DOCSLIB.ORG

PETA's Myth 1: Mulesing Isn't Necessary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PETA's Myth 1: Mulesing Isn't Necessary PETA, the master of myth-information, continues to myth-lead the public about mulesing in its latest piece “The Six Myths of Mulesing” h 1 l s i is ’ ss a PETA ’ s m t t e ng n nece : M u r y y . There is nothing worse for an Australian Merino sheep than to suffer the pain and agony of attack by flesh-eating maggots hatched from i li i p r n a a . u c cu the eggs of the aggressive sheep blowfly L These maggots eat the flesh of the sheep, causing bloody wounds and eventual blood poisoning. The sheep is likely to die unless found and treated quickly. The sheep blowfly prefers to attack the breech (backside) of the Merino sheep. Faeces and, in the case of females, urine, accumulates in the wool growing on the skin folds around the breech making it an attractive target for the blowfly. Mulesed sheep have a clean, non-wool bearing area around the breech, making it significantly less likely that faeces and urine will accumulate. Consequently, eggs will not be laid by the blowfly. PETA continually implies woolgrowers who mules their sheep do not use other methods to stop their sheep being flystruck. This is totally incorrect! Growers do all of the things that PETA recommends – crutching, jetting with insecticides, the use of flytraps, internal parasite control, pasture management, regular flock inspections and selecting for plainer-breeched sheep. These are all performed as a complement to mulesing – but none of them can replace mulesing for its effectiveness. PETA says 20% of farmers do not mules. Most of these farmers have cross-bred sheep for prime lamb production (20% of the Australian sheep flock). These sheep have a plain breech which does not present the same problem as the Merino sheep which is a specialist, fine wool breed producing the world’s best apparel wool. The proven experience is that non-mulesed Merinos have a much higher rate of breech strike than mulesed Merinos. Therefore they suffer the stress of flystrike which can occur every year and often several times within a fly season. Flystrike is a very stressful experience for sheep. Research indicates a very high percentage (95%) of Merino sheep are mulesed.* The reason for this is clear – it is highly effective in giving sheep lifetime protection from breech strike, thereby saving them from the stress and risk of premature death from flystike. *In ‘The Land’ on February 17, 2005, an officer of the Department reported that “100% of Merinos examined at Deniliquin saleyards had been mulesed and about 10% of first-cross ewes were also shown to have been mulesed.” (Deniliquin is in south western NSW and the area has a large sheep population.) PETA quotes Chick Olsson. Chick, representing the Australian Wool Growers Association, was involved in the Industry Stakeholder meeting which supported the need to continue the current practice of mulesing until it is phased out by 2010. h 2 : h PETA ’ s my T PCA p s i i t t e RS o on RSPCA (Australia) states on its website that: “in particular geographical locations, where there is a high risk of flystrike and it has been established that there is absolutely no acceptable alternative to mulesing, the RSPCA considers mulesing a necessary means of eliminating or minimising the pain and suffering caused by flystrike.’ A leading rural newspaper in Australia, the Weekly Times, reported that RSPCA (Aust.) President, Hugh Wirth, said that PETA was dangerous and had undone a lot of the good work done by the RSPCA over many years. (Weekly Times, Jan. 19, 2005, p.5). h 3 : l l h PETA ’ s my A us i s i um t t r r r r a an woo g owe a e n ane Deliberate cruelty to animals is totally unacceptable to sheep producers. Flystrike inflicts pain, suffering and likely death to sheep. Once mulesed, the sheep has life-long protection against the horrific suffering and likely death that breech flystrike can cause. “If left alone, blowflies in the hot Australian climate create open wounds that kill sheep through infection.” Catherine Munro, The Sunday Age, 30 January 2005. Australian sheep and wool producers manage more than 100 million sheep. This is a 365 day per year commitment, year in and year out, through good seasons and bad. No one knows more about animal welfare than a hands-on producer. It is plain common sense that sheep which are unhealthy or poorly managed will have lesser quality wool. Only contented, well-cared for sheep produce quality wool and lambs every year. l ” h 4 : W h ? s ki i s i d “ k u k PETA ’ s my t e nn ng o a n c The industry did not say mulesing was like ‘skinning your knuckles’. But neither is mulesing ‘cutting chunks of flesh off lambs’ backsides with gardening shears’ as untruthfully propagated by PETA. The study to which PETA refers (‘abnormal behaviours for up to 113 days’) actually measured data only at the 35 day and 113 day mark and nothing in between. Lambs may well have recovered on day 36 but that was not recorded. What PETA does not report is that the same stress measures indicate acute stress reactions in sheep during flystrike, which can persist for the duration of the infection. Unmulesed sheep will be much more susceptible to breech strike and therefore to the attendant pain and suffering. The stress response associated with mulesing is comparable to that caused by mild flystrike. In the case of mulesing, this stress response lasts for about 24-48 hours. In the case of flystrike, the stress response lasts as long as the strike. Also, mulesing is done only once during the animal’s life, while flystrike can recur every year in