Reuben and you are only too well aware of the importance of animal health, welfare and biosecurity in underpinning our meat industry.
Dr Way inappropriately conflated live export regulations with LPA requirements. Live export of sheep should not have been stopped. The industry has made significant measurable improvements in outcomes. To stop it is wrong. Most of those improvement relate to reduced stock density on ships.
There are issues that will annoy some farmers with LPA requirements such as identifying that the drenches they use are recorded and administered within the withholding periods. There will be farmers who don’t like to record which paddocks they have sprayed and when they can stock them so there is little risk of contamination. Unfortunately there will be farmers who don’t feel the need to commit to basic welfare to their stock. LPA addresses these things.
The LPA system is not perfect. The audit system is not perfect and can be hard on some participants, particularly feedlots and abattoirs. They often focus on mistakes in the Vendor Declarations. However the meat industry needs farmers to commit to basic animal health welfare and biosecurity activities.
You identify that Australian farmers are not subsidised. That is correct. My view is that the LPA system should be strengthened through the subsidised involvement of veterinarians in LPA planning (not auditing) to help assure the improvement in animal health welfare and biosecurity.
The LPA system has gaps and EID of lambs going directly to abattoirs seems to be such an unnecessary gap. Similarly allowing farmers convicted of stock theft to maintain LPA accreditation seems to undermine the integrity of the process.
As a farmer my view is that we don’t want onerous regulations or big brother but we do need to ensure that consumers have confidence in the safety of our meat; have confidence that animals are appropriately cared for; are not subject to highly damaging EAD or avoidable production and heath issues
LPA is a system that could be improved though better electronic vendor declarations, easier identification of PICs, and improved systems to enhance animal health, production and biosecurity.
Thanks Ken for your thoughtful and knowledgeable contribution. You are right - an assurance scheme is beneficial for all. It becomes problematic when there is another agenda at work and an extreme one at that - farm animals are a risk to life on the planet! I suppose, as Andrew Way is indicating, it is important for family farmers to be involved in this and not just leave the situation up to "industry groups" but engage and take responsibility where possible to ensure the requirements are reasonable and that there is a well informed process for appeals, and that livestock producers don't find themselves at the mercy of "Big Brother".
Reuben and you are only too well aware of the importance of animal health, welfare and biosecurity in underpinning our meat industry.
Dr Way inappropriately conflated live export regulations with LPA requirements. Live export of sheep should not have been stopped. The industry has made significant measurable improvements in outcomes. To stop it is wrong. Most of those improvement relate to reduced stock density on ships.
There are issues that will annoy some farmers with LPA requirements such as identifying that the drenches they use are recorded and administered within the withholding periods. There will be farmers who don’t like to record which paddocks they have sprayed and when they can stock them so there is little risk of contamination. Unfortunately there will be farmers who don’t feel the need to commit to basic welfare to their stock. LPA addresses these things.
The LPA system is not perfect. The audit system is not perfect and can be hard on some participants, particularly feedlots and abattoirs. They often focus on mistakes in the Vendor Declarations. However the meat industry needs farmers to commit to basic animal health welfare and biosecurity activities.
You identify that Australian farmers are not subsidised. That is correct. My view is that the LPA system should be strengthened through the subsidised involvement of veterinarians in LPA planning (not auditing) to help assure the improvement in animal health welfare and biosecurity.
The LPA system has gaps and EID of lambs going directly to abattoirs seems to be such an unnecessary gap. Similarly allowing farmers convicted of stock theft to maintain LPA accreditation seems to undermine the integrity of the process.
As a farmer my view is that we don’t want onerous regulations or big brother but we do need to ensure that consumers have confidence in the safety of our meat; have confidence that animals are appropriately cared for; are not subject to highly damaging EAD or avoidable production and heath issues
LPA is a system that could be improved though better electronic vendor declarations, easier identification of PICs, and improved systems to enhance animal health, production and biosecurity.
Thanks Ken for your thoughtful and knowledgeable contribution. You are right - an assurance scheme is beneficial for all. It becomes problematic when there is another agenda at work and an extreme one at that - farm animals are a risk to life on the planet! I suppose, as Andrew Way is indicating, it is important for family farmers to be involved in this and not just leave the situation up to "industry groups" but engage and take responsibility where possible to ensure the requirements are reasonable and that there is a well informed process for appeals, and that livestock producers don't find themselves at the mercy of "Big Brother".