FAWC response to Defra consultation on the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on Vets and veterinary services

Ms Veryan Nicholls
Animal Health and Welfare Strategy Unit
Defra
Room 103
1A Page Street
London SW1P 4PQ

14 May 2004

1. We are pleased to have the opportunity of responding to the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on Vets and veterinary services.

2. The Council has long been concerned that the continuing decline in the number of large animal practitioners could be leading to the lack of adequate veterinary cover for farm animals in some parts of the country, particularly in remote areas, and affecting ongoing assessment of animal welfare both in relation to health/disease and behavioural assessment of welfare. The difficulty of providing sufficient cover in such areas to ensure that essential clinical services are available, and animal suffering alleviated, is compounded by the distances between practices and farms in terms of geography and travelling time.

3. The basic anomaly appears to be that the provision of veterinary services is demand-led, and veterinary practices are responding to this economic reality. FAWC believes that, increasingly, new vets appear to be exercising a clear preference for small animal practice because working conditions are more amenable, customer demand is high and predictable, and dependable incomes can be earned. This development tends to be exacerbated by the more difficult hours and conditions associated with large animal work, the generally low profitability in livestock farming which constrains the demand for veterinary services, and a tendency for financially pressed farmers to focus on the costs associated with using veterinary services rather than on the benefits that could accrue as a result. There is also an inbuilt frustration in that technical services that the vet could provide may or may not be economically viable or acceptable to the farmer and so job satisfaction in large animal practice is diminished. Economic necessity has encouraged many livestock farmers to improve their own skills thus reducing the occasions on which the vet is called; and in some cases only calling for veterinary assistance in emergency. The vet may then be called in too late, when little can be done, and being the harbinger of doom is also a deterrent.

4. In strongly structured sectors such as poultry, pigs and fish, the lack of geographical proximity of the vet is not of great concern. The animals on these units are concentrated in specific locations, and a relatively small number of highly trained and experienced vets can provide the requisite amount of cover. The need for intensive veterinary supervision in the pig and poultry sectors means that veterinary visits to farms are made on a regular basis, thereby facilitating health and welfare planning and enhancing the partnership between vet and producer. Initiatives by the pig industry such as the drive to reduce salmonella on farms, on-farm training initiatives, a recent scheme to monitor herd health at the abattoir, together with greater transparency in the pricing of medicines, has led to improved relationships between veterinary practices and pig producers, and a greater involvement of vets in preventative health care. It is recognised however that the health and welfare problems in other sectors (cattle and sheep in particular) place more demands on veterinary time and the growing requirement to undertake health and welfare planning will inevitably add to these demands. And with sheep in particular, the economic margins are very much a disincentive to call in the vet, an incentive for the farmer to become more skilled and some to make do without veterinary help except in emergency.

5. We recognise that the decline in the number of large animal vets is not unique to this country. We also recognise that the Government’s proposed strategies encompassing animal health and welfare and veterinary surveillance are heavily dependent on the availability of veterinary resources, and if these strategies are to have any chance of success then an innovative solution to this problem is a pre-requisite. In its report on FMD and Animal Welfare: lessons for the future (2002), FAWC recommended the creation of a trained State Veterinary Reserve that could be mobilised in the event of a disease outbreak. We note that the Australian Government is supporting a similar concept – the provision of a well-trained reserve of veterinary surgeons and an income stream for rural practices - to overcome a decline in the number of rural vets.

6. We believe that getting vets regularly on to farms is central to ensuring good animal welfare as an integral part of good husbandry and the prevention/treatment of animal disease. This is also important in context of the continuous professional development of vets, stockmen and farm managers. We understand that farm animal husbandry may no longer be covered in sufficient detail in the veterinary curriculum of some schools and would advocate more husbandry training as well as more behavioural assessment of welfare as well as consideration of welfare ethics and law for veterinary students. We make this point about animal behaviour because we think it essential that vets have a greater appreciation of the mental well-being of animals. In addition a mechanism to reward large animal practices in order to stimulate recruitment may need to be considered if the problem is regarded as having sufficiently widespread consequences for livestock agriculture.

7. Although we would press the case for more and better-trained large animal vets, we do not advocate an indiscriminate injection of support into all large animal practices. The practices must be able to demonstrate their ability, willingness and commitment to provide a high quality and flexible service to their farmer clients. This must include appropriate support in health and welfare planning in line with the aspirations of the Health and Welfare Strategy coupled with a very real commitment to contributing to veterinary surveillance in terms of both disease and welfare. As in all fields, we perceive that some veterinary practices are better than others and it is important that support is targeted towards those most able to provide the needed services to livestock farming.

8. In the long run the relationship between the livestock industry and the veterinary profession is vital to the wellbeing not only of farmed livestock but also of farmers and large animal vets and to the control of disease and the promotion of acceptable welfare standards. The Government has a significant opportunity to facilitate the development of a healthy partnership in this area in the context of the final version of its Animal Health and Welfare Strategy which is due to be launched shortly.

Yours sincerely

Judy MacArthur Clark
Chairwoman