Contented cow
This contented cow image from an ABC story is the converse of what I gather was shown on Four Corners last week. We didn’t, couldn’t watch it, but the images have been appearing all week in regular ABC TV news and current affairs programs.
Quite simply, the incompetence and brutality of the Indonesian slaughtermen caught on camera was unacceptable to everyone from Australian producers to people with Muslim sensibilities.
Meat and Livestock Australia has apologised to Australians for the “hurt and anger” caused by the “horrendous acts of cruelty”.
Well they might. The were using a levy ($5 per beast, I understand) to work with the Indonesians to improve practices.
Indonesia, and specifically the Indonesian government, needs to take ownership of this problem. But we too, need to, as Andrew Wilkie says, find our moral compass and decide whether we will allow our animals to be subjected to such cruelty.
This segment from PM canvasses many of the issues and is particularly notable for the contribution of Liberal Senator Chris Back, a veterinarian. He doesn’t want the trade halted, suggesting that the Indonesian Government needs to get involved. He wants slaughter under the supervision of animal welfare officers, with independent oversight. He warns that if we cease supplying cattle the Indonesians will source cattle from India, bringing with them foot and mouth disease, whence “it gets into Australia very quickly.”
There are now four positions being taken. The first is by the Minister, Joe Ludwig, who on interview looked a bit like a rabbit caught in the headlights. He has banned export to the 11 abattoirs filmed in Four Corners and is investigating further action. There is no way of assuring that the bans will be implemented, and there is near certainty that other abattoirs are non-compliant. He’s taking flak from a number of backbenchers, some of whom have gone public. Gillard has not yet spoken.
Secondly, The Greens want to suspend the total live stock export industry immediately, I presume sheep also and to all countries. They are supported by a number of groups. Adam Bandt is preparing a bill to give effect to their policy.
Third, Andrew Wilkie is preparing “a private member’s bill to ban cattle exports to Indonesia immediately and phase out all live animal exports within three years.” He points out that the Indonesian trade is worth only $300 million in a $7 billion industry. His idea is to revive mothballed abattoirs in Northern Australia to export frozen meat killed by Halal standards. The 7.30 Report last night had an introductory segment followed by an interview with Wilkie and the President of the National Farmers Federation (NFF), Jock Laurie.
Laurie pointed out that the northern abattoirs were closed because they were uneconomic and always would be uneconomic because they couldn’t operate all year round. Wilkie simply ignored this point, as he did the point about substitutes from India and the danger of foot and mouth disease.
Fourth, there is a compromise position favoured by Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) whereby exports would be restricted to 25 Indonesian abattoirs which meet World Organisation for Animal Health welfare standards. Jock Laurie of the NFF said:
the industry’s looking seriously at the 25 abattoirs that meet that international standard, about putting Australian people in those abattoirs to make sure that the welfare through to the point of slaughter is carried out in a fashion that Australians see as being fair and reasonable, but then having independent oversight over that to make sure that there can’t be any confusion about what’s actually being done or what’s said that is going to be done.
But Dr Bidda Jones, from the RSPCA, has criticised the proposal, saying she has no confidence that animals will be treated humanely at the 25 slaughterhouses.
This compromise seems to me to be fair and should be given a chance. It is also the best chance for reforming industry in Indonesia.
The problem is that some cattle exported go into feedlots in Indonesia. They belong to the Indonesians at that point and it is difficult to monitor what happens from there.
Another point not covered by Wilkie’s approach is that Indonesia lacks refrigeration facilities in many areas, so cannot handle frozen meat.
There is an interesting post at Just Grounds Community (effectively Agmates under new management). It shows the shock and horror on the producer community and the absolute sense of betrayal by the MLA which was supposed to be looking after their interests. It’s worth scrolling through to read the comments of Rashida Kahn. She was the one who gave me the ideas about Indonesian ownership of the problem and the fact that what is going on would deeply offend Muslim sensibilities.
Finally, Lyn White, who shot footage for the Four Corners program, says that 9 of the 11 abattoirs shown had evidently been visited by the MLA and had the boxes they are promoting to restrain the cattle. She also claims the boxes don’t meet world standards against cruelty.
My repugnance and opposition towards the dubious idea of nationalism is more than strong. After watching people such as Adam Curtis, Noam Chomsky and John Perkins discussing the effects of ‘free-trade’ and how it is achieved through bullying ‘strategies’ or outright murder, my repugnance to the idea of global free trade markets is beginning to equal that of nationalism. A contradictory POV, I understand but the free market, like our faux democracy is turning out to be a no-win endgame for the smaller players.
The idea and practicality of live exports was a big concept for some of us to get our heads around in the first place. . . . I guess Noah managed it . . . but the simple fact remains that wherever you mix animals, men and money the end result is always cruelty towards animals.
The MLA apologised to it’s members saying the treatment of cattle in the 4 Corners piece was depraved. Strong word. No way known was I going to watch it, people who did are still reeling.
I think my point is I’d like to see an experiment in an isolationist policy, not because I’m a proud Australian, I am anything but.
Yeah yeah I know. Big problemo. We’ve been brainwashed into believing that globalisation and ‘free trade’ are good things, but the evidence would seem to stack up against that being quite the case.
We need only enough cattle to feed ourselves. Basically.
I don’t see the compromise position should be given a go at all. MLA say they’ve been training slaughtermen in Indonesia for 10 years now. It’s not a question of a lack of education. It’s a simple giant failure. I have no faith that the 25 abattoirs mentioned will stay ‘international standards’, whatever that means. MLA have proven they can’t be trusted so any position they put forward has to be doubted.
I think Wilkie’s position is the best. Yes, some jobs will be lost. Presumably some jobs were lost when dog-fighting and bear-baiting were banned too. If your business model includes torture then you deserve to go out of business.
Yes, we saw it. Totally horrible. No TV commentry could fake it. Australian are just too trusting. We trust these people to do the right thing by our animals. Our animals treat people better! Isn’t it amazing that we export such a high quality meat, it HAS to meet very high standards, has to arrive there in good order, has to be free of disease & believe it or not, bruising, so what’s that all about?? The same with grain exports, remember a few years ago when a moth was found in a container of wheat to an Asian country I believe it was (Iwill stand corrected on the country) and the whole load was rejected? Yet we import fish from contaminated rivers, vegetables & fruit that have been ecoli contaminated and nothing stops?
Why are our imports not subjected to the higest standards?
WHO is going to take a stand for AUSTRALIA?
I didn’t/couldn’t watch it either. I’ve seen what humans do to other humans, so animals, (perceived to be even less worthy of respect), can be treated even worse – no holds barred. And i’ve heard before that some cultures believe the meat tastes better if the animal is tortured beforehand. At least these cattle die relatively eventually. The bears locked in tiny cages for bile farming their entire lives in asian countries breaks my heart everytime I think of it.
But getting back to this problem which we CAN do something concrete about… the reasons given so far for NOT re-opening old abbatoirs in australia is because of the wet season… ?? Doesn’t it rain in Indonesia and isn’t it done indoors and don’t they eat meat all year round? In short, the excuses given for not doing the butchering here don’t add up. It must simply be cheaper to let other countries do it, the freight refrigeration too costly or maybe they pay more for the live animals so they can be killed the religious way.
It all comes down to money and profits and it’s sickening.
I’m with Fine and the others on this one. I don’t know and don’t care what impact banning live exports will have on “jobs” (though I suspect that the impact would in practice be zero). Certainly, if fewer cattle and sheep are raised then this will assist us with those greenhouse targets.
A representative from Animals Australia, Lyn White, spoke on Fran Kelly’s Breakfast this morning and presented a compelling case for doing away with live exports entirely.
FTR, I couldn’t bring myself to actually watch the Four Corners episode. I’m happy to admit that I wouldn’t have had the stomach for it, and preferred to take the word of those others who have seen it that it was unremittingly ghastly. Even now as I type these lines, I am ‘tearing up’.
I would think that one urgent and necessary development is to promote a more liberal and humane Halal method of slaughter. Animals must be unconscious.
(Temple Grandin, we need you!)
But our own abbatoirs and killing methods are often hardly humane, either. I struggle daily with my inability to give up meat which is a combination of two moral failings – my own taste for the stuff and the inability to endure any more whingeing from the family than I already get.
Fran Barlow, the impact on jobs would be very benign if we set up Halal slaughterhouses (we could have an on-site imam to check so as to certify it), vaccuum-packed and froze it and shipped it like that.
I suspect that’s so Helen. Though I’m no kind of authority on what constitutes “halal” slaughter, it’s hard to imagine that it would positively require the imposition of prolonged suffering on an animal.
One complication – and it’s one that arises in the context of, say, coal exports – is that simply ceasing the live cattle trade may well not end the cruelty in Indonesian slaughterhouses. Instead, it will change the source of the slaughtered animals.
You can take the position that while we can’t stop the cruelty, we shouldn’t be part of it, and I reckon there’s much to that.
But it would be worth thinking about what our aims really are here, and how might best they be achieved.
Rashid Khan gives a description of halal slaughter as very swift when done skilfully after prayers for the animal.
The compromise solution does not involve trusting MLA. It involves two layers of oversight. The first comprising expertise and the second independent.
It involves the Indonesians accepting responsibility for the process, but with independent oversight. Worth a go, I think.
The dilemma we have with bonding with animals raised in the care of humans and then killing them for food has been with us for thousands of years. I grew up on a farm and have some experience of what it means.
It’s true that we can’t prevent places importing live animals for slaughter Brian, but one can object about almost any ethical practice on that basis. My policy of avoiding tortious or criminal acts doesn’t restrain others directly, but at least my hands are clean, and that will do as a start. One should always try to clean one’s own house if one is to invite others to do likewise.One should refrain from enabling that which one condemns, and do it, even if it causes personal loss. That loss, if it occurs, is powerful witness that the motivation was a matter of ethical principle rather than mere self-interest.
Prior to live exports frozen meat went by road to Darwin from as far away as Melbourne. Then the meat substitution racket and crooked inspectors were the problem. I had a huge problem with stock haulage even with local market work. Goats from Charlevillle, Tibooburra and a couple of spots in the Flinders Ranges to Mt Barker in extreme heat with nannys dropping kids and old goats getting trampled under foot. Even today with quad decks and b doubles if sheep go down who’d know? There are some very de-sensitized people in the business of meat production all the way up the line.
I too agree with Fine @2 and the others. As a vegetarian I can only say: stop live exports.
@ Robert Merkel: precisely, we can’t change the world, but let’s not send our animals to be mistreated.
Exporting quality packaged meat, while reviving parts of the industry in the north seems a reasonable (pragmatic) option to me.
Zorronsky @13 brings up the part of the equation that is not being mentioned: the transporting of the sheep and cattle to other countries. No one could convince me that the animals don’t suffer extreme shock, anxiety and pain after being taken from paddocks, trucked to loading docks, herded on and off ships and then transported again to the abattoirs. I was astounded once when I read about the number of sheep that die on the transports and are just chucked overboard.
An article at Online Opinion May 31st:
“Animals feel the pain of Halal slaughter”
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12112
(I’ve been a vegan now for about 6 years and vegetarian for about double that. There is just so much pain and suffering in *both* the meat (including poultry) and dairy industries (some say dairy can be considered worse in some ways) that even the thought of eating meat these days makes me physically ill.)
I think the politicians are spooked. The response has been overwhelming. I emailed every NSW Senator, and my local mp. Sent my form letter to John Alexander who sent his form letter back to me. I then asked him if he was going to support the Wilkie/Xenophon bill or not. He called me, told me of a proposal going to shadow cabinet. Of course the Libs don’t want it banned, but instituting stunning practices, yes, as well as other things like training. A unique opportunity to stop this sort of thing, or something like that. I told him I want to see it – the proposal. He would put it to cabinet and get back to me.. Getup needs money to put some ads up. Go to their site and donate if you can. Animals Australia needs money to continue lobbying. Donate if you can. This is not about not eating meat. Now I want the practice stopped, however if that won’t happen, then there is also some merit in being able to get in there and control the way animals are dying, so that they die without the torture and suffering and fear that I saw on Four Corners. Surely, if we insist on killing, the lets try and make sure it’s done without barbarity and cruelty. If not our animals, other animals will suffer that fate. Animals will be always be dying. It’s how they die that matters. We are in a unique situation where something might actually happen and lobbying might just work and result in something, anything. This has been happening for years. It took one TV program to make it front page news. Now let’s not squander the opportunity. The more pressure on all the parties, the better.
Commentors seem to be ignoring two points from the post:
1. Darwin is not an option. (Can’t work year round, lack of refrigeration in Indonesia)
2. By withdrawing from the Indonesian market, we indirectly risk foot-and-mouth contamination in Australia.
By shipping only to a limited number of slaughterhouses, with better surveillance and monitoring, we could help enforce higher standards in Indonesia that could over time play a part in changing social acceptance of animal cruelty.
Show that there is another way, and be a part of changing standards in Indonesia, rather than only caring about ‘our’ cows.
If the cruelty would also be unacceptable to Indonesian consumers, then a solution may lie in publicising – to Indonesians – which abbatoirs are responsible for the cruelty. I know nothing about Indonesia, so I don’t know whether or how that might be done.
Better than simply stopping exports and thinking that the problem has gone away.
This is the argument I personally don’t find convincing, or coherent: the risk of foot-and-mouth disease. Does Australia import live cattle? (There is quarantine for domestic animals, who can also carry the disease.) How serious is the ‘indirect’ risk of foot-and-mouth disease? The parties alerting to this risk seem to have some vested interest in live stock export trade.
Tatyana, you only need one person coming back from Indonesia who’s stepped in infected cowshit and then not washed their boots before entering Australia to give us foot-and-mouth disease.
Robert @ 10 – spot on. We need to decide what is more important to us – cruelty to animals or cruelty to Australian sourced animals. That will guide as to what actions we take are most effective in reducing the problem.
I think the former is a big problem than the latter. And Australian inspectors in Indonesian abbatoirs perhaps that are allowed to have Australian cattle I think would be the best strategy. Can even have RSPCA oversight.
Tatyana – would be interesting to find out what the real risk is. Presumably the fear is that customs inspections between Indonesia and northern Australia is not that great and people would inadvertently bring in foot and mouth disease..
Thanks DINR. That’s possible. (I remember a few years ago we had to clean our shoes when coming back from Europe, so it makes sense the disease could be brought into the country in this manner, from almost any location.) Although, the scenario that infected cattle would be massively imported into Indonesia from other places if Australia withdraws from the market, and this being ‘on our doorstep’, etc, etc, still seems a bit hyperbolic to me.
I’m following some other arguments raised in this discussion, and am very sympathetic to the idea that Australia should participate in changing cruel practices elsewhere…
I watched the show, and the rather nasty footage. The most disturbing thing was seeing the last animal in a room full that had all been tied to posts killed and butchered. It had just seen every one of its companions killed and cut up and knew it was next. It was quivering in fear.
Poor thing. But really its one more horror in a world full of them.
Anyway…
There is no way what was shown is true to the spirit, or even the letter of the law on slaughter – the Zabiha I think its called. The best way to achieve a change in the policies would probably involve pointing this out to religious leaders in Indonesia.
The other thing is … the worse an animals death the worse it tastes.
Thats all aside from the actual horror of watching what happened. But …
One thing banning live exports to Indonesia won’t do is actually mitigate any horrific practices in Indonesia.
The country hour on ABC radio has been following up this story and today a we heard an interview with staff from another abbatoir(not on the banned list) who also slaughter cattle in this manner.The staff were quite happy to tell the journo that they too used the same methods when slaughtering cattle and said most other meatworks did also. There were restaining boxes at this premises that were supplied by MLA and the worker said that Australian farmers were taking the jobs of Indonesian farmers, so I do wonder if this is a common thread.
Never the less, it is not just cattle that are subject to abuse,sheep are also treated in inhumane manner when they arrive in the middle east.The whole live export industry is inherently cruel from the day that the stock are penned prior to travel to the lenghty journeys on ships to the hideous abuse at the end .
That the Australian Government had been warned about these matters as had MLA and Livecorp is utterly reprehensible. If not for 4 corners these matters would never have been acted on.It is a fact that Indonesia imports a massive amount of frozen product, so the excuses being made for live export are just nonsense, and as for the Halal excuse,I heard a Halal butcher from Sydney being interviewed and his belief was that the cattle should be slaughtered in Australia as we have abbatoirs with certification who use stun guns and humane methods. The whole thing is sickening and the sooner it is stopped the better.
I’m sure that’s true David. But, as Tatyana points out all it takes is some pooey boots worn in India to potentially import foot and mouth, so how does that solve the problem of foot and mouth coming to Australia? When I came back from Mongolia last year they fumigated everything in my backpack. I’d been camping so everything had bits of dusty old manure from a variety of animals attached to it.
As to the ethical point that in banning Australian cattle, we aren’t stopping cattle from other countries being tortured. It’s a valid point, but I don’t think it stands up for a variety of reasons.
