IN June 2011 the Australian government halted all live cattle exports to Indonesia after ABC Four Corners broadcast disturbing footage of Australian cattle being mistreated in Indonesian abattoirs. 
Australians were lead to believe that this footage, that shocked the nation, was typical of what occurs inside many abattoirs in Indonesia: that the footage was real.
We were told the footage wasn’t taken by Four Corners or the ABC. Lyn White from Animals Australia is the face of the campaign against live cattle export and she starred in the documentary. She was at pains to tell us it was easy enough to get the footage. So we were lead to believe she had taken it herself.
Of course professionals could have staged something like this. The footage could have been totally contrived. We could have been looking at a work of fiction: a setup, a horror film.
Interestingly there is an organisation that specialises in film production for environmental, conservation and animal protection groups. In the ‘Tracks Investigations, Annual Review 2011-12’ the UK-based directors, Gem and Ian, claim responsibility for the footage shown on ABC TV. They boast that their work was “aided” by the screening on “Australia’s main TV station ABC in May”. They also claim it was their most successful project in their 18 year history:
“Some 40,000 media stories followed, sparking massive public opposition to the live export trade and awakening the consciences of a nation to the plight of animals.”
What I’m curious to know is: if it was so easy to get the footage as claimed by Lyn White, why did Animals Australia contract Tracks Investigations to do the work? And if it was indeed Track Investigations, and not Lyn White, who were responsible for the shocking video clips, why wasn’t this declared in the ABC Four Corners program?
Well put Tony; Activists are always engaging in hysterical arm waving, taking things out of context, and making mountains out of molehills.
The media has never let facts get in the way of a good story.
But governments are supposed to be the responsible adults, carefully weighing up all the options, and possible consequences before taking any sort of action.
This government has set new benchmarks for truly frightening levels of incompetently.
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201205/s3505471.htm
Now they're pretending they did something.
Notice there is still the emphasis on 'Australian cattle' ?
Notice also that no one is recognising the damage they caused when they did what Tony colourfully describes above.
Government either punch themselves in the face, or fall out of the ring still flailing wildly, hitting friend and foe at random, mostly friend in this case. “Do something, quick!” doesn’t make for good anything, let alone government.
"You don’t seriously expect anyone to believe that is a rational or sensible comparison do you?"
No, of course I don't, I was indulging my sense of the ridiculous, a kind of reductio ad absurdum. I take your point about feed-lots for fattening in Indonesia. On this subject (live export, etc.), I get most of my info from the media, as do most people, and am subject to the same immediate perceptions. Research and balanced consideration may not lead to the truth, whatever that is, but at least to a more informed opinion.
If a commission had been set up to decide on what the worst possible reaction from the Oz government might be in such a situation, they couldn't have even imagined what that reaction would actually be, nor the consequences. Anyone can make a mistake, for a real cock-up involve a computer, and for a total disaster wind up the government and watch the reaction.
Our government's particularly good at over-reaction, witness our recent petrol shortage, owing to a threatened strike (that didn't materialise) by tanker drivers, and a minister who very publicly urged motorists to fill up their tanks, and fill up a "jerry-can" as well, the latter being both illegal and risky, as the container holds 10 litres, while the limit for storage at home is 5 litres. To calm the situation, another minister then urged people not to panic, and only half-fill their tanks! Supplies dried up for days, drivers with a genuine need (including doctors, etc.) queued for hours. The more cynical (I'm one) spied a plot to divert attention from the credibility mess the government was in at the time. Result - the mess deepened
The Oz government displayed (and displays) the reactions of a punch-drunk boxer. They don't see the blow coming, don't dodge it, and swing wildly in thin air while their opponent dances away and moves in to land another blow. Government either punch themselves in the face, or fall out of the ring still flailing wildly, hitting friend and foe at random, mostly friend in this case. "Do something, quick!" doesn't make for good anything, let alone government.
Tony,
I usually admire your perspective on issues..because you have the enviable ability to make people 'think outside the box' but this time you've lost me entirely:
No-one ships wheat growing in earth to “growing lots” in other countries so farmers in those countries can get a bigger share of the profit.
