifications

7.26 The Committee has received criticism that 1 the pellet was designed for ships and not sheep' 40 and the industry is only

now starting to recognise the problems of content and

administration of pellets. Some alternatives have been suggested

and these are discussed below.

7.27 Straight grain feeding is one alternative as it does

not require processing. However, grain feeding gives rise to the problem of acidosis or 'grain poisoning' in sheep that have not

been prepared for a diet with a high grain content. Inadequate

preparation for such a diet will also cause pulpy kidney.

7.2 8 The ALEA also commented that there has been concern in the industry about the feeding of grain in large quantities to

groups of sheep where their individual intake cannot be

controlled. This concern has delayed extensive research into

feeding of grain. Nevertheless, a number of companies have done

small trials with grain. 43­

7.29 The Victorian Department of Agriculture conducted trials on grains added to feed rations to determine whether this

'would provide some advantages for the pelleting of the

feedstuff, its palatability, its acceptability to sheep and its safeness in being provided as a feed'.42 The assumption was that

the high fibre content of oats and the low starch content of whole peas would minimise acidosis. Legume grains were known to have a high protein and calcium content which correct these

64

deficiencies in the oat ration.43 The research found that it was

not beneficial to the sheep and in certain mixtures was

disadvantageous. The Western Australian Department of

Agriculture also had reservations:

'Cereal grain is readily available and it has a high energy content; it has normally got adequate protein, is easy to handle, and you can put it on board ship. It sounds like very logical feed stuff, but I think it is this problem of acidosis in newly introduced sheep which has prevented the industry from

adopting the cereal grain feeding.144

7.30 Professor McManus argued against straight grain feeding

and commented that of the mortalities suffered,on the early

shipments which used straight grain feeding, 20 to 30 per cent could have been attributed to lactic acidosis.45

7.31 There is also considerable variation in grain quality

owing to seasonal conditions and regional differences. This is reflected in the price of the grain.46

7.32 Hay was the feed used aboard ships in the early days of

the industry and is still used in the feedlots for adaptation to

pellets. Hay was discontinued as a shipboard feed because of the

large amount of space required to store it and the extensive handling systems needed to distribute it.47 Hay also presented a

greater risk of spontaneous combustion and fire.48

7.33 Some of the problems associated with hay have been

solved. Hay wafers are a possible type of feed. American

companies now make mini-bales of hay two cubic centimetres in

size.

7.34 There have also been attempts at using alkali treated

straw in pellets together with some grain and urea and additives but this has been rejected because of the high salt content.49

65

However, there is contrary evidence that alkali treatment of

fibre materials in pellets will increase overall hardness and

digestibility.

7.35 Professor Leng said alkali treatments presented the

logistical problem of amassing large quantities of straw and

materials close to the mill. He believed that the treatment was

unnecessary as it increased digestibility from 50 to 60 per cent

for only 30 to 40 per cent of the diet. He regarded it as an

academic approach rather than a practical approach.50

7.36 Professor Leng advocated the use of urea as a protein

supplement in pellets but he believed that the importing

companies in the Middle East wrongly believed that urea was a

dangerous compound and would not allow its use.51

7.37 Sodium bentonite has been suggested as a suitable

buffering agent in pellet feed for the prevention of lactic acidosis by modifying rumen fermentation.52 Evidence suggests

that it also increases the acceptance of pelleted feeds by

sheep, thereby reducing the incidence of shy feeders. It also

improves the binding of the pellet. Bentonite may be

administered as a supplement to pellet rations in the form of a stock block.53

The Handling and Administration of Fodder

7.38 It has been argued that if sheep have to change from

one type of pellet to another, they may suffer a digestive

upset. The further argument is that few mills are able to produce enough of one type of pellet for ships with a capacity

of 80 000 sheep or more. The ALE A responded that there is a

slight variation from feedmill to feedmill. However, in terms of nutrition, the variation is limited provided the same basic raw materials are used and the specifications are adhered to. Some

companies use more than one feed supplier to ensure that they

66

have adequate feed for loading. Conversely, there is evidence

that some feed companies alter the composition of the pellet

without the knowledge of the exporter.

7.39 The same argument of continuity of pellet supply would

apply in the feedlot vis-a-vis livestock carrier. The ALE A

replied that there is no evidence that a change of pellet

necessarily makes any difference:

1A pellet is hay and grain plus some

additives. So if you are feeding those out separately you are basically adapting the animal to the pellet.154

7.40 There is also the requirement for feed which will

ensure the adaptation from paddock feed to pellet hence the use

of high fibre pellets, those which may break down with the use of shipboard handling systems.

67

CHAPTER 8

EMBARKATION OF EXPORT SHEEP

8.1 The loading procedure adopted by exporters consists of

assembling a shipment of sheep and assessing the weight of the

animals. This provides the basis for load numbers and their

distribution aboard ship. This is summarised in a loading plan

which is in the charge of the chief officer of the ship. The

waterside workers are responsible for handling the sheep from

the trucks, through the inspection races and along the loading

ramp onto the ship. The ship's crew are then responsible for putting them in pens.1

Dockside Facilities

8.2 Facilities for handling sheep at the dockside may be of temporary or permanent construction and vary in design. The AVA

has expressed concern about the design of facilities used in the

loading and unloading of livestock.2 This applies to the races,

pens, yards, ramps, gates and flooring at the dockside and also

ancillary features such as lighting and shade.

8.3 The AAHQS has been aware of these criticisms and in

1983 commissioned a consultant on livestock handling, Dr Temple

Grandin, to do a survey of the export of Australian livestock. With regard to facilities, she concluded that the handling

system used in Fremantle to load the large ships was excellent and that they should be used as a model for other ports.2

69

8.4 At Fremantle, Fares and Siba used a loading system of a

series of trailers with four or six unloading ramps where

between two and five trucks could unload at a time. In this

system the trailer floors were at the same height as the truck

lower deck and unloading ramps were only required for unloading

the top deck. It also enabled the inspectors to examine the

sheep at eye level enabling them to observe the underside of the

sheep for such conditions as pizzle rot. The ship's wide ramps

had wheels which rested in guides on the trailer allowing the

ramp to move with the tide. The steepness of the ships ramps was

reduced by the use of the trailers. However, it had no provision

for storing culled sheep on the wharf. The Committee inspected

this system in operation at Fremantle during the loading of the

1A1 Khaleej1 on 15 August 1984.

8.5 On 16 August the Committee received evidence from Mr Anthony Fletcher who, independently, had observed the loading of

the 1A1 Khaleej1. He commented:

1 the pens aboard the "A1 Khaleej" were not as compact, not as dense in terms of the number of sheep in those enclosures as on the ships that I visited in January ... Yesterday I

actually saw white Australian workers on the ship assisting with the loading, as though they were trying to ensure that sheep were not overloaded.'^

He also commented on the loading of the 1Siba Queen1

11 saw sheep coming rapidly off the ramp

between the trucks and the ships. The floor of the ship became wet and the sheep were

required to make a right angle turn as they entered the ship. Almost all of them were falling to their knees and then sliding, trying to get up and then carrying on. That particular aspect of the loading certainly was not conducive to the welfare of the

sheep. Nobody attempted to do anything to alter the situation ... Probably the ship was not designed for loading sheep properly. '5

70

8.6 The provision of non-slip surfaces and the elimination

of wet areas is an important aspect of loading facilities and is

incorporated in Marine Orders Part 43 Section 26. An inspection

of a relatively new SLTT carrier, the 1Mawashi A1 Gaseem1,

revealed that effective non-slip surfaces had been applied to

the decking.

8.7 Apart from being well-designed, facilities need to be

properly maintained, cleaned and arranged at the dockside. The

AAHQS reported that there is often a failure to clean facilities

on a regular basis:

1 This can only result in contamination of sheep prior to loading. The loading

management plan must include arangements for yard cleaning which will result in the

loading of clean sheep.16

8.8 There appears to be considerable scope for improvement

in the tally system. Dr Peter Arnold indicated that tally

disputes of between two and three per cent are common.7 The ALBA

responded that the sheep are counted five times, at the farm

gate, into the feedlot, out of the feedlot, onto the wharf, and

onto the ship. At Portland, the port authority does the count

which is accepted by both the exporter and livestock agents.8 Dr

Temple Grandin reported that, at Fremantle, sheep were counted manually by people with hand counters as the sheep passed

through the single file races. She suggested that an automatic

counting system be installed, which would use a meat works conveyor fitted with an electric eye or feeler switch.9 The

technology and its application is already in use in some shearing sheds.

8.9 The Committee notes that an accurate count is

esssential for research into sheep mortalities.

71

Weather Conditions

8.10 There was disagreement among witnesses as to when

loading should be stopped during extreme weather conditions. In

March 1984, the RSPCA criticised the loading of sheep on the 1A1

Qurain' in adverse conditions.

8.11 The Committee received a similar report of that

incident of 26 March from Miss Chris barter, a British animax

welfare worker on a visit to Australia sponsored by the Brooke Hospital for Animals, C a i r o . 10

8.12 The AVA informed the Committee that, in November 1982 at Portland, 50 000 sheep were loaded during very hign

temperatures, which were exacerbated by a hot northerly wind and dust. About 120 sheep collapsed from heat exhaustion. It was

agreed between exporters and departmental officers that in

future, under similar conditions, loading would stop.

8.13 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the AAHQS draw the

attention of quarantine veterinary officers to the need to halt

loading under unsuitable weather conditions.

Embarkation Management - Practices and Malpractices

8.14 A principal consideration in the embarkation of sheep is the minimisation of stress. The ALEA believes that stress is

minimised on the newer ships because they have an efficient

loading ramp system and there is no reason for the sheep to baulk, turn around or change direction. Little crew handling is

necessary and sheep have been loaded at a rate of up to 6000 an

hour. Sheep spend little time between the feedlot and the shipboard pen, thereby avoiding much stress. Some of the older ships, however, do not have modern loading ramps and passageways

and, as a result, loading takes longer and is not as efficient,

with more stress put on the sheep.

72

8.15 The ALEA told the Committee that every attempt is made

to have feed and water available in the pens when the sheep are

loadedll but, if this is not possible because of the design of

the ship, to provide feed within the first 24 hours.12 The

Victorian Government has tried to ensure that, wherever the

design of the ship will allow, the export company will place

food and water in all troughs prior to loading so that sheep

have access to feed and water immediately upon loading.

8.16 Stress can be minimised if the waterside workers,

stockmen and ship's crew are properly trained or experienced in

the handling of sheep. Hr Anthony Fletcher observed at Fremantle

that one of the wharf workers was standing in front of the

animals that were being loaded, 1 which tended to make them stop

in their tracks. The people at the other end then got angry and

started hitting certain animals. It seems to me that the problem

is human in origin, a lack of knowledge rather than the animals'

fault'.13 Dr Temple Grandin observed at Adelaide that:

' The wharf ies need to be educated in sheep handling methods. There was no brutality or rough treatment of the sheep by the

wharfies.'

8.17 The South Australian Government has proposed a training

programme for waterside workers but this has not been endorsed

by the industry.I5

8.18 The use of prods may increase stress in sheep. The

unreleased draft Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of

Animals : Sea Transport of Livestock restricts the use of

electric prods and continues:

'"flappers" ... or "metallic rattles" are effective in that they encourage movement in response to sound. The use of sticks, lengths of heavy plastic, metal piping or heavy leather belts should not be permitted as methods of encouraging stock to move.'16

73

8.19 The Committee observed that the loading of sheep on to

trucks at the Aberdeen feedlot in Tasmania for the 1Mawashi A1

Gaseem' was achieved by forcing the sheep up the ramps by

shaking rattles made from aluminium cans and pebbles,

accessories which, if not euphonic, were effective and readily

available.

8.20 The Committee also observed the loading of sheep aboard

the 1A1 Khaleej1 and noticed no prodding or abuse of the sheep.

Mr Anthony Fletcher told the Committee that at the adjoining

berth the day before:

11 spoke to one of the wharf workers who was, in my view, prodding animals excessively when blockages developed in the loading, irrespective of the fact that sheep at the back of the crowd cannot very well push the others on. Certain animals were getting prodded to the extent that the animal I was

concerned about was physically shaking but was continuing to be prodded. I spoke to the wharf worker, who explained his point of view that he was trying to assist in the

operations, and the situation was solved amiably. The interesting thing about

yesterday (i.e. the day of inspection of 1A1 Khalee j 1 ) was that when I returned to the wharf and somebody saw me as a stranger down there, not somebody who had seen me the

previous day, he went round to all the people with prods and discreetly - to my way of

thinking - advised them not to prod the

animals. They all just stopped dead when I was on the wharf. That is not normally the case when I am on the wharf but I feel that

the visit of the senators was obviously known yesterday.1

8.21 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the AAHQS, in

consultation with State Departments of Agriculture, arrange training programmes for waterside workers who load animals on to

carriers.

74

8.22 Another consideration in the minimisation of stress is

the use of 'Judas' sheep which would make it easier to induce

sheep, which have baulked, to walk up the loading ramp.18

Grandin recommended the use of Judas sheep but recognised that

there may be quarantine problems.

8.23 There is evidence that overcrowding of trucks from the feedlot to the wharf occurs.19 The AAHQS standards state that

where internal gates are provided in vehicles to maintain an

even load, 'the exporter or his agent should ensure their use'.20 This is in addition to the requirement that the

transport should be clean, maintained in a satisfactory state of

repair and not overstocked. Sheep's legs have been observed to

project through the stock crate.21 There is a need for better

design of stock crates. This problem will be examined by the

Committee later in the inquiry when it examines road and rail

transport of livestock.

8.24 There is evidence that 'shandying' of sheep occurs;

that is, the mixing of lines of sheep of different ages, breeds

and district types. This practice has been developed in the industry in order to use experienced sheep to introduce

inexperienced sheep to hand feeding and watering in yards. This practice is detrimental to the younger sheep.22

Stocking Densities

8.25 Stocking densities aboard livestock carriers are inextricably linked to economic considerations. It has been

argued that, since shipping costs are about half the total cost

of landing export sheep in the Middle East, a ten per cent

increase in floor space would increase the cost of export sheep

by five per cent.23 The important welfare consideration is that

five extra sheep placed in a pen of 60 head adversely affect 65

sheep, not just the extra five. The Marine Orders Part

75

43 Section 23.11, and the draft Model Code of Practice on Sea

Transport of Livestock, contain the following specifications for

pen stocking density.

Table 8.1: Specifications for Pen Stocking Density

Average Mass of Sheep determined in accordance with Section 23.1.3 (kilograms)

20 or less

40

60

80

100 120 or more

Minimum permissible floor area per sheep having an average wool length of not more than 25 millimetres

(square metres) 0.24

0.29

0.34

0.44

0.54

0.64

Source: Marine Orders, Part 43, Section 23.11.

8.26 Animal Liberation NSW provided evidence of their

inspection of MV 1 Procyon1 in July 1982, which was loading at

Port Adelaide:

'When asked how many sheep were loaded per pen a wharfie explained to us that when a pen "looked full" that was considered

satisfactory.124

8.27 Mr Anthony Fletcher gave evidence to the Committee that pens on the 1A1 Yasrah' and 1 Siba Queen' were ' stocked so

tightly that the animals were not able to lie down'.25 The

evidence of Mr Fletcher is supported in part by Dr Temple

Grandin who observed that:

'the crews made a genuine effort to load the correct number of sheep into each pen, but sometimes they could not shut the flat gate

76

uitil five or six extra sheep ran into the pen. Some of the pens appeared to be

overstocked.126

8.28 Lt Colonel Harries of the South Australian RSPCA, on

his voyage on the 1A1 Qurain' in March-April 1981 found that,

only four to six sheep of 20 head could lie down if the gates were closed.27

8.29 The Committee, on its inspection of the 1A1 Khaleej1 ,

noticed stocking limits stencilled on all the pens. At the

public hearing the ALEA was asked whether they were strictly

adhered to. Dr Franklin replied:

1 As strictly as possible, yes. In the ship we saw this morning it is easy to get a fairly accurate count, as you can imagine. That figure is put on probably two days out of

port or the first day in port prior to

loading, after the master has been advised that the weight of the ship will be such and such. He then has a master plan of his ship, showing that the pen on deck 2 or whatever it is can take so many sheep at 53 kilos, and at 54 kilos it can take one less or whatever the

figure is.128

8.30 It has been argued that the accurate measurement of

sheep weights is necessary if stocking density regulations are to be complied with.29 The ALEA stated that the sheep are

weighed out of the feedlot:

1 An estimate is made prior to loading

commencing and, towards the end of the

loading when you possibly have 5000 sheep to go, you would say that the average weight out so far is 52 instead of 54 so we can continue or it is 54 instead of 52 and it would be cut back. These figures are available to the Department of Agriculture and Department of Transport so that the correct calculation can be made.130

77

8.31 Brennan has reported that overloading of vessels has

occurred and should be prevented by checking the weight of the sheep before embarkation.31

8.32 Inspection procedures need to be able to meet these

contraventions. The Victorian Government, acting as an agent of

the Commonwealth, attempts to monitor stocking densities:

'While loading is actually taking place on a particular deck or a row of pens, it is best not to interfere at that point. But once, for instance, a deck has been loaded, we would

certainly have a look through that deck to see whether overcrowding occurs and, if it does, we would bring it to the attention of the ship's officers or the exporters. This would be a continuing thing during the

loading and certainly on final inspection.'32

8.33 The Committee RECOMMENDS that quarantine veterinary

officers inspect carriers before departure to ensure that

stocking densities are complied with.

8.34 The adherence to the regulations is flexible but there

has been criticism of the regulation itself. Dr Temple Grandin

interviewed ships' officers and veterinarians who indicated that the present stocking rates may be too high for the 55 kg plus sheep.33

8.35 The Marine Orders regulate pen stocking densities but these are circumvented to a varying extent. The pen stocking

density regulations may be too tight for the larger sheep. Dr

Temple Grandin interviewed several ships officers who reported

that they opened the gates between pens after they left port to give the sheep more room. One Captain did this only during hot

weather. Grandin reported that a DOT official doubted that it would present a hazard to ships stability.34 it does present a

78

hazard for movement around the deck for crew and may be

injurious to the sheep themselves. It also may contribute to the

problem of shy feeders and allow a few sheep to establish

dominance over a larger number.

8.36 Brennan reports that stocking density regulations may be incorrect especially with regard to lighter weight sheep.35

The current stocking density regulations in the Marine Orders

Part 43 were formulated by the LAC in 1952 using the Newmarket

Victoria stockyards and basic techniques.36 it appears that new

research into stocking densities is required.

8.37 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Livestock Advisory Committee review stocking densities onboard live sheep carriers

and, if necessary, the Department of Transport amend the Marine

Orders Part 43 accordingly.

Mortality Rates Purina Embarkation

8.38 The mortality rates for embarkation are available in

the Masters Reports of the DOT but their reliability has not

been demonstrated. They report losses of under two per cent, yet

there is evidence of discrepancies in the tallies of the order

of one per cent. This reinforces consideration of Grandin's suggestion of an automated tally system administered by a

neutral authority. Dr Brennan recommended further research to discover the extent and causes of mortalities for this phase.

79

CHAPTER 9

CONDITIONS ABOARD SHEEP CARRIERS

The Shipboard Environment

9.1 Conditions aboard a livestock carrier are similar to intensive livestock production. The sheep are penned and

confined and feed is distributed to each pen. A notable

difference, however, is that the sheep are subject to the

stresses of weather at sea. The modern carrier generally houses

sheep in pens above the main deck, not below deck. The sheep are

therefore subject not only to yawing, pitching and rolling, but

also to wind and seaspray. In studies carried out in 1975 and

1978, M.P. Bond and J. Hartung implicated rough seas and bad

weather as a cause of sheep mortality.! However, this work was

done on older ships and its results, if correct, would not necessarily be applicable to modern carriers.

9.2 The ALEA stated that there might be data available in

masters' reports showing a correlation between mortalities and

rough weather but this had not been statistically analysed. It

acknowledged that rough seas would probably cause inappetance

which would lead to empty gut syndrome and finally

salmonellosis, but they had not examined their statistics on this.2 Napthine and Miller observed that 1 sea sickness does not

appear to be a problem for sheep' . Brennan concluded that

further research is required to determine whether there is a link between rough weather and mortalities.3

9.3 Besides sea sickness, bad weather can cause cold

stress, but no evidence is available on the extent of this

problem. Carriers from the eastern States of Australia cross the

81

Great Australian Bight to reach the Middle East. Wind and

temperature combine at times to inflict a possible chill factor

on the sheep which would approximate that of the Portland

feedlot. Sheep may be moved out of the pens on the windward side

of the ship during bad weather but this leads to overcrowding.

9.4 Bad weather may mean salt spray washing into and over

the ship and may cause a deterioration in the quality of the water supply. Brennan noted that water quality changes markedly

after the ship encounters rough seas.4 Other information

received by the Commmittee indicated that many sheep died of

saltwater poisoning on ships in rough weather if the crews did

not attend to their needs. The spray and the weather can be so

severe on some ships that it is difficult for the crew to change

the water.

9.5 The ALEA did not believe that water quality

deteriorated. Dr Franklin commented:

1 If we consider that by far a huge percentage of the Australian sheep population has a relatively high salt content in the normal water intakes in the paddock, the amount of

sea water that may come in the spray, unless it is under extremely exceptional

circumstances, I think would be

insignificant.15

9.6 The AVA commented that there have been occasions when

sheep carriers have had to drift in the straits in the Middle

East for several days in very hot weather. When the carrier is

not making any headway there is inadequate ventilation and

mortalities increase.6 The ALEA confirmed that:

' the time when we have the biggest problem is when ther e is high humidity and hign

temperature. This: we recognise. In most circumstances we will attempt to alleviate the conditions where possible, by one

mechanism or another. It is a problem area.17

82

1 Sheep can probably handle the temperature change; it is the humidity that they cannot handle. Most of the areas in the Middle East are not humid. There are certain areas that

are though.1 ®

9.7 The ALBA added that the mortality rate can double or

treble if the temperature is over 38 degrees and if the humidity

is between 85 and 90 per cent.9

9.8 The weather conditions encountered on the voyage to the Middle East appear to vary throughout the year. The heat ana

numidity reaches its peak in August and this coincides with the

worst weather conditions in the Great Australian Bight.

9 .9 The weather can impinge on the unloading of sheep at

Middle Eastern ports. In all ports, livestock carriers are given

priority in berthing. However, delays occur because of gales, sandstorms or similar problems.10 Political circumstances may

also lead to delays.

9.10 Dr Temple Grandin suggested the development of an environmental stress index which would determine various levels

of temperature, humidity and air speed necessary to maintain a suitable environment for the sheep. Additional factors to be

considered would be sheep condition, wool length, pellet

formulation and stocking density.

9.11 Dr Meischke of AAHQS employed a woolbreak test using

the Gordon technique to measure the stress on sheep during the

voyage to the Middle East. In evidence to the Committee,

Dr Meischke stated that there was no direct measure of stress or

indeed pain or cruelty11 and for an indirect measure there is

difficulty in the comparison of the relative merits of

biochemical or physical parameters.

83

Veterinarians Accompanying Shipments

9.12 Veterinarians engaged by the exporting companies have

been making fairly regular voyages to the Middle East on live

sheep carriers, Information obtained by these veterinarians have

been mainly kept within their companies.

9.13 Until recently, AAHQS veterinarians or State Government veterinarians under the aegis of the AAHQS had made occasional

voyages on live sheep carriers to the Middle East. These voyages

were usually made on ships which had suffered unacceptable

levels of mortalities or other problems.

9.14 The lack of a programme of government veterinarians

travelling onboard live sheep carriers had been criticised by

the AVA, the RSPCA and other organisations.

9.15 The ALEA told the Committee that ships had a complement

of trained stockmen onboard, mostly Asian stockmen with some

Australian head stockmen, who were more experienced than most

veterinarians travelling on the ships. The ALE A doubted whether

veterinarians would accomplish more for the welfare and health

of the animals than the stockmen.

9.16 In October 19 84 , the Minister for Primary Industry approved a pilot programme for government veterinarians to make

20 or 30 voyages a year of the total of about 100 voyages.

Although the veterinarians will be able to advise on animal

health problems that might arise, their primary responsibilities

will be research oriented. Their work will be tied in witn

research projects being conducted in Western Australia, and soon to be replicated in Victoria, that are investigating the reasons

for losses incurred in the trade.

84

9.17 The government veterinarians will also provide a

reliable check of mortalities occurring onboard ships and will

be able to observe and report on other animal health and welfare

matters. This will provide government authorities with much

needed information on shipboard conditions and animal welfare.

9.18 Mr W. Gee, Acting Director of the AAHQS, told the

Committee that the industry had begun to be more co-operative

with government authorities on this and other matters. Without

that co-operation it would have been more difficult to implement

a programme of veterinarians accompanying shipments of sheep to

the Middle East. Once a ship leaves Australian waters, it no longer comes under Australian jurisdiction.

9.19 Mr Gee emphasised the need to send veterinarians who

had experience in flock management and health. He added that

there were enough veterinarians available within the AAHQS and State Departments of Agriculture to implement the pilot

programme.

9.20 The pilot programme will be assessed to determine

whether government authorities and the industry will derive

enough benefits from the programme to warrant its continuation

on a long-term basis.

9.21 The Committee strongly supports the recent development of government veterinary officers travelling on about 20 per

cent of voyages of live sheep carriers to the Middle East. The

Committee RECOMMENDS that the implementation of this scheme be

given high priority by the AAHQS.

