Animal Welfare Symposium November 2000

Raising awareness of current animal welfare concerns

Mr Andrew Scott, chairman of the BVA Animal Welfare Foundation, who chaired the seminar aimed at highlighting some of the animal welfare issues of concern to the veterinary profession

Animal welfare aspects of bovine tuberculosis (TB), organic farming, sheep scab, aquaculture and classical swine fever were among topics discussed at a one-day seminar organised by the BVA Animal Welfare Foundation earlier this month. Attended by representatives of the BVA AWF, along with members of BVA divisions and representatives of other animal welfare organisations, the seminar aimed to raise awareness of some animal welfare issues of current concern to the veterinary profession, and to suggest ways of combating the problems. The seminar took the form of brief presentations covering a range of topics followed by discussion of some of the issues raised.

Helping to set the scene for the discussion, the BVA's Chief Executive, Mr James Baird, commented that, as far as food animals were concerned, it was no longer enough for animals to simply be produced to a satisfactory standard; today's consumer also looked for 'welfare-friendly signs'. He suggested that the link between producer and consumer needed strengthening and that veterinarians could have more of an influence on that link. He believed there was also a need for assurance schemes to reflect scientific standards, public health requirements and the skills of both farmers and vets.

Bovine tuberculosis

Mr Richard Sibley, on bovine TB: 'Are we living on the edge of an epidemic?'

The first of the presentations of the day, on TB in cattle and badgers, was given by Mr Richard Sibley, president of the British Cattle Veterinary Association. Mr Sibley explained that because most cattle were slaughtered long before they developed clinical symptoms, the disease itself was not a welfare issue for the cattle concerned. There was, however, a problem regarding the rise in new, confirmed cases of the disease in the UK and the current numbers of cattle slaughtered; the number of new, confirmed cases of TB in cattle was increasing by 15 to 20 per cent each year, and about 7000 cattle were being slaughtered annually because they were either 'reactors' or 'in-contacts'. Welfare problems caused by TB did arise in the wildlife species which were also affected by the disease.

The steady increase in prevalence of TB in cattle, badgers and other wildlife could, he said, easily turn into the exponential rise characteristic of an infectious epidemic: 'At the moment the infected load is low - but are we living on the edge of an epidemic?' he asked. Mr Sibley believed that control and eradication were achievable, as reflected by the success of other countries in dealing with the problem, but this required a political will. In his view, an inclusive disease control approach, combining badger removal operations, health plans, risk assessment and biosecurity would be required to control bovine TB in the UK: 'We are after a radical policy change, perhaps removing badger protection and reinstating badger removal operations,' he said, arguing that it would be a hopeless cause to try to eradicate TB in cattle while maintaining high levels in wildlife; no other country had managed to do so under the same conditions.

In the discussion that followed the presentation, Mr Stephen Lister, an AWF trustee, asked Mr Sibley where the BCVA saw the main thrust of TB research in the future. Mr Sibley replied that it would like to see immediate action and get risk assessment programmes underway on 200 to 300 farms to try to improve farm biosecurity.

Other questions from the audience reflected concern about the prevalence of TB in wildlife. Mr Sibley said that some 25 per cent of the UK badger population was infected with the disease but that the prevalence in other species of wildlife was considerably lower.

Welfare of farmed fish

Mr Peter Southgate - called for more veterinary involvement in aquaculture

'The size of the aquaculture industry in the UK is approximately 200,000 tonnes of farmed fish - bigger than the Scottish beef and lamb production put together,' said Mr Peter Southgate, partner in a fish-only veterinary practice in Dumfries, beginning a presentation on the welfare of farmed fish. Despite the size of the industry, veterinary involvement was sparse. Mr Southgate's main objective with regard to fish welfare was to try to raise awareness of the issues in the profession and industry and to try to bring them to the forefront with fish farmers themselves.

