Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T04:11:27.337Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stakeholders' assessment of welfare indicators for sheep and cattle exported by sea from Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

MK Pines ,
JC Petherick ,
JB Gaugha  and
CJC Phillips
MK Pines
Affiliation:
Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia
JC Petherick
Affiliation:
Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, PO Box 6014, Rockhampton, QLD 4702, Australia
JB Gaugha
Affiliation:
Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia School of Animal Studies, The University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia
CJC Phillips*
Affiliation:
Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: c.phillips@uq.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An adaptive conjoint analysis was used to evaluate stakeholders’ opinion of welfare indicators for ship-transported sheep and cattle, both onboard and in pre-export depots. In consultations with two nominees of each identified stakeholder group (government officials, animal welfare representatives, animal scientists, stockpersons, producers/pre-export depot operators, exporters/ship owners and veterinarians), 18 potential indicators were identified. Three levels were assigned to each using industry statistics and expert opinion, representing those observed on the best and worst 5% of voyages and an intermediate value. A computer-based questionnaire was completed by 135 stakeholders (48% of those invited). All indicators were ranked by respondents in the assigned order, except fodder intake, in which case providing the amount necessary to maintain bodyweight was rated better than over or underfeeding, and time in the pre-export assembly depot, in which case 5 days was rated better than 0 or 10 days. The respective Importance Values (a relative rating given by the respondent) for each indicator were, in order of declining importance: mortality (8.6%), clinical disease incidence (8.2%), respiration rate (6.8%), space allowance (6.2%), ammonia levels (6.1%), weight change (6.0%), wet bulb temperature (6.0%), time in assembly depot (5.4%), percentage of animals in hospital pen (5.4%), fodder intake (5.2%), stress-related metabolites (5.0%), percentage of feeding trough utilised (5.0%), injuries (4.8%), percentage of animals able to access food troughs at any one time (4.8%), percentage of animals lying down (4.7%), cortisol concentration (4.5%), noise (3.9%), and photoperiod (3.4%). The different stakeholder groups were relatively consistent in their ranking of the indicators, with all groups nominating the same top two and at least five of the top seven indicators. Some of the top indicators, in particular mortality, disease incidence and temperature, are already recorded in the Australian industry, but the study identified potential new welfare indicators for exported livestock, such as space allowance and ammonia concentration, which could be used to improve welfare standards if validated by scientific data. The top indicators would also be useful worldwide for countries engaging in long distance sea transport of livestock.

Keywords

adaptive conjoint analysisanimal welfarecattlelive exportsea transportsheep
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , November 2007 , pp. 489 - 498
Copyright
© 2007 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ainsworth, R 2003 Stockman's handbook. Transport of cattle by sea: Short and long haul voyages. LiveCorp Ltd: Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Black, H, Matthews, LR and Bremner, KJ 1994 The behaviour of male lambs transported by sea from New Zealand to Saudi-Arabia. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 42: 16–23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brightling, T and Lightfoot, J 2003 Stockman's handbook (sheep and goats), 3rd Edition. LiveCorp Ltd: Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Butterworth, A, Sadler, L, Knowles, TG and Kestin, SC 2004 Evaluating possible indicators of insensibility and death in cetacean. Animal Welfare 13: 13–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, N, Accioly, J and Cake, M 2003 Determining critical atmospheric levels for cattle, sheep and goats. A literature review. Meat and Livestock Australia Ltd: Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 2006 Version 2.1 Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 2006 Livestock mortality for Exports by Sea. http://www.affa.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID = IEDFD707-C171-4570-8BBA49A6536CCD28. Updated on the 24 February 2006Google Scholar
Fregonesi, JA and Leaver, JD 2002 Influence of space allowance and milk yield level on behaviour, performance and health of dairy cows housed in strawyard and cubicle systems. Livestock Production Science 78: 245–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaughan, JB, Mader, TL, Savage, D and Young, BA 1996 Effect of feeding regime on feed intake of cattle exposed to heat. Australian Society for Animal Production 21: 223–226Google Scholar
Mader, TL, Holt, SM, Hahn, GL, Davis, MS and Spiers, DE 2002 Feeding strategies for managing heat load in feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 80: 2373–2382Google ScholarPubMed
Main, DCJ, Whay, HR, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Preliminary investigation into the use of expert opinion to compare the overall welfare of dairy cattle farms in different farm assurance schemes. Animal Welfare 12: 565–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maunsell Australia 2004 Investigation of the ventilation efficacy on livestock vessels. Meat and Livestock Australia Ltd: Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Orme, B 2002 ACA user manual. Version 5. Sawtooth Software: Evanston, IL, USAGoogle Scholar
Parrott, RF, Hall, SJG and Lloyd, DM 1998 Heart rate and stress hormone responses of sheep to road transport following two different loading procedures. Animal Welfare 7: 257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, CJC 2005 Ethical perspectives of the Australian live export trade. Australian Veterinary Journal 83: 558–562CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tarrant, V and Grandin, T 2000 Cattle transport. In: Grandin, T (ed) Livestock Handling and Transport, 2nd Edition pp 151–175. CABI Publishing: New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tudor, G, Accioly, J, Pethick, D, Costa, N, Taylor, E and White, C 2003 Decreasing shipboard ammonia levels by optimising the nutritional performance of cattle and the environment on ship during live export. Meat and Livestock Australia Ltd: Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar