Welfare pulse

JULY 2010 ISSUE 05

Three new Codes

of Welfare Issued
SPCA campaign
to focus on
Saving Lives

Animal Welfare
Amendment Bill and
Additional Funding

Animal Welfare in New Zealand and around the world

 In this issue...

The rise of animal welfare science 1

Welfare Pulse Your feedback 2
Welfare Pulse is published three times The Animal Welfare Amendment Act 2010 – sending a stronger message to offenders 3
a year by the Ministry of Agriculture Is better handling better for calves? 4
and Forestry (MAF). It is of special Mulesing – a welfare milestone in 2010 6
relevance to those with an interest in Feedback sought on draft code of welfare for goats 7
domestic and international animal Codes of Welfare – update on issue, consultation, development and review 8
welfare developments. NAWAC Annual Report released 8
The articles in this magazine do not Commercial animal slaughter code released 9
necessarily reflect Government policy. Appointment to NAWAC 9
For enquiries about specific articles, Welfare code for sheep and beef cattle released 10
refer to the contact listed at the end of New Zealand Government provides more animal welfare funding 10
each article. Code of Welfare for dogs issued 11
For general enquiries, (for example, Animal testing and veterinary medicine registration 12
circulation requests or information Three Rs Award 2010 13
about the Ministry of Agriculture and It is not easy to get my dog to do what I needed him to! Science, animals and ethics in schools 14
Forestry) contact: Codes of ethical conduct – approvals, notifications and terminations since issue 4 15
Welfare Pulse Switching on the lights – the onset of consciousness in the newborn 16
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry And more on camelids... Welfare Pulse Feedback 17
Animal Welfare Directorate Advances in the humane slaughter of farmed livestock 18
The history of animal welfare law in New Zealand 19
Postal address:
Saving lives – a revolution 20
PO Box 2526
International animal welfare award winner 21
Wellington 6140, New Zealand
Livestock Manager charged with ill-treatment of sheep 22
Street address: Low body condition in production animals sent for slaughter 23
Pastoral House Historic sentence for cruel poultry operation 24
25 The Terrace Animal welfare: how to make an informed choice 25

Wellington 6011, New Zealand New Australian animal welfare standards 26

Tel: 64-4-894 0100 Animal law in animal welfare 28

Fax: 64-4-894 0300 The Animal Welfare Information Center of the US Department of Agriculture 30
Truth, lies and videotape 31
Email: animalwelfare@maf.govt.nz
A positive approach to animal welfare 32
Animal Welfare complaints:
Animal health, world trade, and food safety: challenges and opportunities 34
0800 00 83 33
With Little power, comes great responsibility 35
An American perspective on New Zealand’s animal welfare apparatus 36
ISSN 1175-0804 (Print)
2010 upcoming events 37
ISSN 1175-0812 (Online)
OIE regional animal welfare activities 38
Support for animal welfare advancement in South East Asia 40
Across our desks 41
Editorial
The rise of
ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE
A
nimals have always had good
or poor welfare and there have
always been people who cared for
and considered the welfare of animals.
Animal welfare as a scientific discipline,
however, has emerged only in the last
30 years. It now flourishes because of
public concern.
Animal health has been studied for
much longer and laws protecting
animals have existed for 200 years.
Health is an important part of the wider
concept of welfare and concerns how
well individuals cope with pathology
while welfare refers to coping with the
environment as a whole.
The change started to occur in the
1980s when the focus shifted from
human actions to protect animals to
the animals themselves as individuals,
their biological functioning and how to
provide for their needs. Consideration
of this functioning had to include the
brain of animals and how it controls
behaviour, physiology and defences
against disease.
Animals have a range of needs and
those of each species can be studied in
carefully controlled investigations. The
first step in any report, legislation or
code of practice is to list the needs of the
animals involved. The concept of needs
is included in modern legislation and
has replaced the earlier and less precise
list of freedoms that animals should
have.
Concepts such as those of welfare, stress,
health, needs, pain and other feelings
were not well defined in the scientific
literature 30 years ago. It has been
important in the development of animal
welfare science for usable definitions to
be produced and this has been one of
my aims.
Another aim has been to develop
measures of welfare. Measurement
has to be on a scale of good to poor
welfare and many indicators have been
documented in scientific papers. The
welfare indicators have to be different
for short-term problems, such as
those during handling, transport,
painful events or slaughter, and
for long-term problems such as
those resulting from housing
conditions, genetic selection or
long-lasting treatment methods.
Work by Professors David Mellor,
Neville Gregory and Kevin Stafford
at Massey University has provided
indicators of pain. There have been
descriptions by the author and
colleagues of abnormal behaviours
such as stereotypies in confined
calves and sows, weak bones in
battery-caged hens and confined
sows, and measures of heart-rate,
adrenal hormones, impaired meat
quality, immunosuppression, and
increased mortality as indicators of
welfare during transport.
A key issue in the understanding of
animal welfare and its investigation
has been the study of motivation
in animals. Dr Lindsay Matthews
from Ruakura has been a pioneer
of this work. He showed how an
animal’s strength of preference for
a resource could be measured and recent
work by Dr Richard Kirkden and the
author has refined this methodology
further.
In
Donald M Broom
Professor of
Animal Welfare
Professor Don Broom retired recently from Cambridge
University where he has been Professor of Animal
Welfare in the Department of Veterinary Medicine
since 1986. He served as Chairman of the OIE (World
Organisation for Animal Health) Ad hoc Group on Land
Animal Transport between 2003 and 2006 and as
Vice-Chairman of the European Food Safety Authority
Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare between
2003 and 2009, as well as numerous other societies
and councils.
His research has included work on various methods
for the scientific assessment of animal welfare; the
management, housing and transport of farm animals,
poultry and fish in relation to their welfare; and
cognition and behaviour problems in pets and the
effects of pets on their owners.
Professor Broom has also been Chairman and member
of working groups producing many reports which provide
the information on which all European Union legislation
on animal welfare, including animal health is based.
His publications include over 380 scientific papers
and eight books including: Biology of Behaviour, 1981
(Cambridge University Press), Farm Animal Behaviour
and Welfare, A.F. Fraser and D.M. Broom 1990/1997
(CABI), Stress and Animal Welfare, D.M. Broom and
K.G. Johnson 1993/2000 (Kluwer), Coping with
Challenge: Welfare in Animals Including Man, ed.
D.M. Broom 2001 (Dahlem University Press), The
Evolution of Morality and Religion, D.M.Broom 2003
(Cambridge University Press), Domestic Animal
Behaviour and Welfare, D.M.Broom and A.F.Fraser
2007 (CABI).
parallel with studies of welfare, our
knowledge of the cognitive ability and
level of awareness of domestic and other
animals has improved substantially in
Welfare Pulse – July 2010 • 1

Broom, Sena and Moynihan 2009 showed that pigs could learn what was represented in a
mirror after five hours of experience
recent years. The concept of sentience
has developed and farm and companion
animals are now specified as sentient in
a European Union treaty. They have to
be treated as individuals rather than just
as possessions or as “animal machines”
as Ruth Harrison put it in 1964.
Research on learning, cognitive ability,
feelings and levels of awareness have
altered the values placed on animals
by scientists, animal users and the
public. Some of the first of these studies
were those of the late Dr Ron Kilgour
in Ruakura who demonstrated that
the maze-learning ability of cattle,
sheep, goats and pigs were superior
to those of a variety of companion
and laboratory animals. Work by the
author and colleagues shows that sheep,
pigs and cattle have very complex
social behaviour; cattle can show an
excitement response when they learn to
solve a problem – the eureka effect; and
pigs can rapidly learn to appreciate what
they see in a mirror.
Almost 20 years ago I came to
New Zealand to give the Ron Kilgour
Memorial Lecture on animal welfare
science and reported, to the surprise
of the audience, that New Zealand
had been on the front pages of many
newspapers in the United Kingdom
and several other European countries
because of the deaths of large numbers
of sheep on a ship from New Zealand
to the Middle East. The importance
attached to animal welfare and the
power of consumers, who as a result
refused to buy any New Zealand goods
for a while, was rapidly realised by the
New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture
and Forestry, and some in the animal
production industry. Since that time,
New Zealand has moved to become a
world leader in the politics of animal
welfare, for example with its leading role
in the World Organisation for Animal
Health (OIE) standing committee on
welfare and associated ad hoc groups.
Donald M Broom
Colleen Macleod Professor of Animal Welfare
(now Emeritus Professor)
Centre for Animal Welfare and Anthrozoology
Department of Veterinary Medicine
University of Cambridge, UK.

Your feedback
We look forward to hearing your views on Welfare Pulse and welcome your comment on what you would like to see more of, less
of, or something new that we have yet to cover. Please send your feedback to us by emailing animalwelfare@maf.govt.nz

Get Welfare Pulse direct to your inbox

If you would prefer to receive your copy of Welfare Pulse by email, please sign up for the alerts at www.biosecurity.govt.nz/lists,
click on animal welfare and then tick “Welfare Pulse magazine”.

General subscriptions
Please contact us by email at animalwelfare@maf.govt.nz if you no longer wish to receive Welfare Pulse, or need to change the
address/contact name we have on file.

2 • Welfare Pulse – July 2010

The Animal Welfare Amendment Act 2010
– SENDING A STRONGER MESSAGE TO OFFENDERS
T
ougher penalties for animal
welfare offending will soon be a
reality, now that the Government
has passed the Animal Welfare
Amendment Act 2010 into law.
The amendment creates a new offence of
“reckless ill-treatment of an animal” and
substantially increases the penalties for
existing offences in the Animal Welfare
Act 1999. It also reinforces the message
that cruelty towards animals will not be
tolerated in New Zealand.
Animal welfare is important to
New Zealanders. The vast majority of
us expect the animals in our care to
be treated humanely and not to suffer
unnecessary pain or distress. We are
shocked to hear about acts of cruelty
towards animals. Unfortunately, these
have become all too common in recent
times.
Animal welfare is a priority issue for
the Government and the amendment is
one of a range of initiatives intended to
improve animal welfare in New Zealand.
These include an animal welfare
compliance plan that will encourage
greater co-operation and co-ordination
between animal welfare stakeholders to
increase compliance with the Animal
Welfare Act.
In addition to the new offence of
“reckless ill-treatment of an animal” and
OFFENCE
Wilful ill-treatment of an animal (s28)
Reckless ill-treatment of an animal
Ill-treatment of an animal (s29) – strict liability
Care of animals (neglect) offences (s25) – strict
liability
Contravening a disqualification order (s169)
increased penalties for existing cruelty
offences, the amendment broadens the
scope of the most serious offence of
“wilful ill-treatment of an animal” to
include “serious injury or impairment”.
Until now, wilful ill-treatment required
the animal to die, be permanently
disabled, or have to be destroyed to end
its suffering. The revised definition will
enable a far wider range of cruel acts
towards animals to be prosecuted.
The 2010 Amendment Act also enables
the court to set a minimum period of
disqualification from owning an animal.
Where no minimum period is set, two
years must elapse before the offender
can apply for the disqualification order
to be lifted.
Finally, the amendment also enables the
court to order any or all animals owned
by an offender be forfeited to the Crown.
While this only applies where the court
believes it is necessary for the protection
of the animals, it enables the court to
protect the welfare of far more animals
than has previously been the case.
Taken as a whole, the amendment is
a major improvement on the existing
Animal Welfare Act and will send a
strong message to potential offenders
that cruelty to animals will not be
tolerated in New Zealand.
OLD MAXIMUM
Individual: 3 years in prison and/or $50 000 fine.
Body corporate: $250 000 fine.
New offence
Individual: 6 months in prison and/or $25 000 fine.
Body corporate: $125 000.
Individual: 6 months in prison and/or $25 000 fine.
Body corporate: $125 000.
Individual: 6 months in prison and/or $50,000 fine.
Body corporate: $250 000 fine.
What is recklessness?
Recklessness is one of the four mens
rea standards used in law to determine
the degree of culpability of a defendant.
Mens rea comes from the Latin for “guilty
mind”. In order of increasing severity and
burden of proof required to satisfy the
charge, the four mens rea standards are:
Strict liability. Prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the defendant did the act –
state of mind is irrelevant. Strict liability
offences attract the lowest penalties.
Negligence. Prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the defendant’s behaviour was
a major departure from the standard of
care expected of a reasonable person of
average competence.
Recklessness. Prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the defendant knew or
appreciated that the risk “could well”
happen and unreasonably took that risk.
Wilfulness. Prove beyond reasonable doubt
that it was the defendant’s aim, purpose
or desire to cause the result of their
actions, or that defendant could foresee
the result as virtually certain. Wilful, or
intentional, offences attract the highest
penalties.
Rob Gregory
Senior Policy Analyst – Animal Welfare
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
rob.gregory@maf.govt.nz
PROPOSED MAXIMUM
Individual: 5 years in prison and/or $100 000 fine.
Body corporate: $500 000 fine.
Individual: 3 years in prison and/or $75 000 fine.
Body corporate: $350 000 fine.
Individual: 12 months in prison and/or $50 000 fine.
Body corporate: $250 000.
Individual: 12 months in prison and/or $50 000 fine.
Body corporate: $250 000.
Individual: 3 years in prison and/or $75 000 fine.
Body corporate: $350 000 fine.
Welfare Pulse – July 2010 • 3
 Is better handling
BETTER FOR CALVES?

For most farm animals, interactions

with humans are a daily part of their
lives. The amount of human contact
and the nature of the contact
determines how the animal reacts
to a person. Genetic background,
previous experience and where the
interactions take place are some
other factors that also influence the
human-animal relationship.