9.22 The Committee believes that the shipping companies

should employ Australians as head stockmen on live sheep carriers because of their experience in handling Australian

sheep. These stockmen would also be better equipped to recognise

85

and treat health and welfare problems which might occur during

the voyage and provide information on such problems to company

officials and government authorities undertaking research into

these problems. The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Federal

Government encourage live sheep export shipping companies to

employ Australian stockmen on live sheep carriers.

Animal and Human Health Considerations

9.23 If there is an outbreak of a major disease aboard a

carrier, it has been a practice for the crew to mass medicate

the sheep. There are several antibiotics and other drugs

available onboard ship which may be used for therapeutic or preventive purposes. 12 Electrolytes can be used as 1 salt1

replacers, that is the electrolyte salts, cations and anions, in

the body fluids of the sheep. Two particular uses have

ueveloped. First, where the sheep are subject to hot, humid

conditions and develop respiratory acidosis because of excessive

breathing, electrolytes are added to the water to restore normal

ion balance. The second is where diarrhoea is evident and electrolytes will help replace ions lost through the scour.13

9.24 Antibiotics such as terramycin are also administered

via the water. The ABAH standards specify a dose of 5 g per

sheep per day of a broad spectrum soluble antibiotic such as terramycin.1^ This dosage could represent an actual dose of

0.25 g of the active ingredient. This 1 actual' drug dosage is not made clear in the AAHQS standards.15 The frequency of

administration depends on whether it is used for preventive or

therapeutic purposes.

9.25 There has been criticism of this practice. Antibiotics

are administered less frequently now for financial reasons but

the Committee has received information that the antibiotics are of poor quality and are administered incorrectly. There are no

health controls over the administration of antibiotics aboard livestock carriers on the high seas.16

86

9.26 It has also been claimed that the administration of

antibiotics does not conform to veterinary practice within

Australia since the dosages vary. In automatic water systems the

water is replenished in the troughs throughout the day so the

concentration of the antibiotic powder is never static. Half an

hour after administration the concentration may be 50 per cent ±ess. Antibiotics are added to water in intensive systems in

Australia but it is claimed that the export companies would not

pay for slow release tablets and antibiotic injectors. Trained

personnel are not employed to administer antibiotics.

9.27 Dr Dobson of the South Australian Department of

Agriculture reported that:

1 The effect of medication in relation to deaths is difficult to evaluate but at the best could only be described as being of marginal benefit. Deaths actually increased

to their peak about 2 days after completion of medication.'

9.28 There is no information available to determine whether

residues of antibiotics administered during transport to the

Middle East have any harmful effects on consumers.

9.29 The importation of exotic diseases by the trade in live

sheep has been raised as a potential danger for Australia. There

is no evidence that this has occurred but vigilance is required by the industry and government authorities to prevent it occurring in the future.

9.30 It has been alleged that quarantine problems may result

from unused fodder in ships' holds which is returned for consumption by the next load of sheep. However, returned fodder

is subject to strict quarantine controls and buildup of fungal toxins within two trips is very limited.

87

Feed and Water

9.31 Contamination of feed and water could have serious

consequences for the sheep aboard a livestock carrier. The

problem of salt water washing into the water troughs and

contaminating the water supply has been considered but does not

appear to be a significant problem.

9.32 A source of contamination of more concern is the

fouling with sheep droppings of both the feed and water troughs.

Marine Orders Part 43, in a note, rather than as a requirement,

specify that the top of a feed or water trough should be

approximately 550 mm above the pen floor.19 They suggest that a

pipe or round bar be installed 75 mm off the top edge of the trough in order to minimise fouling. Other practices to overcome

the problem have been the straining of a cable in front of the troughs at a suitable height^O and the use of kick boards in

front of the troughs.21 Dr Peter Arnold commented that troughs should be above anal height to prevent contamination.22 Grandin

noted that on one ship the feed troughs appeared to be too high and it was difficult for sheep to eat. Excessive height may

reduce feed intake as sheep naturally eat in a head down

position and saliva flow may be hampered by high feed troughs.23

A fender mounted off the trough may prevent contamination and

not discourage feeding but it may also occupy valuable deck space. Another suggestion has been the installation of a step up

to the trough. Dr K. Dobson conducted a trial aboard the

1 Viborg1 in which a 7.5 cm high wooden step was placed in front of the trough, but this did not result in reduced deaths in those pens.24

9.33 There is evidence that sheep which drink water with some fecal contamination are able to cope with it because they

are ruminants with bacteria present in their digestive system, with the qualification that the water must be visually

88

acceptable and have no smell. The principal reason for the

reduction of fecal contamination is that the chance of spreading

disease via the water system is reduced considerably. The AAHQS

commented:

1 The problems of feed troughs and feed trough contamination remain unresolved. The problems can be overcome by constant attention to cleaning but it cannot be beyond the

ingenuity of man to arrive at permanent

solutions.1 25

9.34 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the DOT, in consultation

with the AAHQS, investigate the problem of trough fouling aboard

live sheep carriers and revise the Marine Orders accordingly.

9.35 The ready availability of feed and water is important.

There is evidence that denial of feed and water leads to

maladaptation, scouring and gut infection which can become generalised and lead to high mortalities.26

9.36 The ALEA agreed that feed should be applied on a

continuous basis so that all sheep have access to feed.27

However, only 11 carriers have automatic feed systems and another one has a system which is partly automatic.28

9.37 The ALEA admitted that in ships with manual feeding systems it is impossible to keep feed in troughs all the time.

On the larger ships feed is available for 24 hours 1 or as close to 24 hours as physically possible1 .29 The Committee received

information questioning the effectiveness of automatic feed systems but the Committee has not been able to substantiate

these allegations.

9.38 The Committee has received evidence that in ships with

automatic feeding systems, about 25 per cent of the sheep should

be able to feed at the trough at one time. With a manual system

and if feed is limited to one kilogram per head per day then all

89

sheep in a pen must have access to the feed at the same time

otherwise some sheep will probably eat more than their share. A

six inch trough space per sheep means that, on present stocking

densities, this is not feasible. The only solution is the

installation of automatic feeding machines. The ALEA told the

Committee that:

1 provided the feed is there for a reasonably long period of time and animals have a chance to rotate, the importance of the linear

access of the trough is not as high as it is in a situation where you have limited feed and limited feeding time.130

9.39 The availability of the feed in ships with manual

feeding systems may be restricted by the rolling and pitching of

the ship during bad weather because the crew are not able to replenish the troughs. Grandin points out that an advantage of

automatic troughs is that they are less likely to slosh and

spill water, because only a small amount of water in a deep

trough needs to be available to keep the sheep supplied.31

9.40 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the DOT, in consultation

with the AAHQS, assess the welfare benefits of automatic feeding

and watering equipment and, if necessary, amend the Marine

Orders to require their installation in live sheep carriers.

9.41 The revised Marine Orders specify that evidence should

be provided by the Master 1 attesting the capacity and efficiency of the water-generating equipment1.32 The Marine Orders also

specify that a reserve of 25 per cent or 3 days' requirements, whichever is the less, should be carried. 33 As far as the

Committee can determine, the minimum additional quantity of

water is carried. The Committee received information that the reserve requirement is not enough to cover both unforeseen

problems at sea or delayed unloading and that instead, 33 per

cent extra feed and water should be carried.

90

9.42 The Victorian Department of Agriculture commented that:

1 the Marine Orders state three days on top of their normal expected voyage time. But we have had the situation that where vessels have been unduly delayed, they have been able

to call in at other ports on their way. One was a live sheep vessel just recently that was unduly delayed across the Bight and it called in at Fremantle for more fodder.134

9.43 However, this does not address the problem of delays

occurring in transit from Fremantle to the Middle East.

9.44 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the DOT, in consultation

with the LAC and the AAHQS, consider the question of optimum

volume of reserve feed and water and, if necessary, revise the

Marine Orders accordingly.

9.45 The distribution of the feed from the bulk lines can

also present problems. The distribution might be done by bag or

bucket in the case of manual systems or by conveyor, auger or

pneumatic tube in the case of automatic systems. The problem

with the former is that of disruption by bad weather or

inability or reluctance to distribute the feed on the part of

the crew. The problem with the latter is that the pellet is

subject to various degrees of crumbling by the automatic equipment. Dr K. Dobson commented:

'While the system was moderately efficient, the raising of the pellets by auger and

lowering again resulted in considerable crumbling of the pellets. This gave rise to excessive dust which is uncomfortable for both man and sheep and which makes feed

unattractive and less palatable for sheep. ... This could be decreased by using a

smaller pellet. Decreasing the distance of travel in augers and pipes before it gets to the sheep should also be considered.135

9.46 It appears that conveyor equipment may cause less crumbling than auger or pneumatic systems.

91

9.47 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the DOT assess the merits

of different feed handling systems in their ability to reduce

crumbling of the pellet.

9.48 The Committee further RECOMMENDS that, on the basis of

the DOT assessment, satisfactory feed handling systems be

required to be installed in all future carriers entering the

trade, and that the Marine Orders Part 43 be revised

accordingly.

Ventilation

9.4 9 The ALEA told the Committee that if the temperature

exceeds 38 degrees Celsius and if the humidity is between 85 and

90 per cent, conditions which do occur at sea in the Middle East, the sheep mortality rate can double or treble. 36 Pels

reported that by improving the ventilation in a sheep carrier

mortalities were kept to reasonable levels. Extensive environmental measurements by Suiter and Dyer indicated that increasing the air movement reduced mortalities significantly.37

Dr Dennis Napthine of the Victorian Department of Agriculture

confirmed this view. He believed that air movement was a

critical factor influencing the survival of sheep. He

recommended that a thorough study of the effects of air movement on the survival of sheep during transportation be undertaken.38

9.50 The consequences for the sheep of a failure of

ventilation machinery are considerable. The DOT reported two

occasions from January 1979 to date: 1

1 the Mukairish Althaleth, flag Saudi Arabia, on a voyage from Adelaide to Jeddah,

departure 1 February 1984 ... loaded 28 000 head of sheep. At one period the ventilation broke down and the losses rose from less than one sheep daily to 70 during that period. We

92

had one bad failure of the mechanical

ventilation on a ship called the "Persia" - its flag was Lebanon - on a voyage from

Fremantle to Suez. In September 1981 it

loaded 49 500 sheep and due to the

ventilation breakdown, the deaths were 8764.'39

9.51 The ALEA commented that since the 1 Persia1 disaster,

the new Marine Orders have required every vessel 1 to have a

stand by generator installed, totally separate operationally and

with a separate fuel line to the main generator, so in the event

of a generator breakdown you have a back up generator1.40

However, that part of Marine Orders only took effect on 1 July

1985 for ships with a pen area for sheep of more than 10 000

square metres but will not take effect until 1 July 1987 for

ships with a smaller pen area.

9.52 The AAHQS has emphasised that greater consideration

should be given to ventilation design. For example, Dr Meischke

reported that on one ship the exhaust and intake of ventilation were close together.41 Qr Brennan reported that 1 Investigation

into the effects of ventilation on ships is urgent and should

utilize the services of an air conditioning engineer accompanied

by a veterinary surgeon'.42 Grandin suggested that an engineer

with practical experience ventilating aircraft carriers, mines or large buildings would contribute to better design.43

9.53 Designers are required to work within the

specifications set by the national regulating authority which,

in Australia, is the DOT. There are differing national

standards. The British requirement specifies 20 air changes per

hour whereas Marine Orders Part 43 specifies 20-30 changes per hour or 75 per cent of this capacity if decks are not enclosed

as in the above deck supercarriers. Captain John Collins, Marine

Superintendent of the British Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries

and Food, prefers 30 changes per hour. Dr Kevin Dodd, veterinary

93

consultant to a major cattle shipper from Eire who also exports

sheep and cattle from Western Australia, believes ventilation is

critical and recommends 40 changes per hour. These air change

specifications apply to in-hull converted cargo vessels, not

above-deck converted oil tankers, according to Dr Neil Tweddle.44

9.54 Professor Muller of the University of Hohenheim, West

Germany, has observed that high ventilation rates are not

desirable when outside temperatures are low but ventilation must still be able to remove the carbon dioxide produced by the

animals. In the Middle East, ventilation should be increased to

maintain relative humidity not higher than 80 per cent. This is

one of the few attempts, if not the only one, to provide a

scientific rather than an ad hoc basis for ventilation

specification.45

9.55 Air changes per hour is not an entirely adequate

specification for ventilation. Brennan notes that high velocity

air blasts may not penetrate far when sheep are in pens and, because of turbulence, they may create dead areas adjacent to the ventilation outlets.46 Willson noted that the total amount

of air ducted into sheep areas appeared to be adequate but the

1 big problem' was the distribution of air throughout the pens.

Air movement was evident in the alleyways but not at all evident in the sheep pens. He also noted a 1 vast difference' in the air

flow rates between the bottom and top levels of the sheep pens.47 Grandin reported that most ships transporting sheep have

a ventilation system which can exceed the minimum air changes

required by the Marine Orders. The problem is that 'the air is not being evenly distributed throughout the space occupied by the sheep'.48 The air movement was measured by Dr Napthine at

various points throughout the sheep areas. He observed that the wind speed was 2m/sec within 0.5 metres of the ventilation

outlet but he detected no movement of air more than

94

one metre from the ventilation outlet. He concluded that the

sheep depended almost entirely on the air movement caused by the ship's forward movement.49 Lt Colonel Harries of the South

Australian RSPCA, noted that the movement of sheep in the pen during feeding dispersed the stale air.50

9.56 Unpublished work by Dr Peter Arnold has indicated that

four knots (2m/sec) is the minimum amount of air movement in a

pen of sheep. 1 Below that it becomes very dangerous.1

9.57 The ALEA was unaware of any particular minimum standard

of air flow in the sheep pens but it did acknowledge that

movement of air in the pens was important.51

9.58 Dr Brennan reported that mortalities could be

accurately predicted to occur in pens on the leeward side of the

sheep house following conditions of high temperatures and

humidity. It was stated that high humidity impaired the cooling

of the sheep and rapid gasping respiration had been observed above 32°C and 90 per cent relative humidity, or above 35°C and 33-39 mm of mercury.52 The ALEA responded that masters will take

necessary action and will even circle during a voyage if they find they are getting an air vacuum in very still conditions.53

9.59 The Committee received evidence from a veterinarian who

had accompanied a shipment of sheep that encountered these

conditions. The captain had to meet a deadline in the port of destination and refused to zig-zag the ship. The veterinarian

gave his views in writing but the captain did not respond. This

veterinarian added that most captains were co-operative.

9.60 The AAHQS has stated that modern livestock carriers with large, high superstructures are difficult to maneouvre at

sea and that the ventilation system should not require change of direction and the use of prevailing winds.54

95

9.61 The DOT informed the Committee that the Marine Surveyor

tested the mechanical ventilation each time a sheep carrier

visited Australian ports.55

9.62 The revised Marine Orders that came into force in July

1983 included minimum air changes but not air velocity. Although

no contravention of the regulation occurs, the air circulation

may be extremely poor in the sheep pens after loading and the

bulk of the air flow could be wasted.

9.63 Dr Grandin concluded that the only valid method for the

evaluation of the air distribution characteristics of a

ventilation system was when the pens were filled with sheep. She had evidence that the sheep acted as a solid wall and changed

the air flow patterns. She cited wind tunnel research with

models by Muirhead which indicated that air flow through a

cattle truck became weak when the animals were put into it.56

9.64 The airflow at the face level of the animal is

extremely important. The velocity of this airflow is one of the

most important means of inhibiting the effect of carbon dioxide and ammonia in the pens. The ALE A commented that ammonia levels

are over-emphasised. They are often an indicator of poor air movement which is a worse problem than ammonia fumes.57 They

also commented that wet litter on the deck due to spillage,

hosing, rain and salt spray can cause increased ammonia and

humidity levels but that after a number of days it forms a 'dung

pad' of dry fecal material which will absorb a lot of moisture, particularly urine, and keep the ammonia level down.58

Dr Napthine confirmed this. Aboard the 1A1 Qurain' he found that

sheep droppings dried out quickly and became powdery. The urine was absorbed by the powder.59 He recorded ammonia levels which

ranged from 0-50 ppm. The levels were higher at the beginning of the voyage but he recorded 35 ppm on day 13. He commented that

96

the tolerance of sheep to ammonia levels was unknown and needed

to be the subject of further research.60 Dr Willson also

recorded ammonia levels up to 50 ppm and 1 an obvious build up of

foetid air was also noted in some areas'.61 More importantly he

stated that this build up of foul air was not necessarily

confined to areas where air movement was minimal. Obnoxious

levels were also recorded where there was good air movement.

Both Dr Willson and the marine surveyor accompanying him on the M.V. 1 Persia1 noted that, by day six, the worst ventilated areas

in the ship became more apparent by a failure of the pen floors

to dry out adequately, becoming progressively wetter until the

worst areas contained liquid faeces and urine which resulted in

foul odours and an increase in relative humidity.

9.65 Lt Colonel Harries confirmed that the limit of

tolerance of a sheep to ammonia levels in the atmosphere,

expressed in parts per million was unknown.62 He recorded

ammonia levels in the range of 5-40 ppm. Dr Grandin interviewed a number of exporters some of whom were concerned about high

ammonia levels and some of whom did not consider high ammonia levels detrimental.63 she concluded that 1 exposure of animals to

ammonia may inhibit their ability to resist disease' and the

'ammonia levels over 50 ppm during the major portion of the voyage would probably be detrimental to the sheep'.64 Grandin

noted that the new ships were equipped with indicators on the bridge to warn the captain of ventilation problems. 65 Dr Tweddle

reported that automatic environmental monitoring is feasible and that analysis of recorded data for the shipboard environment and

correlation with animal performance should then identify optimum conditions.66

9.66 The Committee RECOMMENDS that the DOT, in consultation

with the AAHQS, undertake, as a matter of priority, an

investigation of the effectiveness of ventilation standards

required for sheep carriers, and revise Marine Orders Part 43 accordingly.

97

Livestock Carrier Design and Specification

9.67 NSW Animal Liberation in its submission expressed

concern about the soundness of ships in the trade, referring

specifically to the loss of the Farid Fares, the ventilation

problems suffered by the Persia and the breakdown of the A1

Shuwaikh on its first voyage.

9.68 The DOT informed the Committee that:

1 The age of the ship is an important factor when considering conversion. It is a

recognised fact that corrosion of the

structure of livestock carriers is a major problem, so the service life of a ship

depends very largely on the degree of

maintenance carried out. Some ships are now reaching the stage when their continued viability as livestock carriers is open to question.167

9.69 The DOT report on the sinking of the 1 Farid Fares'

concluded that:

1 The majority of converted livestock ships in this trade are of average age of 25/30 years or more and represent on a comparative basis (the) lowest standards of maintenance of any class of vessels currently trading to

Australian ports. Evidence of this will be readily available from Central Office files relating to adverse reports resulting from increased surveillance of this type of vessel by Departmental surveyors ... I raise these matters here to emphasise the underlying

nature of maintenance problems on these vessels, thereby highlighting the potential for accidents resulting in a casualty as occurred in this case.168

98

9.7 0 Dr Napthine told the 1984 annual conference of the AVA

that older ships had a much higher mortality rate owing to poor

ventilation and increased breakdowns in feeding and watering

systems. 1 The loss of sheep on the older vessels is unacceptable

and the ships should be banned.169

9.71 Dr Grandin reported that many sheep carriers were

converted oil tankers which were big and slow. She said that

several companies were considering the conversion of container

ships or car carriers as they had abundant space and were faster

than tankers. The configuration of a container ship would

require enclosing of the pens and the installation of an effective ventilation system.70

9.72 Dr Grandin reported that a sheep carrier had to be

large enough to achieve economies of scale but small enough to

ensure adequate preparation of the sheep. In addition, there

were few ports at both ends of the voyage with facilities to

handle large shipments of sheep.

9.73 The specification and design of the ships are

scrutinised by the DOT for both structural and engineering

requirements. When the livestock plans are first submitted for

approval, they are examined for design and stress suitability in

the Ship Safety Branch of the Department. When the ship docks at

an Australian port, two marine surveyors, one a master mariner

and the other an engineer, inspect the ship. The engineer

examines the machinery, ventilation equipment and engine room,

and the master mariner will examine such things as fire-fighting equipment, feed and water and stability for compliance with

Marine Orders Part 43 and other regulations.

9.74 The ABAH report 1 Sea Transport of Sheep' (1981) gave details of a number of areas where there were deficiencies in

specifications and design of carriers, but the revised Marine

99

Orders issued in July 1983 dealt with many of these problems,

such as drainage, watertight and non-slip decks, lighting and a

secondary source of power for ventilation.

9.75 Section 18 of the revised Marine Orders applies to

ships' ramps. It specifies the gradient of the ramp, fitting of

side panels and deck battens. Grandin observed that most ships

had wide loading ramps that could accommodate six to 10 sheep

abreast and were a big improvement over the narrow ramps of the

older ships.71

9.76 There is evidence that vessels with a stiff roll, that is, they resist rolling until the pressure is too great and then

roll suddenly, may throw livestock off their feet in rough weather and increase stress and mortalities.?2 no regulations

apply to this design feature and the DOT informed the Committee

that 1 it is not a thing we would normally investigate'. The

master of the ship would probably try to ballast or de-ballast

the ship to make the voyage more comfortable.

9.77 The Committee RECOMMENDS that all live sheep carriers

be required to meet the revised standards recommended in this

report or be withdrawn from the trade.

Mortalities Aboard Sheep Carriers

9.78 On completion of a voyage, the ship's master is

required to forward to the DOT a report on animal mortalities

during the voyage. The current revised form of report requires details of daily mortalities from the beginning of loading until

the final discharge of sheep at the port of destination. A

summary of mortalities, excluding the periods of loading and unloading, for five years is presented in Table 9.1. The average

mortality for the voyage is two per cent and additional losses are suffered during loading and discharge of the sheep.

100

Table 9.1: Summary of Sheep Losses at Sea 1979 TO 1984

SHEEP EXPORTED DEATHS %

1979 5,311,432 105,959 1.99

1980 6 ,125,637 150,722 2.46

1981 4,822,704 112,794 2.34

1982 5,887,315 131,691 2.24

1983 6 ,254,703 131,047 2.10

1984 6,963,314 135,841 1.95

Source: Evidence pp. S1535-46 , S2941 .

9.7 9 In its submission to the Committee, the Depa:

stated:

1 It will be apparent that the practical value of the Master's report on mortality is

limited as it is not an independent record. However, in the absence of any independent observer at the port of discharge and the difficulties of ensuring a correct tally both

in Australia and at the overseas markets, no other avenue of assessing performance is considered practicable.173

9.80 The reservations of the DOT have been expressed more forcefully by critics of the trade and by some people in the

industry itself. The Committee has received many allegations of

false mortality statistics being included in the masters'

reports. The only evidence of possible discrepancies in masters' reports has been information obtained by Dr Tweddle of the

Victorian Department of Agriculture from one insurance company

of claims made to it for sheep losses on several voyages. A comparison of the insurance claims made and the reported

mortalities by the master is shown in Table 9.2. It should be

noted, however, that the insurance claims were probably for a

101

longer period than just the duration of the voyage. To prove a

discrepancy in the master's report, it would be necessary to

match the identical period in the insurance claim. This

information is not available.

Table 9.2: Sheep Shipments to the Persian Gulf

Comparison of Insurance Claims and Masters' Reports

MASTERS

REPORTS

Deaths

%

INSURANCE

REPORTS

Deaths

%

0.09 0.3

00 o

1.8

2.7 7.3

3.2 4.3

1.6 2.2

3 .1 5.9

1.7 2.4

1.2 2.4

1.4 10.7

3.8 7.5

1.2 3.0

1.5 2.7

1.7 3.5

3.1 6.6

Source: Victorian Department of Agriculture.

9.81 Lloyd's of London underwrite a lot of the insurance on livestock shipments in many parts of the world and in most

cases, Lloyd's underwrite insurance contracts for brokers such as Middle Eastern insurance companies. A few consignments are

102

underwritten by Australian insurers. The marine insurers market

in Australia is fragmented and there is no unified approach to

insurance for the live sheep exporters.

9.82 Mr R. Ludeking, Marine Underwriter for Phoenix

Prudential, commented that mortality rates have improved

considerably over recent years but underwriters have become wary

of giving too much credence to published statistics on average

mortality because individual shipments depend on specific

circumstances which should not be generalised. Most sheep

insurance cover commences at time of arrival on the wharf at the

point of embarkation and ends when the sheep are put in sheds or

on trucks at the port of disembarkation. The insured value was approximately US$80 per sheep in August 1983.74

9.83 Mr Ludeking stated that:

1 present insurance underwriting loss expectancy is between a range of 2.5 per cent to 7 per cent for individual shipments ... Underwriters identify the loss figures from pre-shipment, on board ship, and at point of

unloading in their estimations, whereas it is understood that the official figures only take into account the number of deaths during the overseas voyage.175

9.84 Underwriters are also aware of incorrect tallies. 1 Past experience relating to short tallying is also a decisive factor when assessing a risk.176 if the tallies are incorrect at either

end, mortalities may be either completely obscured or

conversely, grossly exaggerated. The Committee is aware of a

tally dispute concerning 1.11 per cent of sheep loaded, a tally dispute of this size would make a severe dent in mortality

statistics of two per cent. Tallies have also been discussed in

Chapter 8.

9.85 Apart from the controversy over the average mortalities

sustained by the trade, a few significant incidents have occurred since 1980.

