HISTORY OF THE LWCC

IN THE BEGINNING IT WAS ALL ABOUT IMAGE – THE ROLE OF THE MEAT BOARD

Dr Michael Levien, Chairman of the Livestock Animal Welfare Association (LAWA), neither in his private capacity nor as an official of an animal welfare organisation was permitted access to the Pretoria abattoir, so he surreptitiously (and illegally) gained access via an unguarded gate to the adjacent Railways Yard. There he would take photographs with a telescopic lens of the very frequent acts of total insensitivity to the welfare of the livestock in their charge. Abattoir personnel, all too frequently, callously permitted animals to be subjected to conditions and procedures which permitted totally avoidable, and often very severe suffering, stress and even cruelty. There were occasions when even deliberate cruelty was perpetrated.

These photographs of reprehensible acts and unacceptable conditions were offered to the editors of local print media. Needless to say they were enthusiastically accepted and published. Eventually, the General Manager of the Meat Board, Dr Lombard demanded that the Chairman of LAWA attend a meeting with him.

Dr Lombard commenced the meeting by saying “Dr Levien, this damn nonsense has got to stop!” Dr Levien replied to with the words: “Yes sir, I agree. This damn nonsense has to stop!” After a few moments of silence, Dr Lombard enquired“What do you mean?” The answer was: “You cannot stop me from exposing the blatant cruelties and avoidable sufferings that livestock in transport are being subjected to or in the abattoir. The animal welfare domain is too entrenched and supported for them to be quietened. We are too strong. You cannot defeat us. But, I am not so naïve as to think that concern for the humane treatment and handling of slaughter animals in South Africa will make the whole of South Arica, vegetarian! You, the meat industry, are too strong! So I suggest we stop fighting each other. Neither of us can win such a fight!” After a few moments Dr Lombard thoughtfully enquired: “So, what do you suggest?” Dr Levien replied: “I suggest that, instead of our fruitlessly fighting each other, let us join forces and fight together. It can be a ‘win-win’ solution. From the industry, your needs can be profited by the scientifically established fact that the more humanely, within practical bounds, a slaughter animal is handled and slaughtered, the better will be the quality of the meat as well as its ’keeping quality’ (shelf-life). The meat industry will gain in profitability. Similarly, animal welfare will be satisfied that slaughter animals will be subjected to less suffering, stress and pain; hence a gain for animal welfare; hence a ‘win-win’ solution.” On agreeing that this made sense Dr Lombard enquired as to how this could be implemented. LAWA put the suggestion to him that a Liaison committee consisting of both elements, the meat industry and animal welfare be created. After a brief discussion it was mutually agreed that such a committee should consist of, as an initial minimum, the Meat Board, the South African Abattoir Corporation, veterinary services, animal welfare and Government representation. Dr Lombard immediately phoned and got agreement from representatives of the various bodies proposed. Dr Lombard proposed the name Livestock Welfare Coordinating Committee–and the Livestock Welfare Coordinating Committee here and then came into existence and has, not only survived, but has thrived in respect, effectiveness and success in its endeavours to promote the profitability and concerns of the livestock industries as well as the jointly promoted improvement in the welfare of the farm animals in South Africa. In addition, by the members of the two domains working together in mutual respect, interest and effort, a remarkable melding of conflicting procedures, activities and concerns has not only succeeded in bringing into being a better understanding and tolerance for the apparently divergent aims and objects, but a working amalgamation of the two sectors into an organisation that has achieved an overall improvement in the operations of the entire livestock industry.

Initially the LWCC concentrated on activities around abattoirs and has succeeded in achieving a significant reduction in the amount of pain, stress and suffering of slaughter animals in transport, handling and slaughter. Particularly in regard to cattle, this has been estimated to be a ninety percent (90%) improvement!

What is quite remarkable is the extent in terms of which such divergent elements such as representatives of organisations involved in the slaughtering of animals can work meaningfully in cooperation with NGOs representing animal welfare dedicated to the “saving of life” and the well-being of animals. How they can work hand-in-glove together with the common aim of reducing the suffering, pain and stress of the slaughter animal.

Due to very poor publicity by, and the antagonism of animal welfare authorities in the past the livestock and meat industries’ attitudes towards animal welfare issues were generally negative. However, Dr. Jan Lombard, then deputy GM of the Meat Board and others had realised that the bad publicity as result of Dr. Michael Levien’s photographic proof of cases of cruelties was detrimental to the public image of the livestock and meat industry and its most important product, red meat. The Livestock Welfare Coordinating Committee was established in August 1978. There were no formal minutes taken at the first and second LWCC meetings and there is no record of their dates. In the minutes of the third meeting dated 20 April 1979, a report on Meetings One and Two is attached. This report records Objectives and Procedures, Parties involved, and Decisions taken. The Committee was constituted as follows: Meat Board: Dr JH Lombard (Chair), Mr W de V de Wet (Alt); World Federation for the Protection of Animals: Dr M Levien; SA SPCA: Mrs M Cochran; Division of Veterinary Services: Dr J Coetzee, Dr KB Morze; Abattoir Corporation: Mr Pine Pienaar; The SA Agricultural Union: Mr JL van der Walt was added at the 3rd meeting. Mr HL (Pine) Pienaar left the Abattoir Corporation after the third meeting, while Mrs D Bernstein and Mr J Hornsfield joined Mrs MD Ball as SPCA representation.

The willingness of leaders in the livestock producer organisations to co-operate in this new effort was therefore especially heartening. Livestock farmers and meat organisations were represented on the Meat Board by their elected leaders. They were elected at their organisations’ annual national congresses which were their highest decisionmaking bodies. The leaders represented their organisations on the Meat Board and Meat Board Committees. Until 1997 the LWCC officially reported only to the Meat Board by submitting its minutes regularly to Board meetings where the welfare issues were explained and discussed. All organisations represented on the Meat Board became members of the LWCC also. The welfare message was effectively communicated back to the Board’s member organisations, eventually resulting in improved attitudes all round.

The Board’s successive General Managers, Drs Jan Lombard and Pieter Coetzee represented the Board on the LWCC and served as chairpersons for the LWCC from 1978 until 1992 when Dr Pieter Coetzee retired and Freek Tomlinson, the Board’s secretary, was appointed as the Board’s representative and was immediately elected to follow in Dr Coetzee’s footsteps as the LWCC’s chairperson. These men were also central participants in all Board meetings. This very fortunate high level platform in the Meat Board enabled LWCC chairpersons to positively influence the previously negative attitudes of industry leaders and to sort out animal welfare issues in the enclosed environment of the Meat Board. They were also fortunate to be able to rely on the Board’s own professional staff, including animal scientists, meat scientists, veterinarians, market researchers, translators, economists, home economists, minuting clerks etc, all of whom were able to make important contributions in one way or another. Some had the opportunity to become informed by the formidable Mrs Moira Ball, who was SPCA and later LAWA’s animal welfare inspector.

These were some of the extraordinary circumstances that made it possible to positively influence attitudes and a spirit of co-operation on livestock welfare matters. Without it the LWCC might not have been a success story.

Since its inception the LWCC had four chairmen: Dr Jan Lombard (1978 – 1982), Dr Pieter Coetzee (1982 – 1992), Mr Freek Tomlinson (1992 – 2009), Prof Gareth Bath (2009 – ). There were a number of secretaries that served the Committee. Until November 1997, when the Meat Board was disbanded, they were all Board personnel. Without consulting the archives, I can only recall with thanks the contributions of Dr Gustaf Klingbiel, Meat Scientist, Mr Philip Blom, Animal Scientist and Ms Annelize Esterhuizen, Market Researcher of the Board. For very many years after the Meat Board’s disbandment Mr Stoffel Matthis, retired, an ex-Animal Scientist of the Board who became Manager of SA Pork Producers Organisation when he represented that organisation on the LWCC, and who later years was an advertising consultant and head of a correspondence college, served the Committee with distinction as secretary. The minutes they produced of meetings of the LWCC and Work Groups are a rich source of knowledge wrt livestock welfare as well as this history of the LWCC.

There were many incidents and highlights in addition to the writing and finalising of twelve livestock welfare codes. Eg: (1) How did the LWCC and RPO manage to prevent the import of live sheep from Australia? This subject justifies a book on itself. There was an official visit to investigate the livestock carrying vessels in Australia, Dr Hym Ebedes’s dangerous and risky visit to Aqaba in Jordan, the secretive obtaining of records of New Zealand’s 15 years’ history of sea transport of sheep and what it revealed about disasters at sea. The battle to prevent other entrepreneurs to import live sheep to Durban. The NSPCA’s experiences on board vessels with consignments of cattle from Durban to Mauritius. The investigations on board the Niki T in Durban. The writing of the Code for Sea Transport. (2) The investigation into weighbridge regulations. (3) The success with the upright restrainer for the schechting of cattle. (4) The nightmarish negotiations with the Beth Din and two chief rabbi’s. (5) The Police Riot Squad’s invasion of Chamdor Abattoir that upset the members of LWCC tremendously. (6) The international uniqueness of an organization like the LWCC. The presentation to the WSPA civil society workshop in Brussels in 2004. The submission on the LWCC to a portfolio committee of the European parliament. (7) The international wake-up on livestock welfare. These are a few of the issues that quickly come to mind. It was hugely interesting.

MEMBERSHIP OF THE LWCC AND CONTRIBUTIONS BY MEMBER ORGANISATIONS

The founder members of the LWCC in 1978 were LAWA, represented by Dr Michael Levien, and the Meat Board, represented by its General Manager, Dr Jan Lombard. Dr Levien was a homeopath by profession and Dr Lombard an animal scientist and economist. The representatives of member organisations who joined later were all from top management, mostly their CEO’s or professionals in their employ. Certain member organisations disappeared from LWCC meetings after the 1994 change in government, but the livestock and meat industry’s organisations remained loyal and involved.

The list of member organisations appears in ADDENDUM 1.

THE NATIONAL DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (NDA)

The NDA, the national department that was responsible for the administration of the Animals Protection Act of 1962, was also requested to send representatives to the LWCC. However, there was no or little response from Directorate Veterinary Services until Dr Bigalke took an interest many years later. Mr Keith Ramsey of one of the Department’s directorates, who was a personal supporter of the Animal Anti-Cruelty League, was favourably disposed towards the LWCC too, but somehow could rarely attend LWCC meetings, but he did assist the LWCC with information and opinions wrt the matter of livestock identification (branding etc.). In the latter years The LWCC was blessed with the presence of Dr Zieg Meyer at some meetings.

MOIRA BALL AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS

I would like to mention Dr Levien, Dr Hym Ebedes, Ms Moira Ball, Renier van Dyk and other’s contributions on the history of the LWCC. The NSPCA’s Farm Animal Unit over the years had a number of very capable leaders who made valuable contributions to the LWCC and livestock welfare. The National Director, Mrs Marcelle Meredith, played a significant leadership role in livestock welfare, not only in South Africa, but also internationally.

FUNDING AND FUNCTIONING OF THE LWCC

Until 2009 the LWCC had no income whatsoever. Representatives’ cost of attending the quarterly meetings of the LWCC and work groups was carried by each organisation. From 1978 until November 1997 the Meat Board provided venues and catering for meetings as well as the administration. Very little other costs were incurred. Since the closure of the Meat Board the responsibility, including for the secretariat, was taken over by SA Meat Industry Company (SAMIC), followed by the Red Meat Producers Organisation (RPO). The successful functioning of the Committee rested on goodwill and the development of good relationships and trust between the parties. For more than three decades the LWCC functioned sustainably without a budget of its own and on a voluntary basis.

THE CONSTITUTION

The reviewing of its constitution seldom troubled the LWCC since it had no one but its members to report to and during the first thirty years had no budget or financial reporting responsibilities. The LWCC members were volunteers and were focussed on issues of livestock welfare and not bureaucratic necessities at that stage.

THE ROLE OF SUBMISSIONS AND MINUTES

Since the Meat Board’s representatives were in the chair and with its staff to support the agendas of meetings, the procedures were managed in the Meat Board manner with prepared written submissions for items on the agenda and with the agenda document provided to members in time for them to scrutinize before the meetings. This made the management of the meetings as well as the minuting and writing of resolutions much more effective. LWCC Members and their staff knew what was expected from them. Since the closing of the Meat Board many submissions became the responsibility of the Chairman who by then represented no organisation, but was nevertheless re-elected annually and, as a volunteer, funded his own costs.

THE WORST INCIDENCES OF SUFFERING BY LIVESTOCK IN SOUTH AFRICA

Stock thieves are the most brutal wrt the severe types of injuries and suffering caused to livestock. Stock theft results in probably the worst atrocities of all crime. Roughly 200 000 cases are reported annually and it increases by the year. Many cases probably go unreported to the police. One of the reasons being that the stolen animals were not identified by the owners in accordance with regulations under the Animal Identification Act, 2002 (Act 6 of 2002). Fortunately the National Stock Theft Unit was one of the police’s specialist units that survived when others were scrapped. However, they often catch up with stock thieves only after the acts of cruelties have been performed on the animals. A huge number of occurrence of cases with the worst mutilations and suffering by livestock are encountered in stock theft which qualifies stock theft as the worst incidences of cruelty and brutality to as well as suffering by livestock. By 2009 the LWCC had not produced a code for this problem. It was a criminal issue which the justice system failed to address effectively. And it became much too easy to steal livestock without consequences.

Veld fires, and especially runaway veld fires, can be disastrous in livestock welfare terms as well as financially to stock farmers when livestock cannot be removed timeously from a fire’s path. Injuries to animals can be so very severe that the quickest euthenasing of the worst suffering animals in the most humane manner are the only alternative. Each livestock farmer should have a disaster management plan and implement the best possible fire prevention measures suitable for his farm as well as conform to prescriptions in the National Veld and Forest Fire Act, 1998. Conditions of the Act are enforced by registered fire protection officers whose task it is to ensure that fire protection measures prescribed by the Act are complied with. Unfortunately, the prescriptions of this Act as well as the Disaster Management Act are disregarded in very many if not most municipalities in South Africa. By 2009 there were no code or manual for the handling of the veld fire problem. The NSPCA who were in the forefront of such disasters drew up proper guidelines which were made available to members and the public. In the case of veld fires there is no cure. Only preventative measures by farmers and the farming communities and organisations like local Fire Protection Associations (FPA’s) are effective.

Drought is a second often occurring natural disaster in many farming areas in South Africa, but in which livestock welfare organisations cannot play a significant role to alleviate the consequent suffering of the animals. Government also plays an almost insignificant role. It is left to compassionate individuals and organisations in the industry itself to contribute and transport feed to drought stricken areas.