Many of the welfare issues concerning farmed fish arose from the fact that they were cold-blooded animals, which were vulnerable to stress from the environment. However, the 'five freedoms' could be applied to fish just as well as to animals in terrestrial agriculture. Focusing on the freedom from pain and injury, Mr Southgate drew attention to a recent study undertaken by Mr Steve Kestin and his group at Bristol regarding slaughter methods in farmed salmon (see VR, September 9, pp 298-303). The study provided evidence to suggest that fish feel pain and, while this was a difficult area to investigate, they had to be given the benefit of the doubt during handling, transportation and slaughter. The current method of slaughtering salmon, according to the Bristol study, was probably the most appropriate and welfare friendly, Mr Southgate said. Particular problems arose when slaughtering huge numbers of small fish such as trout. He said that it was practically impossible to render each one instantaneously insensible with current methods and that there was a need for research and implementation of new slaughter techniques, such as electric stunning of fish, which, he believed, was the way forward for slaughtering large numbers.

Concluding his presentation, Mr Southgate remarked that fish welfare could be improved by training those who looked after fish in the correct and most appropriate management techniques. Technology, such as remote monitoring, should also be grasped to ensure better physical monitoring of fish in their aquatic environments. There was also a need for more veterinary involvement in the whole area of aquaculture.

In the discussion which followed, Mr Francis Anthony, a practitioner in Herefordshire and an AWF trustee, pointed out that, despite coarse fishing being one of the most popular sports in the country, the profession had not been asked about the animal welfare implications. In his response, Mr Southgate suggested that there was a need to have regulated controls with due diligence to the welfare of animals - a code of practice. It was agreed by the audience that fishing for fun was an issue which needed to be addressed.

Sheep scab

The animal welfare problems associated with sheep scab were discussed by Mr David Henderson, recently retired from the Moredun Research Institute near Edinburgh and a current member of the Farm Animal Welfare Council. Little was being done in the way of defining what the welfare aspects of sheep scab were, he commented, but it was evident that the disease caused considerable discomfort. The infection could take variable lengths of time to develop - with some strains of the causative mite, Psoroptes ovis, sometimes taking eight to 10 months to cover the whole of the animal. Apart from the obvious irritation and discomfort the lesions caused by self-inflicted damage, animals could also go into epileptic fits and die. 'It is undoubtedly a serious welfare issue and the opportunities for spread are considerable,' Mr Henderson said, adding that the combined effect of the denotification of the disease and the removal of organophosphate (OP) dips from the market had caused several problems with regard to control and treatment. OPs were the single most effective method of controlling a wide range of ectoparasites affecting sheep; their removal from the market had resulted in the return of the many ectoparasitic infections affecting sheep, and there was now much confusion as to what medicines were most appropriate for treating the different types of parasites.

Education

Education was the key to combating welfare problems and there was a need to educate farmers so that they fully understood the risks associated with treating or not treating their animals. Mr Henderson emphasised the importance of isolating newly bought animals and treating them before introducing them into the flock. Such measures were necessary as the disease was not always clinically obvious. Regarding the spread of sheep scab, Mr Henderson suggested that this could be reduced by double fencing which would restrict contact between neighbouring flocks. He also pointed out that research was needed into the development of other products for treatment of the disease, including the development of a vaccine. Concluding, he said, 'If we are to make any immediate impact, we may have to look at legislation again. As an organisation, we should not stop lobbying the Government to reintroduce notification.'

Answering a question about how to treat sheep in the absence of OPs, especially where sheep shared common land, Mr Henderson said that on common land it was almost impossible to get everybody to treat sheep effectively at the same time. However, he drew attention to a recent announcement from MAFF which had said that OPs would be brought back onto the market in the not too distant future (see VR, October 26, p 462).

Organic poultry farming

Mr Stephen Lister, who discussed potential difficulties of organic farming

The welfare implications of organic farming, with particular reference to poultry, were considered by Mr Stephen Lister, who, as well as being an AWF trustee, is a partner in a poultry diagnostic and consultancy practice in Norfolk. He believed there to be potential problems associated with the requirements governing organic production; these related to management and the environment, nutrition, and the availability of medicines.

