Apparently, live export provides the "greenest" protein to feed millions of families in the world. Hard to know what exactly is green about the live export industry:
using palm oil to cheaply fatten cattle in the Indonesian feedlots?
inefficiently shipping live animals not carcases?
The report also tells us that the Ag Departments maths are none too good....figures dont always add up in tables (Try Table C3) and, regardless, are discrepant with the figures on the Department's own website. No matter how they massage the figures, 17/23 completed reports/complaints on ESCAS non-compliance had adverse animal welfare outcomes (74%) and 16/23 (70%) of these reports were submitted by independent parties.
28/1/2015 04:21:26 am
Whether the live export trade is " green" or not is not really important. It is the overal burden of suffering the cattle and sheep experience during shipping, handling and slaughter, especially where stunning is note used to render the animals unconscious before the neck is cut. Barnaby Joyce and the graziers who send their stock for live export know this but continue to support the industry. ESCAS helps with some handling procedures but does not mandate stunning and thus is miserably inadequate. The minister and the graziers by putting profits before compassion are acting immorally in my opinion.
28/1/2015 07:40:04 am
We take your point Peter but believe it is still very important that we highlight the degree of "spin" that is used to justify this trade, with its significant welfare implications. That the spin used is even more farcical than usual highlights just how hard the government and the Department are prepared to promote this trade.
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply.