Memorandum submitted by the RSPCA (W3)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The response indicates that current levels of
farm income and livestock values are having a significant effect
on the usage of veterinary services by farmers, and that in turn
this is steadily eroding the number of veterinary practices, and
veterinary surgeons, willing and able to offer a farm service.
The overall reduction in veterinary usage is
having a detrimental effect on animal welfare, both at the level
of the individual animal and on herd and flock health. There is
also a decreasing input into disease surveillance.
Whilst currently it is felt that there remains
sufficient unused veterinary expertise to respond to any increased
demands made by farmers or government, this pool of skills is
being eroded year by year and is not being replaced.
Depending on future government policies it is
likely that this could place significant extra demands in the
State Veterinary Service.
The RSPCA is grateful for the opportunity to
comment on the situation currently affecting the provision of
farm veterinary services. The Society fears that a decline in
the availability of farm veterinary services would have a detrimental
effect on farm animal welfare, and it feels that this may already
be happening in some areas. This response is structured around
the questions posed in the press notice dated 17 March 2003.
WHAT
IMPACT CURRENT
LEVELS OF
FARM INCOME
ARE HAVING
ON THE
USAGE OF
VETERINARY SERVICES,
AND, IN
TURN, WHAT
EFFECT ANY
REDUCTION IN
THE USAGE
OF SUCH
SERVICES IS
HAVING ON
THE NUMBER
OF PRACTICES
DEALING WITH
LARGE (FARM)
ANIMALS?
1. It is important to realise that veterinary
services are just the same as any other service industry in the
business to business sector. They supply a service which is designed
to improve the profitability of the receiving business. To do
this, the cost of the service must be less than the loss likely
to be sustained by not using the service. Clearly, when dealing
with sick or injured animals where the outcome is unpredictable,
the cost-effectiveness of treatment cannot always be foreseen,
so the decision to utilise, or dispense with, veterinary services
will probably be taken on an on-going basis considering overall
success rates.
2. The fall in the value of livestock, (accentuated
by their value relative to other commodities) is probably more
important than the loss of farm income as such. The loss of a
unit of livestock is a small economic loss to the farmer, and
so it may become uneconomic to employ the vet for an individual
animal. It is still however economic to employ the vet in a herd
or flock health situation where the potential for loss is high.
Even when farm profitability is low, animals of high value will
usually receive veterinary attention because it is clearly economic
to do so. However, in some instances, the farming business becomes
so economically marginal that any expenditure, regardless of cost-effectiveness,
has to be avoided. It is this latter situation, as well as the
fall in the value of the individual animal which has led to a
sharply declining usage of veterinary services over the last few
years. Examples of this would be the newborn calf, which may have
a sale value of £5.00, or even in some cases no sale value
at all. Estimating a veterinary visit at £35.00 (visit £20.00.
examination £10.00. drugs £5.00) clearly indicates that
it is uneconomic to treat a sick calf. As another example, much
emphasis is currently given to the development of health plans,
which can have a significant effect on overall health, welfare
and production. For a 100 cow herd this might well take three
hours of veterinary time (at say £60.00 per hour), and then
call for an expenditure of perhaps £10.00 per cow on vaccines,
infertility work, foot-care etc. This would cost overall £1,180.00,
which in the current economic climate on some farms may be unsupportable,
due to the lack of available resources to fund the scheme. This
is in spite of the fact that at a cost of £11.80 per cow
over the year, a small increase in productivity would make the
scheme self financing.
3. Declining usage of veterinary services
over a significant period naturally impacts on the veterinary
practices concerned. Quite clearly less usage of veterinary services
leads to lower income for the practices concerned, but since the
practice infrastructure needs to remain intact to continue to
service the clients,albeit on a reduced basis, overhead costs
remain at a similar level in spite of the lower income. Profitability,
therefore, declines sharply. An important element of veterinary
costs for farm work is the "visit charge". It is significantly
more economic for the farmer if many animals can be seen at one
visit. Equally as an individual vet performs less visits per day
within a larger area, the mileage and travelling time per visit
may increase, which puts pressure on charges or profitability.
4. Traditionally the non-fee income of veterinary
practices has originated from two sources. One has been the supply
of medicines to farmer clients, often accompanied by free advice.
Now that many medicines are available from itinerant traders,
or over the internet (often at prices lower than the wholesale
price charged to veterinary practices) this source of income has
declined. Much of this trade is illegal, in that "Prescription
Only Medicines" (POM) are supplied without prescription.
