Memorandum submitted by the Chairman,
The Family Farmers' Association (W10)
I have consulted my local vet, (an intelligent
and experienced man) canvassed various sources and discussed the
subject with my committee. The following memorandum is the result.
— The impact of lack of profitability
on farms: This is the main issue; the impact appears to be serious.
The process has been continuous over at least the last ten years.
The reduction in the number of farmers, and also, perhaps more
recently, the reduction in the number of farm animals, has led
to a steady decline in the amount of large animal work for veterinary
practices.
The fact that there are fewer farmers in business
means that some practices which used to have a small amount of
farm work have now given it up altogether as uneconomic.
A high proportion of veterinary students are
now female. Much large animal work is too physically demanding
for them, certainly as they get older. The difficulty of finding
vets willing and competent to do large animal work is another
reason why some practices have given it up. Fewer large animal
practices, where there are fewer farm animals, means that vets
may have to travel long distances to visit a sick animal. This
must mean a higher charge and a corresponding reluctance on the
part of the farmer to call out the vet. This may in turn lead
to avoidable animal suffering.
— Effect on animal health and welfare:
Again, the lack of value of some animals, combined with the fact
that there may be no large animal vet available for many miles,
must affect animal health and welfare. If a young calf has little
or even no monetary value, only a sentimental farmer is going
to call a vet to it if it appears ill. It is said that in New
Zealand the only remedy for a sick sheep is a bullet, and one
wonders if that may not soon become the case here.
Regulations, various circumstances, the price
of fuel and drugs have all combined to make the services of a
vet expensive. Farmers with a very small income may feel they
will have difficulty in paying the bill. In this context it should
be noted that our vet feels strongly that the price he charges
for drugs subsidises the actual veterinary attention he provides.
He says that farmers are more willing to pay for drugs than for
his services. For instance, dry cow tubes for cows are expensive.
But with the current regulation on somatic cell counts, dairy
farmers are more or less obliged to use them. So their use may
become a necessity, where calling out the vet himself may be considered
a luxury. The sale of drugs will help to keep the practice solvent.
Otherwise charges might have to be so high as to reduce the call
for the service and make at least the large animal side uneconomic.
— Strategy: Does this refer to
the idea of an obligatory animal health plan? Making vets responsible
for reporting animal welfare problems might be counter productive
But, where the TT test is annual the vets see every bovine and
are thus in a good position to judge the standard of care and
health on the farm. To what extent they should be required to
report an unsatisfactory situation is an interesting question.
They could be requested to consider the whole farm's health status
and encouraged to discuss it with the farmer and attempt to advise
him. This would surely be acceptable to the vets if it became
a normal part of their testing function and their remuneration
was adjusted accordingly. Incidentally, my vet is strongly of
the opinion that the TB testing work is essential in keeping large
animal practices solvent.
— The question of the impact on the
SVS must be left to the SVS to answer. There is a general impression
that the government is running it down. Perhaps you should ask
the government if that is so.
24 April 2003
|
