Memorandum Submitted by Mr John Tuckey
MBE, MRCVS (W23)
1. At present nothing of any consequence
has been done to prevent a new outbreak of FMD occurring tomorrow!
2. It is generally accepted that a major
source of infection is the illegal importation of meat. In spite
of this, a very small percentage (.02%) of hand luggage from countries
where FMD is endemic is checked at airports. Cf Australia and
New Zealand.
3. There was, when I was in Newcastle, a
desperate shortage of large animal vets, especially with any experience
of FMD. Work at the DECC was being done by vets which could just
as easily have been done by lay persons.
4. With the present decline in livestock
farming in Britain, large animal vets will become fewer. The bringing
in of overseas vets is only of any value if: a) they have experience
of large animals; and b) they have a reasonable command of the
English language. It was quite interesting to hear a Spaniard
trying to communicate with a Fell farmer and vice versa!!
5. Higher standards of skill and humane
behaviour must be instilled into slaughtermen. Some of the incidents
I saw were downright cruel.
6. A greater use must be made of the knowledge
of the local veterinary surgeon, eg the particular farmer's ability,
his standard of hygiene and honesty, the position of the farm
and the proximity of neighbouring stock. More than an Ordnance
Survey map is needed.
7. The communication skills and the tact
of the veterinary surgeon and his ability to deal with the particularly
difficult and unco-operative farmer.
8. The IMMEDIATE use of the Army to co-ordinate
all actions.
9. If possible, each vet to be given a group
of farmers to visit. Nothing is worse than a different person
appearing at each visit.
These are some thoughts that I have had since
2001. I am sure they are not original but, if they are of any
value to you, please use them.
THOUGHTS OUTSIDE
OF FMD
The decline in farm vets in this area is dramatic.
Ten years ago at the most, there were about twelve large animal
practices in the area, now there are three, and one of those is
finding it difficult to continue. The result of this is that vets
will have to travel further to farms, thereby increasing travel
costs. Because of the lessening of work, fees will have to go
up. Because fees rise farmers will be loathe to call out the vet
and will resort to `quack' treatments (or none at all). This will
result in a lowering of the health of the national herd and in
some cases lower standards of welfare.
The use of lay persons to do such jobs as Tuberculin
testing may be one way out, but the vet during his test visits
checks for other diseases, advises on welfare matters, eg housing
and feeding and generally aids the farmer. This could not be done
by lay persons and even vets brought in from outside would not
have the same relationship with the farmer as his own vet, which
is a very important consideration. Many of the Government regulations
now placed on the farmer DO NEED THE HELP OF THE VET to be complied
with.
Another major problem, and one that could be
significant in disease control not only of farm animals but also
wild animals, is the problem of fallen stock. The knackerman and
the local Hunt were both of vital importance for the collection
of such animals. Now this service has gone and the resultant massive
cost of disposal, especially of larger animals, will mean many
will be buried, burnt or otherwise disposed of on farms. The desperate
lack of incineration plants is now a major problem.
These should be national problems, not party.
A failure to overcome them could result in disaster for agriculture
and, in certain situations, for the nation as a whole.
A cutback in the amount of bureaucracy would
also help. There is not a strong affinity between farmers and
forms (or vets and forms, come to that)!!
25 April 2003
| 