Ritual slaughter and other ritual procedures are protected under the freedom of religion clauses in SA’s Constitution as well as other Acts of Government. Much suffering are caused to livestock due to inhumane ritual procedures. The Zulu King’s First Fruit Festival event happens annualy in Kwa Zulu Natal where the King gets his men of age to prove their manhood by basically strangling a bull to death. In this case a big effort is made by the organisers to prevent the presence of animal welfare inspectors, thus swarting the NSPCA’s serious efforts to monitor the procedures. They are protected by the country’s Constitution and other Acts of Government. By 2009 little had been achieved by the LWCC or its members wrt ritual procedures in the informal sector. The commercial sector was where the LWCC could be more effective. The commercial sector’s Kosher and Halal slaughter procedures are covered under separate headings in this history.

The informal slaughter, especially in the case of sheep of which approximately 60% are slaughtered informally in townships, was and still remains a huge challenge. The idea of providing facilities that the LWCC called slabattoirs for township communities was abandoned after the then representative organisation of municipalities had disappeared from LWCC meetings when the new democratic South African Government took over. There has never been follow-up communications with the new South African central municipal authority, SALGA (the South African Local Government Authority). It was mostly left to NSPCA who, on its own initiative, provided sharp knives for informal township slaughtering when and where possible. It remains a hopelessly huge challenge.

THE LWCC WORK GROUPS THAT WROTE THE CODES

The LWCC was most effective in the commercial sector where proper organisational structures existed in the livestock industry and related sectors as well as in livestock welfare, albeit with LAWA and NSPCA’s Farm Animal Unit as the only two animal welfare organisations concerned with livestock. For much of the time the LWCC’s focus was on the drafting, discussion and finalising of the welfare codes, the responsibility of which was delegated to work groups on which member organisations that were concerned with the specific subjects served. The work groups’ members always included one or both of LAWA and the NSPCA’s Farm Animal Unit. In the final instance it was always the LWCC’s meetings with attending members that had the final say on the codes’ contents.

THE FIRST LIVESTOCK WELFARE CODE: CODE OF PRACTICE FOR THE HANDLING AND TRANSPORT OF LIVESTOCK

It took considerable time to settle down. In the early stages the LWCC handled issues as they developed. The trust between representatives of organisations on the various sides of the livestock welfare spectrum improved slowly. Discussions began on the developing of a code for the transport and handling of livestock. A work group was appointed. When the transport code was eventually agreed upon in detail by all the parties involved, it was printed in A5 format by the Meat Board’s printing division at the Board’s costs. Fax technology came later. Personal computers were not in use yet. There was no internet yet and member organisations all joined in the free distribution of the code in hard copy. Eventually there was good understanding, relationships and trust between the various entities. Consequently the chances of the LWCC’s long-term survival had improved.

CONTRIBUTING TO THE PROPER DESIGN OF LIVESTOCK ROAD CARRIERS

Directions for the proper design of vehicles transporting livestock were included by the LWCC in its Code of Practice for the Handling and Transport of Livestock. The issues it addressed included, inter alia, non-slip flooring of vehicles, high sidewalls, adequate ventilation and protection from exhaust gasses, loading and off-loading openings and gates, materials used, suitable bedding, suitable partitions for loading areas exceeding 3 meters, recommended floor space per animal, sufficient water supply for emergencies, roof covering to protect pigs from direct sunlight and the maintenance of vehicles. The consequent improvements in new specialised livestock carrying trucks were, in some cases, even more than the LWCC had wished for at the time.

THE BATTLE AGAINST THE INSURING OF LOSSES IN TRANSPORT

The initial reaction on the introduction of the code was disheartening until the negative role of insurance was recognised. Insurance policies provided cover for financial losses in the handling and transport of livestock. The Meat Board subsequently prohibited service providers (its agents) that were registered with the Board from insuring such losses. Big insurance firms over which the Meat Board had no influence stepped into the breach and became the providers of insurance against livestock losses in transport. But they were then covering the livestock transporters and not the producers against losses because producers had shifted the onus for losses in transport onto the transporters together with the onus for insurance cover. The sickening practice of loading dead or injured animals with consignments of livestock to the abattoirs meanwhile slowly abated. When the Board managed to further discourage the practice of insurance by introducing more regulations the producers and transporters found cover with Lloyds of London. Again it was discouraging. However, the battle was not lost. Insurance was an expensive cost item and unnecessary when losses did not occur. It dawned on most participants that a more professional approach to the handling and transport resulted in zero livestock losses and improved profits. It also implied that livestock welfare was mainly a matter of good management resulting in improved profits. There was really no more need to insure except for unforeseen traffic accidents.

THE ASTONISHING RESULTS OF THE FIRST CODE

In the case of livestock slaughtering the Meat Board’s functions focused on the nine Abakor abattoirs as well as the large Goodwood Abattoir of the Cape Town Municipality. Detailed records were kept of livestock arriving dead at these abattoirs (DOA’s) as well as of all emergency slaughter and bruising cutaways. These were the losses that the industry previously insured against. These statistics were

also indications of the standard of welfare in the handling and transport of livestock. In 1989 Dr Gustav Klingbiel, meat scientist of the Meat Board, analized the trend in these figures and came to the conclusion that the losses due to DOA’s, emergency slaughter and bruisings had diminished by 80% in the seven years since the acceptance of the Code for the Handling and Transport of Livestock in 1982. Producers’ financial savings, and its beneficial effect on profits, were enormous.

CONTINUING THE PROMOTION OF HUMANE TRANSPORT

During the mid 90’s Mr Jerry Gluckman, staunch supporter of the LWCC and representative of the Meat Board on the LWCC at the time, printed a 300 by 800cm sticker for livestock carrying trucks at his own expense. It carried the LWCC’s emblem with the words in red on a white background, “WE SUPPORT HUMANE TRANSPORT.” The LWCC’s member organisations distributed it to feedlots and auction yards where transporters were requested to attach it to their vehicles’ doors or rear panels. Some did.

THE INVESTIGATION INTO WEIGHBRIDGE REGULATIONS AND DELAYS DURING VEHICLE INSPECTIONS

During 2002 law enforcement in respect of the overloading of goods vehicles increased. All stoppages of livestock carriers resulted in stress to animals due to a number of factors. The stoppages included vehicle inspections and weighbridge procedures which could result in very long delays if a carrier was found to be overloaded, even only when a single axle was over the axle limit. (At some weighbridges the axles of a vehicle were weighed separately.) The Police Stock Theft Unit also stopped and investigated vehicles’ consignments, animal health inspections were performed on consignments of livestock by veterinary authorities and import clearances at borders involved attending to very many formalities and documents. All of these involved stoppages.

Mr Jack Mills, Chairman of the SA Livestock Transporters’ Association, visited the LWCC from the Western Cape and provided insights into the livestock transporters experiences and problems in respect of livestock welfare issues. Much insight was also gleaned from attendances of meetings with the CSIR’s transport specialist unit who advised the Department of Transport.

Even before writing to the Minister of Transport, the LWCC had written to the MEC of Transport of the Western Cape, Mr Bester, pointing out that his officials did not recognise the fact that animals were sentient beings and that procedures and delays during their inspections caused unnecessary suffering of animals which amounted to cruelty, which was prosecutable under the Animals Protection Act, 1962.

The LWCC’s Transport Work Group’s investigation was followed with consultations with the CSIR and negotiations with the Department of Transport after which the Minister of Transport was requested to amend the 2000 “Guidelines for Law Enforcement in Respect of the Overloading of Goods Vehicles.” The LWCC recommended that livestock carriers should never be stopped and detained for inspection during the heat of the day. It was requested that the provinces’ records of overloading offences by livestock carriers be analyzed in order to determine its significance. It was also recommended that repeated inspections of the same vehicle by traffic officials should be eliminated and that vehicles with consignments of animals should only be parked or offloaded when proper facilities were available. However, the LWCC also recommended that the Animals Protection Act be applied in cases of overloading and that only when the vehicle’s offloading destination had been reached prosecution for cruelty to animals of the owner, contractor or driver should be initiated.

Whether any Departmental actions and communications resulted from the LWCC’s communications is unknown. But the stream of complaints about unnecessary stoppages and delays of livestock carrying vehicles in the heat of the day had dried up.

MOVEMENT OF ANIMALS AND ANIMALS PRODUCE ACT

The Concept Bill for the Movement of Animals and Animals Produce Act came to the attention of the LWCC. Although the Act’s title may lead to expectations with respect to livestock welfare issues, the act’s main purpose was to combat crimes concerning animals – stock theft being the most obvious. However, the LWCC found only a single item relating directly to livestock welfare and that was: “no animals or animal produce may be received and delivered by an auctioneer, agent, skin and hide trader, abattoir personnel and processing plant between 18:00 and 07:00, unless otherwise prescribed.” Yet, in view of the fact that the worst cases of mutilations and suffering by livestock are encountered in stock theft, the whole of the Act impacts on livestock welfare.

LONG DISTANCE TRANSPORT OF LIVESTOCK

From an animal welfare perspective long distance commercial livestock transport operations in South Africa seemed to be more competently managed than many short run transport operations. In 2005 the LWCC advised the IMS that where third world economies were concerned, no costly guidelines regarding type of vehicle, its construction, air conditioning, etc could possibly be applied affectively in the informal sector of livestock industries. However, all other sensible guidelines were applicable in all land transport.

TRANSPORT OF LIVESTOCK BY TRAIN

Abakor’s new Pyramid Abattoir was to replace the old Pretoria municipal abattoir. It was of the most modern design, even with respect to the offloading of livestock from trains. But other than an experimental consignment no more train consignments of livestock were received by abattoirs. The countrywide livestock transport industry had switched to the more efficient road transport over the very brief period between the design of Pyramid abattoir and its final construction.

EVENTUALLY, BY 2009, THERE WERE TWELVE CODES

There are no serious conflicts of interest, aims or objectives between animal welfare organisations and the meat industry for there is a vast amount of evidence available which indicates that the majority of systems which are most humane are also the most cost effective and yield the most economically viable and quality meat product. From an animal science point of view no conflict exists between the humane treatment of animals and good animal husbandry. Losses are prevented and production efficiencies enhanced. Unquestionably, therefore, the benefits of high standards of livestock welfare include profitability. Humane handling of livestock was also found to be beneficial to the quality and shelf life of meat.

Code of practice for the handling and transport of livestock

This was the first livestock welfare code that was completed after contributions had been considered and thorough attention were given to every detail by all organisations concerned. The aim with the code was to set norms for the acceptable treatment of livestock. The code was approved by all members of the LWCC as well as by the organisations they represented and who were affected by the code. The Code was revised in 2000 and legally edited by the National Department of Agriculture’s Sub-directorate Legal Services.

Code of practice for the handling of livestock at sale yards and vending sites

The procedures put forward in this Code included certain conditions applicable to sale yards, vending sites as well as vehicles used as mobile selling points. The Code set out clear norms for the interpretation of various provisions of the Animals Protection Act. The person in charge of an auction sale or vending site was responsible to apply the norms and procedures.

A guideline for the use of prodders and stunning devices

The contents of the guideline were intended as practical guidance for the Meat and Abattoir Industries. The principal consideration when deciding upon the best system for handling and slaughtering of livestock at an abattoir was the welfare of the animals and ease of handling of the animals as well as the effect a method of slaughter had on the quality and shelflife of the meat.

Duties and functions of abattoir managers regarding the welfare of animals

It cannot be denied that there is often cruelty involved in the handling and slaughtering of livestock. Structural defects to facilities, training of staff and deficiencies in the basic hygiene standards have to be attended to. In 1995 the LWCC deemed it necessary to appoint a work group for the drafting of a code for the use of abattoir managers. The code was finalised and approved in the following year.

Livestock welfare manual for supervisors at abattoirs

These guidelines were drafted by the Livestock Animal Welfare Association for the LWCC whose other members contributed advice and comments. The objectives were to assist abattoir management and personnel in understanding livestock welfare and to replace unacceptable livestock handling practices with correct, more humane practices by way of training of supervisors and personnel and by applying the guidelines in their abattoirs. This livestock welfare manual was finalised in August 2000.

The South African pig welfare code

This code of practice was drawn up by representatives of the South African Pork Producers Organisation, the Pig Veterinary Society, the National Council of SPCA’s, the Livestock Animal Welfare Association, the Meat Board and ABAKOR under the auspices of the Livestock Welfare Coordinating Committee and was intended to be a supplementary set of rules that in no way superseded or contradicted existing legislation concerning the care and handling of pigs or the provisions of meat hygiene regulations. The code was based on the knowledge and technology available at the time of publication with the provision that it may need to be changed in the light of future knowledge. It did not replace the need for experience and common sense in the husbandry of animals. The code was based on the belief that pigs should be afforded the five freedoms of Webster.

Code of practice for the transport, handling and slaughter of ostriches

The code was compiled in 2001 by the South African Ostrich Business Chamber consisting of the National Ostrich Processors of South Africa and the South African Ostrich Producers Organisation. They worked in conjunction with the National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the ARC-Animal Nutrition and Animal Products Institute. The code was compiled as an objective guide for the welfare of all commercialy produced ostriches in South Africa and to lay down the accepted norms of the industry, with regards to handling, transportation and slaughter of ostriches. The guidelines did not necessarily apply in situations where ostriches may be transported within the wildlife industry, as different parameters may apply. Persons working with ostriches had to realise there responsibility to prevent any form of avoidable suffering. To prevent unnecessary suffering everyone involved in the ostrich industry had to be fully conversant with the handling, transporting and slaughtering requirements of ostriches.

Code of practice for the welfare of dairy cattle

The Code was drawn up by the NSPCA’s Farm Animal Unit and was revised in February 2003. It was generally accepted by the LWCC. The code was based on the knowledge and technology available at the time of publication. It does not replace the need for experience and common sense in the husbandry of animals. A high degree of caring, responsible management and stockmanship is vital to ensure good animal welfare in the dairy industry. Managers and stockmen had to be thoroughly trained, skilled and competent in animal husbandry and welfare, and had to have a good working knowledge of their system and the livestock under their care.

Code for the transport of cattle in containers on open decks of vessels

The objective of this code was to take the necessary actions to ensure the humane handling of cattle when transported in containers on open decks of vessels by setting norms for the acceptable treatment of the cattle. Representatives of NSPCA’s Farm Animal Unit, LAWA and the LWCC’s Chairman spent time on board the Nicky T in the Port of Durban to collect information and impressions before writing this code. However, the type of vessel used to transport live cattle to Mauritius eventually changed, necessitating a new code.

Guidelines for the transport of animals by sea adapted from the OIE guiding principles for use in South Africa

The Code for the transport of animals by sea which was adapted from the OIE’s guidelines was drafted by the Department of Agriculture’s Directorate for Animal Aqua Production Systems by August 2004. Once the decision to transport animals by sea was made, the welfare of animals during their transport became paramount and became the joint responsibility of all people involved. The roles of each of those responsible had to be defined. High standards of animal welfare are not only important legally, but also have direct economic benefits. Without good stockmanship, the animals’ welfare can never be adequately protected. The guidelines were intended to encourage all those responsible for its implementation to adopt the highest standards of husbandry, care and stockmanship.

