DOCSLIB.ORG

Poultry Independent Public Consultation Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines – Poultry – Public Consultation Report Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines – Poultry Independent Public Consultation Report Prepared by Dr Heather Bray, University of Adelaide For Animal Health Australia 9th of July 2018 1 Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines – Poultry – Public Consultation Report Executive Summary This document was prepared by the Independent Public Consultation Consultant whose role was to examine and summarise the major written submissions to the public consultation processes for the Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for poultry, as forwarded by Animal Health Australia, into a Public Consultation Summary report/Action plan. This report will function as a comprehensive summary and analysis of the range of submissions for use by the poultry Drafting and Stakeholder Groups and will be published at www.animalwelfarestandards.net.au. An open public consultation of the proposed draft Poultry Welfare Standards and associated Regulation Impact Statement was undertaken for a 90 day period from 27 November 2017 to 26 February 2018. The public consultation received an estimated 167,000 email submissions and an estimated 2,000 hardcopy submissions. All submissions were read and were classified into short submissions (the overwhelming majority), ‘new insight’ or extended response submissions (45), and major submissions (209) considered to be from major organisations/stakeholder groups. The major submissions were from industry bodies (11) and producers (54), welfare (17) and legal (10) groups, exhibition poultry fanciers (29), government departments (3), members of parliament (9), veterinarians or veterinary organisations (5), consultants and researchers (6), and interested community members (52). Many of these major submissions specifically addressed the Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) and the Proposed Draft Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Poultry (S&G). Submitters were not responded to directly. It was clear from the overwhelming number and content of submissions that the welfare of poultry in Australia generates considerable public interest. It was also clear from the submissions that there are significant differences of opinion about how to ensure good welfare within poultry production systems and in particular the issues addressed within the RIS and the S&G, such as: The use of cages, specifically conventional cages for layer hens and meat and layer chicken breeders. The overwhelming majority of submissions mentioned this particular issue, while some drew a distinction between conventional and furnished cages. Beak trimming and other painful procedures The use of limited feeding strategies such as induced moulting and alternate-day feeding Stocking densities Lighting for housed poultry Humane killing and slaughtering procedures, including procedures for dealing with male layer chicks. Industry bodies and producers tended to be supporting of the continued use of cages for layer hens, citing decreased mortality and better health than non-caged systems. Some advocated the use of furnished cages in place of conventional cages. 2 Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines – Poultry – Public Consultation Report Welfare and legal groups, and the majority of the community members, opposed the use of conventional cages, citing poorer wellbeing due to denial of natural behaviours, and there was limited support for enriched/furnished cages. Several submissions provided extensive technical (scholarly) information to support their position, which is referred to the drafting group for their assessment. Industry and producer groups tended not to support a ban or phase out of conventional cages, arguing that increased costs to industry, and increased costs to the consumer would not deliver significant benefits in hen welfare. Many supported Option C in the RIS, with some changes suggested to specific S&G. Some groups advocated for the use of furnished cages, and expressed disappointment that they were not expressly considered with the RIS and S&G. Welfare and legal groups, and the majority of the community members, tended to support a ban or phase out of conventional cages, arguing that this was supported by the majority of community members, consumers, retailers and food companies, and had occurred in certain jurisdictions i.e. ACT. Many submissions called for an immediate ban, however others acknowledged that a phase out was required. Many supported Option D within the RIS but with the caveat that the phase out was within 10 years rather than 20 years. There was criticism of the process of the development of the RIS and S&G from welfare and legal groups, as well as the general public, with claims