- Email: [email protected]
Farmers' opinions on welfare, health and production practices in extensive hill sheep flocks in Great Britain
Livestock Science 104 (2006) 268 – 277 www.elsevier.com/locate/livsci
Farmers’ opinions on welfare, health and production practices in extensive hill sheep flocks in Great Britain C. Morgan-Davies *, A. Waterhouse, C.E. Milne, A.W. Stott Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK Received 30 November 2005; received in revised form 24 March 2006; accepted 18 April 2006
Abstract Despite large numbers of hill sheep reared in the UK, little is known about how hill farmers react to health challenges in their flocks. This paper addresses this lack of knowledge of sheep health management practices and presents farmers’ opinions and concerns, particularly regarding ectoparasite control. Focus groups and interviews with UK hill sheep farmers were carried out to collect information on management practices, health concerns, in addition to incidence and impacts of six major ectoparasites (ticks, lice, sheep scab mite, blowfly, keds and headfly), to determine how they viewed the effects of ectoparasites and their control on production practices. We conclude that despite variations between hill sheep farm conditions and levels of input, similar health concerns and ectoparasite issues were found across different hill sheep farming areas of the UK. Farm labour was also an important issue and most farmers would prefer more labour to be available to effectively manage ectoparasites in their flocks. Finally, there was variation in farmers’ opinions of the impact of ectoparasite species on welfare and productivity. This variation in opinion can be related to a trend in their past experience of ectoparasites, but no relationships were found with the animal health treatments farmers use, the number of animals in their flock or variation in the type of grazing land available. D 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Ectoparasites; Hill sheep; Welfare; Labour; Farmers; Health
1. Introduction Animal health management has always been seen as very important for profitable farming (Buhr et al., * Corresponding author. SAC Kirkton Farm, Crianlarich, FK20 8RU, Scotland, UK. Tel.: +44 1838 400210; fax: +44 1838 400248. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Morgan-Davies). 1871-1413/$ - see front matter D 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2006.04.024
1993). However, some (McInerney, 1996) argue that the level of animal health control needed to maximise profit is likely to fall well short of complete disease prevention. Potential conflicts therefore may exist between the search for profit and good animal health in livestock farming systems (McInerney, 2004; Stott et al., 2005). Livestock farmers are also responding to a growing animal welfare awareness amongst customers and to changing policies and legislation
C. Morgan-Davies et al. / Livestock Science 104 (2006) 268–277
concerning animal health and welfare (Whittemore, 1995; SEERAD, 2003). This public concern for animal welfare is a driver of research into farmers’ attitudes and opinions about animal health and welfare, as these factors influence animal health management decisions. Assessment of health problems, decision-making, and actions taken by farmers have been researched for dairying (Agger and Alban, 1996; Haskell et al., 2003), veal production (Lensink et al., 2001) and organic farming (Cabaret, 2003). However, little research has been conducted for the very different context of extensive hill sheep production, although it is the predominant farming system for hill and upland areas in the UK, where seminatural pastures are grazed by free-ranging sheep, with proportionately less day-to-day inspection than other farming systems. Defra (2006), in the context of the 1946 Hill Farming Act, defines hill farmers as bextensive sheep (or beef) farmers, in Less Favoured Areas, with a minimum stock of 0.15 livestock unit/ ha.Q The Less Favoured Areas (EC Directive 75/276) being defined as bsuitable for extensive livestock production, with whole agricultural production restricted in its range by, or by a combination of, soil, relief, aspect or climateQ. A better understanding of how hill sheep farmers view both the financial and welfare consequences of different husbandry actions would be helpful to evaluate the potential consequences of changing market and policy environments, such as those arising from reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. Waterhouse et al. (2003), reporting on the prioritisation of animal health concerns of hill sheep farmers, noted that they most frequently quoted ectoparasites. Although the challenge of controlling and preventing animal parasitism has already been acknowledged by the wider research community and industry (Van Veen, 1999; Hovi et al., 2003), practical ectoparasite control, as well as economic and welfare consequences, have rarely been researched. Some existing data on farm practices regarding sheep ectoparasite control are available (Milne, 2004) and more specifically for scab mites (French et al., 1994) and ticks (Clark, 2003), but without particular focus on hill sheep. Other data on pesticide usage to control sheep ectoparasites also exist (Shave et al., 1995; Thomas, 1998; Bates, 2004); however, these do not describe practices specific to hill flocks.
269
Six of the most common ectoparasites that can affect hill sheep flocks in Great Britain and northern Europe are lice (Bovicola ovis), scab mites (Psoroptes ovis), ticks (Ixodes ricinus), blowflies (Lucilia ssp. and Calliphora ssp.), keds (Melophagus ovis) and headflies (Hydrotea irritans). The effects of infestation on the animals, the transmission and the types of treatments they require are different, as described by Henderson (1990) and Hosie (2003). Some species have different life cycles, with ticks associated with other hosts and different type of grazing land, especially rough grazing and heather moorland (Henderson, 1990). This study will present information collected among hill sheep farmers on their management practices, health concerns, as well as on incidence and impacts of these six major ectoparasites on their farms.
2. Methods 2.1. Farms study This research was conducted in 2003 through two series of focus groups and interviews with hill sheep farmers across the UK. Using local lists and addresses from local agricultural consultants, hill farmers were invited to participate in group discussions. There were four sessions in each series, with groups in Scotland, northern England and mid-Wales. The locations of the farms involved in these focus groups are presented in Fig. 1. The 10 farms in Scotland were based around Inverness, with some of them located in the northwest, in crofting areas. Flock sizes varied from 400 ewes to 2000. Most of the farmers had some common grazing. In Northern England, one of the groups was centred on the Keswick area (Lake District) with 15 participating farmers predominantly located in the valleys radiating out from there. Consequently, most of the farms had limited mowing ground and often limited intakes (land between the open hill and the lower fields). All had extensive and severe hill grazing (around 600–800 m altitude), mainly commons but some fenced. The other group was centred on the Hope Valley in the Peak District area, with 10 participating farms. Most had extensive heather moorland grazing, some of which were
270
C. Morgan-Davies et al. / Livestock Science 104 (2006) 268–277
The second series of focus groups was centred on sheep scab mites and other ectoparasites, particularly on ectoparasite control and its impact on welfare and labour on the farm, as seen by the farmers. They were asked to state ! the frequency, reasons and resource requirements for gathering the flock, ! which ectoparasites they considered caused problems on the farm, ! their opinions on the impact of the six common ectoparasites found in hill sheep flocks (ticks, scab mites, lice, blowfly, keds and headfly) on welfare and productivity. The same farmers were invited to participate in the second series of focus groups. Due to individual circumstances at the time, only 34 farmers were present out of the initial 46. However, according to the focus groups techniques described by Morgan (1998) and Krueger (1998), the number of participants in each series of focus groups was adequate, since they were experts in their fields and had high level of involvement with the topics. 2.2. Statistical methods Fig. 1. Location map of the focus groups farms.
commons but some fenced. Much of the moor grazing was severe and rose up to 636 m altitude. Finally, the 11 farms from Mid-Wales were centred on Newtown near Llanidloes in Powys. The area was predominantly hill land with most farms having suckler cows and sheep. Flock sizes varied from 600 breeding ewes up to 3000. The same farmers participated to both series of focus groups and interviews. The first series of focus groups, in which 46 farmers participated, focused on defining extensive systems and ranking farmers’ concerns. Farmers were asked to: ! describe their farm typology, ! characterise their farms into levels of management inputs and stocking densities, ! list and rank their concerns for sheep health in extensive conditions.