Code of practice for shechita

Shechita is achieved by swiftly severing the trachea, oesophagus, carotid arteries and jugular veins of an animal. However, it has often been reported locally and overseas that cattle have stood up and walked for some considerable distance before dropping. The slaughter procedures were not humane and had to be improved. Some of the issues were taken up with the Beth Din. The Beth Din’s opinion was that the LWCC’s Kosher Committee and the abattoiur industry, and not themselves, had to solve the welfare problems. The Code was consequently drafted by LAWA and approved by the LWCC after serious discussion and amendment.

Kosher slaughter of sheep (shechita)

In spite of the assurances that Shochetim are trained, skilled and qualified in schechita, it has happened that sheep have thrashed about and even jumped off the table after Shechita. This Code was deemed necessary by the LWCC and also drafted by the Kosher Work Group, then amended and approved by the LWCC.

THE PRODUCT BENEFITS OF LIVESTOCK WELFARE

Ralph Hirzel, an animal scientist of the Meat Board, by his study of the meat sciences became the father of meat science in South Africa. The Meat Board benefitted tremendously from this knowledge. He was still alive when the Meat Board built the Meat Centre at the Agricultural Research Council’s Animal Nutrition and Animal Products Institute at Irene. The LWCC Chairman was the project leader representing the Meat Board at the time and this also benefitted the LWCC. Numbers of the Centre’s scientists studied on Meat Board bursaries or were sent on research missions and conferences overseas. Consequently there were good relationships and research knowledge was easily obtained including proof that humane handling of livestock with least stress experienced by them was beneficial to the quality and shelf life of meat. For a long period the Institute’s Meat Centre was a member of the LWCC.

ABATTOIRS: THE ROLEPLAYERS WRT PROPER HANDLING AND SLAUGHTERING

Not only consumers of red meat, but most peoples’ eyes are focused on abattoirs for signs of ill treatment and suffering of animals. There were some 285 red meat abattoirs slaughtering 11 million animals annualy in South Africa, mostly belonging to municipalities that could not afford the improvements required by new acts of Government. Most of them had to be closed down or privatised. The Government attempted to solve the crises by establishing the Abattoir Corporation that later became incorporated as a public company, Abakor, who was a member of the LWCC. It originally took over nine of the largest municipal abattoirs and either upgraded or replaced them at huge cost. Abakor made significant contributions to the improvement of livestock welfare at these abattoirs in terms of design as well as with the keeping, handling and slaughtering of livestock. The new Pyramid Abattoir outside Pretoria had the most modern design, even with respect to the offloading of livestock from trains, as mentioned earlier. When the new Government closed the Meat Board and Abakor then had to apply for liquidation the abattoir industry became wholly privatized. There now are 432 abattoirs slaughtering cattle, sheep and pigs, many of them vertically integrated with feedlots and red meat wholesalers. The South African Feedlot Association (SAFA) is also a member of the LWCC and made significant contributions in decision making on some issues.

Another member of the LWCC, the Red Meat Abattoir Association (RMAA), has as its main aim the provision of training to all red meat abattoirs in South Africa. Very many of its representatives’ contributions are incorporated in LWCC decisions and codes.

Both the livestock welfare member organizations of the LWCC, LAWA and the Farm Animal Unit of the NSPCA, had trained inspectors who visited abattoirs and livestock sale yards on a regular basis to inspect, train staff and advise managers wrt welfare matters. With their expert knowledge and insight both made continuous invaluable contributions in the LWCC’s abattoir work group and in the LWCC meetings wrt problem solving and the writing of codes.

The livestock welfare focus on Abattoirs paid off well in the organized commercial sector of industry. There remained huge challenges in the less formal and informal livestock slaughtering sector.

THE EFFORT TO ESTABLISH A GAME AND WILDLIFE WELFARE COMMITTEE

In the early 1990’s it became clear to individuals like Drs Levien and Ebedes, both representatives on the LWCC, that the game and wildlife industry were in dire straits wrt the handling and transport of animals. Mortalities as high as fifty per cent in the catching, holding, loading and transport of game and wild animals were experienced frequently. Mr Tomlinson agreed to assist them in an attempt to establish a Coordinating Wildlife and Game Welfare Association similar to the LWCC. Representatives of large national parks, private game reserves and specialist veterinarians met in the Meat Board’s facilities. After the third meeting Mr Tomlinson stood back and Dr Daan Opperman, CEO of Vleissentraal, took over the chair. Eventually the attempt to permanently establish the Game and Wildlife Welfare Committee failed, mostly due to the divergence in the catching, holding, loading and transport of different species of animals. More recently the improvement of the welfare of game was attended to by the SABS with its specialised work committees that advise on the writing of SANS standards for the handling and transport of game.

THE EFFORT TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL FORUM FOR ANIMAL WELFARE, NAMELY THE ANIMAL WELFARE COALITION

At some stage the Animal Anti-Cruelty League (AA) was also represented on the LWCC due to a single senior inspector of the League who was enthusiastic about livestock. When he later emigrated to become involved with alligator welfare in the USA the AA lost intererest in livestock welfare and the LWCC. However, during that period an idea developed with the livestock welfare organisations that a need existed for the establishing of a national forum for animal welfare with representation also by animal rightist organisations. This attempt also failed due to the animal rightist representative, Mr Steve Smith’s statement that animal rightists would never agree with the animal welfare approach to animals because they were totally opposed to man’s interference with animals in any way. He walked out of the meeting.

THE ANIMAL RIGHTIST INFLUENCE

At some stage the organisation, Beauty Without Cruelty South Africa, launched an effective advertising campaign against the fur industry in South Africa. It had a devastating economic effect on especially Karakul farming in the Northern Cape when demand and pelt prices declined as a result of the campaign. However, it certainly helped to highten the awareness of all involved in the livestock industry about sensitivities on animal welfare issues in the consumer market. There was a positive spinoff as far as the LWCC was concerned because of the positive effect it had on perspectives and attitudes of leaders not only in the livestock industry. Attitudes wrt livestock welfare and the LWCC strengthened. Beauty Without Cruelty and animal rightists in general, in contrast, lost any remaining sympathies in industry. In the extensive Kalahari farming areas karakul farming for pelt production initially made way for ostrich farming and later Dorper sheep.

It is generally animal rightists’ objective to “have animals recognised as sentient beings with legal rights.” Farmers of livestock are very aware of the fact that their animals are sentient beings. In livestock welfare we recognised and acknowledged the animals’ rights by writing codes for the handling, transport, slaughter and farm procedures of the various species. In the writing of the codes the natural behaviour and needs of the animals are basic. And in later years these codes were adapted to SANS standards with more authority behind it than codes. In the case of standards for livestock the SABS’ committees consist mostly of members of the LWCC.

THE ANIMAL RIGHTIST INFLUENCE

THE FIVE FREEDOMS OF ANIMALS BY PROF WEBSTER

The LWCC accepted the five freedoms of animals drafted by Prof. John Webster of the University of Bristol as a generally accepted constructive approach of man’s dominion over animals.

WELFARE OF ANIMALS IS BIBLICAL

Source: “Proof that kindness, compassion and the prevention of cruelty to animals is a Biblical concept” by Annelize Esterhuizen, 1996

During 1996 Annelize Esterhuizen, Market Researcher of the Meat Board and then secretary of the LWCC, embarked on a unique project to establish what the Bible said with regard to the welfare of animals. The result of her study was a 24-page document to which other LWCC members, including Dr Hym Ebedes and Mr Freek Tomlinson, also contributed. Other contributors were Messrs Rihan Esterhuizen and Colin Berkow. It is entitled: “Proof that kindness, compassion and the prevention of cruelty to animals is a Biblical concept.” Only hard copies of the document still exist. After the disbandment of the Meat Board in 1997 contact with Annelize was lost. This important work is from time to time being expanded upon by Freek Tomlinson. According to the Bible animal welfare has a long history and was a responsibility conferred onto mankind by God. Most Bible believers take it to heart.

ATTITUDES OF SOUTH AFRICAN AUTHORITIES WRT LIVESTOCK WELFARE

Probably because of difficulties originating between the Meat Board and the Director of Veterinary Services, Dr Jan Coetzee, relations between the LWCC and Dr Coetzee were also strained. It was difficult to communicate effectively with Veterinary Services during these years. Its representatives’ attendance and contributions at meetings of the LWCC were sorely missed.

With regard to the attitudes of politicians, the first two Government ministers of Agriculture of the new democratic order since 1994, Dr Kraai van Niekerk and Mr Derek Hanekom, did not have to be convinced about the importance of livestock welfare in agriculture.

At some stage at the turn of the century there were efforts to bring livestock welfare to the attention of the then Minister of Agriculture, Thoko Didiza, in order to generate interest, understanding and co-operation from her Department. Afterwards cognisance was taken that representations to the minister for an interview were laughed off and the LWCC referred to as “bunny huggers.”

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) was the most important international policymaker wrt the international trade also of live animals. South Africa’s ambassador in Geneve was South Africa’s representative at the WTO where Livestock welfare matters had been held over from one negotiation round to the next to be attended to. At a Civil Society Workshop in Brussels in 2004 LWCC’s chairman was asked by leaders of the Eurogroup: “Why does the South African councillor joke about animal welfare?”

What the LWCC had achieved in its first two and a half decades had happened notwithstanding the disregard from important political leaders and too many Government officials. There were no new policies to assist with promoting livestock welfare. At this very moment the Animals Protection Act, 1962 (Act 71 of 1962) is already 52 years old. The Performing Animals Protection Act, 1935 (Act No 24 of 1935) is 81 years old. Respectively they are 20 and 44 years older then the next oldest agricultural act of Government, namely the Veterinary and Para-veterinary Professions Act, 1982 (Act No 19 of 1982). These ages reflect on Government’s very long disregard of animal welfare. (See ADDENDUM 4)

The LWCC with its codes were very effective, but mainly in commercial agriculture. With respect to Government’s land reform programs there will be many new challenges. Due to livestock welfare’s importance in the economic survival of beneficiaries in land reform’s livestock farming sector Government will have a much bigger responsibility. Whether it was up to the challenge or interested was not yet visible during LWCC’s first thirty years. The National Emerging Red Meat Producers Organisation (NERPO), a mostly inactive member of the LWCC in the past, will have to become involved for the sake of the economies and sustainability of the emerging farmers’ livestock production, if not for the animals’ welfare.

SHEEP TRANSPORTED FROM SOUTH AMERICA TO THE MIDDLE EAST

(Source: KEBAB, Meat Board, July 1994)

In mid-1994 sheep carcases spilled out of the sea onto the beaches of Scarborough, Llundudno, Sandy Bay and White Sands (Witsand) in the Western Cape. An Uruguayan sheep carrier, El Cordero, had passed by with 35 000 Uruguyan sheep to the Persian Gulf after bunkering first at Cape Town. Fishing vessels had already encountered numbers of drifting carcases 40 sea miles South West of Cape Town. When NSPCA inspectors boarded and inspected the vessel in Cape Town, they had found 25 dead sheep on Board. El Cordero’s master informed them that as many as 300 normally died on board during a consignment. Information gained from later studies on the subject indicated that the figure he gave was probably a huge understatement of normal mortality on the consignments that had to cross the Atlantic ocean from West to East and then the Indian ocean from South to North, crossing the very hot and humid equator and then passing through either the Red Sea or the Persian Gulf. The vessel had 9 decks on top and an unknown number below. Eventually, and we believe it was all due to the attention that the NSPCA focussed on the vessels by boarding and inspecting the carriers when bunkering in South African ports, most vessels with consignments of live sheep from South America, including many from Argentine, began avoiding bunkering in Cape Town and other South African ports. They gave South Africa a wide berth on their way to their Mid-East destinations. However, the bunkering of these vessels from South America made South African animal welfare organisations aware of the international mass transport of livestock by sea.

A SUMMARY OF TRANSPORT OF LIVESTOCK BY SHIP TO OVERSEAS DESTINATIONS FOR SLAUGHTER PURPOSES

Considering the very small role that the transport of livestock by ship plays in the overall livestock welfare scenario in South Africa, an enormous effort and time was spent on the problem. The issue came to the LWCC’s attention when Durban importers in 1994 applied to the National Department of Agriculture for a permit to import live sheep for slaughter, with the objective to supply in the demand for “hot meat.” Pressures for import permits increased in 1995. The matter was consequently investigated by a fact finding mission of the South African Minister of Agriculture, Dr Kraai van Niekerk, in 1995. The mission included representatives of animal welfare organisations. Dr Hym Ebedes went on behalf of the LWCC, sponsored by LAWA.

The main reason the LWCC viewed the matter very seriously was the huge threat it presented to animal welfare because of the high risk of suffering that was revealed in statistics of mortality, disasters and the complexity of the issues. The LWCC’s study’s consequent revelations might have had a beneficial effect on livestock welfare in the international trade of live slaughter stock by ship to overseas destinations. The revelations were an embarassment to the trade, the industry and governments and roleplayers involved in it. It therefore justifies more than average attention in this contribution.

DR HYM EBEDES'S DANGEROUS AND RISKY VISIT TO AQABA IN JORDAN

After the mission’s visit in Australia Dr Ebedes spent some time there on literature research of the live trade by ship of livestock in Australian libraries. He concluded that it was very important that the condition of the sheep loaded in Australia be observed when the consignment arrived at their destination in Aqaba, Jordan. Consequently he phoned the LWCC chairman about his observations and conviction and offered to undertake the mission on behalf of the LWCC. It required that he flew back to South Africa, receive the necessary documentation, tickets, money and clean clothes at Johannesburg airport and fly out to Israel immediately. He then had to reach Eilat on the Gulf of Aqaba, cross the Israel/Jordanian border into Aqaba and enter the port of Aqaba in time before the Danny F2’s consignment of sheep were unshipped. The acquiring of Meat Board funding and Ministerial approval for an overseas visit by the Department of Agriculture normally took much longer than six weeks. In this case all approvals and arrangements miraculously happened in a single day, which we took as a sign that God was involved in the project. On that same day the Agricultural Department’s Directorate of Veterinary Services also managed to arrange through the Jordanian Veterinary Services for Dr Ebedes to board the Danny F2. It was a Friday, the Muslim holy day. If any part of the procedures had to wait for the Monday it would have been too late. The Danny F2 would have disembarked its consignment before anybody could reach it.

As it happened, Dr Ebedes boarded the vessel in the port of Aqaba and immediately began videoing his observations of a disaster: emaciated, dying and dead sheep on board. The ship’s master apprehended him in the act, conviscated Dr Ebedes’ passport as well as the video camera that dr Levien had lent him. During the time of his interrogation by the ship’s master Dr Ebedes gleaned more information about the disaster, the signs of which he had observed. A day later his passport and the video camera (now with a broken lense) were returned to him, but without the videos. Nevetheless, Dr Ebedes’ written and verbal reports when he returned to South Africa were damning.

