Disease surveillance and our very survival

The latest example of this is Janet Swadling, the acting CEO of SRUC, who recently asked the users and partners of veterinary surveillance in Scotland about their views on the impact of closure of two regional laboratories in Inverness and Ayr. These both provide much needed support for local communities, farmers, and their livestock.

What really matters, however, was missing from the consultation. That is, how can animal disease surveillance be best structured and managed to give the Scottish Government what it needs to be able to detect and deal with what might be the next devastating animal disease?

And, just as importantly, what is needed to give farmers an efficient service to be able to diagnose the cause of death and disease in livestock on their farms?

This is ever more vital in the world we currently face of rock bottom returns across the livestock sector. We need to be as efficient as we can be if we have any chance of surviving the current disastrous state of our industry.

The SRUC consultation implies that the proposed changes to surveillance are based on the Kinnaird Review. But with even more smoke and mirrors, that depends on how you decide to read and interpret the findings of the review panel.

For example, the Kinnaird Review recommended that laboratory services for surveillance should be centralised at a single location and that this should be close to one of the three major centres of veterinary research in Scotland.

It does not in any way, however, support the creation of a new central diagnostic laboratory specifically in association with the Edinburgh University's Dick Vet School, as stated in the SRUC consultation. Does Scotland really need another new building to house surveillance in Edinburgh?

I thought the Moredun, just across the road from SRUC and the University of Edinburgh, at Easter Bush, already had the labs, excellent equipment and people that meet those needs?

The focus for everyone, not just for farmers, currently is cost cutting. And, you never know, if the spend on infrastructure (eg bricks and mortar) is well managed and not increased, then regional services (eg disease samples) might even be more affordable for the survival of the animals and their keepers that rely on them.

Scotland is small but well joined up. So why should surveillance not be joined up more with the farmer-owned and run Moredun, as well as the two great vet schools?

Over the years, Moredun has just got on with implementing its mission - improving animal health and welfare through research and education - and it seems to be able to do this without too much drama.

This is, to some extent, due to real leadership on the part of good business-oriented Scottish farmers and partly because it tries to keep out of politics! In fact, Moredun is a current partner with SAC's Consulting Veterinary Services but they don't seem to get much of a mention in the consultation, I wonder why?!

SRUC seems to have spent a lot of time in 2014-15 in debate and discussion about a closer alliance with the University of Edinburgh. This seems to have ground to a halt, which is maybe just as well considering this surveillance issue.

This is a service and commercial activity that should be conducted by experts in organisations with that specific focus, not universities which, quite rightly, focus on teaching students and undertaking cutting-edge research.

It's also worth looking over the Border for some 'lessons learnt' in animal disease surveillance and it isn't pretty. Labs in England and Wales have been closing almost as quickly as the organisations in charge have been changing their names - VLA, AHVLA and now APHA.

The Animal and Plant Health Agency (whatever that means?) is the most recent iteration and it is, in theory, supposed to combine identifying and controlling diseases and pests in animals, plants and bees.

What's not clear is how this will be achieved when the links between diagnostic labs and rural communities where the diseases and pests exist, or are likely to appear, have not yet been established. A case of the cart before the horse, but pretty standard for agriculture policy or lack of it emanating from Westminster, where cost-cutting is all that really matters.

This all against a backdrop of diseases that have threatened our industry in the UK in recent decades and makes these decisions south of the Border even more illogical, unacceptable and frankly scary.

BSE, bluetongue, bovine TB - the epidemics of the first two having receded, while TB marches on and northwards towards the Scottish border - Schmallenberg and PED (porcine epidemic diarrhoea) show that new diseases will appear and can then spread rapidly and not always predictably.

Then there is avian influenza still appearing from time to time and affecting a variety of birds, both farmed and wild. And that's without mentioning the dreaded foot-and-mouth disease.

All this must surely provide food for thought, certainly more thought than went into the SRUC 'consultation' document. What is clear is that Scotland (and the UK and Ireland) need to be well prepared to find diseases in our farmed animals quickly and to take the measures to deal with them effectively.

This needs a well-considered, targeted approach, with all the main players involved. It needs to provide cost-effective solutions for government, farmers and in the long run, the public who rely on us, the industry to sort this out.

Scotland needs surveillance and it needs to implement its plans for the future soon. We need to understand the impact for disease surveillance more clearly first rather than relying on a quick consultation process, which is no more than the usual fig leaf for ill-conceived cost cutting.

If Scotland is to grow its food industry it needs something to process. The economics of livestock production hardly stack up unless we are the most efficient producers we can be.

That means diagnostics and veterinary back up can't be compromised or the odds on survival will just get longer for animals ... and their keepers!