the right conditions. The Tasmanian farmer quoted is an alternate, organic producer who runs non- Merino, British breed sheep that can be managed without mulesing because of their plain breech. l l l PETA’ t h 5 : It i i t e re ted i e i d i e s my s on y n s n m u s ng an v e rt po s x PETA’s self-proclaimed vegan-driven mission (as displayed on its website) is to end all use of animals for food, fibre, medical research and recreation. Why would the Australian wool industry be the only one to be given an exemption? Animal rights groups in Australia who are supporting PETA’s campaign are regularly quoted as saying that other animal welfare practices will be targeted after mulesing is dealt with. PETA needs to produce more convincing evidence. PETA’ th 6 : i t i t e i i i ti i d t r t t i s my s no ng ag ng n n m a o y ac cs. Just ask some of the world’s major retailers what they think about PETA’s claim! Abercrombie and Fitch caved into PETA because of the threat of an “Abercruelty” type campaign. Many major retailers have received threats of damaging publicity and demonstrations. One major international retailer is currently being publicly attacked by PETA in the northern hemisphere. Damaging material is displayed PETA’s website. The retailers get swamped with emails from PETA’s supporters, disrupting their normal business operations. A survey of internet sites devoted to combating animal rights activism and detailing previous PETA activities reveals why retailers fear PETA. F r f rther i f r ti t t : o u n o ma on c on ac [email protected] 24 February 2005 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • No. 31 Animals Australia
    Submission No 31 INQUIRY INTO PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT (RESTRICTIONS ON STOCK ANIMAL PROCEDURES) BILL 2019 Organisation: Animals Australia Date Received: 6 August 2020 6 August 2020 The Hon. Mark Banasiak MLC Chair, Portfolio Committee No. 4 - Industry New South Wales Legislative Council By Email: [email protected] Dear Mr Banasiak, Animals Australia’s Submission to the New South Wales Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment (Restrictions on Stock Animal Procedures) Bill 2019 Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on this important Bill to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (POCTA), and to provide evidence at the Inquiry on 11 August 2020. If the Committee requires any further information or clarification prior to my appearance, we are able to provide these on request. Animals Australia is a leading animal protection organisation that regularly contributes advice and expertise to government and other bodies in Australia, and though our international arm (Animals International) works on global animal welfare issues. On behalf of our individual members and supporters, we are pleased to be able to provide this submission. A. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT Schedule 1 Amendment of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 No 200 [1] Section 23B Insert after section 23A— 23B Mules operation prohibited (1) A person who performs the Mules operation on a sheep is guilty of an offence. Maximum penalty—50 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both. (2) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (1) until on or after 1 January 2022. [2] Section 24 Certain defences Insert “or” at the end of section 24(1)(a)(iii).
    [Show full text]
  • Dorper Sheep and the Production of Lean Lamb in Arid Australia
    International Specialised Skills Institute Inc DORPER SHEEP AND THE PRODUCTION OF LEAN LAMB IN ARID AUSTRALIA Richard Knights International ISS Institute/DEEWR Trades Fellowship Fellowship supported by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Australian Government ISS Institute Inc. MARCH 2010 © International Specialised Skills Institute ISS Institute Suite 101 685 Burke Road Camberwell Vic AUSTRALIA 3124 Telephone 03 9882 0055 Facsimile 03 9882 9866 Email [email protected] Web www.issinstitute.org.au Published by International Specialised Skills Institute, Melbourne. ISS Institute 101/685 Burke Road Camberwell 3124 AUSTRALIA March 2010 Also extract published on www.issinstitute.org.au © Copyright ISS Institute 2010 This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. This project is funded by the Australian Government under the Strategic Intervention Program which supports the National Skills Shortages Strategy. This Fellowship was funded by the Australian Government through the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. The views and opinions expressed in the documents are those of the Authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Whilst this report has been accepted by ISS Institute, ISS Institute cannot provide expert peer review of the report, and except as may be required by law no responsibility can be accepted by ISS Institute for the content of the report, or omissions, typographical, print or photographic errors, or inaccuracies that may occur after publication or otherwise. ISS Institute does not accept responsibility for the consequences of any actions taken or omitted to be taken by any person as a consequence of anything contained in, or omitted from, this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Prevention and Control of Blowfly Strike in Sheep
