ANIMAL
WELFARE
New Zealand has a sound Animal Welfare legislative framework, ranked second globally.
The Animal Welfare Act (1999) provides for the obligation to care for animals, restricts animal testing to those approved under a code of ethical conduct, and provides Codes of Welfare (developed in conjunction with the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee) which specify minimum standards and recommendations for best practice for each class of animal. The Act provides for prosecution for breaches under the Act – including imprisonment.
MAF has a role, providing policy advice, research, education, and ensuring current codes meet the ethical expectation of the local and global community. This recognises the need for industry to consider increasing consumer expectation for ethically produced product. Clear communication of industry practices is critical to maintaining local and global endorsement of New Zealand grown product.
Specifically, the Act provides for Five Freedoms:
Firstlight Foods Ltd venison product demonstrates the ability to market differentiated product to a niche international consumer who is willing to pay a premium for integrity, animal welfare, provenance (place of origin) and sustainability. The company (based in Hawkes Bay) is proof that significant economic benefit can be gained for the entire value chain without compromising animal welfare.
As previously stated, public perception of industry practice has major ramifications for industry success. Nowhere is this more obvious, in a New Zealand context, than in the Pork Industry.
The Code of Welfare for Pigs was updated 2010 under the Animal Welfare Act. Codes of Welfare for each industry are constantly modified to reflect community expectation, scientific knowledge and technical advances. The relationship between the NZ Pork Industry, who believe they have the highest standards globally, and the public, has been a difficult one. The main issue of concern remains industry use of stalls for sows during pregnancy. Media exposure of the practice has created the following response from the industry:
The initial cost to the industry (during phase out) is estimated to be in the vicinity of $20 million. Challenges for the industry to remain economically viable in the short term include:
Public disapproval of the dairy industry practice of induction has created the following response:
The role of agricultural scientists in the Animal Welfare debate is explored in “The relationship between food prices and animal welfare”. This article proposes that the amount consumers expect to pay for food has been in decline and that this in turn has created the opportunity for Animal Welfare, under a free-market situation to become less of a priority. The demand for commodity product has come at a price to Animal Welfare. The article argues that agricultural scientists are required to create productive efficiencies that incorporate ethical outcomes for livestock. Interestingly, the article uses the use of stalls for pregnant sows as an example of an improved animal welfare outcome. This highlights the point with respect to ethics and the debate on Animal Welfare – it is environment dependent ie: it depends on where the debate is taking place.
Invariably, there is an economic cost to animal welfare and market conditions determine whether the cost is borne by the industry or the consumer. If the cost of compliance cannot be passed on to the consumer, the industry is not sustainable economically. It is however, equally true that there is economic benefit to New Zealand in maintaining its current reputation with respect to animal welfare.
New Zealand has a sound Animal Welfare legislative framework, ranked second globally.
The Animal Welfare Act (1999) provides for the obligation to care for animals, restricts animal testing to those approved under a code of ethical conduct, and provides Codes of Welfare (developed in conjunction with the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee) which specify minimum standards and recommendations for best practice for each class of animal. The Act provides for prosecution for breaches under the Act – including imprisonment.
MAF has a role, providing policy advice, research, education, and ensuring current codes meet the ethical expectation of the local and global community. This recognises the need for industry to consider increasing consumer expectation for ethically produced product. Clear communication of industry practices is critical to maintaining local and global endorsement of New Zealand grown product.
Specifically, the Act provides for Five Freedoms:
- Freedom from thirst, hunger and
malnutrition
- Freedom from discomfort
- Freedom from disease, injury and pain
- Freedom from distress
- Freedom to display normal patterns of
behaviour
Firstlight Foods Ltd venison product demonstrates the ability to market differentiated product to a niche international consumer who is willing to pay a premium for integrity, animal welfare, provenance (place of origin) and sustainability. The company (based in Hawkes Bay) is proof that significant economic benefit can be gained for the entire value chain without compromising animal welfare.
As previously stated, public perception of industry practice has major ramifications for industry success. Nowhere is this more obvious, in a New Zealand context, than in the Pork Industry.
The Code of Welfare for Pigs was updated 2010 under the Animal Welfare Act. Codes of Welfare for each industry are constantly modified to reflect community expectation, scientific knowledge and technical advances. The relationship between the NZ Pork Industry, who believe they have the highest standards globally, and the public, has been a difficult one. The main issue of concern remains industry use of stalls for sows during pregnancy. Media exposure of the practice has created the following response from the industry:
- Explanation for the practice has been
explained, including the benefits of the practice
- By December 2012, sow stalls will be
used only for four weeks after mating
- Sow stalls will be banned by December
2015.
The initial cost to the industry (during phase out) is estimated to be in the vicinity of $20 million. Challenges for the industry to remain economically viable in the short term include:
- Improving public perception
- Increasing per capita consumption of
pork product
- Competition from imported pork product
that does not have to comply with the same regulatory framework
- Absorbing the costs related to
compliance
- Establishing a market and effectively
marketing the New Zealand animal welfare story.
Public disapproval of the dairy industry practice of induction has created the following response:
- The Minister of Agriculture determined
that widespread use of the practice could damage New Zealand’s Animal Welfare
image globally
- Endorsement of phasing out by the New
Zealand Veterinary Association
- Industry phase out targets of : 2010/11
season – maximum 15%
- 2011/12 season – maximum 8%
- 2012/13 season – maximum 4%
- Zero use thereafter
- 2011/12 season – maximum 8%
The role of agricultural scientists in the Animal Welfare debate is explored in “The relationship between food prices and animal welfare”. This article proposes that the amount consumers expect to pay for food has been in decline and that this in turn has created the opportunity for Animal Welfare, under a free-market situation to become less of a priority. The demand for commodity product has come at a price to Animal Welfare. The article argues that agricultural scientists are required to create productive efficiencies that incorporate ethical outcomes for livestock. Interestingly, the article uses the use of stalls for pregnant sows as an example of an improved animal welfare outcome. This highlights the point with respect to ethics and the debate on Animal Welfare – it is environment dependent ie: it depends on where the debate is taking place.
Invariably, there is an economic cost to animal welfare and market conditions determine whether the cost is borne by the industry or the consumer. If the cost of compliance cannot be passed on to the consumer, the industry is not sustainable economically. It is however, equally true that there is economic benefit to New Zealand in maintaining its current reputation with respect to animal welfare.
Resources to Read
![](http://www.weebly.com/weebly/images/file_icons/pdf.png)
animal_welfare.pdf | |
File Size: | 94 kb |
File Type: |
![](http://www.weebly.com/weebly/images/file_icons/pdf.png)
dairy_farming_with_reduced_inductions.pdf | |
File Size: | 393 kb |
File Type: |
![](http://www.weebly.com/weebly/images/file_icons/pdf.png)
health_and_biosecurity.pdf | |
File Size: | 249 kb |
File Type: |
![](http://www.weebly.com/weebly/images/file_icons/pdf.png)
the_relationship_between_food_prices_and_animal_welfare1.pdf | |
File Size: | 222 kb |
File Type: |