the mad-woman is at it again...!

Originally from: Richard Mawdsley
                        
Hi all,

This should bring a bit of cheer to you all!

Any comments?

 Richard.repair

Country notebook: by Germaine Greer. Daily Telegraph "Weekend" Saturday 5th of February 2005.

A few sheep farmers have taken my recent piece on the misery of the nation's sheep to be an attack on them and hollered fit to bust. The vast majority responded not at all. The few who protested told me I had argued that they were to blame, that they were deliberately callous and cruel, that I had falsely presented myself as an expert on sheep-farming. They demanded where I had got my figures for lamb mortality and lameness from, for all is the world as if they had never heard of Defra and never seen the Defra pamphlet on lameness.

Animal-rights activists sneered at me for posing as an animal lover; said sheep misery was many times worse than my account and invited me to join in direct action to prevent it. So I must be on the right track.

I can't be sure because hard information about sheep husbandry is virtually impossible to find. Figures on "normal" neonatal lamb mortality assess it as anywhere between 10 percent and 20 percent. As long as most ewes have twins, such a high percentage of losses can be borne. If ewes didn't so often have multiple births, lamb mortality would be much lower, but breeding ewes are selected for hyper-fertility.

Sheep are bred for slaughter; the lambs are the product that must be maximised. Production must also be timed, if the meat is to fetch its price. If lambing didn't happen in the dead of winter, fewer lambs would be lost, but then fewer farmers would be getting the higher price for "new season's" lamb.

Sheep farmers know all this. It is sheep-eaters who are living in a fool's paradise. It is them, rather than the farmer, that I address.

Farmers are not obliged to report the numbers of lambs born, or the numbers of lambs dead, or the causes of death, any more than they are obliged to keep track of individual sheep as they are bought and sold up and down the country. If sheep are not counted, is because they don't count.

It may be that we don't gather information about our sheep because too many sheep-eaters would be appalled if they knew the truth. The innocent consumer who happened upon the National Animal Disease Information Service forecast for last year's lambing period on the "Farmers Weekly" interactive web site might well never eat a lamb chop again.

The report begins: "the usual dystocia problems were reported during March, caused by mal-presentation of lambs, the rotten lambs, relative foetal oversize and ringwomb." It went on to discuss pregnancy toxaemia, of which one of the symptoms is "apparent blindness", listeriosis, calcium deficiency caused by repeated multiple pregnancy, and pointed out that treatments for these disorders are usually ineffective. "Chlamydial abortion, toxoplasmosis and Campylobacter abortion have caused significant losses in many flocks."

How many losses? How many flocks? The dismal litany went on: uterine prolapse; uterine infections; chewing louse infestation; scab, scald and foot-rot; mastitis; Johnes disease; teeth problems; orf.

The diseases of the young lambs were even more harrowing: watery mouth; joint ill; navel ill; spinal abcessation; meningitis; entropion; pulpy kidney; the siresia of the anus; worm infestation; parasitic gastroenteritis; and so on, and on.

The suspicions arises that British sheep would be better off somewhere, almost anywhere, else, where there is less likelihood of infestation by round worm, lung worm, tape worm or liver fluke, nasal bots, scab, blow fly, head fly, ticks, keds, lice, blackleg, lamb dysentery, pulpy kidney disease, post-parturient gangrene, black disease, struck, tetanus, Clostridium oedematiens, pasturella, Escherichia colti, erysepalas, foot-rot, virulent foot rot, meningitis, tetanus, mineral deficiencies, stock fevers, chills, inflammations and scald.

Better record-keeping would give as better outcomes. If the lamb mortality is much lower than 10 percent in particular flocks, we should be able to find out what those sheep-farmers are doing right. It would be nice to know what breeds incur less lamb mortality and in which areas, but we don't.

What the lack of data demonstrates is not callousness on the part of individuals, but institutionalised callousness. Sheep are dependent on us, as foxes are not. Their "poor welfare" is the responsibility of all of us.
                        

