MENUAnimal
Health/
|
 |
|
Back to Animal Health - General Aspects Veterinary Services to the Cattle
|
Figure 1aEmployment of UK Vets (1998) Source: Bill McKelvey (2003). Workshop on the provision of Veterinary Services to the Cattle and Sheep Sectors in Scotland, 2 June 2003 (1). |
|
Figure 1bEmployment of UK Vets (2002) Source: Bill McKelvey (2003). Workshop on the provision of Veterinary Services to the Cattle and Sheep Sectors in Scotland, 2 June 2003 (1). |
Since vets are not visiting farms as often as previously there is a problem achieving a reasonable level of veterinary surveillance on farms - and other places where livestock congregate such as auction markets. So how is a new outbreak of disease to be spotted early? Or indeed how is the control of the well-established but seriously debilitating diseases to be achieved? Good veterinary services to farms depends on farms being profitable, which currently they are not. Claims were made by some vets that their visits are profitable to farms as they can save the farmer much expense through improving the health status of the livestock. While this will be true in some cases the argument is a little thin when one considers that currently in the UK there is little effective control of some of the major livestock diseases. Furthermore, vets who are only spending a small percentage of their time looking after farm livestock frankly do not have the knowledge or experience of livestock nutrition or farm management, be it practical or theoretical.
It transpired that many vets no longer did such routine procedures as dehorning, castrating or pregnancy testing - such procedures now often being carried out technicians trained specifically in these areas but with no training in animal health as such. The opportunity for the vet to visit the farm with any frequency and to see much if not all of the livestock at fairly frequent intervals is thereby lost. Twenty four hour cover by veterinary practices for farm livestock is becoming progressively more difficult to provide at realistic cost. Effective surveillance thereby becomes a remote possibility.
It was suggested that perhaps a system whereby veterinary services are contracted to the farm for a fixed fee and which would involve a number of surveillance visits each year was suggested. If this was to involve a different young vet on each occasion it would hardly be popular with the farm or indeed be effective. The temptation for the farmer to get rid of a beast that is not performing well, rather than pay vet fees, becomes strong. That can only encourage spread of disease.
Another problem with surveillance of farm livestock is that the government agency laboratories (such as SAC) are not always the cheapest or the most prompt in delivering services. Private laboratories may be preferred. Unless the disease detected is notifiable, the laboratory results may not flow into government statistics.
The UK has seen only too graphically the consequences that extend well beyond farming when disease is not detected early and spreads rapidly.
The on-going Mid Term Review of the Common Agriculture Policy (MTR-CAP) may incorporate financial inducement or obligation to improve animal health and welfare, but how it is to be effectively monitored by what appears to be a largely disinterested veterinary profession is not clear. Maybe if enough euros are on offer things might change.
What is going to be the future demand for livestock veterinary services?
In the working group that I was invited to attend there was a remarkable body of opinion that the on-going MTR-CAP was unlikely to greatly affect the suckler herd numbers in Scotland. Among those expressing this view was the newly appointed chairman of the NFUS livestock committee, who is a qualified vet. Apparently they were not aware of, or ignored, what Quality Meat Scotland (QMS) had to say about the matter (2). As an aside it should be stated here that it is indeed disappointing that the NFUS cannot apparently liaise effectively with QMS, which after all is on the floor below them in the same building at Ingliston, and the present chairman of QMS was the previous president of NFUS.
Commission on Dispensing Veterinary Medicines
A large amount of time was spent on the controversial issue as to what commission vets should charge on the prescription of veterinary medicines.
The Office of Fair Trading has accepted the recommendations of the Competition Commission that the dispensing of prescription only veterinary medicines (POMS) should be opened up to pharmacies to allow fair competition as to their cost (3).
