Memorandum submitted by Dr Ian Cumming
MRCVS, University of Bristol Veterinary School (W7)
INTRODUCTION
The Ninth Report of Session 2001-02 of the House
of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (EFRAC)
"The Future of UK Agriculture in a Changing World" provides
an appropriate framework within which we believe the provision
of farm animal veterinary services in England and Wales should
be prioritised. Similarly, this report makes various recommendations
which could have a significant impact on livestock farming in
England and Wales and its ability to afford appropriate veterinary
services and advice.
This report states that:
"animal welfare concerns can rightly be
addressed through policy mechanisms; but, if society is really
concerned about the issues there will also be responses in the
marketplace. These are best facilitated through obligations to
provide better consumer information in-store and on labels".
And that:
"protecting trade on the grounds of ensuring
self sufficiency in food production is an outmoded concept in
a global world. The Secretary of State should continue to assert
within the European Union that the best way of ensuring food security
is through improved trading relationships. The EU should reaffirm
its commitment to maintain the Doha timetable for the liberalisation
of world trade in agricultural products".
There is an assumption by EFRAC within their
conclusions that the marketplace is prepared to pay for improvements
in animal health and welfare made by producers as long as the
appropriate information is made available to consumers. However,
many consumer surveys do not provide evidence for this—the
retail price of the goods on sale is consistently the most important
issue in the consumer's mind. In other words, the majority of
available evidence suggests that the consumer will not expect
to pay towards the cost of improved animal health and welfare
in the UK if equivalent imported goods are available more cheaply.
Farmers are increasingly competing globally
against cheaper imported products which can be competitively produced
in countries which have much lower labour and other costs (including
health and welfare) than the UK. Total Income from Farming in
the UK fell to just over £1.5 billion in 2000, its lowest
level in real terms since the depression of the late 1930's.
The spending power of UK farm businesses within
a global agricultural marketplace will therefore continue to be
under extreme pressure over the next 10 years. As a direct consequence
of this, the task of improving animal health and welfare in the
UK will also be under constant economic pressure in the face of
increasing competition from cheaper imported livestock products.
VISION
The Ninth Report of Session 2001-02 of the House
of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (EFRAC)
"The Future of UK Agriculture in a Changing World" concludes:
— "The main lesson of the inquiry
is that it is the primary role of farmers to produce food that
consumers want, and do so in a competitive and open marketplace
free of production or trade-distorting subsidies, and without
undue restrictions on their freedom to operate".
— "The inquiry therefore strongly
supports moves towards reducing restrictions and cutting subsidies.
The more the marketplace for farmers can be liberalised, the better
able they will be to respond properly to signals from it, as is
already the case for pig, poultry and horticultural producers
who currently have no support from a subsidy regime".
At the University of Bristol Veterinary School,
our vision is to build on the work of farm assurance by providing
the knowledge to fill the current gaps in the provision of best
practice in animal health and welfare including disease surveillance.
We need to re-direct the core veterinary inputs
required to support this knowledge transfer process in a way which
will produce the right benefits at minimal or no extra cost for
the farmer.
Our mission statement is "to co-ordinate
the provision of animal health and welfare, disease surveillance
and other essential veterinary and financial services in a way
that adds value to farm production in the UK".
At Annex 1 we have produced a concept note which
represents an opportunity for the development of a sustainable
and credible national animal health and welfare/disease surveillance/quality
assurance system benefitting the farmer, the supply chain and
the consumer at minimal extra cost to the industry.
FACTORS DRIVING
CHANGE IN
VETERINARY SERVICE
PROVISION IN
ENGLAND AND
WALES
(1) The capacity to deliver animal health
and welfare from veterinary practices.
The November 2002 Royal College of Veterinary
Surgeons manpower survey showed that the percentage of veterinary
time spent working in farm animal practice has more or less halved
since 1998 with the figures for cattle, sheep and pigs falling
to 7.5%, 1.3% and 0.4% respectively.
This begs the question "how can we ensure
an adequate animal health and welfare strategy for England and
Wales against a background of dramatically reducing levels of
veterinary attendance on farms"?
