The Scottish Government

REPORT OF THE SCOTTISH ANIMAL HEALTH AND WELFARE CONFERENCE - NEW LANARK MILL HOTEL 21ST NOVEMBER 2005

Contents

Purpose

Presentations

Workshops

Workshop feedback - general points

Workshop feedback - priorities

Annex A - Attendee list

Annex B - Agenda

Annex C - Workshop groups

Annex D - Targets for Scottish Strategy implementation

The Animal Health and Welfare Strategy for Great Britain was published in July 2004 and a Scottish Conference held in the following October. At this event the Minister outlined four pillars for successful delivery of the Strategy in Scotland. The appointment of experts to a Scottish Animal Health and Welfare Advisory Group was one such pillar and this Group are developing a programme to take forward the Strategy in Scotland.

As part of the development of the Scottish Programme, the Advisory Group designed the Scottish Animal Health and Welfare Conference which was held at New Lanark on 21st November 2005. The Conference was attended by around 80 delegates from a variety of organisations representing a wide range of animal health and welfare interests in Scotland and other countries (see Annex A for a full list)

This paper focuses on the priorities outlined at the Conference together with a consideration of how we can harness future opportunities, based on contributions made by attendees on the day. The findings presented in this report will be considered by the Advisory Group at their next meeting. It will the form part of their action in taking forward a Scottish Programme of targets.

back to top

A number of strategic themes ran through all the presentations and these are fundamental to the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy. One such theme was best practice and the opportunity to share this with others. The presentations also aimed to provide an increased understanding of the costs and benefits of improved animal health and welfare, not just the cost of animal disease to a farmer but also the benefits of more productive, better-performing livestock. It is important that these two themes can be easily communicated in an understandable way, and it was stressed that knowledge transfer is of great importance to the successful delivery of improved animal health and welfare.

The event was opened with a keynote speech from Ross Finnie, Minister for Environment and Rural Development. In addition to setting out key achievements over the last year e.g. on Animal Health and Welfare Management Programmes, he looked forward to the next year and the implementation of targets for the achievement of Scottish Priorities, as identified by the Scottish Animal Health and Welfare Advisory Group. He set down a challenge to the industry to exploit these opportunities to improve the health and welfare of Scotland's animals.

The priorities were presented by Andy Robertson, who described the thinking of the Advisory Group in setting targets that are both realistic and relevant to the industry. He also considered the ability to influence - in terms of reducing the prevalence of each condition in the ten year period of the Strategy, i.e. up to 2014. The priorities are:-

Bovine TB

BSE in cattle

Scrapie in sheep and goats

Mastitis in dairy cows

Johne's disease in cattle

BVD in cattle

Liver Fluke in sheep and cattle

Sheep scab

Foot rot in sheep

Footpad dermatitis in broiler poultry

Enzootic pneumonia in pigs

Suggested priorities for further research included:-

CLA

Anthelmintic resistance

OPA (Jaagsiekte)

Digital dermatitis

Laminitis in horses

He concluded by saying that the Advisory Group were seeking feedback through the afternoon breakout groups and their discussion of how the priorities could be achieved.

The other speakers at the Conference covered a broad range of topics. Gordon McKen of Grampian Pig Producers gave a presentation covering the costs of improved pig health and the wide ranging benefits that can be realised from employing best practice. This covered the Wholesome Pigs initiative which has developed benchmarking of production and disease data for use on a regular basis by the industry.

Peter Franken of the Dutch Animal Health Service gave his perspective, focussing on cattle health and the success they have had in dealing with diseases such as Leptospirosis in the Netherlands. The Advisory Group is keen to investigate how novel best practice from abroad can be applied to best effect in Scotland

The final two presentations gave a farmer perspective. David Austin gave his personal experience of the problems of a TB outbreak on his farm, including the losses he sustained. He also advocated measures to avoid disease spread, including the isolation of new animals on arrival, and further enhancement of the new pre and post movement testing regime.

Finally Keith Redpath talked about health planning measures on his farm - the successes he has had with these in the past, and the positive future he sees through Animal Health and Welfare Management Programmes.

back to top

The afternoon workshops discussed the priorities and targets which had been presented in the morning (composition of the groups is shown at Annex C) Group members were asked to give their feedback on how we can work to achieve the targets, and to consider the following questions:

· Are there particular initiatives already underway which could be useful?

