Intensive Animal Farming and Live Animal Export – Exposure of Australian Stock Exchange listed companies
This report aims to engage institutional and individual investors to consider the risks related to intensive animal farming and live animal exports as part of their investment processes.
Responsible Investment is the practice of considering environmental, social, governance (ESG) or other ‘ethical’ factors as part of the investment process. Concerns relating to factory farming and live exports can be assessed within the social aspects of ESG disclosure. Issues relating to the effluent waste of intensive animal farming can be addressed under environmental risk.
Social risk considerations related to animal welfare include, but are not limited to, the use of factory farming methods, the implementation of animal welfare policies and the export of livestock (live export). Antibiotic use within factory farming can also be considered a social risk as there is evidence that over-use, and in particular prophylaxis use (the preventative use of antibiotics in healthy animals), contributes to the development of antibiotic resistance and superbugs in human populations. This has led to the World Economic Forum to announce that antimicrobial resistance is the next global challenge to human health.
Investors, including individuals with superfund savings, can play a part in ensuring that the social and environmental risks related to intensive animal farming and live export are further addressed. This report aims to set out how animal welfare issues can be viewed as part of an ethical screen or ESG integrated investment process.
Funds that invest in companies with exposure to intensive animal farming or live export may face reputational damage, which may lead customers to change super funds. As animal welfare becomes an issue that is increasingly considered among consumers, this risk is likely to increase over time.
CAER has conducted research into the exposure of the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) top 300 companies to intensive animal farming (with a focus on poultry and aquaculture) and live animal exports. This research has differentiated types of exposure to intensive animal farming and live animal export.
In this report we summarise our findings and highlight practices where companies distinguish themselves from their peers. While we find that animal welfare is not yet a topic that is broadly and consistently measured and reported, there are some good practice examples in Australia. However, each company researched for this project could improve their disclosures relating to animal welfare. For a summary of reports, benchmarks and campaigns that identify a range of risks that ESG aware investors should consider when reviewing their portfolios see Background.
With consumer demand playing a crucial role in the debate, there are multiple certification and classification schemes making it important for investors to understand the differences between them and identify which scheme or naming classification aligns with their ethical or ESG expectations. This will depend on an investor’s responsible investment philosophy and approach. On the one hand, an investor may want to exclude any company with involvement in intensive animal farming or live export. On the other hand, an investor may want to invest in companies that implement a best practice approach with regards to animal welfare and engage with companies to improve their disclosures and practices. Taking either approach, an investor should be aware of where they have exposures to intensive animal farming and live export and respond to that risk accordingly.
Figure 1 outlines the structure of this report which aims to assist readers in better understanding the type of intensive animal farming and live export related activities Australian listed companies may be exposed to.
Figure 1: Report Framework
What is covered
This report looks at direct operations associated with intensive animal farming, with a focus on poultry, aquaculture and live animal export. The report also assesses associated operations with a focus on the operation of port and transport lines, restaurants and food producers, and supermarkets that retail intensive animal products. Companies listed on the ASX were assessed on public statements and public policies relating to animal welfare and antibiotic use. Company environmental policies and associated reporting have also been reviewed.
What is not covered
Numerous companies are exposed to intensive animal farming or live export through their value chain. For example, banks – and in particular regional banks with an agribusiness focus – may provide financial services and loans to private businesses involved in intensive animal farming. However, this research does not include financing of such activities. Private companies that have exposure to the associated issues were not assessed in this report. It would be difficult to expand a screen beyond this, due to lack of publicly available information.
Issues such as the retail of leather and fur are also not covered in this report. However, it is important to note that many listed companies worldwide are taking steps to remove themselves from the fur industry. Gucci, a subsidiary of Kering, is a recent example of a listed company that announced the implementation of a fur-free policy from 2018 onwards.
Furthermore, the use of animals for the purposes of racing and betting has not been considered in this analysis. This could be an area for further research and potential engagement in the future as many of the listed Australian gambling companies have exposure to animal related betting activities.
Live export focuses on activities related to the export of animals for slaughter, husbandry or breeding. We do not consider other animal transport in this report (for more detail see Definitions).