1. There are about 100 abattoirs in Indonesia. The eleven that Animals Australia filmed were randomly chosen. They weren’t even necessarily the worst of the worst. The industry seems too big to me to offer the sort of oversight being recommended. Presumably, cattle could also be slaughtered in backyard abattoirs that we don’t even know about. Once they’re overseas we have little control over the process.
2. In banning, it’s true that we’re not protecting animals from other countries. But in doing so, we’re doing the best we can as a sovereign nation. We can’t control what other countries do, only Australia. So, that’s our responsibility.
3. Maybe a well publicised total ban would have some affect in alerting other countries to this practice and put pressure on them as well. Not banning gives a message that we’re not that serious.
One final point. It interests me that the ‘Four Corners’ programme was primarily made from material produced from Animals Australia, with the ABC building their programme around it. It’s, on one hand, a bit of an indictment on the investigative powers of the ABC that they couldn’t make such a programme by themselves. They simply don’t have the cash for the longitudinal, speculative research this kind of programme takes. OTOH, it shows the power of prosumer cameras in the hands of activists and how much more powerful it becomes when those activists link up with mainstream media.
Just a small point regarding “jobs” – since we’re all internationalists here – I would rate jobs in Indonesia as more ethically important than jobs in Australia.
Which is not to say that jobs being awful to animals are ethically supportable.
But if NT abattoirs can’t survive then they can’t survive, we can’t get around that unless someone is suggesting government intervention. And if Indonesians don’t have refrigeration then they need live animals. If we aren’t a meat source then other countries will be, and there will be no net benefit, with an increased risk of FMD in Australia.
No really, the only long-term way through this is to change Indonesian practices and culture. In the short term, get some accountability into the LA programs, and support the 25 supposedly OK abattoirs, with a view to improving them and expanding their numbers.
What I saw on the 7.30 Report last night was enough to distress me. It should be stopped. Period.
As to animals then being sourced to Indonesia from other countries. Okay, that’s going to happen. As one commenter noted the world is full of horrors we can’t or won’t do anything about. But we don’t have to take part in them. But we can make an active decision not to take part in them. (though we hardly ever do.)
And, in regard to foot and mouth disease. Governments and Oppositions always have excuses for continuing bad behaviour. Nine times out of ten, those excuses are bullshit or mostly bulshit when closely investigated, Especially if stopping the bad behaviour means less profit or being compelled to act with basic decency. Surely you’ve all noticed this?
“No really, the only long-term way through this is to change Indonesian practices and culture. In the short term, get some accountability into the LA programs, and support the 25 supposedly OK abattoirs, with a view to improving them and expanding their numbers.”
MLA have had 10 years to do that, by their own account. It doesn’t work and I don’t believe you can put in an oversight system which would actually work in such a large and populous country. This suggestion is just another ploy for MLA to continue past practices with a bit of window dressing. And “supposedly okay” is apt phrase. You don’t sound very confident about how okay they sound.
As for the F&M disease, can someone actually tell me how it would increase the chance of it being imported to Australia? Surely this is just another weak excuse.
Another point; surely the cost of such extensive oversight, presumably paid for by Australia would make the industry too expensive?
Unfortunately my final edit wasn’t saved before I published. The worst error was the misspelling of Rashida Khan’s name in the second last paragraph.
On foot and mouth disease, the source as far as I can tell was Liberal Senator Chris Back, a veterinarian. Not a rolled gold source, but not necessarily wrong.
Paul Burns @ 28, I take your point, but the position is that we simply don’t know how big a threat it is. You would know about the need to suspend judgement. Like Tatyana, I can’t see how it would get from Indonesia to Australia, but I’m not prepared to make judgements when I don’t have the information.
I’ll try to get a link eventually, but I just heard on the ABC that Australia’s peak Islamic body was horrified, said that what happened was a breach of Islamic principles and called for a complete ban on live exports.
I don’t know. We assisted with the rendering of Habib to Egypt, we’re rendering refugees to Malaysia for a decent flogging so I don’t see why we shouldn’t be rendering cattle to Indonesia as well.
Meat eaters getting up in arms about cruelty to animals. I’m sure nothing bad ever happens in an Aussie abattoir. Baby chicks don’t killed casually on the sexing line, Aussie cows don’t see their herd slaughtered in front of them, pigs aren’t beaten and cowed, lambs aren’t castrated without anaesthetic…
For a start sg, you’re assuming that everyone here eats meat. You’re assuming no-one here is concerned about animal welfare in Australia. How do you know that?
You’ve also created a wonderful strawman. I’m sure abattoirs here aren’t perfect and certainly cruelty is rife in Australia. Anyone who buys a puppy from a pet shop is contributing to it, usually unknowingly.
But, the abattoirs here do have controls and standards. I suspect you didn’t see the ‘Four Corner’s program. And If anyone shows me footage like that of Australian abattoirs, I’d be asking for them to be closed too.
I know, Fine, but I find community outrage about this sort of thing a bit hypocritical. If one eats meat one inflicts cruelty on animals. There’s a limit to how much that cruelty can be constrained and, quite frankly, we’ve known about cruelty in the live animal export industry for as long as its existed – this was being debated when Beazley was opposition leader.
It’d be nice if things changed, but I wouldn’t hold my breath…
On a related noted… is the MLA similar to the AWB in structure and responsibilities? Mayeb all those organizations need to be peered into very carefully. There’s probably some nasty corruption involved in the way the MLA overlooked this cruelty for so long.
If one
eats meatpurchases meat from unknown sources including supermarket chains one inflicts cruelty on animals.what’s that wilful, killing an animal is not cruel?
We inflict a lot of cruelty on animals producing vegetarian food as well as meat. The killing of agricultural pests inflicts a lot of pain and suffering no matter how you go about it.
I am delighted that humane killing of animals has been condoned. Now when I humanely kill a dog or cat I can expect no objections from animal lovers.
It’s worth spelling out in detail from a link provided above:
I’ve consistently heard industry sources suggesting that stunning is the only way to go. Presumably if the throat is cut while stunned the provisions of Halal are satisfied. If not I wouldn’t see any room for compromise, personally.
I’ve shown you a photo of a cow that’s having a good life in the post. I’d suggest there are some points of life-cycle cruelty in such activities as castration, branding and the transport of animals.
Wrt to the latter, some of the northern producers are closer to SE Asian markets than to markets in the main population centres of Australia.
I find it hard to be convinced that shipping livestock as far as the Middle East can be acceptably humane.
On the compromise solution, we’ve been told that there are 25 abattoirs in Indonesia (25 only, it doesn’t matter how vast the country is) operating to international standards. So far no-one has come up with any evidence to gainsay this, just that they don’t believe it or don’t trust “them”.
Lacking evidence, can I say that I find this presumptuous, bad manners and perhaps even condescending?
On Meat and Livestock Australia, I think they deserve to die over this. They have had their chance and have blown it. But it’s clear that producers paying a levy to them to look after all this have been sadly betrayed.
My position, on the information available, is that we should look to phase out live animal exports to far away destinations, but I would hope that there is a practical path forward with our near north neighbours.
Brian, it’s MLA I don’t trust, not the Indonesians. The former have consistently acted in bad faith.
Steve D @ 40 – well its pretty common for people to end up humanely killing their own cats or dogs at some point.
Fine @ 43 – what if the overall process was supervised by the RSPCA? Note that Australian involvement has helped the welfare of animals in Indonesia before – the Australia run feedlots are an example.
That’s fine, Fine, but it doesn’t let Dr Bidda Jones of the RSPCA off the hook.
In part I’m saying some of the northern producers have built a business that will be unviable if everything stops, having relied on the MLA. I would hope that there is a path forward for them.
I never understood that halal killing was a method of tenderizing the meat by half kicking the animal to death prior to the actual killing. I’m sure that the meat marketers in Australia are missing a good marketing opportunity here. There really must be a creative answer: what about turning the detention centres into feed lots for refugees prior to them being tenderized by the Indonesian floggers who’ve been trained by the Egyptian torturers who were let loose on Habib? The congruence in the way that we treat refugees and cattle is a missed opportunity for the Brains Trust running the ALP to form a super ministry. How about the Dept of Immigration and Live Meat Export?
I don’t know directly much about halal slaughter methods, but I believe they differ little from that of kosher methods. The methods (after ritualistic prayers) call for a severing, by a single swift stroke, of the two major blood vessels in the neck, with a sharp knife that is free from nicks or blemishes (and it takes quite a level of skill to do this on a large beast — and kosher or halal slaughtermen who could carry out the method in a correct fashion were highly valued both for ritual and practical reasons.) The severing in this way causes an immediate and dramatic drop of blood pressure that leaves the animal unconscious within seconds. And using a very sharp knife results in little immediate pain — as in, unconsciousness occurs before strong pain signals can be registered. If you’ve ever had the misfortune to cut yourself with a sure blade, you’d be aware that the cut itself is not immediately painful — it takes some time to realise that you’ve sustained a nasty cut. If it were on your carotid artery, you’d be out cold before severe pain registered. It happened to be the swiftest, least painful, most humane method of slaughter available to iron-age and medieval cultures.
Nowadays of course there are more humane methods available, which give compelling reasons to update the rituals. As an aside, I note the case of a progressive Rabbi in the USA who ruled that the meat coming from a kosher abbatoir, despite the abbatoir’s scrupulous observance of ritual requirements, was nevertheless not kosher (ie. not “fit”) because the abbatoir was found the be exploiting workers by underpaying illegal immigrants ie. the ruling took an holistic view of what it takes to produce meat that is truly “fit” for consumption…
..at any rate, certainly nothing of the cruelty shown in the videos is congruent with kosher, or halal, ritual slaughter practices. Humane treatment of animals is a strong requirement of kosher customs and, I’m sure, by intellectual inheritance, those of halal.
The Malaysians have flogging, which they inherited from the British, as part of their repertoire of judicial punishments. The Indonesians, save in Aceh, do not. There is no apparent connection between either and Egyptian torturers.
But if you want to conflate two very different societies together so as to indulge in racist stereotypes who am I to stop you?
Thanks Greg, I made a mistake: Malaysian floggers and the Indonesian ruling classes (aka the Javanese) have a deft hand with mass killing or so it seems from there history in the mid-sixties. Has it occurred to you that the delightful country of Indonesia is what you get after you kill the left en masse?
The idea that a particular characteristic of humanity can be eliminated by killing off those who exhibit that characteristic and that the next generation will be ‘cleansed ‘ is as ridiculous as believing that within a family we are all destined to have totally similar beliefs.
Just a point, MLA is a government organisation (all employees are members of the Commonwealth government superannuation scheme).
Cattle producers pay a $5 per head levy to fund MLA (the money goes into consolidated revenue and then allocated back to fund MLA).
Many people and producers believe MLA is a producer organisation, nothing can be further from the truth.
Basically MLA and Livecorp have let every Australian livestock breeder down, the government has let us down.
PS live exports are around 600,000 head per year I believe. Stopping live export totally is going to create a massive headache, because we don’t have enough abattoirs to take up this slack.
If there is no “outlet” for these catlle , what happens to them then?
I think the problem is far bigger than many realise.
Anthony, since the fall of Suharto, under the pressure of popular contempt and uprisings, the Indonesians have struggled to institute a democratic form of governance and, while they are far from perfect, they seem to be making a fair fist of it so far.
If you want to use racist stereotypes based upon what happened in their country over fifty years ago then please share with us the prejudices that you have about the Germans and what they did seventy years ago and the Spanish with what happened in their nasty civil war where the left were killed off en masse and how we should now understand and characterise their current societies.
Or do you just reserve your prejudices for Asians?
Thanks for this discussion, Brian. As someone who is a small-scale beef producer and who is also interested in animal welfare, I’ve been following the live export issue for years. For me, it always comes back to a couple of central aspects:
Firstly, I have yet to see any evidence that animal welfare provisions are rigorously enforced in any of the markets for Australian live exports. Mind you, from personal observation of Australian abattoir practice the only reason that conditions here are relatively humane is because of monitoring and surveillance – as someone suggested above, meat workers can become remarkably inured to the suffering of animals.
This is probably necessary in order to survive in such inherently alienating work, but it can extend to committing acts of outright cruelty. As a young bloke knocking about the bush I witnessed any amount of mindlessly cruel behaviour that wouldn’t be tolerated today – and it had nothing whatsoever to do with Halal slaughter.
The 4 Corners report showed – among other things – that in some places where our livestock end up, there is virtually no surveillance of slaughtering practices in more than a few abattoirs. Ergo, there will be unnecessary cruelty inflicted on them. Since nobody can guarantee humane treatment, I can see no way that live exports of meat animals from Australia can be allowed to continue.
Secondly, the implications of such admittedly drastic action undoubtedly include the unviability of those graziers who are dependent upon live exports in order to survive in their chosen lifestyle. While it’s understandable that the relatively small number of Australians in this invidious position are unhappy about that, that is no justification for facilitating an extremely cruel industry over which we have no effective control.
Thirdly, we have abattoirs closing down all over the country. The loss of semi-skilled work such as that sought by meatworkers has had profoundly deleterious effects on rural communities as schools and health and other services are withdrawn due to depopulation. The shift to industrial methods of agriculture has been far more harmful to the bush than a cessation of the inherently cruel live export trade will be.
Unfortunately, some live exporters have an attitude that humane treatment of animals is a desirable extra, rather than an essential element of their business. While I feel sympathy for their unenviable circumstances, they need to realise animal welfare is just as integral to their business as are water, fodder, freedom from disease etc. Humane treatment of animals is not an optional extra.
Mercurius@47
You are spot-on in your first paragraph. What we have seen is simple ignorance and cruelty. From what I understand it has nothing at all to do with halal slaughter practices, which attempt to be as quick and humane as possible.
So MLA is like the AWB! I think all of these quangos should have a bit of an inspection to see what nasty business they’re up to.
akn, I would like to recommend that you cease commenting on anything to do with Asia. Not only does your ignorance show in every comment, but the scorn and derision and callous lack of regard for the peoples of Asia is clear in every comment you make.
This is the kind of wilfull ignorance in the cattle industry. DH extrordinaire.
link
Brian # 32
Here is a link to an article about correct halal slaughtering.
http://www.beefcentral.com/live-export/article/156
“Dr Lotfi said that under Islamic slaughtering law:
• Any form of ill-treatment of animals is prohibited;
• Animals should be well-fed and watered;
• Only healthy animals can be slaughtered;
• Animals should not be slaughtered in front of one another;
• Pregnant animals should not be slaughtered;
• Calves should not be slaughtered in front of their mothers and vice versa;
• Only very sharp knives should be used for the slaughtering;
• Slaughtering should be done in one cut and as fast as possible.
“It is stressed that the animal welfare overrides any aspect of the slaughtering process,” Dr Lotfi said.”
Brian wrote:
To characterise the efforts of MLA as malicious or negligent (as has been suggested) is most likely wrong. Not many people have direct knowledge of how the Indonesian beef industry operates and due to the lack of refrigeration facilities if we want to export beef to Indo, it has to be live. If we don’t, somebody else will (but the foot and mouth thing is a load of cobblers, a bit of misdirection).
If somebody else takes that part of the industry, the likelihood of them taking over the 10 year effort in trying to improve animal welfare issues in Indo is less than zero. You have to remember that a cattle slaughterman in Indo is pretty low paid work and the training efforts largely disappear as those men find better work. There is no excuse for cruelty, but Indonesians still regard us with a certain amount of contempt for our colonialist leanings and you can see that in the uptake of our “suggestions”.
Another thing to note is all the garbage about “Halal” – Muslims are hardly a homogenous bunch and their adherence to the rules is about the same as Christians in the west – some of them stick strictly to a religious lifestyle, lots don’t.
Seeing an animal killed is confronting for most Australians no matter how it’s done – we are now so removed from the sources of our food that the brutal reality of how it’s harvested might as well be a fairy story. There is an immense hypocrisy at the heart of the howl of outrage at how Indos are treating what is (after all) theirs, bought and paid for. Stopping the trade might sound acceptable from the comfort of your lounge on your new laptop, but the reality is that we will increase the cost pressures on ordinary Indos. They are, in the end, the only ones with the power to improve the lot of animals being slaughtered there.
Ute Man, back @ 18 I&U suggested that consumers in Indonesia should be made aware and would be upset. This was suggested on the Just Grounds thread I linked to.
We need an Indonesian activist/film-maker to do it though. No good us preaching to them.
I couldn’t watch it for than a moment either- to watch any creature in its death throes is hard work. But I sympathise a little with some of the scepticism, also.
Ten years hasn’t been enough to win Australians over as to refugees, or several generations, as to human suffering and poverty in general. But there is action on a ballistic scale as politicians and spinners try to salvage the industry and measures that probably have the Indonesians puzzled, probably not least at Western hypocrisy, are suddenly rammed through, whatever the cost.
I know they are helpless animals. As with duty of care with refugee kids plonked on planes, I see a parallel, except that one lot has two legs and the other four. “Two legs bad; Four legs bad”.
Either way, duty of care assumes a back seat to the almighty buck.
