Animal Health and Welfare Strategy for GB - launched 24 June 04: a critique

Dr James Irvine

Teviot Scientific, Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie, Perthshire

filed 26 June 04
©www.land-care.org,uk

On 24th June, Defra, in partnership with with the Scottish Executive (SEERAD) and the Welsh Assembly have released an all-inclusive and comprehensive long-term Animal Health and Welfare Strategy for Great Britain (1). It claims that:

"the strategy is aimed at managing the impact of animal diseases and improving the welfare of animals kept by man, whilst protecting the economic and and social well being of people and the environment. This will be achieved by developing a transparent framework that will ensure solutions to animal health and welfare issues are managed in partnership with stakeholders. The ongoing development of this strategy is intended to be open and inclusive"

These are fine words - many of them all too familiar - that give the document a superficial spin. Indeed for all the length of its gestation and the length of the document itself, the strategy contains little of substance, merely repeating platitudes. But what is the reality of what Defra and its partners are doing in the area of animal health and welfare? For all the hype the record to date and for the foreseeable future is grim.

Comments from the owner of a suckler herd in Scotland

Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie, in Scotland's Perthshire, has run a suckler herd of pedigree limousin, pedigree Aberdeen Angus and commercial crosses for many years. High standards of animal health and welfare have been a priority, with the herd being closed to cattle from any outside source for over 4 years.

The reality is that there is no encouragement from DEFRA or SEERAD to help promote such measures as closed herds. For all the talk from government authorities, there is no realistic support for creating double fencing to keep the livestock of one farm from having contact with the livestock of neighbouring farms. There is no encouragement - quite the reverse - for livestock to have access to clean water at reasonable expense. Again for all DEFRA's talk, their programmes for controlling the spread of TB (2) or brucellosis (3) within the UK is lamentable, not to mention the prevention of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) in terms of the continued illegal importation of meat products in large quantities (4) and the inadequacies of the UK cattle tracing service (5).

The Food Standards Agency appears to be lax about adequately and continually informing the public that vaccination of animals - be it for FMD or anything else - carries absolutely no risk to food safety.

DEFRA's late contribution to controlling the increasingly high incidence of Johnes disease amongst the nation's livestock (6) is derisory, while the incidence in UK cattle of Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis (IBR) (7) and Bovine Virus Diarrhoea (8) is among the worst in Europe.

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform that is due to take effect from January 2005 is clearly designed to reduce subsidy to farmers in terms of their agricultural activities. Among the worst hit will be suckler calf producers who are likely to suffer reduction in subsidy payments and also reduction in the sale value of their calves with the beef special premium scheme being withdrawn (9). Yet at the same time DEFRA et al put further pressures regarding animal health and welfare at the farmers' expense while apparently they themselves are not making any significant contribution towards it other than more regulations, inspections and bureaucracy with yet more "consultations".

As stressed in the Royal Society Inquiry into diseases of livestock, it is not possible to have a high standard of animal health and welfare without a profitable livestock industry (10).

The pressures currently being created by DEFRA et al are such that livestock enterprises are being forced to be managed as "economically" as possible. To do so simply encourages the spread of animal diseases or the closure (or substantial reduction) of those herds who seek to achieve the aims that DEFRA et al profess. Ranching of beef suckler cows in Scotland or elsewhere is unlikely to raise either environmental or animal welfare standards.

In the face of all this hype about a strategy for animal health and welfare, the EC has agreed to lower the standards that the 10 countries who recently joined the EU are required to meet to enable them to export meat and meat products into the UK.

The environmental/green lobby in the EC and and within the UK are overplaying their hand, so that they are now causing more harm than good. With the reduction in the number and the change in size of quality suckler herds in Scotland the environment will be less well cared for. As the economics of this type of farming - the bedrock of Scottish agriculture - deteriorate, no amount of environmental orientated subsidy can make up for the care most quality beef suckler herd farmers in Scotland devote to their land when they can afford it.

A further concern is the continued support for organic farming by government authorities in spite of the absence of any significant evidence that it improves either human health or the environment. In terms of suckler herds of beef cattle and flocks of sheep, organic farming is not good news for animal health (11, 12, 13).

