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: 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]