4 • Welfare Pulse – July 2010


Calf being disbudded with cautery iron.
A
nimals that have negative
experiences of humans can be
more fearful, which in turn may
lead to increased handling times, risk
of injury to both the animal and the
stockperson, and reduced productivity,
such as decreased milk production in
dairy cows. For example, shouting and
hitting have been shown to cause a stress
response in cattle.
There is plenty of evidence that gentle
handling reduces stress and fearfulness,
for example cattle and pigs. During
the 2008 calving season AgResearch
conducted a study examining the
effects of handling on physiological and
behavioural responses of dairy calves,
specifically focusing on fearfulness
towards humans and responses to
routine husbandry procedures. As a part
of my Masters of Science, I focused on
the responses to disbudding which is a
common on-farm husbandry procedure
used to prevent horn growth and is well
known to be very painful and stressful
for calves.
Calves were handled either positively
(e.g. using gentle voices and friendly
interactions), or negatively (e.g. rapid
movements, harsh voices, pushing)
from four days until five weeks of age at
Tokanui dairy farm outside Te Awamutu
in the Waikato. All calves were
disbudded with local anaesthetic at five
weeks using a cautery iron. We found
that physiological responses (heart rate,
respiration rate and plasma cortisol)
that indicate stress and pain increased in
all calves irrespective of their handling
treatment. The calves also struggled
a lot during and after disbudding and
some fell or tried to jump out of the
crush, which could be associated with
stress and attempting to escape from
the situation. This confirms previous
findings that disbudding, even when
local anaesthetic is used, is a painful
procedure which is highly stressful
for the animal. Both handling groups
showed similar responses to disbudding
and there was no difference between the
two groups.
Research from overseas has shown that
positive handling reduces the stress
during a veterinary procedure, such
as rectal palpation, in dairy cattle. In
addition, Australian research showed
that sheep that were handled positively
before being tail docked had a lower
stress response (heart rate and salivary
cortisol) than negatively handled
animals.
While these results differ from those
in our study, it is possible that the
trauma associated with disbudding was
too extensive to detect any differences
between handling treatments. More
research is therefore needed to examine
how the type of handling affects animals’
response to painful procedures.
Results from the other part of the study
showed that the groups responded
differently to humans. For example,
calves that had received positive
handling were three times more likely
to approach a familiar handler and
showed less avoidance behaviour to
an unfamiliar person. A follow-up
study indicated that the amount of
handling influenced the behavioural and
physiological responses to humans and
to restraint in a crush at an older age,
which would mean that early handling
can affect animals later in life.
Further research will provide the dairy
industry with more information about
how the type of handling influences
the way animals respond to routine
husbandry procedures on-farm. This
could reduce stress for both animals
and farm workers, lead to more efficient
animal production systems and improve
welfare.
For further information about this study
contact mairi.stewart@agresearch.co.nz
or karin.schütz@agresearch.co.nz. The
project was funded by the Foundation of
Science, Research and Technology and
DairyNZ.
Haley Shepherd
Research Technician
(AgResearch Ltd)
Welfare Pulse – July 2010 • 5
 NAWAC News
MULESING
– a welfare milestone in 2010
I
have looked at the issue of mulesing
from many sides for a large part of
my life. As the kid of a farmer in
Australia I loaded lambs into cradles for
them to be mulesed and reconciled that
against the suffering caused by flystrike.
As a consumer I have had to reconcile
purchasing decisions against what I
know happens to those sheep. As a
scientist I have reviewed and researched
the effects of mulesing on animal
welfare and production. Somewhere
along the path I came up with a genetic
way around mulesing; I feel qualified to
write about it and quite passionate about
the way forward.
Mulesing is a practice developed in
1931 to overcome wrinkliness of the
breech of sheep and thus reduce the
risk of flystrike those wrinkles cause.
Ever since, concerned individuals have
been raising the practice as a welfare
issue. Western Australian farmers
were apparently very slow to adopt the
technology because of concern for their
sheep, and many only started employing
contractors to do it for them in the
1970s.
If we hark back to the 1930s and think
about the planes, cars, automobiles and
other technologies that were available
then, and more particularly some of the
medical practices and medicines that
were used on humans, it is clear that
revolutionary changes have occurred
since then. For humankind, who has
literally flown to the moon and back
since 1931, it is long past the time we
should do something about mulesing.
This year, on 31 December 2010, we will
see an end to this outdated practice.
The protests against mulesing began to
6 • Welfare Pulse – July 2010
heighten in 2004 when the People for
Ethical Treatment of Animals launched
a well resourced and passionate
campaign to compel Australian sheep
farmers to abandon the practice.
Mistakenly, Australian sheep farmers
and their representative bodies
defended the practice on the basis of
the reduction in flystrike. Vast numbers
of consumers were happily oblivious to
either of these things but immediately
discovered that both mulesing and
flystrike were abhorrent to them.
Consumers voted with their wallets and
retailers responded by shunning wool
products. The Australian sheep industry
was forced to face the problem and
began to invest millions of dollars to
find alternatives.
The fact that wrinkles encourage
flystrike has been known since the 1930s
and mulesing was a silver bullet to solve
that one problem. This was readily
observed on the farm. The relationship
between wrinkles and other productive
traits is less readily observed without
well designed experiments, extensive
recording and complicated biometrical
analysis. For example, wrinkles on sheep
decrease both fertility and fecundity
and also reduce growth rate of the
sheep, which all constrain income. If
you simply look at a flock of sheep
at weaning time without supporting
records, plain-bodied ewes that have
reared twins will have very poor
condition score compared with wrinkly
ewes that have either raised a single or
not raised a lamb at all. It is also likely
that the plain-bodied ewe will produce
less fleece weight as a consequence
of rearing twins. The wrinkly single
lamb will always look better than the
plain-bodied twins at weaning, but the
plain-bodied lambs will grow faster after
weaning. Wool quality is also impaired
by wrinkles, because the wool on the
wrinkles is coarser and longer than on
the skin between, and wrinkles cause
further increases in length variation
because shearers simply cannot harvest
the wool as evenly or efficiently as they
can from a flat surface. Wrinkles also
destroy the value of skins following
slaughter. Merino breeders can select
against wrinkles, reduce flystrike risk
and increase productivity. There are
very few traits which can be so visually
recognised in the live animal that will
increase productivity.
Chemical and biochemical means of
mulesing have been investigated but
most scientists and many industry
participants support a genetic
alternative as the ultimate solution.
Now this technology is being taken up
with great gusto throughout the merino
industry and I predict it will improve
financial returns to merino growers for
all the reasons listed above.
Our research has shown that breech
bareness is heritable and reduces
dagginess in the same manner as the
surgical technique. Genetic bareness
reduces flystrike in a way that we might
expect natural selection to foster, as in
feral sheep populations. In contrast, past
breeding and chemical protection has
produced a more susceptible animal.
It was surprising to discover that in
crossbred lambs, which are never
mulesed, a genetically bigger bare area
around the breech was associated with
heavier weaning weights, and if those
lambs were retained for breeding,
animals with barer breeches went on
to have greater numbers of lambs.
In Australia they are now repeating
our work to confirm this in merinos;
research has already been conducted
which shows that surgical mulesing
reduces weight gain. Given the severity
of the mulesing operation this is
understandable, but it does mean there
is a potential double whammy here –
unmulesed lambs will grow faster and
with a genetically bare breech, will grow
Feedback sought on draft code of welfare for goats
M
inimum standards of animal
welfare and recommended
best practices for everyone
responsible for farmed goats were
outlined in a draft code of welfare
released for consultation by the National
Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
(NAWAC) in late April.
NAWAC Chairman John Hellström says
the Committee welcomed submissions
from anyone interested in goat welfare
or involved in their management.
“Goats are kept in a variety of situations
in New Zealand, from being farmed for
international meat and fibre trade, to
tethered on the roadside. There is an
onus on all owners and people in charge
of goats to look after them appropriately,
regardless of how they are kept.”
“As well as establishing how their
welfare is properly and best attended to,
the draft code provides an important
statement to the international
community of the animal welfare
standards we expect in New Zealand.”
faster again and therefore deliver better
returns!
The People for Ethical Treatment of
Animals would prefer that animals were
not used by humans at all. They will
probably be disappointed at the irony
that their protests have improved the
financial viability of merino farmers.
However, breeders, activists, scientists
and consumers alike can all feel satisfied
that we have made a quantum leap in
David Scobie
the welfare of merino sheep. Scientist, AgResearch
The draft code is intended
to encourage all those
responsible for the welfare
of goats to exceed the
minimum standards and
adopt the best industry
practices of husbandry,
care and handling. The
code includes all goats
contained (held within
a boundary fence), kept
as pets, tethered, or
held on game estates or
safari parks. Proposed
minimum standards cover industry-convened writing group, with
stockmanship and handling; tethering; input from the milk, fibre and meat goat
the provision of food, water and shelter; sectors. It applies to all goats farmed
housing, breeding (including artificial in New Zealand for milk, fibre or meat
reproductive techniques), kidding and production. It does not apply to goats
management of kids (including hand that are “wild animals” under the Wild
rearing). Specific requirements for the Animal Control Act, but it does apply to
preparation and selection of animals captured feral goats.
for transport and emergency humane NAWAC sought public feedback until
destruction are also included. mid June and is now reviewing all
The code was originally developed by an submissions.
Welfare Pulse – July 2010 • 7
 NAWAC News
CODES OF
WELFARE
– update on issue,
consultation,
development and review
Codes of welfare issued 2010:
• Dairy Cattle
• Commercial Slaughter
• Dogs
• Sheep and Beef Cattle
In post-consultation process:
• Transport in New Zealand
• Pigs
Consultation on codes of welfare:
• Goats (Public Consultation closed
11 June 2010)
Under development:
• Temporary housing (including
boarding establishments)
• Camelids
• Saleyards
• Equine
Codes of welfare under review:
• Broiler Chickens
• Layer Hens
• Painful Husbandry Procedures
Cheryl O’Connor
Programme Manager Animal Welfare
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
cheryl.o’connor@maf.govt.nz
8 • Welfare Pulse – July 2010
NAWAC
Annual Report released
T he National Animal Welfare Advisory
Committee (NAWAC) issued its 2009
Annual Report in early June this year.
The development and review of codes of
welfare were the main focus of NAWAC’s
work in 2009. A review of the pigs code
of welfare was completed and work
continued on layer hens, transport,
commercial slaughter and sheep and
beef cattle codes. The committee also
revised guidelines for writing codes of
welfare, which included simplifying
requirements; providing a checklist
for drafters; and using outcome-
based standards for assessing animal
welfare.
“NAWAC has had discussions on key indicators for assessing animal
welfare and is committed to, as far is possible, writing minimum standards as
statements of welfare outcomes to be achieved from the animal’s perspective rather
than as prescriptions of facilities e.g. the size of cages” says Dr John Hellström,
Chairman of NAWAC.
“Results from the public consultation on the draft transport code are being reviewed
by NAWAC and this code will be the first to include these key indicators”.
Following a recommendation from NAWAC that glueboard traps be banned from
sale and use, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) sought public and
industry feedback concerning future use of the traps and restricted them.
John Hellström also acknowledged the retirement of four very experienced
committee members.
“As I became Chair of the committee in November 2009, I have to acknowledge
that many key decisions and efforts had already been made by former Chair Peter
O’Hara. He and his colleagues, Bruce Ross, Gwyneth Verkerk and John Martin all
provided a wealth of perspective and experience as to how the Committee should
operate to achieve its aims.”
A copy of the annual report is available at:
www.biosecurity.govt.nz/regs/animal-welfare/nawac/annual-reports
or by request from animalwelfare@maf.govt.nz.
Commercial animal slaughter
CODE RELEASED
T
he Animal Welfare (Commercial Slaughter) Code of Welfare 2010, issued on
27 May by the Minister of Agriculture, encourages all those involved in the
commercial slaughter of animals to adopt welfare requirements to ensure Appointment to
animals are humanely killed.
The code covers all aspects of commercial slaughter (defined as the killing of animals
NAWAC

T
where a business transaction takes place) and applies to everyone responsible for the he Minister of Agriculture recently
welfare of animals being commercially slaughtered, including primary processors, appointed Dr Barbara Nicholas as
homekill service providers, pet food operators and anyone operating a business a member of the National Animal
where animals are killed for human consumption. The code does not apply to on- Welfare Advisory Committee for a term
farm slaughter for personal consumption, or the killing of animals for pest control or which expires on 31 October 2012.
recreational hunting. Barbara has a PhD in bioethics, and
National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) Chairman John Hellström has worked both as an academic
says the code provides clear guidelines with regard to the way people care for animals and in policy. Much of her work has
beyond the farm. been concerned with the interactions
“It sets out general principles and recommendations for best practice, ensuring of science with social knowledge
animals do not suffer unreasonable or unnecessary pain and distress when they are and values in the areas of health,
killed.” biotechnology or environment.
“New Zealand’s excellent animal health and welfare status is vigorous. The She is currently establishing a walnut
commercial slaughter code of welfare is another component to a system ensuring orchard with her partner and works
animals are treated appropriately from farm to fork.” for Environment Canterbury on water
Included in the code are requirements for pre-slaughter handling facilities, issues.
procedures to minimise animal stress; and processes to ensure immediate loss of
consciousness during stunning to prevent animals from feeling pain.
“The code requires all animals slaughtered commercially in New Zealand to be
stunned prior to killing. This is to ensure animals at slaughter are treated humanely
and in accordance with good practice and scientific knowledge.
Animals are killed for meat everyday for New Zealanders and international markets.
Treating animals humanely, especially at the time of killing or death, is fundamental
to good animal welfare” says John Hellström.
Agriculture Minister David Carter says “New Zealand has a well-deserved reputation
for animal welfare and the new code reinforces this. Pre-slaughter stunning of
animals is already widely done by commercial operators in New Zealand and the
new code provides for a more consistent approach as well as reflecting the advances
made in humane slaughter methods and technology over the last four decades.”
The Commercial Slaughter Code is available online at www.biosecurity.govt.nz/regs/
animal-welfare/stds/codes or by request from animalwelfare@maf.govt.nz.

Welfare Pulse – July 2010 • 9

 NAWAC News

Welfare code for

SHEEP AND BEEF CATTLE RELEASED
guidelines that should leave farmers in
no doubt about the standards of welfare
they should meet”.
Developed by the National Animal
Welfare Advisory Committee
(NAWAC), the code applies to all
sheep and beef cattle farmed for meat,
rather than being milked, and covers all
aspects of stock management.
NAWAC Chairman John Hellström
says the code focuses on outcomes
for animals and recommended best
practices that show farmers how to
keep ahead of minimum standards.
“The new code reinforces the welfare
outcomes all good farmers want for their
• feeding pads and feedlots;
• managing flystrike;
• requirements for shearing, dagging
and crutching;
• effective prevention and treatment of
any ill health, injury and disease;
• requirements around pre-transport
selection of animals;
• humane destruction procedures.
The code was drafted by a group
designated by NAWAC and was
reviewed by representatives of
farmers, the meat and wool industries,
veterinarians and animal welfare
organisations. NAWAC considered the
views of these groups, and members of

S
heep and beef
cattle are now
covered by a code
of animal welfare like that already in
place for deer and dairy cattle.
Agriculture Minister David Carter has
issued the Animal Welfare (Sheep and
Beef Cattle) Code of Welfare 2010 which
sets down minimum standards for the
farming of sheep and beef cattle.
“The code encourages all those involved
in the farming of sheep and beef
cattle to adopt the highest standards
of husbandry, care and handling”
Mr Carter says.
“As with all codes of welfare, it provides
animals, and without being prescriptive,
it points farmers to best practices.”
“There has been a culmination of a lot of
hard work in developing the new code
and that reflects the proactive stance
on animal welfare taken by all involved
and the industry should be in a good
position to feel confident that farmers
can step up to the mark and comply
with this code”.
This is the third pastoral species code of
welfare and minimum standards cover:
• stockmanship and animal handling;
• daily food and water requirements;
• requirements for adequate shade and
shelter;
the public, before recommending to the
Minister of Agriculture that the code be
issued.
Because sheep and beef cattle are
frequently managed together on the
same land (and because there are a lot
of commonalities between the factors
affecting the welfare of sheep and cattle)
combining their requirements into a
single code was chosen.
The Animal Welfare (Sheep and Beef
Cattle) Code of Welfare 2010 is available
online at www.biosecurity.govt.nz/regs/
animal-welfare/stds/codes or by request
from animalwelfare@maf.govt.nz.