of a lack of basis in current science due to the absence of an independent review, and accusations of governments’ collusion with industry. The key tension within the submissions is how to evaluate and provide a ‘life worth living’ for Australia poultry in current production systems, and particularly whether ‘protection’ from harmful factors through the use of (conventional) cages is ‘better for hens’ than the ability to express natural behaviours in non-cage systems where there are other risks to animal health and welfare. It should be noted that many submissions debate whether these attributes are characteristic of each production system, and provide evidence to support their case. Several note that there are welfare issues in all systems, the factors that contribute to welfare are complex and interact, and management is a key factor in providing good welfare. The other key tension within the submissions is balancing the welfare needs of poultry with the needs of the community, and particularly balancing community support for changing production practices with the projected costs of industry change. The Consultant recommends that the Drafting Group, under the direction of Animal Welfare Task Group, review the technical information provided in the submissions in order to evaluate them in light of the decision-making principles and the objectives of the review. 3 Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines – Poultry – Public Consultation Report Table of Contents Executive Summary . 2 List of Abbreviations Organisation Acronyms . 7 Other Abbreviations . 8 Context for the Report . 9 Scope of the Standards and Guidelines . 9 Public Consultation Process . 9 Role of the Independent Public Consultation Consultant . 9 Role of the Drafting Group . 10 Submissions . 11 Analysis of short public submissions . 12 Analysis of new insight and major submissions . 12 Themes within the submissions . 14 Introduction . 14 The use of conventional cages . 14 Beak trimming and other painful procedures. 17 Slaughter/killing practices . 18 Stocking densities . 19 Induced moulting and limited access to food and water . 19 Lighting . 20 Rapid growth of meat birds . 20 Water for ducks . 20 Development of the RIS and the S&G . 20 Summary and recommendations . 21 Appendix 1 - Support/Opposition for RIS Options . 22 Support for Option A . 22 Opposition to Option A . 22 Support for Option B . 23 Opposition to Option B . 23 4 Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines – Poultry – Public Consultation Report Support for Option C . 24 Opposition to Option C . 28 Support for Option D . 29 Opposition to Option D . 30 Support for Option E . 31 Opposition to Option E . 32 Support for Option F . 33 Opposition to Option F . 34 Support for Option G . 35 Opposition to Option G . 36 General comments on RIS Options . 37 Appendix 2 – Responses to RIS Questions . 38 RIS Responses – Question 1 . 38 RIS Responses – Question 2 . 45 RIS Responses – Question 3 . 49 RIS Responses – Question 4 . 55 RIS Responses – Question 5 . 61 RIS Responses – Question 6 . 64 RIS Responses – Question 7 . 66 RIS Responses – Question 8 . 68 RIS Responses – Question 9 . 72 RIS Responses – Question 10 . 77 RIS Responses – Question 11 . 82 RIS Responses – Question 12 . 87 RIS Responses – Question 13 . 92 RIS Responses – Question 14 . 97 RIS Responses – Question 15 . 100 RIS Responses – Question 16 . 104 RIS Responses – Question 17 . 108 RIS Responses – Question 18 . 110 Appendix 3 – Comments on Specific Standards and Guidelines . 114 5 Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines – Poultry – Public Consultation Report Standards and Guidelines A1 Responsibilities . 114 Standards and Guidelines A2 Feed and Water . 119 Standards and Guidelines A3 Risk management etc. 132 Standards and Guidelines A4 Facilities and Equipment . 147 Standards and Guidelines A5 Management of Outdoor Systems . 164 Standards and Guidelines A6 Lighting . 170 Standards and Guidelines A7 Temperature and Ventilation . 180 Standards and Guidelines A8 Litter Management . 187 Standards and Guidelines A9 Handling and Husbandry . 192 Standards and Guidelines A10 Humane Killing . 216 Standards and Guidelines A11 Poultry at slaughtering establishments . 224 Standards and Guidelines B1 Laying Chickens . 238 Standards and Guidelines B2 Meat Chickens . 254 Standards and Guidelines B3 Meat and Laying Chicken Breeders . 259 Standards and Guidelines B4 Ducks . 266 Standards and Guidelines B5 Emus . 271 Standards and Guidelines B6 Geese . 274 Standards and Guidelines B7 Guinea Fowl . 277 Standards and Guidelines B8 Ostriches . 279 Standards and Guidelines B9 Partridge . 283 Standards and Guidelines B10 Pheasants . 285 Standards and Guidelines B11 Pigeons . 286 Standards and Guidelines B12 Quail
Recommended publications
  • (Mother Hens' Uropygial Secretion Analogue) Sur Le Stress Des Poulets

