This is a positive response, by industry, to the improved treatment of Australian exported animals. No system is perfect, but ongoing training is the objective and continuous improvement is the outcome. Banning all live exports is not a sustainable solution for Australian farmers or our balance of trade. I am proud that I have been a part of this education and training programme.
Great to see some transparent communication on ESCAS and live export. So much has been done which is great news, but still work in progress. It's a huge and exciting time for Australian agriculture, full steam ahead. No doubt this clip will attract nasty hate-mail from the usual murky suspects... Take it with a grain of salt.
I'm a cattle producer and my order of priorities is 1/ welfare of the cattle I'm responsible for. 2/ financial security for family 3/ me. Therefore I will not sell cattle for live export until I'm 100% sure they'll be treated decently. If 1 and 2 conflict then I'll get out of cattle and start growing marijuana commercially.
at 13:29 sad for them We can go vegan for animals. Bad karma will come back to haunt all the torturers and killers When you do bad things, bad things will return. That is the fact of life…
I am sorry but it is all BS, I have seen in the Middle east what they do, it is appalling. WHY SEND THEM LIVE? we are quite capable of processing it all ourselves and sent frozen. The only person that loses is the shipping contractor not the farmer.
This is a highly patronising, self serving promotional video for a cruel industry for the gullible, it is nothing more than an advertisement. The admission it contains stating that it isn't perfect is an attempt to infer that it is perhaps somewhere approaching it, when the opposite is true and it is also an attempt to portray an image of an industry which has animal welfare as its priority, when in fact, it's priority is profit. The commentary couldn't help putting in its two cents worth of opinion on events in 2011, describing the suspension as an unmitigated disaster, and it does so as if it is some kind of absolute authority on the matter. However, the true unmitigated disaster has been inflicted on millions of innocent animals in the form of unspeakable cruelty dealt out to them by this industry, and that cruelty is continuing. In the last 12 months, about 10%, or around 110,000 Australian live exported cattle were slaughtered without stunning. Stop and consider that for a moment: that equates to a death which is similar in terms of terror for those cattle as that which was shown in the 2011 4 Corners report which triggered the suspension, and at around 110,000 animals, the number of cattle put through that hell has actually increased since that 2011 ' A Bloody Business' report....
Woof Blitz , is it fair to say your aim is the end of the Australian live export trade? Let's say you succeed. What then? Do you move your attention to the animals which replace them in the markets we've vacated? I'm puzzled that you give no ground to an industry which is effecting real change in animal welfare practices way beyond its own direct involvement. If an exporter of livestock is not qualified to comment on the 2011 suspension, if those whose qualifications in livestock management have enabled them to spend years improving practices overseas are summarily to be considered unreliable witnesses, if the industry is not permitted to speak on its own behalf without being denounced as dealing in patronising and self-serving advertising for the "gullible", there is little point discussing. Yes, cattle continue to be slaughtered without stunning for now. The international standards of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) still allow it. But notice that on your figures 90% of Australian cattle are stunned before slaughter, as are other animals in those facilities. That figure is accurate for Indonesia, our largest cattle market, but other markets have adopted stunning completely or close to (Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam, Japan) so overall the figure is higher. How has the adoption of stunning slaughter come about in our markets, and would it have done so without Australia's involvement? While there are clear reasons to prefer and push for stunning before all slaughter (as the industry continues to do successfully), equating (your word) correct non-stunning slaughter with the prolonged and unconscionable cruelty shown in the 4 Corners program is simply wrong and deserves to be challenged. You might not like it - nor do I - but correct non-stunning slaughter involves a manifestly lower degree and duration of suffering than we observed in the 4 Corners program. Stunning is a relatively modern practice and it should not surprise us that there are places where its adoption has yet to overcome cultural or religious barriers. That those barriers are being overcome in Australia's export markets is essentially a product of the collaboration the Australian industry has undertaken with its customers, most recently in Egypt, which has now agreed to electrical stunning for cattle and sheep - surely a massive breakthrough. You might credit activists - and their catalytic role is indisputable - but the people on the ground doing the work are those you heard from in this video, and their colleagues in this industry. How do I know? I wrote the video, I know many of the people in this industry, including most of those in this video, and I was behind the camera for much of the footage you saw (and have filmed in abattoirs throughout Australia, too). So where do I suggest you turn your attention? Hold the industry to account - this video is asking no more than that. But hold it to the standard of behaving responsibly and effecting actual animal welfare improvement. Hold it to the standard of forming and maintaining supply pathways along which animals exported from this country are treated well - to international standards which are themselves improving. Hold exporters and the government to the standard of responding immediately and without favour to instances of wrongdoing. But, for goodness sake, don't claim as you do that the industry is somehow moving in the wrong direction as regards animal welfare. That's patently untrue. I write this in my own name and not on behalf of the industry. I'm happy to have a real conversation about this with you - won't be hard to find my details and get in touch. Darryl Anderson, Anvil Media.
Yep let's stop us Australians exporting, meanwhile our own producers are spending millions training these people to be better at processing, but let's say we get locked out, do you think the many more waiting to export will do the same. No others are helping our customers bring up their levels of animal welfare handling and have a lot less issues from their own countries to make them
This is a positive response, by industry, to the improved treatment of Australian exported animals. No system is perfect, but ongoing training is the objective and continuous improvement is the outcome. Banning all live exports is not a sustainable solution for Australian farmers or our balance of trade. I am proud that I have been a part of this education and training programme.
Great to see some transparent communication on ESCAS and live export. So much has been done which is great news, but still work in progress. It's a huge and exciting time for Australian agriculture, full steam ahead.
No doubt this clip will attract nasty hate-mail from the usual murky suspects... Take it with a grain of salt.
I'm a cattle producer and my order of priorities is 1/ welfare of the cattle I'm responsible for. 2/ financial security for family 3/ me. Therefore I will not sell cattle for live export until I'm 100% sure they'll be treated decently. If 1 and 2 conflict then I'll get out of cattle and start growing marijuana commercially.
There are so many halal certified abattoirs now I just can't see the need for live animal export.
And I don't regard myself as a murky suspect
at 13:29 sad for them We can go vegan for animals.
Bad karma will come back to haunt all the torturers and killers
When you do bad things, bad things will return.
That is the fact of life…
Stop dis and open the gates and release all the animals in to the wild were they belongs and leve them alone
speech 100
I am sorry but it is all BS, I have seen in the Middle east what they do, it is appalling. WHY SEND THEM LIVE? we are quite capable of processing it all ourselves and sent frozen. The only person that loses is the shipping contractor not the farmer.
This is a highly patronising, self serving promotional video for a cruel industry for the gullible, it is nothing more than an advertisement. The admission it contains stating that it isn't perfect is an attempt to infer that it is perhaps somewhere approaching it, when the opposite is true and it is also an attempt to portray an image of an industry which has animal welfare as its priority, when in fact, it's priority is profit. The commentary couldn't help putting in its two cents worth of opinion on events in 2011, describing the suspension as an unmitigated disaster, and it does so as if it is some kind of absolute authority on the matter. However, the true unmitigated disaster has been inflicted on millions of innocent animals in the form of unspeakable cruelty dealt out to them by this industry, and that cruelty is continuing. In the last 12 months, about 10%, or around 110,000 Australian live exported cattle were slaughtered without stunning. Stop and consider that for a moment: that equates to a death which is similar in terms of terror for those cattle as that which was shown in the 2011 4 Corners report which triggered the suspension, and at around 110,000 animals, the number of cattle put through that hell has actually increased since that 2011 ' A Bloody Business' report....
Woof Blitz , is it fair to say your aim is the end of the Australian live export trade? Let's say you succeed. What then? Do you move your attention to the animals which replace them in the markets we've vacated? I'm puzzled that you give no ground to an industry which is effecting real change in animal welfare practices way beyond its own direct involvement. If an exporter of livestock is not qualified to comment on the 2011 suspension, if those whose qualifications in livestock management have enabled them to spend years improving practices overseas are summarily to be considered unreliable witnesses, if the industry is not permitted to speak on its own behalf without being denounced as dealing in patronising and self-serving advertising for the "gullible", there is little point discussing. Yes, cattle continue to be slaughtered without stunning for now. The international standards of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) still allow it. But notice that on your figures 90% of Australian cattle are stunned before slaughter, as are other animals in those facilities. That figure is accurate for Indonesia, our largest cattle market, but other markets have adopted stunning completely or close to (Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam, Japan) so overall the figure is higher. How has the adoption of stunning slaughter come about in our markets, and would it have done so without Australia's involvement? While there are clear reasons to prefer and push for stunning before all slaughter (as the industry continues to do successfully), equating (your word) correct non-stunning slaughter with the prolonged and unconscionable cruelty shown in the 4 Corners program is simply wrong and deserves to be challenged. You might not like it - nor do I - but correct non-stunning slaughter involves a manifestly lower degree and duration of suffering than we observed in the 4 Corners program. Stunning is a relatively modern practice and it should not surprise us that there are places where its adoption has yet to overcome cultural or religious barriers. That those barriers are being overcome in Australia's export markets is essentially a product of the collaboration the Australian industry has undertaken with its customers, most recently in Egypt, which has now agreed to electrical stunning for cattle and sheep - surely a massive breakthrough. You might credit activists - and their catalytic role is indisputable - but the people on the ground doing the work are those you heard from in this video, and their colleagues in this industry. How do I know? I wrote the video, I know many of the people in this industry, including most of those in this video, and I was behind the camera for much of the footage you saw (and have filmed in abattoirs throughout Australia, too). So where do I suggest you turn your attention? Hold the industry to account - this video is asking no more than that. But hold it to the standard of behaving responsibly and effecting actual animal welfare improvement. Hold it to the standard of forming and maintaining supply pathways along which animals exported from this country are treated well - to international standards which are themselves improving. Hold exporters and the government to the standard of responding immediately and without favour to instances of wrongdoing. But, for goodness sake, don't claim as you do that the industry is somehow moving in the wrong direction as regards animal welfare. That's patently untrue.
I write this in my own name and not on behalf of the industry. I'm happy to have a real conversation about this with you - won't be hard to find my details and get in touch.
Darryl Anderson, Anvil Media.
Yep let's stop us Australians exporting, meanwhile our own producers are spending millions training these people to be better at processing, but let's say we get locked out, do you think the many more waiting to export will do the same. No others are helping our customers bring up their levels of animal welfare handling and have a lot less issues from their own countries to make them