The Urgent Need for a Permanent Ban on Mulesing and Live Sheep Exports in the Australian Wool Industry Based on Animal Welfare Concerns

Australia is home to the world’s largest population of merino sheep, producing more than 50 percent of the world’s merino wool supply (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2003). Any wool labeled merino has thus quite likely come from Australian sheep, who suffer immeasurably both during and after the wool-production process. Recent scientific publications, investigative footage, and news reports from Australia reveal the horrors of inhumane industry practices such as mulesing, as well as the cruelty involved in live exports, which claim more than 6 million sheep per year and largely depend on the wool industry. The many abuses that these practices entail cause intense suffering and should be eliminated.

The Mulesing Mutilation

Mulesing is practiced primarily on merino lambs and involves the stripping away of large areas of skin and flesh from sheep’s hindquarters so as to prevent the growth of wool. It is performed as a preventive measure against a painful condition called “flystrike,” which occurs when the eggs of blowflies laid in woolly areas of sheep’s skin hatch into maggots, leading to infestation and, eventually, death by ammonia poisoning. Blowflies are especially prone to laying their eggs in the breech area of merino sheep because the many folds of skin that characterize this breed tend to accumulate moisture, feces, and urine, especially when covered with wool. Mulesing is highly abusive, causing both acute and chronic pain, and unjustifiable, especially given the availability of more humane flystrike-prevention alternatives.

During mulesing, lambs are thrown onto their backs and their legs are restrained while the skin and wool around their backsides is carved away with metal shears to expose the flesh. At the same time, their tails are often cut off. The procedure is tantamount to partially skinning the animals alive without anesthetics. The resulting bloody wounds have been found to remain unhealed for 22 to 30 days (Fell and Shutt 1989, Chapman et al. 1994). It has been estimated that approximately 60 to 80 percent of merino sheep are subjected to mulesing in Australia (Beck et al. 1985 in Counsell 2001, Morley and Johnstone 1983 in Fell and Shutt 1989, Baillie 1979 in Townend 1985, Australian Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare 1989 in Pope 1997), statistics that suggest that at any given time, Australia contains about 82 million mulesed sheep.

Physical Indicators of Stress From Mulesing
In its code of sheep-welfare recommendations, the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry writes that mulesing “causes pain both at the time it is carried out and during the healing process” (MAF 1996, §7.1.3). Much scientific evidence shows that physiological and behavioral indicators of stress in mulesed sheep are very high, proving that mulesing is indeed extremely painful. In physiological terms, the degree of stress is usually determined by measuring plasma cortisol concentrations—“the most commonly used physiological indicator of stress,” according to Chapman et al. (1994 p 243)—and ß-endorphin levels, both of which are known to rise during times of stress.

Fell and Shutt (1988) measured both salivary and plasma cortisol concentrations in a study of 63 merino crossbred lambs and found that mulesing was the greatest acute stressor of all the procedures to which sheep are typically subjected on farms, including castration, docking, rough transport, pizzle dropping, tooth-grinding, and shearing.

Chapman et al. (1994) discovered that, following mulesing, plasma cortisol concentrations “increased immediately and rapidly” and remained elevated for at least 48 hours (p 243). Shutt et al. (1987) studied 50 merino crossbred lambs and found that mulesing and tail-docking could multiply mean plasma ß-endorphin concentrations by 10. Fell and Shutt (1989) tested mulesed merino wethers between five and 15 minutes following mutilation and found signs of suffering in the form of “[m]arked elevation of plasma cortisol and ß-endorphin” (p 283). The stress associated with mulesing is so great that Jongman et al. (2000) found the EEG patterns of animals being mulesed to be similar to those of animals who had been given injections of formalin in the hoof to cause “acute pain and subsequent inflammation, lameness, and associated chronic pain” (p 340).

Mulesing photos courtesy of Patty Mark /Animal Liberation Victoria

Behavioral Indicators of Stress From Mulesing
In their comprehensive, long-term study, Fell and Shutt (1989) found that stress-related behavior in sheep continued for up to 113 days following mulesing. Among other examples, mulesed sheep displayed abnormal postures—most likely resulting from the painful mulesing wound—for up to 48 hours following mutilation; “they stood with head down, nose almost touching the ground, back arched, and body hunched” (p 288). Chapman et al. (1994) verified these findings in their own study, reporting that “surgically mulesed sheep quickly assumed a hunched-up posture” (p 246).