    (Mother Hens' Uropygial Secretion Analogue) Sur Le Stress Des Poulets

    TTHHÈÈ SSEE En vue de l'obtention du DOCTORAT DE L’UNIV ERSITÉ DE TOULOUSE Délivré par L'Institut National Polytechnique Discipline ou spécialité : Pathologie, Toxicologie, Génétique & Nutrition Présentée et soutenue par Iltud MADEC Le 19 mai 2008 Titre : Effets du sémiochimique MHUSA (Mother Hens’ Uropygial Secretion Analogue) sur le stress des poulets de chair. Approches zootechnique, physiologique et comportementale. JURY Pr Jean DAYDE, Président. Pr Xavier MANTECA, Rapporteur. Pr Giovanni RE, Rapporteur. Pr Patrick PAGEAT, Tuteur. Dr Jean-François GABARROU, Tuteur. Pr Xavier FERNANDEZ, Membre. Dr Anne-Marie LESENEY, Membre. Ecole doctorale : Sciences Ecologiques, Vétérinaires, Agronomiques et Bioingéniéries Unité de recherche : Institut de Recherche Phérosynthèse, Ecole d'Ingénieurs de Purpan Directeur(s) de Thèse : Pr Vassilia THEODOROU Rapporteurs : MM. les Pr X. MANTECA et G. RE SOMMAIRE Remerciements Liste des publications Liste des sigles et abréviations Liste des illustrations INTRODUCTION Partie I : contexte de l’étude Partie II : objectifs de travail et résultats Partie III : discussion générale CONCLUSION Bibliographie Table des matières 1 « On aime sa mère presque sans le savoir, et on ne s’aperçoit de toute la profondeur des racines de cet amour qu’au moment de la séparation dernière. » Guy de Maupassant 2 Remerciements Ce mémoire n’est pas un aboutissement, mais une étape. Néanmoins ce moment marque, comme tous les moments forts d’une vie. Il faut maintenant passer à autre chose en se servant de cette dernière comme d’un atout. Cette étape m’a vu grandir et évoluer vers une certaine forme de maturité, j’espère en faire partager mon entourage. C’est ce dernier, tant professionnel que personnel (parfois les deux sont conjugués), que je souhaite remercier dans ce message.
  • Animal Defenders Office the Animal Defenders Office (ADO) Is a Non-Profit, Community Law Practice That Specialises in Animal Law

    Animal Defenders Office the Animal Defenders Office (ADO) Is a Non-Profit, Community Law Practice That Specialises in Animal Law

    Productivity Commission GPO Box 1428 Canberra City ACT 2601 26 August 2016 Dear Sir/Madam Submission on the Regulation of Agriculture Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission in relation to the inquiry to examine the regulation of agriculture in Australia. About the Animal Defenders Office The Animal Defenders Office (ADO) is a non-profit, community law practice that specialises in animal law. The ADO offers information and representation for individuals and groups wishing to take action for animals. The ADO also produces information to raise community awareness about animal protection issues, and works to advance animal interests through law reform. The ADO is a member of Community Legal Centres NSW Inc and the National Association of Community Legal Centres. Our responses to key recommendations and previous questions on the issues of animal welfare in agriculture are set out below. Draft Recommendation 5.1 The ADO strongly supports draft recommendation 5.1, for an independent body to develop standards and guidelines for farm animal welfare. There should also be recommendations to state and territories for comparable bodies to be developed at their level. The body should take the form of an Independent Office for Animal Welfare (IOAW), similar to that previously proposed to Parliament in the Voice for Animals (Independent Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2015. The body should be located separately from the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to avoid conflict of interest. It should be federally funded and tasked with developing a uniform set of standards for animal welfare. Further, the IOAW should be empowered to investigate and issue reports and recommendations on current key issues on animal welfare.
  • Staphylococcus Aureus, a Gram-Positive Coccus Occurring in Clusters (Grapes Like)

