Think wool is harmless? Think again.


What would you do if some sick individual tried to cut large chunks of skin and flesh from around your anus?

You would probably kick their anus. And what would you say if the sicko claimed he was just doing his job? You’d say, “Screw your job.”

Every year, industrial wool farmers in Australia (the largest producer of wool in the world) routinely mutilate tens of millions of helpless lambs on wool farms in just this way. It’s called “mulesing,” and it entails removing large swaths of skin and flesh from the area around the anus — and for females, around the vulva as well. (Outraged yet? If not, see the graphic video to the right.)

The practice is defended as an effective means of combating a blowfly infestation called “flystrike,” which sometimes afflicts the unnaturally dense, urine- and feces-encrusted skin folds around the rear ends of Merino sheep. (In Australia, 89% of their 90 million farmed sheep are Merino; most of the rest have some Merino genetic material.) Industry beneficiaries and spokespersons would have you believe that mulesing is simply meant to benefit the sheep from a distressing and possibly deadly pest that has always afflicted sheep in Australia and New Zealand. 

End of story. Nothing to see here.

Or not. As is so often the case, examination of the facts tells a more sinister tale. Flystrike only afflicts farmed sheep, not wild sheep, in Australia. Why? First, the Merino is not native to Australia and is easy prey for the native blowflies. Second, the industry has engineered the Merino to have ever-increasing amounts of wool-bearing skin, thus increasing wool output and profits along with a more attractive target for blowflies. This unnaturally high skin surface area creates very high densities of skin folds, which lead to an extreme overabundance of heat-,



Buying wool directly supports cruel practices such as mulesing, castration, tail-docking, and ear-punching. Meanwhile, industrial wool farming is energy-inefficient, land- and water-intensive, and highly pollutive.


Wool industry investigation. Yes, narrated by Pink:
Here, a lamb allowed to live in peace:
moisture-, and excrement-trapping — but profitable — wool. Of course, it also creates very miserable sheep, even when they aren’t being assaulted by handlers and shearers. And with each breeding generation, the industry favors those sheep with the densest skin folds, thus ensuring that each successive generation will be even more vulnerable to flystrike — thereby perpetuating what they want us to believe is the “need” for mulesing. 

In sum, wool producers created the flystrike danger for sheep, and now use it as an excuse to inflict further cruelty on these sensitive, innocent creatures. For the industry, what really matters is that more skin folds entails more skin area per sheep, which entails more wool per sheep, which entails higher profit margins. That’s the bottom line (literally). If they have to mutilate innocent creatures along the way, well, they’re obviously willing to do that.

Amid threats of global boycotts of mulesed wool in the early 2000s, the industry in leading-producer Australia promised in 2004 to implement a mulesing alternative by 2010. In typical fashion, they reneged at the last moment. Not that their proposed solutions would have made things much better. The industry’s leading “alternative” to mulesing involved harsh clips secured so tightly around the anus of lambs that bloodflow would be cut off to a large area of skin, leading the skin to literally die and fall off. Some alternative, right?

What about wool from sheep that haven’t been mulesed?

First thing to note is that we presently have no way of knowing whether or not mainstream wool items contain wool from mulesed sheep. There isn’t any labeling to that effect — and in fact, since the wool from millions of sheep gets mixed up during transport and manufacture, it seems pretty likely that the wool items you see in stores contain mulesed sheep’s wool.

Still, let’s say we could be sure. While we can agree that non-mulesed sheep have it a little better, it’s kind of like saying it’s better to have a single-bed cell in prison. Sure, it is better than sharing a cell. But you’re still in prison. 

Of course, prison is a cakewalk compared to being harvested. Nearly all wool-farmed sheep are tail-docked and castrated (if male), and their ears are hole-punched. Meanwhile, sheep handlers and shearers are cruel to the animals in all other kinds of ways — and why wouldn’t they be, since mutilation is in the job description? According to an individual who spoke with PETA:

“[T]he shearing shed must be one of the worst places in the world for cruelty to animals … I have seen shearers punch sheep with their shears or their fists until the sheep’s nose bled. I have seen sheep with half their faces shorn off …”

The truth is that industrial animal farming is an inherently exploitative and neglectful process. Animals are treated as commodities — not the sensitive creatures they actually are. As a part of that, millions of sheep perish every year on large wool farms due to the disease and individual neglect that occur when animals meant to roam freely are squeezed together. Adequate health and veterinary care for ailments deemed less-than-immediately-critical is non-existent. And, at the end of their “productive” lives, they’re shipped to slaughter — commonly to countries where they don’t even have nominal animal protection or welfare standards. (See the very graphic video above, which reveals the horrifying, gruesome fate for millions and millions of “spent” sheep each year.)

Meanwhile, the environmental effects of wool farming are catastrophic. Indeed, any animal farming, compared to plant farming, is extremely inefficient and wasteful. It’s a logical imperative. On the one hand, you can cultivate plants and feed them to humans and other animals that already exist. Or, on the other, you can breed hundreds of millions of new animals,which requires vast amounts of land and water, both to house and hydrate the sheep and to cultivate the massive amount ofplant food required to feed them. These hundreds of millions of sheep then produce astronomical amounts of excrement and bodily waste, deeply contaminating local environments and expelling climate change agents like methane and carbon dioxide. Add to all of this that in many countries, including leading-producer Australia, sheep are non-native, which makes them a special kind of threat to local ecosystems. (According to the Australian wool industry, sheep were introduced in 1788 by arriving Europeans.) Animal farming necessitates all of the environmental costs of plant farming, and then it multiplies them.

The bottom line.

Buying wool supports cruel industry practices such as mulesing, castration, tail-docking, and ear-punching. Industrial wool farming is also energy-inefficient, land- and water-intensive, and highly pollutive.

One thought on “Think wool is harmless? Think again.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s