Normal daily behavior was also altered for up to 72 hours. As compared to sheep in the control group, mulesed sheep did not engage in routine feeding, lying, or grazing. Instead, they spent much of their time standing idle, unable to engage in normal activities because of the severe trauma that they had experienced. Researchers did not observe any of the mulesed animals lying or resting on the day following mutilation or even drinking until the second day following mutilation. Chapman et al. (1994) further found that mulesed sheep lost weight during the week following mutilation, “moved about less frequently and over shorter distances than the [control-group sheep] during the first eight days after treatment,” and often simply stood still (pp 244-45).

Psychological Indicators of Stress From Mulesing
It has been shown that sheep are highly intelligent and able to recognize human faces (Boivin et al. 1997). Kendrick et al. (2001) found that sheep can even form mental images of humans and remember—and distinguish among—50 different sheep’s faces for more than two years, even if they haven’t seen any of the faces during that time. This ability was discovered by means of a test wherein sheep were shown 25 pairs of similar sheep faces—some of them in profile—and taught to associate certain faces with a food reward. When presented with the pairs of faces and the potential for earning the reward, the sheep consistently identified the correct faces. Analysis of their brain activity during these exercises indicates that sheep use the very same areas of the brain for visual recognition as humans do: “Sheep … possess similar specialized neural systems in the temporal and frontal lobes for assisting in this important social task, including a greater involvement of the right brain hemisphere” (pp 165-66). The researchers who conducted the test reportedly concluded that sheep may be capable of emotion and conscious thought (Briggs 2001).

Such studies help explain the long-term emotional stress and psychological aversion that sheep experience and display in the presence of handlers who perform mulesing. Fell and Shutt (1989) conducted an “arena test” in which mulesed sheep were placed in the same pen with the handler who had performed the procedure on them. Aversion behavior was measured in intervals and, while found to be most intense for the first 37 days, continued to be noted for up to 113 days. While “control animals turned and moved toward the handler … mulesed animals turned and moved in the opposite direction in 95 % of all tests up to Day 37” (p 288). The pain of mulesing is so intense that it leaves a lasting impression. Chapman et al. (1994) observed similar aversion during a 30-day post-mulesing arena test and concluded that the sheep’s aversion to their handler may be “a conditioned response to the association of immediate pain [from mulesing] with … human handling” (p 246).

Pathology Caused by Mulesing
Mulesing can also cause suffering by actually facilitating flystrike in areas of blowfly activity—the very condition it is supposed to prevent. The Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand’s Animal Health Committee (ARMCANZ 1991) acknowledges this problem when addressing the best management practices for sheep and states, “After mulesing, lambs should be observed from a distance … for signs of fly strike of the wound” (p 12). The New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry also writes that “there is a risk of infection and flystrike of the mulesing wound itself” (MAF 1996, §7.1.3). Cook and Steiner (1990) found that under conditions where blowflies were present, egg masses were deposited into 93 percent of untreated wounds within 48 hours and into 85 percent of all wounds, even those dressed with a blowfly-repellent treatment, by the ninth day. They remarked that “[t]he overriding finding of this trial has been that mulesing wounds are highly susceptible to strike by L. cuprina [the blowfly responsible for flystrike in Australia] one week after mulesing, irrespective of whether the wound ha[s] been chemically treated immediately after mulesing or left untreated” (p 354). In another study, researchers from the Western Australian Department of Agriculture (Harrington and Steiner 1993) found that after mulesing, “95% of untreated lambs were attractive to oviposition by Lucilia cuprina … and 90% subsequently developed flystrike within 4 [days] of mulesing” (p 190). One-third of treated lambs were afflicted as well. The authors conclude that “fresh mulesing wounds can be attractive to L. cuprina and susceptible to strike” (p 191).

