New Zealand has higher farm animal welfare

[Kernowkid]

i don’t think there would be much difference. There’s good and bad farmers in both countries for sure. Farm assurance keeps the majority of us fairly on it with medicine record keeping which I wouldn’t of thought would be as tight over there.
They seem to cull a lot harder than us hence maybe less foot issues whereas here lots of smaller farms maybe more reluctant to cull for lame or other minor health problems.
But then they’re aloud to castrate at 6 weeks with no anaesthetic and things like that. They bury dead stock on farm and we have to have it shipped off.
They out winter most stock cattle vs here where most house. Again arguments could be made for and against both.
But on the whole I’d of thought good farmers here and there wouldn’t be operating much differently really

 

[Top Tip.]

Last year we had a new young vet came in to castrate calf’s, he insisted on using local in the testicle before removing it. Absolute blood bath they bled like stuck pigs . I had a very sleepless night I can tell you. They did all survive it but my nerves were shredded. I phoned his boss who I am friendly with to question the procedure he said that it was well known that using local did make them bleed more. He also said this was what they were trained to do in vet college now. Speaking to other vets about it they really did doubt there was any benefit from the the use of local in this situation and it could possibly be a disadvantage.

 

[tepapa]

The main difference I see between ourselves and the likes of NZ and Oz is that we feel we should tell the consumer/market what they should be buying and stuff em if they don't like how it's produced, instead of producing what the consumer/market want in a way they want it produced.

I'm not disagering with you but if the consumer really wants a certain welfare system, then they need to be prepared to pay extra for it. They might not want lambs castrated but I bet they don't want ram taint in hoggs either. So they should be prepared to pay an additional cost so any males not fit before taint starts can be humainily destroyed or devalued to dog food. The obvious reduction in supply will force prices higher still. Expecting the farmer to carry the cost and loss in production would see a lot of lamb production (aka food) reduced significantly. Lamb is generally classed as a luxury item so I wouldn't think many low income people would starve due to reduced production.

 

[Dead Rabbits]

What is animal welfare and how is it measured?

 

[livestock 1]

Castrating and tail docking is to stop maggots mucky tails and to stop lambs breeding off other lambs before finishing
This in itself aids animal welfare surely
There’s no law saying it has to be done so limiting the way it’s currently done would surly make less animals castrated and docked and therefore make welfare worse for the sheep

 

[melted welly]

What is animal welfare and how is it measured?

In the uk it’s mainly subjective and irrational.

For example RSPCA have the “5 freedoms” in relation to keeping animals one of which is “freedom to exhibit normal behaviour”

So we on one hand, we have obese over-medicated domestic pets; cats that live their whole lives indoors, dogs that are dyed rainbow colours and carted about in handbags and I have also seen a rabbit taken to the beach in a Perspex rucksack.

On the other hand, cattle in a muddy corner of a field (where they have decided themselves to go) could warranty a visit from the SSPCA on welfare grounds.

So in answer to your question, in the UK, animal welfare is an arbitrary measure , often driven by purely feelings and ignorant opinion.

 

[Frank-the-Wool]

Animal welfare is very difficult to pin down as everyone has a different view on what it means.
Those of us who work with livestock every day have a different attitude to someone who lives in an inner city home who probably doesn't even have a Pet.

With much talk of rewilding then one presumes that this will mean we leave animals to their own devices and Darwin's theory of evolution takes over. There is much to be said for this approach as you end up with a much stronger gene pool. The Kiwi's have exploited these traits with the most famous examples of the farmers going on holiday during lambing. I forget the exact figures but within 5 years lambing % and survival rate returned to the level of having full intervention.

We will soon be able to exploit many of these traits through gene editing and improvements could be seen in "welfare" through this work.
There is already a lot of work on reducing Fly strike in sheep through breeding and not by chemicals in NZ and Australia.
We know that some sheep are more resistant to worms than others, finding these through genomics could be a massive breakthrough and another improvement in welfare.

It is also a fallacy that large units have poorer welfare than small ones. Many hobby farmers should be banned from keeping livestock as some believe that keeping an animal alive that is old and infirm and off its legs is a necessity, I have seen some dreadful cases when I used to do contract shearing.