New Zealand Government provides more animal welfare funding

A
griculture Minister David Carter recently announced
the Government will spend an extra $8.2 million over
four years to boost animal welfare activities.
Budget 2010 allocates around $5 million for animal welfare
enforcement and compliance, including doubling the number
of enforcement officers and greater co-ordination between
key organisations involved in animal welfare.
$2 million is earmarked for a major review of the Animal
Welfare Act and additional support for codes of welfare and
the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC).
Funding of $1.2 million over four years will also be provided
to the Royal New Zealand SPCA for enforcement work.
“The Government recognises the importance of
animal welfare, not only in meeting the expectations of

10 • Welfare Pulse – July 2010

 Code of Welfare for
DOGS ISSUED
A
ll dog owners will be interested
in the minimum standards of
care and recommended best
practices outlined in the Animal Welfare
(Dogs) Code of Welfare 2010 issued on
10 June by the National Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee (NAWAC).
The code applies to anyone responsible
for dogs, including those that have them
as pets, show dogs, working dogs or
those used for breeding or sport. It offers
practical information and 21 minimum
standards relating to all aspects of dog
ownership and care, including water,
food and body condition, containment
and shelter, breeding and inherited
disorders, behaviour, training, tail
docking, transportation and euthanasia.
“The code is intended to encourage
all those responsible for the welfare of
dogs to exceed minimum standards
and adopt best practices of care and
handling,” says Dr John Hellström,
Chairman of NAWAC.
“It sets standards in regards to inherited
disorders in dogs. These standards are
for anyone breeding dogs and selling
puppies, not just dog breeders. They
are intended to support initiatives
from other organisations, like the
New Zealand Kennel Club’s Accredited
Breeder Scheme.”
The code also allows for tail banding
of puppies less than four days old
by appropriate people acting under
a quality assurance scheme. “The
New Zealand Kennel Club already has
a scheme for accrediting tail banders,
but there is nothing stopping another
organisation setting up their own”
says Dr Hellström. NAWAC felt that
it was unable to ban tail docking
under the Animal Welfare Act
without more information on the effects representatives of animal
of current good practice. Instead it welfare organisations, breeders,
placed tight restrictions on the practice farmer representatives, local councils,
and will look at the issue again when the veterinarians and members of the
code is reviewed. public.
The Code of Welfare for Dogs was Copies of the code and the explanatory
issued by the Minister of Agriculture on report that accompanies it are available
the recommendation of NAWAC. The online at www.biosecurity.govt.nz/
code was drafted by a group convened animal-welfare or by request from
by the New Zealand Companion Animal animalwelfare@maf.govt.nz.
Council (NZCAC) and reviewed by

New Zealanders but also in maintaining our strong reputation
as a trusted trading partner,” says Mr Carter.
“Additional funding for NAWAC and the codes of welfare
process demonstrates our commitment to maintaining high
standards of animal welfare.
Most New Zealanders will not tolerate cruelty to animals and
extra support for the Royal New Zealand SPCA will ensure a
greater focus on enforcement.”
The additional animal welfare funding has been freed up by
reallocations within the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
(MAF).

Welfare Pulse – July 2010 • 11

 NAEAC News
ANIMAL TESTING
and veterinary medicine registration
P
eople registering veterinary
medicines under the Agricultural
Compounds and Veterinary
Medicines Act 1997 (the Act) must
include efficacy (effectiveness of a drug)
and safety data with their application.
For products that are intended to
be administered to food-producing
animals, registrants are also required
to supply data about the residue levels
in meat, milk, eggs or honey obtained
from the treated animals. Some of the
required data can only be generated by
testing the drug in animals.
This article looks at the animal
testing requirements in relation to
the Act, which is administered by the
Agricultural compounds and veterinary
medicines (ACVM) group of the
New Zealand Food Safety Authority
(NZFSA).
Scope of the ACVM Act
In the context of veterinary medicines,
the scope of the Act is limited to
substances intended to be administered
to animals for the purposes indicated
in the legislation. Fundamental or pure
research on animals is not one of the
purposes specified in the Act. This
means if a substance is administered
to an animal, say for understanding its
normal physiology, that substance and
the research would be outside the scope
of the Act. Consequently, a significant
proportion of research involving the
administration of substances to animals
is not regulated under the Act. It is
regulated under the Animal Welfare Act
1999 via the Animal Ethics Committees’
review and approval of the research
12 • Welfare Pulse – July 2010
Regulatory information requirements
The ACVM Group has published
registration information requirements
covering the areas of safety, efficacy, and
residue data requirements to support
the full registration of a veterinary
medicine. New Zealand recognises and
accepts the international guidelines
that have been developed under the
VICH (international co-operation on
harmonisation of technical requirements
for registration of veterinary medicinal
products) process as they relate to
information requirements.
Safety data requirements
The ACVM Registration Standard and
Guideline for Target Animal Safety
requires a new drug to be tested on
animals to obtain safety information.
This includes measuring behavioural
responses, physiological factors and/or
pharmacological effects in the animals.
The requirement is for the product to
be tested on at least ten animals from
each target animal group. To avoid
unnecessary pain or distress in animals,
the ACVM registration information
requirements provide for alternatives
to live animal testing, if that work will
yield information that is equally relevant
and reliable and accurately reflects the
impact the drug will have on the safety
of treated animals.
Residue data requirements
Drugs administered to animals remain
in the body of the animal for a variable
length of time until the broken down
products (residues) are excreted. The
Food Act 1981 specifies the maximum
limits for residues in animal produce
(meat, milk, eggs, and honey) offered for
sale for human consumption. To ensure
that those limits are not exceeded a
withholding period from last treatment
to collecting the animal produce is
imposed on the use of the drug. To
determine the withholding period the
residue level is measured in the animal
produce indicated above.
While measurement of residues in milk,
eggs and honey does not necessarily
require the slaughter of the animals,
harvesting tissue samples (muscle,
kidney, fat, liver and edible offal)
for determining meat withholding
period does. The number of samples
required to determine the withholding
period is dependent on a number of
factors and is detailed in the ACVM
Registration Standard and Guideline for
Determination of a Residue Withholding
Period for Veterinary Medicines.
To give an example of the number of
animals required for determining meat
withholding period for an injectable
product (say an antibiotic), tissue from
five animals must be collected at each
time-point for a minimum of four time
points. There is no alternative to live
animal trials for meat residue studies.
Efficacy data requirements
The ACVM group has published
efficacy information requirements for
a range of product categories. One
common efficacy data requirement
for all product categories is that the
animal numbers in a trial must be
adequate to detect differences among
treatment groups with a statistical
power of at least 80 percent. Some of
the efficacy information requirement
documents specify the minimum
number of animals that are required to
be in a treatment group. For example,
the ACVM Registration Standard
and Guideline for Efficacy of Vaccines
specifies a minimum of 20 animals in
the treatment group in challenge studies.
Like the meat residue studies, there
is no alternative to animal trials for
generating efficacy data.
Cross-referencing
One of most common ways to reduce
the amount of testing involving
animals is to refer to trial data that was
submitted to NZFSA in support for
the registration of a reference product.
This removes the requirement for all
new applications for the registration of
veterinary medicines to be supported
by new animal trial data. If registrants
provide technically cogent arguments
demonstrating the equivalence of trial
data needed on a new product with trial
data held on a reference product, the
requirement to supply new animal trial
data can be waived.
By permitting cross-referencing to
existing data held by NZFSA the
number of animal trials required to
support registration is considerably
reduced. However, the data held by
NZFSA for the reference product must
be equally relevant and reliable and
must not be under data protection.
Provisional registration and research
approvals
Pharmaceutical companies apply for
approvals under the Act to conduct
animal trials for drug development work
through the provisional registration
and research approval pathways. The
information requirements described
above do not apply to these applications.
These applications require Animal
Ethics Committees’ approval to manage
the animal welfare aspects of these trials.
For more information
This article is not intended to be an
exhaustive description of the animal test
data required to support the registration
of a veterinary medicine. Should you
require more information please contact
the ACVM Group at acvm@nzfsa.govt.nz.
Nasser Ahmed
Advisor (ACVM Standards)
New Zealand Food Safety Authority
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
Nasser.Ahmed@nzfsa.govt.nz

The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) invites applications or nominations for the:

THREE Rs AWARD 2010

To reward and promote implementation of Three Rs principles in research, testing and teaching
The Three Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement) are the cornerstone of the ethical use of animals in research, testing and teaching.
This award celebrates achievements in the implementation of the Three Rs and promotes the concept within the scientific community and
to the wider public. The award is co-ordinated by NAEAC and is made to an individual, group or institution within New Zealand that shows
great commitment to, or innovative implementation of, the Three Rs, or whose work will help to promote awareness of Three Rs principles.
The prize will consist of a certificate and a significant financial award, to be presented at an appropriate formal occasion later this year.
Receipt of the Award will be publicised in selected media, although specific details of the work involved can be restricted if appropriate.
Applications or nominations (with knowledge of nominee) should be sent to:
NAEAC Secretariat There is no application form but you must provide:
c/- Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry • evidence of how the applicant or nominated individual, group or institution qualifies for
P O Box 2526 the Award (maximum of three pages);
Wellington 6140 • curriculum vitae of the applicant(s) or nominee(s);
• the names and contact details of up to two potential referees (who may, at the
committee’s discretion, be approached for comment).
Applications close on Friday 17 September, 2010. Please direct enquiries to the NAEAC Secretariat (email naeac@maf.govt.nz)

Welfare Pulse – July 2010 • 13

 NAEAC News

It is not easy to get my dog to do what I needed him to!

SCIENCE, ANIMALS AND ETHICS IN SCHOOLS

S
chool students learnt many
different things from research
projects involving animals last
year:
• the predatory efficiency of Mosquito
fish is directly affected by the
temperature of the water in which
they are living;
• frogs like company – the separated
frogs tried to get together;
• a mixed diet produced eggs that were
more golden than a restricted diet.
Others observed:
• cats eat more when fed set meals
rather than ad-lib;
• wild birds in backyards prefer white
bread over wholemeal, multigrain and
apples and carrots;
• guinea-pigs don’t like mandarin,
and rats don’t like celery– both
can probably recognise chemicals/
pesticides on food.
Students were exposed to some of the
practicalities of working with animals:
• you need to plan well when working
with animals;
• it is hard to keep lots of other kittens
from interfering in your results.
Like all science, the findings could
confirm:
• the breed of a dog can determine
somewhat it’s temperament and
learning;
• there can be a great relationship
between a dog and its owner;
• in some instances the dog has similar
traits to its owner.
Or challenge our beliefs:
• some things that farmers have been
doing are not worth it.
Birds, cats, chickens, cows, dogs, eels,
fish, frogs, goats, guinea pigs, horses,
mice, mud crabs, pukekos, rabbits, rats
and sheep were the subject of projects
involving live animals in New Zealand
schools in 2009. Research and teaching
involving manipulating animals requires
ethics approval and this applies to
animals used in schools and school
activities. The Schools Animal Ethics
Committee was set up in 2005 to help
schools meet those legal requirements.
Proof of approval is usually required
for entry into science fairs.
The majority of applications are
received from students aged 11–15
years of age. Nearly three-quarters
of the projects involve pets; the
remainder being mainly wild or farm
animals. Most involve observing
behaviour or modifying the animals’
diets – the preferences cats and dogs
have for using their right or left paws
and the food preferences of pets are
popular projects. Many do not include
animal manipulations according to
the New Zealand Animal Welfare
Act. While the Committee gives these
projects its approval, they do not
contribute to the annual animal use
statistics reported by the National
Animal Ethics Advisory Committee.
Other projects in 2009 involved building
a vehicle for an arthritic dog; developing
an apple and cinnamon-based non-toxic
replica of 1080 for dogs; raising calves
on different bedding; faecal sampling
of sheep; antibiotic pre-treatment
for mastitis in cows; the responses of
mice to different conditions in mazes;
observing the responses of fish to
colours; and dogs’ reactions to colour,
music and sound.

14 • Welfare Pulse – July 2010


The students enjoy the
experience and feedback the
Committee gives them which is
always encouraging… helping
these youngsters appreciate
it’s just a process you have to
do to make sure animals don’t
suffer (Dr Paul Lowe, recipient
of the Prime Minister’s Science
Teacher Prize).
Nearly all manipulations had little adverse
impact on the welfare of the animals. In fact,
those involving pets may have had a positive
impact because of the additional attention they
would undoubtedly have received. Those which
would have had some impact on the welfare of
animals included the routine castration of sheep
on farms, the responses of eels to changes from
fresh to saltwater, and the capture and release of
wild birds.
The Schools’ Animal Ethics Committee is
administered by the New Zealand Association
of Science Educators with the support of the
Ministry of Education.
Schools’ Animal Ethics Committee
PO Box 10122, Wellington 6143,
animalethicscommittee@nzase.org.nz
CODES OF ETHICAL CONDUCT
– approvals, notifications and terminations since
issue 4
All organisations involved in the use of live animals for research,
testing or teaching are required to adhere to an approved code of
ethical conduct.
Codes of ethical conduct approved:
• Southern Institute of Technology
Transfers of codes of ethical conduct approved: Nil
Code holder name changes:
• Innate Therapeutics Ltd (formerly Virionyx Corporation Ltd)
Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approved:
• Ancare Scientific Ltd
Notifications to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethical conduct: Nil
Notifications to MAF of arrangements to use an existing code of ethical
conduct
• Airway Ltd (to use the University of Auckland’s code)
• Androgenix Ltd (to use the University of Auckland’s code)
• Lind, Jeremy (to use AgResearch Ltd’s code)
Codes of ethical conduct revoked or expired or arrangements terminated
or lapsed:
• BioLogic Scientific Consulting Ltd
• Merial New Zealand Ltd
• Pharma Pacifica
• Virionyx Corporation Ltd (using Thermo Fisher Scientific’s code
and AEC)
Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human
hominids: Nil
Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testing in the
national interest: Nil
Linda Carsons
Principal Adviser Animal Welfare
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
linda.carsons@maf.govt.nz
Welfare Pulse – July 2010 • 15
 Domestic

SWITCHING ON THE LIGHTS

– the onset of consciousness in the newborn
Tamara Diesch writes about aspects of her Massey University doctoral studies.
pain, because cast doubt on a belief that mammalian
such responses fetuses are conscious. We suggested
can also occur that the fetus is maintained in sleep-like
in unconscious unconscious states before and during
animals, for birth and therefore that consciousness
instance, appears for the first time only after birth.
during general This, and other related reviews, formed
anaesthesia. the specific background to my PhD
I found studies. Under the supervision of
this really David Mellor and Craig Johnson, I
intriguing investigated the onset of consciousness
and was glad after birth in three species of animals
to be able to that exhibit varying brain maturity at
study towards birth. I measured pain-specific electrical
my PhD with responses of the brains in anaesthetised
scientists young, and also assessed the potential
in Massey’s for endogenous sedative hormones to
Animal dull consciousness within the first few
Welfare days after birth in those species born
Science and with mature brains.