    Staphylococcus Aureus, a Gram-Positive Coccus Occurring in Clusters (Grapes Like)

    STAPHYLOCOCCOSIS, STREPTOCOCCOSIS & CAMPYLOBACTERIOSIS DEFINITION Staphylococcosis is acute systemic or chronic disease of birds characterized most frequently by purulent arthritis and tenosynovitis. OCCURRENCE • Staphylococcal infections of poultry occur worldwide and affect all classes of birds. • Outbreaks are most important in turkeys and broilers. • The organisms are common in the environment and are especially associated with the skin (normal inhabitant). • Most diseases produced by Staphylococcus sp. are associated with ahistory of break in the skin or beak (trauma, beak trimming, toe trimming, foot pad burns etc.). OCCURRENCE • Avian infections tend to be caused by types occurring in birds rather than human strains. • Isolates pathogenic for one class of poultry are usually pathogenic for other classes of birds. • Toxigenic strains capable of causing food poisoning can contaminate the skin of processed poultry (zoonotic importance). • The source of these strains at present is in debate. • Bio-typing indicates processing plant worker origin while plasmid profile indicates poultry origin. HISTORICAL INFORMATION • Staphylococci were first discovered to be a cause of arthritis in geese in 1892. • Since that time they have been identified as the cause of a variety of localized and systemic diseases in many different avian species and in most areas of the world. • The disease was more common in turkeys when they were raised on range than it is now. ETIOLOGY • 1. Most staphylococci isolates have been identified as Staphylococcus aureus, a Gram-positive coccus occurring in clusters (grapes like). Pathogenic isolates are usually coagulase positive. 2. Organisms are moderately resistant to common disinfectants. • Chlorine-containing disinfectants are efficacious in the absence of organic material.
  • Broiler Chickens

    Broiler Chickens

    The Life of: Broiler Chickens Chickens reared for meat are called broilers or broiler chickens. They originate from the jungle fowl of the Indian Subcontinent. The broiler industry has grown due to consumer demand for affordable poultry meat. Breeding for production traits and improved nutrition have been used to increase the weight of the breast muscle. Commercial broiler chickens are bred to be very fast growing in order to gain weight quickly. In their natural environment, chickens spend much of their time foraging for food. This means that they are highly motivated to perform species specific behaviours that are typical for chickens (natural behaviours), such as foraging, pecking, scratching and feather maintenance behaviours like preening and dust-bathing. Trees are used for perching at night to avoid predators. The life of chickens destined for meat production consists of two distinct phases. They are born in a hatchery and moved to a grow-out farm at 1 day-old. They remain here until they are heavy enough to be slaughtered. This document gives an overview of a typical broiler chicken’s life. The Hatchery The parent birds (breeder birds - see section at the end) used to produce meat chickens have their eggs removed and placed in an incubator. In the incubator, the eggs are kept under optimum atmosphere conditions and highly regulated temperatures. At 21 days, the chicks are ready to hatch, using their egg tooth to break out of their shell (in a natural situation, the mother would help with this). Chicks are precocial, meaning that immediately after hatching they are relatively mature and can walk around.
  • Chickens As Patients - UEP2013 - VIN

