A Review of Legal Regulation of Religious Slaughter in Australia: Failure to Regulate or a Regulatory Fail?

How Well Does Australian Animal Welfare Policy Reflect Scientific Evidence: A Case Study Approach Based on 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.

Values of Australian Meat Consumers Related to Sheep and Beef Cattle Welfare: What Makes a Good Life and a Good Death?

There has been growing global interest in livestock animal welfare. Previous research into attitudes towards animal welfare has focused on Europe and the United States, with comparatively little focus on Australia, which is an important location due to the prominent position of agriculture economically and culturally. In this article, we present results from qualitative research on how Australian meat consumers conceptualise sheep and beef cattle welfare. The study was conducted in two capital cities (Melbourne, Victoria and Adelaide, South Australia) and a much smaller rural centre (Toowoomba, Queensland) using focus groups (involving 40.9% of participants) and mall-intercept interviews (59.1% of participants), totalling 66 participants. Qualitative analysis highlights that participants had clear ideas of what it means for an animal to live a 'good life' and experience a 'good death,' with their beliefs strongly tied to their expectations and cultural understandings of what Australian agriculture 'should be.' In response to open-ended questions, participants expressed attitudes that relied on romanticised visions of the 'rural idyll' as seen in frequent discussions about what is 'normal' for sheep meat and beef production, and relatedly, what count as 'natural behaviours.' Many participants rejected anything associated with the 'other,' classifying it as not 'normal': we argue that which is not considered normal, including intensive production, foreign ownership, and halal slaughter practices, appear to place participants' conceptualizations of an animal's 'good death,' and in turn the potential for a 'good life,' at risk.

Pain at the Slaughterhouse in Ruminants with a Focus on the Neurobiology of Sensitisation

Simple Summary

We pose based on a fundamental science examination that events that occur around the time of slaughter have the potential to intensify the pain response, through a process called sensitisation, or an exaggerated response to painful stimuli. Health conditions which result in inflammation, injuries arising from transport and handling and exaggerated fear responses may all be present at the slaughterhouse. Whilst there is limited evidence of a direct effect of these on the processes of sensitisation in animals at slaughter, by analogy with the human neurobiology literature the connection seems plausible. In this review we outline the biology of such a response, and the rationale for suggestion of a possible linkage between events at slaughter and a heightened animal pain response.

Abstract

We pose, based on a neurobiological examination, that events that occur around the time of slaughter have the potential to intensify the pain response, through the processes of sensitisation and enhanced transmission. Sensitisation, or an enhanced response to painful stimuli, is a well-discussed phenomenon in the human medical literature, which can arise from previous injury to an area, inflammatory reactions, or previous overstimulation of the stress axes. A number of events that occur prior to arrival at, or in the slaughterhouse, may lead to presence of these factors. This includes previous on-farm pathology, injuries arising from transport and handling and lack of habituation to humans. Whilst there is limited evidence of a direct effect of these on the processes of sensitisation in animals at slaughter, by analogy with the human neurobiology literature the connection seems plausible. In this review a neurobiological approach is taken to discuss this hypothesis in the light of basic science, and extrapolations from existing literature on the slaughter of ruminants. To confirm the postulated link between events at slaughter, and processes of hypersensitisation, further dedicated study is required.