Intensive farming and live export – ESG related risks
Exposure to the intensive animal farming industry can pose reputational risks to companies, and in turn, investors, as consumers become more conscious of animal welfare issues. For example, consumer pressure on Woolworths has led the company to set a goal to stop sourcing eggs from caged hens by 2025. Reputational issues can also lead to loss of business and supply partnerships, loss of investor confidence and therefore affect the volatility of a company’s share price.
From an operational perspective, the typical stocking density of intensive farming activities increases the risk for development and spread of diseases. Antibiotics used to stimulate animal growth make the intensive farming model highly dependent on prophylactic antibiotic use, which has associated risks in the fostering of new diseases. The industry is also highly susceptible to concerns regarding animal welfare and effluent waste management.
The livestock industry is also highly vulnerable to government and state legislation. Currently in Australia, animal welfare standards and guidelines are state and territory dependent. This makes it difficult to hold companies involved in intensive animal farming accountable to regulations. However, the states and territories are currently working to develop and implement nationally consistent animal welfare standards and guidelines. Consistent standards and guidelines will make it easier for companies to implement company-wide approaches that cover animal welfare standards.
Figure 2 highlights some of the potential environmental, social and governance risks of both intensive animal farming and live export industries. Companies that fail to adequately address their salient environmental, social or governance risks may experience negative financial implications.
Figure 2 Environmental, Social and Governance Risks of Intensive Animal Farming and Live Export Industries
Australian companies exposure to intensive animal farming and management of associated risks
Companies on the Australian Stock Exchange are involved in a number of activities that relate to intensive farming practices. The following section highlights the type of Australian listed companies that have direct operations and indirect operations relating to intensive animal farming and live export, and examples of how companies manage the associated risks of these operations.
Intensive animal farming – Direct Operations
The poultry industry is heavily associated with intensive animal farming. Figure 3 illustrates the types of eggs from grocery sales according to the Australian Egg Corporation’s 2016 Annual Report.
Figure 3 Grocery Sales of eggs according to the Australian Egg Corporation 2016 Annual Report
Furthermore, chicken meat is the most consumed meat in Australia. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has projected that chicken meat will remain the most consumed meat in Australia over the outlook period, with per person consumption projected to grow from 47.0 kilograms in 2015–16 to 49.6 kilograms in 2021–22. Chicken meat is also exported from Australia. Papua New Guinea is the largest export market for Australian chicken meat accounting for 39% of exports in 2015–16.
There are many standards and certifications in place that attempt to ensure better animal welfare practices within the poultry industry. Differences between the standards for chickens can be seen in Table 1. These standards and certifications are explained in more detail in Appendix 2.
Table 1 Differences Between Egg Labels and Certifications
Growth promotion using antibiotics, issues regarding stocking density and de-beaking are three factors in the industry which highly affect the welfare of chickens. Companies that transparently and consistently address these issues throughout their operations (and suppliers) can be considered to be implementing best practice mechanisms.
On the Australian Stock Exchange, a company with direct operations in intensive poultry farming is Ingham’s Group. Ingham’s reports that 97% of its network of chicken and turkey broiler farms is outsourced to third-party operators, but the Company maintains ownership of the livestock and supplies their feed requirements. The company communicates to its investors that bird health, nutrition and welfare are managed through its sustainability framework. It indicates that chickens and turkeys are at minimum barn-raised, cage-free and grown without the addition of hormones and that it follows antibiotic judicious use guidelines. This includes refraining from treating birds with antibiotics classified as ‘critically important antibiotics’ as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO). Furthermore, Ingham’s states that antibiotics are used exclusively to prevent and treat disease in chickens and never used for growth promotion. Ingham’s states that all of Ingham’s Australian meat chickens are raised on farms which are accredited by RSPCA against the Approved Farming Scheme Standard, which includes standards relating to stocking density (maximum stocking density of 34kg per meter square).
A challenge for poultry producers, however, is managing not only their own operations but also ensuring adequate conditions regarding third party providers. Disclosures on approaches as well as reporting on conditions and regular audits would be considered best practice. Ensuring that third party providers are accredited by standards such as the RSPCA Approved Farming Scheme Standard is also recommended.