Comments from the British Veterinary Association (BVA)

The BVA issued a press release in response to the launch of DEFRA's new Animal Health and Welfare Strategy. It reads as follows:

In welcoming the launch of Defra's new Animal Health and Welfare Strategy, British Veterinary Association President Tim Greet confirmed the willingness of the BVA to act as a partner, along with farmers, other animal owners and government, in the implementation of the strategy. "But", he warned, "the easy bit is writing the wish list, the hard part is putting that list into action."

Pointing out that "the essence of the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy is the central role of the vet" Mr Greet reiterated concerns over the viability of many farm animal veterinary practices. "The oft-heard government mantra is 'he who benefits must pay'" he said, and "in the view of the BVA there is public benefit in the prevention of expensive epizootic disease outbreaks, in the control (and eventual eradication) of endemic zoonotic diseases such as TB and in safeguarding the well-being of the rural environment. The public purse must therefore contribute to the costs.

"The veterinary profession has realised for many years that prevention of animal disease is infinitely preferable to providing a fire brigade service alone. However, there is naturally limited enthusiasm on the part of economically compromised farmers to embrace veterinary herd health plans, which would improve livestock health, welfare and production. This new strategy, backed by government financial pump priming, will encourage farmers and hopefully other animal owners to adopt a new philosophy and will enable the veterinary profession to provide appropriate advice. In partnership, we have no doubt we can facilitate the evolution from disease management to real improvements in the protection and promotion of animal health and welfare."

The problems facing vets and their relationship with farms was the subject of an SAC workshop on 2 June 2003, which was reviewed in Land-Care (14). The picture was not a happy one.

The UK Government seems intent on opening a new veterinary school (15) while at the same time it cannot adequately support the existing ones. Funding for research relevant to animal diseases has been reduced and substantially redirected towards human health (16, 17).

There appears to be a political agenda that promotes the hype of high ideals, but reduces the wherewithal to achieve them.

Concerns arising from recent events

When it is politically convenient, conservation appears to take precedence over both animal welfare and food safety as exemplified by the conduct of the Deer Commission in Scotland, an agency of the Scottish Executive (18).

Again when it is politically convenient, public access to farm land takes precedence over livestock health contrary to a recommendation by the Royal Society of Edinburgh Inquiry into FMD in Scotland (19, 20).

Following the first case of rabies in Scotland for 100 years, the risk of further cases is downplayed on account of conservation interests in bats (21, 22).

The conservation interest in badgers has resulted in decades of inappropriate attempts to control the spread of TB in cattle (2, 23)

Breaches in surveillance have allowed carcasses of cattle in the over thirty months scheme to enter the food chain without prior testing for BSE, which undermines the massive bureaucracy involved in cattle tracing.

The Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons has published a damning account of cattle tracing methods used in England, some 1.2 million cattle being untraceable and the methodology archaic (24). Prior to that powerful report this website published its concerns as to the reliability of CTS online (25).

A further reason for doubting the credibility - and indeed the sincerity - of government in matters agricultural is the debacle over the government's scheme for the disposal of fallen stock. Is it even necessary to ban the burial of fallen farm cattle and sheep? (26).

In pursuing their illogical policies the authorities in the UK frequently resort to blaming the EC and the directives that it proliferates. However, DEFRA is part of the EC and it has to be asked how effectively does DEFRA represent the UK's interests at this temple of inefficient bureaucracy.

Who pays?

According to the strategy document:

"Taxpayers cannot be expected to pay for animal health and welfare costs and risks to farmers which affect their own businesses".

As yet who actually pays has still not been decided. There is to be further consultation with stakeholders and others.

As the a leader writer in a recent issue of the Veterinary Record put it:

"If a pound had been spent on veterinary services for every word expended in consultation over the past 18 months, the future of animal health and welfare could have been secured by now".

For all the rhetoric the fact remains that good animal health and welfare in the country's livestock is dependent on a viable farming economy (10). But the economic viability of the quality suckler herd is presently under severe threat.

For all the 43 pages of hype in this latest government report, little or none of it will be achieved if government persists in downgrading farming.