Chi-square tests (Siegel and Castellan, 1988) were used to determine any variation in the sample group (a) in terms of management practices and levels of inputs and (b) in their opinions of the impacts of ectoparasites on welfare and productivity. To test the hypothesis that variation in farmers’ opinions might be linked to past experience and practices, hierarchical cluster analysis (Alderderfer and Blashfield, 1984) was used to segregate farmers’ responses, according to the ranking scores (slight–1, moderate –2 or severe –3) they gave when asked about the impacts of ectoparasites on welfare and productivity. Two-way analyses of variance were then used to test relationships between the different clusters of farmers regarding their experiences and practices. Correlation (Pearson’s two-tailed; Hays, 1981) tests between farmers’ opinions and number of animals and the type of land availability were finally used to refine understanding of the farmers clustered according to their opinion of impact of ectoparasites.
C. Morgan-Davies et al. / Livestock Science 104 (2006) 268–277
271
3. Results from the first series of focus groups
3.2. Management practices and levels of inputs
3.1. Respondents’ farms typology
Farmers were asked to characterise their farms into one of four levels of management inputs and four levels of stocking density. Their answers showed that two commonly used measures of intensity, dlevel of inputsT and dstocking densityT were not perceived by farmers as analogous. Whilst there were no farms classifying themselves at the low input/high stocking density end of the scales, there was an even distribution across the other possible combinations. The majority of participants (42 out of 46) classified themselves as either moderate (26 out of 46) or high input (16 out of 46), with their levels of labour and management inputs being key variables used to justify these definitions. Management practices were then compared between these farmers considering themselves as high and moderate input farms. The main differences between the two levels of input concerned management practices such as ultrasound pregnancy scanning of the ewes, lambing inside buildings or outside, leaving males entire, treating the animals only when it is needed and finally, whether organic or not. Most of these results were predictable from the level of inputs (e.g., for higher input farms, most of them scan and lamb indoors). The chi-square analysis confirmed that these main differences between self-determined high and moderate input farms were significant. These results also confirmed that the sample group contained a
As seen in Table 1, which presents the percentage of farms by type of land availability for hill and upland ewes and by flock size, 52% of the farms involved had rough grazing for their ewes. Twenty-six percent had permanent pastures, whilst only 13% also had grass reseeds on their better improved land, showing a low level of intensity of use of improved grassland. In relation to their hill grazing and seminatural pastures 41% had heather moorland and 41% had common grazings. Farms which had principally (N60%) access to heather moorland and rough grazing tended to have the highest number of hill ewes (between 1000 and 3000). Conversely, farms with medium flock size (between 500 and 1000 hill ewes) had access to more diversified types of land for the animals (heather moorland, rough grazing and common grazings). Forty-three percent of farms with hill ewes had hill ewe flock sizes between 500 and 1000, with 24% having flock sizes over 1000. Many farms (50%) also had upland ewes (typically crossbred ewes kept much of the year on lower altitude pastures); of these only 13% had a flock size of over 500 upland ewes. Many farmers thus had both extensive hill flocks and more intensive upland flocks on their farms.
Table 1 Percentage of farms according to land availability for hill ewes and upland ewes and flock size Hill flock size (number of farms)
Upland flock size (number of farms)
Land availability (%) Heather moorland
Rough grazing
Permanent pasture
Grass reseeds
Common grazings
n V 500 (15)
n = 0 (4) 0 b n V 100 (4) 100 b n V 500 (4) 500 b n V 1500 (3) Total n = 0 (10) 0 b n V 100 (5) 100 b n V 500 (5) Total n = 0 (9) 100 b n V 500 (2) Total
25 25 50 0 27 15 5 15 35 67 100 73 41
75 50 75 0 53 20 10 15 45 56 100 64 52
75 0 75 67 47 0 10 0 10 33 0 27 26
0 0 50 33 20 5 0 0 5 11 50 18 13
75 0 25 0 27 20 20 15 55 44 50 45 41
500 b n V 1000 (20)
1000 b n V 3000 (11)
Grand total
272
C. Morgan-Davies et al. / Livestock Science 104 (2006) 268–277
variety of sheep farmers, reflecting the diverse range of farms to be found in the hill farming regions sampled. 3.3. Health concerns Discussions with the 46 farmers were conducted and a prioritised list of all health concerns was produced through a facilitator. Results are shown in Fig. 2. Sheep scab mites were found to be a major concern amongst all respondents, as well as feet problems, other ectoparasites, abortion and lamb mortality. Although it was of lower frequency, labour was also mentioned.
4. Results from the second series of focus groups
apply ectoparasite control treatments to the average flock size of 850 ewes, giving a rate of 1.24 minutes per ewe. However, 59% of the farmers did not have enough regular (full time), casual or family labour available for ectoparasite control treatments. They estimated that they would require an average 1.5 additional workers for a total of 15 h to be able to gather and treat the animals for ectoparasites. Forty-six percent of the farmers said they collaborated with their neighbours to treat their flock. The remaining 54% did not do so for one or more of the following reasons: their flock was too extensive; they had a closed flock; they had a poor relationship with their neighbour; they had a lack of staff or the respective livestock systems were different (e.g., their neighbours had no sheep).
4.1. Labour use for ectoparasite control 4.2. Ectoparasite incidence Farmers interviewed gathered their flocks for the purpose of controlling ectoparasites an average of 2.2 times per year. Shearing, treatment with anthelminthic products and weaning were the main activities carried out in conjunction with controlling ectoparasites. On average, 3.2 people for a total of 56 h per handling operation of the whole flock were required to
Farmers were asked to state whether or not their flocks had been affected by any of the six ectoparasites in the past 5 years. Fig. 3 shows the incidence of ectoparasite species, as reported by the respondents. The incidence of blowfly was highest, followed by lice, scab mites, ticks, headfly and finally, keds.
Fig. 2. Health concerns in extensive hill sheep flocks, as identified by the farmers.
C. Morgan-Davies et al. / Livestock Science 104 (2006) 268–277
273
ectoparasites on productivity, their ratings were similar to those for welfare. However, across all ectoparasites, the farmers did not rate the productivity impacts as severe as they did those for welfare. 4.4. Ectoparasite control and farmers’ opinions
Fig. 3. Incidence of ectoparasites (reported infestation/attacks in the past 5 years).
4.3. Variation in farmers’ opinions of the impacts of ectoparasite on welfare and on productivity The farmers showed considerable variation in their opinions of the impacts of ectoparasites from slight to severe (rated on a 3-point scale, slight, moderate, and severe). Fig. 4 shows their rating of impacts on welfare, with the majority of responses for scab mites being severe, whilst lice were more frequently rated as having a slight impact. The chi-square analysis showed statistically significant differences between the ectoparasite species in the proportion of farmers who scored impacts as severe. When asked about impacts of
This study tested the hypothesis that variation in farmers’ opinions of the impacts of ectoparasites on welfare and on productivity was related to experience and practice. Two distinct groups were identified by running a hierarchical cluster analysis on respondents’ scores of the impact of ectoparasites on welfare and on productivity. Table 2 shows that there were therefore somewhat different cluster groupings for farmers according to their welfare and productivity responses. Respondents in Clusters 1 had high scores (i.e., they considered the impacts of ectoparasites on welfare and on productivity to be severe) whilst respondents in Clusters 2 had lower scores (i.e., they considered the impacts on welfare and on productivity to be slight to moderate). The responses for disease history and treatments used by hill farmers in each cluster were then compared. The proportion of farmers in each cluster who said their flocks had been affected every year by the different ectoparasites is presented in Fig. 5. Al-
Fig. 4. Farmers’ rating of impacts of ectoparasites on welfare and productivity.
