 |
 |
 |
 |
Why
won’t farmers just change to alternative housing methods?
At present there is little convincing scientific evidence that group housing systems are more welfare friendly or that a move to loose housing systems would improve the welfare of the sow, the livelihood of producers and the quality or safety of the product.
As advances are made in the understanding of animal physiology and behaviour, technological changes in animal husbandry and their relationship to the welfare of animals, it is likely that our knowledge and understanding of how to operate group housing systems will develop and improve.
A move away from dry sow stalls to alternative housing methods will be very costly to farmers. Farmers cannot make changes to their production systems overnight and require time to plan, build and finance alternative housing. Pig farmers have been facing many financial challenges over the last 12 months. High grain prices due to drought and weak pork prices, capped by imported pig meat have limited the ability of producers to cope with any additional financial pressures.
Can Australia
ban imported pork that does not meet our welfare standards?
Australia is a party to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and as such must follow international trading rules.
Under the WTO framework, the Australian Government cannot place a ban on pork from countries that do not meet our animal welfare standards.
Is the pork that
is currently being imported into Australia "welfare friendly"?
Australia has no control over welfare standards in other countries.
Canada is the world's largest exporter of pork products and a major source of pork imported into Australia. Canada currently accounts for approximately 60 per cent of all imported pork with Denmark accounting for approximately 40 per cent.
Figures from Canada indicate that between 95 and 99 per cent of sows are housed in stalls for their entire pregnancy. Denmark houses approximately 80 per cent of its sows in dry sow stalls From 2013, however, Denmark will be restricted to using sow stalls for only the first 28 days of a sow’s pregnancy.
There have been
international developments banning or restricting the use of sow stalls,
why shouldn’t Australia follow suit?
While several countries have moved to ban sow stalls or restrict their use, all Australians would agree that this country should make its own independent assessment based on sound scientific research, which meets our unique environment, cultural and geographical situation.
At present, there is little convincing scientific evidence that group-housing systems are more welfare friendly than individual stalls, or that a move to loose housing systems would improve the welfare of the sow, the livelihood of the producer, or the quality or safety of the product. Our understanding of group housing systems will develop and improve over time as advances are made in the understanding of animal physiology and behaviour.
Naturally, Australian pig farmers need to consider developments overseas but it is imperative that international developments are considered on their scientific merits rather than based solely on public perception or overseas community standards. Our animal welfare standards must align with the expectations of Australian community.
It is critical, therefore, that any changes in animal welfare codes of practice or standards are based on consultation with the Australian community and sustainable improvements that can be scientifically justified.