M
Craig Johnson, Tamara Diesch, David Mellor
y earlier Master of Science
research conducted at Massey
University on dairy calves
stimulated my interest in the welfare
of newborn livestock of other species.
I became aware that a variety of
husbandry and experimental procedures
are undertaken in newborn and young
mammals and raise concern regarding
their potential to cause pain and distress.
It is commonly held that the newborn
can experience pain even when born
quite immature, for example like
mouse and rat pups. The evidence
for this includes behavioural and
physiological responses to potentially
painful stimulation. However, although
such responses signify a degree of
physiological stress, they do not prove
that the animal actually experiences
Bioethics Centre who were addressing
the question ‘When during early
development are young mammals able
to suffer?’
For any animal to experience pain or
distress and to suffer as a result, there
are two prerequisites. First, the animal
has to be sentient. This means that
the animal’s nervous system has to be
sufficiently developed to relay sensory
inputs (electrical nerve impulses) from
within the body, and outside it, to the
higher centres of the brain where the
impulses are processed and interpreted.
Second, the animal has to be conscious,
as unconscious animals cannot
experience anything.
In a 2005 literature review I co-authored
with David Mellor at Massey and two
Auckland University colleagues, we
Interpreting the results in terms of
brain and behavioural development,
I provided evidence that the onset
of consciousness is not an “on-off ”
phenomenon such as switching on a
light; rather it develops gradually, even
in the species that are neurologically
mature at birth. Thus, consciousness
appears slowly in animals born with
less mature brains, taking months to
appear in marsupial joeys or days in
rodent pups, whereas in young born
with mature brains, such as lambs and
calves, consciousness is evident within
minutes of birth, but may be dulled for
the first 12 hours by sedative hormones
produced normally by the newborn’s
brain.
Notwithstanding these results, I agree
with the Massey animal welfare team

16 • Welfare Pulse – July 2010


Newborn calf straight afterbirth,
unconscious before it started to
breathe.
that retaining the current best practice
of providing newborn and young
animals with anaesthesia and analgesia
for potentially painful procedures is
merited. Invasive procedures stimulate
pain receptors and elicit impulse
barrages in nerve fibres that have
developed by the time the procedures
are undertaken. This in turn leads to
physiological and behavioural responses,
including withdrawal of the stimulated
body parts, stress hormone release and
vocal reflexes, which can occur in the
absence of consciousness. Such reflex
responses not only have the potential
to impede delicate invasive procedures,
for example, by causing movement
during surgery, but they are also likely
to compromise the physiological data to
be collected. In addition, there is some
evidence that exposure to potentially
painful stimulation and stress during
the early postnatal period might lead to
long-term neurophysiological changes
with negative impacts on the future
welfare of those animals.
Additional perspectives also
interested my colleagues and me. It
has been known for millennia that Tammar wallaby joey showing “cute”
neonatal features –180 days after birth.
the “cute” appearance of newborn
farm, companion and other animals,
and human infants, elicits in most the science-focused precautionary
women and men strong protective, approach recommended above, i.e.
caring and nurturing emotions. that whether or not newborns are
Interestingly, United Kingdom naturally unconscious, when invasive or
scientists have now demonstrated a otherwise potentially painful procedures
sound neurophysiological basis for are to be applied to them, anaesthesia
this response. Thus, for some people, and analgesia should be provided as if
undertaking invasive or otherwise they are conscious.
potentially harmful procedures on
newborns, or on animals with newborn
features, may strongly conflict with their Tamara Diesch
innate drive or desire to care for and Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics
protect such animals. Centre
The sometimes considerable emotional Massey University
challenges posed by this provides puschel_nz@yahoo.co.nz
additional support for adopting

And more on camelids...

Welfare Pulse Feedback
In response to our article on camelids in a previous issue, one of our readers shared her experiences with guanaco fibre.
It turns out that while guanacoes aren't normally kept for their fleece, to “fibre” people, it is one of the most beautiful of the
animal fibres. The fibre colours, once dehaired, are fawn and tan. It is apparently fine and smooth to spin (and not normally
blended with anything else) when properly prepared. The resulting yarn lends itself to very fine, lightweight knitted or woven
garments e.g. scarves, shawls, jackets and suiting fabrics. Llama fibre too is being processed for spinning or yarn in increasing
quantities.

Welfare Pulse – July 2010 • 17

 Domestic
Advances in the humane slaughter of
FARMED LIVESTOCK
L
ast year my research team was
awarded the United Kingdom
Humane Slaughter Association’s
Award for Advances in the Humane
Slaughter of Farmed Livestock.
This award was in recognition of
experimental work that we published
describing electrical brain responses
to slaughter by ventral neck incision in
anaesthetised cattle.
Previous studies in the 1980s had
demonstrated that cattle could remain
conscious for up to 60 seconds or more
following slaughter by neck cut, but
it had not been clearly demonstrated
whether the animals experienced pain
during this period.
For these studies we adapted the
minimal anaesthesia model I had
previously developed to investigate
the perception of pain in animals. The
minimal anaesthesia model records
the electroencephalographic (EEG)
of animals that are anaesthetised in
such a way that the function of the
cerebral cortex, the part of the brain
responsible for the experience of pain,
can still change in response to noxious
stimulation despite the animals not
being conscious. The resultant EEG
changes give an indication of the pain
that a particular noxious stimulus would
cause if the animal had been conscious.
We had previously used this approach
to investigate various noxious stimuli
including castration and other surgical
procedures, but this was the first time
that it had been used in a slaughter
context. Substantial methodological
refinements were required both to the
way in which the studies were designed
and the way in which the data was
18 • Welfare Pulse – July 2010
analysed. Our
results demonstrated
clearly that the
neck cut does
constitute a noxious
stimulus that would
be perceived as
painful in conscious
animals.
Our allied studies
investigated the Craig Johnson (centre) and Troy Gibson (right) with James Kirkwood, Chief
physiological Executive and Scientific Director of the Humane Slaughter Association
Authority. The ceremony was held at the London Farmers’ Club.
mechanisms that are
responsible for the
noxious input that would lead to pain
in conscious animals. We also explored
the ability of stunning to abolish these
responses. In order to determine if the
responses were due to the stimulation
of pain receptors in the neck tissues
or to the sudden interruption of blood
flow to the brain, we developed two
experimental preparations: One allowed
us to perform a neck cut without
interrupting the blood flow and another
that permitted the major blood vessels
supplying the brain to be cut without
cutting the tissues of the neck. We
showed that the EEG responses were
due to the cutting of neck tissues and
not to the interruption of the blood
supply. We also demonstrated that
stunning with a percussive captive bolt
resulted in a rapid cessation of EEG
activity and prevented any cerebral
response to subsequent slaughter by
neck cut.
Taken together, these results
demonstrate that neck cut slaughter is
associated with noxious stimulation
that would be perceived as painful by
conscious animals. They also provide
further support for the value of stunning
in preventing pain and distress during
slaughter.
The Humane Slaughter Association’s
award was presented to me and three
other members of my team, Dr Troy
Gibson and Professors David Mellor
and Kevin Stafford, in recognition of our
contribution to scientific knowledge that
will underpin the provision of humane
slaughter practices.
In receiving this award I also
acknowledge the efforts of a large
number of people who contributed
in diverse ways to this work. We are
grateful to the UK Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
and the New Zealand Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry for jointly
funding these studies.
Craig Johnson
Associate Professor of Veterinary
Neurophysiology, Associate
Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics
Centre Institute of Veterinary, Animal and
Biomedical Sciences Massey University
C.B.Johnson@massey.ac.nz
The history of
ANIMAL WELFARE LAW IN New Zealand
British origins
I
n 1822 Richard Martin, an Irish MP
in the United Kingdom Parliament,
introduced an Act to prevent cruelty
to animals. He and his parliamentary
colleagues, William Wilberforce and
Lord Erskine, who were leaders of the
anti-slavery movement, turned their
attention to the plight of animals in
Victorian England. In 1835 Martin
succeeded and his Act was passed. On
21 May 1840, after the Treaty of Waitangi
was signed, William Hobson proclaimed
sovereignty over New Zealand, and with
that all the laws of England became
the laws of New Zealand. This was
confirmed by the English Laws Act 1858
(NZ) which declared that all the laws
of England that existed on 14 January
1840 were deemed to be in force in
New Zealand “as far as applicable to
the circumstances of the Colony and in
so far as the English laws were in force
immediately before the commencement
of ” that Act.
First New Zealand statutes
In 1872 the first SPCA (Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals)
was founded in Christchurch. By 1878
New Zealand had its own Cruelty to
Animals Act. In 1884 cruelty laws were
incorporated into the Police Offences
Act and remained largely unchanged
until 1957 when Mabel Howard
introduced her Animals Protection Bill
which was passed in 1960. It contained
another world-first by including farm
practices – anaesthetic was required
for some tail docking, castration, and
dehorning. Penalties were increased, and
the courts could disqualify convicted
owners and order the forfeiture of
animals. It recognised animal welfare
inspectors for the first time with powers
of inspection and seizure. Prior to
1960, SPCA inspectors had to rely on
appointments as special constables.
In 1984 an amendment provided for
a system of control of animals used in
research.
Law reform in the 1990s
In 1989 the Animal Welfare Advisory
Committee was appointed and its
review of animal protection law resulted
in a recommendation that a new Act
be drafted. Public consultations were
commenced but a Bill was not drafted
until Pete Hodgson MP introduced a
private member’s Bill in 1997. This was
joined by the government’s No 2 Bill and
became the Animal Welfare Act 1999.
The Act took a world-first approach
by legislating for the five freedoms of
animals. A statutory duty provides that
animal owners must provide for their
physical, health and behavioural needs:
proper and sufficient food and water;
adequate shelter; opportunity to display
normal patterns of behaviour; physical
handling which minimises pain and
distress; and protection from, and rapid
diagnosis of, significant injury or disease.
Other legislatures have borrowed heavily
from New Zealand, notably Queensland
with its Animal Care and Protection Act
2001, and the United Kingdom with its
Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Political reform
Law reform does not happen without
politicians. Throughout history the
major watersheds of animal protection
law reform have been at the instigation
of a passionate politician. Of note are
Richard Martin – An Act to Prevent
the Cruel and Improper Treatment of
Cattle (1835); Mabel Howard – Animals
Protection Act 1960; Ian Shearer –
Animals Protection Amendment Act
1984, Pete Hodgson – Animal Welfare
Act 1999, and this year, Simon Bridges,
whose Bill will increase maximum
penalties.
Future reform
Animal welfare law follows the moral
mores of society. As they change so too
will animal welfare law. But will cruelty
to animals ever be abolished? Not while
mankind can still be cruel to its own
species.
This article is based on material from
Thomson Reuter’s treatise text Animal
Law in New Zealand, authored by Barrister
Neil Wells. For more information, or to
purchase this text, please contact Thomson
Reuters Customer Care team service@
thomsonreuters.co.nz or freephone
0800 10 60 60 and quote “ANIMAL LAW
IN NEW ZEALAND”. Text available late
October 2010 (code: 0782).
Welfare Pulse – July 2010 • 19
 Domestic
SAVING LIVES
– a revolution
W
hen the Reverend Arthur
Broome established the
Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals in England in 1824
and Henry Bergh established the society
in the United States in 1866, their simple
objective was to save animals.
The enormity of the task they had
undertaken soon became apparent,
and in fact towards the end of his life
Bergh often lamented that he “hated to
think what will become of the Society
when I am gone”. His premonition
turned to reality through a variety of
circumstances, and before long the
Society rather than saving animals was
killing them.
The dilemma soon became a global one
as the dedicated people who followed in
the footsteps of those founding fathers
were placed in the unenviable position
of having to decide which of the animals
in their care could live and which should
die, and so it was for over a century.
20 • Welfare Pulse – July 2010
This dilemma was first
addressed by Richard Avanzino,
a maverick in the ‘animal
shelter’ industry, when he
announced in 1995 that the
San Francisco SPCA was to become
a ‘no kill’ facility. However, rather than
receiving accolades for the principle
of what he was proposing, Avanzino
attracted nothing but criticism. But he
did start something that was about to
ignite a new movement. The ‘no kill’
principle spread throughout the United
States and is now a global crusade
promoted by many, including outspoken
advocate Nathan Winograd who
attended New Zealand’s SPCA annual
conference in May to witness and
support the launch of its own crusade.
Taking the essential elements of
Winograd’s “no kill” programme, and
enhancing them even further, the Royal
New Zealand SPCA has embarked on
the most ambitious animal welfare
programme it had
ever collectively
tackled. The
“Saving Lives”
challenge was
issued to a stunned
audience at the
conference and
the challenge was
accepted.
The decision to use
the name “Saving
Lives” for the
programme was deliberate – the positive
connotation reflecting the transparent
nature of the ideology.
There are ten initiatives in the
programme, including the first step
which acknowledges that every life
is precious and therefore worth
preserving. Helping people to help
themselves, solving medical and
behavioural problems and desexing
programmes are included, together with
microchip identification for all animals
to help in their retrieval when lost or
injured.
Utilising rescue groups, foster homes
and volunteers, in addition to becoming
pro-active in the community, are also
essential ingredients that contribute to
saving lives. An effective programme
for saving vast numbers of stray cats
is another key element. Naturally
adoptions figure prominently and a
large number of ways of maximising
those were spelt out in the 50 page
report given to conference delegates. A
supporting checklist suggests 136 ways
to achieve results.
However, the most potent ingredient
in the “Saving Lives” programme is to be
found in the tenth step, simply called “can
do”.
The “Saving Lives” elementary principle is
the belief that we can do it, which spawned
the slogan “It’s the can do within us that will
save lives”. The delegates heard the message:
“Saving Lives starts as a resolve, develops
by embracing its philosophy, knowing that
what must be done, can be done and will be
done”.
International animal welfare
AWARD WINNER
T
he World Organisation for Animal
Health (OIE) recently awarded
Dr David Bayvel, Director
Animal Welfare MAF New Zealand, the
2010 OIE Meritorious Award for his
contribution to animal welfare.
This award is granted annually by the
OIE in international recognition of
individual’s outstanding technical,
scientific and administrative
contributions to the field of veterinary
science or animal disease control.
Dr Bayvel has chaired the OIE Animal
Welfare Working Group since its
establishment in 2002, and was a
member of the organising committees
for the 2004 and 2008 OIE Global
Conferences on animal welfare. He has
also been Co-ordinating Editor for the
OIE publication Animal Welfare: Global
Issues, Trends and Challenges and is
current Chair of the OIE Laboratory
For the animals that’s a call of hope,
a call they’ve been waiting to hear for
a century, a call that would warm the
hearts of those early SPCA founders
who had their “saving lives” dream
back then.
Bob Kerridge
President
RNZSPCA
bob.kerridge@spca.org.nz
Bob Kerridge
President
RNZSPCA
Animal Welfare
ad hoc group.
David says he
appreciates the
honour and
recognition
of significant
animal welfare
achievements.
“This award is
a tribute to the
individuals and
international organisations who have communities and individual OIE
contributed to the progress made by member countries have all played
the OIE in relation to animal welfare, a major role in assisting the OIE to
including past and present members of discharge its global mandate to improve
the animal welfare working group.” animal health and welfare worldwide”.
“International industry and farming The award was presented to Dr Bayvel
organisations, the international animal during the opening ceremony of the
welfare NGO (Non Governmental 78th General Session of the OIE World
Organisation) movement, the Assembly of Delegates on 23 May 2010.
international veterinary and science
Welfare Pulse – July 2010 • 21
 Domestic