The other thing that occurs to me, is that this jerry built system resembles the so called education system set up for offshore students coming to study here, that blew up a couple of years ago.
We will never learn. Cheap and nasty papier mache displays do NOT equate to substantial, well planned and instituted policy.
Due to unprecedented pressure on politicians of all stripes, all live animal exports have been temporarily halted. I would urge everyone to keep up the pressure, in whatever capacity you want to see changes made.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/ban-on-live-cattle-trade-to-indonesia-20110607-1frdg.html
Australian experts have been sent to to help lift standards in Indonesian abattoirs:
I understand that Indonesia has hundreds of small abattoirs, killing 4 or 5 animals each day. The meat, freshly killed, is then sold in markets at dawn. A sliver of animal protein adds to the nutritional value of a staple diet of rice.
Minister Ludwig says he is insisting that exporters will need to provide certification of humane handling practices all along the line. It’s hard to see how this could ever be done and the nutritional needs of Indonesians be met unless there is significant cultural change and the universal use of electric stun guns.
CCTV in the killing floor? after all, 7-11s and small businesses can afford it.
Who here has said they oppose humanely killing dogs and cats? In this society, where idiots constantly overbreed them and neglect them, it’s an unfortunate necessity. But we’re not talking about humane euthanasia here.
PM last night had a story about a load of cattle on the point of being loaded in Port Headland, and then permission being withdrawn.
Ludwig is not putting a time-line on the ban, but 6 months has been mentioned. Producers, helicopter musterers, transport operators can’t be expected to hang around for 6 months.
AM this morning had an interview on the implications of the ban. One result will be more meat heading for the domestic market and depression of prices.
For once I’d tend to agree with Barnaby Joyce. An immediate complete ban is clumsy and an over-reaction.
Ute Man, why exactly are the howls of outrage hypocritical?
‘… at how Indos are treating what is (after all) theirs, bought and paid for.”
Do you really think that a person has a right to treat animals in any way see fit when they own them? Presumably you must think all animal cruelty laws are ridiculous?
“To characterise the efforts of MLA as malicious or negligent (as has been suggested) is most likely wrong. Not many people have direct knowledge of how the Indonesian beef industry operates…”
Utem Man the cattle producers have been paying the MLA $5 per head to ensure the animals’ welfare. Calling their behaviour negligent or malicious is an understatement. If I were a cattle farmer I’d be furious. The evidence of this cruelty was easy enough to find. It occurred in every abattoir Animals Australia entered. The filming was done with full permission. MLA must have been willfully closing its eyes to miss it.
Helen, now we’re hearing that there are 700 abattoirs in Indonesia. I don’t think a CCTV system would actually work, as it would be too open to subterfuge. There would need to people on the ground constantly checking. Whether an system of oversight could work it would depend on the laws it was operating under, what power the inspectors have and how well it’s funded.
New twist, but not sure how far it will go…
Some Indonesian’s are calling for ceasing buying meat from Australia altogether, so that their own beef industry can lift off.
Then we can go back to how we were prior to last week, totally ignorant of this particular cruelty happening.
Our beef industry would take a hit, but surely Australian consumers create enough demand to make the industry viable.
Cruelty to animals, (and humans) happens everywhere. Maybe all we can do is lead by example, have an excellent country to show for it, and lobby from the sidelines.
Many years ago I worked in a then state-of-the-art Melbourne abattoir.
The production line of slaughter allowed no time for casual cruelty. Instead, that same production line forced terrified cattle into an alien and threatening environment. Death may have been unexpected but the panicked stumble to the stun gun was torture. Hundreds of cows were killed daily. Their bellows were not drowned by the roar and hiss of machinery.
It wasn’t cruelty. It was programmatic callousness.
Road-train and sea travel are also deeply alien experiences for livestock.
I’m not a cow, so I cannot say whether death in Melbourne or death in Java is preferable.
Katz @69
No matter where it occurs, the killing of animals by dhabiha methods is barbaric and inhumane. These animals die in agony, fully aware that they have been almost decapitated so that their carotid artery, aesophagus and jugular veins are severed. Dhabiha should be outlawed in Australia and we should immediately ban the export of live animals to any other country that practises it.
Fine, the $5 is split between marketing efforts (think Sam Kekovich), agricultural research (including a lot of animal welfare research aimed at improving farming techniques) and trade facilitation. The idea that Livecorp / the government / MLA are somehow responsible for the cruelty shown on the ABC is prima facie bulldust – efforts to improve welfare in Indo have been going SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE TRADE – not as a result of the footage. i.e. (and I know this is hard to comprehend) it was identified as a problem BEFORE the trade was commenced, before all the middle class outrage was gingered up last week. The hypocrisy is in the sudden concern for the animals from an easily outraged populace who will move onto something else next week, gingered up by some other group. Indos will continue to want to eat meat after that when the cameras are gone and Pink is nekkid again complaining about the treatment of chickens or something.
Here is an interesting article which summarises recent debates in various jurisdictions about halal and kosher slaughtering methods. The following passage is of interest:
GregM @53:
Yeah right. Get back to me when you know something about Munir Thalib and Marsinah.
Paul Norton @72
There is also this article:
Wilhelm Schulze
Sure, unsurprisingly as translated by Sahib Mustaqim Bleher
Wonder who, or what organisation, commissioned the study.
Grigory M @74, please explain what relevance that quote has to the methodology outlined by PN @ 72.
Yes, Ute Man the MLA has supposedly been training Indonesian slaughtermen for 10 years. That’s worked well hasn’t it?
If you believe MLA knew nothing about what was going on then you must be incredibly naive.
You’re explanation of of why this is hypocritical is superficial. Gosh, the people concerned are “middle-class”. Please show me how you managed this class analysis. Do you show the same disdain for middle-class concerns when you happen to agree with them? Or is this just intellectual laziness? And again please explain to why it’s okay the treat an animal anyway you want if you own it?
“A sliver of animal protein adds to the nutritional value of a staple diet of rice.”
“Some Indonesian’s are calling for ceasing buying meat from Australia altogether, so that their own beef industry can lift off”
That gives me a vision of a zillion more hectares of Indonesian forests being cleared, for cattle. Maybe beef isn’t the best way for them to get animal protein. The people in the village I lived in had chooks about them for eggs and meat, and some kept rabbits or guinea pigs for eating, and for special occasions a bit of goat was gotten from somewhere. Wouldn’t it be better that we help them with agricultural research and infrastructure to develop sustainable improvements for their diet?
As usual we have the msm (and LP contributors) becoming instant experts without understanding (or doing some basic research) on the background to this issue. You will all move onto the next issue as it blows up!
As alluded to by the OP most of the live cattle exports to Indonesia are for the feeder or breeder market. Cattle that are sold for fattening or breeding – so how does Australia take responsibility for animals that will be slaughtered many months, if not years after they arrive in Indonesia?
The Indonesia Government has for at least the last 12 months been cutting back Australia beef imports for both live animals and boxed meat with the aim of building their domestic beef industry. Do I smell a conspiracy – from the Indonesia side??!!
http://www.mla.com.au/Prices-and-markets/Market-news/Update-live-cattle-trade-to-Indonesia-110610
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201008/s2978525.htm
I was just musing on the unprecedented flurry of emails I have had from politicians since sending a letter objecting to the slaughter of cattle in Indonesian abbatoirs shown on 4 Corners. So, hardly a surprise that live exports to Indonesiaa have now been banned:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/08/3238543.htm
Excellent post by CL Morgan at 54, BTW.
In Australia itself, the ethical issues around slaughter are not unconnected, IMO, with the corporatisation of the livestock industry and the focus on efficiency and turnover etc.
#64 and selective monitoring or surveillance- the best comment on a subject I’ve read all year, if I read it right.
Well, why not put in cameras and monitor things and then you can use the footage to…do what exactly? It’s not Australians operating overseas who are under our jurisdiction. It’s Indo nationals. I guess we could get all “white mans burden” on them if that makes our TV viewing more bearable.
Katz said:
And even if you were a cow and capable of articulating your sentiments, and capable of processing it all, it would still be just a guess, and that at an utterly offensive question.
If someone were trafficking us humans in the same way — how would we respond?
Given that our ability to empathise with catlle is likely to be seriously impaired, but know them to be sensate and social beings, I think we are bound to assume that what would vex us would vex them. If they must be industrially raised and slaughtered — and I’d certainly prefer they weren’t — then being in serious confinement in a feedlot or in the hold of a ship for anything but a trivial time would be a serious form of suffering.
None of it is defencible really.
Katz @75
PN has not outlined a methodology at 72. He has shown a quote from a Wikipedia entry/article.
To the extent that the referenced Wikipedia entries/articles can be relied upon, the quotes at 72 and 74 refer to the same study by Professor Wilhelm Shulze.
Grigory M, the question then becomes whether you can direct us to a peer-reviewed article which significantly refutes the findings of Shulze et al in the peer-reviewed German Veterinary Weekly. The study was commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Nutrition, Agriculture and Forestry.
Poe’s Law strikes again.
Once again we have some farmers crying foul as if they couldn’t see this coming. It is utterly unconsionable that money is the only criteria a small portion of the farming community use when it comes to their livestock. Fortunately most farmers are indeed in agreement with CJ Morgan@54 and as someone who lives in a farming district I can tell you that the sentiment expressed by everyone I have spoken to is that this trade should be abolished for all animals.It was suggested that Aus Aid funds should be used to provide refrigeration thus ending the need for live export with all it’s inherent cruelty.
It is so typical of this lazy oppostion that they will side with a group with no morality whatsoever when it comes to cruelty, and to suggest that these people were ignorant of the treatment of these animals is utterly absurd. It is so easy to turn a blind eye, the only problem they have is that we now know the callousness of their indifference.
As to the market being flooded, the impact of the live export trade distorts the domestic market so I am sure that some will welcome a price reduction in their weekly butchers bill.
Hello Paul Norton.
Thanks for clarifying who commissioned the study. Why would you wish to refute Shulze’s findings (significantly or otherwise)?
I did realise, UteMan, that Katz was being rhetorical, but important ethical points were raised, IMO.
What ethical warrant is there for the deliberate and industrial scale killing of a sensate being? If there is one, do constraints apply or can we be arbitrary about them? Where’s the bright shiny line saying this far and no further? Does it turn on the imposition of suffering, and if so, how much, and of what quality? What protocols are called when comparing one kind of suffering to another when discussing a being with which we cannot hope to have a meeting of the minds?
There is no point to that absurd level of reductionism Fran. You cannot apply your own personal standards (whilst whistling quietly and turning a blind eye to the meat industry while you buy your chops) to another country where practicality is an overriding concern. We can supply Indonesia with fridges but who will pay to run them? The place isn’t exactly crawling with flourescent lit Coles supermarkets and the convenient chiller cabinets and massive coal fired power stations we are familiar with. We are in no position to tell Indonesians how they must behave beyond their international obligations. We have now refused to trade with them and achieved what exactly? Temporary peace of mind for outraged couch potatoes who will turn up their heaters a notch and worry little about the ethics of the western lifestyle while condemning those who can’t afford it. Good job!
Ute Man, does it matter to you that animals that we sell to Indonesia are being tortured? If so, what should be done about it? Or is it none of our business because we have washed our hands of the unfortunate beasts? Or perhaps you think cows aren’t sentient beings? Or if they do, it’s a very low level problem? And who are these “outraged couch potatoes” of who you speak”? Judging from the interviews I’ve heard, many of them are cattle farmers.
I ask these questions because I have no idea what sort of ethical framework you’re using in writing about this issue, or what you think should be done.
FB @ 88, all of these are excellent questions and are in no way any form of reductionism.
Paul Norton: I guess the question, in my mind, is not so much whether one can find a peer-reviewed study which refutes the conclusions of the 1978 Shulze et. al. study quoted above, but whether, given that the article was published quite a while ago, the Shulze study has appropriate academic weight in the current veterinary literature and practices.
German Veterinary Weekly (Deutsche Tierärztliche Wochenschrift), in its own words, is a publication which ‘offers reliable information that keeps pace with the rapidly advancing field of veterinary medicine providing a monthly forum for highly-selected, thoroughly reviewed, quality articles in German and English’.
It’s the ‘rapidly advancing field’ of veterinary science and the fact that stunning is adopted as the international standard which made me question the currency of Shulze et. al.
I’ve also read, in the popular literature, admittedly, that methods where stunning is not applied will cause instantaneous loss of consciousness in smaller animals, but not as rapidly in larger animals, particularly when done badly, due to the fact that the spinal cord remains intact, and this will maintain the animal’s awareness and sensation.
I’m not in any way suggesting that halal methods are inferior, and they may well we more humane than ‘western’ methods, but am mainly noting that stunning is recognised as the current international standard, it is also adopted in some halal abattoirs overseas (and as linked @58, where ‘non-penetrating percussive stunning’ is considered to be acceptable), so the conclusions of the 1978 Schultze et. al. article seem to contradict current international practices.
UteMan said:
I think I can. Ultimately, must we not all seek an adequate warrant for the things that we do, or seek to have done on our behalf? It’s true that I’d strongly prefer (on several separate grounds) that there were no meat industry, which rather simplifies matters in my case, but allowing for the sake of reality that the vast majority of humanity thinks otherwise, there still are questions that all meat eaters, who would be ethical, ought to answer. Some may be comfortable with brutal imposition of suffering on sheep and cattle. Others may be scandalised by the worst of it and draw the line someplace else.
Nevertheless, those of us who value intellectual and ethical consistency are compelled to seek a non-arbitrary set of principles upon which to ground our acts, are we not?
This is a fairly common formulation, most frequently uttered by those of more conservative inclination — it’s a kind of ethical free pass adduced whenever something that offends our eye but about which we can do little arises. Not infrequently, it comes across as being an apologia for acts which the person dare not endorse publicly, but privately does.
I reject it. Of course we are entitled to tell Indonesians (or anyone else) what we regard as ethical or not, and they can in practice ignore it if they choose. We cannot deprive them of their sovereignty, and nor should we try. Yet merely observing that we find this or that practice repugnant, and declining to be parties to them carrying it out is quite another matter. If they wish to act with depraved indifference to the suffering of cattle, let us not facilitate that by supplying them either with cattle or the tools needed to run their abbattoirs. It seems pretty simple. You can make that choice, we should say, but not with our support.
This is just a cheap shot. Brutalising cattle in feedlots, on ships and in abbattoris is not integral to the western lifestyle, and indeed, rather subverts it. While there are doubtless many folk here who enjoy and take as read their access to creature comforts less frequently enjoyed in the developing world and with a significant ecosystem footprint, that’s not an argument in favour of sustaining barbaric conduct but rather, an argument favouring more ubiquitous equity, more ethical consistency, a greater willingness to reflect upon the warrant for the things we do.
Oddly enough, that’s roughly where I was when I started this post. You seem to be arguing that ethics must tolerate the most barbaric and arbitrary practice for as long as there is inequality in social conditions, whereas I regard the empowerment of the world’s less privileged people as foundational to the spread of robust ethical standards — including in relation to the dealing in animals.
I hope that this is not your view, because if it were, progressive reform would be a doubtful enterprise indeed.
Tatyana @92, thanks for that comment. It’s added to the discussion and to my knowledge of the issue.
Brian in the post above linked to a discussion on Just Grounds and gave this recommendation “It’s worth scrolling through to read the comments of Rashida Khan”
Rashida has writen a follow up discussion called, Don’t forget the cattle.
I highly recommend you to read this.
http://justgroundsonline.com/forum/topics/dont-forget-the-cattle
Fran Barlow wrote:
I think that’s a fair summary (although “most barbaric” is a not useful bit of hyperbole). Although, I would make the point that our ethical standards are in fact only possible due to large amounts of expensive technology that our trading partners may not be able to afford at this stage in their development. Continued trade is part and parcel of lifting their economic status and with it their capacity for ethical treatment of livestock.
Uteman said:
I’ve no problem in trading with other states, and am very much less inclined than most identifying left|sts to see value in arbitrary or protectionist trade barriers. Indeed, it’s my view that the developed world needs to ensure that where trade barriers are warranted that the imposing state takes active steps where feasible to render them unnecessary, through programs developed with the sanctioned jurisdiction. This would very much be my approach in cases where a BTA were imposed in support of fair labour standards, child labour, products failing widely agreed environmental standards and so forth. It ought to be on us to use our insights and financial largesse to help those other states lift their practice to at least the standard we have here.
At some point, many years ago, someone may well have contemplated Livecorp playing such a role but it has clearly been an abject failure. Perhaps it was ill-conceived or executed, or under-resourced, but that ship has sailed. I’m far from convinced that in practice, its mission was ever feasible, but as things stand, I’d say the onus is on them and the government to show that it will be both feasible and maintainable over time at some indefinite point in the future. In the interim, IMO, there should be no (commercial-scale) live exports of any animal anywhere.
Fran said
“”"”In the interim, IMO, there should be no (commercial-scale) live exports of any animal anywhere.”"”