Ingham’s has also received certifications from animal welfare organisations, in particular, all of Ingham’s Australian meat chickens are raised on farms which are accredited by the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) against their Approved Farming Scheme Standard. A number of Ingham’s animals are raised as free range (around 11% of revenue is generated from the sale of free range poultry meat), for which Ingham’s reports there is strong consumer demand and which consequently command higher retail prices. The Company’s Australian free range farms are accredited by FREPA – the Free Range Egg and Poultry Australia, an accreditation organisation. The New Zealand free range farms are accredited by the SPCA (the SPCA does not accredit barn-raised farms).
Globally, the consumption and production of seafood has increased. Furthermore, The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) predicts that farmed fish production will exceed wild fisheries production for human consumption by 2018, and more than half of the fish consumed globally will come from aquaculture by 2021.
Aquaculture in Australia is a growing industry. According to an Australian Government Report on the Aquaculture and Fisheries industry in Australia, the top five aquaculture species groups, in terms of production value, are salmonids, tuna, pearl oysters, prawns and oysters. An increasing demand for seafood couple with growth in the aquaculture industry has led to debate surrounding the environmental, animal health and welfare risks related to the industry.
The industry has advertised itself as being a positive alternative to wild fish, as it does not lead to the reduction in global fish stocks. This is a contentious argument, which is often disputed, because some fish farms still depend on wild populations to supply eggs or juveniles that the farmers raise for market or depend on small wild fish, like sardines, as food for the farmed fish. Moreover, the industry has faced allegations for mistreating animals, the misuse of antibiotics, and having exponential environmental damage from the fish-stock effluents.
Australian companies in the aquaculture industry have recently been under community scrutiny with the public debate focussed on the damage from effluent waste. In February 2017 the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) in Tasmania ordered Tassal Salmon to remove all of its stock from one of its farming leases in Macquarie Harbour on the west coast of Tasmania. This order followed a report by ABC Four Corners, which stated that all marine fauna within 500 metres of the World Heritage Area of the farm lease was dead. The intervention occurred a month after the EPA limited stock from 20,000 to 14,000 in the harbour.
While Tassal Salmon has Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) certification for its aquaculture products, a report on behalf of the ASC found the company failed to comply with 19 certification requirements at two sites in Macquarie Harbour. The report also alleged that these practices failed to comply with Tasmanian Marine Farming Licence conditions, legislation, community engagement and listing ecosystem function. Tassal Salmon was given three months to address the findings or face the possibility of losing its ASC certification. The company achieved re-certification in September 2017.
Huon Aquaculture, another Australian listed aquaculture company, was fined $260k in December 2015 for exceeding nitrogen input levels in the Huon River and Port Esperance by 277 tonnes or 42% over 12 months.
Companies are starting to address and disclose more information on how they manage fish health. Tassal reports that it has internal ‘Fish Health Management Plans’ in place and a ‘Zero Harm for Fish’ program based on the UK RSPCA Freedom Food Animal Welfare Standards for Salmon.  Huon Aquaculture states that the company strives to keep fish healthy, well-nourished and low-stress. Huon Aquaculture manages disease control in salmonid production through their ‘Veterinary Health Plan (VHP), Biosecurity and Antibiotic Use’.
According to Tassal Salmon, antibiotics are only used on a small proportion of fish, and discloses the use of antibiotics through its sustainability reports. In 2016, one sea pen of salmon was treated with antibiotics. Tassal reports that this equates to 0.16 grams of antibiotic use per tonne of salmon produced that year. Huon Aquaculture also commits that their fish are never fed growth hormones/growth promoters.
The expansion of the aquaculture industry poses many environmental risks. These risks include effluent waste and surrounding contamination, build ups of organic material near the fish farm impacting the flora and fauna of an area and changing sediment chemistry. Furthermore, the escape of exotic farmed fish from fish farms also can impact native fish stocks. For example, in January 2018, the NSW Department of Primary Industries reported that 20,000 kingfish escaped a Huon Aquaculture farm off Port Stevens after the pen was damaged by rough seas.