In its periodical Surveillance, the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF 2002) reports that mulesing is believed to transmit a potentially deadly disease called eperythrozoonosis, which can lead to recurrent anemia, bloody urine, and listlessness. Eperythrozoonosis infections recur during times of stress (Kabay 1997) and are caused by microscopic blood parasites that may easily be spread in the bloody conditions that mulesing creates.

More Humane Alternatives to Mulesing

Many more humane, effective, and cost-efficient alternatives to mulesing are available, as has been discovered not only by Australian farmers who do not employ the procedure—a group that is estimated to include as much as 40 percent of producers (Beck et al. 1985 in Counsell 2001)—but also by all sheep farmers in the U.K. (the world’s fifth-largest supplier of greasy wool), where mulesing is generally prohibited in favor of alternative flystrike-prevention methods. Moreover, unlike mulesing, which only addresses breech strikes, most of the alternatives described below help prevent all forms of flystrike, including strikes on the breech, body, and face.

Selection for Less Susceptible Breeds
Experts regard genetic selection of sheep who are resistant to flystrike as the most effective long-term solution. Tellam and Bowles (1996) cite a study in which only 8 percent of 1-year-old resistant sheep suffered from fleece-rot (a condition that predisposes sheep to flystrike), as compared to 53 percent of susceptible sheep. Also, the incidence of body strike in the resistant and the susceptible groups was 1 percent and 19 percent, respectively. Selection of merinos with smoother skin would not only reduce flystrike, but would also improve wool quality. Scobie of AgResearch (2004) observes that “[w]ool quality tends to suffer on wrinkly sheep” and, citing the findings of other scientists, further reports, “Australian research has shown that mulesed wrinkly sheep were just as likely to be flystruck as plain-bodied sheep that were not mulesed.” Scobie et al. (2002) found that sheep with naturally occurring areas of bare skin on their breech were significantly less likely to develop flystrike. In these experimenters’ study, lambs with the greatest breech bareness were not flystruck, whereas 22 percent of those with the least breech bareness were—statistics that suggest that breeding for breech bareness can be an effective flystrike-prevention tool.

Increased Monitoring and Treatment
Perhaps the most effective option is simply to increase monitoring for early signs of flystrike and to provide treatment when necessary. Evidence gathered through communication with organic producers suggests that “fly strike is largely preventable if farmers keep sheep healthy and inspect them regularly” (Morris 2000 p 205). Dr. John Auty, a veterinarian who formerly worked with the Australian Department of Primary Industry as the assistant director of the Bureau of Animal Health, has been quoted as saying, “Mulesing does not free the sheep from blowfly strike, but proper husbandry practices, including close inspection of sheep, will reduce and virtually eliminate flystrike.” Early-warning computer-simulation models can help predict times of increased blowfly activity (Tellam and Bowles 1996) and may be useful for warning producers to increase monitoring efforts.

Insecticides
A study of flystrike control methods in the U.K. found that “at present, the control of blowfly strike is most commonly achieved through the application of insecticide or other larvicide, either used prophylactically or, more commonly, in response to perceived seasonal patterns of high strike challenge” (Fenton et al. 1998 p 342). Tellam and Bowles (1996) write that “[o]ne of the mainstays of the wool industry for control of blowfly strike is the use of insecticides[,]” which can be “used in dressings applied to flystruck areas on sheep” (p 263).

Vaccinations
Bowles et al. (1996) were able to “successfully vaccinate sheep against larvae of the sheep blowfly” and concluded that “protection from flystrike through vaccination using native larval antigens can be achieved” (pp 1347, 1351). Tellam and Bowles (1996) report data from several trials that reveal that nonvaccinated sheep were more than twice as likely to develop blowfly-infected sites as vaccinated sheep, more than half of whom were completely protected from infections (as determined by “a failure of the larvae to establish a wound on vaccinated sheep”), as compared to none of the nonvaccinated sheep (p 267).

Topical Applications
Painless topical applications for preventing wool growth are currently being developed. Researchers at the University of Adelaide, funded by Australian Wool Innovation (AWI 2003), recently discovered a protein that, when applied to sheep’s skin, causes follicles to die and seems to cause no ill effects for the sheep. When applied to sheep’s breech area, this protein would create large areas of bare skin, producing the same effect as mulesing but without inflicting painful wounds.