Livestock Manager charged with

ILL-TREATMENT OF SHEEP
A
stock agent and trader was
recently sentenced under the
Animal Welfare Act for ill-
treating sheep in his ownership and care.
He was fined $11 000 and ordered to pay
$9700 in costs.
Mr Clark took out the grazing lease on
a plantation block of pine trees south
of Gisborne in March 2008, purchasing
and stocking it with about 1500 sheep.
A few months later, an investigation
was carried out by the Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) after
an initial inspection by the local SPCA
on part of the block revealed
numerous dead and poor
condition sheep.
An initial assessment of the needing to be down if they could not be removed. This
property revealed a large euthanased. instruction was not followed, and Mr
number of dead sheep in Mr Clark said Clark’s explanation was that “it was too
various stages of decay, live he knew there wet”. Just over 700 of the original sheep
sheep in very poor condition were dead that had been placed in the forestry
and some so weak and emaciated that sheep on the property but maintained block were found alive, leaving more
they were unable to stand. Pasture of they had all died from facial eczema. He than half dead or unaccounted for.
any quality was non existent and a fuller did not seek a veterinary diagnosis at MAF Enforcement Director Jockey
inspection the next day found sheep any stage to confirm his suspicions. Jensen says “This isn’t a case of a farmer
A muster was organised (with the caught out by a seasonal event like
help of local farmers) to remove drought – it is one where he has made
all the surviving sheep from a conscious decision to place large
the plantation. A number were numbers of vulnerable sheep into an
euthanased and others found to be entirely unsuitable area.”
emaciated. Post mortems found signs “The standard of care in this case
consistent with severe and prolonged was well below what the majority of
malnutrition and parasite infections, reasonable farmers would do”.
not facial eczema.
MAF issued instructions that any Lisa Gibbison
sheep remaining on the property Senior Communications Adviser
after the muster had to be removed Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
onto good feed within 14 days or put lisa.gibbison@maf.govt.nz

22 • Welfare Pulse – July 2010

LOW BODY CONDITION
in production animals sent for slaughter
I
n 2009, the New Zealand Food
Safety Authority Verification
Agency (NZFSAVA) implemented a
procedure to manage the welfare issues
associated with stock being presented
for slaughter in poor body condition.
The intent of this procedure is to ensure
a consistent and reasonable response by
VA personnel at slaughter premises to
the welfare concerns of these animals.
The development of procedures is a key
means of VA delivering a consistent
approach to verification and other
activities and it is a goal that VA
is committed to. A consistent and
reasonable approach to welfare issues
is especially important as it is an area
where there can be such a diverse
range of personal views. A regulatory
agency needs to ensure objective and
transparent systems are in place.
Other welfare procedures that VA
has developed recently include those
relating to bobby calves and velvet/
antler issues in deer.
This procedure for low body condition
stock was developed after considerable
discussion and input, particularly from
the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
and DairyNZ .
The basis of the procedure is twofold:
firstly, using recognised body condition
scoring methods as a means of
measuring how fat or how skinny
an animal is, and secondly, using
the recommendations in the Codes
of Welfare to interpret those body
condition scores within a welfare
context.
The Codes of Welfare indicate that there
is a level of body condition at which
remedial action is necessary to improve
the body condition of that animal.
The intent of these Codes is clear, that
there is a (low) level of body condition
which is considered unacceptable to the
welfare of that animal.
For dairy cattle this specified level is a
BCS below 3 (on a scale of 1–10), for
deer a BCS below 2 (on a scale of 1–5),
for pigs a BCS below 2.5 (on a scale of
1–5) and for beef cattle and sheep, a BCS
of 1 (on a scale of 1–5).
The welfare concerns associated with
poor conditioned stock include:
• has that animal/s been provided with
proper and sufficient feed;
• was it reasonable and acceptable
to transport that animal/s in that
condition (to slaughter);
• was the remedial response by the
person in charge, to the low body
condition of those animals likely to
have been reasonable and acceptable;
• could these animals indicate a more
extensive welfare problem on that
property.
The VA procedure addresses two
situations and provides guidelines for
each:
1. Was it reasonable and acceptable to
transport that animal to slaughter?
Cattle with a BCS 2 or less, sheep, deer
and pigs with a BCS 1 or less should be
considered as unsuitable to transport.
These animals are likely to be less
robust and more at risk of going down
during transport or in lairage. Time and
distance travelled are relevant factors
when considering transport suitability.
2. Have the needs of these animals
been adequately met? Have they been
adequately fed? Could the state of
these animals indicate a more serious
and extensive welfare issue on that
farm?
If 25 percent of animals in any line
of cattle are BCS 2.5 or below, or if
25 percent of animals in any line of
deer, pig, or sheep are BCS 1.5 or below,
further investigation is required to
assess the extent of the welfare issues
associated with that line.
Other factors to be considered include:
• are animals condemned in the yards;
• are animals condemned at post
mortem inspection;
• post-mortem results;
• is this a repetitive instance from the
same supplier.
The procedure has been in place for
over 12 months and early indications
are there is a greater level of consistency
in both approach to assessing body
condition scoring and in reporting of
welfare cases related to body condition.
Further training and calibration of
VA staff will help improve this further
across the country during 2010.
As with the other targeted welfare
projects that NZFSAVA helps to co-
ordinate, over time the data from this
programme will enable trends to be
identified and enable resources to be
targeted to those areas of most need.
Richard Wild
Specialist Adviser (Animal Welfare)
New Zealand Food Safety Authority
Verification Agency
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
richard.wild@nzfsa.govt.nz
Welfare Pulse – July 2010 • 23
 Domestic
Historic sentence for
CRUEL POULTRY OPERATION
R
unning a poultry farm in a way
that caused suffering and distress
to animals in his care has landed
an Auckland poultry farmer in prison
and cost him the right to own broiler
chickens for 10 years.
Gerard Van Den Bogaart, trading as
Golden Harvest Poultry, was recently
sentenced after pleading guilty to four
offences under the Animal Products Act
1999 and two offences under the Animal
Welfare Act 1999.
In June 2008 New Zealand Food Safety
Authority (NZFSA) investigators and
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
(MAF) animal welfare investigators –
assisted by police, local council officers
and a veterinarian – executed search
warrants on two properties that Mr
Van Den Bogaart was operating from.
This was done on the basis of suspected
illegal slaughter and sale of poultry and
eggs to a number of Auckland retailers.
During the three-day operation more
than 100 000 eggs were seized and
destroyed, 5000 laying hens were
relocated and more than 1000 mainly
broiler chickens euthanased to alleviate
24 • Welfare Pulse – July 2010
their
suffering.
A further
4000 hens,
broiler chickens and ducks also had to
be euthanased because they could not be
relocated to compliant properties.
In sentencing, the Judge commented
that Mr Van Den Bogaart had been cruel
and his significant offending over a long
period of time had led to suffering and
distress for the animals in his care.
Mr Van Den Bogaart was sentenced
under the Animal Welfare Act to one
year in prison for the wilful ill-treatment
of broiler chickens and roosters in his
care and for two months for failing to
provide for their physical, health and
behavioural needs. Under the Animal
Products Act, he was imprisoned for
six months for selling non-compliant
animal products. He was also ordered
to pay almost $10 000 in costs and
disqualified from keeping broiler
chickens for 10 years.
Sentencing marks the culmination
of two years of work by authorities.
NZFSA Director of Compliance and
Iinvestigation Geoff Allen says what the
investigators found during the operation
beggared belief.
“We found chickens that were kept
in filthy and inhumane conditions.
No consumer should be put at risk
by eating eggs or animals produced,
kept or slaughtered in such unsanitary
conditions and where the necessary
precautions are not taken to manage the
presence of harmful bacteria.”
Prior to the operation, NZFSA had
tried in vain to help Mr Van Den
Bogaart make his operation compliant
by developing a Risk Management
Programme (RMP), which is a
legal requirement for all poultry
slaughterhouses and all egg producers
with more than 100 female birds.
MAF Investigations Manager Greg Reid
said that failing to protect the welfare of
all production animals including poultry
is an offence under the Animal Welfare
Act 1999.
“The Act places a duty of care on
everyone who owns or is in charge
of animals to prevent pain, suffering
and distress. Turning a blind eye to
animals’ suffering – and in this case for
personal and financial gain – has serious
consequences; not just for the animals
but now for Mr Van Den Bogaart
through a court hearing and extensive
penalties.
“The standard of care and management
in this case was well below and far
removed from the behaviours of a
reasonable and prudent poultry farmer.
Such conduct impacts on the reputation
of all good poultry farmers throughout
New Zealand.”
International
Animal welfare:
HOW TO MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE
“I do not believe in telling
consumers what they
should buy, but I firmly
believe we have a duty to
let them know what they
are buying.”
T
his slogan from the European
Union (EU) Commissioner for
Health and Consumers, John
Dally, sets the scene for the work on
animal welfare labelling in the EU.
Transparent and reliable information
makes it easier for consumers to identify
and choose welfare-friendly products,
and thereby gives an economic incentive
to producers to improve the welfare of
animals.
Animal husbandry in the EU has a
reputation for its high animal welfare
standards. Where standards above the
legal minimum are applied producers
have to find ways to obtain a fair return
which corresponds to the added value
this gives to the products.
European citizens clearly express their
disappointment and concern when they
are unable to readily identify products
with high animal welfare standards.
For them, animal welfare is not just a
matter of ethical considerations. It is
fundamentally linked to broader societal
goals such as food safety and quality,
ensuring environmental protection and
sustainability and enhancing quality of
life both for humans and animals.
While voluntary welfare labelling
schemes exist, there is no harmonised
system of animal welfare standards for
labelling purposes and consumers are
unable to understand and differentiate
the welfare standards promoted under
these schemes. A knock-on effect of
this is that very few products provide
information to the consumer on
welfare standards and there is very
little motivation for more producers
to improve animal welfare and market
their products accordingly.
Labelling options
In a report adopted last year, the
Commission explored several policy
options to address these shortcomings.
Harmonised requirements for voluntary
use of animal welfare claims constitute
one such option, another is a voluntary
Animal Welfare Label open for all to
use, provided they meet the criteria.
Additional communication activities
like information and education
campaigns would contribute further
to raise awareness among citizens,
operators and producers on animal
welfare issues.
Presenting the report, former EU Health
Commissioner Androulla Vassiliou said,
“If successfully communicated, higher
animal welfare standards offer the
prospect of a win-win situation for both
consumers and producers. Consumers
looking for welfare-friendly products
can more easily identify them, and
producers applying higher standards can
market their products more effectively.”
Marketing standards on table eggs
An example of existing labelling in the
EU is the marketing standards on table
eggs. Shell-eggs have to be labelled
with the farming system under which
they have been obtained. There are four
permitted production system labels: eggs
from caged hens, barn eggs, free-range
eggs and organic eggs. The requirements
for these production systems are
laid down in legislation. Since the
implementation of the legislation, the
percentage of non-caged egg production
has increased significantly in nearly all
member states.
Assessment of animal welfare
To make it easier to communicate
higher animal welfare standards to the
public in a transparent way, the EU
Commission suggests the development
of a science-based tool to make animal
welfare measurable. The EU-funded
research project Welfare Quality, which
concluded in December 2009 after five
years of work, developed assessment
protocols for pigs, cattle and poultry.
This could lead to a system to classify
animal welfare that is focused more
on animal-based measures directly
related to animal body condition, health
aspects, injuries and behaviour. The EU
Commission suggests establishing a
network of animal welfare centres which
could provide technical support for
further development of a standardised
assessment system.
For more information, see:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/
index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/
farm/labelling_en.htm
Jostein Dragset
Veterinary Adviser
European Commission
Jostein.dragset@ec.europa.eu
Welfare Pulse – July 2010 • 25
 New Australian
ANIMAL WELFARE
STANDARDS
T
he development of the Australian
Animal Welfare Standards and
Guidelines (S&G) represents
a major collaboration between
governments, livestock industry
councils, research organisations and
community-based animal welfare
organisations.
Animal Health Australia is developing
the S&G for livestock in collaboration
with stakeholders, beginning with the
S&G for land transport (completed in
2008) and continuing with the S&G
for cattle and sheep. The S&G will
communicate clearly the expectations
for animal welfare to everyone
responsible for animals in Australia.
The standards will be the clear, essential
requirements for animal welfare that
can be effectively legislated. They reflect
available scientific knowledge, current
practice and community expectations.
Australia draws heavily on relevant
research from New Zealand in this
26 • Welfare Pulse – July 2010
process, as we grapple with the same
issues in many cases.
The guidelines recommend practices
to achieve desirable animal welfare
outcomes; they do not provide more
detail for the standards. The guidelines
will not be enforced but underpin the
objective of “better animal welfare”.
Guidelines use the word ‘should’ as
a non-mandatory term. While much
of the focus is on the standards, the
importance of industry implementation
of good welfare practice is well
recognised.
A major outcome sought by industry
in these projects is progress towards
harmonisation of animal welfare
regulatory outcomes in all eight
jurisdictions of the Federation. The
S&G documents will replace the Model
Codes of Practice for the Welfare of
Animals, developed mostly in the 1980s,
as the policy vehicle for animal welfare
in Australia.
The development of the S&G is
being undertaken by a core, skills-
based writing group and a larger
representational reference group,
including governments and national
livestock and welfare organisations.
Key components of the development
process include a public consultation
period and a regulation impact
analysis, requirements for any new
legislation. Key process values include
a commitment to consultation,
transparency, accountability and
consensus decision-making.
Achieving agreement on some policies
is a challenge given the diversity of
geographic environments in Australia,
so four main questions are used for
assessing proposed standards:
• Are they desirable for livestock
welfare?
• Are they feasible for industry and
government to implement?
• Are they important for the livestock-
 welfare regulatory system?
• Will they achieve the intended
outcome for livestock welfare?
The standards use two types of word
construction – prescriptive (detailed)
and non-prescriptive. The latter are
fewer in number but cover a number of
important areas of welfare where there
may be a lack of agreement, appropriate
animal welfare indicators or appropriate
science, and where a value judgement
on ‘reasonable actions’ to address risks
to animal welfare must be made for each
particular circumstance. It is recognised
that such standards may be difficult
to interpret and enforce and S&G
documents do not set out the detailed,
normative requirements to meet these
non-prescriptive standards.
Detailed advice or standard operating
procedures that may be relevant at a
farm, regional, state or national level
will generally not be found in the S&G
document.
This information will be conveyed in
industry and government extension
materials and veterinary and other
professional advice. The industry
service providers such as Meat
and Livestock Australia and
Dairy Australia are undertaking
welfare research and developing
industry best practice guides
and governments have a range of
fact sheets and advisory notes on
relevant topics.
The livestock welfare S&G
documents are an important
enduring foundation for animal
welfare management in Australia.
Developing animal welfare
standards is a complex public
policy process that requires a
lot of effort by a large team of
people to consider the scientific,
ethical, economic, practical and
political considerations. The vision of all
participants is for better national animal
welfare outcomes.
Kevin de Witte
Manager Livestock Welfare
Animal Health Australia
kdewitte@animalhealthaustralia.com.au
Animal Health Australia (AHA) is an innovative
partnership involving the Australian Government, state
and territory governments, major livestock industries
and other stakeholders. We work with our members and
stakeholders to strengthen Australia’s national animal
health system and maximise confidence in the safety and
quality of Australia’s livestock products in domestic and
overseas markets.
Within the framework of a not-for-profit company, AHA
manages more than 50 national programmes that
improve animal and human health, biosecurity, market
access, livestock welfare, productivity, and food safety
and quality.
AHA is dedicated to advancing issues that are
associated with the health and welfare of livestock of
collective interest to the national animal health system
stakeholders. The company also manages national animal
health related programs for all, or a subset of members.
The Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines
are being developed by AHA under an agreed business
plan and in collaboration with stakeholders.
Additional information:
Australian Animal Welfare Strategy
www.daff.gov.au/animal-plant-health/
welfare/aaws
Animal Health Australia welfare
programme information
www.animalhealthaustralia.com.au/
programs/livestock-welfare/livestock-
welfare_home$.cfm
S&G Project information
www.animalwelfarestandards.net.au
Regulation Impact Analysis
www.finance.gov.au/obpr/about/index.html
Kevin de Witte
Manager Livestock Welfare
Animal Health Australia
Welfare Pulse – July 2010 • 27
 International
ANIMAL LAW
in animal welfare
D
efinitions of animal welfare
vary according to the discipline
and the person providing the
definition. However, the legal definition
and criteria regarding animal welfare
must logically be incorporated into all
proposed definitions affecting the care
of animals because, as a prerequisite, all
interactions involving animals must be
“lawful”.
In New Zealand, the legal criteria are
largely contained within the Animal
Welfare Act 1999. This Act repealed the
former Animals Protection Act 1960
and the clue to the differences between
the two pieces of legislation is in the
one word difference in the legislative
name. While retaining the concepts of
protection of animals by criminalising
blatant acts of cruelty, contemporary
animal welfare law establishes a general
standard of conduct that applies to all
people regarding animals, and puts
specific obligations on people who have
28 • Welfare Pulse – July 2010
animals in their care.
It is increasingly recognised that animal
welfare is not an issue in isolation;
matters of animal welfare have a broad
impact on wider subjects such as
economics, sustainability, ethics, and
an enormous range of human interests
including food quality and safety,
conservation, environmental impacts,
disease control, and international trade.
Where human interests are at stake it
follows that the law and lawyers are also
likely to be involved.
Law concerning animals has been in
existence for a long time, but these
dealings have been consolidated
in recent times in the distinct legal
discipline of animal law. Running
parallel is the increased awareness of
the relevance and importance of animal
welfare – the study of animal law is one
of the fastest growing legal studies in law
schools around the world.
According to International Animal Law,
issues of contemporary animal law have
three elements. They:
• involve an animal;
• differentiate the animate nature of
animals by acknowledging their ability
to feel pain and distress;
• affect the human-animal relationship.
Not all questions of law involving an
animal are necessarily a case of animal
law. So while it is relatively easy to
recognise that animal law logically
involves an animal, the remaining
elements warrant clarification.
The relationship between humans
and animals
As the name of the Act Welfare Act
1999 illustrates, legislative focus is on
animal “welfare” not animal “rights”.
Not all animal interest groups are the
same, and the terms “animal rights”,
“activists”, and “animal welfare” have
quite different meanings generically and
in law. However, misunderstandings
about the distinctions is a frequent cause
of confusion, contention, and/or bias.
Opinions regarding the role and
treatment of animals obviously vary
significantly. The law’s attention to
animal “welfare” provides a point of
balance between the polarised views of
purist inherent-value concepts versus
those which view animals simply as a
commodity. Legislators have the task
of balancing the multitude of opinions
and prioritising the competing and
frequently conflicting interests of the
many stakeholders involved in animal
welfare issues. It follows that animals
are stakeholders who represent one, but
not the only group whose interests are
to be represented. Opinions regarding
how animals’ interests should be
represented and prioritised vary in their
degree of objectivity, emotive argument
and anthropomorphic approaches,
and the democratic system provides
an opportunity for each opinion to
be expressed. The phrase “evolution
rather than revolution” illustrates
that there are advantages in utilising
realistic and lawful engagement to
bring about constructive change,
rather than methodologies which are
either unlawful or largely publicly
unacceptable. While unlawful, myopic
and/or unacceptable approaches may
provide an outlet for the views of the
people/groups involved, such practices
simultaneously risk alienating key
influential decision-makers and thereby
deferring, or even losing potential
benefits to the animals themselves.
Irrespective of whether people view
animals as simply commodities, or
creatures deserving of individual
protections, it is clear that decisions
about animals and their welfare have a
direct impact on almost every aspect
of human society. This includes food,
finance, and the environment shared by
animals and humans. In short, whatever
affects animal welfare is likely to affect
humans as well, so humans and animals
have a relationship on the basis that
their interests are inextricably linked.
This is just one of the considerations
that must be understood and taken into
account by decision-makers addressing
issues of governance both nationally and
internationally.
Animals are law’s “special” property
In legal terms, animals are classified as
property, but describing animals simply
as legal property similar to a chair in
New Zealand or any other jurisdiction
which has contemporary animal welfare
legislation, illustrates either an archaic or
misinformed understanding of leading
animal welfare law. Contemporary
animal welfare legislation creates a
form of “specialist property law” by
recognising the animate nature of
animals that is distinct from inanimate
objects. This is illustrated by legislative
acknowledgment that animals, as
animate property, are capable of
experiencing pain and distress.
Although academic debates regarding
the continued classification of animals
as property are controversial and likely
to continue, the fact remains that the
law has historically demonstrated a clear
focus and ability in protecting property.
In turn, this means that in terms of
practical protection of animals, and
therefore practical benefit for animals,
there are at least as many good legal
arguments for retaining the property
status as there are from those who argue
against it.
A changing landscape
Animal welfare is described as a
multidisciplinary and multi-factorial
issue. It is also an issue where,