    Chickens As Patients - UEP2013 - VIN

    7/27/2020 Chickens as Patients - UEP2013 - VIN Chickens as Patients AAVAC-UPAV 2013 Anna Meredith, MA, VetMB, PhD, CertLAS, DZooMed, MRCVS Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK Introduction The keeping of non-commercial backyard poultry is increasing greatly in popularity. Ducks, geese, pheasants, guinea fowl and other species may all be kept, but chickens are probably the most common species presented in general practice. People keep chickens for different reasons, including just having a few hens for private egg production and consumption, breeding of exhibition or "fancy" birds, small layer or meat bird flocks, or as true pets that also help to weed the garden. Chicken owners will vary from very experienced to complete novices. For these types of poultry, the local small animal or mixed veterinary practitioner is likely to be called upon rather than an experienced commercial poultry vet, although this may well be after advice has been sought from the breeder, agricultural merchant or internet first and various treatments applied. Many owners become very attached to their birds and invest time and money in their care, and will expect their veterinary surgeon to be knowledgeable, able to advise on general husbandry and management and to treat any problems effectively. The domestic chicken is descended from the red junglefowl (Gallus gallus), but has been domesticated into a large variety of breeds. Choice of breed usually depends on the purpose of keeping the chicken. Bantams are often kept if space is limited; these are small varieties with correspondingly small eggs, and most large breeds have a bantam (miniature) version.
  • Controlling Feather Pecking and Cannibalism in Laying Hens Without

    Controlling Feather Pecking and Cannibalism in Laying Hens Without

    CONTROLLING FEATHER PECKING & CANNIBALISM IN LAYING HENS WITHOUT BEAK TRIMMING A Compassion in World Farming Report by Heather Pickett MSc BSc (hons) October 2009, revised March 2011 Registered Charity No. 1095050 Compassion in World Farming is grateful to The Rufford Maurice Laing Foundation whose funding made this research possible. www.rufford.org EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Hens are often beak trimmed to reduce the risk of welfare problems caused by feather pecking and cannibalism. The consequences of beak trimming for welfare include trauma during the procedure, pain due to tissue damage and nerve injury, loss of normal function due to reduced ability to sense materials with the beak, and loss of integrity of a living animal. This report reviews the evidence from the scientific literature and from practical experience, which demonstrates that feather pecking and cannibalism can be controlled in non-cage systems without beak trimming through (i) the use of appropriate strains and selective breeding to further reduce the hens’ propensity to feather peck and (ii) good design of non-cage systems and implementation of a range of preventive management practices. Experience in other European countries where beak trimming has been prohibited indicates that, with experience, laying hens can be successfully managed in non-cage systems without beak trimming. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has repealed the ban on the beak trimming of laying hens in England, which was due to come into force on 1st January 2011. Instead, the government has merely banned the use of the hot blade method for beak-trimming, except in emergencies on-farm, while allowing beak-trimming by the infra-red (IR) beam method to continue.
  • Right to Farm Bill 2019

    Right to Farm Bill 2019

    LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Portfolio Committee No. 4 - Industry Right to Farm Bill 2019 Ordered to be printed 21 October 2019 according to Standing Order 231 Report 41 - October 2019 i LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Right to Farm Bill 2019 New South Wales Parliamentary Library cataloguing-in-publication data: New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council. Portfolio Committee No. 4 – Industry Right to Farm Bill 2019 / Portfolio Committee No. 4 – Industry [Sydney, N.S.W.] : the Committee, 2019. [68] pages ; 30 cm. (Report no. 41 / Portfolio Committee No. 4 – Industry) “October 2019” Chair: Hon. Mark Banasiak, MLC. ISBN 9781922258984 1. New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Assembly—Right to Farm Bill 2019. 2. Trespass—Law and legislation—New South Wales. 3. Demonstrations—Law and legislation—New South Wales. I. Land use, Rural—Law and legislation—New South Wales. II. Agricultural resources—New South Wales III. Banasiak, Mark. IV. Title. V. Series: New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council. Portfolio Committee No. 4 – Industry. Report ; no. 41 346.944036 (DDC22) ii Report 41 - October 2019 PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 4 - INDUSTRY Table of contents Terms of reference iv Committee details v Chair’s foreword vi Finding vii Recommendation viii Conduct of inquiry ix Chapter 1 Overview 1 Reference 1 Background and purpose of the bill 1 Overview of the bill's provisions 2 Chapter 2 Key issues 5 Nuisance claims 5 Balancing the rights of farmers and neighbours 5 Deterring nuisance claims 8 The nuisance shield: a defence or bar to a claim? 9 Remedies for nuisance
  • The Effect of Degree of Debeaking and Cage Population Size on Selected Production Characteristics Of