Most of the vets in the subgroup workshop that I was invited to attend considered that charging a high commission (whether the mark-up was 75% or more did not seem to get defined) was justified by way of compensating for call-out and consulting fees that in their view were too modest. My understanding is that vets were taking some exemption to the noises made by the NFUS that this costing system was neither fair nor transparent. There was some alarming talk about what vets would charge for a prescription and whether they would provide veterinary services for farmers who did not obtain veterinary medicines through their practice. Indeed there was so much talk about how vets were to be adequately remunerated that I began to wonder why this workshop was being organised by the SAC rather than the appropriate vets union.
My own comment would be that it is a dangerous arrangement to have a substantial proportion of remuneration to vets based on a highly lucrative commission on dispensing veterinary medicines. The temptation to over-prescribe and to over-dispense would be real - antibiotics, anti-inflammatory drugs and vitamins for everything, and goodness knows what else. The workshop was informed that there is already a large trade in the illegal importation of veterinary medicines from Ireland because veterinary medicines there are a fraction of the cost they are in the UK.
It is hoped that in future veterinary charges will be much more transparent, and that any temptation that the Government may have to extend the range of veterinary products that need a prescription is countered.
I certainly got the impression that I was very lucky to have my farm vet - dedicated to large animal practice and fully transparent about the costs of veterinary medicines, including transparency as to what commission was being charged (4). Also the facility of contacting her personally and that she will accommodate the farm visit according to the farm’s convenience in terms of staffing - rather than when it is convenient for the vet’s more lucrative small animal practice. The combination of looking after horses and as well as farm livestock should be reasonably financially rewarding provided overheads are kept in check. Why cannot other vets do likewise?
The training of Veterinary Students
Although this was not a specific topic at the meeting perhaps it is appropriate that some questions are asked as the tax-payer is in part involved.
It transpires that there are now more females entering veterinary schools than males. The average time spent by females as working vets is only for 7 years after graduation. There is therefore a massive wastage of training facilities in terms of what the country needs. Moreover most of these female vets opt not to do much farm livestock work because of the nature of the work and their physique.
Further I am lead to believe that in some veterinary schools specialisation as an undergraduate is such that students can opt for example to study horses, but end up knowing virtually nothing about farm livestock and far less as to how to handle them. Teaching about animal nutrition is alleged to be poor in some veterinary schools.
The entry qualifications in terms of academic standards in exam results for school leavers to get into veterinary schools is very high. It would seem that the majority of this cream of young academic talent are only spending a few years practising in the profession, and even within that time prefer to spend their talents looking after old folks' cats and dogs. Can a country really afford to use its talented youngsters in this manner?
Would it not be better if there was some criteria in addition to the number of A levels that was used to select school leavers who wanted to become vets - such as an interest in farm livestock and some evidence of such an interest? There is plenty of scope for young people to participate in livestock matters and plenty of opportunity for them to demonstrate what skills they have achieved in stock judging competitions etc throughout the country.
Deployment of Young Vets
Although not discussed at any part of the meeting that I attended, perhaps it is time to say that graduates from veterinary schools should be required to spend a certain amount of time caring for the nation’s livestock and that their training is geared accordingly. This happens in the NHS when it is mandatory to spend a certain amount of time in recognised NHS centres (or their equivalent in the EU) before recognition of full training is granted and entry into private practice permitted.
Animal Health Surveillance
A paper was given at the meeting entitled “Progress in a UK Veterinary Surveillance Strategy”. It was delivered by Ruth Lysons, Head of Veterinary Surveillance Division of DEFRA. It reflected the DEFRA consultation document on the subject published in December 2002 (5).
Frankly the paper was tediously long in what might be called government speak - superficially correct, good in intention (although far too late in implementation) and building up a bureaucracy that has little chance of succeeding even if it were ever to be properly funded.
The need for veterinary surveillance has been obvious for many decades, only to be reinforced by every enquiry after every new outbreak whatever its nature. Talk about improving it continues while at the same time government has been severely cutting back on the State Veterinary Service. So much so that there is currently no chance of there being an efficient mechanism whereby a competent veterinary surveillance could be achieved. Add to that the situation regarding the UK vets in private practice as described above - few interested in farm livestock while the vast majority regard farm work as unprofitable compared to looking after cats and dogs, and as interfering with their social life. Furthermore, government agency veterinary laboratories are not universally regarded as being the most efficient or price competitive compared to those that are privately run. That means that an unknown proportion of laboratory data with regard to non-notifiable diseases is unlikely to be available to the government’s surveillance machine. Ms Lysons envisaged what appears to be a sophisticated computer system to integrate information coming from a variety of sources. Sadly the government’s reputation for computer competence is not good.