The RCVS figures clearly show that for an increasing
number of farm animal veterinary practices cattle work is becoming
less viable, and sheep and pig work at 1.3% and 0.4% respectively
is becoming an almost "inconsequential" part of total
GB veterinary business.
We believe that these figures for cattle and
sheep will fall even further after the Independent Review of Dispensing
by Veterinary Surgeons (the "Marsh Report"—part
of the Government's Action Plan for Farming launched on 30 March
2000 http://www.noah.co.uk/issues/ird.htm), and the subsequent
findings of the Competition Commission's enquiry into the "existence
or possible existence of a monopoly situation in relation to the
supply within the United Kingdom of prescription only veterinary
medicines" (http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/inquiries/refvetmed.htm).
Two key recommendations of Marsh already agreed
between Government and the Veterinary Profession are that:
— Veterinary surgeons should be required
to issue prescriptions for prescription only medicines after having
made a diagnosis and prescribed a medicine.
— Farmers and veterinarians should
join with pharmacists, agricultural merchants and farm management
advisors to create health plans for farm animals, within which
medicines can be supplied at least cost.
An independent report on the importance of drugs
sales to veterinary practice (Veterinary professional fees: a
case of mistaken identity, Sharon Wesselby, Veterinary Business
Journal, October 2002) states that "the one item the veterinary
practice uses to make the cash margin to run an efficient, modern,
professional practice may walk out of the door with the client
and his or her animal: a prescription for a medicine and the opportunity
to purchase directly elsewhere".
Post Marsh and the Competition Commission report,
much of these drugs sales will be lost to large pharmaceutical
retail outlets. In this case, the farmer will simply ask his vet
to issue a prescription and will buy his drugs elsewhere.
In order to remain profitable in this situation,
practices will have to dramatically increase their fees to farmers
in order to survive. How will this be paid for by farm businesses
with incomes already at a historical low and existing veterinary
fees to farm clients already proving increasingly burdensome?
We believe that we are about to enter a period
in GB agriculture where the advisory input to livestock farmers
from private veterinary business reaches an all time low. We believe
that to achieve adequate levels of animal health and welfare under
these circumstances will require a radically new approach to the
provision of veterinary services and advice to farmers from private
veterinarians, the State Veterinary Service and others.
If the financing of service provision to agriculture
is to be left to market forces (as per the conclusions of the
House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee),
it is very hard to see how the agricultural marketplace is going
to continue to afford the services of the private veterinary surgeon.
We have suggested how some of these problems
might be solved by working via a network of specialist contracted
sentinel veterinary practices in our proposals laid out in Annex
1—Animal Health and Welfare and the "Single National
Standard" A concept note by the University of Bristol Veterinary
School.
(2) The capacity of farm animal veterinary
practices to meet the new business challenges in farm animal service
provision
The core issues surrouding the survival of farm
animal practice in GB in the years ahead are covered in an article
by Peter Orpin MRCVS (March 2003. Farm practice in areas of low
stock density: a blueprint for survival. In Practice. 161-165).
Orpin comments that farm animal practice has
changed dramatically in the past 20 years. Farm numbers have declined,
farmers have become more skilled, and many of the key treatments
that were perfomed by vets in the past are now carried out by
farmers and paraprofessionals.
Cattle remain the principal species that farm
vets are involved with on a day-to-day basis. Around 300 to 350
practices have a substantial amount of cattle work, and it is
thought that some 5,000 vets are still involved with cattle work.
The challenges for farm practices in areas of
low stock density are listed as :
— Retaining the "critical mass"
of clients and vets within the practice.
— Maintaining the skills and knowledge
of the vets and support staff.
— Spreading reducing levels of work
to the younger or less experienced vets.
— Providing a cost effective service
to clients over an increasingly large area.
— Providing 24 hour effective emergency
cover.
— Maintaining sufficient profits from
the farm sector business to justify the services provided.
RCVS guidelines suggest that the maximum distance
for an emergency service should be based on a response time of
approximately 30 minutes. Many practices now have clients who
are situated more than 30 minutes travelling time from the practice
in order to retain the critical mass of clients necessary for
their business to remain viable.