    The Effect of Degree of Debeaking and Cage Population Size on Selected Production Characteristics Of

    110 626 THE EFFECT OF DEGREE OF DEBEAKING AND CAGE POPULATION SIZE ON SELECTED PRODUCTION CHARACTERISTICS OF CAGED LAYERS Thesis for the Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Robert Carey Hargreaves 'I 965 THESIS LIBRARY Michigan State University ABSTRACT THE EFFECT OF DEGREE 0F DEBEAKING.AND CAGE POPULATION SIZE ON SELECTED PRODUCTION CHARACTERISTICS OF CAGED LAYERS by Robert Carey Hargreaves Debeaking is commercially used as one method of preventing canni- balism in young growing chickens, laying hens, turkeys, and game birds. In recent years, the relative severity of debeaking has increased. The primary purpose of this experiment was to determine the effects that severe degrees of debeaking might have on production characteristics of caged laying chickens. Single Comb'White Leghorn pullets were debeaked at 18 weeks of age and placed in l-bird and 3-bird cages. Other birds from the same stock were debeaked at 24 and 25 weeks of age and placed in 2-bird cages and 21-bird cages. Three degrees of debeaking were used -- 1/2, 3/& and all of the distance between the tip of the beak and the nostrils. Ap- proximately the same amount of both upper and lower mandibles was re- moved. Non-debeaked birds served as the controls. The birds with all of the beak removed are referred to as "entirely debeaked”. Compared with birds in any of the other three treatments, entirely debeaked birds gave poorer results. They took longer coming into egg production, laid fewer eggs, ate less feed and made smaller body weight gains. All of these differences were highly significant.
  • Journal of Animal & Natural Resource

    Journal of Animal & Natural Resource

    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL & NATURAL RESOURCE LAW Michigan State University College of Law MAY 2019 VOLUME XV The Journal of Animal & Natural Resource Law is published annually by law students at Michigan State University College of Law. The Journal of Animal & Natural Resource Law received generous support from the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Michigan State University College of Law. Without their generous support, the Journal would not have been able to publish and host its annual symposium. The Journal also is funded by subscription revenues. Subscription requests and article submissions may be sent to: Professor David Favre, Journal of Animal & Natural Resource Law, Michigan State University College of Law, 368 Law College Building, East Lansing MI 48824, or by email to msujanrl@ gmail.com. Current yearly subscription rates are $27.00 in the U.S. and current yearly Internet subscription rates are $27.00. Subscriptions are renewed automatically unless a request for discontinuance is received. Back issues may be obtained from: William S. Hein & Co., Inc., 1285 Main Street, Buffalo, NY 14209. The Journal of Animal & Natural Resource Law welcomes the submission of articles, book reviews, and notes & comments. Each manuscript must be double spaced, in 12 point, Times New Roman; footnotes must be single spaced, 10 point, Times New Roman. Submissions should be sent to [email protected] using Microsoft Word or PDF format. Submissions should conform closely to the 19th edition of The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation. All articles contain a 2019 author copyright unless otherwise noted at beginning of article. Copyright © 2019 by the Journal of Animal & Natural Resource Law, Michigan State University College of Law.
  • UPC Fall-Winter 2009 Poultry Press