103

9.86 The DOT reported that the ventilation system aboard the

'Mukairish Althaleth1 broke down in February 1984 and for the

28 000 sheep aboard the losses rose from one head per day to 70 per day.77 This ship has now been withdrawn from the trade. 7 8

The DOT also reported that the deaths on board the 1 Persia1 in

September 1981 were due to ventilation breakdown and totalled

8764 of the 49 500 onboard.

9.87 Since 1970, one livestock carrier, the 1 Farid Fares',

has sunk, resulting in the loss of 40 605 sheep.

9.88 The South Australian Department of Agriculture reported

that with the breakdown of the 1 Khaleej Express' and its return

to Outer Harbour, Adelaide, on 27 July 1981, the transfer of

20 000 sheep to the ' A1 Shuwaikh' involved the death of 635 sheep or 3.175 per cent.79

9.89 Earlier, in June 1980 , the ' Khaleej Express' was on passage from Adelaide to Jeddah when its cargo of sheep suffered

irom an outbreak of a 'virulent disease' . A total of 2713 sheep, or 13.4 per cent of the 20 133 loaded, died but the majority of

this loss, 2275, occurred within the first ten days of the

voyage. 80 The 'A1 Shuwaikh' on her maiden voyage after

conversion to a sheep carrier, broke down off Fremantle because of damage to her main engine. 81 Fortunately, no sheep were on

board.

9.90 These incidents indicate the possible mortalities

caused by machinery failures and other contingencies.

9.91 The level of mortality onboard a sheep carrier is an indicator of animal health and welfare in that, for a shipment

in which, say, two per cent die, the deaths will have been

preceded by sickness or other suffering, and other sheep which have not died, will presumably have also been sick or have

104

suffered in some way. The inadequacy of mortality as an

indicator is that the causes of death have generally been

unknown and consequently, not all of them can be attributed to

shipboard conditions. Overall, however, high mortalities

indicate health and welfare problems and low mortalities

indicate tolerable conditions, but not necessarily free of stress or suffering.

9.92 Moreover, given data from a large number of shipments over a reasonable period of time, it is assumed that random

variations or inaccuracies would cancel one another and

therefore the mortality statistics may be indicative of changes

for better or for worse in the industry. The rapid improvements

in the 1970s have been replaced by a reasonably constant level of mortalities in the 1980s.

9.93 The understanding of the causes of mortality is as

equally important as being able to measure the rate of

mortalities. There is a litany of postulated causes of

mortality. The Brennan Report lists confirmed causes as:

. hypo cal caemia

. acidosis

. heat stress . polioencephalomalacia

. salmonellosis . clostridial infections

. trauma

. copper poisoning

. haemorragic enteritis . pulmonary failure.

9.94 Brennan listed a number of factors which have been

subjectively related to sheep mortality on livestock vessels and

observed that three trends have been observed in mortality patterns:

105

. steadily rising mortality throughout the voyage (March

to August)

. initially high mortality which steadily declines

throughout the voyage

. a combination of the former two.82

9.95 Although some causes of mortality aboard sheep carriers are known, many others are not. In addition, there has been no

large scale assessment of the suffering involved with live

exports as reflected in the mortality rates. Many company

veterinarians have been aboard sheep carriers and monitored

feedlots but there has been no sustained, industry-wide attempt

to solve these problems. The AAHQS stated that up to one million

Australian sheep have died between purchase for export and

unloading overseas during the past five years. Many more have suffered illness or injury, and have been rejected for export

prior to loading or have survived to slaughter.

9.96 In the last two years, government authorities and the

industry have begun to do research into the cause of

mortalities. However, it is only with the recently approved programme of government veterinarians accompanying shipments of sheep to the Middle East that information obtained from post

mor terns will be available for analysis and inclusion in the

broader research programmes currently underway.

106

CHAPTER 10

CONDITIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Unloading at Middle Eastern Ports

10.1 The ALEA stated that there are no delays in the

berthing of sheep carriers in the Middle East unless bad weather

intervenes. In all ports, sheep carriers are given priority. The

ALEA stated that, in virtually all the Middle Eastern countries,

there are unloading systems as good as, or even better than,

those in Australia. The Bahrain Government, in particular, has taken action to ensure swift unloading.1 The Harries Report to

the South Australian RSPCA observed that at Kuwait under normal

circumstances, there was no undue delay in the berthing and

discharge of livestock, which were regarded as a priority cargo.2

10.2 However, other information received by the Committee

indicated that delays in discharging of sheep in hot, humid

conditions in the Middle East were very common. There is also evidence that because of delays and disputes there can be a

sudden influx of sheep at ports in the Middle East. In April and

May 1978 eight ships discharged a total of 240 000 sheep at the

Iranian port of Bandar Shapour in the Persian Gulf. The 1 Land1

reported that 1 this placed unacceptable strain on ship discharge

facilities and the entire distribution system' and 1 delays in

unloading ships had caused heat stress in 40 degrees Celsius temperatures and the loss of several thousand sheep'.3

10.3 Willson reported, in his voyage to the Middle East in January 1982, that the ' Persia' was held off Aqabah for nearly

24 hours but once berthed the unloading was rapid and

107

efficient.4 Paxton reported that the ports of Shuwaikh, Dammam,

Jeddah and Fujairah also efficiently handled the disembarkation

of livestock. However, he advised that the Australian Government

should approach Middle Eastern governments to ensure that ships

carrying livestock were given priority in berthing and that the

unloading of livestock was done as smoothly and rapidly as

possible in order to minimise suffering and losses. Livestock

being held on a stationary ship in the Middle East were often

given no feed and water.5

10.4 The Victorian RSPCA stated that 1 what concerns us in

the Middle East is the fact that these animals which arrive in

the Middle East are then subjected to animal husbandry standards which are totally at variance with the way in which the sheep

had been handled since birth in Australia1.6 However, various

witnesses have reported satisfactory unloading of sheep from

ship to shore. Dr Napthine of the Victorian Department of

Agriculture described how, within one hour of docking at Kuwait, the sheep were efficiently run off the ship and then run 150

metres into a large, well-ventilated, holding shed. No unloading took place during the heat of the day, that is, between 1200 and 1600 hours.7

10.5 Miss Chris barter, an animal welfarist associated with

the Brooke Animal Hospital, Cairo, accompanied the 1Viborg1 to

Benghazi, Libya. She observed that the unloading was

accomplished efficiently and the sea journey had not affected the sheep.8

10.6 However, unloading of the 1 Persia1 at El Adabia, Suez

in September 1981 was described as follows:

1 There were no facilities to handle the sheep at the port. The boat was delayed for three days before unloading could take place, during which time the sheep were without

108

water ... The men did not know even how to

load the sheep, and our sources gave some advice. Sheep were escaping, being chased over the wharf by dogs and children, caught by the legs, and thrown on their backs into the trucks.19

10.7 Dr Temple Grandin reported that interviews with ships' officers and other people in the shipping industry indicated

that some ports in the Middle East had good unloading facilities

but others needed improvement.10 Her main criticism was that, at

some ports, the sheep were unloaded directly on to trucks from

the main ramp of the ship, which delayed unloading considerably.

She suggested the use of a folding, raised unloading platform

similar to the one used by Siba and Fares in Western Australia. Also, where sheep are unloaded directly onto the wharf, the

gradient of the ramp on some ships may be excessively steep at

high tide. Grandin believed that the angle of the ramps should

not exceed 25 degrees and to prevent this steep angle the main

ship's ramp could be rested on a platform with ramp extension.

10.8 Brennan reported that some ports in the Middle East are

claimed to be worse than others, but he continued that

mortalities during discharge have been recorded as quite high.

Meischke reported that mortalities after unloading sometimes

exceeded seven per cent. H This has been attributed to food and

water rationing or deprivation, delays in berthing, delays in unloading, disorganisation on the wharf and inadequate road

transport. He also noted that blind sheep slow the rate of discharge from ships.12

10.9 Dobson observed that the unloading of the 'Viborg' in

Kuwait in 1983 took 21 1/2 hours. The period of unloading was

unnecessarily long and the delay was due to the stock being

immediately loaded on to trucks. Dobson and other witnesses have

expressed concern about slow unloading in mid summer in the

109

Middle East because the high temperatures (up to 50°C), lack of

water and overcrowding while waiting for transport to feedlot in the long loading races lead to much suffering and death. 13

Willson noted on the 1 Persia1 at Jeddah that these delays

contributed to the loss during discharge of 13 sheep through

smothering in the alleyways and loading ramps.14

10.10 It appears that conditions and procedures for unloading

sheep in the Middle East vary considerably in their efficiency

and provisions for the welfare of the sheep.

10.11 Dr Peter Arnold told the Committee that 1 there are some very, very good facilities available in the Middle East,

probably better than what is here1.15 Dr Napthine referred to

the facilities in Kuwait as 1 excellent1. The sheep were run into

a large concrete holding shed on the wharf which was well ventilated and had provision for feed and water.16 Lt Colonel

Harries described the Kuwait facilities as 1 well above average1

and that layout, ventilation, feed and water provision were of a

1 high standard1 . It was used as a 1 reservoir1 between the ship

and the road transport carrying the sheep to the company feedlot 20 km inland.17 Lt Colonel Harries was not able to see the wharf

facilities at Bahrain. He understood that the sheep were held in

pens on the wharf until they could be moved by road transport.

10.12 The unloading facilities are important in the

distribution of sheep. The AMLC believed that Iran discontinued

the import of live sheep because their handling facilities were

under threat from Iraqi attack. 1 They are so busy handling other

commodities in through that port, that I do not think they want it congested with live sheep. I think they are having problems

between the port and getting it into Tehran.1 Mr Beeby added 1 It

is a long, long way over very hot, bad roads. We protested strongly about the problems associated with coming out of Bandar Abbas.118

110

Road Transport

10.13 RSPCA Victoria stated that there are major problems

with the transportation of the sheep throughout the country of destination.19 Although Dr Napthine found no evidence of

overcrowding in Kuwait, Drs Arnold, Willson and Brennan have all

referred to instances of overcrowding and inadequacies of transport.20 Lt Colonel Harries noted that the road transports

at Kuwait which were used for travel to the feedlot, were

semi-trailers of Australian manufacture.21 Mr Ralph James of the

Sheepmeat Council and Mr Vivian Burton of Metro Meat Ltd

expressed similar views.22 However, Willson noted that at

Jeddah, at the unloading of the 1 Persia1 , the trucks were not

well equipped to carry sheep and loading was often excessive. In

addition, an intermittent shortage of trucks contributed to the unloading problems mentioned above.23 At the unloading of the

1 Persia1 at El Adabia it was stated that the trucks used to

transport the animals were 'entirely inadequate, some having

sloping floors which caused the sheep to fall over1.24 Paxton,

who was stationed in the Middle East from March to September

1983, observed careless acts which prejudiced the welfare of the

sheep, such as forcing sheep to jump from the back of trucks and

tying of sheep's feet to transport them in trucks. He concluded

that the transportation of sheep to the feedlot needed

improvement in some countries, mainly those which had not developed expertise in sheep handling on a large scale, and also among some of the smaller importers.25

Feedlots in the Middle East

10.14 On arrival in the Middle East, sheep may be held in

feedlots for up to six weeks. 26 Paxton reported that large

feedlots exist or are under construction at Kuwait, Fujairah, Riyadh, Dammam and Jeddah.27 Importers were investing

111

1 considerable funds' in feedlots to prevent substantial economic

losses resulting from the weight losses occurring in the sheep

and cattle that land in the Middle East.28

Feedlot Facilities

10.15 The Sheepmeat Council of Australia stated that feedlot facilities in the Middle East were of 1 top quality1 .29 RSPCA (Victoria) did not accept this assessment^ and the AMEC

described conditions as 1 improving1.21 Other information

received by the Committee indicated that the Saudi feedlots were

the best in the Middle East, most of the others were

satisfactory and a few were bad.

10.16 These varying assessments require an examination of

these facilities in greater detail. Napthine and Harries

reported that fodder and water facilities in the Kuwait feedlot

were practical and adequate consisting of metal feed troughs at

the perimeter of the yard and two cement water troughs with an

adequate supply of clean water. By contrast, at the feedlot in

Bahrain which they visited, there was insufficient drinking space, the water troughs were dirty and the feed troughs were inadequate.22 Meischke reported that the cleanliness of the

Bahrain facilities had deteriorated from the previous year.33

10.17 The AVA commented that shade cloth had been installed in the major feedlots and this had reduced mortalities.34

Harries and Napthine noted a significant drop in temperature on

entry into the shaded yards in Kuwait, where 80 per cent of the

area was effectively shaded. By contrast, the Bahrain feedlot

had 20 per cent of its area covered with a corrugated iron roof.35 Meischke noted that the provision of shade in Bahrain was worse than the previous year.36 in Kuwait, plantations had

been located on the perimeter of the feedlot to reduce the effect of the hot winds. Paxton noted that feedlots were not

equipped with any means for drafting or restraining animals.37

112

10.18 Feedlots in Bahrain and two large new feedlots in Saudi

Arabia had been designed with Australian help, particularly from the AMLC.38 Australian input might be increased through the

Australian Development Assistance Bureau consideration of aid

for feasibility studies for quarantine/abattoir complexes and in

the tendering by the Australian Overseas Project Corporation for the construction of abattoirs and animal handling facilities.39

Feed

10.19 Middle Eastern feedlots employ varying feed regimes.

Harries and Napthine reported that in the Kuwait feedlot, the

sheep were fed lucerne hay on their arrival at the feedlot,

50/50 lucerne hay and pellets the next day, and exclusively

pellets on the third day.40 Little hay is produced locally because of the harsh desert climate^l and it is expensive to

import. In Kuwait lucerne hay was imported from China. The

Kuwaiti pellets were manufactured at a feedmill owned by KLTT

which adjoined the feedlot. The pellet was made with Australian

barley (20 per cent), Iraqi dates (20 per cent) which were used

as a binding agent, soya bean cake, lucerne and supplements.

Napthine was told that the protein content was 15 per cent and the digestibility was good. There was no evidence of a dust problem.42 in Bahrain, Napthine and Harries observed that the

feed was a powder - bran type feed. The AMLC representative

stated that it had a high grain content. 43 The Committee

received information that in Saudi Arabia the feed was usually whole barley used with a roughage such as wheat bran. No pellets

were used. Whole barley is imported from Australia aboard the

carriers but it is not known what percentage is supplied from Australia. Barley is also used in the Kuwaiti pellets. Paxton

noted that livestock rations at smaller feedlots tended to be

unbalanced and based on wheat bran and, to a lesser extent,

113

barley.44 The AMLC reported that feedlots in the Middle East do

make considerable use of bran and pollard.45 There is evidence

that these barley/bran diets are inadequate and may cause

acidosis.

Feedlot Management

10.20 Paxton commented that there was wide variation in management skills used in the feedlots, but there was general

acceptance that acquisition of management expertise was worthwhile. Australian management is increasingly being used.46

The management of the large feedlots has a degree of government participation and integration with Australian enterprises.47

10.21 Harries and Napthine observed the veterinary care

available at the feedlots. In Kuwait, the sheep were inspected

twice a day. Sick animals were isolated and treated and those beyond treatment were destroyed.48 At Bahrain they observed 15

moribund sheep that were carefully stepped over by stockmen

engaged in feeding. To avoid theft and abuse the stockmen were not permitted to destroy them but, at the request of the AMLC

and Australian diplomats, arrangements were made for a

government veterinarian to visit the area daily to destroy moribund sheep.49 However, Meischke reported that, on his

inspection a year later, the removal of the dead and the care of

the sick were still neglected.

10.22 Stocking densities also appeared to differ. The feedlot

at Kuwait, which has a capacity of 95 000 had an estimated stocking density of 1000 sheep per hectare.50 χη Bahrain the

sheep were all in one large yard with a total area of at least 0.8 hectares.51

114

10.23 Feedlot mortality rates are an indication of management

skill as well as good welfare practices. Brennan reported that mortality rates varied considerably.52 Napthine reported that

between 1.0 and 1.5 per cent of the sheep died during the first

week in the Kuwaiti feedlot. Arnold reported daily mortalities in Saudi feedlots of 0.08 per cent53 whereas another source

reported 0.4 per cent. The AMLC reported mortalities of below one per cent for the duration of the feedlotting period.54

The Environment

10.24 The AVA reported a loss of sheep that was 1 quite

serious1 caused by heat stroke induced by the very hot

conditions to which sheep are exposed in the Middle E a s t . 55 This

was supported in part by Paxton who observed that during the

northern summer, the Arabian climate could severely stress Australian livestock, already stressed by the sea voyage.

Temperature, humidity and wind speed were all factors which determined livestock mortalities.56

10.25 Australian sheep in the Middle East are at greater risk to disease and parasites exotic to Australia.57 Australian sheep

lack immunity to sheep pox, foot and mouth, rinderpest and other

endemic Middle Eastern diseases which are also prevalent in North Africa, Central Asia and the Indian sub-continent.

Australian sheep are exposed to livestock imported from these areas and also to indigenous livestock.58

10.26 Rinderpest, also known as cattle plague, is an

infectious disease of cattle which can also affect sheep and goats. Mortality is almost 100 per cent.59 jn 1897, rinderpest

devastated the African continent and wiped out nearly all cattle in South Africa.50 in April 1985 it was reported that 240

Australian export cattle unloaded in Bahrain died from the

disease. The remaining 260 cattle in the shipment had to be slaughtered. Bahrain was previously thought to be free of the disease.61

115

10.27 Sheep pox is a viral disease that is very severe and often fatal, with mortality rates reaching 70 per cent. 62 jt is

possible to vaccinate Australian sheep on arrival and isolate

them until they are immune.63

10.28 Foot and mouth is another deadly viral disease which is

dangerous because of its ability to spread rapidly. Paxton reported that the Middle East importers accept 1 in principle'

that Australian sheep should be separated from sheep and goats

from other countries. This principle is fully applied in

practice by only a few companies but it is gradually being

applied more widely.64

10.29 Screw worm fly is another serious threat to sheep

health and welfare. Without treatment 1 the animals are almost

invariably killed by the parasite within about 2 weeks of the initial infestation'.65 Meischke reported the prevalence of

screw worm fly in Bahrain in 1981 and it was first diagnosed in south-eastern Saudi Arabia in 1980.66 Both Napthine and Meischke

reported no evidence of screw worm fly in Kuwait.67

10.30 Overcrowding of feedlots can occur because of the increased demand for sheep during Sawm, the daylight fast during

the month of Ramadan which occurs 11 days earlier in each Gregorian year. During Ramadan it is said that there is an

increased demand for red meat as Muslims observe custom more

closely. This demand is anticipated by purchasing extra supplies of live sheep. 68 The ALEA stated that there are facilities

available to ensure that supply can be maintained at times of peak demand. However, Paxton observed that the increased demand

could 'overwhelm' feedlots and result in suffering for livestock owing to inadequate shade, water and feed. He reported that in

1983 demand was over-estimated so that sheep were held for

116

longer periods than usual. Ramadan has coincided with the

Arabian summer since 1980 and it will continue to do so until 1986.69

Sheep Slaughtering Conditions in the Middle East

Halal Slaughter

10.31 Halal slaughter is the method of slaughter employed by

Muslims both in Australia and the Middle East. According to the

AMLC the requirements of halal slaughter vary from country to

country:

1 It has to be slaughtered by an Islamic

slaughterman who has to say a specific prayer and, dependent upon the country that it is going to, he may or may not have to face a

specific direction. The animal has to die by bleeding, and there is then some variation on the acceptability of whether the animal can be stunned or not. In some countries, if you can demonstrate that electrical stunning does not kill the animal such stunning is

permitted. If there is any question of

whether the animal is alive at the time of slaughter then some countries may not accept stunning.170

Pre-Stunning

10.32 The AAHQS stated that without pre-stunning halal slaughter was cruel.71 The Victorian RSPCA added that although

halal slaughter in Australia could only with difficulty be

regarded as inhumane because it consisted of stunning and the

cutting of the throat at the same time, slaughter methods in the

Middle East were inhumane because there were deficiencies in

stunning and in 1 inducing, as far as is practical, instant unconsciousness in the animal1 .72

117

10.33 The RSPCA (Victoria) criteria for humane slaughter are

those adopted by the EEC. Whatever means of slaughter is used on

the animal it should induce, as far as possible, 1 instantaneous

unconsciousness followed quickly by the physical death of the

animal1 .73

10.34 The Victorian Department of Agriculture commented that

stunning is not always as efficient as is assumed. Slaughtering

sheep by severing the cervical blood vessels in the spinal cord

is practised throughout Australia. It is argued in some quarters

that if it is done correctly it is an effective method of

slaughtering.74 The AMLC indicated that sheep are slaughtered in

the Middle East without the benefit of stunning.75 Meischke

visited slaughterhouses in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria

and Kuwait. With the exception of Syria, sheep were slaughtered

by cutting the throat and severing the spinal cord. He reported

that in Syria the spinal cord was not severed.76

10.35 Mr Jack O'Toole has visited the Middle East on four

occasions since 1975 and has inspected halal slaughter

conditions on each occasion. He commented:

1 It certainly has not improved with every visit ... What is required in Australia is

that the animals must be pre-stunned before they are slaughtered and that means that the animal is hit with an electric charge

sufficient to bring it down; that is, to make it unconscious long enough for the throat to be cut and for the animal to then bleed to

death. Preference among our people is that the throat should be cut in such a way that the joint between the neck and the head is severed so that the spinal cord is cut and the animal is properly in a state where it will not regain consciousness. We do a

modified kill in Australia, which

circumstances require us to perform, and that is that the neck is not always broken for the Muslim market, or for a market that we do

service in the Middle East. That means that the throat is cut but the neck is not broken.

118

That ensures that the animal does bleed to death, but it may be able to regain

consciousness before it bleeds to death, although it is unlikely if the stun has been done properly.

We believe that those standards are minimum standards. They are certainly not even

approached in the Middle East in the places that I have seen, and in those circumstances we believe that the standards that we impose upon our selves in Australia should have some

relevance to the stock that we are

exporting.177

10.36 In a study by Newhook and Blackmore it was demonstrated

that if all arteries in the neck were severed it took up to nine

seconds for a sheep to lose consciousness. For animals with only one severed carotid artery this time was extended to 25 to 30

seconds and some detectable degree of brain activity continued for up to 77 seconds in sheep and 105 seconds in lambs.78

10.37 Lt Colonel Harries commented that the Egyptians in their main Cairo College would accept stunning prior to

slaughter as would those in Kuwait. He found that the problem

was that the interpretation of the Koran was fragmented, with

each religious leader having his own idea of what 1halal1 meant. He believed that if stunning were promoted as part of a

programme to increase efficiency in the use of equipment in the

abattoirs, religious authorities in the Middle East may eventually accept it.79

Abattoir Conditions

10.38 The general conditions of slaughter in the Middle East may also be unsatisfactory by Australian standards.

Lt Colonel Harries commented on the Malakh Abattoir in Kuwait:

1 It was a total mess when I saw it at that

time (1981) . Sheep were mobbed up and driven into a room. They were jumped on by

slaughtermen and turned over and their

119

throats were cut, and they were left there in view of the other sheep, which we do not

think is a good thing. It was all a massacre of the innocents. It was done extremely fast, I give them that, but it was badly organised, inefficient and incompetent, which gave a totally bad impression. The handling was fairly rough as well. They were full of

protestations that this was only a temporary thing and it would be changed fairly shortly ... I am informed that it has changed for the better.180

10.39 Lt Colonel Harries also reported that at this abattoir

there was no attempt to break the neck or sever the spinal cord.

The entire operation was conducted in a welter of blood and

would have been totally unacceptable in Australia on grounds of

cruelty and lack of hygiene. Napthine reported that this

abattoir was owned and operated by the Kuwait municipal

authorities. It was built to handle 400 sheep per day but in

1981 was killing over 1000 per day. Napthine commented that the

facilities were 1 antiquated, inefficient and by Australian

standards unhygienic1.81 Plans to build a new abattoir were 1 in

hand1 in 1981 but they had been in hand for over four years.

10.40 Harries and Napthine also visited one small town

slaughterhouse in Bahrain, which was not in operation at the

time of their visit. They were informed that the method of

slaughter did not differ from that in Kuwait. Napthine reported

that it consisted of one large open room, the floor of which was

guttered to allow for blood and waste disposal. Napthine

regarded it as 1 rather primitive1.82

10.41 In Saudi Arabia most of the abattoirs are owned by the Government. They are operated by private companies on a

contractual basis and the municipalities provide the veterinary inspections.83 Modern abattoirs have been established in most of

the major centres of Saudi Arabia in order to discourage home slaughter.84 Mr Ralph James visited the Middle East in 1982 with

the Australian Sheep Meat Study Mission. He inspected

120

abattoirs in Saudi Arabia that were available to sheep

purchasers. The sheep were received at 4.00 pm, slaughtered

overnight and delivered for 'hot' sale the next day.

1 The horrendous stories of the way sheep are slaughtered there I believe are just not true. Modern abattoirs are stationed

throughout and I understand are being

improved.185

Non-Abattoir Slaughter

10,42 Messrs Dransfield and O'Toole, who were both members of

the 1982 Sheep Meat Study Mission to the Middle East, commented

on the practice of private slaughter. Sheep in small pens were

bought from traders in the suburbs and then transported in high

temperatures in the boot of a car to the abattoir.