All the reports by welfare associations represented on the South African ministerial fact finding mission to Australia and the dangerous follow up in Aqaba in 1995 by Dr Ebedes made important contributions to the subject. It had revealed that the international trade had resulted in cruelty to livestock, destruction of the asset due to high mortalities and shipping disasters, unethical welfare practices and unethical business practices. It also revealed that there were disasters of huge proportions that were never reported and of which the mortality figures were unnoticable in reporting by the trade to governments, casting doubt on the correctness of all published statistics.

Dr Ebedes, after his return, authored a revealing confidential report, “Investigation into the possibilities of live sheep importation to South Africa from Western Australia. Fact finding mission to Australia and Jordan, August/September 1995.”

After the reports were accepted by the LWCC it, and the threat to expose the live trade of slaughter stock by ship, was used on a number of occasions to scare off many new applicants of import permits. The RPO, member of the LWCC, who constantly warned any Cabinet Ministers involved with the granting of import permits about the risk of importing Scapie, a disease of sheep related to Madcow disease in cattle, had been very effective. The efforts to import live sheep for slaughter from Australia never bore fruit. We also are of the opinion that the exposure of the poor state of affairs in the trade contributed to significant improvements in the welfare standards in the trade during the past decade.

The combined efforts of the National Dept of Agriculture, LAWA, LWCC, NSPCA and RPO prevented the import of live sheep from Australia for slaughter in South Africa.

(Note: In the case of Government’s participation in the mission to Australia it was suspected that Government’s innitiative was mainly for protectionist reasons i.e. protection of not only animal health, but also the South African sheep industry’s economy.)

SOUTH AFRICAN EXPORT OF LIVE CATTLE BY SHIP FOR SLAUGHTER IN MAURITIUS

See photographs taken on board the NikiT in the port of Durban, 1999.

By 1999 South Africa had for some years already been supplying Mauritius with live cattle for slaughter in Mauritius. The livestock were carried above deck on board the Niki T at the time the LWCC became involved. The consignments were accompanied by an inspector of the NSPCA, Ms Celeste Houseman, who became a valuable representative of the NSPCA on the LWCC. During the history of the trade until then, only one animal had reportedly died at sea. In certain consignments the cattle transported in this way even gained weight. The NSPCA recommended that a code for the transport of cattle by ship be developed.

The reason Mauritius imported live cattle to be slaughtered by themselves was because their Muslim judicial authority believed that their South African brethrens’ slaughter procedures did not comply with the strict Islamic requirements. A member of the LWCC, Dr Gerhard Neethling of the Red Meat Abattoir Association, visited Mauritius to investigate the abattoir conditions and slaughter practices there. His information was negative. The abattoir was not operating as intended by the previous French colonial authorities who made a gift of the new abattoir at the time of Mauritius’ independence from France. The Mauritians’ Halal slaughter procedures happened outside the abattoir in an almost primitive procedure.

That same year, 1999, the LWCC embarked on the writing of a code for the transport of live cattle by ship. In order to become properly informed on the subject the work group’s members assigned with the task visited the Port of Durban and observed the procedures of erecting a container feedlot, so to speak, on top of the vessel, the Niki T. The observations continued from Saturday 4 Sept 1999 until Tuesday 7 Sept 1999 when the cattle were eventually loaded. After this extraordinary outing it was possible for the members to draft and submit the code. Years later, after the South African traders’ changed to the transport of cattle below deck in more functional vessels that protected the animals more effectively against the effects of storms at sea, it was decided on recommendation of the NSPCA, to adopt and adapt the new OIE code that had been modified to South Africa’s needs by the NSPCA. In effect, the feeding and watering of the cattle by the vessel’s staff were replaced by less reliable automated machines. Wind ventilation was replaced by less reliable motorised ventilators. In some previous disasters at sea the failures of machines were the causes.

THE SKIPSTAT DOCUMENT, A BRIEF SUMMARY

Sheep transported from New Zealand and Australia by ship to the Middle East

Source: “A review of some data available on the welfare of slaughter stock transported by ship, 21 May 2001 by FR Tomlinson”

The study was conducted on behalf of the LWCC and was based on the fact that mortality is a statistical indicator of suffering. The data of New Zealand’s 15 years’ participation in the trade of live sheep by ship was obtained by a friend, John Clarke, expert in hide, skin and leather standards at the SABS and who visited Australia and New Zealand for a vacation.

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), now the World Trade Organisation (WTO), at some time decided to have the customs import tariffs of live animals bound at zero rates in order to benefit the trade in breeding stock for international stock improvement purposes. Breeding stock were normally transported singly or in small numbers in crates in a very humane manner and handled with great care. Technology in the transfer of genetic material changed significantly obviating the need for international transport of live breeding stock. But the WTO tariff arrangements had created significant comparative profit opportunities for the transport of slaughter animals by ship instead of meat to new lucrative destinations established by WTO’s rates differences. In the mass transport by ship, slaughter stock are not in the least handled and transported as humanely as breeding stock. Transport conditions are hideous. Furthermore, exports go to countries with indifferent animal welfare standards and laconic views about humane slaughter procedures. The WTO and governments involved have never attended to the livestock welfare problem their actions had aggravated. The investigations by the South African fact finding mission in 1995 revealed that the trade had resulted in cruelty to livestock, destruction of the asset due to high mortalities and shipping disasters, unethical welfare practices and unethical business practices. Consequently, it is certain that the welfare risks that livestock transported in mass consignments by ship are much higher than is reflected by official statistics, media and welfare sources.

The insurance industry, by its insurance of the trade, actually ensured that millions of animals suffered unnecessarily. Livestock were exposed to maximum risks. There were signs of a total disregard to many risk management factors by everybody concerned in the trade, not excluding the authorities in exporting and importing countries or insurance firms who could have insisted on stricter conditions of transport and specifications for vessels employed in the trade.

Disasters ascribed to fire on board, heat exhaustion, heat stroke and dehydration, inadequate ventilation, ventilation system breakdowns, automatic feeding system breakdowns, engine breakdowns, outbreaks of diseases, ships sinking with animals drowning are proof of the trade’s inadequacies in the matter. Almost none of these risks, apart from ships that burn and sink, exist in the meat trade.

FEEDLOTS’ PLANS AND EFFORTS TO EXPORT CATTLE

South African traders and feedlot owners discovered a niche market for live cattle in Mauritius. Small consignments of cattle were originally sent there from Mocambique by ship, later from Durban and then from East London.

Animal Voice, official mouthpiece in South Africa of Compassion in World Farming, in its Winter 2001 edition published an article based on information provided by the LWCC and titled: “Stop the hideous trade in animals to slaughter across the high seas.” However, due to the Government’s commitment to promote exports and earn foreign currency, all efforts to have a moratorium placed on it have so far gone unheeded. The exports are monitored by the NSPCA.

Over time several more large South African cattle feedlots considered and planned to export live cattle to the island. They included Sparta Beef, Beefmaster and a feedlot in KZN. Their plans were discarded after the chairman informed them about the discouraging facts about transport by sea as established by the LWCC. The last successful negotiation was when Ivor Karan of Karan Beef reacted on the LWCC’s communications while he was on his yacht in the Mediteranean and insisted that LWCC representatives rather personally meet with Dr Hantie Lombard, the then CEO of Karan Beef. The LWCC’s first meeting with Dr Lombard took place on 3 March 2004. He undertook to visit Mauritius to establish for himself what handling and slaughtering conditions were like on the Island. Eventually Karan Beef also discarded its plans.

When export attempts continued later the NSPCA approved the use of more functional modern vessels from East London to Mauritius and they monitored the procedures in the Eastern Cape. The LWCC became distanced from the export issue as well as uninformed. NSPCA eventually became discouraged with conditions and took the matter to court. The case was lost. The export of live cattle to Mauritius continues.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE UPRIGHT RESTRAINER FOR KOSHER SLAUGHTER OF CATTLE

LAWA, and specifically Drs Levien and Ebedes, both being Jewish, were quite concerned with the schechita slaughter procedures for the supplying of kosher beef to the Jewish consumer market. They were supported by Uncle Jerry Gluckman, also Jewish and who was a Meat Board as well as LWCC member and who had influence with Chief Rabbi Harris. The rest of LWCC was equally concerned about the use of the cantilever box/restrainer with its hydraulic clamping of the animal’s hoofs and the use of the three pronged fork (commonly known by abattoir staff as the devil’s fork) to force the animal’s head back in order to expose the animal’s throat to the rabbi’s (schechitem’s) knife. It happened sometimes that the three pronged fork’s protrusions slipped into the animal’s eyes in the process of forcing the animal’s head back to expose its throat to the schechitem. To an animal welfarist this was totally unacceptable. Occasionally when the rabbi’s on the slaughter line would use the air pressure to check a previously slaughtered carcase’s lungs the abattoir’s air pressure on the hoof clamps of the restrainer would fall, allowing the struggling hoofs of the animal to slip loose, resulting in the animal escaping, sometimes running wild in the abattoir, outside or even onto a public road while spurting blood. In South Africa religious believers’ rights are protected by the country’s Constitution and two other Acts of Government. It was therefore difficult to interfere in the Jewish community’s slaughter ritual. It was an enormous challenge.

Dr’s Levien and Ebedes were impressed with the ease that livestock farmers and feedlots contain their animals during on-farm procedures by using an upright restrainer and neck clamp. LAWA consequently did the initial research and design of a similar upright restrainer, incorporating a hydraulic chin lifter which exposes the animal’s throat sufficiently while the animal is in a much more comfortable upright standing position for schechitem to cut the animal’s throat much more speedily and efficiently. In this way the hoof clamps, cantilever and devil’s fork could be abandoned while the animal’s handling and welfare could be enormously improved.

Abakor, a member of the LWCC at the time, undertook to build and install a working demonstration model on a cattle slaughter line at its City Deep abattoir in Johannesburg. It was also paid for by Abakor. During the first experimental demonstration with the rabbis operating the system they lifted the animal’s chin so high as to almost break the animal’s neck in order to expose the animal’s throat in an unnecesarily vertical position for the schechitem to cut the throat. With that animal’s throat so severely stretched the schechitem’s first cut resulted in an outburst of blood that sprayed the whole of the audience with Uncle Jerry Gluckman in front. Notwithstanding this effort to thwart acceptance of the system, the use of the equipment was unanimously approved by all the bodies represented on the LWCC as well as representatives of Government Departments concerned. Last, but certainly not the least, by the Beth Din.

We believe that Abakor’s involvement and generous contribution was facilitated by Oom Fanie van Rensburg, known as SA’s Mr Meat (“Meneer Vleis” in Afrikaans) who was at that stage Chairman of both the Meat Board and Abakor.

After the initial research and design done by LAWA, as was mentioned, and brought into fruition by Abakor, the design of the upright cattle slaughtering equipment was further developed by an independent equipment firm, DIVAC, in South Africa, and their equipment is installed and operating in a number of abattoirs that do Kosher slaughter. The equipment is significantly more efficient so that those abattoirs not only use it for Kosher slaughter but for all their cattle slaughter.

INCORPORATION OF LWCC WELFARE CODES IN NAMIBIA’S FAN MEAT SCHEME, 1999

Namibia benefitted from favourable meat export agreements with the EU, mainly Germany. They were thus exposed to increasingly product quality concious issues in which was a much more sophisticated market. In order to comply with the animal welfare expectations the Namibian export trade authority requested that the LWCC allow Namibia the use and application of LWCC codes in their livestock and meat industry. This was heartily agreed to and the LWCC codes were immediately emailed to be used freely by them. In this way the LWCC codes became applied in a neighbouring country too.

LWCC – 21 YEARS OF WELFARE

Porcus is the official publication of SA Pork Producers Organisation. In its Aug/Sep 1999 edition it published an article about the 21 years celebration of the LWCC’s existence.

WSPA: THE CIVIL SOCIETY WORKSHOP, BRUSSELS, JUNE/JULY 2004

The World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), now World Animal Protection (WAP), and the RSPCA, known as the Eurogroup, together with the Director General for Trade of the European Union arranged a Civil Society Workshop in Brussels, Belgium, June 2004. The NSPCA requested LWCC’s chairman to represent them and South Africa at the Workshop, which turned out to have representatives from a number of developing countries as well as the head of the Eurogroup, Sonja van Tischelen, David Wilken, involved with the World Trade Organisation and Leah Carcia, the Global Positioning Campaign Director. The Work Group was to be the nucleus of the global task force. Presentations were made on developments in Argentine, Central America and India. Mr Tomlinson made a presentation on livestock welfare developments in South Africa, including the roles played by the NSPCA, LAWA and the LWCC. However, it was the establishment of the LWCC specifically as well as the fact that the LWCC was functioning effectively (even without a budget) for longer than a quarter of a century that impressed the participants and Eurogroup leadership the most. The leadership succeeded in arranging a meeting of the Work Group with an European Commission Portfolio Committee whithin days. Mr Tomlinson was heartily surprised when he was requested to inform the committee about the LWCC, LAWA and the NSPCA and their roles in the improvement of livestock welfare in South Africa. The audience were impressed, since nowhere in the developed member countries of the European Union, or in the world for that matter, did anything similar to the LWCC exist or function. Animal welfare elsewhere had become an issue whereby welfarist and animal rightist groups lobbied and pressurised authorities to regulate the livestock and meat industries. They influenced the public and decisionmakers’ opinions by adverse publicity. Producers and handlers of livestock in the supply chain were the targets. No proper communication existed between them and the welfarists or their authorities. Relationships beween the groupings and attitudes were hostile. South Africa was deemed to be “more advanced” (quoting Leah Carcia, Eurogroup’s Campaign Director). In view of this the very existence, successes and sustainable functioning of the LWCC was the greatest achievement in livestock welfare in South Africa. It was the result of good relationships, understanding and a willingness to listen and learn from each other. The LWCC to this day, after 38 years, continues to function perfectly under the competent leadership of Prof Bath and with much wider representation by the involved organisations and authorities than ever before. It has proved to be sustainable. It was unique in livestock welfare in global agriculture. It still is a feather in the cap of South Africa.

FREE RANGE EGGS

The Eurogroup had dreams about the viability of the exporting of freerange consumer products under the EU trade initiative. This included freerange poultry products. It was seen as an innitiative with huge merit. Mr Tomlinson wrote to WSPA about a new hardy South African poultry breed. A commercial cattle breeder in the South African bushveld had developed a poultry breed that was very virile, as reflected by the very low mortality in the adult birds. The breed was called Boschveld. However, there was sudden increased interest from EU poultry producers in the breed instead of the expected interests from EU importers of freerange consumer products.

