Exporting Live Animals By Sea – Expert Reaction

Public consultation on bringing back the practice of exporting live animals on ships is expected to start soon.

The NZ Government has signalled its intention to reinstate livestock exports by sea, which had been banned by the previous Government.

Public consultation is set to start sometime before September.

The SMC asked experts to comment.

Dr Arnja Dale, Chief Scientific Officer, SPCA, comments:

“The science is unequivocal – cattle suffer during live export.

“The journey by sea typically lasts several weeks and involves crossing the equator. Cattle are subjected to confinement in cramped spaces, inescapable heat, noise, motion sickness, and adverse weather conditions. Cattle have no choice but to lie in their own faeces, which becomes matted in their hair forming a crusty layer known in the industry as a ‘faecal jacket’. These conditions lead to severe suffering, including fear, anxiety, dehydration, heat stress, injury, and disease outbreaks.

“New Zealand’s world leading Animal Welfare Act 1999, explicitly recognises animals as sentient. This means we have a legal, as well as a moral, obligation to also consider their mental experiences.

“We agree with the Minister that animal welfare is not negotiable. Changes to live export proposed by the industry, which they refer to as ‘Gold Standard’, cannot protect animals from the welfare risks inherent to live export. Analysis by The Guardian in 2020 found that ships carrying live animals are at least twice as likely to suffer a total loss through sinking as standard cargo vessels. Even for journeys without catastrophic loss of life, mortality is a crude measure of welfare and represents the tip of the iceberg – both those animals who die and those who survive the journey suffer greatly.

“SPCA also has concerns about the welfare of these animals when they reach their destination. Despite claims that welfare can be assured in the destination countries, New Zealand is looking to export cattle to countries with lower welfare standards than our own.

“The New Zealand public care about animal welfare, with a recent Horizon poll finding 90% of New Zealanders consider it important to protect the welfare of farmed animals. The majority of farmers also do not want to see live export returned. A robust, independent survey of the New Zealand public commissioned by SPCA found that 56% of farmers support a ban on live export.

“The rest of the world is moving away from live export of farmed animals, with bans recently announced in Great Britain and Australia. While the live export industry has talked about the opportunity for New Zealand to be world leaders in live export, SPCA considers there is nothing world leading about moving animal welfare backwards.

“New Zealand’s live export industry was worth an estimated $255.89 million in 2020. While this may sound like a lot, this represents just 0.2% of NZ’s overall primary production exports. The Minister’s ill-advised, rushed reversal of New Zealand’s world-leading live export ban places short term benefits to the few that profit above our obligations under our free trade agreements with the UK and EU, and puts at risk the reputation of the entire New Zealand agricultural industry.

“A decision to reinstate this archaic and barbaric practice would be throwing away years of progress, damage New Zealand’s international reputation and would be a complete disregard of public sentiment around this issue, as we know just 19% of New Zealanders support overturning the ban.

“SPCA has advocated for a ban on the live export of farmed animals by sea for over 50 years and will continue to advocate for New Zealand’s current ban to remain in place.”

No conflicts declared.

Dr Jim Webster; Team Leader, Animal Ethics; AgResearch, comments:

“The Government has signalled its intention to reinstate the live export of livestock from New Zealand, justifying this primarily from revenue benefits and proposing that ‘strengthened animal welfare standards’ will be sufficient to safeguard the animals.

“As part of the rigorous system in New Zealand for giving ethical approval to carry out research, testing or teaching on animals on behalf of society, I can see similarities in how this situation can be considered. The committees that evaluate each request to carry out research on an animal must weigh up the proposed benefits of the research against the effect of the research on the animals’ wellbeing.

“The researchers must clearly describe how they will follow the principles of 3Rs: ‘replacing’ animals if possible; or if not possible, ‘reducing’ the number of animals to the minimum, and ‘refining’ the research methodology to minimise the effect on animals. If approved, the research process is subject to monitoring by the committee and every adverse event to an animal must be reported.

“We owe it to the livestock to ensure a similarly high level of evaluation and scrutiny is applied to the resumption of live exports, and one way to do that is by seeking society’s informed views. It is encouraging that the Government has committed to public consultation and this will reveal New Zealanders’ ethical stance on a decision that, judging from a recent petition, not only has a high level of concern but could affect our international reputation.”

No conflict of interest.

Professor Jon Hickford, Professor of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Lincoln University, comments:

“My primary concern is what I teach students: i.e., ‘Have genetics, won’t travel.’

“As we breed livestock, they are selected to perform in New Zealand conditions. Typically, this means being farmed outdoors on pasture, in a country that has a temperate climate, and without the availability of cheap supplementary feed like grain.

“Our livestock are bred to perform here, not elsewhere, and even if you can emulate the outdoor and pasture elements of the production system, you can’t easily match our climate. Ireland might be the closest to us, as another temperate island nation.

“When we export stock, we assume that they will perform well wherever they are going. The buyer also makes that assumption. It is fundamentally flawed.

“It often takes many generations of breeding to adapt new genetics to local conditions, this being done by culling the weak and breeding from what’s left. It doesn’t happen overnight (if you recall the old Rachel Hunter, Pantene advertisement!). Often it is two steps forward and one step backwards (or worse), and that assumes the recipient of the genetics knows how to breed effectively. The latter point is relevant, because while NZ farmers are typically quite good at breeding sheep and cattle, the destinations we send our genetics to as livestock (or as semen and embryos), may not be that good at breeding and genetics.

“What is my evidence for saying all this? Over many years, I have travelled widely looking at livestock breeding and genetic systems, and farming systems, globally. These observations are often dismissed or ignored, and don’t seem to have stopped exports.”

Conflict of interest statement: Professor Hickford is commercially involved in DNA testing livestock for import/export and use in NZ.

© Scoop Media