    UPC Fall-Winter 2009 Poultry Press

    Fall-Winter 2009 Volume 19, Number 3 PoultryPromoting the compassionate and respectful Press treatment of domestic fowl Chosen one of the BEST Nonprofit Publications by UTNE magazine UPC# 11656 United Poultry Concerns P.O. Box 150 Machipongo, VA 23405-0150 (757) 678-7875 FAX: (757) 678-5070 Visit Our Web Site: www.upc-online.org Photo © Davida G. Breier & www.NoVoiceUnheard.org UPC sanctuary turkey, Amelia, sits quietly in her favorite nesting place. UNITED PO U LTRY CON C ERNS WWW .upc -ONLINE .ORG Volume 19, Number 3 Ritual Sacrif ice: “The reduction of living beings to objects upon whom atrocities can be heaped.” -Maxwell Schnurer, “At the Gates of Hell,” Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? By Karen Davis, PhD, President of United A bum conceit, but how much different is it from Poultry Concerns advertisements claiming that chickens want to be selected as the tastiest sandwich or that pigs are dying he idea that some groups were put on the to become an Oscar Mayer wiener? Animals who are earth to suffer and die sacrificially for a otherwise maledicted as “dirty” and “stupid” acquire Tsuperior group goes far back in time. The their value in being slaughtered for the “higher” species. idea is deeply embedded in human cultures, including They are decontaminated by being cooked and elevated the culture of the West, which is rooted in ancient by being absorbed into the body of a human being. Greek and Hebrew modes of thought, and incorporated Surely they must relish their privilege. in Christianity, where these roots combine. Animal sacrifice is not just an anachronism in these “.
  • Committee Secretary State Development, Natural Resources and Agricultural Industry Development Committee Parliament House George Street Brisbane QLD 4000

    Committee Secretary State Development, Natural Resources and Agricultural Industry Development Committee Parliament House George Street Brisbane QLD 4000

    Agriculture and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 Submission No. 006 Committee Secretary State Development, Natural Resources and Agricultural Industry Development Committee Parliament House George Street Brisbane QLD 4000 By email: [email protected] Dear Sir/Madam Submission on the Agriculture and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Agriculture and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 (Qld) (“the Bill”). About the Animal Defenders Office The Animal Defenders Office (“ADO”) is a nationally accredited community legal centre that specialises in animal law. The ADO is run by volunteer lawyers and law students. The ADO offers information and representation for individuals and groups wishing to protect animals. The ADO also produces information to raise community awareness about animal protection issues, and works to advance animal interests through law reform. The ADO is based in the Australian Capital Territory (“ACT”) and is a member of Community Legal Centres Australia. Background The Bill is an ‘omnibus’ bill which, according to the Explanatory Memorandum (“EM”), purportedly addresses issues regarding the regulation of matters including agriculture and animal management and welfare (EM1). The main focus of the Bill is ‘[u]nauthorised entry by animal activist protestors to places where animals are kept in Queensland’ (EM1). While the ADO does not in principle support the use of animals for agricultural or other commercial purposes, we acknowledge that such use is currently lawful. We have therefore considered the measures proposed in the Bill and our comments are set out in detail below. General comments The treatment of animals by industries that profit from their use has come under increased scrutiny in Australia in recent times.

  • Cannibalism in Poultry Causes

    cures 0 Anti-pick pastes. These can be used Hen specks or blinders. These can to curb cannibalism if just a few be applied for the prevention of birds are affected. A bitter tasting, cannibalism in laying hens. They are ummm blood-coJored preparation or pine attached to the nostrils and prevent tar daubed on the picked portion is » the birds from seeing straight ahead effective. There are several com- but apparently do not affect eating mercial preparations for this pur- or drinking. Specks should be ap- pose. If many birds are picked one plied to pullets before they start to In Poultry of the following methods should be lay. Several types are available and used. appear equally effective. Debeaklng. This is the most prac- Pick-guards. This device, as the tical method to use with broilers. speck, is attached to the nostril and Debeaking is accomplished by extends over the end of the beak. cutting off the upper beak from It prevents the hen from picking Vz to '/a the distance between forward, but does not hinder her the tip and the nostrils. If less eating. Neither specks or pick- than Vi of the beak is cut off it guards are commonly used on will grow back within a few turkeys. months. If Va or more of the upper beak is cut off it will not grow 'back, but the lower beak usually grows longer. This makes i it difficult for the birds to eat scratch from the litter or to drink from shallow waterers. In this Turkey-bits.