It had to be expected that EU poultry producers would find it more profitable to import the breed in the form of fertilized eggs or day old chicks. They could do the value adding themselves. EU producers were subsidised, while Africa’s were not. Profit opportunities in the EU were consequently more attractive than in Africa. EU entrepreneurs could easily own the genetic material, and nothing could come of the grand opportunity to promote freerange projects in Africa for exporting consumer products like poultry meat or table eggs to the EU. Economics dictate, and not good intentioned policies. Nevertheless, from an animal welfare as well as genetic point of view, the story of the Boschveld breed was an excellent one.

THE WORLD ORGANISATION FOR ANIMAL HEALTH (OIE)

At the OIE meeting in May 2005 they expected to experience much controversy on the issues with regard to the drafting of the following standards: (1) Slaughter of livestock; (2) emergency slaughter; (3) land transport of livestock; and (4) sea transport of live animals. Eurogroup had been given a mandate to look at / and develop the standards, later perhaps to be followed by fish farming and even later on the rearing of chickens and pigs. One could derive from this international endeavour to draft livestock welfare standards for the first time that South Africa and the LWCC were 25 years ahead in the developing of welfare codes. In later years the OIE standards eventually did play a role in South Africa in that, on advice of the NSPCA, the LWCC did accept the OIE code for the transport of livestock by sea as a replacement of the LWCC’s then allready outdated code. However, this code applied to the transport of animals below deck which exposed animals to much higher risks of mechanical breakdowns of automated airconditioning and feeding systems. But below deck had become the modern way of transporting animals live in large numbers across the seas, even from South Africa. In the drafting of the LWCC’s dairy code the LWCC’s dairy code work group also referred to the OIE’s dairy code.

THE INTERNATIONAL MEAT SECRETARIAT

At its meeting in Canada in May/June 2004 the International Meat Secretariat, on request of the O.I.E., decided to establish a structure similar to that of the LWCC to attend to livestock welfare issues in a cooperative fashion on international level. It was 25 years after the establishment of the LWCC in South Africa. In September 2005 the IMS attended the meeting of the OIE’s Animal Welfare Working Group (AWWG). The fact that animal welfare issues were at last being attended to in international agricultural and trade forums was very gratifying.

THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS

The International Federation of Agricultural Producers’ Group on Meats and Feeds had also in June 2004 been requested to advise the World Bank / International Finance Corporation (IFC) with regard to a study by its consultants “to develop comprehensive guidance on how the IFC should address the issue of animal welfare in its intensive livestock projects.” Also 25 years after the establishment of the LWCC in South Africa.

The LWCC advised the MIF on issues of: Animal welfare standards in international food product trade, equalising import tariffs of meat and live slaughter stock, improvements in reporting on sea transport, the competence of animal handlers in sea transport and about land transport issues in third world countries.

THE WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION (WTO)

Mr Attie Swart was the National Department of Agriculture’s representative in international trade negotiations on agricultural products at the WTO. Over years he had been consulted a number of times by the LWCC about new possibilities for the introduction of import and export levies on live animals for slaughter in order to equal the value of levies placed on meat and thus removing the trade’s profit opportunities for the international trade in live slaughter animals. The LWCC’s motivation was, off course, to stop the high risks of suffering of animals on board ship as well as the risk of disasters, of which there had been very many at sea.

Since the independence of Namibia the levy system had resulted in the long distance road transport of live sheep from Namibia for slaughter at abattoirs in South Africa. Equalising of levies for meat and live animals would have removed the profit margins that motivated the long distance road transport. Off course the matter was also taken up with Government by South African livestock producer organisations.

The WTO concerned itself basically with trade issues although there were many non-trade concerns, including livestock welfare. Most of the stages in negotiations were very difficult. Agriculture was one of the most difficult sectors. Trade distorting subsidies, including domestic as well as export support (subsidies and credits) by various countries were additional serious obstacles. So was the writing off of debts. So was the matter of surplusses. So was the issue of food aid. And there were sensitive products. There also were issues of competition matters that dominated negotiations. Different countries had different vulnerabilities in their trade relations. However, support for the cutting of tariffs increased. But then, some countries would have had to cut subsidies or levies, as the case may be, more than others, and it was unacceptable to them. Often there was very little movement in rounds of negotiations. Animal welfare was far off the WTO’s radar screen – so to speak. Like other non-trade concerns it had to wait from one round of WTO negotiations to the next for frameworks on trade issues to become finalised first.

THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANISATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS (FAO)

The FAO around the same time also began looking into the value of codes and standards for the livestock farm sector. Also 25 years after the establishment of the LWCC in South Africa.

THE POLICE RIOT SQUAD'S INVASION OF CHAMDOR ABATTOIR THAT UPSET MEMBERS OF LWCC TREMENDOUSLY

When the upright restrainer for kosher slaughter of cattle had been developed satisfactorily and the use of it had been incorporated into the Code for Shechting for Abattoirs, the LWCC resolved that abattoirs involved with shechting of cattle had to have the upright restrainer installed and operational by 31 August 2004. Chamdor Meat Packers in Krugersdorp had a limited Kosher throughput and required its Board of Directors’ approval to spend the required quarter of a million Rand on the installation of the new restrainer. The Kosher Work Group visited the abattoir, investigated the issue and advised management. However Chamdor Meat Packers’ Board of Directors could only meet during the first week in September. LWCC’s Chairman had been in frequent communication with Chamdor’s manager, who was a co-owner of the abattoir and a very reliable and trustworthy ex-Abakor colleague of the Chairman. There were good relationships. Their problem was understood and their Board’s decision awaited. Their alternative was to stop shechting. However, on the first work day of September the SA Police Riot Squad entered the abattoir premises and interrupted procedures, upsetting workers and management. The reason is unknown. It was understood that the riot squad’s riot had been instigated by the NSPCA because Chamdor had failed to comply with the LWCC’s 31 August deadline. The relationship and trust between the LWCC, its Chairman and Chamdor’s management were suddenly destroyed. Within the LWCC’s membership relationships and trust had before been paramount and this was understood by nearly all. It had been the basis of the LWCC’s influence and successes. The LWCC and meat and livestock industry was hugely shocked by the incident and it effected negatively on cooperation. Many members were demotivated and lost interest. The Chairman realised that it was time to go, but without a single volunteer for election to the chair he remained longer and attempted to restore relations within the Kosher Work Group. (See ADDENDUM 5) LAWA later restored relationships with Chamdor Abattoir. The upright restrainer was installed. Internal relationships and trust in the LWCC did not heal completely and after another few years the NSPCA walked out.

STRATEGIC PLANNING

On 30 September 2005 Prof Francois Siebrits led a strategy workshop on livestock welfare and the LWCC. The members consequently prioritised the issues as follows:

Communication 17 The LWCC lacked infrastructure.

Funding 14 The LWCC had no budget.

Compassion issues 9 The sentient being of animals was not recognised.

Government duties 9 DoA had been uninvolved although responsible for the Acts

Law enforcement 8 Little existed other than by the NSPCA and Stock Theft Unit

Ignorance / Training 7 There was need for competent workers and management.

Management 7 There was a need for good decisionmaking and mentoring.

Disaster management 2 Supposed to be managed by local government authorities.

Transport 0 It had been thoroughly attended to.

END OF YEAR MEETING 2006: THERE HAD BEEN A LOSS OF INTEREST

There were relationship problems between members and a loss of mutual trust. There had been only a few meetings of work groups, and very little work carried out by the role players of the LWCC during 2006, mostly due to lack of interest, with the Chairman being overloaded, and this had been the case until the NSPCA took it upon themselves to set up the November meeting with the Department of Agriculture in order to discuss the future of the committee. (Please refer to ADDENDUM 6)

STUNNING OF ANIMALS FOR HALAAL PURPOSES

In the case of the Muslim ritual slaughtering of cattle for the Halaal meat market in South Africa cattle are stunned and slaughtered in the normal way before their throats are cut. However, this is unacceptable for the Halaal export market.

THE NIGHTMARISH NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE BETH DIN AND TWO CHIEF RABBI'S.

The change from the use of the cantilever restraining box to the use of the upright restraining box for shechting of animals was described in this document under the heading ‘Development of the upright restrainer for kosher slaughter of cattle.’ When the welfare problems involved with the cantilever box had been successfully addressed by the introduction of the upright restrainer, it was the general believe that cases of animals suffering with Kosher procedures had been decreased by at least ninety per cent. The use of the upright restrainer was precribed in the Code for Shechting for abattoirs that performed Kosher slaughter for the Jewish meat market. However, a more difficult challenge regarding Kosher slaughter was yet to be negotiated.

Probably the most difficult challenge the LWCC faced was the post-shechting stun during Kosher slaughter procedures for the Jewish consumer market. The LWCC’s Kosher Work Group led by Dr Levien of LAWA was given the challenge. Over a period of 15 years, or maybe even longer, the work group with Dr Levien, Dr Ebedes, Dr Neethling and the Chairman boring the brunt of the tasks, which included massive literature research, also in the Jewish Library in Johannesburg. Members knew of several factors which could possibly prolong consciousness of an animal after its throat was cut, resulting in suffering due to the unsuccesful shechting of an animal. I.e. some animals’ blood supply to the brain could continue via arteries in the neck even after proper shechting was done. It could keep an animal alive for a period before unconciousness set in and in which time the animal suffered shock and pain due to its throat being cut.

Some of the research revealed that shechita was widely permitted in many countries and in many of them as well as many states of the USA immediate post-cut stunning was accepted and practised by Beth Dins and their religious Jewish communities. The work group deemed this to be an argument that favoured their case for immediate post-cut stun in South Africa. It did not.

In some instances, over time, Both LAWA and NSPCA acted on their own accord in these matters.

Many negotiations were attempted by the work group over many years to convince first Chief Rabbi Harris and then Chief Rabbi Goldstein and, most important, the Beth Din to allow a shorter time between the Shochet’s cut and the post-cut stun. The earliest knowledge was that a twenty second delayed post-cut stun was in place. After many efforts in negotiating the LWCC and abattoirs were allowed an eight second post-cut stun. However, at a later stage Chief Rabbi Harris was upset by actions taken by NSPCA and he had the post-cut stun reverted back to twenty seconds. Thereafter the work group was faced with many more frustrating and long drawn out negotiations in an effort to obtain approval from the Beth Din for an immediate post-cut stun, which was the work group and LWCC’s new objective and which in practice would have boiled down to a post-cut stun of maybe two to three seconds. The work group submitted that the immediate post-cut stunning of the shechted animal was required in order to render an animal positively and immediately unconscious and therefore insensitive to any further pain or suffering for the remaining time.

Chief Rabbi Cyril Harris was Chief Rabbi of the Union of Orthodox Synagogues of South Africa from 1987 to 2004. We had great respect for the imposing personality that was Chief Rabbi Harris. Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein stepped into those important shoes. (Chief Rabbi Harris died in South Africa at age 68 and was buried in Israel.)

There were a number of other issues to be handled too: Carcases and meat condemned as non-kosher were identified as ‘terefa’ and sold into the gentile market without making it known to those consumers that the meat was terefa and had not been approved for consumption by Jews. Neither were consumers (Jewish or other) informed that the animals might have suffered due to the slaughter procedures and which could have influenced the meat quality and shelflife. The consumer consequently paid the same price without her knowing the facts or that she should have had a choice for decision making. This issue still remains the same since consumers were never informed by the market. Terefa meat is still not identified as such.

At a late stage in the long drawn out negotiations about the immediate post-cut stun the Beth Din argued that a Biblical injunction prevented Jews from consuming blood. This was then a major obstacle to the LWCC’s work group who undertook to have the issue researched to prove whether the post-cut stun would result in significant less blood exsanguinated from a carcase than otherwise. Literature research revealed nothing. Consequently, the Red Meat Abattoir Association agreed to oversee and finance a scientific experiment to establish the facts. Prof Eddie Webb, professor of Production Animal Physiology in the Animal and Wildlife Sciences Department of the University of Pretoria, was the scientist who undertook the experiment and Bull Brand Abattoir made their facilities available. It was a huge surprise when the research proved the opposite of what was expected in that the Immediate post-cut stun had resulted in more blood being exsanguinated and not less than the traditional shechita way. The result was statistically reliable and submitted in prof Webb’s report to the Beth Din in May 2006. A second report by Dr Gerhard Neethling, Director of the Red Meat Abattoir Association, was also submitted. The reports clearly stated that more favourable and positive exsanguination was achieved when the shechted animal was stunned immediately post-cut with the customary captive-bolt pistol. (Dr Ebedes was of the opinion that the issue about the Biblical injunction that the Beth Din had argued was not an issue at all since the Jewish housewife, in preparing the meat for cooking, soaked the meat in brine for a sufficient long period in order to remove traces of blood from the meat.) However, the Beth Din rejected the research findings. The grounds upon which the four Rabbinical Judges of the Beth Din did not concede the correctness of the two scientific reports were never provided.

More than two years later on 18 August 2008 (the LWCC was then thirty years old) Dr Levien and Mr Tomlinson met with Chief Rabbi Goldstein, the Beth Din’s Chief Rabbi Kugstag and their legal advisor, Mr Billy Gundelfinger. It was a difficult meeting, with the LWCC accused of being anti-semitic and having to disprove it. Eventually a compromise was reached for the return to the eight second post-cut stun and various other conditions, which the two representatives had no mandate for, and thus had to submit it to the LWCC’s next meeting. (Please refer to ADDENDUM 7.)

In stead of the expected agreement from the Beth Din and Chief Rabbi, a letter was received from Mr Gundelfinger informing Tomlinson and Levien that his clients had instructed him to warn that they would be prosecuted under the provisions for religious freedom in the country’s Constitution and two other Acts of Government, in case the issue was pursued any further. The post-cut stun remained at twenty seconds.

After the long drawn out negotiations and many years’ hard work to convince the Jewish authorities to improve the shechting of livestock in order to decrease the cases of suffering the eventual result was very discouraging. The view of the Chair and other LWCC members that the suffering of animals in the shechting procedure had already decreased by ninety per cent did not pacifiy Dr Levien. In the end, and after considerable laps of time, in 2013, he had decided to interdict the Jewish authorities in his personal or in LAWA’s capacity. (At that time the author of this history had not been actively involved in the livestock welfare organizations anymore and the details are unknown.) However, before it could be achieved Dr Levien died at the age of 92 on June 22, 2013.

DISASTERS

The issue of runaway veld fires and drought were covered under the heading, ‘The worst incidences of suffering by livestock in South Africa’ in this document. So were the disasters at sea discussed under a few of the headings.

Other forms of disasters affecting the welfare of livestock include diseases, floods and snap colds and extreme cold occurrences. Excluding preventative measures by farmers the role of welfare organizations and farmers are mostly limited to the humanely euthanizing of suffering animals that cannot be saved by veterinary procedure.

