In Australia, flystrike can severely compromise sheep welfare. Traditionally, the surgical practice of mulesing was performed to alter wool distribution and breech conformation and thereby reduce flystrike risk. The aim of this study was to use published data to evaluate the effectiveness of an epidemiologically based risk assessment model in comparing welfare outcomes in sheep undergoing mulesing, mulesing with pain relief, plastic skin-fold clips, and no mulesing. We used four measures, based on cortisol, haptoglobin, bodyweight and behavioural change, across three farming regions in Australia. All data were normalised to a common scale, based on the range between the highest and lowest responses for each variable (‘welfare impact’; I). Lifetime severity of welfare challenge (SWC) was estimated by summing annual SWCs (SWC = I × P, where P = probability of that impact occurring). The severity of welfare challenge during the first year of life was higher for mulesed animals compared to unmulesed. However, over five years of life, the highest severity of welfare challenge was for unmulesed animals, and the lowest was for the plastic skin-fold clips. The model produced estimates of SWC that are in broad agreement with expert consensus that, although mulesing historically represented a welfare benefit for sheep under Australian conditions, the replacement of mulesing with less invasive procedures, and ultimately genetic selection combined with anti-fly treatments, will provide a sustainable welfare benefit. However, the primary objective of this work was to evaluate the use of the risk assessment framework; not to compare welfare outcomes from mulesing and its alternatives.

Flystrike (cutaneous myiasis) in sheep has the potential to have a major impact on the welfare of significant numbers of sheep worldwide, but particularly in Australia. The main control method used in Australia, the mulesing operation to remove folds of skin from the hindquarters of the sheep, is effective in controlling the disease, but will be terminated from 2010 as a result of concerns that the operation itself has too great a negative impact on sheep welfare. Alternative treatment methods are considered, and it is proposed that they need to be appraised for each farm separately, based on the conditions prevailing and the potential to apply the different treatments. Sheep are predisposed to flystrike if their fleece is wet or contaminated with faeces or urine. Monitoring and awareness of the weather conditions will enable farmers to strategically treat their sheep with insecticides, or to observe them and treat affected animals more regularly. Frequent removal of wool by crutching, dagging and shearing will aid wool desiccation after rainfall and decrease the likelihood of fleece contamination with excreta. Some control of diarrhoea can be achieved by good grazing management and treatment of diseases that predispose sheep to the disorder. Reducing fly populations can be achieved by the use of traps, and parasitoid wasps also offer some promise. Alternative methods of removing wool and wrinkles from the hindquarters of sheep, including the topical application of quarternary ammonium compounds, phenols, caustic soda or plastic clips, have yet to be proven to be effective, without severely impacting on the welfare of the animal as well as compromising operator safety. In the long term, the breeding of sheep without wrinkles or wool on their hindquarters offers the most likely method of control, although a small proportion of sheep are affected on other parts of their body.

Flystrike costs the Australian industry $173 to 280 M per annum and 70% to 80% of Merino lambs are currently mulesed to reduce the risk of flystrike. To alleviate welfare concerns there has been widespread adoption of analgesics to mitigate the pain associated with mulesing. The objective of this experiment was to determine the effectiveness of Tri-Solfen® and meloxicam (Metacam® 20) at reducing pain-related behavioural responses to mulesing in Merino lambs. One hundred and forty Merino lambs were allocated to one of seven treatment groups: (1) non-mulesed (Control); (2) mulesed with no pain relief; (3) subcutaneous (s.c.) meloxicam administered 15 min before mulesing; (4) Tri-Solfen® administered at time of mulesing; (5) Tri-Solfen® and saline injection (s.c.) 15 min before mulesing; (6) Tri-Solfen® and meloxicam (s.c.) 15 min before mulesing; and (7) meloxicam (s.c.) at time the of mulesing. Behavioural responses such as standing, walking and lying were measured every 15 min for 6 h on the day of marking and for up to 2 h for 4 days thereafter. Standing (hunched v. normal) and walking (stiff v. normal) behaviours were then categorised into pain- and normal-related behaviours while lying remained in its own category. Mulesed lambs with no pain relief displayed significantly more pain-related behaviours than Control lambs during the 6 h post-mulesing (1.22 v. 0.22 out of a total score of 3; RSD=1.15). Lambs that received a combination of pain relief displayed significantly less pain-related behaviour than mulesed lambs with no pain relief on the day of mulesing (0.85 v. 1.22 out of a total score of 3; RSD=1.15). Administration of meloxicam or Tri-Solfen® on their own had minimal if any significant effect on pain-related behaviours on the day of mulesing. The results of this experiment support the use of pain-related behaviours to measure the efficacy of analgesics and the use of multimodal analgesia during mulesing of lambs.