How Well Does Australian Animal Welfare Policy Reflect Scientific Evidence: A Case Study Approach Based on Lamb Marking

Abstract

The development and substance of animal welfare policy is subject to a range of social, cultural, economic, and scientific influences that commonly vary within and between countries. Discrepancies in policy can create confusion and mistrust among stakeholders and consumers and limit the ability to create a uniform minimum level of requirements to safeguard animal welfare, as well as create a level ‘playing field’ for farmers when trading with other jurisdictions. The livestock sector is receiving growing scrutiny globally for real and perceived violations of animal welfare, for example, the practice of mulesing in Australia. This article explores animal welfare legislation within Australia and how it reflects the scientific evidence surrounding routine husbandry practices in sheep, including tail docking, castration, and mulesing. While there is some variation between state and territory legislation, the most notable concern is the lack of enforceable recommendations surrounding the evidence-based use of analgesia and anaesthesia for painful husbandry procedures. The age at which these procedures are recommended to be performed is relatively consistent across Australian jurisdictions, but there is a marked difference compared to international legislation. The global context of animal welfare legislation, public perception, and producer perception of these procedures are also discussed, highlighting the difficulty of creating robust animal welfare legislation that promotes a good standard of welfare that is respected worldwide whilst being practical in an Australian setting given our unique geography and climatic conditions.