fundamentally, decisions must be
“lawful” as a prerequisite consideration
to implementation of any policy,
procedure, or suggestion involving
change. The animal law landscape
is shifting, reflecting national and
international shifts in political and
public expectations concerning
animals and their wellbeing. The
development of animal welfare law
places legal obligations on all owners
and persons in charge of animals,
and attaches accountabilities with
associated liabilities in the event that
those obligations are not fulfilled. It
follows that it is important to ensure the
inclusion of accurate input and advice
regarding those legal obligations to
debates, forums, and decision-making
bodies in order to achieve objective,
realistic, and lawful animal welfare
outcomes.
About the author:
Ian Robertson is a veterinarian and lawyer
who has combined his training and
expertise to become an internationally
recognised animal welfare law specialist.
He is an associate of the World
Organization for Animal Health (OIE)
Collaborating Centre for Animal Welfare
Science and Bioethical Analysis, a member
of the International Advisory Board of
Compassion in World Farming, and the
Director of International Animal Law
(www.animal-law.biz). He is also a
consultant and law lecturer on issues
of animal welfare and a lawyer with
the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
prosecutions team.
Disclaimer: This paper represents the
opinion of the author and is intended for
informational and educational purposes
only. It does not constitute legal advice,
or the establishment of any lawyer/client
relationship. Readers with questions
regarding specific situations and/or
circumstances should contact their legal
adviser for assistance and advice.
Welfare Pulse – July 2010 • 29
 International
The Animal Welfare Information Center of the
US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
I
n 1985, the United States’ Congress
passed an amendment to Animal
Welfare Act – The Improved Standards
for Laboratory Animals Act. The
amendment states that an “information
service shall be established at the
National Agricultural Library (NAL).”
The law also directs the regulated
community to address pain reduction
and to reduce unnecessary duplicative
research by searching available and
relevant databases (it may be the first US
law that mandates the use of electronic
databases). It also defines animals as
cats, dogs, non-human primates, rabbits,
guinea pigs, and hamsters. Rattus and
Mus species are excluded. The venues that
are covered by the Act include animals
in biomedical research, using animals
in painful experiments, animals used in
higher education excluding food and fibre
use, animals as defined used in testing,
zoos, circuses, dog dealer facilities, and
marine mammals on exhibit.
The Animal Welfare Information
Center (AWIC) is mandated to address
the following: provide services and
information and address employee
training in proper handling of animals,
methods that an alleviate pain and
distress, and potential alternatives to
painful experiments as in the Three Rs of
Russell and Burch.
The AWIC was established at the NAL
in 1986. The programme utilises access
to major scientific databases, staff
experienced in searching databases, and
staff with science backgrounds. With
these skills, the staff developed and
refined the “alternatives search”.
Database resources were searched
to compile topical bibliographies
in mandated topics oriented to the
30 • Welfare Pulse – July 2010
regulated community, e.g. training
materials for animal facilities, animal
euthanasia, swine housing and facilities,
Animal Care and Use Committees,
animal models in biomedical research,
LD60 and LC50 tests. By 1989, 18 such
publications were available. Today there
are 150 electronic publications available
on CDs and on the website. The staff
also provides “alternatives searches”
for researchers’ protocols, Institutional
Animal Care and Use Committees,
and the information needs of the US
Department of Agriculture Animal
Care Unit, tasked with regulatory
responsibilities for enforcing the
requirements of the Animal Welfare Act.
In 1991, staff developed a workshop to
teach the AWIC approach to searching
for alternatives – Meeting the Information
Requirements of the Animal Welfare
Act. About 3000 people have taken the
workshop at NAL and outside venues
such as pharmaceutical companies,
universities, research institutions, US
government agencies, and military
units. Attendees include researchers,
veterinarians, facility managers,
Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committee members, associations, and
others.
Staff offer outreach activities, including
presentations at annual meetings and
conferences and exhibiting at national
and international conferences and
meetings.
A grants programme has supported the
production of a variety of programme-
relevant information products and
activities. Grants of seed money were
given for the First World Congress on
Alternatives and Animal Use in the
Life Sciences: Education, Research and
Testing, and to establish an international
conference for veterinary librarians.
Both groups continue to this day.
AWIC has worked with several
international collaborators, including
a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with New Zealand to exchange
publications and to link to each other’s
material; a collaboration with the
Universities Federation for Animal
Welfare to produce a publication on
enrichment for laboratory animals; a
published bibliography on the use of
animals in research with Dr Margaret
Rose of Australia; writing an article with
Dr Adrian Smith about the resources
in NORINA (a Norwegian Inventory
of Alternatives). Currently AWIC is
exploring an MOU with South Korea
to support its establishment of animal
welfare regulations.
AWIC is developing an extensive website
– awic.nal.usa.gov. It contains documents
and links supporting the AWIC mandate
and provides links to other databases
and resources. Users can access the
AWIC news’ feeds, Facebook page and a
Twitter feed from the site.
AWIC will continue to produce a variety
of information products, exhibiting and
training in the “alternatives search”. Work
has started to scan historical documents
related to the Animal Welfare Act and
other important documents to make
them available
electronically.
Jean Larson is the
recently retired
AWIC Programme
Co-ordinator. Jean Larson
TRUTH, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE
T
he Ninth Annual Animal
Agriculture Alliance (AAA)
Stakeholders Summit held recently
in Arlington, Virginia, brought together
a highly esteemed group of presenters to
examine this year’s theme: “Truth, Lies,
and Videotape: Is Activism Jeopardising
Our Food Security”
Current Chair of the Alliance,
Dr Elizabeth Parker, welcomed
participants saying this year’s event
was timely given the pressure animal
activists were applying on farmers,
processors and suppliers.
These sentiments were echoed by
Sara Wyant, President, Agri-Pulse
Communications and Summit
moderator who described the year as a
challenging one for United States food
producers who were being increasingly
targeted by activists and urged the
group to forge ties to help protect the
industry’s interests.
As a sign of the growing influence
of the Summit, Congressman David
Scott, Chair of the Livestock, Dairy and
Poultry Subcommittee took time out of
a busy schedule to speak about issues
facing the industry and believed one of
the greatest challenges was the ability
to get “the correct information out to
the masses” about the benefits of the
agriculture sector.
Congressmen Scott spoke of the
difference between the emotional
values placed on pets and animals
raised for food, claiming “we cannot
base the use of farm animals on our
emotions surrounding pets”. He also
spoke of the need for an effective
animal identification system, warned
of the continued threat of terrorism
on the food supply and was especially
vocal in his opposition to legislation
that would eliminate non-therapeutic
use of antibiotics stating “an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure”. In
closing, he reminded the audience that it
was the farmer’s responsibility to ensure
animals were well cared for and that the
food they produced was safe.
Wesley J. Smith, author of A Rat is a
Pig is a Dog is a Boy and Senior Fellow
in Human Rights and Bioethics at
The Discovery Institute, spoke of the
significant differences between those
advocating for animal welfare and other
groups who were pushing a more radical
animal rights agenda. He felt these
groups were unwilling to compromise
on their extreme views and successfully
used misinformation that was high on
emotion to mislead the public. Smith
called on the industry to do a better job
of explaining the traditions of animal
husbandry and share the tremendous
human benefit received from farm
animals.
David Martosko, Research Director
at the Center for Consumer Freedom
and editor of www.humanewatch.org,
gave a stirring address that stressed
the importance for those in the animal
agriculture industry to do more to
counter claims made by animal activists
that demonised their livelihood. He
believed the goal of these organisations
was to create conflict to further their
own agenda and it was critical for
farmers to fight back. Farmers, he
felt, needed to ask themselves if they
believed in farming and if so whether
they were willing to defend it. He
criticised industry for being “really good
at making 80 page scientific papers that
no one will read” in contrast to animal
rights groups who were “really good at
creating messages for bumper stickers”
read by the masses. He encouraged
a show of unity from all agriculture
groups in order to reframe debates
surrounding animal welfare and the
raising of animals for food. Farmers,
he believed, were the true “animal
welfarists” and must reclaim the centre.
Other interesting presentations at this
year’s summit focused on potential
animal welfare state ballot initiatives,
proactive industry animal welfare
initiatives, and how social networking
sites such as Facebook and Twitter were
being used to send positive industry
messages to those in urban areas.
For more information on the summit
and the Animal Agriculture Alliance go
to www.animalagalliance.org.
Jason Frost
Technical Advisor
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade,
Washington DC USA
jason.frost@mfat.govt.nz
Jason Frost
Technical Advisor
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
Trade
Welfare Pulse – July 2010 • 31
 International
A POSITIVE APPROACH
to animal welfare
The question is not,
“Can they reason?” nor,
“Can they talk?” but
rather, “Can they suffer?”
Jeremy Bentham, English
philosopher, 1748-1832
B
entham’s dictum has been the
foundation of British policy on
the welfare of farm and other
animals for the past two centuries.
Indeed, an historical
review of British Quality of Life
legislation reveals
only minor changes
in the expectation
that animals should
not suffer, once it A life worth living
was recognised that
they were more than
A life not worth living
chattels. The Animal
Welfare Act 2006 (in
England and Wales
©Farm Animal Welfare Council, 2009
and similar legislation
in Scotland) now
requires that an animal’s needs are
provided. These needs are based on
the FAWC’s Five Freedoms that were
first promulgated in 1979 and which
have their origins in the 1965 Brambell
inquiry into the welfare of animals kept
under intensive livestock husbandry
systems. The Brambell inquiry
concluded that “more was needed to
protect animal welfare more than just
preventing wanton cruelty”.
The FAWC’s recent report (Farm Animal
Welfare in Great Britain: Past, Present
and Future; October 2009) builds on
Bentham’s sturdy foundations and
proposes that acceptable welfare – the
so-called minimum standard – should
32 • Welfare Pulse – July 2010
move beyond the current test of whether
the animal suffers, there is unnecessary
pain or distress or its needs are met, to
a new standard of whether the animal
has a life worth living or not, from the
animal’s point of view. This positive
approach to animal welfare is a logical
development in man’s humane treatment
of farm animals.
At first sight, the notion of “a life
worth living” may seem strange when
Classification
A good life
Policy
Welfare
surveillance
Retail
marketing
considering a farm animal. Yet, it is
very familiar to many veterinarians
and farmers who are often called
upon to cull, in a swift and humane
manner, animals in ill health. Regularly,
judgements are made about an animal’s
welfare, e.g. if it’s not possible to treat
this disease or to improve that aspect of
husbandry then the animal is culled on
humanitarian grounds. The inference is
that the positive experiences outweigh
the negative and that certain harms are
not caused. An animal that does not
have ‘a life worth living’ – from its point
of view – and whose circumstances
cannot be improved to achieve such a
life, is, literally, better off dead.
Straightaway, this new standard puts
everyone on the front foot and moves
beyond the Five Freedoms with their
heavy emphasis on avoidance of negative
experiences. While of course it is –
and will continue to be – absolutely
necessary to punish those who are cruel,
cause animals to suffer deliberately and
unnecessarily or do not provide for an
animal’s needs, we can now celebrate
the good things in an animal’s life while
continuing to abhor the
bad.
Decision Determining whether an
making animal has “a life worth
living” requires that both
Veterinary positive and negative
treatment
experiences are counted.
Traditionally, veterinarians
Investment
and stockmen have been
keen observers of negative
Animal use experiences and associated
affective states, such as
pain, anxiety, fear and
discomfort. The FAWC’s
proposal entails equal consideration of
positive experiences and their affective
states too, e.g. play and contentment,
as the best observers have always
done. There is also a role to develop
the concept of ‘iceberg indicators’ of
welfare, i.e. those key physiological,
behavioural and psychological signs
of well-being that indicate that all is
well, such as body condition, normal
behaviour and alertness. Just as the
sighting of an iceberg signals that 90% of
its bulk is below the water line – and we
ignore that tip at our peril – so iceberg
indicators are critical signs of welfare.
Few good observers (mentally) tick 100
or more boxes when assessing animals;
instead, they use iceberg indicators
to decide whether to leave well alone
or investigate. Teaching veterinary
students about iceberg indicators and
thus making them good observers, is an
essential part of veterinary education
and should be a cornerstone of the
curriculum.
‘A life worth living’ is a statement
about an animal’s quality of life over
its lifetime, including the manner of its
death. A reasoned judgement is required
and, because animals cannot speak,
we mostly have to rely on external
observable signs and cues (outcome-
based measures in the jargon), just as
a physician does when dealing with an
unspeaking infant. Who is to make the
judgement? Veterinarians, inspectors
from assurance schemes and stockmen
can all play their part on the basis of
their expertise, role and interest. What
is needed is regular assessment over
an animal’s lifetime using validated
methods, including iceberg indicators.
Many will argue that it will never be
possible to make the judgement from
the animal’s point of view. But this is
familiar territory for the veterinarian
and stockman, even if interpretation of
observable signs of welfare is subjective:
in any case, the Courts will be the
ultimate arbiter if the new standard has
the force of the law.
Quality of Life (QoL) is a new way of
looking at farm animal welfare. It is a
universal concept that can be applied
to all animals, regardless of their use or
value to us. QoL may be compromised
by the powerful economic and other
forces that combine to determine
an animal’s collective experiences
over its lifetime. The diagram shows
a QoL range from ‘a life not worth
living’ to ‘a good life’. The uppermost
category indicates that an even higher
standard than ‘a life worth living’ may
be experienced by some animals. The
FAWC report states ”The requirements
for ‘a good life’ go well beyond those
for the lower level. Not only must there
be full compliance with the law but
also with examples of good practice
described in the Welfare Code. In
addition, good welfare should be a
main aim of husbandry with disease
controlled by the strictest measures
and with minimal prevalence, normal
behaviour, availability of environmental
choices and harmless wants, a ban on
most, if not all, mutilations, certain
husbandry practices (including the
manner of death) prescribed or
forbidden, opportunities provided for an
animal’s comfort, pleasure, interest and
confidence, and the highest standards
of veterinary care. Above all else, the
highest standard of stockmanship has to
be provided”.
Quality of life can be used for
classification and decision making. For
example, are the marketing claims of
a farm assurance scheme consistent
with ‘a life worth living’ or ‘a good
life’? Which of investment in stockmen
training or bricks-and-mortar will yield
the greater QoL return? If an animal is
being used in research, what are the QoL
costs to it and what are the QoL benefits
to other animals, including humans?
[The Animals (Scientific Procedures)
Act states clearly “In determining
whether and on what terms to grant a
project licence the Secretary of State
shall weigh the likely adverse effects
on the animals concerned against the
benefit likely to accrue”: a QoL balance
sheet should be computed.]
The FAWC’s proposal should sit
comfortably with the veterinarian’s
declaration on admission to the Royal
College to ensure the welfare of animals.
After all, while the veterinarian’s raison
d’être is normally to treat disease, we can
all rejoice in the rich lives of farm and
other animals. It would be a damning
indictment of Government and
commercial policies since Brambell’s
inquiry if the intention had not been to
give each and every farm animal a “life
worth living”.
The question is not just,
“Do they suffer?” nor, “Are
their needs met?” but
rather, “Do they have a life
worth living?” The Farm
Animal Welfare Council,
2010
Christopher Wathes
Chairman
The Farm Animal Welfare Council
fawcsecretariat@defra.gsi.gov.uk
Christopher Wathes
Chairman
The Farm Animal Welfare Council
Welfare Pulse – July 2010 • 33
 International
Animal health, world trade, and food safety:
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
W
e live in one world where
diseases do not recognise
national boundaries. The
need for countries to work together to
prevent the spread of animal diseases
led to the formation of the Office
International des Epizooties (OIE) in
1924. This organisation is now known
as the World Organization for Animal
Health, but has maintained the original
acronym of OIE.
Its 176 member countries and territories
constitute the OIE “World Assembly
of Delegates”. Every May country
delegates meet at the OIE Headquarters
in Paris for the annual General Session
to discuss global health concerns and
issues. The growth in international
travel and agricultural trade in the
20th century has increased the risk
of transmitting pests and diseases
that affect humans and animals,
making the work of the OIE ever more
indispensable. The devastating effects of
recent outbreaks of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (mad cow disease), foot
and mouth disease, and avian influenza
plus the challenges for the 21st century,
such as antimicrobial resistance, food
safety and animal welfare all bring a
focus on international animal health
and world trade.
The growth in international trade during
the 20th century led to the formation of
the World Trade Organization (WTO)
in 1995. The WTO, which deals with
the rules of trade between nations,
including agricultural trade, names the
OIE as the official body for development
of international standards related to
animal health.
Animal welfare was first identified as
34 • Welfare Pulse – July 2010
a priority in the OIE Strategic Plan
2001-2005. OIE member countries and
territories mandated the organisation
to take the lead internationally on
animal welfare and to elaborate
recommendations and guidelines
covering animal welfare practices,
reaffirming that animal health is a key
component of animal welfare. The OIE
Animal Welfare Working Group was
inaugurated at the 70th General Session
of the OIE in May 2002 and its first
recommendations were adopted one
year later.
Michigan State University (MSU) in the
United States offers an online course
addressing the many challenges of
animal health, the OIE, and food safety:
Animal Health, World Trade, and Food
Safety: Challenges and Opportunities.
This Internet-based college course is
taught by an international network
of veterinary, food science and legal
professionals who understand the
regulatory and legal complexities of the
flow of animals, food and agricultural
products across national boundaries.
It is one of nine courses in a series of
region- or subject-specific food law
courses comprising the International
Food Law Distance Education
Certificate Program. The lead instructor
for the Animal Health and World Trade
course is Dr Scott R.R. Haskell who is
extremely familiar with the workings
of the OIE. Dr David Bayvel, Director
of Animal Welfare for the New Zealand
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
chairs the OIE Working Group on
Animal Welfare and instructs the
animal welfare portion of this exciting
MSU course.
Course topics emphasise the OIE,
the World Bank and the World Trade
Organization’s role in monitoring and
developing international standards
for the control of global animal health
issues. The diverse speakers maintain
varied interests. They include:
• Bernard Vallat, Director General of
the World Organization for Animal
Health lecturing on OIE history,
objectives and operations;
• Veronique Bellemain of the National
School of Veterinary Services Lyon,
France, lecturing on the OIE in
animal production food safety;
• Francois G. Le Gall of the World Bank
lecturing on the OIE, and the World
Bank on capacity building;
• Alex Thiermann, OIE Code
Commission lecturing on
development and adoption of OIE
standards;
• Lonnie King, Dean, College of
Veterinary Medicine Ohio State
University, USA lectures on the future
challenges and opportunities of
international animal health;
• Gretchen Stanton, World Trade
Organization Geneva, Switzerland,
covering the OIE and international
trade.
For more information on this
course and specific food law courses
comprising the International Food Law
Distance Education Certificate Program,
please visit www.IFLR.msu.edu or
www.iflr.msu.edu/oie.html
Scott Haskell
Director, Veterinary Technology Program
Michigan State University
shaskell@yccd.edu
USA Update
With Little Power, Comes Great
RESPONSIBILITY
B
efore moving to the United States
(US) it was difficult to understand
why, in comparison to regulations
developing in New Zealand, some
American animal welfare policies
seemed conservative and entrenched. In
New Zealand, the recently-released draft
Animal Welfare (Pigs) Code of Welfare
states that “NAWAC proposes that the
use of dry sow stalls be discontinued.”1
The question remaining is that date
beyond which their use will be banned.
Meanwhile, in the US, there are no
national-level regulations, no wide-
spread recognition of citizen/consumer
disapproval of dry sow stalls, and
the movement away from stalls by
