VN October 2021

Vetnuus | Oktober 2021 6 The dilemma of long-distance livestock shipping has been a long- standing concern of the LivestockWelfare Coordinating Committee (LWCC). The LWCC is an independent organisation founded in 1978, and it is unique in that it is funded exclusively by various sectors of SouthAfrica’s livestock industry. It currently comprises nine livestock associations, five supportive organisations, four government entities, four professional bodies (including SAVA and RuVASA), two university departments and two welfare organisations. These 26 representative bodies address a wide range of livestock welfare issues via inclusive consultation and reasoned debate based on science. They strive to reach an acceptable consensus that reflects a balanced position statement on any particular matter of concern. On many issues relating to livestock welfare, there may be different perspectives, views and disagreements between the member organisations of the LWCC. We aim always to reach a consensus on an issue, and in the majority of cases, this is achieved by discussion and negotiation. When it is not attained, members have to establish their own positions, make their own statements and take independent action. LWCC has resolved that it should not be and will avoid becoming involved in legal disputes and court cases between its members. We remain committed to supporting and improving livestock welfare within the ambit of legal frameworks and laws. Arguments favouring the practice of long-distance shipping of livestock by sea are usually based on three tenets: • The first being that the religious beliefs of the recipient country demand slaughter where the animals are to be consumed. This assumption is patently untrue for any major religion. The only requirement on this issue is that authorised persons following the correct procedures do the slaughter. This slaughter can, therefore, be done locally here in South Africa. • The second defence of the practice is that slaughter at the point of consumption follows ‘custom’ or that consumers in the destination country prefer so-called‘hot meat’. Yet mere custom and preference should indeed not be allowed to take precedence over humanity and compassion, and these customs and choices are subject to change over time? After all, refrigerated meat has been sent around the world for nearly 150 years. • The third argument is profit – namely, that it is more profitable to transport live animals rather than refrigerated meat. Should profit always take precedence over principle? It is suggested that all risks can be minimised or prevented by the proper rules, procedures and design or equipment. Reasons advanced for not supporting the practice of sending livestock by sea for slaughter include the following: • Loading tens of thousands of animals within a few days presents severe logistical challenges, hurried handling and inevitable breakdowns. • There is no control over what happens to the animals at sea once the ship leaves the harbour without the supervision of independent inspectors. • There is no jurisdiction over what is done to the livestock on arrival at the destination. Regulations can be flimsy or non-existent, and amateur slaughter may be the fate of these animals. The local industries must consider what effect this has on consumer perceptions. • Inspecting 50 000 to 70 000 sheep every day on board for health and welfare is almost impossible without sufficient numbers of dedicated, expert and independent inspectors who have the authority to protect the health and welfare of the animals on the ships. LIVESTOCK BY SEA FOR SLAUGHTER: AWELFARE ISSUE G F Bath (September 2021)