You don't seriously expect anyone to believe that is a rational or sensible comparison do you?
Especially someone like me who is a mixed farmer and therefore grows crops and livestock for various markets?
I respect your usual posts enough not to take this little piece of rhetoric apart....but I would seriously but respectfully request that you think about that one a little more clearly....
BTW...I'm a vegetarian for health reasons not 'moral' reasons...but it is still a bit of a paradox.... because I am also a huge animal lover and have a rather impressive menagerie of pets and also do a great deal to encourage native fauna to thrive in my sphere of influence.
I would also add that Binny is correct and this practice does indeed create benefits in Indonesia....but would add (as Binny also highlights) that isn't the main reason why we export live cattle from Northern Australia....but.....it's an added very good reason why we shouldn't just arbitrarily stop it because we have overstated 'public opinion' fears about the welfare of Australian cattle.
Also Tony....while distance from paddock to slaughter is a factor.....you may not realise that the stress factor that does indeed influence the quality of the meat...is not solely dependant on that factor.
Binny explains very well why it is not a key factor in Indonesia, because those cattle are destressed (if they were indeed stressed beforehand) as they are finished off before slaughter.
It is actually a bigger problem in Australia because cattle are indeed stressed as they're moved around in cattle trucks....often very crowded....often in highly inclement weather.....often straight from highly stressful circumstances in saleyards....and often straight into slaughter.
Mind you....there have been many, many improvements....but as usual....we don't really want to think about these things.....and most importantly....we keep forgetting that these animals are specifically bred to be slaughtered for human consumption...and as you also highlighted....it has to be at an acceptable market price....and.....because of our highly urbanised population....it has to be done in bulk.
Unless everyone is forced to become a vegetarian (which would then create a whole new raft of supply issues and environment issues and freedom of choice issues etc....) I can't really see why the people who were punished for the 'public reaction' to this story were punished in this way.
That's the real issue I think.
Even if there is a big problem with the way cattle are slaughtered in Indonesia....what did the Govt response do to fix it?
Who got punished and why were they punished?
How come the actual perpetrators of this filmed cruelty aren't being punished?
Who actually benefited from this huge public outcry? The cattle?
And seriously....why is everyone sticking their noses into and, making highly questionable value judgements about a perfectly legitimate and well run business practice that provides decent people with decent livelihoods in 2 seperate countries based on the undeniable fact that people eat meat?
Tony & Schiller
Firstly and most animals actually gain weight during sea transport. (Chuckle - not unlike most tourists on Sea cruises after, all there is little else to do but stand around and eat) They are actually preconditioned to the rations available for some weeks before they loaded onto ships.
Like most successful trading relationships, the live trade is mutually beneficial. Northern Australia has large areas of low fertility and relatively low rainfall country, ideal for breeding. Indonesia has small areas of high fertility and high rainfall country, ideal for finishing. To finish an animal to slaughter weight that has been bred in northern Australia, they have to be shipped 500 km to Indonesia or trucked 1500+ km to the feedlots in southern Australia.
The exported cattle are not slaughtered immediately, the Indonesian government value adds to them, by feeding them up to slaughter weight in Indonesia. This helps the Indonesian economy and provides local employment.
The other point is the overwhelming majority of these cattle that are a lot fed in Indonesia are then slaughtered through the new large modern abattoirs. The actual percentage of Australian bred cattle (Not Australian owned they are owned by the Indonesians we have no say) slaughtered in the poorly equipped village level abattoirs that were filmed, is very small. Also as the Indonesian economy continues to grow, and infrastructure is upgraded these small abattoirs are being phased out.
Finally talk of an abattoir in northern Australia - This is for the purpose of slaughtering surplus cows that have reached the end of their breeding age. This produces low quality manufacturing beef, the quality of animals that are being exported wouldn’t be slaughtered in this abattoirs simply course it’s not possible to get them up to slaughter specifications in northern Australia.