The decision as to whether this is appropriate
is largely based on the probability of, and requirement for, emergency
work. The reality is for stock of low individual value, the farmer
and veterinarian must often make harsh economic decisions in emergency
cases on the cost-benefit of veterinary intervention versus humane
destruction or slaughter of the animal.
As farm density decreases, the need to travel
further between farms is increasing. Meanwhile the fixed costs,
relative to turnover, of running a pharmacy and invoicing increase
as farm practice turnover decreases. The variable costs rise and
either profits fall or charges to the farmer need to be increased
to compensate.
Orpin lists the loss making activities in farm
animal practice as follows :
— Provision of out of hours cover.
— Servicing small, distant farms for
emergency work only.
— Short visits to distant farms.
— Providing extra staff for emergency
work.
— Sales of medicines at unrealistic
margins.
— Dispensing small items of medicines.
— State work on poorly organised farms.
At one extreme, a short visit to attend an emergency
at a farm 15 miles away at night would represent a substantial
loss to the practice, while, at the other, a pre-planned visit
to a large dairy farm lasting four hours would be very profitable.
Health planning is proving to be a "lifeline"
for many practices as it provides an opportunity for vets of all
ages to get more involved with the farms in their area. Herd health
planning and routine pre-planned preventive medicine visits have
become a much larger part of the farm animal vet's duties.
Providing these services effectively requires
investment in new skills, further training and ongoing continuing
professional development (CPD). Orpin states that "without
these up-to-date skills the demand for veterinary services from
farmers in the area will decrease, and the practice may enter
a terminal decline".
In most practices the sale of medicines provides
a significant contribution to profits and currently allows the
wide range of non-profitable services to continue. This may change
in the future and, in turn, may alter the provision of services
by the practices that remain and accelerate the demise of low
profit practices.
Orpin concludes that:
— The large animal vet of the future
will not only have to retain the skills of a mixed practitioner
to achieve a satisfactory income but will also need access to
the specialist skills of nutrionalists and other vets from outside
the area.
— Farmers in low stock areas will ultimately
have to be re-educated to cope with lower response times and to
seek veterinary services from more distant locations.
— For cattle practice, it is difficult
to envisage that all of the work could be pre-planned with emergency
work becoming a thing of the past.
It is very clear from this summary of the challenges
facing large animal practice that for animal health and welfare
in England and Wales to remain sound the following inputs at the
farm level will be vital :
— A significantly improved knowledge
and skills base for farmers to be provided via encouragement,
education and enforcement programmes in animal health and welfare.
— A willingness amongst large animal
vets to re-structure their businesses in order to provide improved
health planning for their clients and to secure the appropriate
ongoing CPD to support this.
— A willingness amongst large animal
vets to work alongside other specialists such as nutrionalists,
geneticists, farm economists etc at the farm level to provide
a more strategically relevant and cost effective veterinary input.
— An increasing use of para-professionals
by the livestock industry to deliver cost effective knowledge
to farmers on animal health and welfare.
(3) The Government's review of the system
of Local Veterinary Inspectors (LVI's)
The Government is currently undergoing a review
of the system of Local Veterinary Inspectors. There is a desire
for a more formalised contractual relationship with the possibility
of new work areas including surveillance work. The current LVI
system employs 7,000 veterinary surgeons in 2,000 private practices.
How many of these veterinary surgeons/private
practices will be available in the long term if the current decline
in the provision of farm animal veterinary services in the UK
continues? How is the long term provision of veterinary advice
on animal health and welfare being tackled by DEFRA in its LVI
review with regard to this decline?
We believe that effective knowledge transfer
on animal health and welfare does not require this number of LVI's
provided that the distribution of contracted specialist "sentinel"
practices reflects geographical livestock densities. However,
these practices will need to be supported with effective information
and educational programmes to enhnance their skills and awareness
in the provision of cost effective animal health and welfare.
See Annex 1.
Rationale for Government involvement in the
provision of veterinary services to support animal health and
welfare in England and Wales.