274
C. Morgan-Davies et al. / Livestock Science 104 (2006) 268–277
Table 2 Hierarchical cluster analysis of farmers for impacts of ectoparasite species on welfare and on productivity (2 clusters each identified for welfare and for productivity, p b 0.001) Welfare
Productivity
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Mean score of cluster Number of farmers in cluster Mean score of each factor Impact of ticks Impact of scab mites Impact of lice Impact of blowfly Impact of keds Impact of headfly
2.5 7
1.6 27
2.4 10
1.4 24
2.7 3.0 2.4 2.7 1.8 2.3
1.8 2.1 1.2 2.0 1.0 1.6
2.3 2.9 1.9 2.8 1.7 2.2
1.5 1.6 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.1
Scores: 1 (slight), 2 (moderate), 3 (severe).
though the figure shows that there is a trend between clustering based on opinions of impacts on welfare and on productivity, and yearly incidence of ectoparasites, no statistical differences were identified. This trend, however, showed that for welfare, hill farmers from Cluster 1 (dhighT rating) also reported the highest incidence of blowfly, ticks, lice, scab mites and keds. Headfly was the exception, with Cluster 2 (dlowT rating) having a higher incidence. The
incidence of ticks showed the biggest variation between clusters (40% of hill farmers from Cluster 2 had yearly incidence, compared to more than 70% of hill farmers from Cluster 1). For productivity, a similar trend was found, with hill farmers from Cluster 1 (dhighT rating) having the highest yearly incidence of blowfly, ticks and lice. As for welfare, incidence of ticks showed the largest variation between the two clusters for productivity. There was no relationship between farmer cluster groups and treatments (pour-ons/spot-ons, OP [organophosphates] dips, showers, injections, SP [synthetic pyrethroid] dips and dagging) used against the most prevalent ectoparasites (ticks, sheep scab, lice and blowfly). There were also no statistically significant correlations between respondents’ opinions of ectoparasite impacts on welfare and productivity and their number of animals, levels of intensity or typology of grazing land.
5. Discussion Respondents varied in type of farm, number of animals, level of inputs and management practices. Their views of intensity of their farming systems
Fig. 5. Proportion of hill farmers, in each cluster, whose flock had an ectoparasite infestation/attack every year.
C. Morgan-Davies et al. / Livestock Science 104 (2006) 268–277
contrasts with the perception of extensive hill farms as low input farms (Wright et al., 2002; Benoit and Laignel, 2004) and showed that extensive hill farms are very different from one another. However, the focus group discussions allowed the description of typical problems and concerns in major hill sheep areas across the country. Despite the qualitative nature of the results, a number of hierarchies of concerns could be drawn from this information, showing that ectoparasite control and labour were important issues. This study highlighted the crucial importance of labour in extensive hill sheep farming. For gathering and applying ectoparasite treatments, an average of 1.24 min per animal was necessary for the hill farmers surveyed. Nix (2002) gives a figure of 1.29 min per ewe for gathering and applying one ectoparasite treatment, which is remarkably similar. However, more than half of the hill farmers surveyed viewed the lack of labour as a problem, they were dissatisfied with the amount of labour they could devote to ectoparasite control, fearing it would impair on the welfare of their animals. The lack of people to gather may lead to incomplete gathering and thus some animals are not being treated. Likewise, lack of people may lead to improper sheep treatments, incorrect doses and dipping. The Animal Health and Welfare Strategy (Defra, 2004), which relies on cost benefit analysis to persuade farmers to do more to prevent animal disease, might be put at risk in this context. This perceived lack of labour to carry out even costeffective treatments may remain a barrier to the strategy in the hills. The skilled labour force, necessary for hill farms work, is most often not there anymore, and that lack of regular labour might explain why some of the respondents always scored the impacts of ectoparasites on welfare and on productivity as severe. This concurs with the findings of Waterhouse (1996), who highlighted the negative impact of reduced labour on animal welfare in extensive hill sheep systems. Moreover, whilst half of the respondents said they co-ordinated their ectoparasite control and gatherings with that of their neighbours, a high proportion were not co-ordinating activities, although this is a key biosecurity issue, especially for effective control of sheep scab mites (Taylor et al., 2001). Regarding the specific issue of ectoparasites in extensive hill sheep systems, blowfly, lice and scab
275
mites were reported to be the most prevalent ectoparasites, closely followed by ticks. Ticks are not as ubiquitous as other ectoparasites and are more closely linked to appropriate habitats and presence of alternative hosts (Henderson, 1990). This study also highlighted the wide range of opinions on ectoparasite impacts on welfare and productivity amongst hill sheep farmers. When trying to understand why these hill farmers had such opinions, two main groupings of hill farmers were identified: those who tended to rate impacts of ectoparasites as high, and those who tended to rate impacts as low. This dichotomy amongst the surveyed farmers could be explained partly by past experience. Fig. 5 showed that farmers who reported the highest yearly infestation/attack of ectoparasites, also rated their impacts as being high. Consequently, their opinions on severity of impact could be directly linked with their experience (positive or negative), as also shown by Hektoen (2004). On a species level, it was interesting to note the results concerning specifically ticks and blowfly. Farmers who did not report infestation of their flock with ticks gave a lower rating to the welfare and productivity impacts. Blowfly was the one ectoparasite species on which all hill farmers agreed, regarding its impacts on both welfare and productivity. This was probably because it is common, misdiagnosis is rare and its effects are well known and severe (Henderson, 1990). However, when looking at the treatments they reported using, farmers’ opinion of impacts did not appear to influence the treatment adopted. Likewise, the number of sheep or level of inputs on the farm did not explain respondents’ opinions, showing that the impacts of ectoparasites on welfare and productivity, as seen by farmers, tended to be the same whether the farm is small or large. Some of these observations are quite important, regarding future impacts and risks of ectoparasites on hill farms. Is farmers’ past experience a good guide to future risks on their farms or is there a danger that some farmers become complacent about preventive veterinary medicine, thus unduly exposing their livelihoods and the welfare of their animals? The results presented here showed that regardless of their opinions of the impacts, farmers still seemed so far to use the same treatments against ectoparasites (i.e., dipping, pour-ons, etc.). However, this research could not assess the effectiveness and correctness of the
276
C. Morgan-Davies et al. / Livestock Science 104 (2006) 268–277
applications, nor could it gauge the common misidentification by farmers of sheep scab mites from lice, on clinical signs alone. There is also evidence that the impact of farmers’ inaction may be multiplied by the spread of disease to dneighbouringT flocks. Some farmers in this research were using common grazings, but surprisingly few were co-operating. This could mean that the social structure, as well as physical structure, of hill farming communities is changing and this may have implications for animal health and welfare and, hence, the wider community, such as seen during the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak (Scott et al., 2004). Given these observations, further research on this theme might be justified.