The use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the aquaculture industry has also been an issue of rising consumer concern. Both Tassal Salmon and Huon Aquaculture have confirmed that they do not farm GMO salmon. Huon Aquaculture has also confirmed that feed given to the fish does not contain GMO ingredients. 
Intensive animal farming – Associated Operations
Animal based food and nutritional supplements
Companies that are involved in the operation of restaurants are exposed to the use of intensively farmed animal products. Most food outlets would make use of meat and egg products, which are sourced in high volumes, and unless specified otherwise, can reasonably be assumed to originate from intensively farmed production methods.
However, as consumer demand shift, we are starting to see large-scale food companies’ change sourcing attitudes. For example, some fast food restaurants in Australia, such as Subway and McDonalds, have committed to phasing out the use of caged eggs. Companies that manufacture processed foods often use intensively farmed products or use products with little to no information on how they are sourced. These companies may not have properly considered the risk in their supply chain or audit the animal welfare standards of their suppliers.
A reason for investors to look closer at sourcing and animal welfare issues is that if a case of animal cruelty from a supplier is found and promulgated in the media it has the potential to lead to reputational damages.
In contrast to some of its peers, Domino’s Pizza Enterprises has a public animal welfare policy. Through this policy, Domino’s Pizza sets out that it expects business partners to ensure that any animals involved in the goods or services they provide are treated in accordance with RSPCA’s Animal Policies.
Patties Foods is an example of a company that has an ethical sourcing commitment, however, there is no explicit reference to animal welfare standards. Our research indicates that Patties Foods manufactures some products with RSPCA approved chicken however, it appears that this standard is not applied to all chicken or meat based products. It is increasingly common practice for larger listed companies that operate restaurants or have activities in producing food to have an ethical sourcing code or equivalent that extends to explaining the company’s expected animal welfare standards.
Some food or nutritional supplement companies also produce goods that contain animal products. Blackmores for example manufactures vitamin, mineral, herbal and nutritional supplements containing animal products such as fish oil. As such, measures being undertaken by Blackmores include transitioning to Marine Stewardship Council certified fish oil for products. Blackmores is also working with fish oil suppliers to enhance traceability across their fish oil range. It is unclear whether Blackmores source some fish oil products from farmed fisheries or wild caught fish.
Supermarkets are exposed to intensive animal farming through the retailing of associated products. Companies are taking steps to improve the welfare of animals involved in the making of their products, however, this these improvements are usually restricted to their self-branded products. Information regarding products that the company sells outside of their own brand products is difficult to obtain.
Supermarkets sell meat and animal-based products to consumers, and as such have a role to play in setting standards relating to the supply and production of eggs and poultry, pork, beef, and seafood available in their stores. This can include, but is not limited to, guidelines surrounding the phasing out gestation stalls and cage eggs and policies concerning the slaughter of animals. The restriction of antibiotic use within policies and the provision of certified antibiotic-free meets is also considered best practice. Although policies covering antibiotic use are uncommon, companies such as Woolworths refer to certain products that have restricted antibiotic use. Woolworths states that their RSPCA Approved chickens have ‘a Veterinary Health Plan and the usage of antibiotics is monitored during audit’.
As a general guide, animal welfare related policies can refer to the ‘five freedoms’ set out by the RSPCA:
- Freedom from hunger and thirst: by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour.
- Freedom from discomfort: by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
- Freedom from pain, injury or disease: by prevention through rapid diagnosis and treatment.
- Freedom to express normal behaviour: by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal’s own kind.
- Freedom from fear and distress: by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.
For example, Wesfarmers policies suggest their intention to ensure that the slaughters they fund are carried out as humanely as possible. The company states that their ‘approach to animal welfare for Coles Brand farmed animals is based around… freedom from hunger and thirst, freedom from discomfort, freedom from pain, injury and disease… freedom from fear and distress.’
Animal rights activists are also pushing companies to move beyond the five freedoms, towards the five domains, which covers the four physical/functional domains of nutrition, environment, health, behaviour and one mental domain.