1 It was very cruel. I have seen those same animals put on the floor with a foot on the head and a knife just run across the

throat.186

10.43 This procedure was encouraged in Saudi Arabia to stop

backyard slaughter because disease has spread 1 right throughout the community'. The abattoir built in 1982 was opened

specifically to cope with slaughtering of livestock for the population, and no charge was made.87 jack O'Toole argued that

it was a skilled job to kill an animal. Sheep were strong

animals that needed proper handling to be killed humanely:

1 You just cannot kill one every twelve months or on someone's birthday and do it humanely, because the animal must be controlled and it must be slaughtered humanely. There is no way

that you can do that if you do it once a year and use inadequate methods or tools.'88

121

10.44 Meischke reported that in many Middle Eastern countries

the law forbidding home slaughtering is lifted for one or two

days per year for religious reasons. He also commented that it

is possible that slaughtering techniques used by the general

population during this period may be inhumane.89 However, there

is considerable evidence that home slaughter occurs much more

often and much more casually, and that there is no requirement that sheep be killed at a local abattoir.90 in addition, the

conditions of home slaughter may be inhumane by western

standards. This was demonstrated with the ritual slaughter of a

sheep in London to celebrate the return to London of an official

at the Iranian Embassy, after a pilgrimage to Mecca for the

celebration of the Id A1 Adha religious festival. Had diplomatic

immunity not been invoked charges may have been laid under the

Cruelty to Animals Act.91

122

CHAPTER 11

ANIMAL WELFARE AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

11.1 It has become apparent in the course of this inquiry

that animal welfare affects the economics of the live sheep

trade and vice versa. In particular, the AVA stated:

'We support the principle that animals should be slaughtered as near as practicable to the point of production, but recognise that both interstate and overseas transport is

necessary to ensure the flexibility and economic viability of the Australian

livestock industries.'1

11.2 Before considering whether the export of live sheep

does ensure the 'economic viability' of the Australian livestock

industries, the relationship between economic considerations and

animal welfare needs to be examined.

Welfare and Profitability

11.3 A common assertion is that welfare and profitability go

'hand in hand'. With regard to the live sheep trade this is true

in many instances but there are circumstances where

profitability and welfare conflict. It has been claimed that if

the stocking densities aboard the carriers are reduced by ten

per cent, the cost of sheep landed in the Middle East will

increase by five per cent; that ration formulations are prepared

with regard to cost and not to adequate nutrition; that if sheep

are removed one day earlier from the feedlot, the financial cost

of the deaths of sheep who have not adapted is more than

123

balanced by the savings in feedlot costs. These examples

indicate that welfare and profitability, of themselves, are not

necessarily complementary.

Economic Value

11.4 Profitability is an economic value. Just as Dr Roger

Meischke has commented that measuring stress is like attempting to measure love and hate^ so the Committee has found it

difficult to reconcile economic value with animal welfare. At

the first public hearing of the inquiry, the NFF drew attention

to Mary Midgley's book 1 Animals and Why they Matter13. in this

book she refers to those people who operate with a simple

contrast between values which they see as real and those which

they see as unreal - that is economic and non-economic values.

It is a notion of reality as coextensive with economics. She

comments:

1 Money is a useful means, but it cannot

possibly be an end, let alone the only real end of life ... you certainly can't eat it. A romantic obsession with it does indeed give meaning to some people's lives. But there is no sort of reason for the rest of us to

accept their short cut through the business of understanding and comparing values ... These questions about priority among values are the central business of morality ... We are still concerned ... with getting animals an admission ticket to the moral scene at all. We are still confronting the rationalist

notion that they fall outside it.'4

11.5 The eighteenth century German philosopher Immanuel Kant

argued that rationality and intelligence were the only criteria

for moral consideration. Only rational beings, and therefore human beings, were ends in themselves and possessed intrinsic

value; that is, they were not to be treated simply as a means to

some end. The Kantian argument has had considerable currency as

an attempt to impute value on grounds of morality, albeit

confined to human beings.

124

11.6 In response to Midgley, the BAE agreed that there are

1 obviously other values than economic values' but continued that

1 although money is not everything, what comes second is often a

long way behind'.5 when asked whether these other values take

precedence over economic values the reply was that this required

a 'value judgement', that the weighing up of values, 'be they

economic or other values, are really for politicians to

decide'.6 At a later point in the questioning, the Acting Deputy

Director of the BAE stated that ' the whole of economics boils

down eventually to a matter of value judgement, let us face it' .7

Fact and Value

11.7 The BAE reply incorporated an ethical distinction in

that the term 'value judgement' reflects the long standing

ethical controversy between 'fact' and 'value', that values are in some way independent of facts, that for it to be otherwise is

to commit the supposed 1 naturalistic fallacy'.8 Concerning fact,

the ALEA commented that Singer's 'distortions of fact and logic

discredit the basis of the Animal Liberation movement's attitude

on livestock industries ... for the attack of animal liberation

to be taken seriously by livestock industries (and researchers),

the movement must adopt a factual, objective stance and make a more positive contribution to the complex question of animal welfare'.9

11.8 Professor Singer replied that there is a philosphical fallacy involved in deducing values from facts. He commented:

' It is not one that I have committed and I would certainly have liked the Livestock Exporters Association to attempt to document the places in my books ... where I have made

errors of logic.10

125

If you have a series of purely factual

statements with an evaluation built into them - sometimes factual statements have

evaluations built in with them, for instance if you describe an action as "courageous" that is both factual and evaluative - I do not believe that you can logically deduce any purely evaluative judgement from it. You need to have some kind of ethical or value premise in at the top to get an ethical or value

conclusion out at the bottom.1H

11.9 Consideration of the dichotomy of fact and value has

not been confined to moral philosophy. It is an important

consideration for government policy making and also the social

sciences. Facts, or empirical information per se, are not able

to provide a basis for policy choices. Rein has stated:

1 Policy recommendations are by their nature based upon verified fact statements as well as arbitary value judgements, and they will naturally be accepted by those who agree with both. The problem is how to link the factual

and arbitrary components.112

Animal Welfare and Economic Considerations

11.10 The House of Commons Agriculture Committee on Animal

Welfare in Poultry, Pig and Veal Calf Production, meeting in the

1980-81 session, considered the policy issue of animal welfare

and economic consequences. They noted that discussion on animal

welfare had reached 1 a degree of philosophical sublety worthy of

the mediaeval schoolmen1,13 but were not impeded by Thomist or

indeed, Singerian arguments. They stated that:

1 society has the duty to see that undue

suffering is not caused to animals, and we cannot accept that that duty should be set aside in order that food may be produced more cheaply. Where unacceptable suffering can be eliminated only at extra cost, that cost should be borne or the product foregone. On the other hand all methods of domestic

livestock rearing entail some loss of

freedom, and where an imperfect but not

126

unacceptable system can be improved only at disproportionate cost, it may be unreasonable to insist that this be done. Once again a

balance has to be struck, and this can only be done in the light of subjective

judgement.114

11.11 In Australia there appears to be a division between

Singer and other welfare advocates on the one hand and sources

of primary industry opinion and influence on the other. The

latter seem unwilling, unable or reluctant to consider questions

of value. Conversely, animal welfare groups seem unwilling,

unable or reluctant to consider the question of economics. For

example, RSPCA (Victoria) argued that the live sheep trade

should be terminated on welfare grounds. When asked what the

cost of that proposal would be they answered that 1 it would be

quite considerable' .15 No monetary value of the cost of the

cessation of the trade was given. On the other hand, in its 1983 report, the BAE attempted to isolate and quantify the costs of

various methods of restricting the supply of sheep to the Middle East, but when asked if any money value had been assigned to the

disutility and deaths experienced by sheep aboard the carriers,

the answer was that the Bureau had not looked at the money value

of deaths on ships and the question of disutility was not considered.

Utility and Utilitarianism

11.12 The concepts of utility and disutility are fundamental to economics. Douglas Evans defined utility as:

1 the capacity to satisfy human wants. This capacity may be found in goods or services, and the worth of such goods and services to the consumer is determined by the degree to which they are capable of satisfying his wants. While this degree cannot be

objectively measured it is reflected in the price which the consumer is prepared to pay. And in economic theory the theory of value is often equated with the theory of prices.116

127

11.13 The concept of utility is also central to the ethical

tradition to which Professor Peter Singer subscribes, that is

utilitarianism. This holds that the ultimate good is the

greatest happiness of the greatest number and defines the

rightness of actions in terms of their contribution to the

general happiness. Singer derived from this tradition the

principles of equal consideration of interests. Singer has not

been able to ignore the economic dimension of animal welfare.

Professor Tom Regan, whose arguments for animal welfare are

essentially moral rights arguments, not utilitarian, has

commented that 1 the animal industry is big business',1? that

employs hundreds of thousands of people who in total have

hundreds of thousands of dependents. Although it is no defence

of an immoral practice to plead that some people profit from it,

Regan argues that, as a utilitarian, Singer must insist on the

relevance of these people's interests and also the relevance of those additional people who might be affected by ' its sudden or gradual cessation'.18 a utilitarian argument must have the hard

data to show that a humane alternative is not only possible but

is at least probable and, judged on utilitarian grounds,

desirable. It is not obviously true that the consequences for

all involved would be better if, for example, the live sheep

trade were terminated. Regan argues that considerable

calculation would be necessary. 'Even the most sympathetic

reader, even a "fellow traveller" like myself will fail to find the necessary calculations in Singer's work. They simply are not

there. In short, the assessment of value, from a moral point

of view, cannot be quantified.

Moral Values. Economic Values and Social Policy

11.14 Conversely, economic values may become 'rubbery1. What time period is used to amortise the investment in a live sheep

carrier? What are the social costs of antibiotic resistance

induced by administration of antibiotics in the sheep water

128

supply? Further, economic values may not conform to moral

values. One economist has suggested that the market for heroin

is just another market. Dr Robert Marks, senior lecturer at the

Australian Graduate School of Management has argued that the

costs to society of prohibition far outweigh the costs of a

policy of decriminalising heroin and thereby possibly making it more freely available.20 This argument does not address the

ethical dimension of addiction. This dilemma for social policy

of possible conflict between moral values and economic values

has an extended history. Child labour and prohibition of alcohol

are notable examples, animal welfare has become another.

129

CHAPTER 12

THE BENEFITS, BENEFICIARIES AND COSTS OF THE LIVE SHEEP TRADE

12.1 The ALEA has stated that:

1 The Australian economy has been a major benefactor (sic, beneficiary) of this

fledgling but developing industry, not only in terms of export earning but also, and of equal importance, in terms of employment, "spin-off" benefits to local communities and the addition of another outlet for its

produce within the rural sector.11

12.2 It is not readily apparent what is the nature of the

benefit and in what way it has been allocated.

12.3 The Committee agrees with RSPCA Australia and the AVA

that slaughter as near as possible to the point of production is

a valid welfare principle. It now becomes necessary to determine who does benefit from the trade, if not the sheep, and whether

this benefit justifies the continuation of the trade.

Perceived Benefits to Australian Sheepmeat Producers

12.4 The most immediate consequence of the export of live

sheep from Australia has been the changed structure of the

Australian flock. In 1976 breeding ewes formed 37 per cent of

the national flock, in 1978 it was 43 per cent and by 1981 had stabilised at 40 per cent.2 There was a corresponding decrease

in the number of wethers, especially in the four years and above

age group. It has been argued^ that this decrease in mean age in

the flock has meant:

131

. decline in death rates;

. better animal health; and

. greater ability to handle transport and travel stress.

12.5 It has also been argued that this has meant a

productivity increase in terms of sheep replacements and an

increase in turnoffs.4 However, Read, in his report prepared for

the AMIEU, has claimed that there has been a shift from wool

production to meat production as some sheep have been turned off

for export at a younger age instead of being retained for wool

production.5

12.6 The Wool Council of Australia supports the live sheep

trade as an important component of the wool and sheep industry. It argued in its submission^, using BAE data, that the trade has

raised sheep prices above levels that would have prevailed in the absence of the industry. It also argued that, in the longer

term, with a greater number of ewes than wethers, the trade will

increase the number of sheep, leading to a greater number of

slaughterings in Australia than would be the case in the absence

of the trade.

12.7 However, Read has argued that the BAE based these

assertions on the use of an econometric model. This was

formulated by estimating that, for any change in prices for

sheep, there would be an increase in the size of the sheep flock

and in the number of sheep sold. 1 Hence the model predicted an increase in the size of the sheep flock and an increase in the

number of sheep slaughtered due to the way in which the model

was specified.17 Producers could respond to increased prices by

changing the composition of their flock and increase turnoff

independently of any change to the size of the flock.

12.8 The trade has also meant an increase in export earnings but whether these export earnings are a product of additional

demand or whether they are simply a displacement of domestic

earnings is unclear.

132

12.9 One consequence of the economic structure of the export

trade, in particular the cost differential between Western

Australia and the eastern States of about $5 per head, is that

the trade has made a more significant impact in Western

Australia and, as a result, the flock in Western Australia has a

much higher proportion of younger sheep. There is further

evidence that the industry base may be shifting east, as the

available supply of wethers decreases in Western Australia. 8

12.10 Various commentators and organisations have assigned

monetary values to the benefits received by producers. For

example, ACLA estimated that the price of sheep would fall by 50

per cent if there were no export market.9 1 Onlooker1 in the Land

forecast an immediate fall in the price of sheep by $7 or $8 a head.10 However, none of these claims has been substantiated.

The BAE Analysis of Returns to Producers

12.11 The Committee asked the BAE for the precise benefit in money terms to Australian producers of exporting their sheep to

the Middle East rather than slaughtering them in Australia. The

reply was that it was extremely difficult to answer. The gross

value of the trade was $217 million, but the net benefit could be ascertained from examining multiplier effects and the extra

benefits that would be derived from the sale of slaughter sheep.

12.12 The 1983 BAE report stated that simulations using the BAE econometric model of the sheep industry indicated that

1 average prices received by farmers for sheep may have been raised by as much as 20 per cent as a result of the trade1 . H

12.13 It estimated the effects of the live sheep trade for

1980-81. If the trade were terminated and mutton sales increased by 20 per cent and lamb by 25 per cent, the effect on the gross

133

value of production of sheep and wool would be a decline of $220

million. The NSW Department of Agriculture estimated that, if

the BAE figures were correct, this would mean $2600 lost revenue

per sheep property in NSW, representing a 25 per cent decrease

in farm operating surplus.12

The Degree of Substitution of Sheepmeats

12.14 Both the BAE and the NSW Department of Agriculture

agreed that the 1983 BAE Report consisted of considerable

econometric analysis but that the fundamental question was the

degree of substitution of refrigerated sheep meat for fresh

sheep meat.13 The BAE acknowledged that on that critical

question it relied on information other than quantitative d a t a . as to the question of whether further research could be

conducted the BAE replied:

1 Unless we get that time series data, which to the very best of my knowledge does not

exist, we are really up against a brick wall in trying to give you estimates of those

cross price elasticities.Ί 5

12.15 The BAE recognised their limitations of knowledge in that area in terms of quantitative estimates but added that, in

attachment A of the report, there was 1 a body of evidence1 to

suggest these elasticities were low. -*-6 This evidence in the

report appeared to be anecdotal and unsubstantiated.

Managed Demand and Substitution

12.16 Without this hard data of cross-price elasticities, the

question of degree of substitution is uncertain. It is also

clouded by the question of managed demand. The AMIEU claimed that if consumers in the Middle East were not given the vote and

if the ownership of the importing companies was largely in the hands of the ruling families, how could consumer preference

134

operate? The degree of substitution of refrigerated meat for

fresh meat simply became administrative fiat. The BAE did not

believe, however, that the Middle Eastern demand for sheep meat

was managed demand, except in Iran.17 In 1981 in the space of a

few months, Iran terminated the annual importation of 2.4

million live Australian sheep and replaced it with a New Zealand refrigerated lamb carcase trade of 93 000 tonnes.18

12.17 Either government direction or monopolies could

influence consumer preference. If the industry were

concentrated, there would be the possibility of managed demand.

The BAE stated that:

1 Knowing that we must draw the boundary

somewhere in our analysis, we recognised that there was a degree of concentration in the live sheep trade, but we were not overly

concerned with it as part of our analysis.119

12.18 A little later, the BAE went on to say:

1 The question that we were looking at was what would be the implications for Australia? The producers at that stage were - and, in fact, I believe still are - quite satisfied with the price they are getting for live

sheep. What one would expect from a monopoly situation is that, to quote a phrase, "The producer is getting ripped off by the

monopoly". There was no evidence of that.120

At the time of the drafting of the BAE report, delegates at the

1982 Conference of the LGPA, moving a resolution for AMLC

intervention in the trade, referred to the 1 increasingly

monopolistic nature1 of the live sheep trade. Senior Vice President, Mr Dick O'Brien, said that 1 it would appear the

producers are not getting the true price for their export

wethers'. Mr Bill Yates of Garah said producers were clearly being 'ripped off' under the present live sheep export system.21

There is also evidence of vendor resistance. There

135

are reports that Western Australia producers have been reluctant

to sell export sheep for less than $18 to $22 while in the

eastern States the prevailing price is $16 to $18. This

reluctance may partly be explained by22 the disinclination of

producers to sell young sheep specially bred for the trade at

the same price as old wethers.

12.19 The BAE indicated that the trade was 1 hi.ghly

concentrated1, that the number of traders had diminished, and

that it was becoming more concentrated. 23 However, there was no

evidence yet that monopoly rents were being extracted from the industry.24

12.20 With the Australian sheep flock increasing in size over

the last few years, if monopsony or cartel buying pressure were applied, the Australian sheep industry would be vulnerable.25

The main consideration would not be the degree of substitution,

but the degree of countervailing economic power that could be

deployed by Australian producers to protect their returns. In

other words, if a cartel were established which disadvantaged

the Australian sheep industry, for example, in the prices

offered for Australian sheep, it might be necessary for the AMLC

to consider using its available powers to market live sheep for export on behalf of producers to ensure a fair return to the

sheep industry.

Other Difficulties with the BAE Analysis

12.21 The use of exogenous variables such as MED 1 Middle East Dummy1 was not clear. The data for the Middle East was

unsatisfactory. The BAE told the Committee:

'We have found it extremely difficult to get comprehensive data for prices and quantities of consumption in the Middle East that would stand up to the rigours of econometric

analysis. The data, as far as we know, is

just not there in a form that we could

use.126

136

12.22 This last comment highlights a weakness in the BAE

study. The BAE1s findings, that the live sheep trade has raised

sheep prices above levels that would have prevailed in the

absence of the industry and that it contributes to the viability

of the Australian livestock industries cannot, in the view of

the Committee, be regarded as definitive. The results of

econometric analysis data are only as reliable as the data which

is used. In this case, the BAE acknowledged that the accuracy of

the Middle Eastern data, which were the best available at the

time, was open to question. Read claimed that 1 crucial aspects'

of the model were specified incorrectly, in particular, the

supply responses to the increases in demand for live sheep and

the effect of the price for mutton on the quantity of mutton which was demanded.27

Other Benefits to the Australian Economy and Multiplier Effects

12.23 The NSW Department of Agriculture gave evidence that

the live sheep trade has increased farm income flows through to

other sections of the economy such as: 'machinery firms,

fertiliser and other input supplies, and most rurally based small businesses'. 28 The Department used a multiplier of two to

calculate the wider benefits of the live sheep trade which for

1980-81 was $220 million times two or $440 million nationally.

The Department has used this multiplier in all its publications

and it stated that it errs on the conservative side, but it does

ignore the possible substitution effect into wheat, beef or other industries.29

12.24 The ALEA attempted a similar exercise. It assessed the

economic benefits accruing to Portland and environs from the

live sheep trade in March 1984. This excluded the farm gate price paid to farmers for their sheep. Each time a ship loaded

about 110 000 sheep, it benefited Portland and the surrounding

137

region to the extent of a direct cash input of $897 380.30 it

included operations such as shearing, cartage, feedlotting,

wharf labour and charges and pellets for the carrier. For seven

million sheep per year this would be nearly $57 million.

12.25 Other evidence was given to the Committee on the value

added prior to export of the live sheep trade and the carcase

trade. In the publication, The Truth About the Live Sheep

Trade.31 a telex quotation for the delivery of 20 600 live sheep

for loading in Adelaide in 1982 was compared with processing

costs from the Western Australian Lamb Marketing Board quoted in

Farm July 1981. Allowing for 11 per cent inflation, at 1982

prices carcase lamb contributed an additional $3.28 per sheep to

the Australian economy above that which was contributed by each

sheep exported live. At seven million sheep per year this would

be an additional $20.4 million. Using a multiplier of two it

would be $40.8 million or nearly one-quarter of the FOB value of live sheep exported in 1981-82.32 The NSW Department of

Agriculture questioned the efficiency of the Western Australian

Lamb Marketing Board but these results do indicate a not inconsequential contribution to the Australian economy. They

also do not include the benefit of processing within Australia

of by products such as skins, offal and glands, nor of the final

price received for the exported carcase.

Profitability and Competition

12.26 Early in the 1980s, the trade was generally profitable

but in the last two years, the available evidence indicates a

downturn in profitability to the point where it is believed that

some exporters have been making losses. Three exporters have left the trade in the last 18 months.33

138

12.27 Competition among exporters has also increased

significantly in the last two years and there is evidence of

price-cutting in Kuwait between KLTT and a competitor. KLTT1s

dominant position in the trade has also been challenged by SLTT

which has been steadily increasing its market share. The AMLC

told the Committee that SLTT had assured it that it did not

intend to monopolise the trade in Saudi Arabia, but the AMLC

added that, as the SLTT expands its operations, its competitors may no longer be able to compete.34

12.28 Both Fares and Siba, the other two integrated

companies, are maintaining strong positions in the trade despite increased competition and lower profitability.35

Barriers to Entry

12.29 Barriers to entry are a standard device used to reduce

free competition. SLTT stated:

'Saudi Arabia, as far as business is

concerned, is a free enterprise market and anyone can establish his own company in

whatever areas he sees fit.136

Metro Meat Ltd was asked whether the Middle East was a market

with open competition, or whether there was any restriction on

dealings in the live sheep market in certain Middle Eastern

countries. The response was:

This is

1 No, there supply all buyers, of opportunity

is not. the time course buyers.1in

People come . There are

and there

in conflict with other evidence

to us for

the main are the

the Committee has

received.

139

12.30 The Senior Australian Trade Commissioner at Bahrain, in

a communication to the Department of Trade of 7 July 1984,

commented that SLTT had already taken 1 the dominant position' in

the Saudi market. He referred to a regulation, passed four years

previously, which stated that only ships built or converted to

Saudi specifications would be allowed to discharge in the

Kingdom. He added that, although the regulation has not been invoked, invocation may be imminent as SLTT now controlled its

own fleet. No other carriers comply with the regulation and its

invocation would mean that only Saudi ships could carry live sheep to Saudi A r a b i a . 38 Subsidies are used as barriers to

entry39, such as subsidies on sheep, carcase, livestock feed,

oil bunkers, slaughter and transport. It has recently been

decreed in Kuwait that no importer will get the 2.5 dinar subsidy on sheep unless those sheep are imported on KLTT

ships.Restrictions on land ownership are also employed.41

Miadle East Investment in the Trade

12.31 The four integrated companies, three of which are based in the Middle East, are responsible for the purchase of

approximately 85 per cent of the sheep available for export.42

12.32 The role of petro dollars in the live sheep trade has been fundamental. From 1971 to 1973 and 1978 to 1979 substantial

increases in the real price of oil enabled oil producing countries to invest surplus revenue overseas and recycle

petrodollars through the massive purchase of goods, services and technology.42 The Commonwealth Treasury noted that:

1 the massive revenue from oil produced in the Middle East has generated a significant new market for goods and services as well as

creating a new avenue of investment funds for the world's capital markets.'44

140

However, Professor Stuart Harris then Professor of Resource

Economics at the Australian National University, noted that the

world oil market was very volatile with small changes in supply

and demand leading to shortages and gluts which disguised the

long-term position.45 This volatility of oil revenue could have

considerable impact on the live sheep trade.

12.33 Middle Eastern interests have invested in export

feedlots and have attempted to invest in feedmills but have been

prevented by the requirements of the Foreign Investment Review

Board. A large percentage of the shipping has been purchased by

the proceeds from oil revenues. The interests associated with

KIiTT have borrowed large amounts of capital from the Kuwait

Government to purchase large, obsolete oil tankers and convert

them to live sheep carriers at a cost of approximately A$30

million for each conversion. They have also borrowed funds to

set up the infrastructure in Kuwait to handle and process the sheep imported from Australia.46

12.34 It is reported that Kuwait capital has been invested in Australia. A new pastoral house has been launched in south-east

Australia. Challenge Mercantile is 50 per cent owned by

interests associated with managing director, Mr Jeff Chapman,

and 50 per cent by the Australian subsidiary of the New Zealand

Investment Bank, Australian Investment Company, Ltd, (AIC). The

AIC, in turn is 49.9 per cent owned by the large international bank, Kuwait Asia Bank E .C.47 Mr Chapman said:

'That this (Kuwait) connection gave Challenge the financial alternative to draw on overseas funds when interest and exchange rates were favourable or when Australian money

conditions are tight.148

12.35 He referred to major trading implications for Challenge as Kuwait and Bahrain were also important destinations for

Australian live sheep.

141

Costs to the Meat Processing Industry

12.36 The Australian meat processing industry is heavily

labour-intensive and decentralised. The IAC commented:

1 Meat processing is Australia's major food manufacturing industry ... The industry

employs some 39 000 persons, a significant proportion of whom are located in country towns in which the local abattoir is often

the major employer and provides the "economic base" for the local community.149

12.37 The meat processing industry has a very large

employment multiplier of 3.44, as determined by the Victorian

Department of Industry, Commerce and Technology. This compares

with the motor vehicle and textile industries of 1.57 and 1.45

respectively, which means that for every $100 of income earned in the meat processing industry, there was employment generated

»hich earned $244 of income for employees in industries that

were connected with the meat industry. 50 As a consequence of

this, the meat processing industry creates as much employment

within Australia as the motor vehicle industry. In addition, the

AMIEU argued that it does it at less cost, as the effective rate

of assistance to the motor vehicle industry, as estimated by the

IAC in 1981-82, was 124 per cent whereas it was six per cent for

the meat processing industry.51

Abattoir Closures and Unemployment

12.38 It is unclear to what extent the live sheep trade has

been responsible for abattoir closures and unemployment in the

meat processing industry.