    RESEARCH REPORT: Prevention and control of blowfly strike in sheep JANUARY 2019 CONTENTS The RSPCA view ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Flystrike ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 Mulesing .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 An integrated approach to flystrike prevention and control ............................................................................ 6 Breeding and selection ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Breeding and selection - SRS Merino .................................................................................................................. 7 Breeding – getting started .................................................................................................................................. 8 Monitoring blowfly activity and reducing blowfly populations .......................................................................... 8 Preventative chemical fly treatments ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Welfare Assessments of Analgesic Options in Female Lambs for Surgical Mulesing and Its Alternatives
    Project No.: ON-00026 Contract No.: PO4500006124 AWI Project Manager: Bridget Peachey Contractor Name: CSIRO Agriculture & Food Prepared by: Alison Small & Caroline Lee Publication date: 29 May 2018 Welfare assessments of analgesic options in female lambs for surgical mulesing and its alternatives Published by Australian Wool Innovation Limited, Level 6, 68 Harrington Street, THE ROCKS, NSW, 2000 This publication should only be used as a general aid and is not a substitute for specific advice. To the extent permitted by law, we exclude all liability for loss or damage arising from the use of the information in this publication. © 2018 Australian Wool Innovation Limited. All rights reserved. Australian Wool Innovation Limited gratefully acknowledges the funds provided by the Australian government to support the research, development and innovation detailed in this publication. Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction/Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................... 6 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................................................ 10 Success in Achieving Objectives..................................................................................................................... 11 Methodology.........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Brief History of the Breed in Australia
    A Brief History of the Dorper and White Dorper sheep in Australia. SAABCO first introduced the breed into Australia in 1996 with the release of Dorper embryos for sale. Westcorp, the importer, was based in Perth and the majority of the embryos sold went into Western Australia, although some were bought by sheep breeders in the other states. White Dorper embryos were imported soon after going mainly onto farms in South Australia and NSW. The Ad which appeared in the Weekly Times for the SAABCO auction of the first Dorper embryos sold in Australia. Initially Australian farmers displayed lukewarm interest in the Dorper sheep. Their introduction was fairly low key, unlike the Damaras (introduced at the same time), which received full entrepreneurial promotion. Prices for early stock were very high as their numbers were few and it was a costly exercise getting animals on the ground. At this time a lot of traditional farmers had difficulty getting their heads around the concept of NOT shearing a sheep. It is not a breed that slots in where the Merino or traditional prime lamb breeds fitted. There is no necessity for annual shearing, mulesing, flystrike treatment, lice and tail docking. Because of their polyestrus breeding there is also no mating season; they can be mated at whatever time of the year suits their owner. The wool industry was quite derisive of the “exotic sheep breeds” arguing that the breed would contaminate wool clips. If the experience in South Africa was to be repeated the risk was not to the clip but to the dominant position held by the merino.
    [Show full text]
  • Mulesing and Tailstripping : for the Prevention of Fly-Strike
    Journal of the Department of Agriculture, Western Australia, Series 4 Volume 3 Number 10 1962 Article 8 1-1-1962 Mulesing and tailstripping : for the prevention of fly-strike W L. McGarry Follow this and additional works at: https://researchlibrary.agric.wa.gov.au/journal_agriculture4 Part of the Entomology Commons, Sheep and Goat Science Commons, and the Veterinary Preventive Medicine, Epidemiology, and Public Health Commons Recommended Citation McGarry, W L. (1962) "Mulesing and tailstripping : for the prevention of fly-strike," Journal of the Department of Agriculture, Western Australia, Series 4: Vol. 3 : No. 10 , Article 8. Available at: https://researchlibrary.agric.wa.gov.au/journal_agriculture4/vol3/iss10/8 This article is brought to you for free and open access by Research Library. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Department of Agriculture, Western Australia, Series 4 by an authorized administrator of Research Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Mulesing and Tailstripping . for the prevention By W. L. McGARRY, Officer in Charge, Sheep and Wool Section ULESING and tailstripping are basic to fly strike control. During emergencies M and bad fly waves they may need to be supplemented by temporary protective measures such as jetting and crutching. When carried out efficiently, these Whether from rain, urine, or sweat, treatments, with correct tail length, con­ constant moisture causes an irritation and fer life-long and permanent protection, scalding of the skin. The skin becomes and reduce crutch strike to negligible inflamed and an exudate from the in­ proportions. Crutch strike causes most of flamed area adds to the moisture present the costly loss due to fly strike.
    [Show full text]
  • Mulesing - What Are the Alternatives?