Little effort seems to have been made by the authorities to clamp
down on this illegal trade. Recent considerations by the Competition
Commission may well accentuate this trend.
5. The second source of income has been
LVI (Local Veterinary Inspector) work on behalf of MAFF/DEFRA.
This has declined in recent years, due to the restrictions on
the number of animals eligible for both for TB and Brucellosis
testing. Other work, such as that associated with Scrapie has
had little effect. DEFRA is now considering removing routine TB
testing from veterinary practices, which will further reduce income.
It is worth pointing out that this work has always been paid for
on a headage basis, and as the testing has become restricted to
small groups of animals it has become less economically attractive.
6. This decline in veterinary practice incomes
derived from farm sources has been made up by work in other sectors,
mainly companion animal practice and equine work. In many practices
currently, the overhead charges are met entirely from the non-farm
animals sections of the practice, with the farm work merely covering
its direct costs. Naturally this has led practices to question
the economic viability of farm work, and some to withdraw entirely.
It is likely that many practices which continue to offer a farm
animal service do so either because of tradition, or due to the
existing (often older) partners preference for farm work. If the
current poor economic returns from farm animal practice continue,
it is envisaged that increasing numbers of practices will withdraw
from farm work, and certainly younger veterinary surgeons will
not wish to become experienced in that sector of the profession.
Should current trends continue, farm veterinary practices may
well cease to exist, with a few exceptions, within the next ten
years or so. Additionally, if a veterinary surgeon is to gain
experience, and remain fully competent in farm work, there is
a need to carry out a reasonable volume of such work. As the volume
of work declines, the farm work may be concentrated into fewer
hands, which results in a smaller number of veterinary surgeons
remaining competent in farm work. Alternatively, if the available
farm work is divided amongst a larger number of vets, this can
result in a general lowering of competency levels. Younger veterinary
surgeons find it difficult to gain experience in farm work, as
the declining work is increasingly carried out by the older, experienced
veterinary surgeons, often due to client pressure. In some areas
geographically large practices, which are able to offer increased
expertise in specialist areas, further reduce the amount of farm
work available to the "local" veterinary practice.
WHAT
EFFECT ANY
REDUCTION IN
USAGE OF
VETERINARY SERVICES
AND A
SHORTAGE OF
LARGE ANIMAL
VETS IS
HAVING ON
HEALTH AND
WELFARE STANDARDS
AND ON
THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF SURVEILLANCE
FOR ANIMAL
DISEASES?
7. The effect on animal health and welfare
needs to be considered under two headings; individual animal health
and flock/herd health. As it has become economically un-viable
to have a vet attend an individual animal in many cases, so diseases
and injuries either go completely untreated, or are treated by
the stockman often to poor effect, and the overall health of the
animals declines with consequent welfare concerns. The Five Freedoms
require prompt veterinary attention in cases of disease or injury,
and this is not happening currently in many instances. Welfare
is reduced in several different ways. The untreated animal suffers
and may well die. Its companions are exposed to increased risk
of contracting the disease as primary cases go untreated and control
measures are often not discussed. Additionally, the outside opinion
provided by the vet as to the manner in which the affected animals
are managed, which would often provide a stimulus to improved
management and therefore improved welfare, is no longer available.
On a herd basis veterinary advice is only sought once a major
problem is clearly established, and is becoming a serious economic
threat. Whilst on a herd/flock basis many animals may benefit
from veterinary advice and treatment, the initially affected individuals
will not. Veterinary attention for some conditions is now only
provided on a weekly or monthly basis, and animals must suffer
until the next routine visit takes place. As an example, dairy
cows suffer from a significant amount of lameness. Whilst some
of this may be treated by preventative methods applied to the
herd, much of lame cow treatment requires individual attention.
It is now common practice on many farms to restrict veterinary
visits to a weekly, or monthly frequency. The individual animal
which is lame must wait until the next visit for attention. This
means that a cow with an acutely painful foot, and a disabling
lameness may be in that state for several days or weeks before
attention is given. It is a sad reflection of many modern farming
systems that the animal is not seen as an individual sentient
being, which can suffer, but merely as a unit of production, and
welfare is seen in terms of decreased production and not in terms
of individual pain.