12.39 In 1973 Australia exported 300 000 tonnes of mutton. This included the carcase equivalent of 18 000 tonnes of mutton

from the 906 000 sheep exported live. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait

142

imported only 13 000 tonnes (less than five per cent) of which

half was from live sheep and half was processed mutton. In 1983

total mutton exports were 240 000 tonnes which consisted of

94 000 tonnes in processed form and the equivalent of 146 000

tonnes (60 per cent) from live sheep. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait

had increased imports to 113 000 tonnes or nearly half of

Australia's total mutton exported, which consisted of 7000 tonnes of processed mutton and 106 000 tonnes from live sheep.52

12.40 The AMIEU produced the following table53.

Table 12.1: Slauahter of Livestock: 1973 and 1983

AMIEU MEMBERSHIP SHEEP LAMBS CATTLE CALVES

(MILLIONS (MILLION) (MILLION) (MILLION)

1973 50,663 16.5 15.6 6.9 1.2

1983 40,953 9.3 16.0 6.5 1.4

Difference -9,710 -7.2 +0.4 -0.4 +0.2

Source: Evidence, p., S2051.

12.41 The AMIEU argued that this demonstrated that the decline in membership was related to the reduced sheep kill and

dispelled the claim that Union membership had declined as a

result of the reduced beef kill.

12.42 In 1983 and 1984 40 abattoirs closed in Australia.54 jn

NSW 14 abattoirs closed between 1980 and 1984, including six local government works, the upkeep and interest payments of

which were costing taxpayers over $5 million per annum. In

December 1984 the NSW State Government offered a financial

settlement to the local government owners of the abattoirs worth

nearly $45 million.

143

12.43 The AMIEU has claimed that the live sheep trade has

directly contributed to unemployment in the meat processing

industry since the total number of hours of employment varies almost directly with the number of sheep slaughtered.55 This is

compounded by the problem of profitability of a low throughput.

The IAC Report on the Abattoir and Meat Processing Industry

commented that:

1 An abattoir which is designed for a small throughput and is able to operate at full capacity may be able to achieve lower unit costs than the larger abattoir which operates at less than full capacity.156

12.44 The AMIEU argued that the live sheep trade has taken

constant numbers of sheep throughout the year. The supply of

sheep is seasonal hence the live sheep trade considerably exacerbates the problem of availability of slaughter sheep

out-of-season and contributes to diminished profitability. In addition, the live sheep trade takes the heaviest-framed sheep

and leaves the meat processing industry with the lighter-framed

sheep, which are less profitable to slaughter.

12.45 Profitability of by-products processing is very sensitive to throughput because it is capital intensive and has high fixed costs.57

Meat Processing Costs and Offshore Processing

12.46 The Chairman of the Australian Meat Exporters Federal

Council (AMEFC), Mr Kevin Bowtell, saw the reason for the

closures as overseas competition; the EEC provided subsidies to their abattoirs and made no charge for inspections, whereas in

Australia meat exports are taxed and inspection fees charged. He

also said that private abattoirs would be prepared to invest to improve facilities to meet EEC and North American requirements.

144

12.47 The NFF and other producer organisations have blamed

the AMIEU for the high cost of processing meat in Australia and

the consequential closure of abattoirs. The Cattlemen's Union

has recommended offshore processing of meat which, despite extra

transport costs, would be cheaper than processing the meat in Australia.58

12.48 At the centre of the debate about high processing costs has been the tally system. Under this system, meat workers

process a set number of livestock for the day irrespective of

the time it takes to complete the tally.

12.49 The Cattle and Sheepmeats Councils of Australia

commissioned the W.D. Scott Report into the cost disadvantages

in the meat processing industry associated with industrial

conditions. It put the indirect and direct costs of tallies to

the Australian meat industry at $60 million each year.

12.50 There have been claims that the new Middle Eastern

abattoirs have a processing capacity which exceeds domestic

demand and that it may be possible for live sheep to be

slaughtered in the Middle East and then the carcase exported.

The AMLC said it was aware that Kuwait had a 1 very big

processing system' for imported sheep. It understood that some

of these were re-exported in carcase form to Iraq. It was also aware that live sheep were re-exported from Jordan to north Saudi Arabia and from Kuwait to Saudi Arabia.59

Value Added Prior to Export

12.51 The AMIEU questioned the view that the live sheep trade had created jobs and that these jobs would decline commensurate

with a decline in exports.88 The AMIEU argued that the carcase

trade was more labour-intensive and therefore generated more

employment within Australia;6! that is, value was added prior

145

to export. The policy of adding value prior to export is an

important economic consideration. The New Zealand High

Commission informed the Committee that:

'The New Zealand Minister for Agriculture, the Hon Mr Moyle, has pointed out that the Government favours the principle of adding value prior to export and that the live sheep

trade is contrary to this aim.'62

12.52 The Australian Minister for Trade, the Hon. J.S.

Dawkins, M.P., has commented on the export of primary products

and Australian trade policy:

'Primary producers must realize that, as they are having trouble selling their goods, Australia can no longer rely exclusively on the export of bulk raw commodities. If we did, we would see our standard of living

decline. The composition of our exports has to expand and become more sophisticated if we are to have expanded and improved trading prospects.'63

The BAE Analysis of Employment Effects

12.53 The ALEA described as simplistic the view that the live sheep trade had been responsible for the large scale loss of

jobs in the meat processing industry and for the dramatic increase in the closure of abattoirs in Australia. It argued

that it failed to accept or appreciate evidence to the contrary that there are 'strong and long term' benefits to the Australian community. 64 χη support of this argument, the ALEA used the

evidence presented in the BAE report, Examination into the Employment Implications of Live Sheep Exports April/May 1978 and

a Note on Implications of Restrictions on the Export of Live

Sheep to the Middle East September 1981 as well as the IAC report The Abattoir and Meat Processing Industry January 1983.

The two earlier BAE reports were summarised and revised in the June 1983 BAE report Live Sheep Exports (Occasional Paper No.

146

81). The BAE report recognised that the trade had both created

and destroyed jobs. In addition, although indirect jobs affected

by the trade were not as visible, they should also be considered

for a 1 balanced assessment of overall employment implications of the trade1.65

12.54 The BAE did not consider all multiplier effects, such

as the revenue generated in Australia from the processing of the

increased volume of carcase, and associated tanning, offal

processing et cetera. The BAE explained that it did not consider

multiplier effects because:

1 If you get yourself into the area of

attempting to estimate all the effects all the way down the line it becomes an extremely difficult job. In fact, unless you have a general equilibrium model which takes account of all effects such as that in a year, I do not think you can do it adequately.166

12.55 It appears dubious that by-product processing can be isolated as only a multiplier effect. By-product processing is

integrated in meat processing in the Middle East.

12.56 The BAE analysed the statistics for livestock slaughter and meat processing employment and concluded that employment

decline had been associated 1 monthly1 with declining cattle kills. The table they used for Australian data is as follows:67

Table 12.2: Slaughter of Livestock 1976-77 and 1980-81

SHEEP AND LAMB

EMPLOYMENT SLAUGHTER CATTLE SLAUGHTER THOUSAND MILLION MILLION

1976-77 1980-81 Change

48.20 39.34 - 8.86

31.61 31.97 +0.36

11.98 8.43 -3.55

Source: BAE : Australian Live Sheep Exports. Canberra 1983 , p. 47.

147

12.57 There was one exception to the BAE conclusion. In

Western Australia, the number of sheep exported live represents

1 nearly half of the total number of sheep and lambs turned

off'.68 The BAE acknowledged that: 1 The live sheep trade would

have been a contributory factor to the fall in sheep

slaughterings in that state.1 69 That analysis used data current

to 1981. In the succeeding four years there has been a

significant shift in the volume of sheep exports from Western

Australia to the eastern States.

12.58 The AMIEU statistics given in paragraph 12.40 appear to

be equally plausible. They are also more recent and cover a full

decade instead of the four year time series of the BAE.

12.59 In 1984 the AMIEU commissioned Michael Read and

Associates, consultants in agricultural economics, to examine

the BAE arguments concerning employment effects of the live

sheep trade. The consultants commented that Federal Governments,

relying upon policy advice from the BAE and the conclusions of

its reports on the live sheep trade, including the 1983 Report, have resisted any intervention in the trade.70

12.60 The six major criticisms levelled at the 1983 BAE

Report by Read and Associates’ ll were:

'(a) the BAE1s discussion about the

relationship between number of sheep slaughtered and employment in the

industry has been unsatisfactory due to the narrow definition of employment level which has been used;

(b) the BAE have overstated the confidence with which the results of their

econometric modelling should be

interpreted;

(c) the BAE have not established that there would be a demand for the additional slaughterings which they have predicted;

148

(d) the BAE have been wrong to assume that any increase in the slaughter of adult sheep would come about mainly by an

increase in flock size (hence they have wrongly predicted the impact on

slaughterings and wool production); and

(e) the BAE have ignored the decline in beef slaughterings which would to some extent offset increases in sheep slaughterings.

(f) the BAE have ignored the depressing effect of the trade on the profitability of slaughtering those adult sheep which are not exported live.1

12.61 The 1983 IAC Report stated that:

1 The evidence indicates that there are both short run and long run influences of live sheep exports, all of which could have some effect on slaughter levels. In the

Commission's view, an assessment of the overall impact of these factors could only be made after a comprehensive investigation. This would involve the analysis of data and

other information not available to the Commission in this inquiry.172

12.62 The problem of abattoir closures and unemployment in

the meat processing industry remains. The 1982 Australian

Sheepmeat Study Mission to the Middle East, which consisted of trade union, government and producer representatives, recommended:

1 That the Australian Government advise importing countries that Australia's meat industry workers and processing industry are concerned at evidence of expansion of

abattoir, meat processing, skin processing and by-products rendering facilities in the countries visited which were seen as not in Australia's best interests, particularly if

the expansion is based upon the presumption

149

that Australian livestock will be the

principal livestock slaughtered as Australian export policies will be directed towards increased sales of processed meats rather than 1ivestock.173

150

CHAPTER 13

THE MARKET FOR SHEEPMEAT IN THE MIDDLE EAST

13.1 The Middle Eastern sheep meat market is not

homogeneous. The level of disposable income and consumption of

sheep meat in Middle Eastern countries are dependent upon the

level of oil revenue and hence vary considerably from country to

country. The proportion of expatriates in the host country

influences consumer preference for types of sheepmeat and levels

of sheepmeat consumed.1 The 1982 Australian Sheep Meat Study

Mission to the Middle East noted that rising incomes and

population growth, including substantial immigration, had resulted in 1 very substantial1 increases in meat consumption.2

It also noted that in each country there were different market

segments which catered for the differences in consumer taste of

the indigenous and expatriate populations.3 This included the

indigenous souk or village market, the expatriate market in the

labour camps, the foreign tourist and business market in hotels

and the like and the Mecca pilgrim market. The market was also

segmented in terms of age groups and geography.

13.2 There is evidence that the boundaries of these market segments may be shifting. The 1982 Commission noted chicken

production and consumption had increased 1 remarkably' over the

previous ten years.4 Since 1970 poultry consumption has risen

from 22 per cent to 40 per cent of the market, while the sheep

and goat meat market share has dropped by 30 per cent. It is

also reported that, with an increase in beef consumption, the traditional preference for strong-flavoured mutton has waned.5

The taste for poultry developed initially with the expatriate

labour force and has now shifted to the indigenous population.

151

With many of the projects now completed and a consequential

reduction in the expatriate labour force this has left behind

the catalyst for long-term changes in consumer tastes.6 The ALEA

commented: 1 The fast foods industry also has got its foot in the

door, further changing eating styles and habits 'J

13.3 The Sheepmeat Council of Australia argued that the

market for meat is well differentiated in the Middle East;

frozen mutton and imported live sheep command different prices.

The opportunities for selling carcase mutton in the Middle East

are low because of this differentiation or segmentation of the

market. Nevertheless, the Sheepmeat Council has a policy of

development of a trade in both live sheep exports and carcase

meat, frozen or chilled.8

The Middle Eastern Concern for a Secure Food Supply

13.4 Dr A1 Dukhayyil, General Manager of the SLTT, agreed that the establishment of a secure food supply was 1 very

important1 for Middle Eastern countries.9 This was confirmed by both Metro Meats Pty Ltd and Elders I XL Limited. 10 The AMIEU

commented that the ruling families in the Middle East were

apprehensive about uprisings in their countries such as that

which occurred in Iran. The maintenance of a secure food supply was seen as one way of keeping the loyalty of the population to

the ruling families.H

13.5 A number of other factors have been cited for this

concern for a secure food supply. Population growth continues

unabated, with the prospect of a doubling of the population within the next 30 years and has exceeded the rate of growth of

the food supply. Food consumption is rising at 12.5 per cent per

annum whereas food production was estimated to increase by 3.3 per cent in the 1970s. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations has estimated that cereal self-sufficiency in

152

the Middle East will decrease from 80 per cent in 1982 to 69 per

cent by 1990. This has created a dependence on cereal imports

from various countries including Australia. In most cases

Australian exports of live sheep to the Gulf states are

overshadowed by exports of grain and, to a lesser extent, other

processed primary products, such as dairy foods.

13.6 Middle Eastern countries are concerned that denial of food supplies might be used as a political weapon, especially

after the United States grain embargo against the Soviet Union

in the late 1970s. They look to Australia as a 1 potentially

reliable source of food supplies free of political strings'.12

13.7 The corollary is that while Australia produces

approximately two-thirds of its oil requirements, the Gulf

countries supply 80 per cent of the remaining one-third which Australia is required to import. Exports of live sheep to Saudi

Arabia in 1981 accounted for $A45 million in foreign earnings,

but Australia imported $A1032 million in oil and oil products from Saudi Arabia in the same year.

The Demand for Fresh or 'Hot' Meat

13.8 If refrigerated sheepmeat could be substituted for fresh sheepmeat the need for the export of live animals would

cease. The reason for this demand for live sheep is given as a

consumer preference for fresh or 1 hot1 meat. The ALEA stated:

1 There is no doubt that there is a preference in the Middle East for fresh meat. In fact it is not only fresh meat - it is hot meat. In other words they slaughter the animal in the morning and will eat that at lunch time or at

the latest at dinner and this is the way they like their meat. They do not age it like we do. So they want hot meat as opposed even to what we consider as fresh meat.'^3

153

13.9 The ALEA argued that the trade developed because not

only have commercial interests responded to this consumer

preference, but Middle Eastern Governments have also ensured

that their population has fresh meat.14

13.10 However, the AMIEU did not accept that the population

had this preference for the taste of freshly killed, hot meat.

It stated that it was a 'fairy tale', that it was 'a concoction by the people who currently control the market'.15 it argued

that the price for hot meat is lower than the price for frozen

meats because of the application of subsidies to live sheep.

'The product is marketed at a price we could not compete

with.'16

13.11 The AMIEU also argued that they had given credibility

to the 'hot meat' notion for many years:

'And so did government agencies here in

Australia, but it was admitted to us that everybody has a refrigerator and they

admitted that they use refrigeration just the same as us. They do take home meat and

refrigerate it. When we were in Saudi Arabia, for example, we were in Saudi Foods, which is a big distribution outlet, and it had a map of Saudi Arabia on the wall. It had spots of varying sizes depicting the size of the cold

store. What was explained to us was that the meat was processed in Jiddah or Riyadh, and then it was transferred by road into the

hinterland. It was not transferred fresh - it was chilled or frozen. It would have to be to maintain it to the distribution points it was going to. '17

Dr A1 Dukhayyil of SETT rejected this claim. He said that the

Saudi Government had established abattoirs throughout the

Kingdom and encouraged the local people to slaughter their animals there.

154

13.12 The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC)

stated that the demand for hot meat was not based on any

religious principle.18 However, the Islamic or 1halal1

requirements for sheepmeat have their own difficulties. AFIC

stated that the sheep for slaughter should be male and entire,

healthy, with all limbs intact, complete, and at least nine months old.19 SLTT commented that, in some quarters Australian

sheep are not regarded as fit for sacrificial purposes during

the haj because the tail is docked, which is regarded as a deformity.20 However, the AMLC stated that in 1984 the Islamic

Council of Saudi Arabia had permitted the use of Australian

Sheep for religious ceremonial purposes owing to a shortfall in

the supply of sheep from North Africa.21 AFIC explained that

although Australian sheep did not meet Islamic requirements,

they were cheaper than sheep from Romania or Argentina and were

free of disease. In addition, AFIC believed that wethers were

popular only with the expatriate section of the Middle Eastern population.22

13.13 There is also the religious requirement that the

pilgrimage to Mecca necessitates the slaughter of an animal.23

13.14 The Committee is aware that influential Muslim leaders

in the Middle East were concerned about welfare aspects of the live sheep trade. AFIC commented:

'An awareness is growing about the welfare of the animals during transportation, before they are loaded on to the ships, and after they are unloaded at the other end. This can become a very serious matter in view of the

sayings of the Holy Prophet ... These are

very serious matters because the Islamic approach is also humane.124

155

A little later, AFIC stated:

1 We just quote what he (the Prophet) has said on this. He says ... "To be mindful of the

comfort of an animal. When you travel during the season when there is grass let your

camels avail themselves of this and when you travel during a dry season, hurry up so as to minimise the suffering of thirst and hunger and allay it sooner on reaching the

destination." This has connection with the transportation of live animals from

Australia.125

Sheepmeat Subsidies in the Middle East

13.15 The pricing of food supplies is an important policy

consideration for Middle Eastern governments. Subsidies and

administered price ceilings on food are commonly used in the Middle East. Mr J. Dransfield, a member of the 1982 Sheepmeat Mission to the Middle East commented that:

'We raised the subject of the subsidy and its application, and the inference all the time was that because the people are poorly paid it is better to keep them with a full belly

so that they do not rebel. So the meat and

other foodstuffs were always within their financial reach.'26

13.16 These subsidies only apply to imported live sheep or

airfreighted chilled lamb, not to frozen sheepmeat, with the

possible exception of Iran, which does not import live sheep but

does engage in a frozen lamb trade with New Zealand. Saudi Arabia has dropped its subsidy on frozen mutton imports.27

13.17 The BAE has commented that subsidies increase demand for live sheep instead of frozen sheepmeat2* * and in some

countries the fresh meat from imported live sheep is cheaper

than refrigerated sheepmeat even though the real cost may be

much higher. This may explain different consumption patterns in

156

some Middle Eastern countries.29 There is a wide range of

subsidies that are invoked for the whole range of the importing

phase. There is a subsidy on live sheep, carcase, livestock

feed, oil bunkers, slaughter and transport.30 The SLTT informed

the Committee that the bunker subsidy in Saudi Arabia is being

progressively eliminated.

13.18 The subsidies are provided by the massive oil revenues generated in the Middle East but with the downturn in these

revenues various subsidies have been reduced or withdrawn.31

13.19 The AMIEU claimed that subsidies can be used as

barriers to entry to the industry:

1 We are locked out of that market. In Kuwait it happens to apply through subsidies. Preference is given to meat from live

animals. There is a subsidy paid to the A1 Sabahs for the sheep they land.132

Preferential shipping regulations are cited as a barrier to entry,33 and restriction of land ownership is another.34

13.20 Mr Ralph James, the President of the Sheepmeat Council

of Australia, commented on his return from the Middle East with

the 1982 mission that there were 1 a number of local barriers' to

increased refrigerated sheepmeat imports. These included price

control and subsidy arrangements 1 which favour live sheep

exports' and regulations which prohibited the using of frozen

meat or required chilled meat to be sold at the same price as frozen meat.35

157

The Iranian Example of a Shift in Consumption Patterns

13.21 In 1983 Iran imported 93 000 tonnes of New Zealand

meat. This had displaced the previous annual supply from Australia of approximately 2.4 million live sheep.36 jn 1985 it

was reported that Iran had bought 132 000 tonnes of New Zealand

frozen lamb worth approximately $US150 million in a barter deal for approximately six million barrels of Iranian oil.37

13.22 It has been argued that the example of Iran

demonstrated that demand for 'hot' meat is managed demand, that

it is not a product of consumer preference. The AMLC responded

that this indicated a high rate of substitution between fresh

meat and frozen or chilled meat.38 However:

'This has been imposed on the people by the government through the Iranian meat

organization, which has total control through the GTC, of imports.'39

13.23 Various reasons have been proffered for the Iranian

decision. It has been suggested that live sheep imports had been terminated in order to ensure the purity of the national flock^O

but this was rejected by the AMLC.41

13.24 It was also suggested that the decision was made

because of the closure of loading ports, the shortage of foreign exchange and the purchase of military supplies for the Iran-Iraq

war. The ALEA regarded it as a ' totally economic' decision made because of lack of funds as a result of the war with I r a q . 4 2 The

BAE regarded it as a 'very conscious' decision to purchase the cheaper product, that is, frozen lamb, because of their 'very severe economic plight'.43 The AMLC believed that problems with

handling facilities was a contributing factor. Bandar Abbas did not have the facilities which the main port of Bandar Khomeini used to have prior to its closure. The Sheepmeat

158

Council agreed that it was largely because of the war and

problems with one port but added that the Iranians had indicated

quite definitely that they did not want carcase mutton; they had replaced live sheep with chicken and New Zealand lamb.44

Promotion and Marketing of Sheepmeat in the Middle East

13.25 If demand were managed, as alleged by the AMIEU, it would be futile to promote refrigerated sheepmeat in the Middle

East. The investment that Middle Eastern companies have in live

sheep carriers, feedlots and other facilities would probably

preclude the substitution of refrigerated sheepmeat trade for

the live sheep trade as it would not be in their interests to

convert their facilities to a new trade.

13.26 The AMIEU claimed that the two million live sheep

exported to Kuwait would constitute a mutton carcase trade of

45 000 tonnes. The actual carcase export to Kuwait was

approximately 700 tonnes of mutton and a similar amount of lamb.

It claimed that Australia was servicing the small expatriate

market; it was not selling sheep meat to the expatriate market which was being supplied with beef from India and poultry.45

13.27 In December 1981 the Minister for Primary Industry and the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU)

agreed on three requirements to resolve the industrial dispute

over the live sheep trade. One of these was a fund to finance promotion of carcase sheepmeat in the Middle East.46

13.28 The 1982 Mission returned from the Middle East and recommended:

1 That the Australian Government consult with interested industry bodies on the

establishment of funding arrangements for a positive program of development and expansion of markets for Australian hogget and mutton in the countries importing Australian live

sheep.1

159

and:

'That the Australian Government provide financial support for the sheepmeat market development program. 1 47

13.29 The Commonwealth Government offered to contribute $1 million per annum for three years on a dollar for dollar basis

with the industry for a market promotion fund. Producers,

through their slaughter levy subscriptions to the AMLC, were to

supply $150 000 per annum. The Minister suggested that if the

AMIEU levy its members $4 per head it would raise $152 000.

However, the AMIEU required several assurances from the

Government before it was prepared to contribute. It was

concerned at the problem in several Middle Eastern countries of

the use of barriers to entry, or non-tariff trade barriers, against the importation of Australian carcase sheepmeat. It

required the Government to take a firm stand before

contributing:

1 The Government must get to the root cause of the problem in some countries and that

requires full Government-to-Government negotiations and dealings to reduce barriers against carcase meats.

The AMIEU is not prepared to look at

contributing to the suggested $4 per head unless there are guarantees of access to some of these markets for carcase meats.148

Advisory Committee to the AMLC for Market Development and

Promotion of Sheepmeats

13.30 In August 1982 the Minister for Primary Industry

announced the establishment of a special market development fund

to promote sheepmeat carcase trade, especially to the Middle East. An advisory committee was established to advise AMLC on appropriate market development projects to be financed from the

fund.49

160

13.31 The fund was financed by a two cent increase in the

slaughter levy for sheep and lambs and a matching dollar for

dollar contribution by the Federal Government over a three year period.

13.32 At the inaugural meeting of the advisory committee in

November 1982, it was agreed that priority was to be given to

the Middle Eastern market, but promotion of all sheepmeats and

not just mutton, to all markets, including the Australian domestic market, was to be adopted.

13.33 Since 1982 $1.4 million has been spent on 28

projects.50 The advisory committee has initiated a number of

projects for market development and promotions in the Middle East:

. The underwriting, if necessary, of the cost of a trial

shipment of a container of chilled lamb and mutton in a

CC>2 modified atmosphere to the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

. Part of the expenses of a BAE research project into

1 Competition between Australia and New Zealand in the

Middle East sheep meat market'.

. Promotion of frozen and chilled sheepmeats including

mutton and vacuum packed products at 1Saudifood 19831, Riyadh.

. The advisory committee endorsed the production of a

documentary film by AMLC staff entitled, 'Islam in

Australia' in order to demonstrate that Islamic

requirements were satisfied at Australian abattoirs. Film Australia prepared a script which was reviewed by

the advisory committee, AMLC, EIS and AFIC and was

161

circulated for final approval to all halal certifying

bodies in Australia. It is to be used as an adjunct to

future promotion campaigns in the Middle East.

