Recently, after putting the kids to bed, myself and Emma, my wife, sat down to our shameful evening pastime of scrolling through social media. For myself, Linkedin and Emma, Facebook. We were both met by the same image posted by different friends and colleagues from the UK:
This comparison had originally been posted by Red Tractor, the largest UK farm assurance scheme, in response to the new UK-Australia free trade agreement. This will see trade tariffs on farm produce phased out over 15 years. The agreement was also met with a slew of other articles questioning the rationale around letting the UK’s high standards be polluted by imported meat produced under less stringent legislation (1).
This response may surprise some in Australia, the standards here are touted by the industry as world leading. So where does the mismatch in views come from? Is it down to media hype, consumer sentiment, a different way of defining health and welfare or just plain fact?
Some of the issues highlighted above have been on the radar for years as areas of potential risk to the industry (2), while others split opinion as to whether there should be an issue at all, such as the use of HGPs(3). There is even an argument for the use of HGP to reduce GHG emission intensity.
Having spent a good deal of time working on farms in the UK and Australia I can say that the answer is not as straight forward as highlighting a handful of points of difference in the legislation. The two systems are very different, dictated by the different climates, both environmental and political.
I found local anaesthetic to be more widely used for procedures in the UK, yet, I have found one of the biggest welfare issues, lameness, is less prevalent in farm animals in Australia. There is a low burden of infectious disease in Australia due to eradication (TB) and management (Johnes Disease, Contagious Footrot in Sheep) or the dry environment (digital dermatitis in cattle). I have also found the handling facilities in Australia to be a lot more friendly to livestock than those in the UK.
The approach Australian farmers take to issues is also different. They are very good at finding efficiencies and pulling back to see the bigger picture. A historical lack of subsidies has meant farmers have had to be efficient to save on labour, this has been achieved by breeding animals to fit the system reducing the need for human intervention. Cattle and sheep have been bred for easy calving and lambing and their leg and hoof conformation is under constant scrutiny. If a heritable trait is at all likely to cause problems in future generations the animal will be culled without sentiment.
Australia is an innovative nation, finding novel ways to solve issues. Recent homebred inventions such as Tri-solfen, Buccalgesic and Numnuts have been developed in response to the need to administer pain relief in a way that integrates into current workflows, such as calf and lamb marking, without causing friction.
I am confident that issues around mulesing and dehorning, although undoubtedly a welfare and consumer issue in the short term, will become irrelevant in Australia in the future due to the breeding of animals where there is no need for either. The early adoption of electronic ID and the subsequent widespread use of advanced farm management software has meant that large amounts of accurate data is on hand to make objective breeding decisions. This has led to the breeding of more resilient and suitable animals. Even so, Australia does have a way to go to convince the UK consumer of their credentials. It is no good being complacent or arguing that the consumer just doesn't understand, it is the public who give farmers a social licence to operate (4) and they need to be heard if livestock farming is going to be sustainable.
Radical Transparency
One of the approaches to consumer engagement is that of ‘Radical Transparency’, a term I was introduced to whilst listening to Gordon Cairns, the chairman of Woolworths, at a conference recently (5). The basic concept is that if you are fully transparent in your business there is nothing to expose, there is no lack of trust and you can have open conversations around what you are doing. Interestingly, it was an idea that I came across during a conversation with a dairy farmer a few years ago. At the time there was talk of the threat of activist drones flying over farms recording what was going on. I asked how he would deal with it. His response was that he had nothing to hide and if someone was worried about the threat perhaps it was because they were doing something wrong.
I think the solution to the issue of consumer confidence is two-fold. There is a place for strong welfare legislation, however farm assurance schemes are also needed. Compliance to the schemes must be verifiable and they must have teeth and use them. These can't just be another tick box exercise which relies on self-declarations with little chance of penalty for non-compliance.
Retailers are increasingly becoming the driver of welfare and sustainability standards above and beyond those which are mandated. A closer relationship with the farmer can lead to mutual benefit which also serves to address the elephant in the room, financial incentive. Tesco, one of the biggest UK supermarkets, demands its own standards are met across its supply chains both in the UK and abroad (6). It sets compliance targets and works with suppliers to ensure progress is made towards achieving them, openly reporting on progress (7).
There also needs to be a proactive approach on the side of the farmer. It is not just about doing the minimum mandated, it is going beyond that, it is about using best practice when it comes to animal welfare (8). I’ll leave you with another comment from Gordon Cairns which encompasses this attitude ‘Do the right thing, because it’s the right thing to do.’
Whether you think Woolworths embodies this sentiment I'll leave to you!
1. Animal welfare concerns following UK-Australia trade deal - Veterinary Record - Wiley Online Library
2. Australian sheep meat industry is "very exposed" to mulesing - Sheep Central
​3. Hormonal growth promotants – friend or foe? | NSW Department of Primary Industries
4. farm-animal-welfare.pdf (outbreak.gov.au)
​5. Panel Highlight: Radical transparency drives sustainable agrifood futures | Blog | Food Agility CRC
Comments