Legal Complexities of Animal Welfare in Australia: Do On-Animal Sensors Offer a Future Option?
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Animal Welfare Law
“The ideal welfare law applies to all sentient animals, is clearly written, includes failing to meet an animal’s needs among the offences, is easy to amend in line with new scientific knowledge and ethics, has high legal status which allows for prosecutions, has a clear enforcement responsibility, involves an enforcement body with sufficient power and funds, and includes education of the public and industry”.[2]
2.1. Australian Animal Welfare Law
2.2. Animal Welfare Law in Other Countries
3. Producer Compliance and Consumer Expectation and Knowledge of Animal Welfare Practices
3.1. Demonstrating Producer Compliance
3.2. Consumer Expectations of High Farm Animal Welfare
3.3. Consumer Knowledge of On-Farm Livestock Management Practices
3.4. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Higher Animal Welfare Products
4. Welfare Assurance Schemes
4.1. Animal Welfare Assurance Schemes
4.2. Examples of Animal Welfare Accreditation Schemes in Australia
4.2.1. RSPCA Approved Farming Scheme (AFS)
4.2.2. Livestock Protection Assurance (LPA)
4.2.3. Pasture-Fed Cattle Assurance System (PCAS)
4.2.4. Teys Grassland Pasture Fed Standard
4.2.5. Global Animal Partnership (GAP)
4.3. Consumer Certainty about Assurance and Certification Schemes and Product Claims
5. How Can on-Animal Sensors Be Used to Support Animal Welfare Outcomes in the Current Legal Framework?
- Nutrition
- Environment
- Health
- Behaviour
- Mental domain
6. Challenges to Adopting On-Animal Sensor Technology
6.1. Lack of Commercial Options
6.2. Algorithm Development
6.3. Producer Knowledge
6.4. Producer Willingness
6.5. Data Privacy Concerns
6.6. Data Transmission and Internet Connectivity
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Jensen, P. Ethology of Domestic Animals: An Introductory Text, 3rd ed.; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2002; pp. 79–98. [Google Scholar]
- Wolfensohn, S. Too Cute to Kill? The Need for Objective Measurements of Quality of Life. Animals 2020, 10, 1054. [Google Scholar]
- What Are the Five Domains and How Do They Differ from the Five Freedoms? Available online: https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-are-the-five-domains-and-how-do-they-differ-from-the-five-freedoms/ (accessed on 12 November 2020).
- Morton, R.; Hebart, M.; Whittaker, A. Explaining the Gap between the Ambitious Goals and Practical Reality of Animal Welfare Law Enforcement: A Review of the Enforcement Gap in Australia. Animals 2020, 10, 482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- The Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Cattle. Available online: http://www.animalwelfarestandards.net.au/cattle/ (accessed on 19 November 2020).
- Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. Available online: https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2001-064 (accessed on 19 November 2020).
- Land Transport. Available online: http://www.animalwelfarestandards.net.au/land-transport/ (accessed on 19 November 2020).
- Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes. Available online: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-code-care-and-use-animals-scientific-purposes (accessed on 1 November 2020).
- Animal Care and Protection Regulation 2012. Available online: https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/asmade/sl-2012-0141 (accessed on 19 November 2020).
- The Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Sheep. Available online: http://www.animalwelfarestandards.net.au/sheep/ (accessed on 19 November 2020).
- Animal Biosecurity and Welfare. Available online: https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/business-priorities/biosecurity/animal-biosecurity-welfare (accessed on 19 November 2020).
- Walker-Munro, B. Cattle V Crown: Is there a place for the Commonwealth as animal welfare guardian? Univ. Qld. Law J. 2015, 34, 363–391. [Google Scholar]
- Escobar, M.P.; Demeritt, D. Paperwork and the decoupling of audit and animal welfare: The challenges of materiality for better regulation. Environ. Plan. C Politics Space 2017, 35, 169–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Animal Welfare Assessment Grid (AWAG). Available online: https://nc3rs.org.uk/crackit/animal-welfare-assessment-grid-awag#:~:text=AWAG%20is%20a%20unique%20software,events%20that%20affect%20well%2Dbeing (accessed on 14 November 2020).
- Danish Animal Welfare Indices for Cattle and Pigs. Available online: http://www.foedevarestyrelsen.dk/english/Animal/AnimalWelfare/Pages/Developing-Danish-animal-welfare-indices-for-cattle-and-pigs.aspx (accessed on 14 November 2020).
