Live Export

ESCAS report: Where does livex stand on pre-slaughter stunning?

James Nason, 28/01/2015
Cattle loading at East Arm Wharf in Darwin.

Cattle loading at East Arm Wharf in Darwin.

The livestock export trade may have earned a positive report card from the Federal Government for its efforts to improve animal welfare outcomes last week, but leading animal welfare group the RSPCA remains unmoved on its opposition to the trade.

The Federal Government report found that since continuous through-chain tracking of exported livestock was introduced via the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System in 2011, more than 8,000,000 exported sheep, cattle, goats and buffalo have experienced positive welfare outcomes.

However, it said the mandatory system was still failing in places, with 12,968 head of livestock exposed to either proven or potentially adverse welfare outcomes.

Of these reports of non-compliance, which ranged from minor to major breaches, 41 percent were detected by the Department of Agriculture through mandatory reporting and auditing systems; 31pc were self-reported by exporters and 19pc were reported by a third party or external source, such as animal welfare and animal rights groups.

In its formal response to the report, the RSPCA said ESCAS sets a low bar for the welfare of Australian animals because it does not require animals to be stunned at the point of slaughter, and because it did not require animals to be held upright for slaughter.

Allowing unstunned slaughter was much more than just a ‘potentially adverse animal welfare outcome’, as described by the report, the RSPCA said, it was “horrific cruelty”. The RSPCA’s full response can be read here on its website.

In response to the RSPCA’s concerns, Beef Central asked the Australian Livestock Exporter’s Council (ALEC) to explain the industry’s policy on the use of pre-slaughter stunning and full inversion boxes.

Pre-slaughter stunning

ALEC chief executive officer Alison Penfold said the livestock export industry adopted the following policy in relation to pre-slaughter stunning in February 2012:

  • ALEC encourages members to work with companies that import Australian livestock to adopt stunning as part of the slaughter process.
  • ALEC will pursue the implementation of monitoring the number of abattoirs stunning cattle of Australian origin to assess the increasing level of adoption of stunning.
  • ALEC supports the Australian Government’s position on the use of stunning in countries that import Australian livestock.

She said it was difficult to provide an exact figure on the rate of pre-slaughter stunning in foreign markets, but said the majority of cattle exported from Australia were stunned prior to slaughter.

Pre-slaughter stunning was in use in Vietnam, Japan, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Jordan, and electrical stunning had more recently been approved for use in Egypt (for both sheep and cattle), as a result of industry work with local welfare groups.

She said there was obviously less use of stunning when it came to sheep and goats but pre-slaughter stunning was used in Jordan.

Ms Penfold said the industry will continue to encourage the use of stunning.

“Clearly where there is no religious objection we use it as a slaughter practice,” she said.

“That said, we have been successful in getting electrical stunning accepted as halal. That is a good step forward for the Middle East/North Africa (MENA) region.

“As the ESCAS report states, Australia cannot impose standards on other countries that are not adopted at home.

“As non-stunned slaughter is permitted and used in Australia (largely for halal products so essentially for the same reasons as overseas) we cannot impose stunning on other markets.

“Any use of non-stunned slaughter must be undertaken as per the OIE code (Chapter 7.5 of Terrestrial Animal Health Code).”

Inversion boxes

ALEC does not have a formal policy position on inversion boxes, Ms Penfold said.

This was in large part because of the “extremely limited” use of inversion boxes in ESCAS approved abattoirs.

Ms Penfold said the only inversion boxes of which she was aware were in use in approved supply chains are Israel where two are used for Kosher slaughter and one in Turkey.

She said ALEC supported the humane slaughter of livestock and worked to achieve that aim in all markets.

“We recognise and respect that some markets use religious slaughter techniques requiring different types of restraint equipment,” she said.

“While inversion boxes meet the current OIE standards and have been approved for use by the Australian Government in ESCAS supply chains, we recognise that if the boxes are not operated correctly or maintained in working order, there is a higher risk of unnecessary stress and suffering to livestock during the slaughter process.