    Mulesing - what are the alternatives? By Adele Lloyd Introduction The blowfly is the most detrimental parasite affecting the Australian sheep and wool industry (Armstrong et al, 2005). The most practical and effective technique in controlling blowfly strike involves the practice of mulesing (AWI, 2005), which is one of the most sensitive welfare issues concerning the sheep industry today (Evans, 2004). The pain associated with mulesing is well documented and has been described as the "greatest acute stressor" of all lamb- marking procedures (Fell & Shutt, 1988). Over the next four years nearly seven million dollars will be spent on research into alternatives in an attempt to satisfy animal welfare organisation guidelines, improve wool quality and limit blowfly resistance to insecticides (AWI, 2005). With the recent news that two American retailers have boycotted Australian wool over sheep welfare issues (Fawcett, 2004), there are now more reasons than ever to stop the mulesing process. Discussion Computer software is currently being developed to predict flystrike (AWI, 2005). This would be invaluable for farmers for planning when to crutch or shear their sheep, and when to apply pesticides, as the environmental impact resulting from the inappropriate use of these chemicals is becoming increasingly commercially and socially unacceptable (AWI, 2005). This is because pesticide residue is released into the environment during wool processing as scour effluent or sludge (Jordan, 2005). The wool industry is therefore under pressure to reduce the level of chemical residues in wool by reducing the use of these chemicals on farms (Wilson & Armstrong, 2005). These pesticides include diflubenzuron (for example, Magnum®), and triflumuron (for example, Zapp®), which are Insect Growth Regulator (IGR) chemicals (AWI, 2005).
    [Show full text]
  • Tail Docking. There Is Anecdotal Evidence That Wound Healing Is Slower in Thicker Tails When Using the Hot Knife Method
    SHEEP STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES – TAIL DOCKING DISCUSSION PAPER Prepared by the Sheep Standards and Guidelines Writing Group, January 2013 Tail docking is the removal of a portion of a sheep’s tail. ISSUES The main issues are: 1) Recommended methods 2) Age limits before pain relief is required 3) Tail length 4) Knowledge, experience and skills to perform the task 5) Availability of pain relief drugs. RATIONALE Tail docking of lambs remains an important husbandry practice in Australia for sheep health, welfare and management reasons outlined below: Reduces urine and faecal soiling or dag formation and thus minimises susceptibility to fly-strike which is one of the most important welfare concerns for sheep in Australia Improves external parasite control Improves effectiveness and efficiency of dagging, crutching and shearing Reduces WHS issues and handling required at dagging, crutching and shearing Allows for management flexibility to finish lambs to meet market specifications under variable seasonal conditions Improves the cleanliness of the wool Reduces handling required pre-slaughter for crutching/dagging Reduces faecal contamination and risks to food safety at livestock processing plants There is no available replacement procedure. Furthermore optimum tail length has additional health consequences for sheep: Influences rate of healing and risk of infection post-docking Influences rate of rectal prolapse in lambs May influence the rate of squamous cell carcinoma formation in the perineal region in older ewes. Flystrike is one of the most important health and welfare concerns for sheep in Australia and tail docking is highly effective at reducing the incidence of flystrike. Webb Ware et al 2000 reported that leaving the tail on lambs can result in a 3fold increase in flystrike rates in Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Why White Dorpers?
    WHY WHITE DORPERS? • Save time, money & sweat – no shearing, crutching, mulesing or dagging • Shed fleece readily – genetics available for very high shedding • High fertility – multiple births and excellent mothering • Fast growing, early weaning • Early maturing – commonly mate ewes at 9 months • With no set oestrus period, can lamb every 8 months • Or if you like you can run the ram with the ewes continuously • Replace wool with meat - multiple lambings means more return • Very good carcass traits with the meat highly regarded • Minimal fly strike or lice • Genetics available for good worm resistance • Very tough - can withstand all sorts of rough weather • Both strong maternal and excellent terminal traits in the one breed • White fleece means no colour contamination LUMANI WHITE DORPERS mob:0429087172 email: [email protected] JREYMOND & JM WILSON ABN 12 321 308 097 FURTHER INFORMATION The information below has been developed by Lumani White Dorpers, but has been partly sourced from the website of the Dorper Sheep Society of Australia (DSSA), of which Lumani White Dorpers is a member. See http://www.dorper.com.au/ Attributes Conformation The animal characteristically has a long, well-muscled, barrel shaped body with a broad rump. There is short white hair on the head and a short, loose light covering of hair and wool (wool predominating on the forequarter) and a natural clean underline. An even distribution of a thin layer of fat compliments the breed. The Dorper sheds its fleece avoiding the need for mustering for shearing, crutching and fly control. Production Characteristics Economical & Easycare Dorpers are an economical breed because of their excellent feed utilisation and conversion, they don't need shearing, crutching and mulesing, and they are disease resistant.