Abattoirs like this had been trialed numerous times in the past, and have failed. Mainly due to the low quality of the product, the seasonal nature of the turnoff, and the difficulty of accessing labour.
I still want to see the numbers for live animal export, specifically, that it makes more economic sense to export live animals, than to slaughter domestically and export meat.
Live transport of nearly any duration, regardless of conditions, is stressful on the animals and reduces both weight and quality at the point of delivery. And surely, refrigeration costs less than feed, water, and losses due to 'downers'. That's my position unless persuaded otherwise. Note that I am not factoring in animal welfare at any point.
I suspect, but do not know, that these animals are exported live so that they can be slaughtered at the point of delivery according to local religious requirements. If that is the case, then it is of course politically incorrect to point out that as the deciding factor.
Besides, the customer is always correct, and one shouldn't quibble over the preferences of his deities.
Debbie, you have a remarkably balanced view of animal slaughter for a vegetarian. I'm impressed. I eat mea, though not that much these days, the price being what it is. I would not do so if I didn't understand the chain from breeding to slaughter. The less time between farm and slaughter the better, in my view, both for the quality of the meat (less stress, better quality), and most importantly, for the animal. Long sea-voyages for animals penned-up in semi-darkness don't meet that last criterion, and never can. Commercial considerations don't and can't cut it as a justification. Kill the animal. ship the meat. No-one ships wheat growing in earth to "growing lots" in other countries so farmers in those countries can get a bigger share of the profit.
Tony,
I don't like 'the thought' of it either...especially the way it has been presented in the media.
However....all the meat you eat (if you're not a vegetarian) has been 'live transported' in some fashion before it is slaughtered for your consumption.
The conditions on those ships are no worse for those animals....in fact often much better....than the transport methods used domestically for the domestic market and the domestic processing of meat for export.
It is a rather unattractive part of human dietary requirements and the necessity to bulk produce.
In general, conditions have radically improved, but 'the thought of it' is still not pleasant....and I don't think it ever will be.
We can't forget (as unpleasant as it is) that these animals have been specifically bred for human consumption in the first place....or that the particular market involved in this instance would not be able to either buy or store meat that we slaughter in Australia...or that there is also an Indonesian feedlotting industry that benefits from this type of trade.
But in one respect....If we're talking only about the animals themselves....I agree with you.....I don't like it.
Can't see a bulk conversion to vegetarianism happening anytime soon either....even though paradoxically....I am a vegetarian....but I realise that is my choice and I have no particularly good reason to force that choice onto others.
🙂
Comment from: Dave Shorter May 13th, 2012 at 7:05 pm
Tony Price,
I disagree with your third point.The villages shown looked too poor. To buy frozen or chilled beef they’d need refrigeration
I agree, that point occurred to me as I hit "submit", but I let it stand as I wanted to get a reasoned reaction. I still don't like live export though, and will never support it.
The live export trade is subject to some quite stringent conditions.
That includes an average weight limit that helps prevent these animals from being 'overcrowded' in the ships.
I am even willing to concede that some of those stringent conditions are due to a greater awareness created by some animal welfare groups....and that is a good thing in terms of animal welfare but also in terms of finances. The % of animals that perish on the ships is actually lower than the % of animals that die in the paddock before they reach the ships.
This particular incident however resulted in damage to perfectly legitimate and well organised practices that do in fact tap into a market that cannot afford to buy pre processed meat or for that matter do not have the means to store it.
It did NOTHING WHATSOEVER to protect animals in Indonesia from cruelty at slaughter.
What keeps getting missed is that not only were Australian producers punished when they were not in fact the perpetrators of this filmed cruelty, so were the Indonesian feedlotters who have developed a livelihood in Indonesia attached to our live export trade.....they are paid to finish these cattle before they are processed for human consumption.
They were the 2 specific demographics who were forced to pay dearly by the inappopriate 'knee jerk' reaction from Govt. Then of course there was a rather significant 'knock on' effect from associated service industries...who were also not the perpetrators of the filmed cruelty.
It appears that the actual perpetrators of the actual filmed cruelty were not punished at all?