· What are the opportunities for us to influence achievement of these priorities?

· What are the constraints to us achieving these priorities?

· How do we influence any change needed to achieve the priorities?

back to top

A number of generic points emerged from the group discussions covering many if not all of the diseases and conditions on the list and these are summarised below.

Baselines and benchmarking

It was accepted that the existing information is often insufficient to establish a credible baseline. Therefore research needs to be targeted initially on surveillance/epidemiological surveys to adequately identify the relevant baseline data. Thereafter targets need to be set which are both realistic and achievable .

Joined up working

A "team approach" to health planning is something which will be key to the successful achievement of the targets, and should involve all relevant stakeholders. It was suggested that this team approach could be used as the basis of a system for prioritising diseases, including the welfare impact. All farmers must be given the opportunity to be involved in user-friendly schemes which are relevant to them and their business and to build relationships with key partners (not just fill in forms)

This joined up thinking should also apply at government level, for example between VMD, SEERAD and Defra to review the licensing of medicines - a "fast track" system for certain medicines e.g. a CLA vaccine, was advocated.

Farming industry "champions"

Involving farmer champions would be a helpful way of encouraging others to work towards achievement of the targets. The benefits of having best practice presented by a farmer were widely recognised, and it was felt that other farmers would respond most positively to the type of presentation where they could relate well to the speaker. David Austin's Conference talk on TB was cited as a good example of this. Additionally the promotion of successful schemes such as the Wholesome Pigs initiative would lead to a general appreciation of health and welfare issues.

Knowledge transfer

It was recognised that information is not always received by farmers in the most useful form and that, as mentioned above, having a practising farmer presenting it can often maximise understanding Delegates stressed the importance of research and other knowledge being transferred quickly to farmers on the ground and that this applies equally to best practice from abroad - for example, the Scandinavian model for BVD eradication was successfully adopted in Shetland.

Another key element of this is the sharing of food chain information from abattoirs - it would be very helpful to develop a system for farmers to not only use this data, but also to feed in information as well. The planned tightening up of food hygiene regulations over the next five years was considered to be something which would help this process. Better education of animal keepers and other key stakeholders is needed if we are to achieve the targets.

Cost and benefits

This is an element of knowledge transfer which is especially important for animal keepers to appreciate, not only in purely economic terms but also welfare and public health issues. Again it was felt that real examples, such as those given by the Conference speakers, are a great way to highlight the issues. Through these examples animal keepers will be able to appreciate the cost of disease to their business and also the wide-ranging benefits which proactive disease control measures can provide.

Animal Health and Welfare Management Programmes

These were highlighted as an example of a financial incentive providing an opportunity to contribute to the achievement of the targets. This is primarily because, following the on-farm audit and discussions with their vet, individual farmers will be able to know exactly where they are with diseases and welfare conditions on their farm. In addition they will be setting up an action plan to tackle these, which will be a farm specific version of what could potentially be done on a national basis. It was felt that there will be the opportunity to involve other diseases and conditions under Tier 3 of Land Management Contracts.

It will be interesting to hear feedback from farmers on how the plans are working on their farm, whether the information could be helpful in tackling national issues, and if this information could be fed into any future discussion of targets.

Voluntary farmer action

There were conflicting opinions about this although the general consensus seemed to be that, if you can get farmers to do something voluntarily it is likely to be easier to make progress in the future. This is especially true if pro-active measures are being taken to stop the diseases and conditions emerging, particularly through good biosecurity and also a greater understanding of husbandry and stock management issues. The ethics of disease are important - for example, not letting your problems affect neighbouring farms.

However it was argued by some that, although there is a limit to how much government can do, it should take the lead through enforcement or incentives - for example making Sheep scab a notifiable disease again. It may be that the industry could take responsibility by offering incentives for those reducing the incidence of endemic diseases and welfare conditions, and improving the wider understanding of good practice.

Targeted research

It will be important that any future research is well targeted and embracing scientific advances will help us to improve the quality of this work. We will need to set realistic baselines for a number of the priorities and utilise the relevant scientific experience to assist in our benchmarking. It may be that samples are already being taken for other reasons and we should try to utilise these wherever possible to enhance our knowledge.