Sterile Male Blowfly Release
As female blowflies only mate once during their lifetime, the release of sterile male blowflies can help significantly reduce populations. Tellam and Bowles (1996) note that “[t]he suppression of fly numbers is usually accentuated by further releases of sterile male insects until the natural population is no longer sustainable” (p 268).

Baited Traps
Dymock and Forgie (1995) used a non-insecticidal blowfly trap in an area where all four flystrike species were present and, during the first year of observation, found that only four of 600 unmulesed sheep were struck. Those four cases represent a strike rate of 0.0067 percent, which compares favorably to the strike rate of 2 percent per year that was found in another study in New South Wales, where mulesing is prevalent (Wardhaugh and Morton 1990 in Morris 2000). Other researchers have found that the use of bait traps, both synthetic and organic, are effective in controlling blowfly populations (Smite and Wall 1998, Fisher et al. 1998). Another advantage to trapping is that the volume of flies in the traps themselves can serve as an early warning signal for producers to increase flystrike monitoring and treatment efforts.

Improved Farm-Management Practices: Reduced Stocking Densities, Careful Diet Selection, Rearing in Regions Less Hospitable to Blowfly Populations, Timely Shearing and Crutching, and Elimination of Tail Docking
French et al. (1994) surveyed 2,451 sheep farmers and found that “[t]he risk of a farm[’s] reporting at least one case of blowfly strike increased as flock size and stocking density increased” (p 51). Furthermore, there was no significant positive association between the practice of tail-docking and reduced incidence of flystrike. These findings suggest that farmers who reduce stocking densities will lessen their sheep’s risk of flystrike and that tail-docking offers no such benefit. Leathwick and Heath (2001) found that diet could also play a role in flystrike prevalence and that lambs who grazed on forage consisting of birdsfoot trefoil were less likely to suffer from flystrike than lambs who grazed on ryegrass and white clover. Producers can effectively control flystrike even further by rearing sheep in cool, dry regions where blowfly populations are less likely to flourish. And Tellam and Bowles (1996) explain that shearing and crutching (“the removal of dags and urine-stained wool from around the breech area”), especially when synchronized with the worst periods of fly activity, decrease “the likelihood of fly strike” by “reducing the attractiveness of this region to the gravid female blowfly” (pp 262-263).

Live Exports

Every year in Australia, about 6 million sheep—the highest number of any country—are exported to the Middle East for use in religious slaughter practices that require animals to be alive upon receipt. Most of these sheep are merinos who are no longer productive in the wool industry (Strong and Minchin 2003, The Australian Sheep and Wool Industries on the Web 2004). During overseas transport, animals are crammed onto multideck vessels that travel for weeks before docking at their destinations. Industry workers and researchers alike have documented great suffering and mortality during all phases of live export.

High Mortality
Norris and Richards (1989) examined official reports from 181 Australian shipments of live sheep and found on-board mortality rates as high as 4.4 percent. During the 145 Middle Eastern voyages studied, 140,711 sheep died—nearly 1,000 animals per voyage. Mortality occurred mainly at sea (77 percent) but also during unloading (20 percent). In fact, 27,505 sheep died during unloading in the Middle East alone, probably because of rough handling, the animals’ weakened states, or a combination of both. Black et al. (1994) also studied mortality rates and found that more than 1,600 deaths occurred aboard a single vessel that was exporting sheep from New Zealand.

The lengthy duration of these journeys prolongs suffering and exacerbates mortality. Norris and Richards (1989) found that loading could take up to five days, the voyage itself up to 32 days, and unloading up to 11 days. They wrote that unloading could be “unnecessarily slow” and lead to “excessive mortality” (p 101). Each of these grueling procedures can take even longer, as was painfully proved last summer on the Cormo Express, where sheep suffered in searing heat for 80 days after Middle Eastern countries rejected them, claiming that they were diseased.