producers such as Smithfields is highly
controversial. It is easy to attribute these
national differences to some kind of
essential character, but there are some
far more pragmatic factors at work.
It seems almost too obvious to say,
but America is large. New Zealand is
270 000 square kilometres in size while
the US is the fourth largest country
in the world at 9 600 000 square
kilometres. There are less than five
1 Not overlooking the fact that the “New Zealand Pork Industry Board … do not support the prohibition of the use of dry sow stalls and claim this could have significant
impacts on their industry.”
million
Kiwis and
more than
300 million
Americans.
And if we
look at
the swine
industry, sow stalls in New Zealand are
used with less than half of a national
herd of around 20 000 sows. In the US,
the national herd exceeds 60 million
animals and well over half – perhaps as
many as 80 percent – of sows are housed
in dry sow stalls. The US is the largest
exporter of pork in the world.
When it comes to making changes, a
larger craft takes longer to stop and is
harder to maneuver. And let us look at
the steering mechanism. New Zealand
has a proportional representation system
and is often ruled by coalition and
compromise. The US has a two party
system with Democrats and Republicans
often quite literally locked in opposition
regardless of the underlying issues,
which play out across two separate
voting chambers (house and senate) – a
convoluted set of checks and balances
explicitly designed to slow the rate of
change. Meanwhile, animal welfare is
an issue that is typically addressed at
the state level, meaning that any change
needs to go through the legislature in
50 separate states, a commonwealth and
over a dozen dependent territories. To
say that this is a daunting task would be
a massive understatement.
This conservatism is not without reason;
the thought of the US acting with
alacrity in any arena is a worrying one.
The founding fathers were very mindful
of the danger of tyranny and so their
systems favour industry self-regulation
and preserving the status quo. There
is a concept that those with the most
power also have the most responsibility
and this can lead to an unwillingness or
inability to act.
But great maneuverability also comes
with a responsibility. Small, centrally-
regulated countries and autonomous
brands like Smithfields have a
responsibility to be progressive. They
are the tiny tug boats that can chart and
lead the way through the shoals of ethics
and industry that both our agricultural
systems must navigate, not only in
considering the welfare of sows but
also the viability of the pork industry in
turbulent economic times.
Emily Patterson-Kane
Animal Welfare Scientist
American Veterinary Medical Association
ekane@avma.org
Welfare Pulse – July 2010 • 35
 USA Update
An American Perspective on New Zealand’s
ANIMAL WELFARE APPARATUS
T
ristin Colonius, DVM (Doctor
of Veterinary Medicine)
student from Louisiana State
University, writes about his experience
in New Zealand aimed at gaining
an international animal welfare
perspective.
In order to learn about animal welfare
policy, at a national level, I recently
completed an externship with the
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s
(MAF) Animal Welfare Directorate.
New Zealand has an international
reputation for progressive yet practical
animal welfare policy. In addition,
being a centralised and relatively small
system, I felt it would provide a good
introduction to the field of animal
welfare. After arriving in the capital city
of Wellington in late March 2010, I spent
36 • Welfare Pulse – July 2010
four weeks immersed in the nation’s
animal welfare system.
The experience was unparalleled.
Based at MAF and working specifically
in the Animal Welfare Directorate, I
had the opportunity to learn about
the Animal Welfare Act, codes of
welfare, and the National Animal
Welfare Advisory Committee, which
plays a pivotal role in formulating
the codes. I also attended the Animal
Welfare and Behaviour Consultative
Committee, where representatives
from producer groups, research
institutions and government meet to
share information and long-term goals
about animal welfare in New Zealand.
The opportunity to meet with these
contributors to animal welfare policy
was fascinating and enlightening. The
experience could not paint a more vivid
picture – one that says animal welfare
policy and decisions require input from
a myriad of diverse players. This “big
picture” perspective was one of the most
valuable lessons I gained during my
externship.
The externship experience also
reinforced the
complexity of
animal welfare
policy. To
quote Director
of MAF
Animal Welfare
David Bayvel,
“Animal
welfare is a
multifaceted
international
and domestic
public
policy issue that must take account
of not only scientific, ethical, and
economic issues but also religious,
cultural, and international trade policy
considerations.”
This definition is dead-on. From
scientific evidence to societal views,
there are innumerous considerations
that affect animal welfare policy.
I had the fine opportunity to discuss
religious slaughter issues with David
Mellor and Craig Johnson (Massey
University), who have produced
insightful research on the topic that
helped inform decisions both within
New Zealand and abroad. On this
subject in particular, not only were there
the complicated issues of interpreting
scientific, ethical, and political
components into a policy outcome,
there were also potent international
trade, cultural, religious, and legal
implications to weigh as well.
Undoubtedly, the sheer complexity
can make the task of tackling welfare
questions extremely challenging; but this
complexity is what makes navigating the
waters of animal welfare an exhilarating
Tristan Colonius with Bob Kerridge,
RNZSPCA President at Auckland SPCA
experience. It is also one of the reasons I
have become so interested in this field.
To me, the most impressive aspects
of the New Zealand system are the
relationships and interactions between
the different players. There is a
collaborative spirit that is infused in the
country’s animal welfare field. It seems
that its uniquely small size, agricultural
prowess, and personal relationships
between many of the people in the field
promote this co-operative approach.
The result is truly remarkable: practical,
workable solutions to incrementally
promote animal welfare.
After working with the Dairy Cattle and
Painful Husbandry Procedures codes
of welfare at MAF, I visited DairyNZ
and was able to see how they put
together print and web-based materials
2010 upcoming events
August
September
November
December
to help dairy farmers understand am thrilled to have gained such an
and implement husbandry practices inestimable perspective. I am sure it will
that produce good welfare outcomes. serve as a solid foundation for future
Furthermore, some of the research used excursions into this field.
to support decisions of what constitutes Tristan Colonius
good practice for dairy cows is produced DVM Student
by collaboration between DairyNZ and Louisiana State University
AgResearch. In addition, on a visit to the School of Veterinary Medicine
New Zealand Veterinary Association, Tcolon1@lsu.edu
I was able to see how the dairy cattle
welfare scheme was supported from
the veterinary medical community’s
perspective. Whatever the reasons for
its existence, this co-operative approach
provides New Zealand with a unique
advantage in the animal welfare arena.
Looking back on my externship, I am
still assimilating all of the experience
Tristan Colonius
and knowledge I gained. As I enter DVM Student
my final year of veterinary school, I Louisiana State University
ISAE, 44th International Congress 3–7 August – Uppsala, Sweden
www.isaesweden2010.se
XIII European Poultry Conference 23–37 August – Tours, France
www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/19177/european-poultry-conference-2010
Africa Network for Animal Welfare – International Conference
6–8 September – Nairobi, Kenya
www.anaw.org/upcoming-events/international-conference-on-animal-welfare
Compassionate Conservation: Animal Welfare in Conservation Practice
1–3 September – Oxford, UK
www.compassionateconservation.org
IDF World Dairy Summit November 2010 – Auckland, New Zealand
www.wds2010.com
International Companion Animal Welfare Conference
17–19 November – Vienna, Austria
www.icawc.org
Scientists Centre for Animal Welfare – Annual Conference
6–7 December – San Antonio, USA
www.scaw.com
Welfare Pulse – July 2010 • 37
 Conferences
OIE Regional
ANIMAL WELFARE ACTIVITIES
W
ith its 176 members, the World
Organisation for Animal
Health (OIE) is divided into
five regions – Europe, the Americas, the
Middle East, Africa, and Asia, the Far
East and Oceania (AFEO). New Zealand
and Australia are both members of the
AFEO region, which includes more than
half the world’s human population, more
than half the world’s animal population
and a total of 35 countries ranging from
Afghanistan to Vietnam.
The importance of these regions playing
an active role in the implementation
of OIE animal welfare guidelines and
standards was first emphasised by OIE
Director General Dr Bernard Vallat in
2006 and 2007 and recorded in formal
General Session resolutions.
A regional OIE animal welfare workshop
was held in Bangkok, Thailand in 2007 to:
• discuss OIE animal welfare standards
from an Asian perspective;
• consider the value of developing
a regional strategy to facilitate the
implementation of the standards.
Thirty-seven participants from 12
AFEO countries and three international
organisations participated in the
successful workshop. Participants
38 • Welfare Pulse – July 2010
represented government, industry,
academia, the World Society for the
Protection of Animals (WSPA) and the
veterinary profession.
The workshop explored ways to support
the adoption of the OIE animal welfare
standards within the region. It included
discussions on the importance of public
and stakeholder awareness and education;
recognition that incremental approaches
would be needed to implement better
animal welfare practices; and recognition
that collaborative working arrangements
with others such as non-government
organisations (NGOs), veterinarians,
industry and academic
institutions were critical to success.
Consistent with OIE policies,
emphasis was placed on the value of
having outcome-focused standards
and guidelines adapted to the
specific cultural, religious and socio-
economic circumstances of each
country. The workshop endorsed
nine recommendations that included
supporting the development of a broad-
based strategic plan to implement the
OIE animal welfare standards in the
region. A writing group consisting of
six country representatives, WSPA and
industry drafted a Regional Animal
Welfare Strategy (RAWS).
The RAWS provides member countries
and territories with general guidance
to help improve the welfare of animals
through a range of activities such as
education (notably of veterinarians),
regulation and research and development.
The strategy also recognises the current
activities of governments, industry
and NGOs to improve animal welfare
and develop sustainable production
systems. It also includes strong linkages
with climate change or variation and
animal health and welfare, “One World/
One Health” and the United Nations
Millennium development goals. The
RAWS’ vision is:
A region where the welfare of animals is
respected, promoted and incrementally
advanced, simultaneously with the
pursuit of progress and socio-economic
development.
Two important meetings were held at
the OIE’s sub-regional office in Bangkok
in April 2010, which will make a major
contribution to the implementation of
this strategy.
Focal Point Training
The OIE has started an international
focal point training programme which
will involve 30 workshops being held
in all five OIE regions. The training
programme will cover six separate
topics, of which animal welfare is one.
The programme is supported by EU
funding and is designed to promote
active engagement of a greater number
of member countries in OIE standard
setting. This will include more active
participation in the established
consultation process, including closer
interaction with national industry
groups, NGOs and national veterinary
associations.
New Zealand was actively involved in
a training workshop held in Bangkok
in early April, via the participation
of invited Ministry of Agriculture
and Forestry and Massey University
speakers. The workshop was very
successful and considerable interest
was also expressed in the potential role
which could be played within the region
by the New Zealand/Australia OIE
Collaborating Centre for Animal Welfare
Science and Bioethical Analysis.
RAWS Implementation Planning
This second workshop was held in
Bangkok in late April and was designed
to finalise the RAWS implementation
plan. Several invited participants were
unfortunately unable to attend due to
the civil unrest in Bangkok and the
disruption in air travel from Europe.
However, the workshop comprised
Support for animal welfare advancement in
SOUTH EAST ASIA
T
he Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry’s Director Animal Welfare,
David Bayvel, and Senior Adviser
Animal Welfare, Joanna Tuckwell, were
guest speakers (via DVD presentation)
at a World Society for the Protection of
Animals (WSPA) workshop in Laos in
May to promote improved animal welfare
in South East Asia.
a good mix of government officials
and industry and animal welfare
NGO (WSPA) representation. The
implementation plan review identified
a number of areas where it could be
updated and reformatted, to enhance
its usefulness as a management
implementation monitoring tool.
Specific workshop recommendations
were subsequently approved at the
78 General Session of the OIE World
th
Assembly of Delegates in Paris on
24 May.
New Zealand was again involved in this
Australian Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry-funded workshop
as an invited speaker. Considerable
interest was again confirmed in the
potential role which could be played by
the Collaborating Centre for Animal
Welfare Science and Bioethical Analysis.
The agreed strategy and implementation
plan, supported by effective animal
welfare focal points in countries within
the region and a proposed regional
Workshop delegates included senior
government officials from ASEAN
(Association of South East Asian
Nations) and World Organisation for
Animal Health (OIE) representatives.
WSPA New Zealand’s Country Manager
Bridget Vercoe reports on the meeting’s
outcomes and the region’s support for a
Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare
animal welfare co-ordination group, will
play a major role in guiding,
co-ordinating and prioritising animal
welfare activities within the region in
future. Attention is also drawn to the
separate article in this issue of
Welfare Pulse confirming the increasing
interest being shown by the Association
of South East Asia Nations (ASEAN)
in animal welfare and in particular the
proposed Universal Declaration on
Animal Welfare.
A C David Bayvel
Director Animal Welfare
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
david.bayvel@maf.govt.nz
A C David Bayvel
Director Animal Welfare
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
(UDAW).
The importance of good animal
welfare practices is well understood
by New Zealand’s South East Asian
neighbours and all are committed to
incorporating animal welfare into their
national policies and programmes.
The pre-recorded presentation delivered
by David Bayvel and Joanna Tuckwell
Welfare Pulse – July 2010 • 39
 Conferences
about New Zealand’s animal welfare
legislation and commitment to this
important area of work impressed
delegates, with many expressing the
desire to work more closely with
the OIE, WSPA and countries like
New Zealand to improve their national
animal welfare legislation.
The New Zealand example proved
highly appropriate given this country’s
economic and geographical distance
from Europe and the United States and
its support for a UDAW.
The workshop recommendations
included encouraging development of
the declaration. The UDAW is a set of
guiding and non-binding principles
on animal welfare, designed to assist
governments develop legislation, codes
and best practices for the humane care
and management of animals.
Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia, the
Philippines and most recently Indonesia
have already announced their support
for the UDAW. The New Zealand
Government gave its official in principle
support in September 2008.
Animal welfare as a concept and its
links to social development, livestock
40 • Welfare Pulse – July 2010
production,
zoonoses, disaster
management and
environmental
sustainability are
well recognised by
ASEAN countries.
The main issues
of concern are
rabies and disaster
management
and all delegates
demonstrated a
keen interest in the
role that good animal welfare practices
can play in finding solutions to these
problems.
As Dr Segfredo Serrano, Undersecretary
for Policy and Planning at the
Department of Agriculture in the
Philippines told the meeting, “looking
after animals helps farmers provide
food for themselves, their families and
their communities; good animal care
reduces the risk of disease transmissible
to humans; responsible animal
management affects land use, climate
change, pollution, water supplies,
habitat conservation and biodiversity
for the better; and most importantly
people’s attitudes and behaviour toward
animals overlaps with their attitudes and
behaviour toward each other.”
In line with this way of thinking, he
urged delegates to support a UDAW and
promote animal welfare alongside all
applicable government programmes.
Many countries in the South East Asian
region are in the process of developing
or improving their animal welfare
legislation and policies.
Lao PDR has recently introduced
new veterinary law and appointed a
dedicated person to oversee government
policies relating to animal welfare. The
Indonesian government is establishing
a national committee on animal welfare
to develop animal welfare education.
Thailand’s National Committee on
Animal Welfare has developed a five-
year national strategic plan and the
Thai Veterinary Association has set up
an animal welfare working group. The
Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture
recently published a guideline on good
animal husbandry and is developing
a national animal welfare strategy.
Cambodia has plans to advance national
animal welfare legislation based on
the OIE’s Asia-Pacific Animal Welfare
Strategy.
Despite the recent advancements, most
delegates at the workshop recognised
the need to further develop their
country’s animal welfare legislation and
policies. It was generally recognised that
New Zealand could be used as a good
model for advancement in this area.
Bridget Vercoe
Country Manager, New Zealand
The World Society for the Protection of
Animals (WSPA)
bridgetvercoe@wspa.org.nz
Bridget Vercoe
Country Manager, New Zealand
WSPA
Across our desks
Densities at which sheep should be
transported
This paper tested two conflicting
theories regarding space requirements
for transporting sheep and found that
sheep transported at high spacing
suffered fewer losses of balance and
slips than sheep transported at low or
medium-low spacing, especially on
rough roads. Sheep transported at high
spacing were seen to stand close to, but
not touching their pen mates, bracing
themselves against the motion of the
vehicle by spreading their feet, not by
leaning on their pen mates. They were
also seen to lie in transit at higher space
allowances, usually after about four
hours of standing.
Jones, T. et al. Applied Animal Behaviour
Science 123: 16-23.
Why broiler chickens stay near walls
and how density affects this
Researchers found that in pens with
densities higher than 12.1 birds per m2,
birds preferred to be near the wall area.
They also found that birds kept in higher
densities preened, sat still, and walked
less than birds from lower density pens
suggesting that the increased preference
for the wall area may be the result of
birds trying to avoid being disturbed by
other birds.
Buijs, S. et al. 2010. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science 124, 97-103.
Inherited disorders in dogs
In a survey of the literature on the
relationship between inherited disorders
and particular breeds the authors found
that in the top 50 UK Kennel Club
registered breeds, 84 inherited disorders
had been linked by other researchers
as resulting from conformation to
the formal breed standards of those
species. Asher, L et al. The Veterinary
A selection of interesting items from
newsletters, journals and websites
which have crossed our desks.
Journal 182: 402-411. There were also
312 inherited disorders which could
not be directly ascribed to formal breed
standards.
Summers, J. et al. The Veterinary Journal
183: 39-45
UFAW Handbook on the Care and
Management of Laboratory and Other
Research Animals
The eighth edition of this handbook was
published in April 2010. “Written for
an international audience, it contains
contributions from experts from around
the world. The book focuses on best
practice principles throughout…” The
new edition has been updated to reflect
developments since the last edition and
includes new chapters on the Three
Rs, phenotyping, statistics, welfare
assessment and euthanasia. Species
covered include rodents, livestock, cats
and dogs, birds, reptiles, amphibia, fish,
cephalopods and wild animals.
Hubrecht, R & Kirkwood J (eds), ISBN
9781405175234, £199.99 (discount
available for UFAW members)
To order telephone 0044 1243 843294 or
email customer@wiley.com or online at
www.wiley.com.
Assessing the welfare of transgenic
farm animals
This paper provided a structured
approach for the assessment of
animal welfare risks of transgenics
in farm animals. The author sends a
cautionary note for those engaged in
risk assessments that there is a lack of
reliable and sufficiently comprehensive
data on the effects of transgenic status
and of technologies used in the process
of generating transgenic farm animals,
on the welfare of the animals involved.
Van Reenen, C. 2009. Ethics of Science
and Technology Assessment Proceedings
34: 119-143.
Humane killing of fish used in
research
An Animal Procedures Committee
housing and husbandry report on
appropriate methods of humane killing
for fish noted that, even for commonly
used euthanasia techniques in fish,
much of the recent research relating
to humane killing has been carried
out with respect to fish farming, and
there is only very limited evidence
of humaneness within the laboratory
setting. The committee felt that welfare
research into the aversiveness of
chemicals, how chemical euthanasia
techniques could be improved, and how
electrical techniques may be used would
be advisable.
A refinement for serial blood-sampling
of dogs?
A recent article in the Australian
Veterinary Journal describes a procedure
for the serial removal of relatively large
volumes of blood from dogs without
the need for repeated venipuncture,
and without the need for the general
anaesthesia and post-surgical care
often required for placing central
catheters. The paper describes a process
to catheterise the cephalic vein in the
forelimb in dogs and collect blood in a
way that allows repeated collection of
4-ml blood samples.
Elliott KF, Fleeman LM and Rand JS.
2010. Using 20-gauge percutaneous
peripheral catheters to reliably collect
serial 4-mL blood samples from
conscious dogs.
Australian Veterinary Journal 88(6),
215-221
Welfare Pulse – July 2010 • 41