Other points

There were some additional points raised:

· Industry uncertainty - the recent changes in the industry have made some uncertain of the future e.g. the declining number of large animal vets may affect the successful achievement of the targets.

· EU legislation - delegates felt that this could affect our ability to hit some of the targets, particularly where there are export requirements to be met.

· Communication - there was a suggestion that we should have a marketing drive to better communicate the need for high standards to the general public and encourage them to help pay for improved animal health and welfare.

· Costs - it may not be affordable to achieve all priorities at a farm level or indeed a national level and there should be an ongoing process of refinement to assess the overall effectiveness of the targets.

top of page

The list of priorities and targets set by the Advisory Group (which can be seen at Annex D) was discussed by delegates during workshop groups in the afternoon. The priorities were broadly accepted as being of relevance and importance to the Scottish industry, and other comments are summarised below.

Bovine TB

Although the target has been set as an 80% reduction, some felt we could go further and aim for 90%. It was considered that, although the new pre and post movement testing system is good, it could be augmented by both increased testing (particularly of animals going to and from shows) and by isolation on farm following testing. It was further suggested that we could look at developing a better TB test.

TB in wildlife was seen as a potential problem, and an area where further research is required.

BSE in cattle

The inclusion of BSE on the list was welcomed, particularly as an area where a lot of good work is already being done. One cautionary note was that with increased monitoring the measured incidence may initially rise, and this is a point which could equally apply to other priorities, such as bovine TB.

Scrapie in sheep and goats

As a notifiable disease it should be possible to achieve the target, but the importance of Scrapie must be more widely recognised. Delegates felt that more and better knowledge transfer was required in this area and that benefit might be had from a fresh look at the existing schemes to try and maximise their effectiveness, particularly whether voluntary or compulsory measures should be involved.

Mastitis in dairy cows

This was one area where it was felt the target didn't go far enough and we should be aiming higher. Many considered that we should be framing the target differently and a measure of clinical disease prevalence in the herd should be used. At present farmers have no real incentive to reduce bulk milk cell counts below the levels set by milk buying companies. It was also felt by some that there is a knowledge transfer issue, and that mastitis is something that could be seen as both a health and a welfare problem. One suggestion was to include cell count analysis in the Animal Health and Welfare Management Programme and other herd health plans.

Johne's disease in cattle

While it was agreed that we should aspire to increase membership of control programmes through the existing successful health schemes, 50% was thought to be a high figure. One problem identified was that those with Johne's don't want to join a scheme and those without it don't need to - making it difficult to increase uptake and promoting questions as to whether this is a good measure. It was however accepted that doing nothing is not an option here. It was suggested that membership could be supported through the LMC scheme, which could also generate benchmarking data.

Many argued that we should be looking to develop a better test for Johne's and then use abattoir surveys to set a baseline and increase general understanding, especially of the economics of the disease and of regional prevalence. We would then be in a strong position to set a target.

Other points raised were whether we should be looking to develop a Johne's vaccine and whether there is genetic susceptibility to the disease. It was also suggested that we should consider applying the target to other species such as goats.

BVD in cattle

Although the target was broadly accepted, it was noted that eradication on an area by area basis may be difficult on the mainland. There were also comments about the need for a good vaccine and to establish a baseline before we consider any further action.

Again this was seen as an area where we need to raise awareness, especially on those farms that remain outstanding once BVD has been eradicated from the rest of the country - to prevent re-introduction. Some considered that a compulsory eradication programme is needed so that we can compete with those other EU countries that have eradicated BVD.

Liver fluke in sheep and cattle

The 50% target was seen as too high by some and although they want to act, a lack of farmer knowledge about fluke was seen as a reason to use a lower figure. To address this, it was recognised that the new food hygiene regulations should mean a greater information flow from abattoirs back to producers. A greater sharing of abattoir information and the consequent knowledge transfer should mean a greater understanding of the costs and benefits, especially if a measure is taken that scores liver damage and relates this to production loss.

It was also noted that different drugs may be required for the different species, and that treatment should be targeted at the correct time of year.

Sheep scab

Although initially the aim is to set a baseline, many felt that we should be aiming for eradication of sheep scab, even though this would not be possible by 2014.

