Surgical mulesing aids in the lifelong prevention of breech flystrike in sheep. Mulesed sheep are six times less likely to become breech struck. However, mulesing is the most controversial animal welfare issue facing the wool industry, with animal welfare and anti-farming activists attempting to ban the practice for many years.

Without clear leadership from peak industry groups on the issue, woolgrowers themselves will need to become more proactive in managing the future of mulesing. Eventually, mulesing will no longer be an option, so all wool growers need to actively start planning for a transition away from the practice. As occurred in the live export industry, external pressures can result in regulation being implemented rapidly; it is far better to be on the front-foot and act while there is a choice, options and time, than to react to a ban or other enforced measures.

While mulesing is a very effective method of reducing the incidence of breech strike, it does have many disadvantages, such as:

Causing severe pain
Reduced growth rates post-mulesing
Increased lamb mortality from infections and mismothering
Additional cost, particularly when using pain relief
Requires a skilled operator and reduces the speed of lamb marking

The most viable, long-term option to manage flystrike in unmulesed sheep is breeding to reduce breech winkle, increase bare skin around the breech and reduce the propensity to form dags. It is a common argument that breeding for these traits will reduce fleece weight, which discourages some producers from exploring this option further.

However, as with any breeding objective, it is essential to maintain a balance between multiple traits. Many producers have demonstrated that it is possible to maintain their current level of wool production while transitioning to an unmulesed, low wrinkle flock.

This breeding plan also needs to be coupled with a flexible management plan that allows rapid response to changes in seasonal conditions. Such management strategies include optimising the time of crutching and shearing, an additional crutch and/or application of preventative chemicals, plus improved parasite management.

The following table demonstrates the progress that can be made in ten years towards a low wrinkle flock.

Making this change will take a number of years to achieve, so it is important to start the planning process now. Wool producers should take the time to gather information and step-out their approach, as ceasing mulesing without a clear strategy, will result in poor outcomes for their sheep and business.

Ceasing mulesing without a clear strategy may lead to some of the following:

Increased mortality from breech strike
Reduced price for surplus stock
Reduced wool cut, with potentially more stain
Increased use of chemicals
Additional management practices such as crutching
Complaints from shearers due to more difficult shearing

The move away from mulesing can be done gradually, minimising risk and allowing evaluation of what methods work best for the sheep and environment. For producers who grow out their own Merino wether lambs for slaughter, mulesing is not necessary in most situations.

The cost savings from not mulesing will partially offset an additional chemical application or crutching over summer, plus there will likely be other benefits in terms of growth rates and survival post-marking. The next step could then be mulesing only ewe lambs at high-risk of strike and leaving plainer lambs unmulesed, before ceasing mulesing altogether. With the correct management, the incidence of flystrike can be kept to a minimum.

While the price premium for wool from unmulesed flocks has varied significantly over the past few years, it is increasing. Currently the premium for 18-19 mic wool is 40 c/kg clean, resulting in additional return of approximately $1.45/hd while the premium for 20 mic wool is 30 c/kg clean, adding approximately an additional $1.25/hd. This will help offset the extra treatment and management costs in running an unmulesed merino flock. There is still bias against unmulesed sheep, so producers who sell surplus animals to restockers, should expect a discount for unmulesed sheep. Developing a strong relationship with a buyer may help to avoid this.

For the majority of consumers, causing pain to animals regardless of the reason is unacceptable, leading to mulesing not being tolerated in the medium to long term.

Being proactive about phasing out mulesing will improve wool’s ability to compete for market share with other fibres, most of which are cheaper. Selecting rams with less wrinkle (while maintaining wool cut) and when possible, culling high-risk ewes as well as any that become fly struck, is a good place to start. Minimising mulesing on animals that do not require it, plus using an appropriate pain relief when mulesing, is also a positive move.

Transitioning to an unmulesed flock is possible and realistic, to maintain sheep producers’ social licence to operate. Therefore, every wool grower needs to begin taking steps towards that goal.

Tools and resources are available at the following link www.flyboss.com.au

The Future of Mulesing