Live Export – Direct Operations
Live animal exporting has attracted much controversy in Australia over the past decade. Campaigns centred on footage showing mistreatment of live export cattle in an Indonesian abattoir in 2011 put a temporary hold on Australian live cattle export to Indonesia. However, Australia remains the world’s largest exporter of livestock. Australia is the largest live exporter of sheep, and third largest exporter of cattle. According to Live Corp, the live animal export industry contributes an average of A$1 billion in export earnings to the Australian economy annually. Appendix 1 indicates countries to which Australia exports live sheep, feeder cattle and breeding cattle.
The live export industry is not strongly linked to the overuse of antibiotics. This is because antibiotic use in the Australian cattle feedlot industry is tightly regulated by legislation. For example, fluoroquinolones are banned for use in livestock in Australia, but are permitted in the European Union and the United States. Furthermore, in Australia, there are only very few antibiotics used in both livestock production and human medicine. An Antimicrobial Stewardship Framework is also underway for the Australian industry as a project of Meat & Livestock Australia funded by the Australian Government and the Australian Lot Feeders’ Association.
Of the listed companies with direct involvement in live animal export, all but one company provide no evidence of a company-wide animal welfare policy. Wellard, a company that reports it shipped 304,208 head of cattle and 80,143 head of sheep in fiscal 2017, has implemented the following initiatives:
- On-board crew provide animal welfare and husbandry skills on the vessel. Wellard identifies and selects crew to undertake additional independent training, assessment, and accreditation in animal handling.
- An animal welfare officer is appointed by Wellard to oversee each voyage. Wellard has also created its own ‘Wellard Animal Welfare Accord’ to ensure consistency of animal welfare performance across their operations.
Other companies involved in live export do not commit to animal welfare standards in a formal policy. However, they often disclose that they implement other initiatives, such as compliance meetings and engagement with industry stakeholders with an aim to improve animal welfare.
Live Export – Associated operations
Ports and transport lines
Logistics companies help with the logistics of transporting goods, including the operation of ports and transport lines, and have a history of involvement with the live animal export industry.
Port infrastructure is often part of direct infrastructure investments by institutional investors. For example, in 2013 Port Botany and Port Kembla were purchased by Industry Funds Management on a 99-year lease. It is often difficult to assess whether ports are involved in live export, as terminals are often operated by independent stevedores. However, investments associated with port infrastructure or logistics are likely to have touch points with the live animal export industry if they operate in Australia.
Our research could not identify examples of animal welfare policies or public statements on companies that operate ports.
Next steps for investors
This research aims to support engagement with fund managers on their current policies relating to animal welfare considerations and to encourage the implementation of animal welfare considerations within investment processes.
As with many themes in responsible investment, how investors deal with companies involved in live animal export and intensive agriculture strongly depends on the specific approach an investor has to responsible investment. Investors with a strong ethical basis that includes considerations on animal welfare, may come to the conclusion that certain investee companies should not form part of their portfolio. Others may consider intensive farming operations acceptable if certain minimum standards are met – in this case, investors are best served if they can clearly articulate minimum standards that companies should comply with or provide clear reporting against. In other cases, monitoring performance across a number of key indicators to ensure companies are not acting contrary to legal obligations and consumer demand, may be needed for investors to be satisfied that potential negative consequences from intensive farming and live export are managed.
Companies with direct exposure to intensive animal operations address and report issues relating to animal welfare. However, how these policies extend across the companies supply chain, and information regarding the management systems in place to execute these policies could be beneficial in understanding how different actors work on improving on-the-ground animal welfare.
Companies that generate a large proportion of revenue from the live export business must do more to address the social and environmental risks associated with the industry. Furthermore, companies must take responsibility for their association with live export and further address the risks associated with supporting the industry.
The majority of restaurant chains and manufacturers on the ASX do not have animal welfare policies. In particular, restaurant chains that focus on the retail of animal products need to do more to mitigate risks associated with retailing intensively farmed animal products.
Large supermarket retailers have animal welfare policies and are implementing standards and procedures to improve the welfare of animals involved in the making of their products, in particular with their ‘own brand’ lines. However, retailers do not disclose on the standards for their wider suppliers.