Most diseases seen in organic production were closely related to management and environmental factors and high standards of management and control were essential. As far as poultry were concerned, organically farmed birds were generally kept in small wooden buildings which were difficult to clean and provided a haven for the red mite. This parasite caused a debilitating disease in chickens and could cause a considerable drop in egg production and often kill birds. Rats were also a serious problem and, in extensive systems, their ability to carry Salmonella and Pasteurella could cause havoc. Biosecurity and pasture management were therefore necessary, particularly because there was a desire to minimise the use of antibiotics, anthelmintics and vaccines on organic farms.

Many diseases of concern in the poultry industry were airborne, and extensive systems were most at risk. If a serious disease outbreak occurred, it was not just the welfare aspects of the disease per se that had to be considered, but the potential welfare implications of movement and other restrictions on premises.

As far as nutrition was concerned, difficulties could arise in view of restrictions on the ingredients that could be included in organic rations. The fact that feeds had to be GM-free limited the raw material matrices available for use, and it was not permissible to use solvent extracted oils, which meant that feed was often dusty and dry. This could lead to palatability problems and subsequent adverse affects egg production. Meanwhile, the fact that synthetic amino acids were prohibited from inclusion in organic rations meant that the only other real available source was fishmeal which was expensive and, if overused, could result in taints in poultry products. One specific area of organic poultry farming which had a potential direct impact on welfare was the exclusion of the amino acid methionine; the absence of this from the diet could lead to an increased incidence of feather pecking. Prohibition of the use of synthetic amino acids could lead to lower quality sources of amino acids being used than was desirable, affecting the immunocompetence of birds and reducing their resistance to infectious agents.

With regard to the use of medicines on organic farms, most organic standards allowed the use of certain veterinary products. However, their use had to be justified and related to risk and flock disease history. There was also a requirement for prolonged withdrawal periods - usually double the time indicated on the manufacturer's data sheet. This, Mr Lister said, could restrict when and how birds were treated.

Mr Lister pointed out that most of these problems could be overcome by the right sort of management, environmental controls and a structured approach to disease prevention, treatment and control. Organic production could work, but it came with an expensive price tag based on increased labour requirements, significant planning requirements, slower growing birds, loss of economies of scale and poorer production as a result of subclinical disease and the direct costs of disease. Mr Douglas Gray, of the BVA's Scottish Branch, suggested that there was a need for an injection of science into the organic sector, and coordination of research and development across the UK. He said that farmers should be made aware of the economic effects of different stocking densities, as they needed to know whether their enterprises were going to be viable. He believed that genetic selection for disease resistance in animals used for organic production was also vital, as was selection of traits that optimised rather than maximised production.

Mr Sibley remarked on a view common among veterinarians that organically farmed animals were not allowed to be treated. This, in fact, was not the case; rather, it was a question of withdrawal periods and how products were used. Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, commenting on the minimum use of medicines in the poultry sector, said that ill health was the major cause of poor welfare. 'If an animal is not healthy, its welfare is suffering and it seems to me that organic farmers who cut back on medicines that will control disease are causing welfare problems,' he said.

Classical swine fever

Mr Roger Harvey: 'If the Government wants a notifiable disease then it must be prepared to pay

In a highly topical presentation, Mr Roger Harvey, a partner in a practice in Suffolk, considered the welfare problems associated with the current outbreak of classical swine fever. The movement restrictions on infected and suspect premises had, he said, resulted in overstocking and a multitude of welfare problems. He pointed out that pigs were territorial animals with social hierarchies and could become aggressive when confined in overstocked areas. The resulting behaviour gave rise to wounded ears, tails, and flanks. Further problems included back injuries, bruising and pregnancy.