Animals that have a good standard of welfare always do better than those that don't. A classic example of this was Veal calves, I doubt many people have ever seen a well run unit that turned what was an almost worthless Holstein bull calf into a 400kg animal that was well looked after, was a great source of protein and very valuable ( it also meant these calves in the 1980's were worth over £120 each). All these calves that have to be reared under the Dairy assurance schemes may not have better welfare!

There are many other examples.
I am sure if we were allowed to dispose of dead animals on the farm, many old and infirm animals that were unfit to go to market would be euthanased and buried earlier so reducing suffering.

 

[gone up the hill]

I would argue that most folk that think the uk has high welfare and NZ low welfare when it comes to live stock ...... are mostly folk that are scared of what NZ can produce, and have an over inflated idea of UK welfare.

Can anyone that thinks it, actually explain how they have lower welfare in NZ?

@gone up the hill ?

What age do they tail/castrate lambs in NZ @CopperBeech ?

 

[bobk]

Animal welfare is very difficult to pin down as everyone has a different view on what it means.
Those of us who work with livestock every day have a different attitude to someone who lives in an inner city home who probably doesn't even have a Pet.

With much talk of rewilding then one presumes that this will mean we leave animals to their own devices and Darwin's theory of evolution takes over. There is much to be said for this approach as you end up with a much stronger gene pool. The Kiwi's have exploited these traits with the most famous examples of the farmers going on holiday during lambing. I forget the exact figures but within 5 years lambing % and survival rate returned to the level of having full intervention.

We will soon be able to exploit many of these traits through gene editing and improvements could be seen in "welfare" through this work.
There is already a lot of work on reducing Fly strike in sheep through breeding and not by chemicals in NZ and Australia.
We know that some sheep are more resistant to worms than others, finding these through genomics could be a massive breakthrough and another improvement in welfare.

It is also a fallacy that large units have poorer welfare than small ones. Many hobby farmers should be banned from keeping livestock as some believe that keeping an animal alive that is old and infirm and off its legs is a necessity, I have seen some dreadful cases when I used to do contract shearing.

Animals that have a good standard of welfare always do better than those that don't. A classic example of this was Veal calves, I doubt many people have ever seen a well run unit that turned what was an almost worthless Holstein bull calf into a 400kg animal that was well looked after, was a great source of protein and very valuable ( it also meant these calves in the 1980's were worth over £120 each). All these calves that have to be reared under the Dairy assurance schemes may not have better welfare!

There are many other examples.
I am sure if we were allowed to dispose of dead animals on the farm, many old and infirm animals that were unfit to go to market would be euthanased and buried earlier so reducing suffering.

NZ would be bottom of the league if they had to deal with the rsoles we do

 

[CopperBeech]

What age do they tail/castrate lambs in NZ @CopperBeech ?

4 weeks ish. And I’d argue about that wirh you all day

 

[JSmith]

It’s a wonder we managed to farm anything for the last two thousand plus years without all these do gooders making sure we do everything right!!

 

[gone up the hill]

4 weeks ish. And I’d argue about that wirh you all day

Large farm put pics the other week up on FB of them just having done 3000 odd lambs, the lambs were at least 12 weeks old if not more!

 

[Henarar]

We had a vet at our local practice she had worked in nz for 6 months was ment to be longer but she could not not bring her self to stop any longer as the animal welfare on the farms she went to was a disgrace she said and they were large dairy farms she is a large animal vet only and isn’t soft and said the standards over here are miles better and a joy to work with

even more reason for them to buy our beef and lamb once the trade deal is done

 

[JSmith]

Large farm put pics the other week up on FB of them just having done 3000 odd lambs, the lambs were at least 12 weeks old if not more!

They probably all running about within half an hour, I don’t see a problem with it, they used to cut the balls off them years gone by an kick’m up the arsè as they let them go!! They still kill female born human daughters in some countries an we’re getting our knickers in a twist about ringing lambs, ffs!!!

 

[BELOWAVERAGE]

Nope. Are you going to answer the question?

I

Nope. Are you going to answer the question?