6. Conclusion From this research, we have shown that these extensive hill sheep farmers have varied conditions on their farms and have different levels of input and management practices and cannot therefore be referred to simply as one single type of husbandry system. They also held varied opinions on the impacts of ectoparasites on welfare and productivity and were clustered in distinct groupings. These opinions were somewhat related to past experience of ectoparasites on their farm, but not to the treatments they reported applying to their flocks, or to the number of sheep and self reported levels of intensity of the farm. This paper also provides crucial information regarding labour practices linked to ectoparasite control, confirming that many hill farmers would prefer more labour to be available to effectively treat ectoparasites. However, with many suggesting that CAP reform, which introduces decoupling of production and payment, will have a negative effect on hill sheep numbers and farm labour associated with it, future work on such development needs to be carried out, in parallel with this paper’s findings. The Animal Health and Welfare Strategy for Great Britain (Defra, 2004) also recognises the role of research on welfare aspects, especially parasitism, and this study’s findings reinforce the importance to tackle such topics for extensive hill sheep farmers. The techniques used in this study could not fully assess the true level of parasitism risk attached to each
respondent’s farm and it is therefore difficult to conclude that the differences observed were estimated accurately. Nonetheless, this study provides insights into hill sheep farmers’ personal opinions of ectoparasite control and impacts on welfare and productivity, as well as of their health concerns for their flocks. These opinions will be crucial in influencing current and future methods of ectoparasite control in hill farms.
Acknowledgements The authors thank their colleagues from SAC, ADAS and the Macaulay Institute, who provided help in designing and collecting data from the survey, and the time and efforts the farmers put in while taking part in this exercise. The project was sponsored by Defra (AW1012—Improving sheep welfare on extensively managed flocks by understanding the economic and husbandry influences on flock welfare), and in addition, SAC and the Macaulay Institute received financial support from the Scottish Executive.
References Agger, J.F., Alban, L., 1996. Welfare in Danish dairy herds: 3. Health management and general routines in 1983 and 1994. Acta Vet. Scand. 37, 79 – 97. Alderderfer, M.S., Blashfield, R.K., 1984. Cluster Analysis. Sage Publications, Newbury Park. Bates, P., 2004. Therapies for ectoparasiticism in sheep. In Pract. 26, 538 – 547. Benoit, M., Laignel, G., 2004. Specificities and conditions of profitability in extensified lactating ewes production systems: study in experimental farms and areas. Options Me´diterr., Se´r. A: Se´min. Me´diterr. 61, 57 – 65. Buhr, B.L., Walker, K.D., Kliebenstein, J.B., Johnson, S.R., 1993. An industry-level economic conceptual model of the effects of improved animal health. Prev. Vet. Med. 16, 3 – 14. Cabaret, J., 2003. Animal health problems in organic farming: subjective and objective assessments and farmers’ actions. Livest. Prod. Sci. 80, 99 – 108. Clark, S., 2003. Control of ticks on sheep. In: SAC (Ed.), Sheep and Beef Notes May 2003. SAC, Edinburgh, pp. 5 – 6. Defra,, 2004. Animal Health and Welfare Strategy for Great Britain. Defra Publications, London. Defra, 2006. Uplands Land Classification. http://www.defra.gov.uk/ rural/uplands/land-classification.htm. French, N.P., Wall, R., Morgan, K.L., 1994. Ectoparasite control of sheep farms in England and Wales: the method, type and timing of insecticidal treatment. Vet. Rec. 135, 35 – 38.
C. Morgan-Davies et al. / Livestock Science 104 (2006) 268–277 Haskell, M.J., Rennie, L.J., Bowell, V.A., Wemelsfelder, F., Lawrence, A.B., 2003. On-farm assessment of the effect of management and housing type on behaviour and welfare of dairy cattle. Anim. Welf. 12, 553 – 556. Hays, W.L., 1981. Statistics. Rinehart and Winston, New York. Hektoen, L., 2004. Investigations of the motivations underlying Norwegian dairy farmers’ use of homeopathy. Vet. Rec. 155, 701 – 707. Henderson, D.C., 1990. The Veterinary Book for Sheep Farmers. Old Pond Publishing, Ipswich. Hosie, B., 2003. Control of Sheep Scab and Other Ectoparasites of Sheep. SAC Technical Note. SAC, Edinburgh. Hovi, M., Sundrum, A., Thamsborg, S.M., 2003. Animal health and welfare in organic livestock production in Europe: current state and future challenges. Livest. Prod. Sci. 80, 41 – 53. Krueger, R.A., 1998. Developing questions for focus groups. Focus Group Kit, vol. 3. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Lensink, B.J., Veissier, I., Florand, L., 2001. The farmers’ influence on calves’ behaviour, health and production of a veal unit. Anim. Sci. 72, 105 – 116. McInerney, J., 1996. Old economics for new problems—livestock disease: presidential address. J. Agric. Econ. 47, 295 – 314. McInerney, J., 2004. Animal welfare, economics and policy. Report on a Study Undertaken for the Farm and Animal Health Economics Division of Defra. Defra, London. Milne, C.E., 2004. The economic modelling of sheep ectoparasites control in Scotland. PhD thesis, Aberdeen University. Morgan, D.L., 1998. Planning focus groups. Focus Group Kit, vol. 2. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Nix, J.S., 2002. Farm Management Pocketbook, 32nd edition. University of London, Wye. Scott, A., Christie, M., Midmore, P., 2004. Impact of the 2001 footand-mouth disease outbreak in Britain: implications for rural studies. J. Rural Stud. 20, 1 – 14. SEERAD, 2003. Animal Health and Welfare in Scotland, Implementing the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.
277
Shave, P.R., Thomas, L.A., Nevison, I., 1995. Pesticide Usage in Scotland. Usage of Pesticides on Sheep 1993. Scottish Agricultural Science Agency, SOAEFD, Edinburgh. Siegel, S., Castellan, N.J., 1988. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Inc, New York. Stott, A.W., Milne, C.E., Goddard, P., Waterhouse, A., 2005. Effect of alternative management strategies on profit and animal welfare in extensive sheep production systems in Great Britain. Livest. Prod. Sci. 97, 161 – 171. Taylor, K., Stubbings, L., Liddel, S., 2001. Sheep Flock Management, R&D Technical Report P396. Environment Agency, Bristol. Thomas, L.A., 1998. Pesticide Usage in Scotland: Sheep 1996. Scottish Agricultural Science Agency, Edinburgh. Van Veen, T.W.S., 1999. Agricultural policy and sustainable livestock development. Int. J. Parasitol. 29, 7 – 15. Waterhouse, A., 1996. Animal welfare and sustainability of production under extensive conditions—a European perspective. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 49, 29 – 40. Waterhouse, A., Colgrove, P., Vipond, J., Goddard, P., 2003. Identification of key issues—a summary of the final group session. In: Goddard, P.J. (Ed.), Improving Sheep Welfare on Extensively Managed Flocks: Economics, Husbandry and Welfare, Proceedings of a Workshop Held in Aberdeen, Scotland on 24–25 February 2003. The Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen, pp. 73 – 77. Whittemore, C.T., 1995. Response to the environmental and welfare imperatives by UK livestock production industries and research services. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 8, 65 – 84. Wright, I.A., Zervas, G., Louloudis, L., 2002. The development of sustainable farming systems and the challenges that face producers in the EU. In: Kyriazakis, I., Zervas, G. (Eds.), Organic Meat and Milk From Ruminants, Proceedings of a Joint International Conference Organised by the Hellenic Society of Animal Production and the British Society of Animal Science, Athens, Greece, 4–6 October 2001, pp. 27–37.
