Search

Sustainability credentialling is the communication of environmental, social, economic, or animal-welfare-related information about a producer or product. Demand for sustainability credentials has been increasing and the aim of this study was to describe the main drivers for this kind of information in Australian red meat value chains that reach consumers across Australia and internationally, mainly in Asia, the USA, and the Middle East. The mixed methods approach included consultation with red meat processors. Desk-based research explored drivers from outside the value chain identified in the consultation. Little evidence was found that consumers are a driver of sustainability credentialling. The main drivers were in the global financial system, expressed in coordinated climate action policies by financial service providers and emerging government climate-related financial legislation. The inclusion of Scope 3 emissions extends coverage to most value chain participants. Net zero transitioning presents many risks to red meat value chains, potentially involving costly interventions and greater difficulty accessing financial services, with direct implications for production costs and asset values. Urgent action is recommended to achieve the formal recognition and use of climate metrics that differentiate the management strategies that are applicable to short-lived biogenic methane compared to CO2 to achieve the Paris Agreement goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Religious slaughter has recently attracted public attention as a result of media portrayal of several high-profile Australian and international events. The requirements of domestic religious slaughter practice, including animal welfare provisions, appear to be poorly understood by the Australian public. This paper summarizes the welfare science and regulatory framework around halal and shechita slaughter in Australia. Current knowledge on public viewpoints on these practices is examined, and areas for future social science research are proposed. In spite of wide-ranging and extensive animal welfare protection being provided by the law, we propose that the complexity of the legislative arrangement reduces transparency and undermines the strength of protection to animals provided by law. Avenues for legal reform are proposed. There is also a need for more active public engagement to increase community knowledge about religious slaughter practices, and to counter Islamophobia and anti-Semitic attitudes. While religious slaughter is not a new practice in Australia, it has recently attracted public concern regarding questions of animal welfare following unfavourable media coverage. However, the details of religious slaughter practices, including related animal welfare provisions, appear to be poorly understood by the Australian public, and no existing literature concisely synthesises current regulations, practices, and issues. This paper addresses this gap by examining the processes associated with various types of religious slaughter and associated animal welfare issues, by reviewing the relevant legislation and examining public views, while highlighting areas for further research, particularly in Australia. The paper finds shortcomings in relation to transparency and understanding of current practices and regulation and suggests a need for more clear and consistent legislative provisions, as well as increased independence from industry in the setting of the standards, enforcement and administration of religious slaughter. A starting point for legal reform would be the relocation of important provisions pertaining to religious slaughter from delegated codes to the responsible act or regulation, ensuring proper parliamentary oversight. In addition, more active public engagement must occur, particularly with regard to what constitutes legal practices and animal welfare standards in the Australian context to overcome ongoing conflict between those who oppose religious slaughter and the Muslim and Jewish communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Animal cruelty or neglect is an emotive social issue. Animal welfare legislation is the primary tool for defining, penalizing and hopefully deterring animal cruelty. A number of issues arising at all stages of the animal law enforcement process have been previously identified. These issues contribute to a discrepancy between the written law and the realities of the animal law enforcement process: the 'enforcement gap'. This paper reviews the available resources to identify the causes of this 'gap'. It is argued that the 'gap' is caused by numerous factors derived from all stages of the enforcement process: (1) reporting acts of animal cruelty, (2) ambiguity and shortcomings derived from the language used in animal welfare legislation (3) the nature of enforcement authorities, and (4) court determination on the matter. In order to reduce the enforcement gap and bring the expectations closer to reality, further research is needed. Previous research has identified a number of issues arising at all stages of the animal law enforcement process. These issues contribute to an enforcement gap between the written law, as it relates to the penalties laid out in statutes, and the reality of the animal law justice system. This paper identifies and investigates the contributors to this gap. The identified factors discussed are (1) the role of the public in reporting animal cruelty, (2) the ambiguity of the language used in animal welfare legislation, (3) the nature of enforcement authorities, and (4) the role of the courts. Thus, the causes of the enforcement gap are multifactorial, derived from all stages of the enforcement process. Further research on the enforcement model and public education, in addition to debate on legislative reforms, will be needed to address this gap. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Animal welfare policy regarding husbandry practices in sheep in Australia differs between states and territories. This dis-uniformity of the legislature can be confusing and limit the application of the law, particularly with growing pressure from the local and global community to improve animal welfare. The influence of scientific evidence contributing to the development of these policies is unclear. This article explores the Australian animal welfare legislature and the scientific evidence informing husbandry practices commonly performed at lamb marking. The development and substance of animal welfare policy is subject to a range of social, cultural, economic, and scientific influences that commonly vary within and between countries. Discrepancies in policy can create confusion and mistrust among stakeholders and consumers and limit the ability to create a uniform minimum level of requirements to safeguard animal welfare, as well as create a level 'playing field' for farmers when trading with other jurisdictions. The livestock sector is receiving growing scrutiny globally for real and perceived violations of animal welfare, for example, the practice of mulesing in Australia. This article explores animal welfare legislation within Australia and how it reflects the scientific evidence surrounding routine husbandry practices in sheep, including tail docking, castration, and mulesing. While there is some variation between state and territory legislation, the most notable concern is the lack of enforceable recommendations surrounding the evidence-based use of analgesia and anaesthesia for painful husbandry procedures. The age at which these procedures are recommended to be performed is relatively consistent across Australian jurisdictions, but there is a marked difference compared to international legislation. The global context of animal welfare legislation, public perception, and producer perception of these procedures are also discussed, highlighting the difficulty of creating robust animal welfare legislation that promotes a good standard of welfare that is respected worldwide whilst being practical in an Australian setting given our unique geography and climatic conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ticks and tick-borne pathogens pose a significant threat to the health and welfare of humans and animals. Our knowledge about pathogens carried by ticks of Australian wildlife is limited. This study aimed to characterise ticks and tick-borne microorganisms from a range of wildlife species across six sites in Victoria, Australia. Following morphological and molecular characterisation (targeting 16S rRNA and cytochrome c oxidase I), tick DNA extracts (n = 140) were subjected to microfluidic real-time PCR-based screening for the detection of microorganisms and Rickettsia-specific real-time qPCRs. Five species of ixodid ticks were identified, including Aponomma auruginans, Ixodes (I.) antechini, I. kohlsi, I. tasmani and I. trichosuri. Phylogenetic analyses of 16S rRNA sequences of I. tasmani revealed two subclades, indicating a potential cryptic species. The microfluidic real-time PCR detected seven different microorganisms as a single (in 13/45 ticks) or multiple infections (27/45). The most common microorganisms detected were Apicomplexa (84.4%, 38/45) followed by Rickettsia sp. (55.6%, 25/45), Theileria sp. (22.2% 10/45), Bartonella sp. (17.8%, 8/45), Coxiella-like sp. (6.7%, 3/45), Hepatozoon sp. (2.2%, 1/45), and Ehrlichia sp. (2.2%, 1/45). Phylogenetic analyses of four Rickettsia loci showed that the Rickettsia isolates detected herein potentially belonged to a novel species of Rickettsia. This study demonstrated that ticks of Australian wildlife carry a diverse array of microorganisms. Given the direct and indirect human–wildlife–livestock interactions, there is a need to adopt a One Health approach for continuous surveillance of tick-associated pathogens/microorganisms to minimise the associated threats to animal and human health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: In Australia, animal welfare protection is a state and territory responsibility. Having eight separate state and territories results in eight separate animal welfare legal frameworks, all which contain a primary piece of legislation and secondary or subordinate forms of legislation. These subordinate forms are known as regulations and codes of practice and are lower-ranking laws that are given powers under the primary legislation. Subordinate laws contain crucial details that govern everyday human–animal interactions and industry practices, for example companion animals used for breeding. There has been no review of the animal welfare-focused subordinate laws in Australia. This study has assembled each animal welfare regulation and code of practice in force in Australia as a reference for practitioners working in specific animal-related areas to easily identify relevant documents pertaining to welfare and understand the nature of their responsibilities in terms of compliance with these documents. A total of 201 pieces of subordinate legislation were identified and presented through the following utility categories of animals: companion, production, wild/exotic, entertainment. The benefits of housing the information identified from this study on an online database for animal industries to use are discussed. The state-based approach to regulating animal welfare in Australia is thought to create national dis-uniformity in that each state and territory legislates and operates inconsistently. The animal welfare legal framework in each of the eight Australian jurisdictions is made up of a primary statute and subordinate legislation, where subordinate animal welfare legislation, in the forms of regulations and codes of practices, are lower-ranking laws that are given power under the jurisdiction's specific animal welfare statute. Since a review of animal welfare statutes identified broad patterns between the jurisdictions, this study is intended to be complementary by collating the subordinate legislation to provide a more comprehensive understanding of animal welfare laws in Australia. Using targeted search strategies stemming from the eight enabling animal welfare statutes, this study identified 201 pieces of subordinate legislation in force between 28 March 2022 and 5 April 2022. The scope of subordinate legislation is depicted through the following utility categories of animals: companion, production, wild/exotic, entertainment. Whilst subordinate legislation differed between the jurisdictions, it was common for similar welfare concerns or topic areas to be protected in higher-order legislation (statutes or regulations). Additionally, many jurisdictions were found to have similar