. Intergraphics, a Middle Eastern advertising agency,

conducted an advertising campaign from December 1983 to

May 1984 in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar,

Dubai, UAE and Oman with use of television and

magazines. The AMLC reported that the campaign had been

effective in maintaining consumer awareness. Mutton

exports were maintained although lamb exports

decreased.

. There are severe restrictions on the transport of

chilled products by sea to Middle Eastern markets.

Trial shipments using vacuum packaging met the approval

of Kuwaiti authorities who agreed to extend the entry

period for chilled meat to 45 days, only for trial

purposes, in order to evaluate the transport of chilled products by sea.51

The AMLC stated that a part of the charter of the 1 two

cent' committee was to find markets for mutton as an alternative

to live sheep. 1 Getting acceptance of this has been most

difficult. They wanted lamb and we were more interested in sending mutton than lamb.152

Difficulties of Sheepmeat Promotion

13.34 Setting aside the question of barriers to entry in Middle Eastern markets, it is apparent that there are

difficulties with the promotion and marketing of sheepmeat in the Middle East.

162

13.35 There have been problems with product certification

including absence of date stamping on export certificates,

absence of results of immunological tests, inadequate shelf-life

dates for canned meats and non-declaration of ingredients devoid of pig by-products.53

13.36 The 1982 Mission noted that:

1 Regulations imposing restricted entry period and shelf life for chilled and frozen meat are likely to limit the expansion of

Australia's meat exports to some countries. Other local health regulations which prohibit the sale of frozen meat alongside fresh, the freezing of chilled meat and the thawing of

frozen meat place limitations on the ability to promote demand for imported meat. The technical justification for these

requirements could be questionable.'54

The 1982 Mission recommended:

'That the Australian Government and AMLC ensure Islamic slaughter procedures in Australia are properly followed and certified as required by importing countries.'55

13.37 The meat substitution issue which has received

considerable media attention in the Middle East. Testing

procedures in the Middle East may have been stepped up as a

response to concern about Australian export controls, with the

result that Australian meat exports may suffer an increased rejection rate in the Middle East.56

13.38 Packaging is an important aspect of marketing and it is

apparent that packaging of Australian meat could be improved. The 1982 Mission noted that 1 the packaging of Australian meat at

retail level should be improved to match competing countries' product presentation'.57

13.39 There is the uncertainty of industrial stoppages in Australia. The 1982 Mission noted:

163

1 Concern was expressed in certain markets about Australia's unreliability as a trading partner due to industrial disputation. On pursuing this question not all delays could be substantiated as due to this cause.'58

13.40 There are considerable difficulties for western

commercial agencies in the Middle East arising from language

problems. Paxton noted that because of this problem information could be unreliable and that training in Arabic language and

culture was essential for trade attache postings.5^ in 1980 the

Department of Trade did not have one officer that could read

Arabic. By 1982 they had engaged one officer in the Middle East

section who was proficient in Arabic and could vet formal trade documents. 58

New Sheepmeat Marketing Developments

13.41 The 1982 Mission spent four weeks studying the markets

for Australian sheepmeat and live sheep in Saudi Arabia, Libya,

Kuwait, Bahrain, Dubai and Abu Dhabi. This was the first

concentrated effort to assess market conditions in the Middle East. The AMLC and the Trade Commissioner Service have provided

the only public source of information on Middle Eastern markets.

The Committee noted comments made by Mr. Peter Wood, Head of the

Bahrain office of the AMLC, who said, at the first annual

general meeting of the Corporation in Sydney in May 1985, that the live sheep trade might not be maintained, that it had

probably peaked with little likelihood of any further expansion. He predicted that the super carriers would be superseded by

smaller ships transporting better quality sheep. This would

correspond with an increase in carcase imports. This presented

Australia with good opportunities for marketing sheepmeat but domestic meat processing productivity would need to be increased if it was to retain its share.61

164

13.42 There is other evidence for market opportunities in the

Middle East. Mr Jassim A1 Wazzan, the principal of a large

Kuwait food importing company, completed an inspection of halal

slaughter provisions in Australian abattoirs in April/May 1985.

He commented that he was 1 very happy and satisfied that animals

are being slaughtered in accordance with our Islamic needs. The Australian industry has come to understand our requirements'.62

He indicated that shipments of lamb and mutton with some specialty meats would resume^ as soon as two representatives

could be appointed to oversee the halal slaughter of all meat exported to Kuwait.64

13.43 There has been some criticism in the rural media of the

performance of the AMLC in developing new markets in the Middle East for refrigerated sheepmeat.65

13.44 Mr Arthur Brackenrig, Chairman of the Mudgee

Cooperative Meat Supply, claimed that lamb exports were being

held back by the traditional Australian practice of turning off high cost lambs dressing 15-20 kg. He said they should market

lambs at 8-13 kg. These lambs should be marketed entire without the producer having to incur the costs of marking, drenching and

feeding to get them to the higher bodyweights. Producers would

have little to lose because if they were not accepted at low

bodyweights producers could simply retain them and market them

at heavier bodyweights. If they were turned off at 10 to 12

weeks management would be improved and costs reduced.

13.45 The AMLC gave evidence that it had been trying to

promote chilled lamb and mutton, but believed it would be a long-term programme.66

13.46 There is potential competition from New Zealand in marketing refrigerated sheepmeat in the Middle East. The AMLC

reported that New Zealand has recommenced the export of chilled

lamb to the Middle East. Small consignments of high quality

165

carcase under 12 kg are freighted to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and

the OAE at commercial, premium prices. However, the freight rate

is high and capacity at both ends is limited.67

13.47 Future exports of sheepmeat to the Middle East may

benefit from a reported decision, taken by Australian and New

Zealand authorities in March 1985, to co-operate more closely on

market development and sales ventures. The marketing advisers of

the two meat authorities have identified six markets that require immediate examination, including Iran and Iraq.68

Competing Suppliers of Sheepmeat to the Middle East

13.48 Alternative sources of supply of sheep to the Middle

East from countries other than Australia are an important

consideration as it has been argued by the AMIEU that it is possible for Australia to impose a live/carcase ratio on Middle

Eastern buyers with the consequence that the reduction in the

export of live sheep would be matched by an increase in the supply of carcase mutton.69 The counter argument is that

Australian frozen mutton would be displaced by New Zealand

frozen lamb and other cheaper meats from the EEC, South America and China.70 in addition, Australian live sheep would be

replaced by live sheep from other sources such as Eastern

Europe, Turkey, South America and China.71 The response of the

AMIEU was that Middle Eastern companies would not lay up the millions of dollars invested in sheep carriers that also carry

adequate reefer space for the transport of refrigerated

sheepmeat and forego the purchase of possibly half of their live sheep requirement.72 The AMIEU stated that:

1 There really is not a genuine competitor ... No country can be justified as resembling a genuine threat to us as a supplier of mutton on that market.'73

These comments were corroborated by the Senior Australian Trade Commissioner in Bahrain who stated:

166

'Australia is really the only country in a position to supply live sheep in the volume required by the Middle East market.174

13.49 In evidence before the Committee, Elders I XL deferred

to the AMLC evidence of import of sheep from various other

sources with the qualification that the recent extreme drought in North Africa may have distorted the pattern of trade.75

13.50 Another industry source commented that Australia was in

an 1 excellent position' to compete with other countries. The

super carriers with cargoes of 100 000 or more sheep were

limited as to where they could load and unload their live cargo.

13.51 The BAE advised the Committee that alternative

suppliers of live sheep to the Middle East market constitute

approximately 50 per cent of the total. The principal countries involved are Turkey, Romania, Somalia and Sudan. The last two

countries have experienced severe droughts and have been turning off excess livestock.76 Statistical tables for the main

components of the international trade including sheep population

by country are given in Appendix III.

13.52 The validity of claims of competing supply are examined on a region by region basis.

Current and Potential Suppliers by Region

Eastern Europe

13.53 Bulgaria, Romania, Poland and Hungary are subject to

harsh seasonal conditions that restrict sheep breeding capacity. All four countries export sheep, but only Bulgaria and Romania

currently export to the Middle East. At times these two

countries have urgently required foreign currency and have virtually dumped sheep in the Middle East.77 χη 1985 SLTT

167

imported 70 000 sheep from Romania on its own vessel and 15 000

from Bulgaria and 1 intend to do this more1.78 Eastern Europe has

started resupplying Iran, transporting sheep across the Black

Sea and down from the port of Trabzon in northern Turkey. 79

There is also evidence that in the past five or six years

Romania has been importing joined Australian ewes and

re-exporting the unmarked lambs to the Middle East for the Haj.80

Turkey

13.54 Turkey is the second largest supplier of live sheep to the Middle East. Its flock has increased in size; its sheep are

fat tails, which are the preferred type and it is close to the major Middle Eastern markets. A winter ban on export has just been lifted.81

Suppliers within the Middle East Region

13.55 Although Egypt, Syria and Jordan have exported sheep to other Middle Eastern destinations and Kuwait has trans-shipped a

large number, export is constrained by increasing domestic

consumption and limits on production because of rudimentary

management and severe climatic conditions. However, Syria is a

major supplier of the 1 up market1 fat tail ram.82

Afghanistan. Pakistan. India

13.56 Afghanistan supplies a limited number of sheep to the Kuwait market.83 India has a large sheep flock, but in 1981 the

Government imposed a ceiling of 50 000 on the export of live

sheep. The UAE are 1 totally and completely' supplied from India

by dhows and larger ships. India also supplies Oman and

Australia is left with a residual share of the market.84

168

Pakistan has exported a few sheep to the Middle East. All three

countries are close to the market but increasing domestic demand is limiting their capacity to export sheep to the Middle East.85

North Africa

13.57 Somalia, Sudan and Ethiopia have been the traditional sources of supply for Saudi Arabia and the pilgrim market. They

are close to the Middle Eastern markets, they have supplied a

large number of sheep and they have fat tail sheep, the

preferred product. However, production is limited by harsh

climatic conditions and subsistence levels of flock management. The unrelieved years of drought and civil war have initially led

to large exports but future exports may be curtailed. The AMIEU

commented that sheep have been carried across the Red Sea by

dhow from North Africa for 1400 years because Arabia, owing to

the severity of its climate and restricted resources, has never

been able to maintain enough sheep for domestic consumption.

1 The North Africans, if they have the numbers, have a proximity to the market which would wipe us out overnight.'86

China

13.58 The ALEA informed the Committee that trial shipments of live fat tail sheep from China began in January 1985.87 china

has the potential to become a serious competitor as the size of

its sheep industry is comparable to that of Australia. However, there are reports of meat rationing within China and export could be constrained by domestic demand.88 The price paid for

Chinese fat tails is only marginally more than that paid for Australian wethers, particularly in Kuwait.89

169

South America

13.59 Uruguay and Argentina have exported small numbers of

sheep to the Middle East and KLTT has considered establishing an

export trade from Brazil. The Senior Australian Trade

Commissioner in Bahrain commented that, from November to May,

live sheep can be exported from Montevideo or Buenos Aires, but

exports outside this season suffer prohibitive mortalities.90

The AMLC was of the opinion that Uruguay and Brazil may have

some future potential91 but would be disadvantaged by

intermittent supply and high mortalities.9^ The AMIEU added that

the Brazilian flock was too small and the sheep type was not

suited to the trade. In addition, the voyage to the Middle East

is longer and the loading facilities had not been developed.

However, the SLTT stated that:

1 We are always bombarded by companies from Argentina and Uruguay asking us to come and import sheep from there. Right now the total cost of the South American sheep might not be

competitive in comparison with Australian sheep, but if partial cuts or ratios of

carcase-to-live sheep are imposed it might make the South American sheep more

competitive than they are right now.

South Africa

13.60 In the early 1970s, South Africa exported approximately 30 000 head per annum, but exports have now declined to

insignificant levels. Saudi Arabia maintains a trade embargo with the Republic. With a national flock of only approximately

30 million, the prospects for South African exports to the Middle East appear remote.9^

170

New Zealand

13.61 New Zealand sent two consignments to the Middle East in

197 4 but this was terminated by the Government, partly on the

grounds of high mortalities of four per cent and partly from

trade union representation. The New Zealand Meat Producers Board

has increased its pressure on the Government to resume exports

and there are reports that Saudi Arabia and New Zealand

representatives have met to discuss the possibility of re-entry.95 However, there is considerable trade union

opposition to the move. The major problems to be resolved are

government legislation, high freight rates, a limited supply of

suitable sheep,96 seasonal irregularity of supply and investment inf rastr ucture.97

171

CHAPTER 14

THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FAT TAIL SHEEP EXPORT INDUSTRY

14.1 The Committee considered the development of fat tail

sheep for export because it considered that developments with

ramifications for animal welfare should be subjected to public

scrutiny. As Ms Townend commented:

1 before the live export of sheep commenced, the issue was never publicly debated; it was not discussed in Parliament in a way that allowed the public to assess the situation and decide on the issues involved, and no forethought or planning was put into

considering what the implications of a live export trade might be.'1

14.2 The most important future development was perceived as

the importation of fat tail sheep to Australia and the

establishment of a fat tail Merino cross-breed live sheep trade.

The Establishment of a Fat Tail Cross-Breed Industry

14.3 The importation of Middle Eastern fat tail breeds of

sheep, such as the Barbary, the Nadji, the Awassi, the Shafali,

the Naoami and the Karakul, were initiated by Dr John Lightfoot,

Chief of the Division of Animal Production, Western Australian

Department of Agriculture, and Associate Professor Euan Roberts of the School of Wool and Pastoral Sciences, University of New

South Wales, with the assistance of annual research funding from the AMRC. Three Karakul rams and three Karakul ewes were moved

from the Cocos Island Quarantine Station to the Torrens Island Quarantine Station in South Australia in April 1985.2 These

sheep will be kept at the quarantine station for fear of the

173

spread of the ovine disease scrapie, but after three years,

semen and embryos from Karakul progeny may be available for

commercial release. In April 1985 Dr Lightfoot collected embryos

of three breeds of fat tail sheep in Cyprus. These embryos were

to be deep frozen and taken to the Cocos Island Quarantine

Station for implantation in Australian sheep.

14.4 The second phase of the research project involved the cross-breeding of fat tail and Australian breeds of sheep in

order to investigate carcase quality and consumer acceptability.

By December 1984 a shipment of 299 Poll Dorset ewes had arrived

in Bahrain for an improvement programme developed by Badam

Agriculture, a company owned by Sheik Rashid, a relative of the Emir of Bahrain. 3 The ewes were selected from properties in New

South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania with the

help of a past president of the Australian Poll Dorset

Association, Mr Les Binns.^

14.5 The goal of this research programme was to assess the possibility of developing a fat tail industry in Australia for

both live and carcase export to the Middle East. Dr Lightfoot

estimated the potential market at two million sheep per year,

which, it was claimed, would mean an extra $100 million per year

in export income. Professor Roberts claimed that fat tail sheep

had the meat preferred by Middle East consumers. The claimed

difference in flavour was attributed to the deposition of fat in the tail and a different fat distribution in the carcase.5 it is

reported that one of the major Western Australian live sheep

exporters had indicated that they would be prepared to pay a

premium for Karakul cross wethers.6

14.6 The initiatives of Dr Lightfoot were supported by the Sheepmeat Council of Australia at a Council meeting in Perth in May 1984 and by Western Australia farm organisations, 7 but they

encountered considerable opposition from the Wool Council

174

of Australia, the Australian Association of Stud Merino Breeders

and the NSW Live Stock and Grain Producers Association,® who

have advanced several objections.

14.7 The ALEA was approached by the Western Australian

Government about the project. It supported the proposed trials

but made no further commitments at that stage.

Objections to the Proposed Industry

14.8 Opponents of the fat tail sheep project have several

objections to its development. There is the possible threat of

the importation of exotic disease. Dr David Franklin of the ALEA commented that:

1 there is a potential for a transfer of a disease under any circumstance. However, I believe the Australian Department of Health and its quarantine officers have looked at

the matter quite seriously. The Department may not even allow those sheep into the

country ... it would be on the basis of

either not knowing enough about the endemic disease status for the origin of these sheep, or on the basis of being concerned about some of the endemic diseases that are there.19

14.9 Dr Lightfoot argued that risk of disease was eliminated by:

careful initial selection of the sheep;

strict quarantine procedures;

rigorous diagnostic testing; and,

modern reproductive technology

175

14.10 There is also the possibility of fibre contamination.

Mr John Barr, Queensland member of the Wool Council of Australia

stated that:

1 Nobody could give us an assurance that

crossbreeding fat tail sheep with Merinos would not lead to the proliferation of

coloured fibres in sections of the Australian Merino clip. The Australian Merino clip is the only clip in the world that does not have an inbred black fibre problem and it would be a tragedy to introduce it accidentally.'H

14.11 The Western Australian Department of Agriculture

responded:

1 The proposal to use the fat tailed rams as terminal sires would mean that those progeny will be the product that will be exported and we already have sheep with black fibres in

Australia and they do not cause any

problem.112

14.12 It is probable that the progeny would be exported

without being shorn,12 but the problem of black fibre still

applies to the breeding livestock retained in Australia. The

example of pigmented fibre in Suffolk sheep has been cited. That

problem is significant enough for Professor Roberts' own School

of Wool and Pastoral Sciences to have devoted research funds to

the breeding of all-white Suffolks. Dr Lightfoot has claimed that the wool from purchased fat tails is of 1 classical carpet

type' and would find a ready market in the Australian carpet wool industry.14

14.13 Management of fat tails has wider implications. The

ALEA gave evidence that 'if the animal scours at all, you are going to have a fly strike problem' .15 This was confirmed by the

ACLA which commented that new management techniques would be needed which would have animal welfare considerations.16

176

14.14 Management is also probably labour intensive. Mr Les

Binns commented that:

1 Young rams need to be trained in the

difficult art of serving a fat tailed ewe and lambing problems occur with high frequency. Australian breeders cannot afford the time nor effort to carry out such intensive

husbandry.117

14.15 The suitability of the breed to the Australian

environment is another welfare consideration. The ALEA believed

that 1 There would be only limited areas where the fat tails

would be able to be held1, that is, the drier areas of western

New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia.18

14.16 Mr Ron Collins, President of the Australian Association

of Stud Merino Breeders described the economic benefits of the

development of a fat-tail sheep industry in Australia as

'unclear'.19 Mr Neville Gorman, President of the Wool Council of Australia commented that Australia already had enough sheep to

satisfy the Middle East market.20 Mr Peter Taylor of the N.S.W.

Livestock and Grain Producers Association said that fat tails,

if imported, had 'the potential to harm the present overseas trade for live wethers',21 although it is possible that fat tail

cross-bred sheep would constitute a different market sector in the Middle E a s t . 22 Dr John Lightfoot argued that extensive

market research would be needed to determine if a market for fat tail cross-bred sheep did exist in the Middle East.23

14.17 Consumer preference in the Middle East for fat tail

meat is uncertain. Professor Roberts claims their meat is

preferred, that the physiological mechanism which deposits fat

in the tail may give the breed a totally different carcase fat distribution and account for the distinctive flavour of fat tailed sheep m e a t s . 24 it is reported that Middle Eastern

177

consumers object to the smell of the cooking of Australian sheep

meat, which Professor Roberts believes may be related to the

distribution of fat. He also cites consumer preference testing

in the United States in 1984 which demonstrated that consumers

easily distinguished between meat from Karakul and Suffolk cross lambs.25

14.18 Mr Les Binns, who witnessed breeding trials at the animal production unit of the Bahrain Government Department of

Agriculture, claimed that although the sheep carried a large percentage of fat in the tail area there was still 1 a fairly

high level of fat in the well-conditioned, young sheep and a

high level of fat deposited throughout the carcase of a

well-conditioned, older sheep'.26 He also commented that:

1 The meat from a purebred fat tailed sheep has the same flavour as an Australian Merino wether if given the same feedlot or grazing conditions. The diet recommended to give the meat flavour desired in Saudi Arabia was

barley, molasses and dates.127

14.19 The Committee has noted developments in the fat tail

sheep project. There are important considerations of animal

husbandry and welfare involved. In addition, the manner of the

continuation of the live sheep trade must be considered. It will

be necessary for government authorities and the various industry organisations to monitor very closely developments in this area.

178

CHAPTER 15

RESEARCH

15.1 In a large number of submissions to the Committee there has been a recognition of the need for continuing and further

research into the trade.

15.2 The Victorian Department of Agriculture indicated that, in the late 1970s, exporters were reluctant to participate in

government research, preferring to do research within their

individual companies, but recently they have become more

amenable to university and government research.1 The Brennan

report commented that the exporters' reluctance was due to their concern that the results derived from the use of their

facilities might confer a commercial advantage on their

competitors.2 This was confirmed by a number of other sources, including the AAHQS which added that the industry was also

apprehensive of the exposure of deficiencies.2

15.3 Dr Batey of the ALTV told the Committee that between

1977 and 1980, while on the staff of Murdoch University, he

received funding from the Reserve Bank to investigate mortalities in the live sheep export trade. He had some

difficulty in 1 getting the co-operation of certain sections of

the industry ... it highlights the need for any research project to be a co-operative one. I think it needs to be one which

involves the industry as well as the research institution.14 Dr Batey believed the industry attitude had changed, that the

industry has become more aware of its problems, possibly because of external pressure. Dr Franklin of the ALTV added that

industry attitude had changed 1 dramatically1, as demonstrated by

179

the formation of the ALEIAC and its adoption of research priorities.^ Dr Arnold of the ALTV advanced the reason for the

increase in co-operation as being the fact that profitability

was down:

1 The research must help them be commercially sound, otherwise they will not be here.'6

15.4 The ALEA told the Committee that:

Ά majority of the research has been done

within the company itself, as opposed to co-ordinated multi company research. Most of the research really is a matter of trials where there is a new product out, or you are

trialling a new pellet.17

15.5 The AMLC added that it must be recognised that the bulk

of the research has been done by exporters and this is

demonstrated in the bibliography in the Brennan Report.

1Austiran originally and certainly the companies today have put a lot of effort and cost into research programs.18 The AAHQS

commented that without the participation of the industry, major

research projects would be 1 useless1.9

15.6 The Brennan Report also stated that exporters had

adapted new husbandry techniques for shipboard operations as a result of 1 trial and error1 rather than scientific

experimentation.The ALEA agreed with this assessment.H

15.7 State Government authorities have not had the resources

to do much research into the live sheep export trade. It has

been argued that those that benefit most from research should pay for it. There is an export levy on live sheep, part of which

xs allocated to research. Up to the end of 1984, $1.26 million has been generated by research levies, which has been matched

dollar for dollar by the Commonwealth through the AMRC. The

180

research levy was originally 3.33 cents per head for sheep and

lambs out of a total levy of 71.73 cents per head for sheep and

81.73 cents for lambs. It was increased to 5 cents as from 1 September 1984.12 The AMLC advised that in 1984 at a meeting of

the ALEIAC, the ALE A submitted its own research programme in

which it offered some of its own research funding. This was

perceived as a genuine desire to be involved in funding or

research and to help direct that research.13

15.8 The ALEA believed that the ALEIAC should have all

research and research priorities referred to it. It should also

be the body through which general funding capacity could be, if

not directed, at least commented upon.14 At present the ALEA is

not represented on the body which disburses funds, the AMRC, or its advisory committee. It told the Committee:

'We are paying into funds which the

Government is then matching, and yet we have no say in the priorities that we want those funds used for.115

Table 15.1: Livestock Export Charge Collections for Research

Year Ended June

Sheep and Lambs

Total All Livestock

$ $

1979 84 409 97 720

1980 198 428 209 913

1981 179 644 212 762

1982 201 082 228 425

1983 229 851 263 876

TOTAL 893 414 1 012 696

Source: AMRC Annual Report 1982-83

181

15.9 The AMRC has been replaced by the AMLRDC. On 2 July

1985, the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr John Kerin announced

the appointment of the eight members of the new Corporation. He commented that this finalised the reorganisation of meat and

livestock industry research. The AMLRDC was established

specifically 1 to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of

meat and livestock research and development in Australia'.

15.10 The Wool Council of Australia recommended that:

1 Industry and government funds be directed to research on priority issues in the livestock export trade, with priorities to be

determined by the Livestock Export Industry Advisory Committee.116

15.11 One industry source believed that the universities, the State Departments of Agriculture and the AAHQS were best

equipped to undertake research into aspects of the live sheep

trade and that the AMRC should allocate funds.

15.12 The ALEA saw the need for accurate recording systems

for the range of data that applied to live sheep exports such as

mortalities, live weights and age groupings and had discussed it with the AAHQS to try to design requirements for all sections of the industry.17 The ALEA believed that AAHQS was the best placed

organisation to act as a central clearing house of industry data that could be used for the benefit of the industry.18

15.13 The question of research priorities and areas of

research has attracted considerable attention. The obvious areas

of research have been commented upon in the body of the report.

Over the last decade several lists of research priorities have

been circulated:

182

. Perth 197 6, Department of Agriculture, Western

Australia (Truscott and Wrath 1976)

. Adelaide 1980, ABAH

. Adelaide 1981, ABAH

. Brennan Report ABAH 1984.

15.14 The ALEIAC at its meeting on 29 February 1984

identified the following as important future research areas.

High Priority

. Determination of the extent and causes of mortality and

weight loss on-farm, at assembly, in transport and during shipping.

. Definition of the nutritional requirements of sheep

undergoing export.

. Investigation of the influences of regional sources of

sheep on subsequent performance.

Priority

Definition of the benefits of therapeutic substances and feed additives to export sheep.

Investigation of assembly area design and management

practice.

Development of suitable biochemical and physiological

parameters of stress.