Animal welfare is gaining attention
We note that there is a move to acknowledge and act on animal welfare issues among ASX listed companies. For example, in September 2016 ASX-listed company Elders announced it would sell their live export logistics business, North Australian Cattle Company (NACC). However, Elders stated that animal welfare was not a major driver to their decision to sell NACC, and rather the decision was motivated by profit considerations. In April 2018 Elders that they are selling their Indonesian feed lot and abattoir subsidiary, further illustrating their move away from the live export business. The company was heavily involved in this area which included the flying of cattle to China.
Another example comes from Qantas and their commitment to no longer carry greyhound racing dogs on flights to Asia. This stance was taken in 2015 after the release of a damning report regarding the treatment of racing dogs in Asia.
Woolworths and Wesfarmers have both been taking positive steps with regards to improving animal welfare standards for their own-brand products.
It should be noted however, that many of these moves have been led by consumer pressure rather than investor demand. And while it is positive to see companies responding to consumer pressures, investors are better placed to understand and analyse the difference between the path of least resistance compared to a systematic application of standards and properly integrated systems.
Where to start?
Considerations regarding intensive animal farming and live export for investors and companies to address are as follows:
Considerations for investors
- Identify where in your portfolio you may have exposure to direct or associated operations relating to intensive animal farming and live export
- Assess how the companies exposed are recognising and proactively responding to the risks associated with operations relating to intensive animal farming and live export
- Engage NGOs and research providers with regards to key issues relating to intensive animal farming and live export to gain an understanding of what is best practice and to identify potential opportunities for collaboration
- Once you recognise your exposure and have developed a set of questions, engage with the companies. Potential areas for engagement include improving animal welfare standards and practices, improving stocking densities, introducing a phase-out of confinement systems, the provision of pain relief and the elimination of the unnecessary use of antibiotics.
Considerations for companies
- Be clear on exposures to intensive animal farming and/or live export.
- Define and explore risks related to this exposure in a saliency risk assessment disclosed to external stakeholders.
- Engage with NGOs on best practice.
- Companies with direct operations:
- Construct a dialogue with fellow industry players on ways to implement best practice.
- Create an animal welfare policy that aims to maintain best practice standards and clearly communicate these expectations internally and externally.
- Create an environmental policy that considers the impacts of effluent waste.
- Regularly review any policies to ensure their relevancy and alignment with best practice standards.
- Audit operations to ensure compliancy with standards, and set up reporting structures that allow you to communicate on compliance and progress.
- Companies with associated operations
- Have a supply chain policy that sets out minimum requirements or expectations for animal welfare standards.
- Regularly review policies to ensure their relevancy and alignment with best practice standards.
- Audit suppliers to ensure their compliancy with animal welfare standards.
These lists are not exhaustive. However, they providing a starting block for investors and companies on a journey to address their risks relating to intensive animal farming and live export. Further research regarding this field will help both investors and companies to further their understanding of the importance of addressing these risks.
Interested in discussing any of this issue further? Feel free to get in touch.
Referenceshttps://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/09/antimicrobial-resistance-is-the-next-global-commons-issue/> [Accessed 05/10/2017].
 Note: the original research brief also included pig farming. However, the low exposure to pig farming in the ASX 300 made a more narrow focus on poultry and aquaculture more meaningful.
 ‘Gucci goes fur-free, will auction remaining merchandise for animal rights charities’, 13/10/2017, ABC News, <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-13/gucci-bans-fur/9046332> [Accessed 14/10/2017].
 Community and responsibility’, Woolworths Website, <https://www.woolworthsgroup.com.au/page/community-and-responsibility/group-responsibility/responsibile-sourcing> [Accessed 02/10/2017].
 ‘Factory Farming: Assessing Investment Risks’ (2016), FAIRR Website, <http://www.fairr.org/wp-content/uploads/FAIRR_Report_Factory_Farming_Assessing_Investment_Risks.pdf> [Accessed 06/10/2017]
‘Stop using antibiotics in healthy animals to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance’, (7 November 2017) World Health Organisation Website, <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2017/antibiotics-animals-effectiveness/en/> and ‘Factory Farming in Asia: Assessing Investment Risks’, (August 2017) ‘FAIRR Website’, <http://www.fairr.org/resource/factory-farming-in-asia-assessing-investment-risks/> [Accessed 02/11/2017].
