We need to meat demand
THE Australian live export industry was once again under fire last week after video emerged of hundreds of sheep dying in extreme conditions aboard ships bound for the Middle East in August, 2017.
I’m not going to try to excuse the inexcusable, particularly with respect to this latest live export disaster. Any mistreatment of animals is incompatible with the ethics and farming practices of the overwhelming majority of Australian farmers. Any farmer would be sickened and angered to think animals they have worked so hard to breed and raise would be treated in such an appalling manner.
Our industry monitoring and traceability standards are world-leading — but they must be enforced to ensure our animals are cared for and delivered in the best possible health, and to provide certainty that bad apples are ostracised and prevented from continuing to operate. So the Federal Government must step up to the plate and police its own regulations.
It is interesting to look at the facts in considering whether the entire industry is in need of reform or whether it is really a few black sheep spoiling the reputation of all involved.
Independent analysts Mecardo took a close look at the statistics and found a downwards trend in mortality in live exports, with average deaths less than 1 per cent a year since 2004 and approaching 0.5 per cent. I haven’t been able to determine mortality rate in traditional grazing operations, but expect it could be higher than this.
The data also seems to suggest that the spikes in mortality that Emanuel Exports Pty Ltd experienced, particularly in July 2016 and August 2017, were outliers compared to long-run seasonal average mortality levels. Even taking these unacceptable incidents into account, mortalities were less than 2 per cent a year.
Many people suggest we should simply ban live exports and process animals onshore. Like many solutions put forward by urban dwellers that have never set foot on a farm, this doesn’t stand up when put to the test.
The biggest market for live exports is Indonesia and 49 per cent of Indonesians have no access to electricity — that’s 48.7 million households — and only 24 per cent of households have refrigerators. That’s why one-third of Indonesian shoppers use wet markets as their main source of food supplies and most buy fresh meat every day.
Modelling by Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences shows livestock exports support about 10,000 jobs across northern and Western Australia, and generate more than $2 billion annually in export revenue. It identified that banning livestock exports would impose a net cost of about $300 million annually on livestock farmers Australiawide, but only create approximately $100 million in extra revenue for the meat processing sector.
There are several alternatives to an outright ban — and these should be implemented before any decision to shut down the industry. Exports during the northern summer could be halted. Specification requirements for export ships could be upgraded. This could include installing technology that would allow conditions to be monitored by regulators around the clock. Penalties for deliberate cruelty should be increased. Assistance should be made available to farmers and processors to change stock and product mixes and investigate different markets.
And there needs to be serious action taken against the animal activists who claim to be concerned about welfare outcomes but have sat on this footage for nine months.
Australian Farm Institute CEO Mick Keogh nailed it when he said: “Let’s be clear about the reality of the social contract. Our society is