LAND REFORM

Land reform, being one of South Africa’s most important policies in the transformation of agriculture, required serious attention due to the possible affects its management had on farming circumstances and livestock welfare. One of the land reform program’s objectives was the elimination of poverty whereby many undesirable beneficiaries were granted ownership of livestock enterprises resulting in worst case neglect of/and suffering by animals. The NSPCA’s Farm Animal Unit intervened whenever such occurrences of worst neglect were brought to its attention. Often the condition of animals on land reform farms were so severe that there was no chance to save them and the only action left was for inspectors to euthenase them. However, there were very many competent and caring land reform beneficiaries as well. They were experienced and knowledgeable ex-farm workers who had grown up with and cared for livestock. Nevertheless, they were also badly affected by circumstances of Government’s making:

The Security of Tenure Act (STA) became one of the biggest obstacles to successful livestock farming by new land reform beneficiaries. The Act grants occupiers (the previous owner’s workers and their families whose ancestors may be buried on those farms) not only permanent occupational rights on farms, but also permanent grazing and watering rights as well as many other rights. No restrictions, if any, are honoured by occupiers. In many cases occupiers allow other family and friends’ livestock to graze on those farms for free or for payment, even many years before the beneficiary arrived with his own livestock. Neighbouring farms’ occupiers would cut fences and chase their livestock onto an already overgrazed land reform farm or into his crops. The issues wrt animals’ hunger, nutrition and sufficient space in Webster’s five freedoms comes to mind due to overgrazing and the consequent adverse effect on biodiversity and economics. In those cases where the new farmer inevitably has to restrict the occupiers’ livestock to smaller camps on the farm, the effect of overgrazing, hunger and disease is shifted on to those animals.

The stealing of a farm’s crops, like maize, impacts seriously on the farm’s winter feed reserves and the cash income that has to provide for concentrates and medicines for the farm’s livestock. It inevitably results in hunger and suffering of the herd and limits the farmer’s ability to i.a. take preventative longer term measures against runaway veld fires, to do safe block burns in order to renew the livestock’s grazing, to repair fences, to fence off more camps and lay on water to improve management of his livestock and veld, to provide proper livestock handling and loading facilities, adapt his vehicles for the transporting of livestock, etc.

Under the circumstances, livestock on land reform farms were more exposed to stock theft with its resultant atrocities and suffering. The Chairman was involved in a curious incident whereby a member of the Mpumalanga Stock Theft Unit arrived unannounced on a land reform farm in Rust der Winter with a group of residents of a faraway village who claimed that there were some of their stolen stock on that farm. Fourteen cattle were illegally removed from the farm by the officer and complainants in the farmer’s absence and taken to the local police station where they were not fed or watered. On the farmer’s return he discovered what had happened, found his cattle at the police station and attended to the animals’ care himself. It was eventually proved that the stock were not stolen. There wasn’t a case. The police station commissioner was never available to consult with respect to the legality of the taking and holding of the animals, or their non-feeding and watering. However the Stock Theft Unit’s head office, who was a member of the LWCC, and the Mpumalanga Stock Theft Unit was requested that its officers in future abide by the rules to not enter a farm without the farmer‘s prior knowledge. But then it happened again with the same officer.

Government’s secretive ‘Land Rights Campaign’ during 2007/08 focussed only on the occupiers of farms. LWCC’s chairman, who had been a member of an advisory group, advised the National Department of Agricultural Development and Land Reform in writing that it was important that the campaign should also inform occupiers of their responsibilities. However, this was disregarded by the Department. Occupiers countrywide were secretly (i.e. without the farmers being informed) called to local venues where their occupier rights were explained to them by officials of Departments. The reason why the farmers, who were directly affected parties in those important issues, had not been informed about the campaign never became known outside the Departments. At the time the campaign did nothing to alleviate misunderstandings, jealousies, hatreds, conflicts and crime on land reform farms. It probably exacerbated it.

Hendrik Masango in the Bronkhorstspruit area had the means to make a great success of farming. However, on his land reform farm his occupiers’ interferences with management of livestock and with preparations for the planting of crops, the stealing of wood and more became so obstructive and prolonged due to Government officials’ unwillingness to intervene that a parliamentary committee eventually came from Cape Town to investigate. Hendrik was given another farm. The occupiers won, but so did Masango’s livestock when they were removed from the troubled farm.

Land reform farmers’ lease contracts were renewed every five years. It included a clause providing the lessee (the farmer) with an option to purchase the farm from Government. Contracts lapsed in November of the fifth year. In mixed farming areas in the summer rainfall areas where crops and livestock were farmed together, those farmers required the new contracts as early as June/July as a form of surety for cooperatives who provided credit for orders of farm requisites to prepare the lands for the planting of the next crop. The Government knew this very well and had complied with the need in the past. During the end of the five year period in 2009, July and even November passed without news from Government regarding the renewal of the lease contracts. Consequently a whole crop year was lost to the land reform farmers. Government’s disregard of the farmers bordered on the financial sabotaging of those farmers and of its own land reform program. Eventually the land reform farmers were called by the Provincial Department’s officials only in February of the following year to meet them somewhere along the roads at places like cross roads, shops and police stations in order to receive and sign their new five year lease contracts. Under those late, difficult and uncomfortable circumstances created by the Department with its impatient officials urging the farmers to sign the contracts, nearly all signed without the opportunity to first read the contracts. At home it was discovered that the critical clause providing the option to purchase the farm had been omitted from the new contract – which they had already signed! There had been no prior public consultations about the very important issue. Neither they nor any organisation that they were represented by had prior knowledge of this change. At that time there was no reason to suspect such a radical change. They had been irregularly and dishonourably manipulated by the Department and officials to sign the contracts without proper attention to contents. Lifelong dreams of owning a farm were shattered.

Nothing of the above benefitted either the farmers or the welfare of livestock on land reform farms.

The consequent efforts to re-capitalise farms would not have been necessary if land reform had been managed with the farmers’ wellbeing in mind.

The Chairman’s impression was that land reform farmers were in the most delicate and complex situations in the whole of South African agriculture, but that they were the most disregarded and most neglected group and had been thwarted in their hard working efforts towards their long term goals.

Under the circumstances and due to increasing pressure of important other priorities like those mentioned here, NERPO (National Emerging Red Meat Producers Organisation) became distanced from the LWCC, but became closely associated with the RPO through whom NERPO could be informed about important livestock welfare issues. The LWCC’s codes remained available, but at the time only in English and Afrikaans, and later only in electronic form.

THE MEAT INDUSTRY TRUST (MIT), THE RED MEAT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TRUST (RMRDT) AND THE MOIRA BALL TRUST

At the disbandment of the Meat Board two trusts were established to receive the remaining Meat Board funds for the continuation of development and research objectives that would benefit the livestock and meat industries. A third trust, the Moira Ball Trust, had been established many years before by the Board for the promotion of livestock welfare. Although the Moira Ball funds had been deposited in the MIT, the legal procedures still has to be finalised.

LWCC ARCHIVES

The Meat Board, who administered the LWCC since its inception in 1978 until the Board’s disbandment by an act of Government in 1997, incorporated the LWCC’s files into its own official national archives in Pretoria. Consequently, with the disbandment of the Meat Board, the LWCC files were also deposited with the National Archives, corner Soutpansberg and Hamilton Streets, Pretoria. The official files still in use by the LWCC at the time of the Board’s disbandment were transferred to SAMIC. During a housecleaning operation SAMIC, without consulting the LWCC, destroyed the files instead of depositing them at the National Archives as required by the Archives Act. However, the Chairman of the LWCC had kept some duplicate working documents in a personal filing system. At his end of term in 2009 these documents were handed to the RPO, one of the LWCC’s long-standing members, for safekeeping.

THE STATE OF LIVESTOCK WELFARE IN SOUTH AFRICA AFTER 30 YEARS

In the writing of this part of the LWCC’s history I relived moments of gladness and others not so much. Many problems and other issues had been addressed successfully. At the end of the first thirty years of the LWCC’s existence at least the formal livestock sector’s welfare standards in the farming, handling, transport and slaughter of livestock had improved tremendously due to the cooperation and contributions of everybody involved. It had been achieved by the developing of trust and good relationships between leaders in industry and in animal welfare and it continues to exist. Their and their organisations’ positive attitudes, cooperation, insights and wealth of knowledge were indispensable in the many breakthroughs. Each contribution was valuable. The thirty years had proved that the LWCC had become sustainable. The big challenges that remained were in land reform and the informal sector of industry.

Freek Tomlinson

ADDENDUM 1
LIST OF LWCC MEMBER ORGANISATIONS IN THE EARLY YEARS

ANIMAL WELFARE ORGANISATIONS INVOLVED WITH LIVESTOCK:
Livestock Animal Welfare Association (LAWA) (Founder member)
National Council of SPCA’s (NSPCA Farm Animal Unit)

LIVESTOCK PRODUCER ORGANISATIONS:
Red Meat Producers Organisation   (RPO)
National Emerging Red Meat Producers Organisation (NERPO)
National Wool Growers Association   (NWGA)
SA Feedlot Association   (SAFA)
Milk Producers Organisation   (MPO)
SA Ostrich Business Chamber   (SAOBC)
SA Poultry Association   (SAPA never actually joined and preferred to work with NSPCA)
SA Pork Producers Organisation   (SAPPO)
Pig Breeders Society   (PBS)

LIVESTOCK MARKETING AND SERVICE ORGANISATIONS:
The Meat Board (Founder member) (Until November 1997)
Abakor (Previously the Abattoir Corporation)
SA Meat Industry Company   (SAMIC)
SA Federation of Livestock Auctioneers and Meat Brokers   (SAFLA &MB)
Red Meat Abattoir Association   (RMAA)

SCIENTISTS AND VETERINARIANS:
Agricultural Research Council: The Animal Improvement Institute’s Meat Centre
Faculty of Veterinary Science, UP, (Vet. Prod & Ethology)
SA Veterinary Association (SAVA)
Pig Veterinary Society (PVS)

GOVERNMENT:
Directorate Genetic Resources, DoA
Directorate Veterinary Services, DoA
SA Police Service’s Stock Theft Unit (SAPD, STU)
The name of SALGA’s forerunner is forgotten. SALGA never became a member.

OTHER:
SA Consumer Union
Standards SA (SABS)

It took some time for some organisations like the National Woolgrowers Association to join. The Pig Breeders Society’s representation eventually moved to SAPPO. Similarly, the Pig Veterinary Society’s representation were taken over by SAVA. With the exclusion of the SA Police Service’s Stock Theft Unit, Government were seldom represented at meetings. Some time into the new democratic South Africa’s existence the representatives of the Agricultural Research Council’s Animal Improvement Institute at Irene disappeared and so did the consumer bodies. In 1998 SAMIC took over certain functions of the Meat Board when the Board was disbanded in November 1997. Abakor was later liquidated. NERPO became involved for a brief period after its establishment. The SA Poultry Association (SAPA) never actually joined the LWCC and preferred to work with NSPCA.

It is noteworthy that some member organisations consist of representatives of other industry organisations, eg, the most important in this case would be the RPO.

Red Meat Producers Organisation (RPO)
The Red Meat Producers Organisation’s executive consists of representatives of the following:
9 Chairpersons of Provincial RPO’s
1 Chairperson: Studbook Association
1 Representative: Milk Producers Organisation
1 Representative: Agri SA
1 Representative: TAU SA

Red Meat Producer Federation:
RPO AND NERPO are members of this federation in order to combine the power of commercial as well as emerging red meat producers and speak with one voice in negotiations. This organisation is a member of the SADC livestock producer group and carries the message of livestock welfare into the SADC boardrooms.

Red Meat Industry Forum:
The umbrella organisation for the red meat industry is the Red Meat Industry Forum, consisting of the following representative organisations:

            RPO     (One cattle and one sheep and goat producer representative)
            NERPO
            SAPPO
            RMAA
            SAFA
            SAFLA&MB
            SAMDAWU
            Federation of Meat Traders
            SAMPA           (SA Meat Packers Association)
            AMIE               (Association of Meat Importers and Exporters)
            SHALC            (Skin, Hide and Leather Council)
            South African Consumer Union

The Abattoir Industry:
All abattoirs slaughtering livestock were affiliated to / members of the Red Meat Abattoir Association (RMAA), the latter being affiliated to the SA Meat Industry Company (SAMIC), that took over the eight most important functions of the Meat Board and that served as a coordinator of meat related marketing issues with Government and was the coordinator of quality standards at abattoirs. Nearly all livestock and meat organisations were members of SAMIC. SAMIC as well as RMAA are affiliated to international meat and abattoir organisations.

ADDENDUM 2
THE FOUNDER MEMBERS

DR MICHAEL LEVIEN

20 Feb 1921 – 22 Jun 2013

Without Dr Michael Levien and his livestock welfare organisation, later known as LAWA, the LWCC would not have existed and this history not written. He was not a theoretician and propagandist so much as a compassionate and caring person and very concerned about the welfare of animals. He was practical in his approach to livestock welfare issues in so much as that he sought to understand the facts, perspectives and practicalities with regard to livestock farming. He once went so far as to accompany a consignment of sheep in wind and weather on the back of a truck from Namibia all the way to Goodwood Abattoir in Cape Town in order to observe and experience the animals’ stress and behaviour. As part of his agreement with Dr Jan Lombard of the Meat Board, he and LAWA had to restrain from adverse publicity, thus losing the most successful means of canvassing support, membership and donations for LAWA. Dr Levien consequently had to make significant personal financial sacrifices in order for LAWA to continue to make contributions to livestock welfare, also as a continuing member of the LWCC. He kept that promise to Dr Lombard and the Meat Board to the very end. In addition, on behalf of the LWCC, he financed Dr Ebedes’ visit to Australia to investigate the sea transport of live sheep for slaughter. He, more than anybody else, had no qualms to put his money where his mouth was. He made valuable contributions to the drafting of LWCC codes and by the chairing of some of the LWCC’s work groups over time. At an age over 70 he tackled IT, including Word processing, Excell, and the internet in between the managing of his businesses and homeopathic practice. With the contributions of Dr Ebedes they were able to develop the design of the upright restrainer for schechita, the use of which the LWCC was eventually able to convince Chief Rabbi Harris and the Beth Din to agree to. He, and the Kosher Work Group that he chaired, had worked very hard over many years to convince the Beth Din to accept an immediate post cut stun for animals that were being schechted. It failed, but till the day he died, and for the sake of the livestock, he would not relinguish this objective notwithstanding the Beth Din’s threat to prosecute him if he continued with his efforts. His compassion for animals was matched only by his compassion for his people which included family, patients, friends and staff that worked for him. His wife and he handled their staff like friends and with concern about those families’ wellbeing. The existence and uniqueness of the LWCC as a coordinating body for livestock welfare and the enormous effect that it had on improvements in livestock welfare he viewed as one of his nicest involvements and best achievement.