© www.land-care.org.uk

References

1. DEFRA (2004). Animal health and welfare strategy for Great Britain. 24th June 2004
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/ahws/strategy/ahws.pdf (43pp. pdf)

2. Irvine, James (2003). Just how bad is the TB problem in UK cattle?
See TUBERCULOSIS Homepage, filed 25 Feb 2003, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

3. Irvine, James (2004). Brucellosis in cattle in Cornwall, March 2004.
See BRUCELLOSIS Homepage, filed 27 March 04, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

4. Goghlan, Andy (2003). Foot and mouth infect meat still entering the UK.
http://newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id-ns99993541

5. House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts (2004). Identifying and tracing livestock in England. 27th report of session 2003-04.
http://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubacc/326/326.pdf

6. Caldow, George (2002). Johne's disease: an update for the NBA cattle health committee. Farmers' Club, London 26th June 2002.
http://www.sac.ac.uk/vet/External/VetPubs/Au02johnes.pdf

7. University of Reading, Dept of Agricutlure and Food Economics
http://www.apd.rdg.ac.uk/AgEcon/livestockdisease/cattle/ibr.htm

8. University of Reading, Dept of Agricutlure and Food Economics
http://www.apd.rdg.ac.uk/AgEcon/livestockdisease/cattle/bvd.htm

9. Editorial (2003). Impact of mid-term review of the CAP on the red meat sector in Scotland.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 23 May 03, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

10. Follett, Brian (2002. Royal Society Inquiry into infectious diseases of livestock.
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/inquiry/

11. Irvine, James (2003). Concern over organic livestock animal health.
See ANIMAL WELFARE Homepage, filed 9 June 03, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

12. Editorial (2004). SEERAD announces awards for organic aid scheme - but why do they do it?
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 14 March 03 Click Here to View

13. Watkins, Ruth (2003). Compassion for the health of farm animals 2003
filed 2003, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

14. Irvine, James (2003). Veterinary services to the cattle and sheep sectors: SAC workshop 2nd June 2003, Norton House Hotel, Ingliston.
See ANIMAL HEALTH GENERAL ASPECTS Homepage, filed 13 June 03, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

15. Leader (2004). Nottingham seeks dean to lead its "veterinary venture'.
Veterinary Record, vol 155, p5-6.

16. Irvine, James (2003). SEERAD research strategy review: research needs and priorities consultation. Comments.
See SCIENCE Homepage, filed 19 Sept 03, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

17. Scythe, Dan (2004). Research next to be 'rationalised'.
Scottish Farmer, July 3rd. Vol 112: No 5828, p 7

18. Irvine, James (2004). Deer Commission severely criticised by Landward for breaches of animal welfare and food safety regulations.
See ANIMAL WELFARE Homepage, filed 23 Jun3 04, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

19. Cunningham, Ian (2002). Royal Society of Edinburgh Inquiry into foot and mouth disease in Scotland.
http://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/RSE/enquiries/footandmouth/index.htm

20. Irvine, James (2002). Scottish Executive rejects Royal Society of Edinburgh FMD inquiry: personal view.
See FMD Homepage, filed 14 Nov 02, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

21. Irvine, James (2003). Bats and rabies. Poor advice from Prof Colin Galbraith, SNH cheif scientist, on Landward programme.
See ENVIRONMENT Homepage, filed 10 Feb 03, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

22. Irvine, James (2002). Bats and rabies. First death from rabies in the UK for 100 years>
See ENVIRONMENT Homepage, filed 12 Dec 02, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

23. Editorial (2003). Tubercuolosis in cattle: DEFRA in no hurry to review strateg.
See TUBERCULOSIS Homepage, filed 10 March 03, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

24. House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts (2004). Identifying and tracking livestock in England.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubacc/326/326.pdf

25. Editorial (2004). How reliable is the British Cattle Tracing Service online?
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 10 Apr 04, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

26. Irvine, James (2003). Why is it necessary to ban the burial of fallen stock? Part 1: Is it to do with the supply of drinking water?
See ENVIRONMENT Homepage, filed 3 Apr 2003, www.land-care.org.uk Click Here to View

MENU