183

15.15 The Committee has made a number of recommendations for

the conduct of research into various aspects of the trade in

this report. Both the industry and governments should ensure

that funding is available for this research and other research

projects which are being or need to be done.

184

CHAPTER 16

FUTURE OF THE TRADE

General Conclusions

16.1 The live sheep trade transfers the place of slaughter of six or seven million sheep a year from Australia to the

Middle East, which necessitates the transportation of those sheep at least 10 000 kilometres. The AVA and the RSPCA argued,

on animal welfare grounds, that livestock should be slaughtered

as close as possible to the point of production. There is little

doubt that sheep suffer during the journey from an Australian

farm to an abattoir in the Middle East. Any form of transport

puts stress on livestock. Even if sheep were to adapt to the confined conditions on sheep carriers, they would still undergo

stress, or other forms of suffering, during the process of

adaptation to those conditions, or under particular adverse

conditions encountered on the journey. In addition, the

conditions under which sheep are slaughtered in the Middle East

do not match the conditions in Australian abattoirs, which have

regulations to ensure a higher standard of animal welfare.

16.2 The Committee came to the conclusion that, if a

decision were to be made on the future of the trade purely on

animal welfare grounds, there is enough evidence to stop the trade. The trade is, in many respects, inimical to good animal

welfare, and it is not in the interests of the animal to be transported to the Middle East for slaughter.

16.3 The Committee agreed that the animal welfare aspects of the trade cannot be divorced from economic and other

considerations. Consequently, the Committee considered a range

185

of economic and other factors, some of which were: returns to

producers, investment in the trade, international trade

considerations, changes in the structure of the Australian flock

and the cost to the meat processing industry. After

consideration of all factors, the Committee acknowledges the

reality of the situation that any short-term cessation or

disruption to the trade would cause considerable dislocation

both in Australia and in the Middle East. Consequently, the

Committee agrees that the trade will continue for some years and

insists that significant improvements be made to animal welfare

in many areas of the trade as recommended in this report.

16.4 The implementation of reforms will help to reduce but

not eliminate stress, suffering and risk during transportation of sheep to the Middle East. Therefore a long-term solution must

be sought. The substitution of the refrigerated sheepmeat trade

for the live export trade offers such a solution. The Federal Government should promote and encourage the expansion of the

refrigerated sheepmeat trade to the Middle East and other

countries, with the aim of eventually substituting it for the

live sheep trade.

Ban on Export during the Australian Winter

16.5 The Committee considered the suggestion to ban the

trade during the three Australian winter months when conditions

are at their worst in southern waters, as well as in the Middle

East. The Committee did not have, however, any evidence that

mortalities in those months were significantly higher than during the rest of the year. The Committee had little evidence

that sheep during the three months underwent significant extra

stress or suffering. It can only be presumed that conditions are

relatively less tolerable under those conditions.

186

16.6 Although the ban would probably not seriously disrupt

the industry at the Australian end, it would probably cause

difficulties in the Middle East. The ALEA told the Committee

that there is no evidence:

1 to suggest that it is such a significant factor as to stop the trade for three months ...1 You are talking about having to hold,

just in the case of Kuwait, in excess of half a million sheep, where there are not the

facilities there to do it. There are the

facilities there, in one companies facilities alone, to hold over 150 000 sheep. But you are talking about trebling that facility ... You would be straining your resources at the other end.12

16.7 The Committee does not propose to recommend the

imposition of a ban on the trade during the three Australian

winter months. If Australian authorities receive evidence that

sheep were undergoing severe hardship on a regular basis during

these months, they should consider the imposition of a ban.

Reform of Administration. Legislation and Codes of Practice for

the Live Sheep Trade

16.8 The Committee considered the framework of regulation of

the trade.

16.9 There is already a mix of legislative, regulatory and

self-regulatory procedures which apply to the trade.

16.10 At present there are four Commonwealth Acts which have

relevance to the trade:

. Navigation Act 1912;

. Quarantine Act 1908;

. AustraJian Meat and Livestock Corporation Act 1977; and

. Customs Act 1901

187

16.11 The Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation Act and

the Customs Act have little relevance to the welfare of sheep

being exported live to the Middle East. The Navigation Act is

the legislative basis for Marine Orders Part 43, which regulates

conditions onboard live sheep carriers. The Quarantine Act

provides for the examination of sheep by a veterinary officer in

the 48 hours before export to certify that they are fit to

travel.

16.12 State legislation for the prevention of cruelty to

animals also applies to the handling and care of animals until

sheep are loaded on to a carrier.

16.13 The codes of practice that apply to the live sheep

trade are:

(a) Standards for the Preparation and Carriage of Sheep by

Sea. ABAH, Canberra, 1982.

(b) Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals

. Road Transport of Livestock. ABAH, Canberra, 1983

. Rail Transport of Livestock. AHAH, Canberra, 1983

. (Draft) Intensive Husbandry of Sheep. Canberra,

1983

16.14 In addition, the Marine Orders Part 43 (Cargo and Cargo Handling - Livestock) of the Commonwealth Navigation (Orders)

Regulations set out legally enforceable requirements. However, in some areas, suggestions rather than requirements are made.

188

16.15 Of the above model codes, the one on intensive

husbandry of sheep is in draft form and the other two refer to

only one stage of the export process. The most comprehensive

code of practice is 'Standards for the preparation and Carriage

of Sheep by Sea1 which was prepared and published in 1982 as a

response to increasing criticism of the live export trade.

Another model code of practice, entitled 1 Sea Transport of

Livestock' , is due for release soon for comment. This will replace the 1982 code.

16.16 The Sheepmeat Council of Australia stated in its

submission:

'To suggest that the live sheep trade is in need of further regulation is completely rejected.'3

After outlining the existing regulations, it added:

'No further regulations or alteration to the existing regulations are necessary to ensure the welfare of sheep exported live.'4

16.17 Most witnesses, however, were not in accord with the views of the Sheepmeat Council. There was a strong view

expressed by witnesses throughout the inquiry that the welfare

of the sheep needed to be improved. This was acknowledged by the

industry itself.

16.18 The ALBA submitted that the following framework would

be appropriate:

'(a) legislation to define the broad

principles for man's relationship to animals in his care, plus penal measures where community standards are infringed;

(b) codes of practice, which may or may not be framed into legislation, to define acceptable and unacceptable standards of

189

care in greater detail without removing individual responsibility for acts or omissions; and

(c) panels of experts and laymen to monitor and advise on changing community

expectations, the effectiveness of legislative and/or self-regulatory approaches and to recommend changes to

legislation and codes of practice. '"5

16.19 Although a mix of legislative, regulatory and

self-regulatory procedures were generally accepted by witnesses,

views differed among witnesses on the nature of that mix and the

extent to which the industry should be subjected to government

control.

16.20 The Western Australian Government argued against giving

legislative backing to codes of practice dealing with the live

sheep trade.

16.21 The Victorian Government submitted that the principal

legislative basis for the trade, the Commonwealth Quarantine Act

(1908) and associated regulations, have as the only requirement that export animals be examined within 48 hours prior to

shipment by an authorised veterinarian who will issue the necessary export certificates. The Victorian Government regards

it as essential that: 1

1 expansion of the legislation is undertaken to provide authority for veterinary officers acting on behalf of the Commonwealth to take action to correct transport and/or handling practices or procedures which are at variance with accepted standards of animal welfare.

Strengthening of Commonwealth legislation to provide adequate powers in this area is seen as an essential priority by the Victorian Government.16

190

16.22 In a public hearing, the Victorian Department of

Agriculture told the Committee that it believed the industry

should be self-regulating, but that it should also be subject to

codes of practice that were legally enforceable.7 1 We would like

to see a base of legislation established which basically

underpins that and enables operatives like ourselves to be able

to operate in a better framework than we have in the past. 18 in

a later document, the Department advocated increased powers for

veterinary officers, such as powers of entry and questioning and for the licensing of export operators and their premises.9

16.23 This lack of a proper legislative basis for the

industry was acknowledged by the Director of the ABAH in evidence to the Committee. He stated:

'The only fragment of legislation of any moment that exists in relation to the export of livestock generally is one regulation in the Quarantine Act, which is administered by

the Department of Health. That one regulation states that in the 24 hours (sic, 48 hours) before export all live animals must be

examined by a veterinary officer and

certified that they are in a satisfactory and healthy state to travel. That is the only bit of legislation that we rest on in our

employment of the State services in this final inspection. It means that a certificate must be issued by a government veterinary officer operating under that regulation

before the final permit for export will be issued by the Customs department. The ship is not permitted to leave without that bit of documentation. But it is a very slender bit of legislation on which to regulate a whole

industry, ...110

16.24 Apart from the inadequate legislative base for the trade, which is due probably to the rapid expansion of the trade

in the last ten years, there is a lack of co-ordination of the various Federal and State Government authorities involved in the administration of the trade.

191

16.25 The Victorian Department of Agriculture was asked

whether the guidelines and procedures they used were the same as

those used in other States. The Chief Quarantine Officer replied

that on numerous occasions he had sought regular meetings with

the Commonwealth and the States, as the agents who administer

the trade:

1 Over the last four years I guess we have had two meetings. I would have hoped that they would have been at least yearly so that the operatives in these trades could get together and actually have consultations as to what each other is doing and requiring. I guess

two conferences over four years is going some way towards that. But, no, I do not write to Western Australia or South Australia telling them exactly what I require.'!!

16.26 It has become apparent to the Committee that

substantial differences exist in the inspection procedures in

the States. Dr Tweddle confirmed this when he commented that the

AAHQS standards were not uniformly supervised or enforced. He

added that compliance with the standards occurred only when

action was 1 demanded1 by the authorised veterinarian and that

heavy pressure to compromise was 1 constantly' put on the

authorised veterinarians.!2

16.27 Dr Dennis Napthine, a Victorian Government Veterinary

Officer with responsibility for sheep exports from Portland,

stated to the 1984 Annual Conference of the Australian

Veterinary Association that veterinary officers needed wider

authority in determining the fitness of export sheep for the

voyage to the Middle East. The poor supervision and monitoring

of conditions aboard vessels which resulted in higher

mortalities could be partly attributed to the 'hotchpotch of

regulations' which cover the live sheep trade.!3

16.28 The Director of the then ABAH commented in evidence to

the Committee on 4 July 1984:

192

1 Certainly the Bureau is not as effective as it should be or as it would like to be

because of the lack of resources. We would like to have more resources to provide people - not to take over the State inspection

function, because we truly believe that that is properly a State function - to be able to go out and be alongside the States, to

compare processes in one State with another, to advise and liaise with the State.114

16.29 In a hearing on 10 April 1985, the Assistant Director,

Development and Laboratories, of AAHQS, commenting on the powers

of State Quarantine Veterinary Officers, stated:

1 They are slenderly based, of course, on that Quarantine Act regulation. There is good argument that we should perhaps be

considering the desirability of a livestock export control Act or something like that. I am not talking about it from an animal

welfare point of view; I am talking about it from the physical regulation of trade in relation to animal health aspects in the same way as we have an import Quarantine Act.115

16.30 Given the size and nature of the trade, the Committee

believes that the regulation of the trade must be given a proper legislative basis, so that government officers have the authority not only to carry out their existing functions but

also to give directions to the shipper, agent or feedlot

management, as appropriate, concerning the health or welfare of sheep, from the point at which they enter the export feedlot to

the time they are put in pens onboard a carrier. The Committee

considers it appropriate for State officers to continue to act

for the Commonwealth, but greater co-ordination and liaison must

be taken by AAHQS to ensure that the same standards are applied

in all States. Administration of this area of the trade by AAHQS

has left much to be desired.

193

16.31 The Committee considered but rejected the proposition

that the trade should be self-regulatory. The nature of the

trade and the evidence of non-adherence to current standards

militates against self-regulation.

16.32 The Committee also believes that the code of practice

for livestock exports should be given legislative backing in

that it be admissable as evidence in a court of law. Such a provision is already included in animal welfare legislation in

Victoria. This procedure would provide a quarantine veterinary officer with authority to give directions in accordance with the

code of practice as well as giving the officer the flexibility to use professional judgement should special circumstances

occur.

16.33 The Committee RECOMMENDS that federal legislation be

enacted to give AAHQS responsibility for the health and welfare

of sheep from arrival at an export feedlot to loading onboard a

carrier. Under this legislation and where necessary in

consultation with the industry, AAHQS be required to, apart from

the continuation of its present functions:

(i) receive, collate and analyse statistics and other

information in relation to transport of sheep to the

feedlot, sheep in the feedlot, transport of sheep to

the carrier and transport of sheep to the Middle East;

and

(ii) ensure the maintenance of proper standards of health and welfare of sheep, as set out in legislation,

regulations or codes of practice, from arrival at an

export feedlot to loading onboard a carrier; and

(iii) to conduct research or arrange for research to be done into aspects of the live sheep export trade.

194

16.34 Under this legislation, it is envisaged that quarantine

veterinary officers, apart from present functions, would ensure

the health and welfare of sheep from the time of arrival at an

export feedlot to loading onboard a carrier, and should have the

authority to issue directions for the health and welfare of the

sheep. The shipper, agent or feedlot management would be

required to designate a senior person to liaise with the

quarantine veterinary officer, to ensure that directions given by quarantine veterinary officers were carried out.

16.35 Other requirements, not included in this legislation,

the Regulations under the Quarantine Act and Marine Orders Part

43, should be incorporated into a code of practice. Failure to

adhere to the code would be grounds for revocation, suspension or non-renewal of export licences or export feedlot licences.

G. GEORGES Chairman

195

REFERENCES

Chapter Two

1. Learmonth, T. (1853) in C.E. Sayers (ed) 'Letters from Victorian Pioneers', pp. 93-94 quoted in H.R.C. Meischke and R.G. Brennan: Grazing Animal Transport and Handling - Cumulative Husbandry in the Export of Livestock ABAH,

Canberra 1985 .

2. Western Australian Department of Agriculture: Export of Live Sheep from Western Australia. May 1985, p. 1.

3. Evidence, p. S3051.

4. Evidence, p. SI518.

5. Evidence, p. SI519.

6. Evidence, p. S1678.

7. Australian Bureau of Animal Health : Sea Transport of Sheep. Canberra 1981, p. 1.

8. Australian Financial Review. 26 August 1982.

9. Evidence, p. 870.

10. Evidence, p. S3054.

11. Evidence, p. 3294.

Chapter Three

1. Evidence, p. 1760, p. 3503.

2. Evidence, p. S2013.

3. Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation : Statistical Review of Livestock and Meat Industries for the Year Ended 30 June 1984. Sydney 1984, p. 34.

4. National Country Life Livestock Year Book. Sydney 1985.

5. Evidence, p. S1709.

6. Evidence, p. 965.

7. Evidence, p. 985.

8. Evidence, p. 990.

197

9. Evidence, p. 1801.

10. Evidence, p. S2016.

11. Evidence, p. S15.

12. Evidence, p. S2194.

13. Evidence, p. S16.

14. Evidence, p. S1963.

15. Evidence, p. S1520.

Chapter Four

1. Tempie Grandin : A Survey of Handling Practices and

Facilities Used in the Export of Australian Livestock Canberra, ABAH, 1983, p. 3.

2. Evidence, S.2033.

3. K.J. Dobson : Report on a Study of the M.V. Viboro in the Live Sheep Export Trade from Adelaide to Kuwait, Adelaide, 8.A. Department of Agriculture, 1983 , p. 20 and Evidence, p. 1943.

4. National Country Life Livestock Year Book 1985. pp. 94-96.

5 . ibid. , p. 96 .

6. Farm. July 1981, p. 25.

7. AMLC, communication, 6 June 1985.

8. Evidence, p. 1681.

9. Evidence, pp. 1310, 1711.

10. Evidence, p. 1952.

11. ibid.

12. R. Brennan : Live Sheep Export Trade-Report on Current Knowledge and Deficiencies in Relation to Sheep Losses. Canberra, ABAH, 1984, p. 16.

13. Evidence, pp. 1015, 2114.

14. Evidence, p. 1953.

15. Evidence, p. 1314.

16. Evidence, p. 1348.

198

National Country Life Livestock Year Book 1985. p. 96.

ibid.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

2 2 .

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

Evidence, p. 1031.

Evidence, p. 1241.

Evidence, p. 2011.

Evidence, p. 2000.

Evidence, p. 1241.

ibid.

Standing Committee on Agriculture, Welfare : Model Code of Practice Livestock. Canberra, 1983, p. 4,

Stock and Land. 3 May 1984.

The Land. 24 May 1984.

Evidence, p. 1969.

Evidence, p. 1970.

Evidence, p. 1969.

Evidence, p. S277-278.

Submission No. 219, (Ecosearch), p.

Evidence, p. 990.

Evidence, p. 991.

Evidence, p. 990.

Evidence, p. 1696.

Evidence, p. 993 .

Evidence, p. 1697.

Evidence, p. 991.

Evidence, p. 997.

Grandin, op. cit., p. 19.

Evidence, p. 994.

Sub-Committee on Animal 6 ; Sea Transport of

4.

199

43. Evidence, p. 1698.

44. Evidence, p. 1662.

Chapter Five

1. ABAH : Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals 3 : Road Transport of Livestock. Canberra, 1983, p. 9.

2. ABAH : Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals 4 ; Rail Transport of Livestock. Canberra, 1983, p. 10.

3. AMLC : Handbook of Australian Livestock. Sydney, 1980 , p. 109.

4. Submission No 219, (Ecosearch), p. 2.

5. Brennan, op. cit. , p. 20.

6. Evidence, p. 1935.

7 . Evidence, p. 1934.

8. Evidence, p. 1935.

9. Tasmanian Department of Agriculture, Statement 29 April 1985, p. 2.

10. Farm, June 1981, p. 59.

11. Brennan, op. cit., p. 21.

12. ibid.

13. Evidence, p. S1283.

14. Evidence, p. 1752.

15. Supplementary Evidence Victorian Department of Agriculture, Attachment 5, 14 February 1985 (Memorandum 19 May 1981).

16. Brennan, op. cit., p. 21.

17. Evidence, p. S1994.

18. Evidence, p. 1753.

19. Brennan, op. cit., p. 22.

20. ibid., p. 19.

21. Evidence, p. 2040.

200

22. Evidence, p. 1943.

23. Evidence, p. 1472.

24. Evidence, p. 998.

25. Evidence, p. 1968.

26. Evidence, p. 1236.

27. Evidence, p. 1968.

28. Evidence, p. 1965.

29. ibid.

Chapter Six

1. Brennan, op. cit. , pp. 10

2. Evidence, p. 1484.

3. Evidence, p. 1946.

4. Evidence, p. 2025.

5. Brennan, op. cit. , p. 16.

6. Brennan, op. cit., p. 30.

7. Grandin, op. cit., p. 6.

8. Dr R. Brennan, personal c

9 . Brennan, op. cit., p. 25.

10. Evidence, p. 1320.

11. Brennan, op. cit., p. 25.

12. Evidence, p. 2027.

13. Evidence, p. 2003.

14. Evidence, p. 1318.

15. Grandin, op. cit., p. 6.

16. Evidence, p. 1319.

17. Evidence, p. 1245.

18. Evidence, p. 2008.

201

19. Grandin, op. cit., p. 6.

20. Evidence, p. 2008.

21. Evidence, p. 2011.

22. Evidence, p. 1318.

23. Evidence

24. Evidence

25. Evidence

26. Evidence

27. Evidence

28. Evidence

29. Evidence

30. Evidence

31. Evidence

32. Evidence

33. Evidence

P-P-p.

P-P·

p.

2012.

1318.

1319.

1350.

1350.

469.

1214.

1215.

1214.

1472.

1473.

34. Supplementary Evidence, Victorian Department Agriculture, Attachment 6, 14 February 1985.

35. Evidence, p. 1223.

36. National Country Life Livestock Year Book 1985. p. 93.

37. Evidence, p. 1957.

38. ibid., p. 1957.

Chapter Seven

1. Evidence, p. 3408.

2. Evidence, p. 724.

3. ibid.

4. Evidence, p. 723.

5. Evidence, p. 1390.

6. Grandin, op. cit. , p. 10.

202

7 ibid

8 . Evidence, pp. 3417-8.

9. Evidence, p. 3417.

10. Evidence, p. 1011.

11. Evidence, p. 1014.

12. Evidence, p. 1013.

13. Evidence, p. 3419.

14. ibid.

15. Evidence, p. 3466.

16. Evidence, p. 3441.

17. Evidence, p. 3418.

18. Evidence, p. 1257.

19. Evidence, p. 3422.

20. Evidence, p. 1461.

21. Evidence, p. 3421.

22. Evidence, p. 1460.

23 . Evidence, p. 1258.

24. Evidence, p. 3423.

25. Evidence, p. 1258.

26 . Evidence, p. 1013.

27. ibid.

28. Evidence, p. 3469.

29. Evidence, p. 3424.

30. Evidence, p. 1254.

31. Evidence, p. 1461.

32. Evidence, p. 1328.

33. Evidence, p. 1253 .

203

34. ibid.

35. Evidence, p. 3430.

36. Evidence, p. 3431.

37. Submission No. 219, (Ecosearch), p. 4.

38. Evidence, p. 3431.

39. Brennan, op. cit., p. 27.

40. Evidence, p. 1328.

41. Evidence, p. 1257.

42. Evidence, p. 2043.

43. Supplementary Evidence, Victorian Department Agriculture, 14 February 1985, Attachment 8.

44. Evidence, p. 1484.

45. Evidence, p. 3443.

46. Evidence, p. 3454.

47. Evidence, p. 1256.

48. Evidence, p. 1271.

49. Evidence, p. 1697.

50. Evidence, p. 3435.

51. Evidence, p. 3428.

52. Evidence, p. 3425.

53. Dr T. Kempton, (Ecosearch), Communication, 17 May 1985

54. Evidence, p. 1248.

55. ibid.

Chapter Eight

1. Evidence, p. 1030.

2. Evidence, p. S1284.

3. Grandin,

204

4. Evidence, pp. 1385-86.

5. Evidence, pp. 1388-89.

6. Australian Bureau of Animal Health : Sea Transport of Sheep. Canberra, 1981, p. 6.

7. Grandin, op. cit., p. 18.

8. Personal Communication, Dr B. Roberts, 28 January 1985.

9. Grandin, op. cit. , p. 18.

10. Personal Communication, 27 March 1984.

11. Evidence, p. 1030.

12. Evidence, p. 1252.

13. Evidence, p. 1388.

14. Grandin, op. cit., p. 16.

15. Evidence, p. 1260.

16. Standing Committee on Agriculture, Sub Committee on Animal Welfare : Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals £. : Sea Transport of Livestock. Draft, June 1983, p. 7.

17. Evidence, p. 1386.

18. Grandin, op. cit. , p. 20.

19. Brennan, op. cit., p. 45.

20. Australian Bureau of Animal Health : Standards for the Preparation and Carriage of Sheep by Sea. Canberra, 1982, p. 5.

21. Evidence, p. 1387.

22. ABAH : Sea Transport of Sheep, op. cit., p. 6.

23. Dobson, op. cit., p. 17.

24. Evidence, p. S306 0.

25. Evidence, p. 1389.

26. Grandin, op. cit., p. 20.

27. Grandin, op. cit. , p. 21.

28. Evidence, p. 1260.

205

29. ibid.

30. Evidence, p. 1259.

31. Brennan, op. cit., pp. 44-45.

32. Evidence, p. 2039.

33. Grandin, op. cit. , p. 21.

34. ibid.

35. Brennan, op. cit., p. 55.

36. Evidence, p. 1518.

Chapter Nine

1. Brennan, op. cit., p. 52.

2. Evidence, p. 1263.

3. Brennan, op. cit., p. 52.

4. ibid., p. 48.

5. Evidence, p. 1264.

6. Evidence, p. 477.

7. Evidence, p. 1264.

8. Evidence, p. 1265.

9. ibid.

10. Evidence, p. 1288.

11. Evidence, p. 973.

12. Evidence, p. 1277.

13. Evidence, p. 1286.

14. ABAH: Standards for the Preparation and Carriage of Sheep by Sea. Canberra, 1982, p. 11.

15. Dobson, op. cit., p. 9.

16. Evidence, p. 1338.

17. Dobson, op. cit., p. 9.

206

18. Evidence, p. 1272.

19. Marine Orders Part 43 15.5 Note 1.

20. Evidence, p. S2274.

21. D.V. Napthine: Study of Live Sheep Export Trade Department of Agriculture, Hamilton, 1981, p. 43.

22. Grandin, op. cit., p. 21.

23. ibid., p. 21.

24. Dobson, op. cit. , p. 8.

25. ABAH : Sea Transport of Sheep, op. cit., p. 8.

26. ibid., p. 7.

27. Evidence, p. 1249.

28. Department of Transport, communication 6 May 1985.

29. Evidence, p. 1249.

30. Evidence, p. 1276.

31. Grandin, op. cit., p. 22.

32. Marine Orders, 15.2(a).

33. Marine Orders, 15.1(b).

34. Evidence, p. 2019.

35. Dobson, op. cit. , p. 7.

36. Evidence, p. 1265.

37. Grandin, op. cit. , p. 24.

38. Napthine, op. cit., p. 17.

39. Evidence, p. 730.

40. Evidence, p. 1039.

41. ABAH : Sea Transport of Sheep, op. cit., p. 8.

42. Brennan, op. cit., p. 53.

43. Grandin, op. cit., p. 25.

Victorian

207

44. N.E. Tweddle : Developments in the Transport of Livestock by Sea and Sheep Health and Production Programmes in the United Kinadom and Ireland Victorian Department of Agriculture, Melbourne, 1984, ;

45. ibid., p. 5.