(1) The mid-term review of the Common
Agricultural Policy
At the recent British Cattle Breeders Conference
held in Shrewsbury in January 2003, Ivor Llewellyn, of the DEFRA
Beef and Sheep production division stated that :
DEFRA are commissioning studies to look at the
effects of de-coupling (a shift from headage to area payments),
under the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy.
These studies all differ in their findings.
They don't predict and could all be modified in negotiations.
De-coupling should increase farm incomes and environmental benefits
but reduce production and employment. De-coupling is planned from
Jan 2004 with all payments rolled into a single payment.
Medium to large farms could see as much as a
50% stock reduction. Incentives for average performing farms could
see stock reductions of up to 75%. Reducing stock numbers reduces
labour costs and therefore agricultural employment. Less stock
will benefit air, water and climate change.
This dramatic reduction in numbers will open
us up to import competiton. Production criteria and performance
will be left to the market.
At the same meeting Prof Brian Revell of Harper
Adams University College predicted that "farm size will get
bigger to take advantage of decoupled payments and to maintain
production volumes. We will also see more niche product units
and more part-time farming".
The "good news" here for UK animal
health and welfare, is that there will probably be far fewer animals
to protect over the next decade as a result of the predicted stock
reductions. This dwindling stock resource will demand a pro-rata
reduction in veterinary support including inputs on health and
welfare. In this respect at least, the current decline in veterinary
farm service provision may well be matched with an equally sharp
decline in UK stock numbers.
These represent dramatic changes for individual
producers of farm livestock which are TOTALLY OUTWITH THEIR CONTROL.
If Government signs up to a review of the CAP which leads to a
reduction in the availability of affordable health and welfare
advice to livestock producers, then it should take responsibility
for the provision of any shortfall in these services IF it is
serious about animal health and welfare.
(2) Assurance scheme operators
Farm assurance schemes are designed to provide
assurances to consumers about areas of potential concern such
as food safety, environmental management and animal health and
welfare (Main, DCJ et.al, July 2002, Farm Assurance and On-Farm
Welfare. Cattle Practice. 10(3), 181-182).
Broadly, welfare assessment can be achieved
by evaluating both the husbandry provisions (eg, diet, housing,
management) and/or evaluating the animal-based indicators of welfare
outcomes (eg, disease, behaviour). Farm assurance schemes (including
the RSPCA's Freedom Foods scheme) tend to examine the provisions
as defined in their standards and interpret their assessment as
a simple pass/ fail result.
The RSPCA commissioned the University of Bristol
to independently assess the RSPCA owned Freedoms Food UK-based
farm assurance scheme which is designed to achieve high standards
of animal welfare on farm, during transit and at slaughter.
The findings/conclusions were :
— Initial data analysis has identified
that lameness and discomfort aspects of welfare were found to
be at high levels in FF as well as non-FF farms.
— The number of farms above intervention
levels derived from expert opinion did not reflect the extent
of compliance with the FF standard.
— The FF standards are largely resource
based (eg. housing, conditions) and the University of Bristol
assessment was animal based (ie behaviour, physical condition
and health records). It is therefore very possible that a farm
was above the University of Bristol intervention levels for one
or more welfare measures but still fully compliant with the FF
standard.
— Specific welfare problems and priorities
for action are specific to individual farms and these will not
be resolved through modification of the general standards of provision
ie the assurance scheme standards.
Resolution of specific welfare problems on individual
farms needs to be addressed at a local level using a health plan
format consisting of formulating
prevention policies, recording and reviewing the
effectiveness of these policies and generating an action plan
if this is not effective.
We believe that this methodology should be adopted
by all assurance scheme operators if we want to make a meaningful
improvement to animal health and welfare at the farm level in
GB in a COST EFFECTIVE manner. In our concept note at Appendix
1 we propose to embrace this type of research and knowledge.
(3) The power of the major food retailers
The Farm Animal Welfare Council's interim report
on the Animal Welfare Implications of Farm Assurance Schemes was
published in August 2001 with the final report due in early 2004.