There were however conflicting views on how this should be done - ranging from legislation to make it notifiable and greater surveillance at marts to industry awareness initiatives and financial penalties for not treating the animal. It should be noted that many delegates felt the SEPA stance on dipping of sheep would have a negative impact on the success of any future initiative.

Foot rot in sheep

It was recognised that foot rot (and indeed lameness generally) is widespread within the Scottish flock. Some felt that consequently a prevalence study may not be the most useful way forward, while others suggested that genetic susceptibility should be measured. What was broadly agreed was that effective knowledge transfer will be the key to dealing with foot rot and other lameness conditions such as CODD.

Footpad dermatitis in broiler poultry

There was little comment on the target other than recognition of the need to comply with the new EU directive, and the importance of stocking densities. It was however suggested that Necrotic Enteritis may be a more relevant condition to measure, as an issue of greater concern to the industry.

Enzootic pneumonia in pigs

The excellent work being done under the Wholesome Pigs initiative was recognised as being very helpful, especially in providing costs and benefits data.

Research priorities

Again these were broadly agreed. The licensing of a CLA vaccine was promoted as was research into both digital dermatitis in cattle and CODD in sheep. It was felt that for Laminitis in particular, better education and knowledge transfer would be important - especially in utilising research from abroad and passing this on to horse keepers.

Welfare

One general comment made by many delegates was that more consideration needs to be given to welfare aspects, initially as research priorities. This was something highlighted in Andy Robertson's speech which the Advisory Group will look at during their future discussions on priorities and targets.

Additional issues

The workshop groups also identified some specific additional issues which they felt should be considered by the Advisory Group in future:

· Leptospirosis in cattle

· Salmonella

· Calf pneumonia

· Calf diarrhoea

· Abortion in cattle

· Clostridial diseases in sheep

· Bluetongue in sheep

· Skin problems in pigs

· Necrotic enteritis in poultry

· Internal parasites

back to top

back to top

09:30 Arrival and Coffee

10:00 Keynote speech - Ross Finnie

10:15 Targets speech - Andy Robertson

10:25 Pig Health - Gordon McKen

10:45 Cattle Health in the Netherlands - Dr. Peter Franken

11:05 Coffee break

11:25 Experience of a TB outbreak - David Austin

11:40 Animal Health Planning - Keith Redpath

12:00 Panel session

12:30 Lunch

13:30 Breakout Groups

15:00 Feedback from Groups

15:30 Plenary session

16:00 Close

back to top

Bonnington Room

Ian Anderson (chair)

Linsay Eaglesham

Sheilagh Brown

Michael Cursiter

Andy McGowan

Dave Knox

Mike Flynn

Billy Kilpatrick

John Sproat

John Campbell

Ann Paterson

Lynne Matheson

Bob Carruth

Corra Lin Room

Andy Robertson (chair)

Alex Young

Charles Milne

George Gunn

Peter English

Dave Griffiths

John Henderson

Richard Bell

Stephen Hendry

Robert Steven

Sheila Crispin

Alistair Donaldson

George Milne

Dundaff Room

Nick Ambrose

Ian Strachan

Gordon McKen

Graeme Cochran

Willie Donnachie

Alan Clements

Alastair Swanson

Sam Beechener

Nigel Miller

John Cameron

Stonebyres Room

Julie Fitzpatrick (chair)

Clare Hicks

David Austin

Norman Winter

Hamish Waugh

Kathy Peebles

Jacqui Matthews

Jenny Scott

John Heffernan

Tim Bailey

Archie Ballantyne

Adam Fiscan

Robert Owen Suite (Front)

Bill McKelvey (chair)

Neil Ritchie

Mike Lamont

Iain Duncan Miller

Jamie Gartside

Mark Dalgleish

John Chisholm

Donald Biggar

Geoff Pollott

Paddy Grant

John Don

Freda Scott-Park

Alec Allison

Robert Owen Suite (Rear)

Mike Robson (chair)

Bev Williams

Keith Redpath

Barti Synge

Stewart Donald

Alistair Smith

Susie Main

Alistair M. Lawrie

Duncan More

Alistair Lawrence

Allan Ward

David Telford

Stuart Gemmell

Sam Duff

back to top