Farmers’ opinions on welfare, health and production practices in extensive hill sheep flocks in Great Britain C. Morgan-Davies *, A. Waterhouse, C.E. Milne, A.W. Stott Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK Received 30 November 2005; received in revised form 24 March 2006; accepted 18 April 2006
Abstract Despite large numbers of hill sheep reared in the UK, little is known about how hill farmers react to health challenges in their flocks. This paper addresses this lack of knowledge of sheep health management practices and presents farmers’ opinions and concerns, particularly regarding ectoparasite control. Focus groups and interviews with UK hill sheep farmers were carried out to collect information on management practices, health concerns, in addition to incidence and impacts of six major ectoparasites (ticks, lice, sheep scab mite, blowfly, keds and headfly), to determine how they viewed the effects of ectoparasites and their control on production practices. We conclude that despite variations between hill sheep farm conditions and levels of input, similar health concerns and ectoparasite issues were found across different hill sheep farming areas of the UK. Farm labour was also an important issue and most farmers would prefer more labour to be available to effectively manage ectoparasites in their flocks. Finally, there was variation in farmers’ opinions of the impact of ectoparasite species on welfare and productivity. This variation in opinion can be related to a trend in their past experience of ectoparasites, but no relationships were found with the animal health treatments farmers use, the number of animals in their flock or variation in the type of grazing land available. D 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Ectoparasites; Hill sheep; Welfare; Labour; Farmers; Health
1. Introduction Animal health management has always been seen as very important for profitable farming (Buhr et al., * Corresponding author. SAC Kirkton Farm, Crianlarich, FK20 8RU, Scotland, UK. Tel.: +44 1838 400210; fax: +44 1838 400248. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Morgan-Davies). 1871-1413/$ - see front matter D 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2006.04.024
1993). However, some (McInerney, 1996) argue that the level of animal health control needed to maximise profit is likely to fall well short of complete disease prevention. Potential conflicts therefore may exist between the search for profit and good animal health in livestock farming systems (McInerney, 2004; Stott et al., 2005). Livestock farmers are also responding to a growing animal welfare awareness amongst customers and to changing policies and legislation
C. Morgan-Davies et al. / Livestock Science 104 (2006) 268–277
concerning animal health and welfare (Whittemore, 1995; SEERAD, 2003). This public concern for animal welfare is a driver of research into farmers’ attitudes and opinions about animal health and welfare, as these factors influence animal health management decisions. Assessment of health problems, decision-making, and actions taken by farmers have been researched for dairying (Agger and Alban, 1996; Haskell et al., 2003), veal production (Lensink et al., 2001) and organic farming (Cabaret, 2003). However, little research has been conducted for the very different context of extensive hill sheep production, although it is the predominant farming system for hill and upland areas in the UK, where seminatural pastures are grazed by free-ranging sheep, with proportionately less day-to-day inspection than other farming systems. Defra (2006), in the context of the 1946 Hill Farming Act, defines hill farmers as bextensive sheep (or beef) farmers, in Less Favoured Areas, with a minimum stock of 0.15 livestock unit/ ha.Q The Less Favoured Areas (EC Directive 75/276) being defined as bsuitable for extensive livestock production, with whole agricultural production restricted in its range by, or by a combination of, soil, relief, aspect or climateQ. A better understanding of how hill sheep farmers view both the financial and welfare consequences of different husbandry actions would be helpful to evaluate the potential consequences of changing market and policy environments, such as those arising from reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. Waterhouse et al. (2003), reporting on the prioritisation of animal health concerns of hill sheep farmers, noted that they most frequently quoted ectoparasites. Although the challenge of controlling and preventing animal parasitism has already been acknowledged by the wider research community and industry (Van Veen, 1999; Hovi et al., 2003), practical ectoparasite control, as well as economic and welfare consequences, have rarely been researched. Some existing data on farm practices regarding sheep ectoparasite control are available (Milne, 2004) and more specifically for scab mites (French et al., 1994) and ticks (Clark, 2003), but without particular focus on hill sheep. Other data on pesticide usage to control sheep ectoparasites also exist (Shave et al., 1995; Thomas, 1998; Bates, 2004); however, these do not describe practices specific to hill flocks.
269
Six of the most common ectoparasites that can affect hill sheep flocks in Great Britain and northern Europe are lice (Bovicola ovis), scab mites (Psoroptes ovis), ticks (Ixodes ricinus), blowflies (Lucilia ssp. and Calliphora ssp.), keds (Melophagus ovis) and headflies (Hydrotea irritans). The effects of infestation on the animals, the transmission and the types of treatments they require are different, as described by Henderson (1990) and Hosie (2003). Some species have different life cycles, with ticks associated with other hosts and different type of grazing land, especially rough grazing and heather moorland (Henderson, 1990). This study will present information collected among hill sheep farmers on their management practices, health concerns, as well as on incidence and impacts of these six major ectoparasites on their farms.
2. Methods 2.1. Farms study This research was conducted in 2003 through two series of focus groups and interviews with hill sheep farmers across the UK. Using local lists and addresses from local agricultural consultants, hill farmers were invited to participate in group discussions. There were four sessions in each series, with groups in Scotland, northern England and mid-Wales. The locations of the farms involved in these focus groups are presented in Fig. 1. The 10 farms in Scotland were based around Inverness, with some of them located in the northwest, in crofting areas. Flock sizes varied from 400 ewes to 2000. Most of the farmers had some common grazing. In Northern England, one of the groups was centred on the Keswick area (Lake District) with 15 participating farmers predominantly located in the valleys radiating out from there. Consequently, most of the farms had limited mowing ground and often limited intakes (land between the open hill and the lower fields). All had extensive and severe hill grazing (around 600–800 m altitude), mainly commons but some fenced. The other group was centred on the Hope Valley in the Peak District area, with 10 participating farms. Most had extensive heather moorland grazing, some of which were
270
C. Morgan-Davies et al. / Livestock Science 104 (2006) 268–277
The second series of focus groups was centred on sheep scab mites and other ectoparasites, particularly on ectoparasite control and its impact on welfare and labour on the farm, as seen by the farmers. They were asked to state ! the frequency, reasons and resource requirements for gathering the flock, ! which ectoparasites they considered caused problems on the farm, ! their opinions on the impact of the six common ectoparasites found in hill sheep flocks (ticks, scab mites, lice, blowfly, keds and headfly) on welfare and productivity. The same farmers were invited to participate in the second series of focus groups. Due to individual circumstances at the time, only 34 farmers were present out of the initial 46. However, according to the focus groups techniques described by Morgan (1998) and Krueger (1998), the number of participants in each series of focus groups was adequate, since they were experts in their fields and had high level of involvement with the topics. 2.2. Statistical methods Fig. 1. Location map of the focus groups farms.
commons but some fenced. Much of the moor grazing was severe and rose up to 636 m altitude. Finally, the 11 farms from Mid-Wales were centred on Newtown near Llanidloes in Powys. The area was predominantly hill land with most farms having suckler cows and sheep. Flock sizes varied from 600 breeding ewes up to 3000. The same farmers participated to both series of focus groups and interviews. The first series of focus groups, in which 46 farmers participated, focused on defining extensive systems and ranking farmers’ concerns. Farmers were asked to: ! describe their farm typology, ! characterise their farms into levels of management inputs and stocking densities, ! list and rank their concerns for sheep health in extensive conditions.