DR JAN LOMBARD

1933-

Jan Lombard had characteristics in common with Dr Levien. He was a compassionate person and cared for family, staff and friends, being very supportive of his staff with whom he consulted and took cognizance of their good advice. Dr Lombard was appointed General Manager of the Meat Board in July 1978 with a DSc. in Animal Sciences and an MBA behind his name. His new system of predicting market price trends and the establishing of floor prices had even earned him a compliment from his greatest critic, the free market champion Simon Fiske, who afterwards once referred to him as “the brilliant Dr Lombard.” When his new approach to floor prices was submitted to the Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture by one of his colleagues, Dr Johan Boshoff, those critics could then also appreciate it. After the establishment of the LWCC by himself and Dr Michael Levien in 1978, he called in the Meat Board’s ten Regional Managers and shared the livestock welfare vision with them. He made them personally responsible for the welfare of the livestock at abattoirs in the Board’s controlled areas, but also used their advice in decision making. He had initiated livestock consultancy services by establishing the Meat Board’s Animal Science Advisory Service. Team members had to follow farm visits up with written reports to farmers. Professional livestock consultants became recognized as a result of this initiative. He involved Mrs Moira Ball, LAWA’s formidable animal welfare inspector, with the training of the Meat Board’s Animal Science Advisory Service. The experts carried the livestock welfare message to feedlots, breeders and the farmer study groups that they had established. The Board also had an exceptional Pig Specialist Veterinary Advisory Service. These remarkable veterinarians focused on breeders and pork producers and incorporated the animal welfare message in their consultations. They also played an important role in the drafting of the Code for Pigs. Their society (PVS) became an early member of the LWCC.

Dr. Lombard left the Meat Board for VETSAK (Agrinet) at the end of September 1981, but soon moved on to become General Manager for Livestock at Vleissentraal whose agents handled farmers’ businesses at the abattoirs. He had remained true to the livestock welfare ideal and made Vleissentraal’s agents personally responsible for the welfare standards at offloading, handling and holding of their farmers’ livestock at abattoirs in cooperation with the Meat Board’s managers. Vleissentraal also operated a number of feedlots at the time and the livestock welfare message was passed on to those managers and supervisors. Dr Johan Boshoff who had at some stage previously been head of the Meat Board’s Animal Science Advisory Service and who also promoted the livestock welfare message was appointed by Dr Lombard as his Manager (for the so-called) Controlled Areas.

Another lesser known but very important contribution by Dr Jan Lombard was with regard to the long distance transport of livestock. On advice of Mrs Moira Ball, he had arranged for livestock to be offloaded, watered and rested at intervals during the long journeys from Namibia to South Africa.

During the later years of his retirement he was invited to the LWCC’s thirtieth year-end meeting in 2008 where we could convince him that the LWCC which he had co-founded in 1978 had miraculously remained sustainable. This was also the last time that he and his co-founder, Dr Levien, who at 87 was still LAWA’s representative on the LWCC, shook hands.

ADDENDUM 3

FOUNDER MEMBER ORGANISATION: LAWA

The Meat Board’s founding partner was the forerunner of the Livestock Rescue Centre. On 21^st April 1988 the name of the association was again changed a second time to Livestock Welfare Association (LWA), later more popularly known as LAWA. LAWA focuses on the five northernmost provinces and specializes in the inspection of abattoirs and auction yards, it trains workers and supervisors and provides an advisory service to managements. It based its approach towards businesses and organisations in the various sectors of the livestock and meat industries on the building of good relationships and trust, as it did as a member of the LWCC. Its most difficult encounters were with the rabbis of the Beth Din. LAWA’s dream to expand countrywide never realised due to the fact that Dr Levien, its chairman, had promised Dr Jan Lombard and the Meat Board that he would refrain from adverse publicity on incidences of cruelty in the livestock and meat industry and, instead, to handle such cases in the LWCC. LAWA consequently lost donations, support and membership. Nevertheless, Dr. Levien held LAWA honour bound. Five years after he had passed away LAWA had continued to honor Dr. Levien’s promise and had the intention to hold by it.

THE MEAT BOARD

Much has already been said here about the role that the Meat Board played and its contributions to livestock welfare. Like other agricultural marketing boards the Meat Board, being the biggest of the boards, eventually experienced increasing opposition from free marketers as well as their opposites, which were the socialist and communist inclined. The latter never realised that the boards were the most ideal, self-financed (by the collecting of levies on the products under their control) socialist type of organisations. The Meat Board was not dependent on Government tax funds and therefore was not a burden on the tax payer. Its control measures mostly benefitted the smaller farmers and meat distributors. In addition it did an enormous amount of development work in the case of livestock as well as meat. It hugely supported research and did the most consumer promotion of meat and meat products ever in South Africa. Its contributions to livestock welfare will only now with the writing of this history come to the notice of the wider public. The big producers, including feedlots, who marketed in the controlled areas, were the biggest levy contributors to board funds. They consequently became the strongest objectors to the boards’ existence. When the new Government reacted on the report by Prof Kassier, an agricultural economist at Stellenbosch University who investigated the boards on behalf of Government, they were ignorant of the important roles the boards could play in Government’s later transformation of agriculture without becoming tax burdens to Government. The demise of the Meat Board was followed by the rise of mega farmers and vertical integration of the livestock and meat industries. The number of small farmers diminished rapidly. Many were bought out by mega famers while others sold out to urban professionals and businessmen who turned many livestock producing farms, of whom very many had become uneconomical units, into game farms. A decade later the chairman of the LWCC at a conference of the Gauteng MEC for Agriculture was asked about the possibility of re-establishing the marketing boards. Since the many institutional memories had been completely destroyed in 1997 the answer was “No.”

ADDENDUM 4

ACTS OF GOVERNMENT RELATING TO ANIMAL WELFARE

The Stock Theft Act 57 of 1959, as amended
Animals Protection Act, 1962 (Act 71 of 1962)The Animal Improvement Act, 1998 (Act 62 of 1998)
Meat and Animal Production Hygiene Act, 1967 (Act no. 87 of 1967).
Veterinary and Para-veterinary Professions Act, 1982 (Act 19 of 1982)
Abattoir Hygiene Act 1992, (Act no. 121 of 1992).
National Veld and Forest Fire Act, 1998
Animal Identification Act, 2002 (Act 6 of 2002)
Animal Health Act, 2002 (Act 7 of 2002)
Disaster Management Act 57 of 2002

ADDENDUM 5

“The altercation” minutes of the Kosher Work Group.

Code of Practice for Schechita

This code is held over pending the research results on post cut stunning and exsanguination.

The Kosher Work Group was requested to investigate the schechting of lambs and sheep for drafting a code eventually. Mutual consultation amongst all concerned must be encouraged.

Dr Levien questioned whether there was a need for the Kosher Work Group as the NSPCA was doing a lot of work in this regard on their own without discussion with the Group.

The Chairman said that the Kosher Work Group involved several people who interacted and could be better informed. He supported the idea that individual organisation carry on with their own work and research. If the Kosher Work Group was called together and meetings conducted with a proper agenda it could function even better than now. He did not have the capacity or the knowledge to handle all the issues. Working Groups make the sharing of information possible and he found a necessity for such groups.

Ms Meredith expressed the view that the LWCC and the working groups were not day to day committees. Once a problem arose it was tackled by whoever was actively involved. She saw the function of the Kosher Work Group as the discussion of methods to address a problem.

Dr Levien stated that as far as possible work groups should have unanimity on how to progress on a specific action.

The Chairman said that in this case the result was positive, animals were suffering less than previously and it was after all the LWCC’s purpose to alleviate or eliminate suffering.

The industry appreciated what NSPCA and LAWA were doing, often with very limited budgets. He mentioned the Dairy Code that was drawn up by the NSPCA, approved by the LWCC and accepted by the industry. Likewise the Code for Transport of Animals by Sea was handled by the NSPCA, inter alia because they have the capacity. These and several other contributions of the two animal welfare organisations were very positive for livestock welfare, and NERPO, RPO, SAPPO and other industry organisations appreciated the work done.

Dr Levien pointed out that the LAWA budget comes from his own pocket.

The Chairman commended LAWA and the NSPCA for their work on farm animals as this was unique in the world.

Ms Meredith mentioned that there weren’t committees for all actions required, but the LWCC created the opportunity to discuss matters with other people, and to coordinate actions where possible. Half of what the NSPCA does never reaches the LWCC – it would be too time consuming.

The Chairman stated that networking was essential. He cited the removal of ostrich chick toenails as an exampled where Prof Bath was alerted and positive actions followed more easily.

Dr Levien explained that positive negotiations had taken place with the Chamdor management and the letter from the NSPCA had upset them and to some extent negated the progress.

The Chairman said that the NSCPA had explained to him that they had acted in accordance with a decision already taken by the LWCC, and not the work group, when legal action had been taken against Chamdor. After all was said and done the various actions could be regarded as successful since, in the end, a positive result had been achieved. Chamdor had ceased to shech in a rotating box.

(end of quote)

ADDENDUM 6

MINUTES OF 122nd LWCC MEETING

HELD AT THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, RIVIERA,

PRETORIA, ON FRIDAY – 17 NOVEMBER 2006 AT 09h00

1. OPENING AND WELCOMING

Meeting was opened with a prayer.

Mr Tomlinson thanked everyone for their time, interest and support for livestock welfare and especially for the animal welfare organisations.

2. ATTENDANCE

Selepe – DoA
Meyer – DoA
Streicher – SAPPO
Erasmus – SAPS / STU

A.P. Oosthuizen – SAPS / STU

Schutte – RPO

W.J. Meyer – SAFLA

Levien – LAWA

D.A. Jones – NSPCA

Houseman – NSPCA
Tomlinson – Chairman

APOLOGIES

Mathis – SAMIC
van Zyl – CONSUMERS
Booysen – SAMIC
Schutte – MPO

Prof. Bath – UP

Dry – PBS
Kruger – SAOBC
Ford – SAFA
Ramsay – DoA

Dr. Hlatswayo – DoA

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Approval of minutes for the 121st meeting held on 28/10/2005, couldn’t be approved as some people did not receive the minutes.

NSPCA and SAOBC did not receive last year’s minutes.
CH

Minutes not approved. Stand over.
FT

4. MATTERS ARISING

The lack of support and presence of Keith Ramsay of the DoA, as he was the person that could answer or advise on certain areas pertaining to the DoA.
SM

5. LWCC : PROCEDURES, COMMUNICATION AND THE FUTURE

– Strategic planning session was carried out late in 2005. From that brainstorming session, a number of issues were brought to the for.
FT

– Representations had been made by the chair to SAMIC and SAFA regarding planning and budgeting.
FT

            Main issues :
–           Funding and others listed
–           Confidentiality
–           Relationship problems between members.
–           Nurture inter-committee trust.
–           Short comings in publicity and communication.
–           Prof. Siebert said : “The LWCC can only function properly when thereis a
mutual trust and understanding between members”
–           Objections to the constitution.
–           Getting conflicting groups together.
–           Facilitate communication between roleplayers.
–           Improve animal welfare awareness.
–           Communication of information to everybody involved.
–           More research required on stress related issues.
–           More research required on handling farm animals and during transportation.
–           Emphasis on the co-ordinating role.
–           Developing strategy for training.
–           Transportation
–           Creation of capacity for animal welfare by the Department will necessary be the governing by the provisional budget. Department was responsible for the Act – required more capacity.

Other issues that were prominent :
–           Work load of chairman
–           Vulnerability
–           Limited capacity and lack of infrastructure. FT

There have been no meetings, and very little work carried out by the role players of the LWCC during the last year, mostly due to lack of interest and this has been the case until now, when the NSPCA took it upon themselves to set up a meeting in order to discuss the future of the committee.

We need to clarify and decide how we intend moving forward. NSPCA offers its services to do minutes and circulation in the interim or on a permanent basis. The LWCC is an excellent forum and needs to be nurtured and members motivated.
CH

Some sub committees fall flat and don’t work as some members are not as committed as others. Depends on the individuals in that working group, if they are over committed or don’t find the time to do it or it’s a low priority.
FT

That’s where communication and honesty comes in – if somebody is appointed and they cannot do it, don’t accept it – you must either work it in or we shelve it until somebody is available to work on it.
DJ

If the business plan is drawn up, provision should be made for a secretariat. We can’t expect from the chairman to do everything – if you don’t have an office with capacity which can organise these meetings, put out the agendas’ well in advance I think we will have the problems we’ve had up to now. There should be remuneration for services provided.
GS

Any forum needs a business plan if it is to have any direction and meet its objectives, therefore the LWCC should approach SAMIC to assist the committee in putting together such a plan. Next SAMIC meeting is 29 November.
GS

Agriculture is now a Provincial matter, so it’s also not so easy just to get somebody from the National Department in and that by doing that have perception that something will change on grassroots level. It is very important that the industry should take the initiative. At this stage we have created some capacity within the industry – positive that we can make a change. Capacity has been created for the LWCC to do its work – funds will be available through the levy system – this is very positive. We have the Producer’s fraternity which has the function of production development – one of the projects is to drive information days at grassroots level – with the commercial and communal farmers. This platform can be used to circulate the Codes. This committee should be focused on livestock issues only, other industries must have their own forum.
GS

If we are more focused in the livestock industry we can prevent diluting the concentration and there are other forums for ostriches, crocs etc.
DJ

Perhaps representations should be made to the Director General. Currently there are approximately 13 000 staff that could be trained in animal welfare? That could make a big difference. We shouldn’t sit in this committee waiting for the Department to come with initiatives. We actually should go out, task them.
GS

6. GOVERNMENT : ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES

Functions relating to the administrating of the Animals Protection Act and the advancement of animal welfare in general, not only in agriculture but also in the wildlife and marine industries, research, quality testing and in case of domestic animals. This issue must be brought to the Departments’ attention and requires the support of the relevant structures in the industry. The industry became involved in 1979, by accepting responsibility for the standard of animal welfare. We must retain the responsibility and the standards of animal welfare by creating the capacity.
FT

We get no co-operation, no support – it’s an exception that we have somebody from the government here to attend the meeting otherwise it rests entirely and exclusively upon us.

The Department are suppose to administer Animal Welfare Acts, I have to apologise on behalf of the department – which the department has not structured their structures to answer to the responsibilities under the Animals Protection Act and all the other Acts. At the moment there is nowhere in our structure written in where the Animals Protection Act and other Acts are administered. The meeting should again write a letter to the Director General and ask him where in his organisation animal welfare is being administrated.
SM

7. WELFARE : CODES AND GUIDELINES

7.1 Dairy Code

There was a meeting on the dairy code involving Dr Nico Schutte, Prof Bath, Dr Levien and Renier van Dyk.
FT

Meeting held 5 October 2006 on the Dairy Code – Purpose of the meeting is to discuss humane procedures of termination of life of newly born dairy calves. It is also applicable to discuss the transportation of calves as most dairy bull calves are sold soon after birth. Agenda and minutes can be obtained from Dr Levien on request.

Research is needed on stress in transport and this will be used to set up a Code in conjunction with transport code.
ML

Code had been agreed upon.
DJ

8. WELFARE : RESEARCH

8.1 Improving of Schechita Practices
Report on developments regarding kosher slaughter – post cut stunning.
Research and method.