shortcomings, all which likely could be managed through a mechanism of national data collection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the study was to assess pain in Bos indicus bull calves following surgical castration. Forty-two animals were randomised to four groups: no castration (NC, n = 6); castration with pre-operative lidocaine (CL, n = 12); castration with pre-operative meloxicam (CM, n = 12); and, castration alone (C, n = 12). Bodyweight was measured regularly and pedometers provided data on activity and rest from day -7 (7 days prior to surgery) to 13. Blood was collected for the measurement of serum amyloid A (SAA), haptoglobin, fibrinogen, and iron on days 0, 3 and 6. Bodyweight and pedometry data were analysed with a mixed effect model. The blood results were analysed with repeated measure one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). There was no treatment effect on bodyweight or activity. The duration of rest was greatest in the CM group and lowest in the C group. There was a significant increase in the concentrations of SAA, haptoglobin, and fibrinogen in all of the groups from day 0 to 3. Iron concentrations were not different at the time points it was measured. The results of this study suggest that animals rest for longer periods after the pre-operative administration of meloxicam. The other objective assessments measured in this study were not able to consistently differentiate between treatment groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Australia does not have any federal legislation pertaining to animal welfare; thus, the responsibilities lie with each state and territory. This situation has led to eight different pieces of animal welfare legislation across the country, with potentially distinct content and avenues for interpretation. These differences may create problems for the enforcement of animal welfare law, and hence it has been suggested that a uniform approach is required. However, before such an approach can be considered, the extent of the inconsistencies between the states and territories needs to be assessed. This review compares the differences between state and territory animal welfare laws to determine the presence and nature of any major inconsistencies. A total of 436 primary pieces of legislation were reviewed, with 42 included in the detailed analysis. Animal welfare laws were found to be generally consistent across the states and territories of Australia, but with some important shortcomings that are discussed. Animal welfare is not included in the Australian Constitution, rendering it a residual power of the states and territories. Commentators have suggested that inconsistencies exist between the state and territory statutes, and that a uniform approach would be beneficial. However, there has been no comprehensive assessment of the nature or extent of these purported inconsistencies. This review addresses this gap by providing a state-by-state comparison of animal protection statutes based on key provisions. Utilizing systematic review methodology, every current Australian statute with an enforceable protection provision relating to animal welfare was identified. A total of 436 statutes were examined, with 42 statutes being included in the detailed analysis. The comparison showed that animal protection laws are generally consistent between each Australian jurisdiction and were found to have similar shortcomings, notably including lack of a consistent definition of 'animal' and reliance on forms of legal punishment to promote animal welfare which have questionable effectiveness. It is argued that there is a need for attention to definitions of key terms and future consideration of alternative forms of penalties, but that a uniform federal approach may not be necessary to address these shortcomings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) is advocated as an effective, humane and ethical solution to problems caused by stray cats living in close association with human habitations. In Australia, TNR has previously been rejected by the Federal Government and the Australian Veterinary Association as an inappropriate management strategy for stray cats. Despite this, and public support for the control of cat numbers and legislative initiatives, calls persist for widespread trials of TNR. We review TNR literature that report empirical data to assess whether TNR resolves problems caused by stray cats and whether cats released under TNR would have a good quality of life. We identify ten ethical and welfare challenges that any cat control program must consider, particularly if cats are to be returned to urban environments. Simply, the weight of these data indicate that TNR cat management is unlikely to solve the problems in most cases and is unethical on animal welfare grounds. We argue instead for a holistic approach to reducing cat numbers using targeted adoption, early-age desexing and community education initiatives. Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) programs, in which stray cats are captured, neutered and returned to the environment are advocated as a humane, ethical alternative to euthanasia. We review the TNR literature in light of current debate over whether or not there should be further TNR trials in Australia. We revisit the problems arising from stray cats living in association with human habitation and estimate how many stray cats would have to be processed through a scientifically-guided TNR program to avoid high euthanasia rates. We also identify 10 ethical and welfare challenges that have to be addressed: we consider the quality of life for stray cats, where they would live, whether the TNR process itself is stressful, whether TNR cats are vulnerable to injury, parasites and disease, can be medically treated, stray cats' body condition and diet, and their impacts on people, pet cats, and urban wildlife, especially endemic fauna. We conclude that TNR is unsuitable for Australia in almost all situations because it is unlikely to resolve problems caused by stray cats or meet ethical and welfare challenges. Targeted adoption, early-age desexing, community education initiatives and responsible pet ownership have greater promise to minimize euthanasia, reduce numbers rapidly, and address the identified issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]