Grinding Alive
At sea, sick or injured animals are often thrown down chutes leading to a macerator that grinds them up and dumps their remains into the sea. On a recent episode of Australia’s 60 Minutes, an experienced rancher and veteran of many live-export voyages stated that these chutes can be nine stories high and that animals are often alive when they are thrown into the grinders. He explained, “What they do is, when they die and they’re out at sea, they drop them down a big laundry chute into a mincer at the bottom and it just smashes them up and squirts them out the side into the water. … It’s just like a laundry chute, opening door on each floor and you just drop them down. And in quite a lot of cases, the sheep are still alive. In theory, there is plenty of time to cut their throats and kill them first, but they just get put in the chute alive” (Carleton 2003).

Smothering and Suffocation
Black et al. (1994) found that because live-export vessels typically only allow for a portion of the animals to be fed at one time, intense competition during feeding leads to animals’ losing their footing and being smothered or crushed to death. The researchers found that 31 percent of the sheep who died aboard one vessel suffocated or were smothered to death. By the later stages of the voyage, excrement had accumulated to such a degree that some animals had become stuck in feces and were unable to move. The live-export worker who was interviewed on 60 Minutes described appalling conditions on the Cormo Express: accumulations of feces in pens, possibly as much as a foot deep; a mere 6 inches of headroom at most for the sheep who were still alive; and the bodies of their dead companions littering the floors (Carleton 2003). Cramped and filthy, such conditions would likely lead to many animals’ becoming trapped in excrement and under decomposing carcasses, eventually being smothered or suffocated to death or—unable to access food or water—dying of starvation and dehydration.

Starvation
Norris et al. (1990a) concluded that about half of all sheep deaths during sea transport to the Middle East are caused by starvation, even when food is available. Richards et al. (1989) found a similarly high rate of death by starvation (43.4 percent). The live-export industry has invented many euphemisms for starvation to deemphasize the suffering that it entails; Norris et al. (1990a) provide the following examples: shy-feeding syndrome, inanition, anorexia, failure-to-eat syndrome, voluntary feed refusal, and persistent inappetance. These euphemisms are designed to conceal the fact that live exports are so traumatic that many sheep simply stop eating, despite the availability of food and their own urgent need.

Extreme Temperatures
Extreme temperatures, exceeding 40°C and 90 percent humidity, create miserable conditions for overcrowded animals. Norris and Richards (1989) report that the death rate among sheep in one shipment more than tripled with a 4C rise in temperature. Black et al. (1994) suggest that during times of high temperatures, animals move en masse toward ventilators, often trampling each other to death. A recent Australian government-issued report found evidence that “mortality levels in livestock quickly increase due to heat stress once ships have docked in the ports of the Middle East” and concluded that “there should be a prohibition on exports of sheep from [certain] areas … during periods of the year [when] the risks are greatest” (Keniry et al. 2003, pp 30, 42).

Temperature extremes can occur at any time, however, and Norris and Richards (1989) warn that their “findings do not support the industry view that the highest death rates occur in July to September, when temperature and humidity in the Middle East peak for the year,” observing that mortality can be just as high in other months (p 101). These facts show that only a categorical—not just a seasonal—ban on live exports can prevent animals’ suffering.

Injuries
Rough handling, overcrowding, and hunger-induced weakness can result in serious injuries and suffering. Richards et al. (1989) found that “[m]ost shipboard cases of trauma were acute and associated with splaying of the hind limbs on slippery floors during loading” (p 38). Norris et al. (1990a) determined that “injuries sustained during loading of the ship and in the first few days of the voyage” led to “about 12 percent” of on-board deaths (138); Richards et al. (1989) calculated that “trauma” accounted for 10.6 percent (33). Sick and injured animals are usually left to die without veterinary care. A veteran live-export industry worker explains that nonambulatory animals—those who have been disabled to the point at which they are unable to walk—are “just left in the walkway sometimes for a couple of days just kicking their legs” (Carleton 2003). Recently obtained video footage of handlers beating, kicking, and otherwise abusing worn-out animals in the Middle East tragically illustrates the potential for injury during unloading (see www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=wool). Sidhom (2003) reports that during unloading of Australian animals in Egypt, workers “frequently hit the animals with long sticks armed with rusty nails, with metal bars, and sometimes even with hammers” (p 1).