- Assessment Protocols. Available online: http://www.welfarequalitynetwork.net/en-us/reports/assessment-protocols/ (accessed on 19 November 2020).
- Nielsen, S.; Denwood, M.; Forkman, B.; Houe, H. Selection of Meat Inspection Data for an Animal Welfare Index in Cattle and Pigs in Denmark. Animals 2017, 7, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sullivan, S. Empowering market regulation of agricultural animal welfare through product labelling. Anim. Law 2013, 19, 391–422. [Google Scholar]
- Our History. Available online: https://globalanimalpartnership.org/producers/ (accessed on 26 November 2020).
- FAQs: New Common Swine Industry Audit. Available online: https://www.porkcdn.com/sites/foodservice/library/2014/11/PorkRpt13-16.pdf (accessed on 18 November 2020).
- Global Animal Partnership. Animal Welfare Standards for Beef Cattle; Global Animal Partnership: Austin, TX, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Animal Welfare Act 1999. Available online: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0142/latest/DLM49664.html (accessed on 16 November 2020).
- Development of Knowledge and Leadership Skills to Support Implementation of Animal-Based Welfare Measures for Farm Assurance Programmes Supporting New Zealand to Be World Leading in Farmed Animal Welfare. Available online: https://www.communitymatters.govt.nz/assets/WCMT-FRR-PDF/Kelly-Drake-Winston-Churchill-Memorial-Trust-Fellowship-Report.pdf (accessed on 18 November 2020).
- Animal Sentience: Their Emotions, Feelings, and Experiences of Life. Available online: https://www.mpi.govt.nz/animals/animal-welfare/national-animal-welfare-advisory-committee/animal-sentience-their-emotions-feelings-and-experiences-of-life/ (accessed on 15 November 2020).
- All Animal Welfare Codes. Available online: https://www.mpi.govt.nz/animals/animal-welfare/codes/all-animal-welfare-codes/ (accessed on 15 November 2020).
- ACT’s New Animal Sentience Law Recognises an Animal’s Psychological Pain and Pleasure, and may Lead to Better Protections. Available online: https://theconversation.com/acts-new-animal-sentience-law-recognises-an-animals-psychological-pain-and-pleasure-and-may-lead-to-better-protections-124577 (accessed on 14 November 2020).
- Audits. Available online: https://www.integritysystems.com.au/on-farm-assurance/audits/ (accessed on 19 November 2020).
- Buddle, E.; Bray, H. How Farm Animal Welfare Issues are Framed in the Australian Media. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2019, 32, 357–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, D.; Lyle, S.; Berry, A.; Manning, N.; Zaki, M.; Neely, A. Internet of Animal Health Things (IoAHT)—Opportunities and Challenges; University of Cambridge: Cambridge, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Luhmann, H.; Theuvsen, L. Corporate Social Responsibility in Agribusiness: Literature Review and Future Research Directions. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2016, 29, 673–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malek, L.; Umberger, W.J.; Rolfe, J. Segmentation of Australian meat consumers on the basis of attitudes regarding farm animal welfare and the environmental impact of meat production. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2018, 58, 424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Costanigro, M.; Deselnicu, O.; McFadden, D. Product differentiation via corporate social responsibility: Consumer priorities and the mediating role of food labels. Agric. Hum. Values 2016, 33, 597–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, B.; Stewart, G.B.; Panzone, L.A.; Kyriazakis, I.; Frewer, L.J. Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies. Food Policy 2017, 68, 112–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Scrinis, G.; Parker, C.; Carey, R. The Caged Chicken or the Free-Range Egg? The Regulatory and Market Dynamics of Layer-Hen Welfare in the UK, Australia and the USA. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2017, 30, 783–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trotter, M.; Cosby, A.; Manning, J.; Thomson, M.; Trotter, T.; Graz, P.; Fogarty, E.; Lobb, A.; Smart, A. Demonstrating the Value of Animal Location and Behaviour Data in the Red Meat Value Chain—Final Report P.PSH 0835; Meat & Livestock Australia: North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- National Australia Bank. Sustainability Report 2019; National Australia Bank: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- National Australia Bank. Animal Welfare Principles; National Australia Bank: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Heerwagen, L.; Christensen, T.; Sandøe, P. The Prospect of Market-Driven Improvements in Animal Welfare: Lessons from the Case of Grass Milk in Denmark. Animals 2013, 3, 499–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Erian, I.; Phillips, C. Public Understanding and Attitudes towards Meat Chicken Production and Relations to Consumption. Animals 2017, 7, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Futureye. Australia’s Shifting Mindset on Farm; Animal Welfare: Melbourne, Australia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Lockie, S.; Fairley-Grenot, K.; Ankeny, R.; Botterill, L.; Howlett, B.; McBratney, A.; Probyn, E.; Sorrell, T.; Sukkarieh, S.; Woodhead, I. The Future of Agricultural Technologies; Report for the Australian Council of Learned Academies: Melbourne, Australia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Nocella, G.; Hubbard, L.; Scarpa, R. Farm Animal Welfare, Consumer Willingness to Pay, and Trust: Results of a Cross-National Survey. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2010, 32, 275–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Timoshanko, A.C. Limitations of the market-based approach to the regulation of farm animal welfare. UNSW Law J. 2016, 39, 514–543. [Google Scholar]
- Cornish, A.R.; Briley, D.; Wilson, B.J.; Raubenheimer, D.; Schlosberg, D.; McGreevy, P.D. The price of good welfare: Does informing consumers about what on-package labels mean for animal welfare influence their purchase intentions? Appetite 2020, 148, 577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balzani, A.; Hanlon, A. Factors that Influence Farmers’ Views on Farm Animal Welfare: A Semi-Systematic Review and Thematic Analysis. Animals 2020, 10, 1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bray, H.; Buddle, E.; Ankeny, R. What are they thinking? Consumer attitudes to meat production in Australia. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2017, 57, 2345–2352. [Google Scholar]
- Woolworths Group Takes the Largest Cut of Fresh Meat Market. Available online: http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8234-supermarket-currency-report-fresh-meat-september-2019-202001122329 (accessed on 14 November 2020).
- Responsible Sourcing. Available online: https://www.coles.com.au/about-coles/sustainability/products/responsible-sourcing (accessed on 15 November 2020).
- Animal Welfare—Policies and Procedures. Available online: https://www.woolworthsgroup.com.au/page/community-and-responsibility/group-responsibility/responsible-sourcing/Animal_Welfare (accessed on 15 November 2020).
- Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). RSPCA Approved Farming Scheme Impact Report 2018; RSPCA: Canberra, Australia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). RSPCA Approved Farming Scheme Impact Report 2016; RSPCA: Canberra, Australia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- What Is PCAS? Available online: http://www.pcaspasturefed.com.au/ (accessed on 13 November 2020).
- Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC). Cattle and Beef Market Study Final Report; ACCC: Canberra, Australia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Audit and Accreditation Guide. Available online: https://www.agriwebb.com/au/guides-and-more/guides/audit-and-accreditation-guide/ (accessed on 16 November 2020).
- About GPA. Available online: https://livestockintegrity.com.au/about/ (accessed on 26 November 2020).
- Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC). A Guide for Egg Producers; ACCC: Canberra, Australia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Daigle, C. Incorporating the Philosophy of Technology into Animal Welfare Assessment. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2014, 27, 633–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rutter, S.M. Smart technologies for detecting animal welfare status and delivering health remedies for rangeland systems. Sci. Tech. Rev. Off. Int. Epizoot. 2014, 33, 181–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rowe, E.; Gebhardt-Henrich, S. A Systematic Review of Precision Livestock Farming in the Poultry Sector: Is Technology Focussed on Improving Bird Welfare? Animals 2019, 9, 614. [Google Scholar]
- Buller, H.; Blokhuis, H.; Lokhorst, K.; Silberberg, M.; Veissier, I. Animal Welfare Management in a Digital World. Animals 2020, 10, 1779. [Google Scholar]
- Berckmans, D. Precision livestock farming technologies for welfare management in intensive livestock systems. Sci. Tech. Rev. Off. Int. Epizoot. 2014, 33, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, W.; Dawson, D.; Fleming-Muñoz, D.; Schleiger, E.; Horton, J. The Future of Australia’s Agricultural Workforce; CSIRO Data 61: Canberra, Australia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Manning, J.; Cronin, G.; Gonzalez, L.; Hall, E.; Merchant, A.; Ingram, L. The effects of global navigation satellite system (GNSS) collars on cattle (Bos taurus) behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017, 187, 54–59. [Google Scholar]
- Taylor, D.B.; Schneider, D.A.; Brown, W.Y.; Price, I.R.; Trotter, M.G.; Lamb, D.W.; Hinch, G.N. GPS observation of shelter utilisation by Merino ewes. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2011, 51, 724–737. [Google Scholar]
- Thomas, D.T.; Revell, D.K. Adaptation behaviour of local and rangeland cattle relocated to a temperate agricultural pasture. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2011, 51, 1088–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barwick, J.; Lamb, D.; Dobos, R.; Schneider, D.; Welch, M.; Trotter, M. Predicting lameness in sheep activity using tri-axial acceleration signals. Animals 2018, 8, 12. [Google Scholar]
- Manning, J.K.; Fogarty, E.S.; Trotter, M.G.; Schneider, D.A.; Thomson, P.C.; Bush, R.D.; Cronin, G.M. A pilot study into the use of global navigation satellite system technology to quantify the behavioural responses of sheep during simulated dog predation events. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2014, 54, 1676–1681. [Google Scholar]
- Alvarenga, F.A.P.; Borges, I.; Palkovič, L.; Rodina, J.; Oddy, V.H.; Dobos, R.C. Using a three-axis accelerometer to identify and classify sheep behaviour at pasture. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016, 181, 91–99. [Google Scholar]
- Barwick, J.; Lamb, D.; Dobos, R.; Welch, M.; Trotter, M. Categorising sheep activity using a tri-axial accelerometer. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2018, 145, 289–297. [Google Scholar]
- Fogarty, E.; Trotter, M.; Manning, J.; Islam, N.; Cosby, A. Assessing Real Time Tracking Technologies to Integrate with Identification Methods and National Traceability Requirements—Milestone Report; Meat & Livestock Australia: North Sydney, Australia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, L.R.; Bishop-Hurley, G.J.; Anderson, A.E.; Swain, D.L. Application of accelerometers to record drinking behaviour of beef cattle. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2019, 59, 122–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swain, D.L.; Patison, K.P.; Heath, B.M.; Bishop-Hurley, G.J.; Finger, A. Pregnant cattle associations and links to maternal reciprocity. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2015, 168, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Saag, D.; White, P.; Ingram, L.; Manning, J.; Windsor, P.; Thomson, P.; Lomax, S. Effects of Topical Anaesthetic and Buccal Meloxicam Treatments on Concurrent Castration and Dehorning of Beef Calves. Animals 2018, 8, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Fuglie, K.; Gautam, M.; Goyal, A.; Maloney, W.F. Harvesting Prosperity—Technology and Productivity Growth in Agriculture; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Nossal, K. From R&D to Productivity Growth—Investigating the Role of Innovation Adoption in Australian Agriculture; Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation: Canberra, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Kaler, J.; Ruston, A. Technology adoption on farms: Using Normalisation Process Theory to understand sheep farmers’ attitudes and behaviours in relation to using precision technology in flock management. Prev. Vet. Med. 2019, 170, 104715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drewry, J.L.; Shutske, J.M.; Trechter, D.; Luck, B.D.; Pitman, L. Assessment of digital technology adoption and access barriers among crop, dairy and livestock producers in Wisconsin. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 165, 104960. [Google Scholar]
- Knight, C. Review: Sensor techniques in ruminants: More than fitness trackers. Anim. Int. J. Anim. Biosci. 2020, 14, s187–s195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- National Farmers Federation. Farm. Data Code: Edition 1 February 2020; National Farmers Federation: Canberra, Australia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Manning, J.; Power, D.; Cosby, A. Legal Complexities of Animal Welfare in Australia: Do On-Animal Sensors Offer a Future Option? Animals 2021, 11, 91. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010091
Manning J, Power D, Cosby A. Legal Complexities of Animal Welfare in Australia: Do On-Animal Sensors Offer a Future Option? Animals. 2021; 11(1):91. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010091
Chicago/Turabian StyleManning, Jaime, Deborah Power, and Amy Cosby. 2021. "Legal Complexities of Animal Welfare in Australia: Do On-Animal Sensors Offer a Future Option?" Animals 11, no. 1: 91. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010091