Chi-square tests (Siegel and Castellan, 1988) were used to determine any variation in the sample group (a) in terms of management practices and levels of inputs and (b) in their opinions of the impacts of ectoparasites on welfare and productivity. To test the hypothesis that variation in farmers’ opinions might be linked to past experience and practices, hierarchical cluster analysis (Alderderfer and Blashfield, 1984) was used to segregate farmers’ responses, according to the ranking scores (slight–1, moderate –2 or severe –3) they gave when asked about the impacts of ectoparasites on welfare and productivity. Two-way analyses of variance were then used to test relationships between the different clusters of farmers regarding their experiences and practices. Correlation (Pearson’s two-tailed; Hays, 1981) tests between farmers’ opinions and number of animals and the type of land availability were finally used to refine understanding of the farmers clustered according to their opinion of impact of ectoparasites.
C. Morgan-Davies et al. / Livestock Science 104 (2006) 268–277
271
3. Results from the first series of focus groups
3.2. Management practices and levels of inputs
3.1. Respondents’ farms typology
Farmers were asked to characterise their farms into one of four levels of management inputs and four levels of stocking density. Their answers showed that two commonly used measures of intensity, dlevel of inputsT and dstocking densityT were not perceived by farmers as analogous. Whilst there were no farms classifying themselves at the low input/high stocking density end of the scales, there was an even distribution across the other possible combinations. The majority of participants (42 out of 46) classified themselves as either moderate (26 out of 46) or high input (16 out of 46), with their levels of labour and management inputs being key variables used to justify these definitions. Management practices were then compared between these farmers considering themselves as high and moderate input farms. The main differences between the two levels of input concerned management practices such as ultrasound pregnancy scanning of the ewes, lambing inside buildings or outside, leaving males entire, treating the animals only when it is needed and finally, whether organic or not. Most of these results were predictable from the level of inputs (e.g., for higher input farms, most of them scan and lamb indoors). The chi-square analysis confirmed that these main differences between self-determined high and moderate input farms were significant. These results also confirmed that the sample group contained a
As seen in Table 1, which presents the percentage of farms by type of land availability for hill and upland ewes and by flock size, 52% of the farms involved had rough grazing for their ewes. Twenty-six percent had permanent pastures, whilst only 13% also had grass reseeds on their better improved land, showing a low level of intensity of use of improved grassland. In relation to their hill grazing and seminatural pastures 41% had heather moorland and 41% had common grazings. Farms which had principally (N60%) access to heather moorland and rough grazing tended to have the highest number of hill ewes (between 1000 and 3000). Conversely, farms with medium flock size (between 500 and 1000 hill ewes) had access to more diversified types of land for the animals (heather moorland, rough grazing and common grazings). Forty-three percent of farms with hill ewes had hill ewe flock sizes between 500 and 1000, with 24% having flock sizes over 1000. Many farms (50%) also had upland ewes (typically crossbred ewes kept much of the year on lower altitude pastures); of these only 13% had a flock size of over 500 upland ewes. Many farmers thus had both extensive hill flocks and more intensive upland flocks on their farms.
Table 1 Percentage of farms according to land availability for hill ewes and upland ewes and flock size Hill flock size (number of farms)
Upland flock size (number of farms)
Land availability (%) Heather moorland
Rough grazing
Permanent pasture
Grass reseeds
Common grazings
n V 500 (15)
n = 0 (4) 0 b n V 100 (4) 100 b n V 500 (4) 500 b n V 1500 (3) Total n = 0 (10) 0 b n V 100 (5) 100 b n V 500 (5) Total n = 0 (9) 100 b n V 500 (2) Total
25 25 50 0 27 15 5 15 35 67 100 73 41
75 50 75 0 53 20 10 15 45 56 100 64 52
75 0 75 67 47 0 10 0 10 33 0 27 26
0 0 50 33 20 5 0 0 5 11 50 18 13
75 0 25 0 27 20 20 15 55 44 50 45 41
500 b n V 1000 (20)
1000 b n V 3000 (11)
Grand total
272
C. Morgan-Davies et al. / Livestock Science 104 (2006) 268–277
variety of sheep farmers, reflecting the diverse range of farms to be found in the hill farming regions sampled. 3.3. Health concerns Discussions with the 46 farmers were conducted and a prioritised list of all health concerns was produced through a facilitator. Results are shown in Fig. 2. Sheep scab mites were found to be a major concern amongst all respondents, as well as feet problems, other ectoparasites, abortion and lamb mortality. Although it was of lower frequency, labour was also mentioned.
4. Results from the second series of focus groups
apply ectoparasite control treatments to the average flock size of 850 ewes, giving a rate of 1.24 minutes per ewe. However, 59% of the farmers did not have enough regular (full time), casual or family labour available for ectoparasite control treatments. They estimated that they would require an average 1.5 additional workers for a total of 15 h to be able to gather and treat the animals for ectoparasites. Forty-six percent of the farmers said they collaborated with their neighbours to treat their flock. The remaining 54% did not do so for one or more of the following reasons: their flock was too extensive; they had a closed flock; they had a poor relationship with their neighbour; they had a lack of staff or the respective livestock systems were different (e.g., their neighbours had no sheep).
4.1. Labour use for ectoparasite control 4.2. Ectoparasite incidence Farmers interviewed gathered their flocks for the purpose of controlling ectoparasites an average of 2.2 times per year. Shearing, treatment with anthelminthic products and weaning were the main activities carried out in conjunction with controlling ectoparasites. On average, 3.2 people for a total of 56 h per handling operation of the whole flock were required to
Farmers were asked to state whether or not their flocks had been affected by any of the six ectoparasites in the past 5 years. Fig. 3 shows the incidence of ectoparasite species, as reported by the respondents. The incidence of blowfly was highest, followed by lice, scab mites, ticks, headfly and finally, keds.
Fig. 2. Health concerns in extensive hill sheep flocks, as identified by the farmers.
C. Morgan-Davies et al. / Livestock Science 104 (2006) 268–277
273
ectoparasites on productivity, their ratings were similar to those for welfare. However, across all ectoparasites, the farmers did not rate the productivity impacts as severe as they did those for welfare. 4.4. Ectoparasite control and farmers’ opinions
Fig. 3. Incidence of ectoparasites (reported infestation/attacks in the past 5 years).
4.3. Variation in farmers’ opinions of the impacts of ectoparasite on welfare and on productivity The farmers showed considerable variation in their opinions of the impacts of ectoparasites from slight to severe (rated on a 3-point scale, slight, moderate, and severe). Fig. 4 shows their rating of impacts on welfare, with the majority of responses for scab mites being severe, whilst lice were more frequently rated as having a slight impact. The chi-square analysis showed statistically significant differences between the ectoparasite species in the proportion of farmers who scored impacts as severe. When asked about impacts of
This study tested the hypothesis that variation in farmers’ opinions of the impacts of ectoparasites on welfare and on productivity was related to experience and practice. Two distinct groups were identified by running a hierarchical cluster analysis on respondents’ scores of the impact of ectoparasites on welfare and on productivity. Table 2 shows that there were therefore somewhat different cluster groupings for farmers according to their welfare and productivity responses. Respondents in Clusters 1 had high scores (i.e., they considered the impacts of ectoparasites on welfare and on productivity to be severe) whilst respondents in Clusters 2 had lower scores (i.e., they considered the impacts on welfare and on productivity to be slight to moderate). The responses for disease history and treatments used by hill farmers in each cluster were then compared. The proportion of farmers in each cluster who said their flocks had been affected every year by the different ectoparasites is presented in Fig. 5. Al-
Fig. 4. Farmers’ rating of impacts of ectoparasites on welfare and productivity.
