Earmarking and branding to be optional in WA next year

The decision to make earmarking and branding of sheep and cattle in WA optional next year has divided the State, with some farmers welcoming the move, while others slam it as “disappointing”. It comes after a Department of Primary Industries and Development survey revealed 64 per cent of the 574 respondents were in favour of making the now-mandatory practices optional. The practices have been used to identify stock across the State’s livestock industries for more than 100 years, but questions have been raised over their relevance since the National Livestock Identification System was introduced more than 20 years ago. Animal welfare of the practices has also been a talking point. There was a stark contrast in opinion between the north and south of the State, with those in the Perth, Peel, South West and Great Southern regions largely in favour of the move, while most in the northern pastoral regions of the Kimberley, Pilbara, Gascoyne and Mid West were opposed. Those in the Wheatbelt and southern pastoral region of Goldfields-Esperance supported the change by a small margin. WAFarmers livestock section president David Slade said many producers in the agricultural areas would no longer earmark or brand their stock. “WAFarmers support producer choice and supports producers continuing the practices as they see fit for the benefit of their own management practices,” he said. “We supported optional earmarking and branding in sheep and cattle. “(The) majority of WAFarmers members who engaged on this issue supported optional earmarking and branding. Earmarking involves cutting two symbols unique to the property into the sheep or cattle’s ears using pliers, while cattle branding involves the use of a hot or freezing branding iron to mark two letters and a number onto the animal. Animals are also required to have ear tags for identification under the NLIS system. Those in favour of the change argued the practices were “redundant”, given the NLIS system, and were a difficult way to identify ownership as the ears of the animal healed over time and caused pain and injury to the animals. In contrast, those who did not support the change argued they were an easy way to identify stock, served a biosecurity function, maintained system integrity and that the practices did not have animal welfare implications. Kimberley Pilbara Cattlemen’s Association chair David Stoate said there was “widespread opposition” in the northern pastoral region, with pastoralists expressing concerns over traceability and proof of ownership in cases of stock theft. “There wasn’t support for the change, generally we think it will weaken the traceability and integrity of the existing identification system,” he said. He also claimed DPIRD had “misled” the public in its report, stating the industry group’s submission was given the same weight as any individual. “DPIRD are quoting that 64 per cent were supportive of the change,” Mr Stoate said. “But we did one submission representing almost one million head of cattle and that was given the same weight as a submission from one individual.” Harvey lamb producers Zoe and Travis Allington — who run 1800 ewes in a paddock to plate operation — called earmarking “completely nonsensical” and said the move to make it optional was “fantastic news”. “I understand it’s historical and for two farmers with neighbouring properties it can help identify the animals ... but the fact that it’s mandatory at the moment is absurd,” Mrs Allington said. “I think it’s a really important step forward in implementing more important welfare standards in Australia.” “If some farmers still want to do it because they want to or it works for them, that’s their personal choice.” WA Agriculture Minister Alannah MacTiernan said all other Australian jurisdictions had removed mandatory earmarking — with only the NT and Queensland retaining cattle branding provisions — and DPIRD would work closely with producers to manage the transition early next year, with no start date set. “I acknowledge that support for the deregulation of marking and branding varies by region, with those in the northern pastoral regions less supportive of the changes,” she said. “However, it will now be up to individual owners whether they use these identifiers on their own animals.” Mr Slade said NLIS traceability in WA was well established and believed the move would better position the industry in the eyes of the consumer. “It will have a positive impact on ag and hopefully improve animal welfare perceptions,” he said. Given the brands and earmarks only indicated where an animal was born, Mr Slade said WAFarmers acknowledged they served “little purpose” outside of on-property management. “Earmarks and brands only identify the animal’s property of birth, not subsequent owners nor subsequent locations they move to throughout the rest of their life,” he said. Mrs Allington said the earmarks were “null and void” as soon as an animal was sold to another property. She said as soon as the amended regulations were approved, they would cease the practice she called “barbaric”. “Earmarks are only done once in a sheep’s lifetime,” she said. “When we started farming, 60-70 per cent of our ewes we bought in, they were from different lines and all had different earmarks.” “It’s a massive step forward — hopefully the first of many. I’d love to see mulesing stop in the foreseeable future.”