Diseases and Infections
Norris et al. (1990a) estimate that 26.9 percent of all deaths on board live-export vessels are a result of salmonellosis infections and that within the first nine days on board, about 12 percent of all sheep are excreting salmonella. Norris and Richards (1989) note that antibiotics are often introduced into the sheep’s drinking water and that in one year, more than 5.02 million doses were administered—presumably to combat the highly pestilent, filthy conditions to which the sheep were subjected, especially those on the lower tiers, where manure from the tiers above falls and accumulates and where high concentrations of ammonia are constant irritants. Sidhom (2003) examined a load of sheep and cattle on board the MV Maysora, which had traveled from Australia to Egypt, and observed that “[l]iquid manure flowed into the food troughs, where the food was sodden and soiled with sheep manure from the decks above” (p 1). Among diseases and other conditions described by Norris et al. (1990a) as causing death are muscular disease, lupinosis, foot abscesses, kidney stones, pneumonia, dehydration, and heat stress.

Scabby mouth disease, also known as contagious ecthyma, is sometimes fatal and can be transmitted to humans. Over the years—and most recently in the summer of 2003, with the Cormo Express—Middle Eastern countries have rejected shipments of animals who showed signs of scabby mouth, thus causing even greater suffering for sheep by prolonging their ordeal on ships where conditions inevitably worsened and mortality was rampant. The Cormo Express was an especially tragic example: After being rejected by Saudi Arabian officials, the sheep were stranded on board the vessel for an additional 64 days—the time it took to find a country that was willing to accept the survivors—during which time mortality increased to 9.82 percent, and the death toll rose to 5,691 (Keniry et al. 2003). Such rejections have been ongoing for decades and threaten to continue, especially considering the conclusion of Higgs et al. (1996) that “using current technology it is not possible to deliver shipments of sheep to the Middle East that are guaranteed completely free of scabby mouth” (p 215). The only way to prevent further suffering for rejected, stranded sheep is to ban the live-export industry altogether.

Emergency Conditions
Unpredictable emergency conditions often arise that jeopardize the well-being of animals on board. Some recent examples, compiled from Australian Maritime Safe Authority reports (AMSA 1990, 1999, 2002), include the inadequate ventilation that killed almost 10,000 sheep on board the Cormo Express in 1990; the fire that killed more than 67,000 on board the Uniceb in 1996; the sinking of the Guernsey Express in the same year, which led to the drowning deaths of more than 1,500 cattle at sea; the failure of the Temburong’s ventilation system in 1999, which caused 829 cattle to die of suffocation; and the cyclone of the same year, which caused the Kalymnian Express’ engine to fail and led to the deaths of more than 300 cattle. Malfunctions, natural disasters, and fires inevitably lead to tragedy on such highly populated, heavily crowded vessels.

Banning Mulesing and Live Exports Is the Only Humane Option

Mulesing is only one of many flystrike-control methods available. As the scientific literature proves, it causes animals harm and can sometimes leave them vulnerable to flystrike by inflicting wounds. Mulesing is an abusive practice that causes acute, chronic pain and should be abolished as a form of cruelty to animals—especially in light of the fact that other effective and more humane flystrike-prevention methods are available. This conclusion was foreshadowed in 1989 by the Australian Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare when it observed that “in areas of higher sheep density and smaller flocks, there was evidence that some producers were able and willing to put in the extra time and effort to breed out faults in sheep, to select resistant sheep, to control worms, [and] to inspect and crutch and jet with chemicals more frequently to ensure a healthy flock without recourse to mulesing” (qtd in Pope 1997 p 10).

As for the live export of sheep, the evidence shows that no degree of preparation or standards or any other actions short of a complete ban can ensure animals’ safety during such long and arduous journeys. The Australian Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry—spurred on by the international outcry from the Cormo Express incident—recently commissioned a report on the many problems associated with live exports, and the result was a call for many changes on animal-welfare grounds. The government also invited public comments, and “[a] majority (76 percent) of submissions expressed views opposed to the livestock export trade” (Keniry et al. 2003 p 10)—a response that is hardly surprising, given the intense cruelty inherent in the live-export industry. As the Australian Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare has acknowledged, “[I]t is not in the interests of the animal to be transported to the Middle East for slaughter” (qtd in Norris et al. 1990a p 133).