I'll send you a pm

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Its not bollox. It was also taken on in ozzy mainly due to market demand for high welfare wool. How about I put a ring round your bollox and take a red hot poker to your arse and see what you think. Just because animals don't always show immediate distress from procedures doesn't mean there isn't a pain response. As livestock keepers we have to be willing to accept that tools like numnuts will be necessary to allow the routine use of aneasthetics during (as Tim puts it) mutilation procedures. Either that or well have to get used to uncastrated and long tailed sheep all over the place. The main difference I see between ourselves and the likes of NZ and Oz is that we feel we should tell the consumer/market what they should be buying and stuff em if they don't like how it's produced, instead of producing what the consumer/market want in a way they want it produced. If every sheep farm in nz had to use anaesthetic at tailing to hit market requirements I doubt they'd moan much, but look to technology to make it quick and affordable, or breed shorter tails.

You are badly mistaken.

Firstly, you have stupidly humanised the act by threatening me with actions that are simply not comparable.
Putting a ring on a mature man is not the same as a day old lamb, physically or mentally.
I know nothing about using a hot iron to remove tails so I can't comment but I expect it is an equally poor comparison you make.
I do understand the difference between pain, an immediate and major brain signal to react to an immediate danger, and discomfort which tells the brain to check that everything is in order before preceding.
I have fully accepted the benefits of pain relief when treating animals and always keep metacam for that purpose. Blanket use of anaesthetic for a procedure when it will only benefit a small percentage is not good practice.
Furthermore I get most vexed by this modern idea that those with experience and understanding should pander to the ignorant purely because they don't like the sound of something. Of course, very few people would ever even give such matters consideration if companies like numnuts and their investors didn't stoke such opinion in order to line their pockets.
Being liberal, I don't see the need to ban numnuts despite my opinion that this causes unnecessary extra stress for lambs, I'm happy for everyone to make their own informed decision.
The trouble is that those who think oppositely, will be keen to remove any such informed choice.

 

[Sharpy]

Last year we had a new young vet came in to castrate calf’s, he insisted on using local in the testicle before removing it. Absolute blood bath they bled like stuck pigs . I had a very sleepless night I can tell you. They did all survive it but my nerves were shredded. I phoned his boss who I am friendly with to question the procedure he said that it was well known that using local did make them bleed more. He also said this was what they were trained to do in vet college now. Speaking to other vets about it they really did doubt there was any benefit from the the use of local in this situation and it could possibly be a disadvantage.

Your problem was probably not the local but the technique used by the vet. We ring here now , but used to get the vet to cut the calves before they went to grass, never a problem. That vet is now retired, the firm that took on his farm customers has a vet that is excellent, the odd calf that gets missed and ends up getting cut by her at 5 or 6 months does not bleed, nor does she tie off like our old vet. Other vets have had poorer results......

 

[kiwi pom]

Plenty of anti farming fückwits in NZ. Unfortunately, the highest profile one appears to have gained office of PM.

Stuff

i.stuff.co.nz

View attachment 1040831

In my opinion one of the better things to be highlighted in recent times.
There's far too many feckwits in dairy farming that have very little clue about what they are doing, be it managers/share milkers/contract milkers. The bad ones need pulling up and retraining or kicking out of the industry as they give those doing it right a bad name. Its understandable in a way though as you can go from a new entrant worker to being in control of a herd in just a few years. Unlikely that that would happen in the UK.

Utter load of rubbish!

NZ certainly does not have higher welfare than the UK!

It depends what you call welfare I suppose. There's good and bad with both countries as far as I can tell.
Have you been out here and had a look around?

 

[FonterraFarmer]

NZ would be bottom of the league if they had to deal with the rsoles we do

We just get bìtch Ardern instead.

 

[Dead Rabbits]

In the uk it’s mainly subjective and irrational.

For example RSPCA have the “5 freedoms” in relation to keeping animals one of which is “freedom to exhibit normal behaviour”

So we on one hand, we have obese over-medicated domestic pets; cats that live their whole lives indoors, dogs that are dyed rainbow colours and carted about in handbags and I have also seen a rabbit taken to the beach in a Perspex rucksack.

On the other hand, cattle in a muddy corner of a field (where they have decided themselves to go) could warranty a visit from the SSPCA on welfare grounds.

So in answer to your question, in the UK, animal welfare is an arbitrary measure , often driven by purely feelings and ignorant opinion.

It leads to vague laws which is the favorite of every pencil pusher. You’ll never win if you don’t know the rules of the game