 ‘Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines’, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources Website, <http://www.agriculture.gov.au/animal/welfare/standards-guidelines> [Accessed 02/10/2017].
 The Australian Egg Corporation Annual Report 2016, p3, The Australian Egg Corporation, <https://www.australianeggs.org.au/dmsdocument/754-annual-report-2016-pdf> [Accessed 02/10/2017].
 Quarterly Agricultural Commodities Report (March 2017), p116, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources Website, <http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/Documents/agricultural-commodities-report-march-2017.pdf> [Accessed 02/10/2017].
 Ibid., p117.
 ‘Making sense of egg labels’, Make it Possible, <http://www.makeitpossible.com/guides/egg-labels.php> [Accessed 02/02/2018].
 ‘What is Beak Trimming’, RSPCA Australia Knowledge Base Website, <http://kb.rspca.org.au/what-is-beak-trimming_629.html>
‘What are the RSPCA Approved Farming Scheme Standards for Layer Hens?’, RSPCA Australia Knowledge Base Website, <http://kb.rspca.org.au/what-are-the-rspca-approved-farming-scheme-standards-for-layer-hens_95.html>
‘What are the RSPCA Approved Farming Scheme Standards for Meat Chickens?’, RSPCA Australia Knowledge Base Website, <http://kb.rspca.org.au/what-are-the-rspca-approved-farming-scheme-standards-for-meat-chickens_344.html>
 Ingham Chickens Annual Report 2017, Ingham’s Company Website, <http://annualreport2017.inghams.com.au/business-sustainability/> [Accessed 02/10/2017].
 ‘What are the RSPCA Approved Farming Scheme standards for meat chickens?’, RSPCA Website <http://kb.rspca.org.au/what-are-the-rspca-approved-farming-scheme-standards-for-meat-chickens_344.html> [13/10/2017].
 Ingham Chickens IPO Prospectus 2016, Ingham’s Company Website, p32, <https://www.morgans.com.au/morgans-assets/PDFs/Inghams_IPO_Prospectus_2016.pdf> [Accessed 02/10/2017].
 Ingham’s Australian free-range farms are accredited by FREPA – the Free Range Egg and Poultry Australia. The New Zealand free-range farms are accredited by the SPCA. Note: The SPCA does not accredit barn-raised farms.
 Aquaculture Industry in Australia, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources Website, <http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/aquaculture/aquaculture-industry-in-australia> [Accessed 13/10/2017].
 Australian fisheries and aquaculture statistics 2016, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Research by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (December 2017), Department of Agriculture and Water Resources ABARES Website, <http://data.daff.gov.au/data/warehouse/9aam/afstad9aamd003/2016/AustFishAquacStats_2016_v1.0.0.pdf>
 Ibid., p9.
 Georgie Burgess, ‘Tassal given three months to clean up Macquarie harbour leases’, ABC News Website, <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-19/tassal-given-three-months-to-clean-up-macquarie-harbour-leases/8542900>
 Georgie Burgess, ‘Tassal wins back certification for two fish farm leases in troubled waters of Macquarie Harbour’, ABC News Website, <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-05/tassal-wins-back-macquarie-harbour-certification/8875274>
 ‘Huon Aquaculture faces bill after nitrogen error’, ABC News (16 December 2015), <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-16/huon-aquaculture-faces-bill-after-nitrogen-error/7034498> [Accessed 16/10/2017].
 ‘Fish Health Welfare’, Tassal Company Website, <http://www.tassal.com.au/sustainability/our-salmon/fish-health-welfare> [Accessed 16/10/2017].
 ‘Fish Health and Welfare’, Huon Aquaculture Website <https://www.huonaqua.com.au/sustainability/ethical-farming/fish-health-welface/> [Accessed 16/10/2017].
 ‘Keeping our fish healthy’, Huon Aquaculture Website <https://www.huonaqua.com.au/sustainability/ethical-farming/fish-health-welface/keeping-fish-healthy/> [Accessed 16/10/2017].