What is your objection to live Coral Trout exports to China?
Ute Man, we can’t tell another sovereign state how to behave. But, we choose whether we facilitate that behaviour, or not.
Fran Barlow wrote:
(ow, that’s a bad pun Fran).
We can’t “let that ship sail” Fran, although we have just thrown 10 years of work down the drain. Indos get their cattle from somewhere else and barbaric animal handling will likely get worse. Our knee- jerk reaction will backfire and badly.
FB @ 82:
My point precisely.
A dog of mine loved rolling in cow manure. I have always avoided that vexing practice.
101 comments so far. Possibly up to 6 of them by people who actually understood the post by Brian.
Katz said:
Two of mine like rolling in duck faeces and it vexes me a lot. Here though, the animal’s choice is clear, and we need no meeting of the minds to distinguish what vexes it from what doesn’t.
UteMan said:
There are no bad puns — only wasted opportunities to use them, IMO.
That’s unclear at this stage. You can’t just snap your fingers and get it done. It’s not clear anyone else would be jumping up and down to send them cattle as things stand, and certainly not on a possible 6-month timeline to resumption. Yet even if this proves so, our hands at least are clean. We are not party to the wrong. To suggest we should do wrong because others might be worse is simple cant. Each of us must first accept responsibility for our own acts, if we are to have community act ethically.
Jumpnmcar asked:
Opposition to ocean mining. We ought to leave the marine environment pristine. I also oppose harvesting and killing them here.
Fran
“”"”Opposition to ocean mining. We ought to leave the marine environment pristine. I also oppose harvesting and killing them here.”"”"
OK. You oppose eating seafood around the world.
Strange position, I’m sure you will be protesting Aboriginal traditional fishing rights.
I harvested a couple of mud crabs the other day, i’m sorry.
Any opposition to live farmed Barramundi exports?
Umm Fran. I think he is referring to aquafarming in fishtanks. Not ocean mining.
The stuff I read on coral trout GregM concerns hunting in the barrier reef. If we are talking “aquaculture” and assuming there’s no reason to conclude the practice entails significant suffering, is sustainable etc, I’d have no objection.
My original remarks principally referred to cattle and sheep — hence the surviving “in the interim” in jumpnmcar‘s cite of my text. I allowed there that in principle, live exports of cattle might resume if adequate assurance of humane dealing could be had.
GregM
Na, I was referring to ocean farming @98. I see no ethical problem it. The Coral trout are treated extremely well ( one fish gets sick and the entire catch is cactus.)
But aqua-farming @105
John Carter, head honcho of the Australian Beef Association has today stated that the best resolution to this situation is to immediately move the cattle now left in Darwin and other situ onto trucks,using funds from the emergency account put aside for this type of contingency, to feedlots to be fattened for slaughter in Australia and to then be either onsold to an export market or sold domestically. He estimates that this will,despite the histrionics ffrom some, have negligible impact on the price for producers and may reduce prices for the consumer.
He also stated that this situation has been a long time coming but was inevitable given the knowledge of the horrendous situation confronting these animals, and expressed disappointment at the lack of will to tackle this over a prolonged period by not only Livecorp and MLA but also by the producers.
He went on to say that the only long term solution to this situation was to build and abbatoir in Darwin to facilitate the slaughter in Australia and send the product as chilled rather than ‘wet’ beef. He stated that value adding was the far better option,pointing out that it was far cheaper to send chilled rather than live beef. He also reminded us all that the live export trade to Korea was replaced with chilled beef and neither did the sky fall in nor producers went broke.
But gee, he wouldn’t have a clue, unlike steve at the pub.
Fran Barlow wrote:
We are now, and in the future, because we’re now aware of what will happen to other countries animals. Worse, we are unsure whether those other countries will even try to rectify the situation, something we through our government have tried (and failed) to do. Abandoning the market is like watching an accident and doing nothing at all for the occupants of the car.
And Robbo – it’s been stated umpteen times in this discussion already, the Indos have no facilities for handling chilled beef imports – the reason there are so many small abattoirs in Indo is because the wet markets where the beef is sold are close by. No refrigeration == no chilled beef export. It’s a bit cute to suggest a Darwin based abattoir would even be able to produce the beef at a price your average Indo could afford.
Robbo: Given the rapid rise of affluence in Asia (excluding India of course) it would be surprising if alternative markets based on the export of chilled or frozen meat could not be found.
I’m with the Indonesian meat-workers on this one. If you are going to eat flesh, which I don’t, you should take a savage and bloodthirsty joy in the suffering and humiliation of the animal involved. Eating meat is for wolves, it places you proudly outside of the circle of limited, ethical creatures. Callicles would agree: having power means never having to say sorry. When human beings like myself pretend to be moral it is just a sickening hypocrisy. A humane, animal-welfare approved killing machine is hell. Better you gnaw at the belly of some still-thrashing animal, and know what you are.
Or perhaps not, I’m not sure.
What about an East Timor solution for the cows? Then we could sneak refugees in cow suits onto the boats and into East Timor before anyone realized what was happening. Thereafter, hey presto, not our problem anymore. We could even send children disguised as vealers. The Timorese might object but hell, who ever worries about what they think, they’re really just reffos in waiting.
Robbo: John Carter writes & speaks well. I’ve been an avid reader of his regular columns for my whole life. But he has always been perfectly happy to throw store breeders “under the bus” (as the saying goes) and his outlook has always been very southern centric.
His statement that this will have negligible impact upon prices for producers is disingenuous & does not withstand unpacking into components.
His disappoinment at Livecorp & MLA is with the benefit of post Four Corners 20/20 hindsight. His disappointment with producers for the not curing the barbaric practices of Indonesia is going a bit far.
Reversing domestic habits of “developing” muslim nations is easier said than done.
Can any of the urban chattering class (who have pushed the government into throwing the northern cattle industry to the wolves) point to ONE SINGLE bit of progress they have been responsible for when it comes to, say, halting the Iranian practice of publicly strangling to death homosexuals?
It just isn’t that easy to convince other nations to adopt our practices.
As I understand it after a quick browse of the web, there is not yet an aquaculture industry in coral trout anyway GregM …
UteMan said:
The analogy is poor. In your example, there’s an implicit invitation to intervene. There is a reasonable prospect of rendering a good. There is the pressure of time and immediately prospective aggravated harm, with little ground for anything but pessimism. We didn’t facilitate the accident, and the accident wasn’t an entirely foreseeable and iterated event in a larger pattern of conduct.
Indonesia’s live meat trade doesn’t look like this at all. Instead, an industrial scale husbandry operation enacted against sentient beings is merely the introductory phase of an operation culminating in the foreced shipment, torture and mass murder of the said beings. We are part of this brutal provenance and no amount of “everyone else is doing/would do it” can make this disappear.
We can choose to do the less horrendous thing, or throw up our hands and give ourselves a pass. At this stage we are edging towards the former, and it’s regrettable that you are lingering with those looking to excuse this conduct.
robbo # 109 can you find a link for your quotes of John Carter of ABA? Relieve me of my cynicism that Carter actually said that.
@114
“halting the Iranian practice of publicly strangling to death homosexuals”
How the hell do you get to that when you start from the unacceptable practices in Indonesian abattoirs?
“Can any of the urban chattering class …”
Ah, right-wing nuttery they name is SATP.
ah, jumpnmcar, showing your genuinely juvenile level of engagement with this:
You really have nothing worthwhile to say about anything, do you?
As I pointed out jumpnmcr on the Katter thread, the coral trout thing is also a furphy because they are not defined as “live-stock” in the existing Act, and the Greens’ proposed amendment doesn’t expand that definition.
It’s just a timewasting troll anyway, I reckon. It took me all of 2 clicks on Google to discover that.
FB:
But necessarily, from your own formulation of this observation, the opposite also applies.
Therefore, this formulation would appear to be a very unreliable guide for explaining animal behaviour.
However, your formulation is rather more reliable as evidence about how humans anthropomorphise animal behaviour.
PM last night had five segments on this issue:
Calls for permanent ban on live exports
Animal activists welcome live cattle ban
Ban could bankrupt cattle producers
Cattle export ban impacts transport industry
Fears for northern Australian beef industry
“If we don’t do it somebody else will do it” is one of the most ethically bankrupt arguments of all time.
Indeed, Helen. It’s the drug-dealer’s defence.
I’m finding it very difficult to feel any sympathy for the cattle producers, btw. Since the MLA has admitted to knowing there were … issues … the producers should have known that as well. The bastards have got their hands out already.
This is not just a matter of selfish chattering-class Australians abandoning the poor Indonesians to a life of animal protein deprivation. “Nairdah” comments in the Jakarta Post: “Indonesia is often portrayed as a very religious nation and the subtext of all religions calls for respect of animals, even if we chose to eat them. We now have to prove that we practice what we preach. The imams and pastors, who appear to have been asleep on the job, can now help bring the treatment of animals back into line with the religious rhetoric about treatment of animals and prove that Indonesian culture is modern, civilized and respectful of animals.”
In this link Rashida Khan, who describes herself as “a producer, animal nutritionist, animal lover and person of mixed heritage with a background in the true Muslim faith” says this:
In this link Natalie Stewart of The Jakarta Animal Aid Network says of the abattoirs not filmed:
These statements are incompatible. We are also told that Ms Stewart facilitated Lyn White’s access to the abattoirs she filmed. To me there is now at least some doubt as to whether they were in fact selected at random.
David, when I heard the immediate ban to be honest I contemplated doing a post with the title:
Only a complete dunderhead would do it this way
I know nothing about Joe Ludwig apart from his parentage, which gives ground for suspicion that he didn’t get to where he is through merit.
Reactions of producers have been uniform in the horror at seeing what they saw on TV. Beyond that they vary. One said he would rather go broke than sell cattle to be treated that way. One had 2000 cattle in the yard, a ship booked. The roads had just become dry enough to get the cattle out. He had debts. Now he says he faces going broke, but doesn’t face it with the equanimity of the other bloke, for whom it was only a theoretical possibility.
From this link, 77 year-old Patricia Fennell, who it must be said was instrumental in setting up the trade in the late 1980s:
In my view there had to be a middle path. I thought at the outset and I still think that the 25 internationally certified Indonesian abattoirs should have featured in a commonsense way forward.
In truth, there is no perfect solution to this one.
Katz said:
Perhaps having just reached 53, I’m having a senior moment but the import of this slid past me. In what way does the opposite derive from my formulation of the problem?
Brian said
Surely resolving that question is key, along with the question of the further provenance of the livestock after passing through apparently reasonable facilities, assuming they exist. One knows of money laundering, but at least conceivably, there may also be “laundering” of treatment.
At this stage, I believe the onus is on the recivers of cattle to furnish persuasive reasons for thinking that their received stock is being dealt with adequately after they receive them and up to the moment where they are butchered.
As you know, I’m not generally inclined to support the government, but in this case, their response has the beginnings of adequacy. I’d like to see it extended to all livestock going off-shore, but this is a start.
@116, John Carter was interviewed by Bonita Brown yesterday afternoon on ABC statewide drive NSW. I have nothing to gain by telling lies,unlike MLA,Livecorp and the producers who were all well aware of what was happening.
Helen wrote:
Great. Lets abandon injecting rooms and free distribution of needles. Harm will happen, this is about minimising harm. Same argument. “Most morally bankrupt” argument of all time is suddenly elevating cattle above humans to make a point on the internets Helen.
There is incorrect information above in relation to the Australian Beef Association.
John Carter I believe is a consultant, and not the head of the ABA.
Brad Bellinger is the Chairman of that association.
Whether John Carter is speaking for the ABA or as an individual is open to question? I’m not sure.
Ute Man, I think you’ve got your ethics all mixed up. Injecting rooms are there to minimise the harm drugs do, not to stop the drug dealers.
I’ve got to admit I’m kind of shocked to see the cavalier attitude you take to the torture of other sentient beings. I’ve asked you a number of questions upthread about your attitude and what you’d do a bout the problem. Your answer is to talk about the middle-classes and couch potatoes; usually unthinking rhetoric that the right-wing uses to characterise left positions. You’ve even used the ethically bankrupt argument that the Indonesians should be allowed to do what they wish the the cattle seeing as they own them. An argument for the complete absence of animal cruelty laws, I would have thought.
I’ve heard the argument that other countries will just fulfill the brief. I’ve heard NZ mentioned as one of those other countries. I can’t see that happening with the footage available. Suspending export is a wake-up call.
As humans, we have totally agency over other species. With that agency comes great responsibility. In suspending live cattle exports to Indonesia, we’re going some way in fulfilling that responsibility.
Brian @ 125, you’re now implying that Lyn White is a liar. She has stated she selected those abattoirs at random. Do you have any evidence for that implication?
Fine wrote:
Two points: its far from “cavalier” – the export ban un-does a lot of good work that was done in Indo over the last 10 years by the organisations now being accused of doing nothing. The second point – so what if right windbags accuse based on couch potato analogies? The outrage was fomented by a TV program so the description is apt. Now it appears that the “random sample” of abattoirs wasn’t (which is why the organisations whose brief it was to minimise the brutal behaviour were so shocked themselves) it seems that somebody with an axe to grind has produced a nice little bit of propaganda rather than anything useful. Unlike the organisations the propaganda was designed to attack, who *have* been doing something useful. The injecting room / harm minimisation analogy is also apt in this case. We can’t stop people being cruel any more than we can stop people buying drugs. Take a look at the sad, sway backed and rib-exposed horses that dot the semi-rural outskirts of our cities and you can get a dose of good old Aussie cruelty without having to venture too far from your enclave. Compare and contrast with the cattle in Brians picture.
In the end it’s about how you begin. It is never easy to stop a full on industry in order to fix a problem that has been endemic from the beginning.
It would have been possible to constrain live animal export to relatively humane transport and slaughter if that had been insisted on at the start.
It isn’t ever good enough to start poorly or cruelly or carelessly, and hope to make it a bit better on the run.
Ute Man: two oints
1. Can you point out the good work that has happened over the last 10 years?
2. Where’s the evidence that this is a put-up job? Brian has given us a quote from a Jakarta newspaper from someone described as an animal lover. She makes an assertion without any evidence. How is that proof? Please be specific. Which parts of the documentary are propaganda and why?
But, yes now we get to slander Lyn White because of one quote from a newspaper which offers no evidence. If you have any evidence, please offer it to us.
You are astonishingly lazy Fine:
Livecorp website
I concede to your superior information on this matter.
Ute Man, all you’ve done is direct me to the Livecorp website. As they have stated many times, and I believe them, they’ve been training slaughtermen for ten years. This includes workers at the at least some of the abattoirs visited by Animals Australia. It’s gone well, hasn’t it?
So, tell me what progress have they made in those ten years? That evidence needs to come from a disinterested party, not an organisation whose livelihood depends on live slaughter. Surely, you’re not so naive as to believe that organisations are always scrupulously honest when they have a financial interest in the outcome? I’ve yet to see any evidence there’s been progress.
Would you like to try answering both my first and second points?
Fine @ 132 – banning live export to indonesia most likely won’t reduce the harm done to cattle as they will source cattle from elsewhere. It may even increase the amount of harm done and certainly there is little reason to believe conditions will improve with no Australian involvement at all.
Aha, the ALP is starting to take up my ideas. The Sydney Telegraph today reports that refugees sent to Malaysia will be given special identification that will signify that they are not to be flogged. Maybe ear tags?
Fine @ 138 – the 4corners program seemed to be saying that Australian involvement had improved the feedlot conditions in Indonesia to the point now where some of them are very good.
Chris @ 141. Some abattoirs may well be better. Some may well be worse. As there’s 700 of them, it’s rather difficult to do a full audit. Some abattoirs which were filmed have had training from MLA and recent visits from MLA. It doesn’t seemed to have been doing much good.
As for the issue of cattle being sourced elsewhere. We can’t control what other sovereign nations choose to do, only what we choose to do. We should be choosing to do what is right, regardless of what other nations do. Practically, say we take the option of saying we’ll continue with the exports and Livecorp will continue working with Indonesia until the problem is solved; the issue still is that Livecorp have been already doing this for ten years. How many years of torture should be allowed to continue?
It also may be that other countries may not be happy about sending their cattle to Indonesia given the footage. I haven’t heard anyone putting their hand up yet.
Personally, I think all live export should b banned. It has a continual history of causing suffering and cruelty to the animals involved. Each time we learn something new, MLA claims they know nothing about it and promises to do better. Yet, it’s always an epic fail.
Chris, I’d also pint out that feedlots are different than abattoirs.
Fine – by banning all live export to Indonesia, Australia is basically washing its hands of the condition of cattle in abattoirs in Indonesia. We know have no influence at all.
Rather than shutdown the trade completely surely it would have been possible to explicitly allow export to a small number of abattoirs which can be closely audited by both MLA and say the RSPCA. Then slowly increase that number of abattoirs if they can demonstrate that they can improve conditions and the skill level of the workers improves.
Feedlots are different, but its an indication that Australian involvement can improve conditions for cattle.
