Varying Opinions about Animal Welfare in the Australian Live Export Industry: A Survey

SIMPLE SUMMARY: A social licence for the continuance of the live animal export trade requires confidence in the transparency and validity of measures used to monitor animal welfare and regulate the industry. Objective measures that indicate animal responses to environmental conditions are also required at each stage of the live export chain to enable continuous improvement. As different stakeholder groups are likely to have varied opinions according to their perspective of the industry, understanding these should allow clarity of messages and improved communication. We therefore constructed an open survey of animal welfare assessment methods and reviewed the responses of 921 volunteers. Outcomes demonstrated that there is common interest in developing appropriate animal welfare assessment tools, although there is some misalignment in what was perceived as the ideal format for those tools. This imbalance is due to measures that are “expected” to be included, but which are not always practical or important in the context of live animal export. Through this gained insight, we propose the development of a set of animal welfare assessment tools that have broad acceptance and that are applicable in the industry context. Ongoing work is required to establish the validity, applicability and relevance of these measures. ABSTRACT: There is significant public interest in the Australian live animal export industry and a need to develop a program that can measure and monitor animal welfare throughout the supply chain. An online survey of stakeholder opinions of this industry and animal welfare measures was carried out in 2015 with 921 respondents: 30% from the public who identified as animal welfare advocates (AWAs); 44% from the public who did not identify as AWAs (general public; GP); 26% live export industry (LEI) workers. AWA and GP respondents expressed greater concern than LEI respondents for animal welfare throughout the supply chain but had less concern for animals at Australian feedlots than in other parts of the supply chain. The majority of AWA and GP respondents believed data collected on animal welfare should be made public and should be collected by independent welfare officers and used to regulate the industry and impose penalties for poor welfare. LEI workers believed that data should be confidential, collected by LEI workers and used by the industry to self-regulate. AWA and GP respondents rated the importance and practicality of a number of welfare indicators greater than LEI workers, while respondents shared an analogous view of the importance and practicality of these indicators. Results can be used to develop welfare assessments that ensure a better understanding between industry members and those not in the industry, while facilitating welfare improvements and promoting greater transparency for the live export industry.