Year after year, millions of sheep suffer hideously during mulesing and live export in the Australian wool industry. The pain and death that these practices have been irrefutably shown to cause prove that no degree of standards or “improvements” can ensure the welfare of animals who are subjected to them and that the only compassionate solution is a categorical ban on both.

This report was completed on March 24, 2004. Please direct any questions or comments to Cem Akin at 757-622-7382, extension 8013, or CemA@peta.org.

References

[AMSA] Australian Maritime Safety Authority. 1990. 1999. 2002. Incident reports taken from www.amsa.gov.au/.

[ARMCANZ] Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand. 1991. Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: The Sheep. East Melbourne: CSIRO Publications. 17 p.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2003. The wool industry—looking back and forward. Available from: www.abs.gov.au/ausstats.

Australian Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare. 1989. Sheep Husbandry. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

The Australian Sheep and Wool Industries on the Web. 2003. Sheep breeds found in Australia. Available from: www.aussiesheep.com/sheep.htm.

[AWI] Australian Wool Innovation. 2003 Jan. Seeking the painless mulesing alternative. Beyond the Bale 1(3). Available from: www.wool.com.au.

Baillie BG. 1979 Jun. Management practices for controlling flystrike. National Symposium on the Sheep Blowfly and Flystrike in Sheep; Sydney, Australia.

Black H, Matthews LR, Bremner KJ. 1994. The behaviour of male lambs transported by sea from New Zealand to Saudi Arabia. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 42:16-23.

Boivin X, Nowak R, Despres G, Tournadre H, Le Neindre P. 1997. Discrimination between shepherds by lambs reared under artificial conditions. J Anim Sci 75:2892-8.

Bowles VM, Meeusen ENT, Young AR, Andrews AE, Nash AD, Brandon MR. 1996. Vaccination of sheep against larvae of the sheep blowfly (Lucilia cuprina). Vaccine 14:1347.

Briggs H. 2001 Nov 7. Amazing powers of sheep. BBC News. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/161463.stm#sheep.

Carleton R. 2003 Sep 21. Ship of Shame. 60 Minutes (Australia). Available from: http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2003_09_21/story_970.asp.

Chapman RE, Fell LR, Shutt DA. 1994. A comparison of stress in surgically and non-surgically mulesed sheep. Aust Vet J 71:249-7.

Cook DF, Steiner EC. 1990. Susceptibility of mulesing wounds to oviposition and strike development by the Australian sheep blowfly Lucilia cuprina. Aust Vet J 67:352-5.

Counsell D. 2001. A benefit-cost analysis of the mules operation to the Australian sheep flock. Proceedings of the FLICS Conference; Launceston, Tasmania, Australia.

Dymock JJ, Forgie SA. 1995. Large-scale trapping of sheep blowflies in the northern North Island of New Zealand using insecticide-free traps. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 35:699-704.

[FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2002. Major Food and Agricultural Commodities and Producers. Available from:
www.fao.org/es/ess/top/commodity-jsp?commodity=987&lang=EN&year=2002.

Fell LR, Shutt DA. 1988. Salivary cortisol and behavioural indicators of stress in sheep. Proc Aust Soc Anim Prod 17:186-9.

Fell LR, Shutt DA. 1989. Behavioural and hormonal responses to acute surgical stress in sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22:283-94.

Fenton A, Wall R, French NP. 1998. The effect of farm management strategies on the incidence of sheep strike in Britain: a simulation analysis. Veterinary Parasitology 79:341-57.

Fisher P, Wall R, Ashworth JR. 1998. Attraction of the sheep blowfly, Lucilia sericata (Diptera: Calliphoridae) to carrion bait in the field. Bulletin of Entomological Research 88:611-6.

French N, Wall R, Cripps PJ, Morgan KL. 1994. Blowfly strike in England and Wales: The relationship between prevalence and farm and management factors. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 8:51-6.

Harrington SA, Steiner EC. 1993. Susceptibility of freshly-mulesed lambs to flystrike and the effectiveness of propetamphos as a wound dressing. Aust Vet J 70:190-1.