Originally from: Richard Mawdsley
                        
Hi all,

This should bring a bit of cheer to you all!

Any comments?

 Richard.repair

Country notebook: by Germaine Greer. Daily Telegraph "Weekend" Saturday 5th of February 2005.

A few sheep farmers have taken my recent piece on the misery of the nation's sheep to be an attack on them and hollered fit to bust. The vast majority responded not at all. The few who protested told me I had argued that they were to blame, that they were deliberately callous and cruel, that I had falsely presented myself as an expert on sheep-farming. They demanded where I had got my figures for lamb mortality and lameness from, for all is the world as if they had never heard of Defra and never seen the Defra pamphlet on lameness.

Animal-rights activists sneered at me for posing as an animal lover; said sheep misery was many times worse than my account and invited me to join in direct action to prevent it. So I must be on the right track.

I can't be sure because hard information about sheep husbandry is virtually impossible to find. Figures on "normal" neonatal lamb mortality assess it as anywhere between 10 percent and 20 percent. As long as most ewes have twins, such a high percentage of losses can be borne. If ewes didn't so often have multiple births, lamb mortality would be much lower, but breeding ewes are selected for hyper-fertility.

Sheep are bred for slaughter; the lambs are the product that must be maximised. Production must also be timed, if the meat is to fetch its price. If lambing didn't happen in the dead of winter, fewer lambs would be lost, but then fewer farmers would be getting the higher price for "new season's" lamb.

Sheep farmers know all this. It is sheep-eaters who are living in a fool's paradise. It is them, rather than the farmer, that I address.

Farmers are not obliged to report the numbers of lambs born, or the numbers of lambs dead, or the causes of death, any more than they are obliged to keep track of individual sheep as they are bought and sold up and down the country. If sheep are not counted, is because they don't count.

It may be that we don't gather information about our sheep because too many sheep-eaters would be appalled if they knew the truth. The innocent consumer who happened upon the National Animal Disease Information Service forecast for last year's lambing period on the "Farmers Weekly" interactive web site might well never eat a lamb chop again.

The report begins: "the usual dystocia problems were reported during March, caused by mal-presentation of lambs, the rotten lambs, relative foetal oversize and ringwomb." It went on to discuss pregnancy toxaemia, of which one of the symptoms is "apparent blindness", listeriosis, calcium deficiency caused by repeated multiple pregnancy, and pointed out that treatments for these disorders are usually ineffective. "Chlamydial abortion, toxoplasmosis and Campylobacter abortion have caused significant losses in many flocks."

How many losses? How many flocks? The dismal litany went on: uterine prolapse; uterine infections; chewing louse infestation; scab, scald and foot-rot; mastitis; Johnes disease; teeth problems; orf.

The diseases of the young lambs were even more harrowing: watery mouth; joint ill; navel ill; spinal abcessation; meningitis; entropion; pulpy kidney; the siresia of the anus; worm infestation; parasitic gastroenteritis; and so on, and on.

The suspicions arises that British sheep would be better off somewhere, almost anywhere, else, where there is less likelihood of infestation by round worm, lung worm, tape worm or liver fluke, nasal bots, scab, blow fly, head fly, ticks, keds, lice, blackleg, lamb dysentery, pulpy kidney disease, post-parturient gangrene, black disease, struck, tetanus, Clostridium oedematiens, pasturella, Escherichia colti, erysepalas, foot-rot, virulent foot rot, meningitis, tetanus, mineral deficiencies, stock fevers, chills, inflammations and scald.

Better record-keeping would give as better outcomes. If the lamb mortality is much lower than 10 percent in particular flocks, we should be able to find out what those sheep-farmers are doing right. It would be nice to know what breeds incur less lamb mortality and in which areas, but we don't.

What the lack of data demonstrates is not callousness on the part of individuals, but institutionalised callousness. Sheep are dependent on us, as foxes are not. Their "poor welfare" is the responsibility of all of us.