We’ve agreed to do a scientific study to provide proof that stunning immediately after the bovine is schechted would not diminish the speed of exsanguination or quantity of blood loss. This research was sponsored by the RMAA.

For your information I also attach a copy of a letter dated 30 May 2006 – from Mr Gerhard Neethling – regarding his observation at bull brand abattoir that the legally required use of the two knife system is not being applied during schechita.
ML

The result of the research was that there were less blood exsanguinated with the present system, than with a delayed stun. One thing that prevented the implementing of our Kosher (Schechita) Code – If we could submit this Code to Chief Rabbi Goldstein who has never seen it.
FT

On behalf of the Director of Animal Health we thank all those involved for their input and personal sacrifice to come up with a scientifically proven result, maybe also to be made known to the world.
GS

Dr Webb will be requested to publish his scientific research, Nationally and Internationally.
FT

9. KOSHER

It is therefore being proposed to managers in all abattoirs where the schechita of cattle is conducted, that as of 01 December 2006 it is required that the animals be stunned immediately after animal is schechted. Copy of this letter can be obtained from Dr Levien on request.
ML

It was suggested that a copy of the Code be sent to the new Rabbi in case he hasn’t received it.
ML

RMAA we must thank them, they are liaison now with the Chief Rabbi, co-operation and funding of the RMAA – thanks to the board of directors.
FT

Sincere appreciation and thanks from LAWA.
ML

The handling and the slaughter of livestock in abattoirs has improved tremendously – things have changed exclusively due to the result of the work that’s been done by the two animal welfare associations.
FT

10. TRADITIONAL : FESTIVALS AND SLAUGHTER

10.1 First Fruit Festival

Yearly event that happens in Kwa Zulu Natal where the King gets his men of age to prove their manhood by basically strangling a bull to death, but it draws a tremendous amount of publicity and there are hundreds of thousand of people that go to that event. We as an organisation have in the past tried to address the problem. The King has the Police Services’ protecting him. We come under a tremendous amount of criticism every year because – why haven’t we stopped it ? We can’t stop it – it’s really not that simple. As Mr Meyer said, constitutionally they are allowed to do it. But the method of this tradition is inhumane and contravenes the APA. We have called for meetings with the King and other relevant departments to no avail. At the moment we’ve handed it over to Director Mbhalati of Legal Services in the SAPS. It is sitting with the National Public Prosecutor to decide whether it is against the constitution, and if it is against the constitution – how are we going to handle it? If it’s not against the constitution, well how can we have middle ground? This ritual is taking place in middle December.
CH

Mr Erasmus was asked to please follow up with Legal Services to follow up to make sure the issue is being attended to and shift the priority.
FT

Dr Levien not sure whether he will be able to assist, but will ask Dr Maseko (personal doctor of the King of Zululand) if he will be prepared to meet with NSPCA to discuss this.
ML

A meeting can be set up between the SAPS – Legal Services department and NSPCA with Dr Maseko.
FT

10.2 Traditional Slaughter

The Government and the Constitution allow exemption to certain people to perform their ritual slaughter outside an abattoir. The responsibility to the animal as such has not been addressed. Request coming from Mr Keith Ramsay that this has to be addressed. Is it not possible to conduct a scientifically moderated monitored research on this issue to ascertain the most humane methods of ritual slaughter? Currently the animal is knifed on the pole, resulting in the animal collapsing immediately – it is fully conscious and then the throat is cut. Request to have it put down in our business plan as one of our concerns. We would have to involve the traditional leaders of South Africa, because it is on their behalf that we do this. They have to be co-owners of the result.
SM

Dr Levien offered to put Dr Meyer in contact with Prof Maseko, President of the Traditional Healers Association of S.A.
ML

What exactly are we going to do with the results ?
DJ

It will strengthen the input from the Minister to regulate the procedures. The exemption presently states you do not need to slaughter an animal for traditional purposes in an abattoir. This research should now come up with particulars on how slaughter should be carried out.
SM

S. Meyer and M. Levien to follow this up.
FT

10.3 Ritual Slaughter

We have to come up with an alternative which is acceptable to the traditional people and their tradition. Similar to what we have done with the Jews – Schechita which is acceptable.
SM

There is scientific proof that there is a connection between human and animal violence. We have the research on that. By allowing people to perform such actions will have its ramifications and those people are not going to think twice to be violent towards people.
CH

11. SUPPORT FROM INDUSTRY

Dr Levien expressed his scepticism, regarding the support given to the LWCC by the industries, as being with LWCC since its inception in 1979, if it wasn’t for the NGOs specifically the animal welfare organizations, LAWA and NSPCA, nothing would get done. Government departments have given their assurances in the past of their co-operation and support, nothing of which has been forth coming, so how can the chairman say that we must reinstate that, when it never has been instated in the first place.

Disappointment from the industry specifically SAFA, to the accusation of no support from the industries, as they themselves have supported, cooperated and disseminated information throughout the industry over the years. Industry and welfare should be more positive if they are to look to the future.
WM

We have had good support and co-operation in development, from certain industries over the years, such as of the kosher research, and installing the new equipment. Express thanks to all the industries represented at LWCC.
FT

12. LEGISLATION

The DoA is under pressure from two sides – consumer/public where animal welfare is the priority and the international / OIE to pressurise the industries to conform to welfare legislation.

13. GENERAL

13.1 Transport of Pigs at Weighbridges

No further incidence since we had those discussions. Received no further complaints.

13.2 Classical Swine Fever

DoA is working on the restocking strategy in the E. Cape Province. A meeting is being

held on 11 December, all interested parties are invited.
SM

14. OTHER

CIWF circulated the video Ubuntu, in this video the use of rice milk is suggested as there is so much cruelty involved in cows’ milk production. Dr Nico Schutte followed up and published an article to bring the issue to the attention of dairy farmers.
FT

15. MEETINGS

Every second month – last Friday, unless it’s a public holiday then it would change to the Thursday. We can draw up a programme and circulate.

Schedule for 2007 –
23 February
26 April
29 June
31 August
26 October

Venue : The Department will be provided with a venue by SAMIC or DoA. FT

16. CLOSURE :

The meeting adjourned.

ADDENDUM 7

REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE LWCC BY THE KOSHER WORK GROUP:

AGREEMENT WITH BETH DIN REGARDING POSTCUT STUNNING

On Monday, 18 August 2008, Dr Levien and Mr Tomlinson met for an hour and a half with Chief Rabbi Goldstein, Chief Rabbi Kugstag of the Beth Din and Mr Billy Gundelfinger who is attorney to both the Beth Din and Chief Rabbi Goldstein, at Mr Gundelfinger’s office in Johannesburg. As could be expected it was a very, very difficult, yet, in the end, a fruitful meeting. However, at the start the meeting speedily degenerated into an aggressive and threatening confrontation. We were subjected to an almost word for word replication of what we were subjected to some years previously (about being anti-semitic).

Dr Levien’s DVD had been viewed by them before the meeting and the LWCC’s two submissions had been read.

Factually, we were informed by them that all over the world more and more national synagogues were returning to the non-stunning of schechted animals. Attempts to export kosher meat by South Africa to Israel had also been thwarted by the Beth Din of Israel when they became informed about the 20 second stun. Consequently the pressure was on the Beth Din in South Africa to do away with the post-cut stun. Also, the insistence on postcut stun was an embarassment to them and an insult to their tradition.

Furthermore, their literature research had shown that shechting was the least cruel way to slaughter animals. However, the LWCC’s concern was with the proof that some animals were not immediately dead and that suffering continued in those cases. They had insisted that there had been an agreement about the 20 second post cut stun and that the LWCC were now breaking the agreement.

We were able to convince the meeting that no such an agreement on 20 seconds had existed, and that the agreement to 8 seconds, previously, had been broken by late Chief Rabbi Harris and the 20 second delay in stunning enforced by him.

We also emphasised the matter of shelf life and quality of meet that was being affected by the 20 second delay in stunning. When this was questioned by the Beth Din representatives, Dr Levien phoned Prof Webb, put him on loudspeaker, and the necessary scientific sources were given and the findings explained by Prof Webb to the meeting. The scientific documents were then faxed by prof Webb to Mr Gundelfinger’s office.

We then had to refute the repeated accusations that we were picking on the Jewish people, that the LWCC’s actions were anti-Semitic and that no equity was being applied (in view of other population groups’ cruel ritual slaughterings that do exist). It was pointed out by us that the LWCC had first improved welfare standards in the commercial industry by addressing the handling, transport and slaughter of all species and focus areas, even overseas transport of livestock by ship, and the writing of codes for all of this before the LWCC had turned its attention to the drafting of a code for kosher slaughter of cattle. It was only then that the issues regarding the casting of animals for schechting, the use of the “devil’s fork” and the immediate postcut stun had really become very contentious. Also, the LWCC had not used publicity about cruelty in cases of schechting as a weapon, and had in actual fact in this way protected the image of both the Jewish people and the Beth Din. The industry had also not classified and marked terefa meat as such and had never informed the consumer that the meat was not of the same standard as other. The right to be informed is a consumer right and we had not yet taken any steps in this regard. As a matter of fact, in this way the LWCC had done more to protect them from bad publicity than they have themselves. The accusations of anti-semitism against the LWCC had been very unfair.

This was the turning point in the meeting. We discussed a compromise, which we had no mandate for, and thus have to submit it to the LWCC’s next meeting.

RECOMMENDATION:

(1) It is recommended that the LWCC unanimously approve a return to the 8 second postcut stun that it had previously agreed upon with the Beth Din and the late Chief Rabbi Harris;

(2) The Beth Din will then be informed about the LWCC’s decision via their attorney, and, if the LWCC’s decision is positive, the Beth Din will be convened and will consider the LWCC’s decision together with the evidence that Prof Webb submits;

(3) If the 8 seconds is agreed upon by all, it will be deemed irrevocable by all sides; and;

(4) It is understood that any bad publicity regarding shechting will jeopardise the agreement.

IN THE BEGINNING IT WAS ALL ABOUT IMAGE – THE ROLE OF THE MEAT BOARD

MEMBERSHIP OF THE LWCC AND CONTRIBUTIONS BY MEMBER ORGANISATIONS

THE NATIONAL DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (NDA)

MOIRA BALL AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS

FUNDING AND FUNCTIONING OF THE LWCC

THE CONSTITUTION

THE ROLE OF SUBMISSIONS AND MINUTES

THE WORST INCIDENCES OF SUFFERING BY LIVESTOCK IN SOUTH AFRICA

THE LWCC WORK GROUPS THAT WROTE THE CODES

THE FIRST LIVESTOCK WELFARE CODE: CODE OF PRACTICE FOR THE HANDLING AND TRANSPORT OF LIVESTOCK

CONTRIBUTING TO THE PROPER DESIGN OF LIVESTOCK ROAD CARRIERS

THE BATTLE AGAINST THE INSURING OF LOSSES IN TRANSPORT

THE ASTONISHING RESULTS OF THE FIRST CODE

CONTINUING THE PROMOTION OF HUMANE TRANSPORT

THE INVESTIGATION INTO WEIGHBRIDGE REGULATIONS AND DELAYS DURING VEHICLE INSPECTIONS

MOVEMENT OF ANIMALS AND ANIMALS PRODUCE ACT

LONG DISTANCE TRANSPORT OF LIVESTOCK

TRANSPORT OF LIVESTOCK BY TRAIN

EVENTUALLY, BY 2009, THERE WERE TWELVE CODES

THE PRODUCT BENEFITS OF LIVESTOCK WELFARE

ABATTOIRS: THE ROLEPLAYERS WRT PROPER HANDLING AND SLAUGHTERING

THE EFFORT TO ESTABLISH A GAME AND WILDLIFE WELFARE COMMITTEE

THE EFFORT TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL FORUM FOR ANIMAL WELFARE, NAMELY THE ANIMAL WELFARE COALITION

THE ANIMAL RIGHTIST INFLUENCE

THE ANIMAL RIGHTIST INFLUENCE

THE FIVE FREEDOMS OF ANIMALS BY PROF WEBSTER

WELFARE OF ANIMALS IS BIBLICAL

ATTITUDES OF SOUTH AFRICAN AUTHORITIES WRT LIVESTOCK WELFARE

SHEEP TRANSPORTED FROM SOUTH AMERICA TO THE MIDDLE EAST

A SUMMARY OF TRANSPORT OF LIVESTOCK BY SHIP TO OVERSEAS DESTINATIONS FOR SLAUGHTER PURPOSES

DR HYM EBEDES'S DANGEROUS AND RISKY VISIT TO AQABA IN JORDAN

SOUTH AFRICAN EXPORT OF LIVE CATTLE BY SHIP FOR SLAUGHTER IN MAURITIUS

THE SKIPSTAT DOCUMENT, A BRIEF SUMMARY

FEEDLOTS’ PLANS AND EFFORTS TO EXPORT CATTLE

DEVELOPMENT OF THE UPRIGHT RESTRAINER FOR KOSHER SLAUGHTER OF CATTLE

INCORPORATION OF LWCC WELFARE CODES IN NAMIBIA’S FAN MEAT SCHEME, 1999

LWCC – 21 YEARS OF WELFARE

WSPA: THE CIVIL SOCIETY WORKSHOP, BRUSSELS, JUNE/JULY 2004

FREE RANGE EGGS

THE WORLD ORGANISATION FOR ANIMAL HEALTH (OIE)

THE INTERNATIONAL MEAT SECRETARIAT

THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS

THE WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION (WTO)

THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANISATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS (FAO)

THE POLICE RIOT SQUAD'S INVASION OF CHAMDOR ABATTOIR THAT UPSET MEMBERS OF LWCC TREMENDOUSLY

STRATEGIC PLANNING

END OF YEAR MEETING 2006: THERE HAD BEEN A LOSS OF INTEREST

STUNNING OF ANIMALS FOR HALAAL PURPOSES

THE NIGHTMARISH NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE BETH DIN AND TWO CHIEF RABBI'S.

DISASTERS

LAND REFORM

THE MEAT INDUSTRY TRUST (MIT), THE RED MEAT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TRUST (RMRDT) AND THE MOIRA BALL TRUST

LWCC ARCHIVES

THE STATE OF LIVESTOCK WELFARE IN SOUTH AFRICA AFTER 30 YEARS

ADDENDUM 1 LIST OF LWCC MEMBER ORGANISATIONS IN THE EARLY YEARS

ADDENDUM 2 THE FOUNDER MEMBERS

ADDENDUM 3

ADDENDUM 4

ADDENDUM 5

“The altercation” minutes of the Kosher Work Group.

ADDENDUM 6

ADDENDUM 7

ADDENDUM 1
LIST OF LWCC MEMBER ORGANISATIONS IN THE EARLY YEARS

ADDENDUM 2
THE FOUNDER MEMBERS