46. Brennan, op. cit., p. 50.

47. R.L. Willson : Report on Live Canberra, 1982, p. 5.

48. Grandin, op. cit., p. 24.

49. Napthine, op. cit., p. 17.

50. Evidence, p. S2276.

51. Evidence, p. 1287.

52. Brennan, op. cit., p. 51.

53. Evidence, p. 1268.

54. ABAH : Sea Transport of Sheep,

55. Evidence, p. 730.

56. Grandin, op. cit., p. 25.

57. Evidence, p. 1269.

58. ibid.

59. Napthine, op. cit., p. 18.

60. ibid.

61. Willson, op. cit., p. 5.

62. Evidence, p. S2276.

63. Grandin, op. cit., p. 22.

64. ibid.

65. ibid.

66. Tweddle, op. cit., p. 8.

67. Evidence, p. S1521.

68. Investigation of 1 Farid Fares' DOT, 28 March 1980, DOT Additional Information.

208

69. Melbourne Herald. 14 May 1984.

70. Grandin, op. cit., p. 26.

71. ibid., p. 11.

72. Tweddle, op. cit., p. 7.

73. Evidence, p. S1523.

74. R. Ludeking : 1 Transport of Live Sheep', A.1.1. Journal. August 1983, p. 35.

75. ibid., p. 34.

76. ibid., p. 35.

77. Evidence, p. 730.

78. Evidence, p. 712.

79. South Australian Department of Agriculture, Correspondence, 15 March 1985.

80. Evidence, pp. S3069-70.

81. Evidence, p. S3068.

82. Brennan, op. cit., pp. 58-61.

Chapter Ten

1. Evidence, p. 1288.

2. Evidence, p. S228.

3. Evidence, p. S3071.

4. Willson, op. cit., p. 6.

5. D.W. Paxton, Australian Livestock Imported for Slaughter in Arabia. ABAH, Canberra, 1983, p. 4.

6. Evidence, p. 2772.

7. Evidence, p. 2015 and Napthine, op. cit. , p. 34.

8. Submission 100B (C. Darter), p. 7.

9. World League for Protection of Animals et al. : The Truth About Live Sheep Exports. Sydney, 1982, p. 31.

10. Grandin, op. cit., p. 18.

209

11. H.R.C. Meischke : Results of Visit to Middle East Memoranda 20962. ΔΒΑΗ, Canberra, 1981, p. 4.

12. Brennan, op. cit., p. 64.

13. Dobson, op. cit., p. 16.

14. Willson, op. cit., p. 6.

15. Evidence, p. 1317,

16. Evidence, p. 2015.

17. Evidence, p. S2281.

18. Evidence, p. 1694.

19. Evidence, p. 2772.

20. Willson, op. cit., p. 6, Brennan, op. cit., p. 64.

21. Evidence, p. S228.

22. Evidence, pp. 2487 and 2120.

23. Willson, op.cit., p. 6.

24. World League for Protection of Animals et al : op. cit., p. 31.

25. Paxton, op. cit., p. 4.

26. Evidence, p. 478.

27. Paxton, op. cit., p. 5.

28 . ibid., p. 1.

29. Evidence, p. 2119.

30. Evidence, p. 2774.

31. Evidence, p. 1656.

32. Napthine, op. cit., pp. 35, 38, Evidence, pp. S2281, S2283.

33. Meischke, op. cit., p. 4.

34. Evidence, p. 478.

35. Napthine, op. cit., pp. 35, 39, Evidence pp. S281, S2283.

36. Meischke op. cit., p. 4.

210

37. Paxton, op. cit. , p. 3.

38. Evidence, p. 3530.

39. Meischke, op. cit., p. 2.

40. Napthine, op. cit., p. 35.

41. Paxton, op. cit. , p. 1.

42. Napthine, op. cit., p. 35.

43. ibid., p. 39.

44. Paxton, op. cit., p. 1.

45. Evidence, p. 1676.

46. Paxton, op. cit. , p. 2.

47. ibid., p. 5.

48. Napthine, op. cit., p. 36.

49. Evidence, p. S2283.

50. Napthine, op. cit., p. 35.

51. Evidence, p. S2283.

52. Brennan, op. cit., p. 64.

53. National Farmer. June 1984, pp. 14-27.

54. Evidence, p. 3533.

55. Evidence, p. 478.

56. Paxton, op. cit., p. 1.

57. Brennan, op. cit., p. 64.

58. Evidence, p. 1805.

59. Bayer AG : Stock Diseases. Leverkusen N.D., p. 55.

60. Stock and Land. 2 May 1985.

61. The Land. 18 April 1985.

62. Bayer, op. cit. , p. 62, World League for Protection of Animals et al.; op cit., p. 21.

211

63. Evidence, p. 478.

64. Paxton, op. cit., p. 2.

65. Bayer, op . cit. p. 179.

66. Meischke, op. cit., pp. 4, 5.

67. Napthine, op. cit. , p. 3 9.

68. Paxton, op. cit., p. 2.

69. ibid.

70. Evidence, p. 1663.

71. Evidence, p. 3340.

72. Evidence, p. 2778.

73. Evidence, p. 2779.

74. Evidence, p. 2050.

75. Evidence, p. 1664.

76. Meischke, op. cit. , p. 2.

77. Evidence, p. 1761.

' - J CO

Evidence, p. S3077 .

79. Evidence, p. 2363.

80. Evidence, p. 2380.

81. Napthine, op. cit. , p. 36.

82. Napthine, op. cit., p. 39.

83. Evidence, p. 2574. CO Evidence, p. 1672.

85. Evidence, p. 2119.

86. Evidence, p. 1772.

87. Evidence, p. 1805.

88. Evidence, p. 1806.

89. Meischke, op. cit. , p. 2.

212

90. World League for Protection of Animals et al.; op. cit. , p. 21, Evidence, p. S3 076.

91. Daily Mail (London) 24, 25 September 1984.

Chapter Eleven

1. Evidence, p. S1283.

2. Evidence, p. 22.

3. M. Midgley: Animals and Why they Matter. London 1983

4. ibid. , p. 42.

5. Evidence, p. 3104.

6. Evidence, p. 3105.

7. Evidence, p. 3125.

8. Evidence, p. 3105.

9. Evidence, p. S1751.

10. Evidence, p. 1528.

11. Evidence, p. 1529.

12. M. Rein : Social Science and Public Policy. London 1976, p. 40. "

13. House of Commons Agriculture Committee : Animal Welfare in Poultry. Pig and Veal Calf Production. Vol. 1. Report. Proceedings of the Committee and Appendices. London, 1982 (HMS0), p. 8.

14. ibid., p. 11.

15. Evidence, p. 2780.

16. A. Bullock & 0. Stallybrass (eds.) : Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought. London, 1977, p. 657.

17. T. Regan : All That Dwell Therein. London 1982 , p. 46.

18. ibid., p. 47.

19. ibid.

20. R. Marks : A Free Market for Heroin; Alternatives to Subsidising Organised Crime, paper delivered at the 14th Conference of Economists, May 1985, UNSW, quoted in Ihe Sydney Morning Herald 22 May 1985.

213

Chapter Twelve

1. Evidence, p. SI673.

2. Evidence, p. S2266.

3. Evidence, p. S2265.

4. ibid.

5. Michael Read and Associates : The Trade in Live Sheep and Employment in Meatworks. Geelong 1985, (Report prepared for the AMIEU), p. 20.

6. Submission No. 348 (Wool Council of Australia), p. 42.

7. Read, op. cit., p. 14.

8. National Country Life Livestock Year Book 1985. p. 93.

9. Evidence, p. 1960.

10. The Land. 2 August 1984.

11. Bureau of Agriculture Economics : Australian Live Sheep Exports (Occasional Paper No 81), Canberra 1983, p. 7.

12. Evidence, p. S2033.

13. Evidence, pp. 1725, 3125.

14. Evidence, p. 3125.

15. ibid.

16. Evidence, p. 3122.

17. Evidence, p. 3140.

18. J. Hutching: 'Lambs Wanted: Dead or Alive' New Zealand Journal of Agriculture. Vol 147, No. 5, November 1983.

19. Evidence, p. 3141.

20. Evidence, pp. 3142-3.

21. The Land. 8 July 1982, p. 18.

22. National Country Life Livestock Year Book 1985. p. 93.

23. Evidence, p. 3145.

24. Evidence, p. 3144.

214

25. Evidence, p. 3145.

26. Evidence, p. 3118.

27. Read, op. cit., p. (i) .

28. Evidence, p. S2033.

29. Evidence, p. 1736.

30. Evidence, p. S1735.

31. World League for the Protection of Animals Truth About Live Sheer» Exoorts. Svdnev. 19 82. et al. : The

32. Evidence, p. S1727.

33. Evidence, p. 2443.

34. Evidence, p. 3511.

35. Evidence, p. 3505.

36. Evidence, p. 2565.

37. Evidence, p. 2489.

38. Evidence, p. 1783.

39. Evidence, p. 1779.

40. Evidence, p. 3511.

41. Farm. June 1981. p. 56.

42. Evidence, p. 990.

43. Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Australia, Canberra, 1982, p. 2. and Defence : The Gul f

44. ibid., p. 4.

45. ibid., p. 2.

46. Evidence, p. S2037.

47. Stock and Land. 28 February 1985.

48. The Land, 28 February 1985.

49. Industries Assistance Commission : The Abattoir and Meat Processina Industry (Report No 313). Canberra 1983, p. 13.

215

50. Read, op. cit. , p. 44.

51. Read, op cit., p. 45, Industries Assistance Commission : Annual Report 1982-83.

52. Evidence, p. S2036.

53. Evidence, p. S2041.

54. Weekly Times. 12 September 1984.

55. Read, op. cit., p. 5.

56. Industries Assistance Commission : The Abattoir and Meat Processing Industry. Appendix H, p. 15.

57. Read, op. cit., p. 37.

58. Weekly Times. 29 August 1984, Stock and Land, 6 September 1984, The Land. 27 September 1984.

59. Evidence, p. 1688.

60. Evidence, p. S2044.

61. Evidence, p. S2045.

62. New Zealand High Commission, Communication, 24 September 1984 .

63. National Farmer. 7-20 February 1985, p. 29.

64. Evidence, p. S1690.

65. BAE : Australian Live Sheep Exports, op. cit. , p. 43.

66. Evidence, p. 3123.

67. BAE : Australian Live Sheep Exports, op. cit. , p. 46.

68. ibid., p. 47.

69. ibid.

70. Read, op. cit., p. 17.

71. ibid., p. 19.

72. IAC : The Abattoir and Meat Processing Industry, op. cit., p. 20.

73. Department of Primary Industry : Report of the Australian Sheep Meat Study Mission to the Middle East March-April 1982 Canberra 1982, p. 17.

216

Chapter Fourteen

1. Evidence, p. S3051.

2. National Farmer. 2 May 1985, p. 30.

3. The Land. 20 December 1984, Launceston Examiner. 3 October 1984.

4. The Land. 20 December 1984.

5. National Farmer. 2 May 1985 p. 30.

6. ibid.

7. Stock and Land. 31 May 1984, Southern Rural . 21 September 1984

8. Stock and Land. 15 November 1984, Southern Rural. 21 September 1984.

9. Evidence, p. 1228.

10. National Farmer. 28 June 1984.

11. The Land. 31 May 1984.

12. Evidence, p. 1486.

13. Evidence, p. 1226.

14. National Country Life Livestock, Winter 1984, p. 22.

15. Evidence, p. 1225.

16. Evidence, p. 1974.

17. Stock and Land. 25 April 1985.

18. Evidence, p. 1225.

19. National Farmer. 4-17 October 1984.

20. The Land. 31 May 1984.

21. The Land. 15 November 1984.

22. Evidence, p. 1486.

23. The Land. 15 November 1984.

24. National Farmer. 2 May 1985.

217

25. ibid.

26. Stock and Land. 25 April 1985.

27. Stock and Land. 25 April 1985.

Chapter Thirteen

1. BAE : Australian Live Sheep Exports, op. cit., p.

2. Department of Primary Industry : Report of the Sheep Meat Study Mission to the Middle East. 1982, p. 4. "

3.

4.

5.

ibid.

ibid., p. 6.

National Farmer. 1

6.

7.

ibid., p. 28

ibid.

•

8. Evidence, p. 2111.

9. Evidence, p. 2578.

10. Evidence, pp . 2449

11. Evidence, p. 1786.

12. Joint Committee or and Australia, o d .

13. Evidence, p. 964.

14. Evidence, p. 965.

15. Evidence, p. 1791.

16. Evidence, p. 1792.

17. Evidence, p. 1781.

18. Evidence, p. 3577.

19. Evidence, p. 3562.

to o

Evidence, p. 2571.

21. Evidence, p. 3512.

22. Evidence, p. 3563.

Australian Canberra,

19.

: The Gulf

218

Evidence, p. 357 4.

Evidence, p. 3578.

Evidence, p. 1780.

Evidence, p. 2568.

BAE : Australian Live Sheep Exports, op cit., p. 21.

ibid.

Supplementary evidence ALEA (passim), 6 August 1984.

Evidence, p. 2568.

Evidence, p. 1779.

Evidence, p. 1783.

Farm. June 1981, p. 56.

Sheepmeat Council of Australia, news release, 6 May 1982.

New Zealand Journal of Agriculture. November 1983, p. 3.

Stock and Land. 20 December 1984, Weekly Times. 16 January 1985.

Evidence, p. 1696.

Evidence, p. 1666.

Evidence, p. 3575.

Evidence, p. 1694.

Evidence, p. 1004.

Evidence, p. 3135.

Evidence, p. 2112.

Evidence, p. 1778.

Australian Financial Review. 26 August 1982.

DPI : 1982 Mission Report, op. cit., p. 15.

Australian Financial Review. 8 June 1982.

15 March 1983

49. AMLC Annual Report 1982-83. p. 82.

50. Evidence, p. 3550.

51. AMLC Annual Reoort 1982/83. pp. 83-84. AMLC Annual Renort 1983/84 pp. 64-65.

52. Evidence, p. 3548.

53. Meischke, op. cit. , pp. 3-4.

54. DPI : Ί982 Mission Report1, op. cit., p. 7.

55. ibid., p. 15.

56. Meischke, op. cit. , p. 3.

57. DPI : '1982 Mission Report', op. cit. , p. 7.

58. ibid. , p. 8.

59. Paxton, op. cit., p. 2.

60. Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence Evidence p. 115. 1981-82 ,

61. Weekly Times. May 1985.

62. Stock and Land, 16 May 1985.

63. The Land. 16 May 1985.

64. National Farmer, 30 May 1985.

65. The Land. 20 September 1984.

66. Evidence, p. 3549.

67. Weeklv Times. 1 Mav 1985.

68. National Farmer. 7 March 1985.

69. Evidence, p. S2040.

70. Evidence, pp. 983, 1692.

71. Evidence, pp. 995, 1659, 1692.

72. Evidence, p. S2040.

73. Evidence, p. 1785.

74. M. Johnson, Department of Trade Memorandum, 7 4. July 1984, p.

220

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80 .

Evidence, p. 2448.

Evidence, p. 3128.

Evidence, p. 995.

Evidence, p. 2571.

Evidence, p. 1685.

Johnson, op. cit., of Live Sheep in p. 3., W. Proctor : the Middle East BAE 1985, pp. 28--30.

81. Evidence, p. 2576, Proctor, op. cit., pp

82. Evidence, p. 1686, Proctor, op. cit. , pp

83. Evidence, p. 1784.

84. Evidence, pp,. 1659, 1686.

85. Proctor, op. cit. , p. 38.

86. Evidence, p. 1784, Proctor, op. cit., pp

87. Evidence, p. 995.

88. Evidence, p. 995.

89. Evidence, p. 3515.

90. Johnson, op. cit. , p. 4.

91. Evidence, p. 1687 .

92. Evidence, p. 1686 .

93. Evidence, p. 2576.

94. Proctor, op. cit. , p. 39.

95. ibid., p. 36 •

96. Evidence, p. 1712.

97. Proctor, op. cit. , pp. 36-37.

Chapter Fifteen

1. Evidence, p. 2044.

2. Brennan, op. cit., p. 3.

ompetina (Draft)

26-28.

34-35.

30-31.

221

Suppliers Canberra,

3

4. Evidence, p. 1333.

5. Evidence, p. 1334.

6. ibid.

7. Evidence, p. 1214.

8. Evidence, p. 1647.

9. Evidence, p. 3295.

10. Brennan, op. cit. , p. 2.

11. Evidence, p. 1214.

12. Evidence, p. 1648.

13. Evidence, p. 1649.

14. Evidence, p. 1331.

15. Evidence, p. 980.

16. Submission, (Wool Council of Australia) p. 44.

17. Evidence, p. 1223.

18. ibid.

Chapter Sixteen

1. Evidence, p. 1265.

2. Evidence, p. 1267.

3. Evidence, p. S2270.

4. Evidence, p. S2271.

5. Evidence, pp. S1699-S1700.

6. Evidence, p. S2194.

7. Evidence, p. 2013.

8. Evidence, p. 2042.

9. Victorian Department of Agriculture Supplementary Evidence Attachment 7, 14 February 1985.

10. Evidence, p. 864.

Evidence, p. 3295.

222

11.

12. Tweddle, op. cit.,

13. Melbourne Herald,

14. Evidence, p. 872.

15. Evidence, p. 3299.

Evidence, p. 2001.

p. 14.

14 May 1984.

223

APPENDIX 1

LIST OP WITNESSES WHO APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE

Alden, Mr R.B., Member, Australian Council of Livestock Agents, Melbourne, Victoria Al-Dukhayyil, Mr A.A., Managing Director, Saudi Livestock Transport and Trading Co., Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Arnold, Dr P., Member, Association of Livestock Transport Veterinarians, Perth, Western Australia Arundel, Dr J.H., President, Australian Veterinary Association Ltd, Sydney, New South Wales Auty, Mr J.H., Assistant Director, Australian Agricultural

Health and Quarantine Service, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Barber, Mr P.J., State Director, RSPCA Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria

Batey, Dr R.G., Member, Association of Livestock Transport Veterinarians, Perth, Western Australia Beeby, Mr L.D., Manager, Livestock Services Section, Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, Sydney, New South Wales

Blandford, Mr P.B., President, Sheepmeat Council of Australia, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Bos, Dr A., Research Officer, National Farmers Federation, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory

Bowden, Mr W.D., Manager, Livestock Export and Transit, Elders IXL Limited, Adelaide, South Australia Brownlie, Mr L.E., Director, Technical Services, Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, Sydney, New South Wales Burton, Mr V.C., Livestock Export Manager, Metro Meat Ltd,

Adelaide, South Australia Campbell, Mr P.H., Veterinary Officer, Tasmanian Department of Agriculture, Hobart, Tasmania Clark, Mr A.R., Principal Livestock Officer, Grazing Industries,

NSW Department of Agriculture, Sydney, New South Wales Crone, Mr W.P., Senior Assistant Secretary, Ship Safety Branch, Department of Transport, Canberra, Australian Capital

Territory Davis, Mr E.J., Principal Livestock Officer (Regulatory), NSW Department of Agriculture, Sydney, New South Wales Davis, Mr I.G.R., Acting Assistant Director, Livestock Services

Branch, Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Dixon, Mr B.R., Chairman, Sale by Description Committee, Australian Council of Livestock Agents, Melbourne, Victoria,

and Executive Director - Livestock, Elders IXL Limited, Pastoral Group, Adelaide, South Australia Dobson, Dr K.J., Principal Veterinary Officer, South Australian Department of Agriculture, Adelaide, South Australia Donnellan, Mr A.M., Consultant, Australian Livestock Exporters'

Association, Melbourne, Victoria

225

Dransfield, Mr J., Australian Federation of Animal Societies, Sydney, New South Wales Earl, Mr L.J., Chairman, Australian Council of Livestock Agents, Melbourne, Victoria Elliott, Mr R.R.F., Chief Marine Surveyor, Ship Safety Branch,

Department of Transport, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Fletcher, Mr A.C., Perth, Western Australia Franklin, Dr D.A,, Consultant Veterinarian, Australian Livestock

Exporters' Association, Perth, Western Australia Gee, Mr R.W., Acting Director, Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Gillham, Mr R.J., Veterinary Officer, Tasmanian Department of

Agriculture, Hobart, Tasmania Griffith, Mr S.J., Director of Marketing Services, NSW Department of Agriculture, Sydney, New South Wales Haddleton, Mr. K., Manager, Feedlots and Quality Control, Saudi

Livestock Transport and Trading Co., Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Harries, Lt Colonel M.J., Secretary, RSPCA South Australia Inc., Adelaide, South Australia Harris, Dr D.G., Principal Veterinary Officer, Disease Control,

Western Australian Department of Agriculture, Perth, Western Australia Healy, Mr B.P., Assistant Director, Animal Disease Control, NSW Department of Agriculture, Sydney, New South Wales Hindson, Mr N., Assistant Manager, Livestock Division, Elders

International Areas, Melbourne, Victoria Holland, Mr N.L, Producer Representative, National Farmers Federation, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Hollingsworth, Dr T.C., Member, Association of Livestock

Transport Veterinarians, Perth, Western Australia Hore, Dr D.E., Deputy Director-General, Victorian Department of Agriculture, Melbourne, Victoria Hughes, Mr C. , Senior Livestock Officer, Livestock Services

Section, Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, Sydney, New South Wales James, Mr K.R., Immediate Past President, Sheepmeat Council of Australia, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Johnson, Mr D.S., Director, J.T. Johnson and Son (Trading) Pty

Ltd, Kapunda, South Australia Jones, Dr T.E., President-Elect, Australian Veterinary Association Ltd, Sydney, New South Wales Jones, Mr W., Inspector, RSPCA Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania Jordan, Mr R.S., Acting Managing Director, Australian Meat and

Livestock Corporation, Sydney, New South Wales Kearnan, Mr J.R., Meat and Livestock Supervisor, Saudi Livestock Transport and Trading Co., Adelaide, South Australia Kimberley, Mr W.R., Trade Export Manager, RMS Australia

(Holding) Pty Ltd, Sydney, New South Wales King, Mr P.A., Chairman, Australian Livestock Exporters' Association, Perth, Western Australia Koh, Dr S.H., Senior Veterinary Officer (Quarantine and Export),

South Australian Department of Agriculture, Adelaide, South Australia

226

Lazki, Mr M., Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, Sydney, New South Wales Leng, Professor R.A., Armidale, New South Wales MacNamara, Mr J.R., Director, Public Relations, National Farmers

Federation, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Mackie, Dr D.N., Deputy Chairman, RSPCA South Australia Inc., Adelaide, South Australia Mactaggart, Mr D.C., Deputy Chairman, Australian Livestock

Exporters' Association, Perth , Western Australia McDonald, Mr C.L., Research Officer, Sheep and Wool Branch, Western Australian Department of Agriculture, South Perth, Western Australia

McManus, Professor W.R., Sydney, New South Wales Meischke, Dr H.R.C., Acting Principal Veterinary Officer, Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Millar, Dr H.W.C., Principal Veterinary Officer, Animal

Quarantine, Victorian Department of Agriculture, Melbourne, Victoria Miller, Dr P.L., Associate Member, Association of Livestock Transport Veterinarians, Perth, Western Australia Moore, Mr B.L., Acting Principal Veterinary Officer, Australian

Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Moxham, Mr R., Secretary, Sheepmeat Council of Australia, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory

Napthine, Dr D.V., Regional Veterinary Officer, South West Victoria, Victorian Department of Agriculture, Melbourne, Victoria O'Toole, Mr J., Federal Secretary, Australian Meat Industry

Employees Union, Sydney, New South Wales Purcell, Dr D.A., Chief Veterinary Pathologist, Animal Health Laboratories, Western Australian Department of Agriculture, Perth, Western Australia Reeves, Dr G.W., Chief Commodity Analyst and Acting Deputy

Director, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Rose, Dr M.A., Australian Veterinary Association Ltd, Sydney, New South Wales Ryan, Mr F.B., Chief Veterinary Officer, Tasmanian Department of

Agriculture, Hobart, Tasmania Saleem, Mr A., Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, Sydney, New South Wales Schulz, Mr D., Stock Inspector, South Australian Department of

Agriculture, Adelaide, South Australia Shaw, Mr F.D., Consultant, Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, Sydney, New South Wales Singer, Professor P., Australian Federation of Animal Societies,

Melbourne, Victoria Skeen, Mr K.A. , Member, Australian Council of Livestock Agents, Melbourne, Victoria Stacey, Mr A.H., Honorary State President, RSPCA Tasmania,

Launceston, Tasmania Strachan, Mr J.F., President, RSPCA Australia Inc. , Adelaide, South Australia

227

Thenayan, Mr A.R.M., Assistant Managing Director, Saudi Livestock Transport and Trading Co., Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Townend, Ms C., President, Animal Liberation (NSW), Sydney, New South Wales Turner, Dr A.J., Chief, Division of Product Standards and

Quarantine, Victorian Department of Agriculture, Melbourne, Victoria Turner, Mr D.L., Senior Assistant Secretary, Ship Safety Branch, Department of Transport, Canberra, Australian Capital

Territory Wicks, Mr I.C. , Live Sheep Buying Manager, Metro Meat Ltd., Adelaide, South Australia Wirth, Dr H.J., Vice-President, RSPCA Australia Inc. , and

President, RSPCA Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria Witt, Mr D.J., Senior Veterinary Officer, Tasmanian Department of Agriculture, Hobart, Tasmania Wright, Mr C.M., Executive Director, RSPCA Australia Inc.,

Canberra, Australian Capital Territory

228