Of course I meant “now” not “know” in the second sentence. Silly fingers!
What is a shame here is that MLA and Cattle Council are funded from industry reserves and from consolidated revenue. All these preople are employed by the government and are members of the Commonwealth super scheme.
MLA and Cattle Council are not controlled by the livestock breeders, but by Government whom control the allocation of Consolidated Revenue.
The problem is that the structure of the industry is wrong. PM Julia Gillard says she will discuss all the issues with the “industry” however the “industry” basically are all Commonwealth employees and to blame for this fiasco.
Chris, the problem with your plan is that it seems once the cattle are in the “supply chain” we would have little chance of knowing exactly where they go. That’s been pointed out by both Animals Australia and the MLA. And of course, it would completely counterproductive and ludicrous to have them monitored by the MLA.
Any system would need to be continuously monitored, every step of the supply chain by an organisation whose primary aim was the welfare of the animals. It would need to operate under a regime where it had real power i.e immediately banning animals from entering specific abattoirs, not a regime of warnings and fines, and it would need to be funded sufficiently well to do this. I find it hard to believe that a system would be set up.
David Irving #123
“difficult to feel any sympathy for the cattle producers”
Are you saying all cattle producers anywhere in Australia? The live export trade cattle to Indonesia are nearly all sourced from north of the tropic of Capricorn. All cattle producers’ right across Australia will feel the impact of this. The MLA knew about this & need to roasted about it. Some of the big pastoral holdings in the north would have. But on the main the majority of northern cattle producers would not have traveled to Indonesia & those who did would have gone through one of the better abattoirs. Cattle producers have to pay a mandatory $5 for every head of cattle to the MLA, a significant percentage was for animal welfare issues. Your comment shows you have no appreciation of revulsion felt by all cattle producers to the footage shown on 4 Corners or the genuine hardship that they now face.
I watched Bob Katter on this subject last night. What a bastion of rationality he is; he reminds me of those characters you occasionally bump into in country pubs – they hold their corner and you decide that the best option is to agree with everything they say until you can finish the one beer and find the exit.
Fine – well we track meat from the farm to the restaurant dinner plate in Australia so I don’t think the problem is that difficult – at the individual animal level can do chipping of them like they do in Australia. And really its only an issue if the primary concern is the treatment of Australian cattle rather than just cattle. We’ll know for certain how many cattle we export so we know how many should be processed through the approved abattoirs.
Fine wrote:
Oh sorry, here’s a link more suitable since I guess the first site is information overload:
Live export care
Ute Man, I’m sure if you had any answers, you’d give them to me. Your evasive tactics are worthy of a politician desperately spinning.
Fine – you’re a media professional/academic aren’t you? I’d be interested to hear your opinion of Four Corners. It was certainly one of the programs that caused me to switch off, first , news and current affairs programs, and then, TV altogether.
From a superb program 40 years ago, it seemed to me to have become a catalogue of bad practices. It became a program that had ‘ a point of view’ about the issue it was reporting on, and chose and slanted everything presented to that point of view.
I’m disappointed that one 4 Corners program could be the basis for such immediate drastic action by government.
“I’m disappointed that one 4 Corners program could be the basis for such immediate drastic action by government.”
Yea I know what you mean. When 4 corners uncovered the scandal and corruption of a previous Queensland government, they should have not reported it to he public. I mean it wasn’t really real evidence was it? I reckon the cattle tortured in the 4 corners program were from the same set as the fake moon landing.
I don’t think anything would be faked – however we don’t have any other evidence that those awful conditions are the norm.
Russell, I am indeed. I actually make commissioned docos occasionally on a freelance basis for the ABC. Finishing off one now as we speak. But, a very non-controversial one; it’s about the Mongolian hip-hop scene. BTW, the I think that documentary practice, though it overlaps with journalism is a separate genre. But, that’s a different discussion.
I think ‘Four Corners’ has been strangled for years through lack of money and a desperate rush for ratings. As I wrote way upthread:
“It interests me that the ‘Four Corners’ programme was primarily made from material produced from Animals Australia, with the ABC building their programme around it. It’s, on one hand, a bit of an indictment on the investigative powers of the ABC that they couldn’t make such a programme by themselves. They simply don’t have the cash for the longitudinal, speculative research this kind of programme takes. OTOH, it shows the power of prosumer cameras in the hands of activists and how much more powerful it becomes when those activists link up with mainstream media.”
It occurs to me that if there are abattoirs which are humane in Indonesia, then it’s strange that MLA hasn’t sent a crew up there to film them. It would certainly get a run on the news and go some way to bolstering their arguments.
Thanks fine – I thought I’d read all the comments, but missed that one.
Yes, the MLA should have … if they could. Still, should the government have acted as it has on the basis of that one program?
John Michelmore @ 146:
Nonsense. The Board of the MLA consists entirely of beef producers or are principals in major meat processing or marketing corporations. If you think that these people are tools of the Cwth Govt., you ought to take it up with them or their defamation lawyers.
Here are the personnel on the current Board of the MLA.
http://www.mla.com.au/About-the-red-meat-industry/About-MLA/Company-overview/Board-of-Directors
I guess everyone can make their own judgement about that. Certainly the government made its decision not on the content of the programme, but the public response to that programme.
“I don’t think anything would be faked – however we don’t have any other evidence that those awful conditions are the norm.”
It’s the norm alright. The government from all reports has known about it, as has the previous government for some time. I hope the ban stays in period. As for the beef producers, it’s a business like any other, after being compensated for the current orders, they should be left to do something else. Shit happens.
This to be fair it is pure math. The government obviously thinks most people have agreed with their decision. If it didn’t the trade would continue end of.
Chris @ 150,
While we can trace cattle in Australia up until the boning rooms with NLIS tags, unless each cut is identified (and mostly its not) the meat loses traceability at this point in the process.
Phil @ 160,
Land in the northern part of Australia is only really mostly suited to cattle grazing. Farmers can’t just start horticulture (no permanent water supply), can’t turn to sheep (fleece and skin boring grass seeds).
If they are indebted to the banks its bankruptcy I’m afraid. Not sure what you think they can do as an alternative?
I was hitch-hiking down around Leeton back in the day and got a lift with an abattoirs inspector and he started telling em stories about how the Aussie meat line workers used to cut off pigs balls and fling them over onto the Muslim meat workers and what a great lark it was.
I mean, I guess at some level discussing the method by which animals are killed and whether or not it’s humane is necessary.
I think we should aim at reducing meat intake. I heard somewhere once that about 200g a week is enough. In which case we could concentrate on increasing the quality of the whole production process and make it sustainable.
John said:
Roos and what not seem to do ok up there. Cattle aren’t all great for the land are they? Do we have to grow as much cattle as is possible?
I mean, do we have too, John?
“If they are indebted to the banks its bankruptcy I’m afraid. Not sure what you think they can do as an alternative?”
Hey what ever. They like any business have to plan for unforeseen contingencies. Thousands of business’s go broke every year, they get up dust them selves off, and start again. My son is a panel beater, (had a business)he can’t do it anymore because he’s allergic to the chemicals, he now works driving a truck.
Btw, I haven’t got a problem with the beef industry. I love steak and have killed my own dinner. But! The pictures speak for themselves. Having travelled far and wide, this is not the worst animal abuse I have seen, but to condone this type of torture, and in essence this is what some people are doing by omission, is for mine, morally bankrupt.
Katz @ 158,
What you see is a sham. Yes, some on the board are producers and processors, however because all funding comes from Consolidated Revenue the organisation is under the control of the Federal Government. If you look at AGM, the financials never have to be accepted by the AGM, why because no-one accept the Government can have say in how Consolidated Revenue is spent .
I’ll find the links for you.
“It occurs to me that if there are abattoirs which are humane in Indonesia, then it’s strange that MLA hasn’t sent a crew up there to film them. It would certainly get a run on the news and go some way to bolstering their arguments.”
There was some talk of 25 abbatoirs that met standards – what’s happened to them? The other thing is – if film taken in Australian abbatoirs was put on TV it probably wouldn’t gladden the hearts of viewers either. The livestock industry must be thinking mighty hard how to contain this somehow.
Fine @ 132:
Fine, I’m not accusing Lyn White of lying or implying that she did. I invite you to read again what I said. I tried hard to choose my words carefully.
It seems to me that Rashida Khan’s statement (she’s an NT cattle producer with links to Indonesia, I gather) casts doubt as to whether the selection of abattoirs was random. I’m not choosing between the two.
Rashida Kahn could be lying or misinformed. The same is true of Lyn White. That gives four possibilities. I can’t and don’t choose between them.
@ 135, I quoted from a blog post with a link, not a newspaper.
Fine wrote:
Well, no. Footage of Australian abattoirs (where the animals are stunned, killed away from their herd relaxed, not allowed to drop) would be pretty traumatic viewing for most people – especially the “electro stim” on the chain that makes the carcase twitch to improve eating quality.
The good Indo abattoirs are all still in the third world – little water, no electricity in most of them. The much maligned “kill box” was designed with some pretty mind blowing constraints – in Australia we have the luxury of power and hydraulics and the animals can be quickly constrained, so the slaughtered animals cannot struggle and can be killed quickly. In Indo that’s never going to happen – the box itself is about the best that can be done when you’ve only got human power. It wouldn’t matter how good or bad the footage was, it would still have caused outrage. No matter we spent $4 million trying to improve things, gingered up righteous outrage would have occurred.
Now, because no Disneyfied footage of animal slaughter can be produced, it never is. That of course will be used as evidence that the industry was “covering things up”, “Knew about it and did nothing for 10 years” blah blah talking points. It’s a perfect example of what Mr Denmore was explaining on his blog about the bankrupt “gotcha” news process, and that Brian tried to illustrate with his initial post. But hey, the outrage after-party must continue, right?
Fine # 156
“It occurs to me that if there are abattoirs which are humane in Indonesia, then it’s strange that MLA hasn’t sent a crew up there to film them. It would certainly get a run on the news and go some way to bolstering their arguments.”
In the 4 Corners story they did show a short length of footage with efficient kill with the use of stun guns. My memory may be incorrect but I don’t believe that the program said where that footage was taken. Maybe it wasn’t convenient to portray other abattoirs that didn’t have the appalling animal cruelty that everyone remembers so well.
MLA did try to bring in a 25 abattoir plan of plants that where up to world standard but it gained little consideration from a Government under pressure to act by caucus & the public.
Brian is your reference to Joe Ludwick meant to infer he is a bludger? Or that he is aided through nepotism? I googled Joe and could not get the connection other than his father had been a unionist.
@126″ I know nothing about Joe Ludwig apart from his parentage, which gives ground for suspicion that he didn’t get to where he is through merit.”
From ABC Radio Rural
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201106/s3239751.htm
“The largest importer of Australian cattle into Indonesia says the Australian Government has handled the live cattle welfare issue very poorly.
Sentori’s Bruce Warren says closing doors on the trade will be disastrous for Indonesian workers and Australian cattle producers.
Sentori can feed up to 41,000 head of cattle in its feedlot, and the cattle are processed using knocking boxes and stunning, with halal accreditation.
Mr Warren says there are at least 10 abattoirs in Indonesia which would meet Australian standards for animal welfare and they could process 50 per cent of Australian live exports.”
Zorronsky, just about everyone around here knows Bill Ludwig, AWU boss and notorious for his political interference. I’m not particularly expert in these things, but I’d be surprised if Joe didn’t owe being a senator and a minister to his father’s influence.
He might nevertheless be competent, but not necessarily so.
I’ve slaughtered and eaten animals, indeed animals I’ve killed and butchered would account for the majority of my meat consumption. I currently have 4 cows, one of which will be eaten and the rest bred. I agree with Fine: most people would be appalled by the footage of any slaughter. They eat meat, but they don’t want to know about how it’s done
The real cruelty occurs in the raising of the animals. and this occurs right here in Australia overseen by regulatory authorities. It’s in the intensive/factory farming of animals, from chooks to pigs. Confining animals to tiny spaces and allowing them to do nothing but produce meat/milk/eggs. But you won’t hear about that, including from the RSPCA.
Fine, further to what I said @ 168, it strikes me that there may be an issue over what “random” means in this context. Does it mean that a statistically random sampling technique was used? I doubt it. More likely that with over 700 abattoirs spread across a thousand islands, regions were selected where the norms were a bit ordinary, to say the least.
Rashida Khan’s sampling may have also been similarly mathematically deficient.
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong but thirty years ago cattle stations were profitable concerns in the north of Australia and there were no live exports. My experience was in the NT south east of Alice so I don’t have the personal connection with the tropical end that some here seem to have but I was also a participant in the frozen trade through Darwin. My query is why does the world end if the very dodgy and ultimately cruel live export trade ceases?
Well there you go. What about the other 50%? Truth is that this situation is common knowledge in the industry and has been for years. I think that much of the outrage about cruelty being expressed by meat industry and government spokespeople is confected spin.
It’s interesting to see how the discourse about this issue has shifted rapidly on the right wing blogs since the 4 Corners program went to air. On May 31 Andrew Bolt was demanding an immediate cessation of live exports, but by this morning he’s saying that the Government ban is an overreaction. On the post by Rashida Khan cited by Brian above, the comments have moved from shocked concern to what might best be described as collective indifference.
I think that the ugly truth of the live export industry has finally been shown the light of day, and full marks to 4 Corners and Animals Australia for doing so. For too many involved in the industry – including graziers – animal welfare concerns are considered to be desirable, but they can be ignored if absolutely necessary for business to to be done. This hasn’t happened overnight – animal rights activists of various persuasions have been campaigning about it for years, but the industry’s response has evidently been not to take them seriously, and the issue has never been sexy enough for the MSM and hence our political parties (except the Greens, of course).
I was as disgusted by the 4 Corners vision as anyone else, but I’m starting to get just as disgusted by the spins and backflips that are manifesting in response.
That’s probably right, CJM, but there’s a difference between knowing that many practices are ordinary and seeing it with your own eyes. TV can be a powerful medium in engaging the emotions.
Producers would have also known that the MLA, with their levy, were working on improving matters.
I said at the outset that I thought there should be a way forward for arrangements between our northern producers and our SE Asian neighbours. Those markets are closer to them than our southern population centres, it seems to me. At the same time I said I found it hard to believe that shipping livestock to the Middle east could be done in an acceptable manner and we should look at phasing that trade out.
There were two pieces of disturbing radio today. First, an interview on Bush Telegraph with stockman Terry Coman worked on ships carrying Australian dairy cattle to the Middle East and China. On his account, the system is seriously fucked from one end to the other. There is doubt whether it could ever be acceptable.
The second was a story on The World Today, followed up with additional information on PM.
Researchers wanting to research aspects of the live trade have had their research vetoed by the MLA. If research goes ahead, the MLA insist on vetting what is said.
Amongst the research denied was an investigation into Indonesian abattoirs and specifically the restraining boxes to see how effective they were.
Words fail me.
C J Morgan needs to know that the producers including Rashida Kahn are not complacent. What they are doing is seeking ways to keep the live beef industry, and hence their livelihood, alive. This complex balancing act is not progressed by making out that the outrage expressed is a passing fad.
Good counter to the weeping and gnashing from the cattle industry from a Matthew Read in the AGE today:
From the Jakarta Post again: Stunning CAN be done in Halal abbatoirs. – Risti Permani
Back in the mid eighties my grade 5 class went on a guided tour of the Kattanning halal abbatoir in s/w WA. In that place, at that time, they weren’t stunning the sheep prior to cutting their throats, that’s for sure. I saw them not doing it.
Not disputing that, FDB, just pointing out that conscious knifing is not some bottom-line requirement of Halal for which there is no hope of change.
Ute Man @ 169
“The good Indo abattoirs are all still in the third world – little water, no electricity in most of them. The much maligned “kill box” was designed with some pretty mind blowing constraints – in Australia we have the luxury of power and hydraulics and the animals can be quickly constrained, so the slaughtered animals cannot struggle and can be killed quickly. In Indo that’s never going to happen – the box itself is about the best that can be done when you’ve only got human power. It wouldn’t matter how good or bad the footage was, it would still have caused outrage.”
Okay. What you now seem to be saying is that even the best abattoirs in Indonesia are not up to international standards, so its best if we “middle-class”, “couch potatoes” full of “confected outrage” not see it. So much for the mythical 25 good abattoirs we should be sending cattle to. Now I understand why you’re shooting the messenger. How dare some activist actually show us what goes on so we can make our minds up.
I’ve seen cows being slaughtered in Australian abattoirs. Not a pretty sight. But nothing like the torture which we saw occurring in the Indonesian abattoirs and people can easily see the difference.
But, I’d be quite happy for people to see footage from Australian abattoirs and make their own mind up, at least as individuals, about them. Knowledge can only be a good thing.
Way upthread you said:
” There is an immense hypocrisy at the heart of the howl of outrage at how Indos are treating what is (after all) theirs, bought and paid for.”
So, do you really think once you own an animal you have the right to do whatever you want with it?