 ‘Fish Health Welfare’, Tassal Company Website, <http://www.tassal.com.au/sustainability/asc-dashboard/#antibiotic-use> [Accessed 16/10/2017].
 Huon Kingfish – Incident Investigation Summary, (8 February 2018), NSW Department of Primary Industries <https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/799081/20180209_Huon-Incident-Investigation-Summary.pdf>
 ‘Open Letter to Huon customers and wholesalers’, Huon Aquaculture Company Website, <https://www.huonaqua.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Open-letter-to-Huon-customers-and-wholesalers.pdf > [Accessed 16/10/2017].
Alex Sampson, ‘Caged egg sales dropping: Australian Egg Corporation Annual Report’, The Weekly Times Website, <http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/agribusiness/caged-egg-sales-dropping-australian-egg-corporation-annual-report/news-story/2d494ebf39ab43f596d75f8ecfd558ba> [Accessed 03/11/2017].
 Code of Conduct, p5, Domino’s Pizza Enterprises Website, <https://www.dominos.com.au/media/88995/ho1318_codeofconduct_web.pdf> [Accessed 01/12/2017].
‘Policies’, RSPCA Website, <https://www.rspca.org.au/facts/policies> [Accessed 01/12/2017].
 ‘New Herbert Adams Chicken and Chorizo Pies’, Patties Food Group Website, <http://pattiesfoods.com.au/promotions/new-chicken-chorizo> [Accessed 01/12/2017].
 ‘Fish Oil 1000’, Blackmores Website, <https://www.blackmores.com.au/products/fish-oil-1000>
 ‘Responsible Sourcing’, Woolworths Group Company Website, <https://www.woolworthsgroup.com.au/page/community-and-responsibility/group-responsibility/responsibile-sourcing> [Accessed 01/12/2017].
 ‘Five Freedoms for Animals’, RSPCA Website, <http://kb.rspca.org.au/Five-freedoms-for-animals_318.html>
 2017 Sustainability Report, Wesfarmers Company Website<http://sustainability.wesfarmers.com.au/media/2224/2017-wesfarmers-sustainability-full-report.pdf > [Accessed 03/11/2017].
 DJ Mellor and NJ Beausoleil, ‘Extending the ‘Five Domains’ model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states’, Animal Welfare, Vol 24, pp241-253.
 Independent Review of Australia’s Livestock Export Trade, px, Department of Agriculture Website, <http://www.agriculture.gov.au/Style%20Library/Images/DAFF/__data/assets/pdffile/0007/2401693/indep-review-aust-livestock-export-trade.pdf> [Accessed 02/10/2017].
 ‘An Overview’, LiveCorp Website, <http://www.livecorp.com.au/industry-information/an-overview> [Accessed 16/10/2017].
 Feedlots Website, <http://www.feedlots.com.au/factsheets/Fact-sheet-Antibiotics-OCT15.pdf > [Accessed 16/10/2017].
 ‘Antimicrobial Stewardship Set to Launch’, MLA Website, <https://www.mla.com.au/news-and-events/industry-news/antimicrobial-stewardship-set-to-launch/ > [Accessed 16/10/2017].
 Wellard Annual Report 2016/17, p4, Wellard Company Website, <https://www.wellard.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/WELLARD-LIMITED-Annual-Report-FY2017.pdf>
 ‘Animal Welfare’, Wellard Company Website, <https://www.wellard.com.au/supply-chain/animal-welfare/> [Accessed 13/04/2018]
 ‘Super funds pay $5bn for NSW ports’, ABC News <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-12/nsw-leases-ports-to-industry-super-funds/4626068>
 ‘Elders flies live cattle to China for restaurant trade’, ABC News, 27 April 2016, <http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2016-04-27/elders-flies-live-cattle-to-china-for-restaurant-trade/7361852> [Accessed 13/10/2017].
 ‘Qantas will no longer carry racing greyhounds on flights to Asia’, Sydney Morning Herald, 12 November 2015, <http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/qantas-will-no-longer-carry-racing-greyhounds-on-flights-to-asia-20151212-glm08m.html > [Accessed 13/10/2017].
Author: Nina Haysler
Research Project Manager