    [Show full text]
  • Live Weight Parameters in Dorper, Damara and Australian Merino Lambs Subjected to Restricted Feeding
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia (DAFWA): Research Library Research Library Journal articles Research Publications 1-2013 Live weight parameters in Dorper, Damara and Australian Merino lambs subjected to restricted feeding Tim Scanlon DPIRD, [email protected] Andre M. Almeida Instituto de Investigação Científica rT opical & CIISA Andrew Van Burgel DPIRD, [email protected] Tanya Kilminster DPIRD, [email protected] John Milton University of Western Australia See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://researchlibrary.agric.wa.gov.au/j_article Part of the Agriculture Commons, Agronomy and Crop Sciences Commons, and the Sheep and Goat Science Commons Recommended Citation T.T. Scanlon, A.M. Almeida, A. van Burgel, T. Kilminster, J. Milton, J.C. Greeff, C. Oldham, Live weight parameters and feed intake in Dorper, Damara and Australian Merino lambs exposed to restricted feeding, Small Ruminant Research, Volume 109, Issues 2–3, 2013, Pages 101-106, ISSN 0921-4488, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2012.08.004. This article is brought to you for free and open access by the Research Publications at Research Library. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal articles by an authorized administrator of Research Library. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. Authors Tim Scanlon, Andre M. Almeida, Andrew Van Burgel, Tanya Kilminster, John Milton, Johan C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of PETA, Merino Wool and the Practice of Mulesing
    Education and Training 17th International Farm Management Congress, Bloomington/Normal, Illinois, USA Case Study Alternative Strategic Responses to the Animal Welfare Advocacy: The Case of PETA, Merino Wool and the Practice of Mulesing R.K. Bowmar & H.R. Gow Department of Agriculture, Food and Resource Economics Michigan State University Version: 1 February 2009 Abstract Animal welfare is becoming an issue of increasing concern to consumers, managers and policy makers alike and the strategic responses to these issues by different stakeholders can have important implications for an industry’s short-term performance and long-term viability. The purpose of this paper is to conduct a comparative institutional analysis of the alternative strategies taken by two different national agricultural industries with respect to the same animal welfare issue, mulesing, and the resulting outcomes and implications of these actions. The practice of mulesing involves the surgical removal of skin folds from around the breech of Merino sheep in order to prevent flystrike. Since the early 2000’s animal rights advocacy groups have increasingly demanded that farmers abandon the use of this practice. Wool industry stakeholders developed different opinions, with groups both supporting and rejecting the call. The Australian and New Zealand Merino Wool Industries adopted two different strategic responses to PETA’s demands. Using a grounded theory approach, we conduct a comparative institutional analysis to examine outcomes and impacts of these two different strategic responses. This paper contributes to our understanding of differing strategic responses available to industry to diffuse animal welfare confrontations and provides critical insights into different outcomes. 1 July 2009 Education and Training 17th International Farm Management Congress, Bloomington/Normal, Illinois, USA Case Study 1.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study on Wound Healing in Lambs and Hoggets Following Mulesing
    A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON WOUND HEALING IN LAMBS AND HOGGETS FOLLOWING MULESING L.C.WILSON, C. ESPINOZA1, P.A. WINDSOR2 and S. LOMAX3 Summary The aims of this experiment were to assess the rate of healing of mulesing wounds based on treatment with a topical anaesthetic (TA), and to compare the rate of wound healing between lambs and hoggets to develop an understanding of possible age effects. Lambs and hoggets were weighed and mulesed (Day 0), with digital photographs of wounds taken at days 0, 14 and 28. Wound surface area (WSA) was then measured using image analysis software. This is a comparative study, comparing data collected from hoggets in 2012 and previously published data on lambs from a trial conducted in 2006. The 2006 component of this trial (published by Lomax et al., 2008) found a significant effect of TA on reducing the rate of wound healing in lambs. The current study did not find a significant effect on wound healing of treatment with TA. However there was a significant difference between age groups, indicating that this is a key area for further investigation. I. INTRODUCTION The proposed research aimed to assess the effect of age on the rate of healing of the mulesing wound. It was hypothesised that in older sheep, wound healing time may be reduced due to an increased body size (relative to wound size) and the presence of more subcutaneous fat to protect the open wound (Dwyer, 2008). This hypothesised effect would also be compounded due to the ability of producers to more conservatively, or selectively mules older sheep as with age improved body condition, the breech wrinkle score can reduce (Brown et al., 1966).
    [Show full text]