274
C. Morgan-Davies et al. / Livestock Science 104 (2006) 268–277
Table 2 Hierarchical cluster analysis of farmers for impacts of ectoparasite species on welfare and on productivity (2 clusters each identified for welfare and for productivity, p b 0.001) Welfare
Productivity
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Mean score of cluster Number of farmers in cluster Mean score of each factor Impact of ticks Impact of scab mites Impact of lice Impact of blowfly Impact of keds Impact of headfly
2.5 7
1.6 27
2.4 10
1.4 24
2.7 3.0 2.4 2.7 1.8 2.3
1.8 2.1 1.2 2.0 1.0 1.6
2.3 2.9 1.9 2.8 1.7 2.2
1.5 1.6 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.1
Scores: 1 (slight), 2 (moderate), 3 (severe).
though the figure shows that there is a trend between clustering based on opinions of impacts on welfare and on productivity, and yearly incidence of ectoparasites, no statistical differences were identified. This trend, however, showed that for welfare, hill farmers from Cluster 1 (dhighT rating) also reported the highest incidence of blowfly, ticks, lice, scab mites and keds. Headfly was the exception, with Cluster 2 (dlowT rating) having a higher incidence. The
incidence of ticks showed the biggest variation between clusters (40% of hill farmers from Cluster 2 had yearly incidence, compared to more than 70% of hill farmers from Cluster 1). For productivity, a similar trend was found, with hill farmers from Cluster 1 (dhighT rating) having the highest yearly incidence of blowfly, ticks and lice. As for welfare, incidence of ticks showed the largest variation between the two clusters for productivity. There was no relationship between farmer cluster groups and treatments (pour-ons/spot-ons, OP [organophosphates] dips, showers, injections, SP [synthetic pyrethroid] dips and dagging) used against the most prevalent ectoparasites (ticks, sheep scab, lice and blowfly). There were also no statistically significant correlations between respondents’ opinions of ectoparasite impacts on welfare and productivity and their number of animals, levels of intensity or typology of grazing land.
5. Discussion Respondents varied in type of farm, number of animals, level of inputs and management practices. Their views of intensity of their farming systems
Fig. 5. Proportion of hill farmers, in each cluster, whose flock had an ectoparasite infestation/attack every year.
C. Morgan-Davies et al. / Livestock Science 104 (2006) 268–277
contrasts with the perception of extensive hill farms as low input farms (Wright et al., 2002; Benoit and Laignel, 2004) and showed that extensive hill farms are very different from one another. However, the focus group discussions allowed the description of typical problems and concerns in major hill sheep areas across the country. Despite the qualitative nature of the results, a number of hierarchies of concerns could be drawn from this information, showing that ectoparasite control and labour were important issues. This study highlighted the crucial importance of labour in extensive hill sheep farming. For gathering and applying ectoparasite treatments, an average of 1.24 min per animal was necessary for the hill farmers surveyed. Nix (2002) gives a figure of 1.29 min per ewe for gathering and applying one ectoparasite treatment, which is remarkably similar. However, more than half of the hill farmers surveyed viewed the lack of labour as a problem, they were dissatisfied with the amount of labour they could devote to ectoparasite control, fearing it would impair on the welfare of their animals. The lack of people to gather may lead to incomplete gathering and thus some animals are not being treated. Likewise, lack of people may lead to improper sheep treatments, incorrect doses and dipping. The Animal Health and Welfare Strategy (Defra, 2004), which relies on cost benefit analysis to persuade farmers to do more to prevent animal disease, might be put at risk in this context. This perceived lack of labour to carry out even costeffective treatments may remain a barrier to the strategy in the hills. The skilled labour force, necessary for hill farms work, is most often not there anymore, and that lack of regular labour might explain why some of the respondents always scored the impacts of ectoparasites on welfare and on productivity as severe. This concurs with the findings of Waterhouse (1996), who highlighted the negative impact of reduced labour on animal welfare in extensive hill sheep systems. Moreover, whilst half of the respondents said they co-ordinated their ectoparasite control and gatherings with that of their neighbours, a high proportion were not co-ordinating activities, although this is a key biosecurity issue, especially for effective control of sheep scab mites (Taylor et al., 2001). Regarding the specific issue of ectoparasites in extensive hill sheep systems, blowfly, lice and scab
275
mites were reported to be the most prevalent ectoparasites, closely followed by ticks. Ticks are not as ubiquitous as other ectoparasites and are more closely linked to appropriate habitats and presence of alternative hosts (Henderson, 1990). This study also highlighted the wide range of opinions on ectoparasite impacts on welfare and productivity amongst hill sheep farmers. When trying to understand why these hill farmers had such opinions, two main groupings of hill farmers were identified: those who tended to rate impacts of ectoparasites as high, and those who tended to rate impacts as low. This dichotomy amongst the surveyed farmers could be explained partly by past experience. Fig. 5 showed that farmers who reported the highest yearly infestation/attack of ectoparasites, also rated their impacts as being high. Consequently, their opinions on severity of impact could be directly linked with their experience (positive or negative), as also shown by Hektoen (2004). On a species level, it was interesting to note the results concerning specifically ticks and blowfly. Farmers who did not report infestation of their flock with ticks gave a lower rating to the welfare and productivity impacts. Blowfly was the one ectoparasite species on which all hill farmers agreed, regarding its impacts on both welfare and productivity. This was probably because it is common, misdiagnosis is rare and its effects are well known and severe (Henderson, 1990). However, when looking at the treatments they reported using, farmers’ opinion of impacts did not appear to influence the treatment adopted. Likewise, the number of sheep or level of inputs on the farm did not explain respondents’ opinions, showing that the impacts of ectoparasites on welfare and productivity, as seen by farmers, tended to be the same whether the farm is small or large. Some of these observations are quite important, regarding future impacts and risks of ectoparasites on hill farms. Is farmers’ past experience a good guide to future risks on their farms or is there a danger that some farmers become complacent about preventive veterinary medicine, thus unduly exposing their livelihoods and the welfare of their animals? The results presented here showed that regardless of their opinions of the impacts, farmers still seemed so far to use the same treatments against ectoparasites (i.e., dipping, pour-ons, etc.). However, this research could not assess the effectiveness and correctness of the
276
C. Morgan-Davies et al. / Livestock Science 104 (2006) 268–277
applications, nor could it gauge the common misidentification by farmers of sheep scab mites from lice, on clinical signs alone. There is also evidence that the impact of farmers’ inaction may be multiplied by the spread of disease to dneighbouringT flocks. Some farmers in this research were using common grazings, but surprisingly few were co-operating. This could mean that the social structure, as well as physical structure, of hill farming communities is changing and this may have implications for animal health and welfare and, hence, the wider community, such as seen during the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak (Scott et al., 2004). Given these observations, further research on this theme might be justified.