BTW, the “much maligned kill boxed’ were supplied by the MLA. Presumably with full knowledge of the constraints you mentioned. And you think charges of negligence and malice against them are unwarranted?
Brain has pointed out:
“Researchers wanting to research aspects of the live trade have had their research vetoed by the MLA. If research goes ahead, the MLA insist on vetting what is said.”
Of course they wouldn’t be trying to hide anything, would they? No, it’s that awful Lyn White going up there with an agenda whose to blame. She is after all just ” somebody with an axe to grind {who} has produced a nice little bit of propaganda rather than anything useful…” I wonder what you would consider a “useful” documentary…
Surely even the strongest supporter of live export must be disgusted by the MLA’s performance.
Pretty city @ 179:
Yes, it seems that it’s taken the 4 Corners brouhaha for them to take notice of what any number of animal welfare activists have been telling them for years.
From my reading of Rashida Khan’s campaign, the appalling treatment of livestock once they’ve left Australia is something many producers literally didn’t want to know or hear about, as evidenced by their rather lame defence that they’d entrusted MLA or whoever to ensure that standards are maintained. Some of the comments over there still betray their indifference to animal welfare when there’s a few bucks to be made.
I’m a small-scale beef producer for the local market, and I regard it as my responsibility to ensure that the steers I fatten and sell every year endure no suffering – quite the reverse. My position is that if the live export trade can’t be done humanely, then it can’t be done at all – even in the short term. That’s why the government was right to place an immediate ban on live exports, which should remain in place until it can be demonstrated that the Indonesian end of the trade can be done humanely.
If not, no deal. The industry needs to accept that humane treatment of animals is not an optional extra. It’s also good to see the government show a bit of spine on this worthy issue, IMHO.
“It’s also good to see the government show a bit of spine on this worthy issue, IMHO”
If that’s what it was. My concern is that it was a little more like mob rule.
CJM’s comments @ 177 & 186
Commenting as an administrator on the Just Grounds site please be aware that CJ has a chip on the shoulder after being suspended off the Just Grounds site for breaching the Terms of Use.
Your remark that, “the comments have moved from shocked concern to what might best be described as collective indifference”; are clearly wrong. The footage shown on 4C did shock & still does the members on Just Grounds. There is no indifference to genuine cases of animal cruelty and no indifference to the cattle now stranded at the port or on transport when this suspension was called. Comments on Just grounds are searching for workable solutions from this crisis.
Brian, I’ve just Read the Rashida Khan blog entry in full. She gives absolutely no evidence that she knows that abattoirs such as the ones shown are uncommon. She just “knows”. Has she been to Indonesia? Has she visited any abattoirs? No evidence that she has.
She, along with the posters, say that had no idea such cruelty existed and just trusted MLA . It sounds like they’ve chosen not to know anything about the abattoirs, instead outsourcing the issue to MLA. So, what evidence is there that she knows anything about the subject?
A bit of an aside, I subscribed to the Animals Australia mailing list after a comment on LP about poddy calves (Duncan? I think was the source), I received a very terse and dismissive reply from Dairy Australia after sending them an email. I have also only just discovered that free range egg producers of a large enough scale not only kill male chicks but grind them up while they are still living. I take Ootz’s point about the wilfull blindness of consumers as I’m one of them, the information is readily available to consumers and producers alike but you have to want to know in the first place. Knowing that they will not be prepared to sacrifice either income or habitual practices both producers and consumers choose to look the other way.
“grind them up while they are still living.”
It’s lunch time here in W.A. …. I’ll just assume the chicks were living, but not conscious.
Dale Stiller @ 188:
My comments about the thread by Rashida Khan to which Brian linked have nothing to do with my disdain for the lunar right elements who dominate your website. What I see in that discussion is an increasing circling of the wagons, along with some disingenuous protestations of ignorance.
As in she doth protest too much, methinks.
Rashida Khan is a bleeding heart.
The solution for cattle stranded awaiting transportation to Indonesia is simple.
The Australian government can simply excise those properties of Australian sovereignty.
Problem solved!
I went to have a look at Dale Stiller’s website. All I can say is !
Followed by “Even Bolt is more sensible.”
Old CJ says @177 – “I think that the ugly truth of the live export industry has finally been shown the light of day, and full marks to 4 Corners and Animals Australia for doing so.” And @186 “what any number of animal welfare activists have been telling them for years. ”
Seems to me that if animal aust was genuinely interested in the welfare of the beasts, they would be complaining to the Indonesian authorities.
If it is not Australian beasts in the Indonesian slaughterhouses, it would be animals from some other country.
To rectify the problem, go to the cause. That’s what Dale did at Just Grounds, CJ.
Yes, DI (nr), it seems to be full of climate change denialists. Once I’ve discovered that about a person, I find it hard to take them seriously about anything else. This maybe, or maybe not, be unfair of me.
However, when you have multiple posters claiming that Get Up has human blood on its hands, you have to raise an eyebrow in regards to their credibility about this issue.
Katz, that’s a brilliant suggestion. I think the northern pastoralists should start lobbying for it immediately.
There’s a grim humour there with multiple cattle producers bewailing the cruel fate of the cattle stranded because of the animal activists. Pity they weren’t concerned enough about their cattle to find out conditions in the abattoirs to which they were originally heading.
Fine, it probably is unfair of you. Why climate scepticism/denialism is widespread in the bush is for another day.
DI (NR), you have to realise that there are good, hard-working, honest people in the world who see things through a different prism. There are people, believe it or not, who honestly think Bolt is more right than wrong, who are inclined to agree with Alan Jones, who think Terry McCrann is a noted economist etc etc.
Dale Stiller, who I know personally, and I both know how difficult it is to communicate in different worlds, making genuine contact and maintaining civility. Stereotypical labels, such as “the lunar Right” are not going to help. To some I’m a chardonnay sipping socialist in the leafy suburbs. It doesn’t say anything meaningful about me.
I’d say the bush telegraph has found our little blog. I’d like them to be able to give their views and be treated with courtesy and civility.
Geoff Brown @ 195:
As has been pointed out elsewhere, that is one of the most ethically bereft excuses for knowingly allowing cruelty to livestock produced in Australia. Are you suggesting that we should tolerate inhumane slaughtering methods, just because less ethical producers will supply the livestock if we don’t?
CJ Morgan
I think what people are saying is, if Australians want to raise the standard of treatment to livestock in Indonesia , we need to be involved in the trade.
We can have no influence from the sidelines. They will source their cattle from elsewhere, countries that won’t try and lift their standards.
It seems you are only worried about “cattle from Australia”, and not the treatment of cattle generally .
So far, am pleased with Gillard’s response–fairly tough in the face of disgruntled ‘frontiersmen’(!!?)/cattle producers. Most who had some inkling about the treatment of cattle heading offshore,once they left their hands, but chose, as country people do, to consider it at that point none of their business.
Listening to some complaints on ABC Bush Telegraph the other day, you’d have thought this issue was something cooked up by Canberra simply to give these hard working salt of the earth strugglers something to make their lives even tougher than they already are. It was almost surreal that the cruelty dealt out to these creatures wasn’t even on the radar for some of them. Small time agri-business is often as immoral as big time agri-business.
Brian, I realise there are people with a different world view to my own, but (like Fine) I can’t take AGW deniers seriously. I find their indifference to evidence rather disturbing.
Not to mention a Latte lapper.
Chardonnay though Brian?
Honestly!
Enough!
Move on to a nice semillon or sauvignon blanc or pinot grigio.
What countries would they be jumpnmcar?
The Australian Indonesian cattle trade is a niche market built on the specific circumstances of the two countries:
-Proximity, which reduces transport costs
-That Australia’s quarantine laws reduce the risk of diseases such as foot and mouth entering Indonesia
- Cost of production is cheap. The cattle sent are healthy but have been grown free range on semi-arid land so there aren’t the built-in costs of feedlots or very expensive pastures.
Hence cheap healthy red meat for their growing population.
What beef producing countries do you have in mind which can substitute for that?
Realistically the substitution for animal protein will be back to fish and chicken where they came from.
jumpnmcar @ 199:
We can’t control livestock they might import from elsewhere, but we can ensure that any livestock that are produced in Australia are treated humanely ‘from paddock to plate’, as the slogan goes. Further, suspending trade is a very good way of attracting international attention to these vile breaches of humane practice – which can only put pressure on Indonesia to enforce animal welfare standards.
Helen – yeah, I wasn’t disputing your point about the permissability of stunning under halal (in fact, many muslims are happy to consider kosher meat as an acceptable stop-gap, so it’s really a matter of interpretation beyond the dying by bleeding out from a single cut bit).
I was just wondering whether it might be the case that halal abbatoirs in Australia might still be doing what they were in the eighties. Or is stunning mandatory now?
Greg M.
We aren’t the only exporter of cattle.
http://www.spectrumcommodities.com/education/commodity/statistics/cattle.html
But they will pay more or starve.
“”"Realistically the substitution for animal protein will be back to fish and chicken where they came from.”"”
And where might they get these fish and chicken NEXT WEEK?
As for the impact of Green policy on live Coral Trout and farmed Barramundi exporters. Decimation.
http://greens.org.au/policies/environment/animals
“”10.end the export of live animals for consumption.”"
still@downfall, you questioned the integrity of my last comment, perhaps you did your homework and are reluctant to admit that I did not misquote or exaggerate the comments of John Carter from the Australian Beef Association because that would not be helpfull to the cause of those who were negligent and derelict in their duty of care to the livestock that have for so long lined their pockets with vast amounts of money, and at the end of the day this is what this vile industry is about, using the abject misery of sentinel animals to make money.
It matters not how you argue your point, MLA,Livecorp and the producers were well aware that the cattle consigned to Indonesia were going to be sadistically tortured and abused prior to slaughter, and that they condoned these practises until they were revealed to all via a television program. condems the live export industry to a place from which it has no legitimacy.
And for this industry to now be screaming for compensation for its own lack of decency defies any logical thought and to that end they really have to own up to the fact that they trade in the misery of animals.
Why don’t the live cattle exporters establish refrigeration and cold chain facilities in Indonesia and export meat? A number of abattoirs slaughter a la halal for the export market. But that might require a bit of initiative, and understanding of the market – un Australian really
And as an aside, that these cattle are required to be exported at a live-weight of 350kg is of itself offensive. This is a weight that borders on emaciation and done to appease the requirements of the Indonesians so that they can be “finished” in feedlots.
The producers of these cattle spend sfa to make their profits.
“Cost of production is cheap. The cattle sent are healthy but have been grown free range on semi-arid land so there aren’t the built-in costs of feedlots or very expensive pastures.”
Whenever I see ‘cheap’ in relation to mass produced anything I’m suspicious. Are these cattle fed and is the food trucked in from a long way away? What part of our carbon emissions come from our cheap production of livestock for export? If the cattle are fed, then it’s an unnatural diet for them – what are the effects of that?
As for climate deniers – I make a distinction between ordinary people and those who push that view in the media. Many ordinary people don’t have access to the information sources many of us on this blog do, aren’t naturally good at scanning and sorting information, have heard wolf being cried many times in the past about this or that, so stop paying attention – you can be a good person, but cautious about what if any action should be taken about climate change.
Honestly, what a stupid comment.
You tell me: Where are they going to get their alternative beef supplies from other countries NEXT WEEK?
They have been growing chickens and farming fish for millennia. Only a small percentage of them would be eating beef in Indonesia anyway as for them it is a luxury item. In the absence of its supply they’ll just fall back on what they are used to eating. And squeeze out those in their food chain who got to eat a bit more chicken and fish because the richer among them could afford to eat cheap beef.
That is the way of the world.
@209, indeed why do they not? Because they actually make far more money from sending their animals live,or as ‘wet meat’ than they would if they had to fatten them to present for slaughter.It is very costly to feed a beast to slaughter weight, when they are sent live they are prepared at minimal cost to the producer,hence the aggravation that they now may be forced to do what every producer who supplies cattle to the domestic trade knows, you have to spend money to make money.
I really think there is a compelling argument to use Aus-aid to improve refrigeration facilities in Indonesia (first mooted to me by my beef producing neighbour). To ensure that cattle are humanely destroyed, to value add product(although that makes me sound like a marketer), and to offer jobs in Australia to all involved from transporters to abbatiors to exporters, why the hell are we not going down this path?
Russell @211
Robbo @210 answers your question.
The feedlots for the cattle, if there are any, are in Indonesia and not in Australia.
I know the cattle are fattened up in feed lots in Indonesia – which is why their beef won’t run out in a week: they’ve got thousands of them being fattened up ….. but I still don’t know what they are eating here in Australia. The pictures I’ve seen look like they’re living in a desert – are they just grazing up there?
Russell, the places in northern Australia where the export cattle comes from is anything but a desert. The tropical grasslands are (for a cow) Paradise.
Russell, what DI(NR) said. Cattle in that environment , and there has been a vast amount of money spent on breeding cattle for that environment, would find it to be cow paradise.
But they won’t get fat in it. They’ll get lean and healthy in it, and disease free because of Australia’s quarantine conditions, just as you would be in the same circumstances.
GregM it is highly unlikely I could survive outside the western suburbs of Perth.
I have no knowledge of the beef industry at all, but from the first page of Google results I learn that “In 2010 a total of 170 555 cattle were exported to Indonesia from Western Australia. Cattle are exported to Indonesia from the Western Australian ports of Broome, Fremantle, Geraldton
and Wyndham” – and I don’t imagine there’s much lush pasture around Geraldton.
Also “The decision to suspend trade has left tens of thousands of cattle in limbo across northern Australia, in feed lots or en route for port facilities.” “It is often necessary for livestock to be confined in temporary holding facilities such as export depots, saleyards and private yards for logistical or husbandry reasons.” So, we do have feedlots?
What’s more “The ability to transport livestock over long distances in Australia is fundamental to managing the welfare of livestock in regional and remote areas, enabling regional and remote communities of Australia to exist.”
And by the way “The use of hormone growth promotants to increase growth rates is a widespread practice in the Australian beef cattle industry with around half of both grain-fed (feedlot) cattle and northern Australia pasture-fed cattle implanted (Hunter 2010)… Little is known about the animal welfare effects of hormone growth promotants in cattle”
So I still have my doubts that this isn’t an industry which generates a considerable environmental cost, even if the dollar cost of the meat is ‘cheap’
robbo # 208
Back @ 109 you were wrong about Carter being head honcho of ABA. Perhaps John M #131 answered you better than I did.
You are really laying the bile on a bit thick with the rest of your comment in 208.
Is it to hide a lack of knowledge as evident in your comment 210. “cattle are required to be exported at a live-weight of 350kg is of itself offensive. This is a weight that borders on emaciation”
Emaciation?? Have you placed brahman cattle from northern Australia over a set of scales to justify using this term? Do you know what age these cattle are at the time of export? What should the average weight for this age bracket be off of northern Australian pasture?
Brian@197 said:
That’s so, just as there are those who swear by alien abduction, speak of being overrun with “reffos” declare same sex partnership a comm|e plot etc … This is testimony to ignorant existential angst, rather than a considered inference.
I’ve no problem with civility, but that doesn’t entail pandering to their prejudices, Gillard-style. I don’t set any store by when they set their clocks, how much they declare their love for uh’straya or how far from Glebe they live. If they want to declare against observable reality or offer apologias for unreasoning angst, they’d better have more than the old tried and true ad hominem objection up their sleeves.
So it took 200 odd comments to trim the fat off the carcass and we finally are cutting to the bone, so to speak. There are a few juicy issues on the table here, lets see if we can flesh them out a bit more.
Russell, my neighbours business card declares him as ‘Cattle King’, he just about said the same thing about the hormones. He does not use them on his cattle and I think he treats his Cattle well like CJ Morgan by his account, as I suspect many growers do. Could be too, that these growers will suffer a price drop should the Indo export ban permanently hold, since that meat would flood domestic markets?
still@, I was let to believe, through a report I heard, that these are young cattle and that this suited the smaller Indonesian abattoirs and the lack of refrigeration in these places? Also, is the cattle going straight from the muster to the ship or do they get fattened in a paddock somewhere. Am I right to suspect the present time is probably towards peak shipping season with very fat cattle, given such a big and prolonged Wet up north this year?
Fran, this is Brians blog, please respect his wishes or are you just having another senior moment?
Oops molte scusi Fran, having a senior moment myself, it should read “…….. another senior moment about what the topic of this thread is?”
Fran, I put a fair bit of effort in trying to be who I am. I don’t see others who put in a similar effort on themselves but end up with different ways of interpreting “observable reality” as defective.
That’s all.
Laura Tingle’s column in yesterday’s AFR made a couple of good points about the timing of the latest live-export brouhaha (and how the video had been kept “secret” for nearly 12 months), and mentioned that almost the same thing happened back in 2006 in regard to live cattle exports to Egypt.