Apart from damage to each other, pigs kept under such conditions caused much damage to the buildings in which they were confined, leaving them even more susceptible to injury. Growing pigs needed 1 to 2 per cent more space each day and not moving them on to holdings designed for larger animals meant that they outgrew their premises and, for example, might not be able to feed or drink from the bowls intended for smaller pigs. Environmental problems of overstocking resulted in dirty pens and increased enteric disease - a problem made worse by the recent floods.

Mr Harvey said that, apart from the Pig Welfare Disposal Scheme, farmers affected by the outbreak had had no income to feed and house the pigs under their care since August when the first case of CSF was diagnosed. He believed that there was a need to have an agreed policy which covered all aspects of the problem: 'It has got to be fair to all concerned,' he said, adding, 'If the Government wants a notifiable disease then it must be prepared to pay.' He believed that there was a need for a close examination of modern farming systems and the routine movements of pigs, especially in pig intensive areas: 'We have got to decide where to put these big outdoor pig farms and keep them away from the public - but we must also consider that foxes may go through.' Regarding vaccination against CSF, Mr Harvey believed that this would be in the best interest of the pigs but pointed out that there would be problems in trading with other countries.

Availability of medicines

Discussing some of the welfare issues affecting small animal practice, Mr John Bower, senior partner in a veterinary hospital in Plymouth, focused on the availability of medicines. Although approximately 7 per cent of a small animal vet's time was spent looking at exotic animals, there were no products specifically authorised for use in certain exotic species and, to prevent these pets suffering unnecessarily, vets were forced to use medicines off-label. 'Treatment is necessary and we must ensure that the welfare of a pet is not to be compromised,' he said.

Both the RCVS and the Veterinary Defence Society advised that client consent should be obtained when using medicines off-label, but asking whether an off-label medicine could be used on a pet often worried the owner and there was, Mr Bower said, a need for more medicines in this expanding area of veterinary medicine.

In a separate presentation on farm animals, Mr Bob Stevenson, senior partner in a mixed practice in Gwent and the BVA's representative on the Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance (RUMA), confirmed that similar problems with regard to medicines' availability existed in the large animal sector, and that the welfare of animals was being compromised because not enough products were available.

Diseases of cats

Dr Andrew Sparkes - highlighted the need to 'maintain quality of compassionate care, in areas where you are trying to push forward the boundaries at both sides'

In a further presentation on companion animals, Dr Andrew Sparkes discussed the work of the new feline unit that was being developed at the Animal Health Trust (AHT) in recognition of the fact that there needed to be more work done on diseases affecting cats. Cats were becoming more popular as domestic pets and the unit aimed to develop research into important and common feline problems, as well as provide a clinical service. Dr Sparkes, who is head of the new unit, said that there were welfare issues in developing any clinical area and that there was a need to 'maintain quality of compassionate care, in areas where you are trying to push forward the boundaries at both sides'. The new unit at the AHT was also involved in CPD which, he pointed out, was necessary to communicate any advances made in the unit to improve feline welfare.

Laboratory animal welfare

The final presentation of the day, on laboratory animal welfare, was given by Ms Heather Elliot, representing the Laboratory Animals Veterinary Association. Ms Elliott discussed the requirements that establishments which breed, supply and use animals in scientific procedures should meet under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, as well as efforts being made by her own company to promote the 'three Rs' - reduction in the numbers of animals used in studies; replacement of animals altogether; and refinement of methods used in procedures. She also emphasised the importance of ethical review processes in helping to minimise any welfare issues before they arose.

Safeguarding the welfare of laboratory animals, Ms Elliott said, involved looking at ways of improving husbandry as well as undertaking the correct laboratory procedures and ensuring that animals were humanely treated. Among other things, this could include developing environmental enrichment and socialisation programmes - finding out what environments animals preferred and providing toys that they could benefit from. All in all, she concluded, safeguarding the welfare of laboratory animals required a multifaceted approach, including appropriate training and assessment of staff.

Return to BVA AWF Funding Projects