But the real situation is in fact much worse than the above implies. It is all very well looking out for disease and trying to faithfully record it, but it would be even better if adequate steps were being taken to prevent known diseases from spreading. Thus the government’s strategy in controlling the dramatically escalating incidence of bovine TB is one of delayed hopelessness - while the Krebs trials go on to 2006 (6). Goodness knows what the incidence of TB in cattle will be by that time as the government follows political correctness to the extreme in the interests of the well-funded badger animal welfare lobby group. Carrying out surveillance with antiquated TB testing and decimating the farms involved is not the way to control disease.
Consider another disease of major importance to UK cattle - Johnes. With the vast numbers of cattle slaughtered as part of the over 30 months scheme and checked for the occurrence of BSE, no data was collected as to whether or not there was Johnes present. There is in fact no reliable figure for the incidence of Johnes in UK cattle. The opportunity was there, but no funding and therefore no data.
Cattle health schemes will hopefully be the subject of a future review in Land-Care but the present impression is that they are doing little to control some of the most important diseases - such as IBR and BVD as well as those already mentioned. It is a matter of prioritising funding according to Ruth Lysons, and the prioritisation is not working for these diseases. So cattle health status in the UK continues to deteriorate compared to that in Continental Europe.
The current prevalence of sheep scab is nothing short of a disgrace as the disease has been allowed to become endemic, having previously been virtually eradicated. Listeria in sheep fed good quality silage (but with an occasional unavoidable earth contamination) is common. As there is no cure (and apparently very little research to find one) the animals die and are disposed of with no chance of any surveillance figures being available either in the past, now or in the foreseeable future.
Importing Disease
Little time was spent on the subject of controling the importation of disease - a massive problem (7). The impression given at the meeting was that the problem was too difficult to handle effectively.
Conclusion
There was no official press release or other statement concerning any conclusions drawn from this workshop. It certainly highlighted the problems that were already recognised, but perhaps not everyone had realised just how serious they are.
Impressive statements are being made by EC and other politicians about what will be contained in the Mid-Term-Review of the CAP concerning veterinary surveillance and what farmers must do with regard to disease surveillance and animal welfare. But this is largely useless talk if the vets are essentially not interested in farm livestock while the money (and much of the training) is in cats and dogs.
The UK has suffered repeated massive financial loss, not to mention indescribable human misery, extending far beyond farming over not paying attention to livestock health. Will the authorities never learn? Do the vets care?
© www.land-care.org.uk
References
1. McKelvey, Bill (2003). SAC Workshop on the provision of Veterinary Services to the cattle and sheep sectors. Norton House Hotel, Ingliston, Edinburgh. 2nd June
2. Editorial (2003). Impact of
the Mid-Term Review of the CAP on the Red Meat Sector in Scotland.
(Filed 23 May 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
3. DEFRA (2003). News Release
11th April 2003.
Competition Commission Inquiry into the Distribution of Veterinary
Prescription Only Medicines
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2003/030411b.htm
4. Irvine, James (2003). Cultybraggan
Farm’s Vet: Tina Vernon.
(Filed 24 March 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
5. DEFRA (2002). Partnership,
Priorities and Professionalism: A Proposed Strategy for enhancing
Veterinary Surveillance in the UK. A Consultation Document. December
2002. PB7790
(Land-Care was unable to trace this document on the DEFRA website
although Land-Care has a hard copy).
6. Editorial (2003). TB in cattle:
Government announces review of badger culling trial.
(Filed 3 May 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
7. Editorial (2002). Ban on non-EU
Foodstuff Imports as of 1st January 2003.
(Filed 30 December 2002, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).