The remit of the FAWC working group was to review
farm assurance schemes applying to animals on farm, at market,
in transit and at place of slaughter to ascertain whether they
are effective in developing desirable animal welfare standards.
FAWC report that the retailers' key objective
in implementing assurance schemes is to gain the implicit trust
of their customers. Once this trust is established, it is expected
that consumer concerns regarding food safety, animal welfare and
environmental issues are devolved to the retailer.
We believe that because of the following key
FAWC findings :
— The major retailers are effectively
taking the place of the consumer in exercising choice and in deciding
the manner in which farm livestock are kept.
— The retailers do not wish to raise
the topic of animal welfare in the minds of consumers.
— The level of consumer interest in
animal welfare is small and increases only when there is a specific
media campaign.
— Retailers would not wish to constrain
their ability to supply the low-priced "budget" lines
by applying the same standards to the higher priced "quality
lines".
— There is apparently no evidence from
retailers to demonstrate that inspections/audits of overseas supplies
are on a par with the systems in place in this country.
— There are no legislative requirements
specifically relating to labelling as farm assured.
This would represent significant drivers for
retailers to source livestock products from abroad, because this
in turn confers the following commercial "advantages"
to them:
— They can be produced at a reduced
cost, to a lower standard of health and welfare, and in conditions
which are inadequately policed.
And made available for sale:
— With no legal obligations on labelling.
— By a retailer who exercises consumer
choice on welfare.
— For a consumer whose interest in
welfare is small.
We believe that all those interested in raising
standards of animal health and welfare in GB have a clear responsibility
to raise awareness amongst consumers and retailers of the ADDED
VALUE of this to the animal, the consumer, the retailer and the
PRODUCER. Without this, our industry will continue to contract
whilst the uninformed consumer enjoys the "benefits"
of cheaper imported foods produced to lower standards that remain
unidentified through labelling deficiencies that remain legally
unchallenged.
How on earth does the UK producer compete with
this trend AND invest in improved animal health and welfare via
his veterinary surgeon? It is a battle that he is currently losing
and will continue to lose without the necessary Government support
to meet the costs of improved animal health and welfare.
Furthermore, if the University of Bristol's
findings in the Freedom Foods study above are correct, namely
:
— Initial data analysis has identified
that lameness and discomfort aspects of welfare were found to
be at high levels in Freedom Foods as well as non-FF farms.
— The number of farms above intervention
levels derived from expert opinion did not reflect the extent
of compliance with the FF standard.
— Specific welfare problems and priorities
for action are specific to individual farms and these will not
be resolved through modification of the general standards of provision
ie the assurance scheme standards.
Then where IS the supposed ADDED VALUE in existing
assurance schemes?
If the FF findings can be applied to other assurance
schemes, it would appear that farmers are being asked to fund
the activities of "box ticking" welfare assessors in
ways that add costs to production, bring minimal health and welfare
benefits to the animals, reduce business competitiveness within
the international marketplace and all for an apparent benefit
that the consumer doesn't understand!
Is it any wonder that consumption of UK produced
livestock products is giving way to imports and that there is
a continual reduction in demand for farm veterinary services in
England and Wales?
We believe that there is an urgent need for
Government to provide the resources to correct these significant
imbalances in health and welfare costs that disadvantage the GB
livestock producer. To this end we fully support FAWC in their
call for "The Government to examine the possibility of "green
box" payments under the Rural Development Programmes for
England, Scotland and Wales to meet whatever additional costs
might stem directly from the adoption of higher welfare standards".
SUMMARY
We have identified the key factors impacting
on the provision of farm veterinary services in England and Wales
as detailed above. We believe that a mechanism needs to be developed
to re-direct the provision of key veterinary services to the farmer
in a way which adds value throughout the supply chain.
In Annex one below we outline our concept of
how this might be achieved. This is a commercially driven sustainable
concept for which we are seeking Government funding to set up
over an initial three to five year period. We wish to see the
knowledge and skills base of the farmer improved in such a way
that he can make a more critical and cost effective use of his
vet, and the knowledge base of the vet improved in such a way
that he can offer better value for the use of his time.
23 April 2003
| 