I would recommend that you go to the following link and read an open letter to ABC Four Corners from someone who has had a long association with the live export industry into SE Asia. Published at the beef Central web site under the title of Setting the record straight with Four Corners.
http://www.beefcentral.com/p/news/article/192
The letter goes to some length to discribe what 4 Corners left out of their story; it finishes with -
“I am asking for a fair go. You have been expertly manipulated. Hear the actual other side of the story let the Australian public see both sides. I am happy to make all the arrangements. This is too important to let sit with the images you portrayed last Monday without recourse.”
Sorry, Brian, but people who think “Bolt is more right than wrong” (and who aren’t doing a pun on “right”) or who regard Jones as worth listening to or see Terry McCrann as “a noted economist” are self-evidently defective in how they process observable reality.
Mental states are, for all practical possible, impossible to access. All we have are their proxies in conduct, including speech acts, and such inferences as we can draw from these. When people persistently utter palpable nonsense and refuse to even allow these claims to be tested by some well accepted intellectual standard, we are entitled to dismiss or at any rate asterisk the truth claims they make about the world.
As I’ve said a number of times, I’m not into the concepts of good and evil. Those whose ability to process and describe the observable world in ways open to corroboration and at odds with human interest may well intend no harm, and do not invite hatred. Yet respect is earned rather than intrinsic. Civility is a default social obligation given under the golden rule, but respect ought be given only to those who show they can appreciate its import and quality.
Give it a try. You live in a big country. As do a lot of others, who live their live, through choice or necessity, differently than you do.
You might even get to be lean and healthy.
And, in doing so, have your opinions formed from acquired knowledge rather than ignorance.
Fran @ 226, fair enough, but there is no objective ‘detached’ position from which to observe reality. We are all subject to confirmation bias.
In this case you might ask how objective an animal rights activist, who has been trying to shut down the live export trade for years, and who scored success in 2006 with footage she gave to Channel 9 in shutting down the trade to Egypt for a couple of years, might be in selecting material to film and what she might do with it later.
The link provided @ 225 is added to the mix, as was what Rashida Khan was told when she used her personal network in Indonesia to find out what she could. Should we discount her report because of confirmation bias but regard Lyn White’s as objective?
I know from a source I regard as solid that some years ago Lyn White showed graphic film clips representing “Australian animals” being ill-treated by our northern neighbours. The cattle illustrated in the footage were not Australian cattle and the sheep were local Middle Eastern fat-tailed sheep.
Personally I wouldn’t see that as conclusive evidence of deceit, but others might not be so generous.
Part of the point made in the AFR article referred to by Terangeree @ 224 was to raise the question as to the timing of the broadcast which hit the airwaves when Tingle says the industry would have had minimal time to react.
In the commentary above, I have been annoyed by some memes creeping in which say of local producers
“I reckon they really knew all along and chose to ignore what was going on”,
and
“If they didn’t know they should have found out”.
Well, you are not entitled to *reckon* what you can’t know, and individual producers don’t have the means to go to Indonesia to find out. Ringing up your contacts as Khan did is discounted. Anyway they were paying $5 per head to the MLA to look after this aspect.
Do all these commenters know what actually happens in Australian abattoirs? Katz made a disturbing comment about what he saw some years ago. Fran, I know you don’t eat meat, but shouldn’t those who do find out if ignorance is no excuse?
The truth is elusive, but it is a fact that Elders had 1900 head of cattle ready to load and were prevented from doing so. The cattle were destined for an abattoir in Indonesia which they own and operate to Australian standards.
But somehow it is bias if the Minister’s instant complete ban is called an overreaction.
Brian,
“I put a fair bit of effort in trying to be who I am.”
Now that paradox has my head spinning. Is it easier to be who you are not?
I&U, as the wise man said, The unexamined life is not worth living.
It’s fair to say Brian that objectivity is impossible. All of us stand upon some ground and observe reality from that point. If we favour intellectual rigour, we will try to consider other perspectives, reconciling them where salient with our ends and setiments in mind, disclosing what others may think bears upon our claims and so forth. Those who do that process in all seriousness deserve respect however they conclude.
Indeed. She has a clear objective. We all know about cherrypicking and the usages of mass media. So as always, the question is less whether the data is real but rather what it means and in what ways should rational and ethical people respond?.
Our data is, of necessity limited. Neither Four Corners nor even Animals Australia can offer a comprehensive accounting of the state of commercial animal handling in Indonesia. It’s just not feasible, in technical, cost or schedule terms. We may also be sure that in so far as there is doubt about the totality but certainty about the microcosm, the risk attending long delayed action is that such unacceptable practices will persist with our imprimatur. We will be enablers of this horror. If there are indeed abattoirs in Indonesia that are up to scratch and can show this and have robust provenance protocols preventing the passing on of livestock, then let them come forward and be accredited in ways to which no reasonable person can object.
If this event succeeds in lifting the standards where MLA so abjectly failed, then even if it turns out that Animals Australia somewhat over-egged the matter (without actually telling any lies) then on balance, this will be counted a success. In a world where governance was a lot more transparent and accountable than the governance we have, this calculus would be offensive, but as things stand, this may be a system cost we have little good alternative but to bear.
Brian why don’t the cattle producers have a responsibility to find out what was happening to their animals when they were exported?
We’re not talking about inanimate objects. We’re talking about sentient beings, very much like ourselves in their capacity to feel pain and distress. To not know what their fate is, is grossly irresponsible
I find the letter quoted @ 225 is very weak pleading. Its basic argument is that there are other abattoirs which are better. So what? There may well be other abattoirs which are even worse, as well. The fact is that we have no control over the fate of the animals once they leave our shores. The letter also evades the issues shown in the Four Corners footage and minimises what has occurred. Again, how do we know this isn’t the case in 98% of the time? Surely, a complete suspension gives time to find out what the actual truth is?
As I wrote above, if there are other abattoirs which are better, why aren’t the cattle producers showing us the evidence? It would be easy to do. The problem maybe, at least according to Ute Man, is that even the best are fairly horrid.
And again, you choose to characterise Lyn White as either a liar or a fool, without any evidence except a trusted source told you. I find this very disturbing and quite unfair.
Fran, why is leaving out the more acceptable treatment of 98% of the animals in favour of just showing extreme acts of cruelty not lying? It’s like counting the cigarette burns on children at your local school and concluding that all children should be exclusively raised by the state.
Here is an interesting letter to the producers of Four Corners by Scot Braithwaite who has spent his whole live in the Live Cattle Trade. He has worked it Malaysia, Australia and Indonesia:
http://australia4australians.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/killing-the-slaughterhouses/
Fine, lets start with Lyn White.
Personally I don’t know her and I definitely don’t characterise her either as a liar or a fool. You seem to think I have a definite position on everything. I’ve been asking people to avoid closure when the evidence is not conclusive and to live with doubt.
I’m inclined to think, I don’t know but I’m inclined to think that both Lyn White’s and Rashida Khan’s sampling was imperfect, as I was trying to say @ 175.
I didn’t see the Four Corners program, but I suspect that both are talking about the 700 or so small abattoirs that kill 4 or 5 head each day. I can’t see how that part of the industry can ever be cleaned up to the point where we can have confidence in it.
I heard a representative of the Indonesian Embassy say that the Indonesian Government would supervise this sector. People who know Indonesia say that the government there simply lacks the capacity to do that.
But there have always been 25 large abattoirs which are said to operate according to international standards. It appears that Lyn White ignored that part of the industry. I took that as the main point of the link at 225.
Presumably she did so to serve her purpose of shutting the whole industry down, although there again I’ve heard her make comments which would seem to indicate that she could accept a properly supervised industry.
You say:
I would question this statement. Paul Holmes a Court, who is a large operator, and incidentally in favour of the ban, is instituting a tagging system so that his cattle can be traced through to the abattoir, and clearly intends to sell only into a system that he has confidence in and has transparency and traceability, and undertakes to do the right thing.
There seems to be two parts to the trade. In one part cattle are exported direct to abattoir in Indonesia. In the other they are sent to feedlots. These are the ones that are typically <350kg.
Therein lies a problem. Even if the feedlot contracts their output to a certified abattoir Indonesia is a corrupt society (Tingle's assessment), so there is an issue of trust. I expect Holmes a Court will want his tags returned by the abattoir to overcome this problem.
Finally, I still say it is beyond the means of small producers to forensically inquire into the fate of their cattle, given that they may be selling to middlemen and to multiple destinations. They were paying MLA to look after this aspect, and rightfully I think, have felt betrayed.
The horror at what was shown on Four Corners has been universal, and no-one as far as I can see is suggesting that BAU should prevail. But there is room to question what people saw really means about the total industry and room to question what is the optimum way forward.
Fran @ 231, I’ve got no difficulty at all with your comment. It’s well-expressed IMO.
As to the conclusion, while my initial reaction to Minister Ludwig’s ban was adverse, when all is said and done I don’t have access to the information he has access to and can’t walk in his shoes. Some large industry players support the ban and see the need to establish confidence in the industry. Lyn White says she went to the media because the government and even the opposition would just give her the run-around. She’s probably right.
Apparently it takes a lot to get the Indonesian government to pay any kind of attention to the matter, and short of a complete ban they may have ignored the whole thing. Now they are said to be considering taking Australia to the WTO for discriminating unfairly against them. If so it means they’ve noticed.
Uteman posted the following lines:
I regard it as even more dishonest to pluck a number from the air to support your claim. This is vernacular practice but unless you have a plausible basis for 98%, please withdraw it. If you have a plausible basis, please cite it. Don’t make stuff up though.
Not at all. Cigarette burns are typically well down the list of things we teachers see. We tend to see inconsistent attendance, child unwashed unkempt and ill-equipped with resources, anxiety and developmentally unusual inattention, cognitive benchmarks missed, failed parental contact or unsatisfactory responses etc … After 2 or three of these we start treating the child as a welfare priority and the counsellor and others start getting involved and that’s often when we find physical or other abuse.
FTR, I’m in favour of a substantially enlarged state role from the period approaching confinement up until age five focusing on meeting national benchmarks on cognitive and social development, and physical health of children. In cases where concern is low, this could be deprioritised, but we do want to break generational inequity and disadvantage.
Brain, when you write the following, you are saying that Lyn White is either a liar or a fool
“I know from a source I regard as solid that some years ago Lyn White showed graphic film clips representing “Australian animals” being ill-treated by our northern neighbours. The cattle illustrated in the footage were not Australian cattle and the sheep were local Middle Eastern fat-tailed sheep.”
Either she’s lying about the fact that sheep she was showing are from the Middle East, or someone told her that they are and she didn’t investigate further, making her a fool.
Another important issue, is that this isn’t a doco made by Animals Australia. This is a doco made by the ABC built around footage filmed by Animals Australia. Having made docs for the ABC, I know how rigorous they are in the signing off period, when it comes to truth and accuracy in content. It’s not like they’ve bunged some footage up on screen in an unmediated way. They would have done their own due diligence, including a legal contract that Lyn White would have signed vouching for her content.
As for Rashida Khan; on the one hand she says she knew nothing about the abuse going on is some abattoirs, but she knows that it doesn’t happen in most. How does she know? Does she “know” in the same way and with the same certainty that she “didn’t know” about the abuse happening? Her “knowledge” leaves a great deal to be desired. Someone in Indonesia told her, I assume.
Why do you suspect that the “Four Corners” program only involves small abattoirs? How could you possibly “suspect” that when the program offers no evidence either way? And for that matter, when you haven’t even watched the program.
As for the idea that the producers don’t have responsibility to safeguard the animals who they’re making a living from, because it’s all too hard. Then logically, that’s a reason for live exports to be banned. If you’re not willing to take the responsibility, then don’t make your living out of it.
But, yes it’s very complex and difficult to put in place safeguards that will work in every abattoir and to do that over the long term in a foreign country. There’s a long history of failure in that regard. So, the solution? Ban it.
More broadly though UteMan the question you pose arises for almost any inference to be made about the world. If one sees a a particular event, one compares it to the patterns with which one is familiar. If it fits the pattern, we think it unremarkable and an affirmation of our grasp of the way the world is. If it challenges the pattern, we must decide whether the event is an anomaly to be explained by some other pattern not available to our inferences, or the harbinger of a new pattern replacing the old.
We can only do that by developing a model that seems to have predictive power, modelling what we should see in either case. If White’s footage is anomalous, MLA should have been able to readily show that. That they haven’t shows that at best, they were asleep at the wheel, which is concerning, and enlarges the room we have to suppose that the footage is indicative of the dominant pattern of practice.
Brian went Freudian saying:
Lyn White I think Brian …
Fixed, thanks Fran. I’m genuinely entitled to senior moments!
BTW Fine just called me Brain!
Well, I referred to Brian as Brain. My apologies to you, Brian for that.
Let’s look at this 98% figure which has been cited. We hear there are 700 abattoirs in Indonesia. Admittedly this must only be a rough estimate. But, 98% of 700 is 686. Therefore there must only be 14 “bad” abattoirs in Indonesia. But Lyn White visited 11 abattoirs and all 11 were abominable. That means out of the remaining 689 abattoirs, only 3 must be “bad”. This is beyond belief.
Undoubtedly, when someone cites a specific figure such as 98% without citing a source, you can be assured they pulled the figure out of their arse.
Crossed post Brian – I mean – Brain – I mean Brian. The mislabelling must be due to the respect I have for you, though we disagree on this matter.
Fine, I usually like to give people the benefit of the doubt about lying, so look for other explanations. I think it quite possible that Lyn White was misled about the origin of the cattle and sheep, or misunderstood what she was told. There may be other possible explanations, but IMO they don’t add up to her being a fool.
In any case the animals were shown to be mistreated and it’s odds on that on another occasion Australian animals were mistreated at the same facility.
No-one is saying she made the same mistake this time. To some, the earlier mistake reflects on her credibility. Do I need to spell out that I don’t think that’s fair? It’s an example of premature closure on incomplete evidence, which is endemic in this discussion.
Rashid Khan didn’t know before she saw the film that the events therein portrayed were happening. She used her contacts to try to see how typical that was. I suspect she also made a judgement on incomplete evidence. I’m not calling her a fool or a liar either.
Thanks for the insights into the ABC’s practices. That’s helpful. I’m still sceptical though that the ‘random’ sampling would pass muster in a peer-reviewed scientific sense.
Fine, I’m not buying into the 98% thing and the argument you are having with Ute Man.
Thanks for the compliment. I respect you too. I live in fear of calling myself Brain, which given my typing is an accident waiting to happen.
The 98% figure comes from Scott Braithwaite linked above. Read it even if you disagree with everything about live exports – he’s far more knowledgeable than I am.
I am reminded of client denialism very strongly by Lyn White – the idea that local weather events “disprove” climate change is a close analog of the idea that a small percentage of poorly treated animals render all live exports unspeakably cruel and therefore the whole industry should be shut down. Agriculture is about the only sustainable industry we have, but unless it’s growing bean sprouts I suppose it’s OK to pay lip service to that stuff too.
A culture can be judged by how they treat their most vulnerable (disabled, animals, children, etc). However, anyone that makes the obvious point that whilst no culture is close to perfect in this regard regard, some are markedly superior to others, will getting branded a racist.
Hey guess what? Everyone is ultimately an individual and should be judged on their own merits. But not all cultures are equal.
Are we to believe that when large numbers of people migrate from Culture X, either we can cherry pick the good apples, or they magically morph values upon migration? Maybe…..
UteMan said:
The analogy is poor and yet despite a series of these in this thread you keep pitching them.
The localised weather events are cherrypicking precisely because we have mutliple lines of independent corroborating evidence including experimental proof and confirmation both of the industrial era anomaly and its etiology. Also, we are discussing different things. Climate, as has been noted often enough, is not the same as weather any more than a the appearance of a socially disadvantaged person at a Christmas dinner tells you anything useful about the nutrition of the poorest billion on the planet.
We simply don’t know how the other 98% of Indonesian abattoirs operate. The only reliable data we have seems to be about these 12 or so abattoirs. Perhaps they are utterly atypical and Lyn White fluked finding them. Or maybe they aren’t.
If your only definition of “reliable data” is “data from people I like” Fran, then it’s exactly like climate denialism. Go read the Scott Braithwaite piece.
UteMan
The Scott Braithwaite letter makes no claim about 98% of abbattoirs or even 98% of slaughters. It merely refers to “98%” of slaughters Braithwaite has “seen”. Presumably, Braithwaite sees but a tiny proportion of slaughters, even allowing “seen” to mean “under his immediate jurisdiction” or “within his personal sphere”.
Braithwaite is obviously not a disinterested party either.
As I said though, if there is a reliable way of accrediting facilities, let it be done and let those facilities be brought online. Until then, the ban should stay.
So Fran, you’re going to wait until “the science is settled” then? Who is going to do the accreditation, with what authority, then continue monitoring the facilities into the future (as if these things haven’t been attempted in the past. My eyes are rolling).
Russell #211
If the commenters of this blog have as much idea about other topics as they do about the beef industry, (with all that access to information ‘n’ all y’know) then they’d be as well equipped to discuss current affairs as is my dog.
Rather a rich bit of elitism, the comments on this thread, when all except about 4 commenters haven’t the faintest idea what they are talking about, but are offering conceited opinions about what should be done.