8. The increased trend for farmers to obtain
POM drugs without reference to veterinary advice is likely to
lead to many instances of poor drug usage, with the consequent
poor treatment, and resulting in increased animal suffering. In
so far as this usage leads to further drug resistance problems,
further animal suffering is probable, as diseases are no longer
readily treatable. There may also be human health factors to be
considered.
9. Currently in most areas there is probably
not a shortage of farm vets, rather those that do exist are under-utilised
and turning their attention to other aspects of veterinary practice.
However in those areas of the country where stock levels are traditionally
low, farm practices are either non-existent, or more likely, covering
such a wide area as to render a prompt response to treatment requests
impractical. Slower response times, coupled with increased visit
charges, make it less and less practical to obtain veterinary
assistance for individual animals. Obstetric work in particular
is no longer so frequently carried out by veterinary surgeons,
and this leads to an increase in welfare problems as animals are
either left unaided, or are assisted by stockmen, sometimes with
little knowledge. Whilst some of this could be overcome by improved
stockman training there is little evidence of this happening.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has considered with concern
the lack of training and control which exists over paraprofessionals
who currently undertake some of this work
10. The lack of veterinary input into farms
is having a serious effect on disease surveillance. Good surveillance
requires farm stock to be regularly observed by trained eyes,
and the appropriate response initiated. With veterinary visits
to farms becoming fewer, and many of those that take place concentrated
on fertility or lameness work, the opportunity for a veterinary
surgeon to view client's stock in general has been seriously reduced.
Surveillance now is very much dependent on the stockman, who almost
certainly does not have an up-to-date knowledge of disease trends
and epidemiological factors. The stockman may also have a vested
interest in not reporting disease problems to DEFRA or other authorities.
DEFRA is currently consulting on a surveillance strategy for animal
disease, so as to be able to recognise and respond to new disease
threats more quickly. In so far as veterinary visits to farms
are reducing, and becoming focussed on specific matters, this
has a negative effect on the surveillance function traditionally
carried out by practising vets. If vets are to be asked to perform
a surveillance function in the future, then the funding issues
need to be clarified.
WHETHER
THE REQUIREMENTS
PLACED ON
FARMERS BY
GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING
THOSE IN
THE ANIMAL
HEALTH AND
WELFARE STRATEGY,
ARE REALISABLE
IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES?
11. In so far as government requires require
farmers to obtain veterinary treatment for sick and injured animals,
and to draw up and implement longer term health plans in consultation
with a veterinary surgeon, this is dependent on two factors. One
is the availability of farm veterinary surgeons, the other is
the ability of the farmer to pay the requisite fees. Currently
it is believed that most areas of the country are covered by veterinary
practices, with expertise in the farm species. If farmers become
able to employ veterinary surgeons increasingly for profitable
prophylactic work, then it is likely that the existing practices
would expand their veterinary input into agriculture to supply
the increased demand. There is still a reserve of veterinary surgeons
with considerable experience of farm work available in many parts
of the country, but this supply is declining all the time as more
experienced veterinary surgeons are replaced by fewer younger
people. For this trend to change then there needs to be a reasonable
certainty that there will be a long-term future in farm veterinary
work. This may be supplied by farmers feeling that there is an
economic case for increased veterinary input into their businesses,
or by increased government use of veterinary surgeons in various
aspects of health, welfare and surveillance. Although currently,
it is likely that in most areas there would be a sufficiency of
farm veterinary surgeons to cope with an increased workload should
this be required, this pool of available skills is declining steadily
as time goes by.
WHAT
IS THE
IMPACT ON
THE WORK
OF THE
STATE VETERINARY
SERVICE?
12. This is very dependent on future government
policy. However, the decline in farm veterinary practice will
continue to rob the SVS of its local eyes and ears, as well as
a source of local knowledge. Increasingly this will mean that
the SVS will be obliged to respond to reports of disease problems
coming not via vets, who are likely to make informed and professional
reports, but via farmers and others who may not give such clear
information. This may well involve considerable wasted time and
travel as local state veterinary offices cover large areas. There
may be an increased need for a 24/7 on call commitment.
13. If farm veterinary practice decline
continues there is likely to be a gradual reduction in the number
of practices supporting an LVI, authorised to deal with farmed
species. This may necessitate SVS officers carrying out a greater
number of routine herd tests than they currently do, again with
a great impact on manpower. Organisation of testing will also
become more time consuming as much of this organisation currently
rests on the ability of local vets to use local goodwill to organise
TB testing and similar matters.
23 April 2003
|