6. Conclusion From this research, we have shown that these extensive hill sheep farmers have varied conditions on their farms and have different levels of input and management practices and cannot therefore be referred to simply as one single type of husbandry system. They also held varied opinions on the impacts of ectoparasites on welfare and productivity and were clustered in distinct groupings. These opinions were somewhat related to past experience of ectoparasites on their farm, but not to the treatments they reported applying to their flocks, or to the number of sheep and self reported levels of intensity of the farm. This paper also provides crucial information regarding labour practices linked to ectoparasite control, confirming that many hill farmers would prefer more labour to be available to effectively treat ectoparasites. However, with many suggesting that CAP reform, which introduces decoupling of production and payment, will have a negative effect on hill sheep numbers and farm labour associated with it, future work on such development needs to be carried out, in parallel with this paper’s findings. The Animal Health and Welfare Strategy for Great Britain (Defra, 2004) also recognises the role of research on welfare aspects, especially parasitism, and this study’s findings reinforce the importance to tackle such topics for extensive hill sheep farmers. The techniques used in this study could not fully assess the true level of parasitism risk attached to each
respondent’s farm and it is therefore difficult to conclude that the differences observed were estimated accurately. Nonetheless, this study provides insights into hill sheep farmers’ personal opinions of ectoparasite control and impacts on welfare and productivity, as well as of their health concerns for their flocks. These opinions will be crucial in influencing current and future methods of ectoparasite control in hill farms.
Acknowledgements The authors thank their colleagues from SAC, ADAS and the Macaulay Institute, who provided help in designing and collecting data from the survey, and the time and efforts the farmers put in while taking part in this exercise. The project was sponsored by Defra (AW1012—Improving sheep welfare on extensively managed flocks by understanding the economic and husbandry influences on flock welfare), and in addition, SAC and the Macaulay Institute received financial support from the Scottish Executive.
References Agger, J.F., Alban, L., 1996. Welfare in Danish dairy herds: 3. Health management and general routines in 1983 and 1994. Acta Vet. Scand. 37, 79 – 97. Alderderfer, M.S., Blashfield, R.K., 1984. Cluster Analysis. Sage Publications, Newbury Park. Bates, P., 2004. Therapies for ectoparasiticism in sheep. In Pract. 26, 538 – 547. Benoit, M., Laignel, G., 2004. Specificities and conditions of profitability in extensified lactating ewes production systems: study in experimental farms and areas. Options Me´diterr., Se´r. A: Se´min. Me´diterr. 61, 57 – 65. Buhr, B.L., Walker, K.D., Kliebenstein, J.B., Johnson, S.R., 1993. An industry-level economic conceptual model of the effects of improved animal health. Prev. Vet. Med. 16, 3 – 14. Cabaret, J., 2003. Animal health problems in organic farming: subjective and objective assessments and farmers’ actions. Livest. Prod. Sci. 80, 99 – 108. Clark, S., 2003. Control of ticks on sheep. In: SAC (Ed.), Sheep and Beef Notes May 2003. SAC, Edinburgh, pp. 5 – 6. Defra,, 2004. Animal Health and Welfare Strategy for Great Britain. Defra Publications, London. Defra, 2006. Uplands Land Classification. http://www.defra.gov.uk/ rural/uplands/land-classification.htm. French, N.P., Wall, R., Morgan, K.L., 1994. Ectoparasite control of sheep farms in England and Wales: the method, type and timing of insecticidal treatment. Vet. Rec. 135, 35 – 38.
C. Morgan-Davies et al. / Livestock Science 104 (2006) 268–277 Haskell, M.J., Rennie, L.J., Bowell, V.A., Wemelsfelder, F., Lawrence, A.B., 2003. On-farm assessment of the effect of management and housing type on behaviour and welfare of dairy cattle. Anim. Welf. 12, 553 – 556. Hays, W.L., 1981. Statistics. Rinehart and Winston, New York. Hektoen, L., 2004. Investigations of the motivations underlying Norwegian dairy farmers’ use of homeopathy. Vet. Rec. 155, 701 – 707. Henderson, D.C., 1990. The Veterinary Book for Sheep Farmers. Old Pond Publishing, Ipswich. Hosie, B., 2003. Control of Sheep Scab and Other Ectoparasites of Sheep. SAC Technical Note. SAC, Edinburgh. Hovi, M., Sundrum, A., Thamsborg, S.M., 2003. Animal health and welfare in organic livestock production in Europe: current state and future challenges. Livest. Prod. Sci. 80, 41 – 53. Krueger, R.A., 1998. Developing questions for focus groups. Focus Group Kit, vol. 3. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Lensink, B.J., Veissier, I., Florand, L., 2001. The farmers’ influence on calves’ behaviour, health and production of a veal unit. Anim. Sci. 72, 105 – 116. McInerney, J., 1996. Old economics for new problems—livestock disease: presidential address. J. Agric. Econ. 47, 295 – 314. McInerney, J., 2004. Animal welfare, economics and policy. Report on a Study Undertaken for the Farm and Animal Health Economics Division of Defra. Defra, London. Milne, C.E., 2004. The economic modelling of sheep ectoparasites control in Scotland. PhD thesis, Aberdeen University. Morgan, D.L., 1998. Planning focus groups. Focus Group Kit, vol. 2. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Nix, J.S., 2002. Farm Management Pocketbook, 32nd edition. University of London, Wye. Scott, A., Christie, M., Midmore, P., 2004. Impact of the 2001 footand-mouth disease outbreak in Britain: implications for rural studies. J. Rural Stud. 20, 1 – 14. SEERAD, 2003. Animal Health and Welfare in Scotland, Implementing the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.
277
Shave, P.R., Thomas, L.A., Nevison, I., 1995. Pesticide Usage in Scotland. Usage of Pesticides on Sheep 1993. Scottish Agricultural Science Agency, SOAEFD, Edinburgh. Siegel, S., Castellan, N.J., 1988. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Inc, New York. Stott, A.W., Milne, C.E., Goddard, P., Waterhouse, A., 2005. Effect of alternative management strategies on profit and animal welfare in extensive sheep production systems in Great Britain. Livest. Prod. Sci. 97, 161 – 171. Taylor, K., Stubbings, L., Liddel, S., 2001. Sheep Flock Management, R&D Technical Report P396. Environment Agency, Bristol. Thomas, L.A., 1998. Pesticide Usage in Scotland: Sheep 1996. Scottish Agricultural Science Agency, Edinburgh. Van Veen, T.W.S., 1999. Agricultural policy and sustainable livestock development. Int. J. Parasitol. 29, 7 – 15. Waterhouse, A., 1996. Animal welfare and sustainability of production under extensive conditions—a European perspective. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 49, 29 – 40. Waterhouse, A., Colgrove, P., Vipond, J., Goddard, P., 2003. Identification of key issues—a summary of the final group session. In: Goddard, P.J. (Ed.), Improving Sheep Welfare on Extensively Managed Flocks: Economics, Husbandry and Welfare, Proceedings of a Workshop Held in Aberdeen, Scotland on 24–25 February 2003. The Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen, pp. 73 – 77. Whittemore, C.T., 1995. Response to the environmental and welfare imperatives by UK livestock production industries and research services. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 8, 65 – 84. Wright, I.A., Zervas, G., Louloudis, L., 2002. The development of sustainable farming systems and the challenges that face producers in the EU. In: Kyriazakis, I., Zervas, G. (Eds.), Organic Meat and Milk From Ruminants, Proceedings of a Joint International Conference Organised by the Hellenic Society of Animal Production and the British Society of Animal Science, Athens, Greece, 4–6 October 2001, pp. 27–37.