The Australian 2019/2020 Black Summer Bushfires: Analysis of the Pathology, Treatment Strategies and Decision Making About Burnt Livestock

Brendan D Cowled; Melanie Bannister-Tyrrell; Mark Doyle; Henry Clutterbuck; Jeff Cave; Alison Hillman; Karren Plain; Caitlin Pfeiffer; Michael Laurence; Michael P Ward

doi:10.3389/fvets.2022.790556

The Australian 2019/2020 Black Summer Bushfires: Analysis of the Pathology, Treatment Strategies and Decision Making About Burnt Livestock

Front Vet Sci. 2022 Feb 15:9:790556. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.790556. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Ausvet Pty Ltd., Bruce, ACT, Australia.
² Faculty of Science, Sydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Camden, NSW, Australia.
³ South East Local Land Services, Goulburn, NSW, Australia.
⁴ Biosecurity and Agriculture Services, Agriculture Victoria, Wodonga, VIC, Australia.
⁵ Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Science, Melbourne Veterinary School, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
⁶ Meat and Livestock Australia, North Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Abstract

In 2019/2020, Australia experienced a severe bushfire event, with many tens of thousands of livestock killed or euthanized. Little systematic research has occurred to understand livestock bushfire injuries, risk factors for injury, or how to make decisions about management of bushfire-injured livestock. Addressing this research gap is important as there is an increasing bushfire incidence globally. This paper presents qualitative research findings about bushfire-injured and killed livestock in the south-east of Australia after the 2019/2020 Australian bushfires. We describe observed pathology, treatments used, and risk factors for injury, then use thematic analysis to understand decision making about managing fire-injured livestock. Livestock injured by the fires showed pathology predominantly associated with the common integument (feet, hooves and skin) and signs of acute respiratory damage. It could take several days for the full extent of burns to become apparent, leaving prognostic doubt. Treatment strategies included immediate euthanasia, salvage slaughter, retention for later culling, treatment and recovery on farm, hospitalization and intensive treatment, or no intervention. Risk factors reported for livestock injury included lack of warnings about an impending fire, the type and amount of vegetation around livestock and the weather conditions on the day the fire reached livestock. Moving stock to an area with little vegetation before fire arrived was seen as protective. Decision making regarding injured livestock appeared influenced by three main themes: (1) observations on the severity of pathology, clinical signs and level of prognostic doubt, (2) pre-existing beliefs about animal welfare (responsibility to minimize unnecessary suffering) and (3) assumptions about the future. The management of livestock was largely appropriate due to the rapid provision of veterinary expertise. However, it is likely that some injured livestock were euthanized due to conservative veterinary advice driven by a lack of opportunity to re-assess stock, with impacts on farmers. In future, resourcing regular revisits of injured livestock to manage risks of gradual progression of burn pathology may facilitate more accurate prognostic assessment, provided injured animals can receive appropriate pain relief. In addition, a more comprehensive burns classification system linked to prognosis that can be rapidly applied in the field may assist assessments.

Keywords: Australia; bushfire; decision making; euthanasia; injury; livestock; risk factors; wildfire.