Rather redefines “hubris”.
UteMan tried:
Nice try. The science is settled. We now need policy to respond to it.
That’s not my problem. The onus is on those who created the problem to show that it has been addressed.
DI (nr), Fine and others, I’ll just say a bit about my experience of country people and their opinions on AGW.
During 2009 a series of seminars was arranged by this bloke and his good wife, featuring Prof Bob Carter. The current Chairman of Property Rights Australia happens to be my elder brother. I flew to Rockhampton for the last of the series. Carter and I were house guests. There was much talk over coffee after the meeting and during a long breakfast the following morning.
At a personal level, Carter is a charming person, on his feet at a meeting he is an excellent communicator, backed up by a dazzling array of graphs and other visuals. I wish we had someone that good on our side, as it were.
I was just getting over a stomach bug, my memory is that the aircon wasn’t working properly and I felt a bit sick. There were 4 or 5 graphs where, if he was right, were real knockouts, one in particular that I hadn’t seem before that, if valid, it was game over.
Later I raised it on this blog, and with some help from Roger Jones, it was revealed as a complete shonk, a case of garbage in, garbage out. The garbage that went in wasn’t made up by Carter, however, it came from the likes of Lindzen.
Carter’s substantive expertise is in sea levels in the Miocene. I asked him some questions about that and was more than happy with his replies. But on modern climate he has no more expertise than the next geologist.
Speaking of which, during questions Carter made an unreserved recommendation in favour of Plimer’s book. I’m not all that good on my feet in public forums, and thought that with a sick stomach and spinning head, trying to clear my throat, which always plays up at such times, and a bald old bugger shouting from the back of the room, wouldn’t have done anything except make me look like an ass.
People who had come from hither and yon to hear a professor emeritus address the question with detail, confidence and authority no doubt felt they’d gotten their money’s worth. I can’t write them off as a bunch of dills.
With thanks to Sammy Jankis, a poster at Pure Poison:
On June 1st, like most of Australia, he’s calling for a complete ban, not just an inquiry:
By June 8th he’s still in favour of a ban, and higlighting the fact that Joe Ludwig has been forced to reatreat from his inquiry position to a full ban:
The next morning:
On our MTR 1377 show today:
Now we’re starving poor Indonesians:
Seriously, is this guy for real?
I’d like to do an update, but don’t have time to chase links.
According to what I read in the AFR, there were about 20,000 head in ports waiting to be loaded on ships when the ban was imposed. Of course there were more on the way and more yarded on properties and more ships on the way.
When the Egyptian trade was banned in 2006 it was worth $4 million pa. The Indonesian trade is now worth over $300 million.
The Government has written to the MLA demanding that it use a reserve fund worth about $4 million to buy feed etc for cattle stranded at port. The MLA won’t comment, but has previously said that the Government made the ban and should pay. The Minister has the power to force the MLA to comply and says he will use it.
Of course in terms of monetary loss these amounts are trivial. One sizeable operation near the WA border in the NT with 10,000 breeders said they had 2300 cattle yarded, ready to go when the ban came. There had been a long wet season and this was the first chance they’d had since October last year for any cash flow. They had significant debts to service. An extended family of nine live on the property. Additionally, they employ 12 people.
Yes, she was horrified by the footage, couldn’t sleep at nights after seeing it. No, she didn’t know that is how their cattle ended up.
The Minister has established an official inquiry, I gather into the whole live export trade. An interim report is due by the end of July and the final by the end of August. If the ban last 6 months or more we’ll be into the next wet season again.
The RSPCA has clarified their concern about the internationally certified abattoirs in Indonesia. They say that the international standard allows roping and felling, but doesn’t insist on stunning, which the Australian standard does.
This is a worry, IMO, for the world in general. In no way am I trying to justify practices in the beef industry in saying this, but there are other practices in animal production that need another look.
I hesitate to post this, but decided to put it on the record because it’s there.
This story has been circulating via email for a while, but is now on farmonline:
I have no comment to make, one way or the other.
But Fran, most of the media ignores such minor inconsistencies, preferring to focus on major issues such as raised voices behind closed doors in the PM’s office.
Brian observed above:
By way of follow up to the broad claims above, I sought though a friend in the animal welfare sector some clarification from Animals Australia. This was the response:
I haven’t yet looked at these links.
Fran, I have read the links. I was aware of the Rashid Khan piece. The bottom line for me is that there are divisions within the Australian community on this issue which are never going to be resolved.
The last two links are to the same article. The main thing that it adds is that the ABC in putting together the story actually went to Indonesia and verified the accuracy of the footage. Nevertheless, a couple of points.
I won’t accept the selection as truly random unless the methodology is reviewed and cleared by a person mathematically competent in these matters. The fact that the filming was done on six consecutive nights is in conflict with the notion of a random selection.
Nevertheless the footage, I only saw excerpts, clearly showed unacceptable practices which could be taken to justify the ban. I am still inclined to think a complete ban was an overreaction, but I don’t have a mortgage on wisdom on that one. Minister Ludwig said on TV that the “social warrant” for the trade had been withdrawn. Like it or not that was quite a good way of putting the situation.
I have information from an unexpected source which varies from the account of how access was gained. I don’t really want to take that further, and it doesn’t alter what we saw.
What Sarah Ferguson was saying, however, is that the people filmed saw nothing extraordinary about what they were doing and were unaware that it might cause offence. This is worrying, to say the least. To show some understanding for the MLA, which is unfashionable, they must have been aware that practices were deeply embedded and that try as they might, change was not going to happen quickly where they had no legal jurisdiction. At issue, I think, is whether they should have called halt or continued to attempt to improve the situation.
Speaking of the MLA, I went to their site. Of interest is MLA’s initial response and this article by David Palmer, who is the former MD of MLA.
Via an email there is also a piece on what MLA are doing. This seems quite impressive in terms of comprehensiveness and speed.
Ludwig said that his efforts are on restoring the trade in a way that we can have confidence on animal welfare issues. After that he will reflect on the MLA, and whether any changes would be justified in the light of the whole sorry saga. That seems fair enough.
A country or civilization can be judged by the way it treats its animals…………………Mahatma Gandhi
Exactly, Wantok. If we’re going to eat them, we owe them the courtesy of a pleasant life and a quick and painless death.
I’m disappointed in your use of the word “unfashionable”, Brian. It’s fallen out of favour (fashion!?) a bit, but it used to be popular with right wing culture warriors – I’m thinking P P McGuinness, but it may have been Akerman et al – to use the word “fashionable” to portray any progressive opinion as shallow and not properly thought out. You give the reasons why some of us are not sympathetic to the MLA in the very same post. They knew this stuff was going on, at the same time they werer (1) keeping stum about it and (2) taking money from their members ostensibly to fund proper procedures. And last I heard, they were refusing to hand any of that money back to their members to help feed the stranded cattle.
Well, Helen, I can’t please everyone all the time and indeed I’m not even trying.
Let’s say the MLA is completely friendless in relation to their role in this affair. I’m not supporting their actions either, but was trying to de-centre enough to understand what might have been going on in their minds.
Part of the problem is that they were working in overseas countries where they had no jurisdiction. Clearly, though, their performance has bitterly disappointed the producers who supply the money.
That’s right, and the Minister said he would compel them, which he can do, if necessary.
MLA’s story is that the Government called the ban, so the Govt is responsible.
The Govt’s story as far as I know is that the issue of animal welfare wrt to live exports was raised by Animals Australia last November. Since then the Minister has written twice to MLA asking for assurances that adequate procedures were in place, and twice received unsatisfactory replies.
It seems what we’re hearing now is a lot of cattle producers putting pressure on government to start the trade up again asap, for the sake of their businesses.
Any concern for the welfare of their animals seems to have completely disappeared. I judge people by what they do and not what they say. If they actually cared about animal welfare they wouldn’t be urging the government to restart the trade so soon.
We now know that the much touted ‘international standards’ are lower than Australian standards, with no guarantee that he cows will be stunned before slaughter. Looks like the government is wimping out again.
Brian, I don’t think Lyn White is using ‘random’ in its strictly statistical meaning, more in an colloquial sense of the word, meaning that they didn’t purposely choose abattoirs they knew were bad. As I’ve said several times, if these abattoirs are outliers, I see no reason why MLA can’t nip up to Indonesia and film some exemplary ones. We keep hearing that they’re the bad abattoirs are the exception not the rule. But we’re given no evidence of this, although evidence would be very easy to find if it exists.
Fine, if you’ve been hearing people talking about where all this has left them “for the sake of their businesses” is not just a phrase. It’s an existential issue.
I’ve always thought there should a middle path, where for example exports could have been continued to internationally certified abattoirs, while a system of tagging and tracing was being put into place. I get the impression most producers took a similar view.
Whether under these circumstances we could have negotiated a move to stunning, I don’t know.
What slaughtering means at internationally accredited abattoirs without stunning, I don’t know, so I’m reluctant to take a position on that, except that the Australian standard is obviously preferable.
On the use of “random” that’s fair enough. It’s not promising if Animals Australia lined up so many with horrible practices, but they must have been geographically in a cluster. I’m only questioning what inferences can be made from what they filmed about the practices in the rest of the country.
You are right about what MLA hasn’t done in nipping up there to film better practice. Nevertheless, what they haven’t done isn’t conclusive either. What they say they are doing to sort things out would likely be keeping them busy.
I suspect that this is a deliberate strategy by MLA and the producers to get the government to compensate directly. After all they’ll just need to give extra money to the MLA in the future if they get given money back now. Was a bit surprised to hear a few cattle producers saying they don’t actually want monetary compensation now, just want the trade back as soon as possible.
There’s no guarantee that will happen in Australia either. There is at least one abbatoir in Adelaide that has an exemption to slaughter cattle without stunning first. I’d guess that there would be a few around Australia in a similar position.
If I was a cattle producer who had visited the abbatoirs and feedlots in Indonesia and seen that my cattle were being treated appropriately (and there was one family on ABC radio that claimed this) then it would not be inconsistent with caring for animal welfare to ask that limited trade to those abattoirs you know are ok be resumed.
“no reason why MLA can’t nip up to Indonesia and film some exemplary ones”
Except that there would probably be little point. They would more than likely get accused of being selective in their filming, or even of having set it up, and that it wasn’t representative of what is happening, Why waste time, money and effort on something that is likely to be pointless anyway?
By extension of Ghandi’s quote above Bob Gosford asks some important questions in Crikey’s Northern Myth. Surely diversity of live forms and longterm sustainable ecosystems would make an equally relevant mark of a healthy nation/civilisation.
The MLA and graziers would do well to learn from the present problem, to address concerns re long term sustainability of their industry and ecology they operate in.
BTW Wantok, would you have time for a cup on Saturday at the Yungaburra markets http://larvatusprodeo.net/2011/06/20/lazy-sunday-140/#comment-319691
Pollytickedoff – and even if it was representative of what was going on and was as done according to Australian standards in terms of public opinion it just won’t help. In the end its still rather beautiful animals getting slaughtered and the majority of the meat eating public would rather not think about that part of the process.
I know I’ll never manage to completely forget the first time I saw the skin of a cow being peeled off its body up and over its head on the processing line. I do manage to suppress the images when tucking into a nice steak though.
There appears to be a rapidly growing ideology in australia that if an activity provides jobs, it can’t be morally reprehensible.
Surely there is a limit to this (thinking of Swift’s Modest Proposal.)
Ootz @ 168, your first link makes a powerful and passionate case for the complete cessation of grazing in the NT. In comments, the spread of Gamba grass in particular is noted as a disaster ecologically when it burns.
All this is a worry, but I lack the knowledge to have an opinion about it. What is lacking is how the author thinks the land is going to be managed if you withdraw economic activity.
I think my opinions are well known on this matter but i would just like to say Brian, with all due respect, that given that you did not watch the 4 corners program you really are not capable of understanding the revulsion and disgust felt by those of us who did indeed watch the footage for the very reason that we felt unable to comment unless we were informed.Nothing would prepare you for the sadistic depravity filmed by people whose motives you now question.I do wonder indeed where your motives lie given that by your own admission you haven’t seen the footage.
Helen, I think it boils down to responsibility. It is natural for markets to push boundries be they economic, ecological or social. It is natural for Governments to assume a political horizon determined by the electoral cycle. It is natural for individuals to assume looking after themselves is limited to their ‘self’. What ever happened to John Elkington’s Triple Bottom Line?
Brian, I merely wanted to highlight that the dispatch of a living breathing animal to become a lump of meat is not the only problem with industrial lifestock production and consumption. As with many issues in todays news we are just skimming the survace, focusing on the tip of icebergs. There is so much more to ethics in lifestock production not just in regards to slaughtering. But what the current issue highlights is that there appears to be a systemic problem in the broader industry. I am sure there are many individual producers as well as industry Captains whose intentions and practices are morally justifiable. However, as a whole industry it’s broader moral code is demonstrably not in tune with it’s industrial scale. This is the basis for the argument that give the Bob Gosford’s of this world a foothold and the Government of the day the political raison d’être for it’s heavy hand.
As far as land management and economic activity goes, I think the whole carbon thingy will put another bomb under the industry in more ways than most producers can imagine. Thus, I hope they look at the current problem as a wake up call to up their game and by that I mean not short term financial returns.
Ootz wrote -”"However, as a whole industry it’s broader moral code is demonstrably not in tune with it’s industrial scale. “”
40 % of beef production in NSW is done on the coastal strip. Mostly small producers.Most beef is still eaten in Australia , being 70% of production.
The average herd size in Australia is about 23-24 head.’
The average number of sales per annum by coastal agents clients is 3-5.
There is certainly plenty of agribiz and corporate interest in beef production but this description is inaccurate and excessive when applied to the whole industry.Backyard and industrial scale is more appropriate.
As a comparison the chairman of the MLA runs 14,000 head over 3 northern properties.
As the MLA works on the basis of the number head sold per year equals your votes at AGMs then you can quickly comprehend that small producers have zero sway on deliberations. Same logic applies for research grants – the companies who pay the levy are getting their $$$ back in this guise .It should also be understood the MLA funds much useful research even if it is only useful for larger producers.
.
The 3 largest exporters have 50% of the total I think .
I agree with the sentiments of Strider in the Bob Gosford link when he describes the grazing management as akin to mining – it isn’t sustainable and really I think this is a ”revived” form of production – the closure of the northern abbatoirs left these producers without an outlet for their beef.
There was then a change to the brahmin composite breeds as they suited asian cooking and budgets once live exports were started.These composite breeds also reproduce more efficiently in harsh going as well as having greater heat and pest resistence in the tropics.
robbo @ 272, my motivation as always in blogging is to inform, to share and to facilitate the sharing of information so that we can all come to a better understanding.
As I said in the post, I didn’t watch the full footage because I couldn’t, having seen the promos. I’ve also since seen repeated clips used in news footage and have read descriptions of what happened, and people’s emotional reactions to the piece. That’s no substitute, of course. If I’d known I was going to write about it at the time, I would have steeled myself.
I’ve not heard anyone at all give the merest hint that such practices are in any way acceptable, except that the article by Sarah Ferguson linked by Fran said that the perpetrators saw nothing problematic, which I find disturbing.
Brian: “All this is a worry, but I lack the knowledge to have an opinion about it. What is lacking is how the author thinks the land is going to be managed if you withdraw economic activity.”
I’ve posted about this project before on LP:
http://www.savanna.org.au/savanna_web/information/arnhem_fire_project.html
I know very little about tropical systems but I think the sudden removal of grazing from the NT might pose significant land management issues, maybe the land/fire management project in West Arnhem Land could offer a way forward…?
If you check out the following link, there is a pdf file link [top right] that has a map of 4 project areas, but I think the West Arnhem site served as something of a testing ground for the idea.
http://www.nailsma.org.au/projects/carbon.html
Oh and I’ll spare Brian the annoyance of yet another one of my spiels/derails on the merits of native meat.
fb, thanks for that. I’d forgotten about that particular project.
And on native meats, yes, we value what we eat.
An interesting development in the debate over religious ritual slaughter. This is a very sensitive issue as kosher abattoirs were closed by the Nazis and that has not been forgotten.
Is pastoralism sustainable in Northern Australia?
A good read …
Eight investigations throughout the Middle East and Asia by Animals Australia arrives at one irrefutable conclusion – abject cruelty to defenceless beasts. The entire industry is complicit, from farm gate to the primordial swamps described as abattoirs. The Department of Agriculture is unfit to regulate in the humane treatment of senient critters as stated by 100 barristers and solicitors in their submission to the federal government.
2.5 million hapless animals overboard since the 80s from filthy converted ships that fly the flags of convenience. Business is indeed profitable.
AA’s publication of the ninth investigation into slaughterhouses in Turkey is imminent while this industry demands compensation from the public purse for loss of trade. Cruelty is their name, cruelty is their game.
Tomorrow, Sunday August 14 is national protest day to ban live exports. Check out details at Animals Australia for a rally close to you in all capital cities.