“We are actively focused on ensuring whatever method of slaughter is used it meets the standards and is done as humanely as possible.”

 

ALEC has provided the following additional background information on inversion boxes:

OIE Position on restraining methods

In terms of restraining animals for slaughter, Article 7.5.6 of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code recognises a range of restraining methods, including no restraint; restraining by the head, legs and body; mechanical restraint; upright restraint and inversion restraint. The Article identifies animal welfare risks with each of these restraining methods and mitigating strategies to address each risk.

For inversion restraint, the key risks are identified by OIE as: inversion stress; stress of resisting restraint, prolonged restraint, inhalation of blood and ingesta. The mitigating strategies to address these risks are identified as: keep restraint as brief as possible and proper design and operation of equipment.

Position on restraining methods of other nations

While compliant with OIE requirements, the European Union only allows the use of inversion boxes in certain circumstances. The Official Journal of the European Union, COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009, section 2, Article 15, identifies that…

Systems restraining bovine animals by inversion or any unnatural position shall not be used except in the case of animals slaughtered in accordance with Article 4(4) and provided that they are fitted with a device that restricts both the lateral and vertical movement of the head of the animal and are adjustable to be adapted to the size of the animal.”  Importantly, Article 4.4 states… “In the case of animals subject to particular methods of slaughter prescribed by religious rites, the requirements of paragraph 1 shall not apply provided that the slaughter takes place in a slaughterhouse.”

The US has similar requirements in terms of only allowing the use of inversion boxes for religious purposes.

In Australia, inversion boxes are not used but are not banned.  It is understood that the domestic processing industry has an agreement with local rabbis that Kosher slaughter can be done without them.

 

Leave a Reply to Nicola Smith Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Your comment will not appear until it has been moderated.
Contributions that contravene our Comments Policy will not be published.

Comments

  1. Nicola Smith, 23/02/2015

    Yes I can see that a long, rigorous sea voyage of up to 6 weeks, followed by appalling handling and slaughter practices and death is a ‘positive animal welfare outcome’. Yes, I get that. I also get that we have only the exporters’ word for any of it and the government only knows what the exporters tell it. Inversion slaughterboxes? You’ve got to be kidding, there cannot ever be anything ‘positive’ about that sort of torture.

  2. Katrina Love, 06/02/2015

    Editor – in regard to your response to Ivan, ESCAS is not synonymous with stunning – 70% of the animals exported live from Australia are slaughtered without stunning, under ESCAS, which only mandates OIE standards (which obviously allow fully conscious slaughter).

    Whether or not estuarine buffalo come under ESCAS or not (and they surely should) has nothing to do with whether they are stunned prior to slaughter or not.

  3. Katrina Love, 31/01/2015

    It’s rather alarming that the CEO of ALEC is unaware of the full inversion slaughter boxes used on Australian cattle in Egypt, particularly as Alison herself has visited the Ain Sokhna facility and the incorrect use of them and the subsequent horrifically distressing slaughters of Australian cattle were part of the focus of the 2013 investigation which saw trade suspended to Egypt (again).

    Working to achieve the morally schizophrenic concept of “humane slaughter” is just not good enough. Though there is no such thing as humane slaughter, there IS a less barbaric way to do it, and stunned slaughter should be a necessity, not something one aspires to.

    Religious requirements, be they Islamic, Jewish or Christian must never, NEVER come before animal welfare.

  4. ivan coulter, 31/01/2015

    i would like to ask how is Vietnam & Indonesia stunning the Buffalo shipped from Australia has or is any govt official checking on this as there never seems to be a report on Buffalo or is it that Buffalo are feral so it doesnt matter.

    I would have thought ESCAS applies equally to esturine buffalo as much as it does to cattle, Ivan, but we will make some inquiries to clarify. The fact they are ferals should not enter into it. There would have been a lot of feral cattle entering live export supply chains over the years, as well. Editor

Get Beef Central's news headlines emailed to you -
FREE!