Higgs ARB, Norris RT, Baldock FC, Campbell NJ, Koh S, Richards RB. 1996. Contagious ecthyma in the live sheep export industry. Aust Vet J 74:215-220.

Jongman EC, Morris JP, Barnett JL, Hemsworth PH. 2000. EEG changes in 4-week-old lambs in response to castration, tail docking, and mulesing. Aust Vet J 78:339-43.

Kendrick KM, Da Costa AP, Leigh AE, Hinton MR, Peirce JW. 2001. Sheep don’t forget a face. Nature 414:165-6.

Keniry J, Bond M, Caple I, Gosse L, Rogers M. 2003 Dec. Livestock Export Review. Available from: www.affa.gov.au/corporate_docs/publications/pdf/animalplanthealth/keniry0104.pdf.

Leathwick DM, Heath ACG. 2001. Specialist forages—A role in flystrike management? Proceedings of the FLICS Conference; Launceston, Tasmania, Australia.

[MAF] New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 1996 Jul. Code of recommendations and minimum standards for the welfare of Sheep. Code of Animal Welfare No. 3 (Revised). ISBN 0-477-08550-4.

[MAF] New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 2002. Quarterly review of diagnostic cases. Surveillance 29(2):28.

Morley FHW, Johnstone IL. 1983. Mules operation—a review of development and adoption. In: Raadsma HW (Ed.). Sheep Blowfly and Flystrike in Sheep. Department of Agriculture NSW, Proc. 2nd Natl. Symp.; Sydney. pp 3-24.

Morris M. 2000. Ethical issues associated with sheep fly strike research, prevention, and control. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13:205-17.

Morris R, Richards B, Higgs T. 1990. The live sheep export industry. Journal of Agriculture—Western Australia 31:131-48.

Norris RT, Richards RB. 1989. Deaths in sheep exported by sea from Western Australia—analysis of ship Master’s reports. Aust Vet J 66:97-102.

Norris R, Richards B, Higgs T. 1990a. The live sheep export industry. Western Australia Department of Agriculture Journal of Agriculture 31(4):131-148.

Norris RT, McDonald CL, Richards RB, Hyder MW, Gittins SP, Norman GJ. 1990b. Management of inappetant sheep during export by sea. Aust Vet J 67:244-7.

Pope S. 1997. Preventing flystrike: Alternatives to mulesing? Collingwood: Australian and New Zealand Federation of Animal Societies, Inc. 33 p.

Raadsma HW. 1987. Flystrike control: An overview of management and breeding options. Wool Technology and Sheep Breeding 35:174-86.

Richards RB, Norris RT, Dunlop RH, McQuade NC. 1989. Causes of death in sheep exported live by sea. Aus Vet J 66:33-8.

Scobie D. 2004. Wrinkles lower productivity. AgResearch. Available from: www.merino.co.nz/Wrinkles.htm.

Scobie DR, O’Connell D, Bray AR, Cunningham P. 2002. Breech strike can be reduced by increased area of naturally bare skin around the perineum of lambs. Anim. Prod. Aust. 24:201-204.

Shutt DA, Fell LR, Connell R, Bell AK, Wallace CA, Smith AI. 1987. Stress-induced changes in plasma concentrations of immunoreactive ß-endorphin and cortisol in response to routine surgical procedures in lambs. Aust J Biol Sci 40:97-103.

Smith KE, Wall R. 1998. Suppression of the blowfly Lucilia sericata using odour-baited triflumuron-impregnated targets. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 12:430-7.

Strong G, Minchin L. Lambs to the Slaughter. The Age 2003 Sep 27. Available from: www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/26/1064083191426.html?from=storyrhs.

Tellam RL, Bowles VM. 1996. Control of blowfly strike in sheep: Current strategies and future prospects. International Journal for Parasitology 27:261-73.

Townend C. 1985. Pulling the wool. Marrickville: Hale & Iremonger Pty Limited. 157 p.

Wardhaugh KG, Morton R. 1990. The incidence of flystrike in sheep in relation to weather conditions, sheep husbandry, and the abundance of the Australian sheep blowfly Lucilia cuprina. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 41:1155-67.