Society News

Bluetongue - Latest News

WJCB Conference 2008

PRE CONFERENCE TOUR: Saturday May 10th to Sunday 18th May 2008 (UK)

MAIN CONFERENCE TOUR: Sunday 18th May to Sunday 25th May 2008 (Jersey)

POST CONFERENCE TOUR: Sunday 25th May to Sunday 1st June 2008 (France)

download Day Delegate Registration Form

download Jersey Q (Spring 2008 edition)

This is a large file (3.6Mb), it will take some time to download, please just click once and wait

launches online inbreeding service

Inbreeding percentages for individual animals as well as whole herd summaries will now be routinely included as part of the Herd Genetic Report, available free of charge to all Jersey milk recorded herds.

“It’s important to note that inbreeding is not a serious concern in Britain,” remarks geneticist Marco Winters, director of MDC breeding+. “But it is something every farmer should be aware of when making breeding decisions.

“UK levels for all breeds currently stand at around 2%,” he observes, “which is somewhat lower than those in North America, where inbreeding is closer to 5%. Only above 6% are levels considered to be critical.”

Farmers can see their herd’s inbreeding levels through the breeding+ section at www.mdc.org.uk where new users can register for a password before they can use the Herd Genetic Report. This report also shows genetic information on production and PLI (Profitable Lifetime Index).

Inbreeding arises when individuals which are related are bred together. The closer the relationship, the higher the level of inbreeding (see Table). The effects of inbreeding are to concentrate the breeding pool around fewer and fewer bloodlines.

A certain amount of inbreeding has historically been considered desirable as it allows sought-after traits to be ‘fixed’ and a particular line to breed ‘true to type’.

However, too much inbreeding can lead to reduced general health and fitness as well as production. It also increases the risk of undesirable recessive genes coming together, resulting in genetic defects being experienced.

Jerseys record highest production increase in NMR

In the milk recording year to the end of September 2007, Jerseys showed the highest increase in production of all breeds with an average now at 5635 kg milk, and annual improvement of 2.8 per cent; Jerseys average yield now exceeds Guernseys.

On a combined weight of fat and protein basis, Jerseys have climbed in to third spot, rising above British Friesian production, and achieving 87 per cent of the Holstein output, from cows which are only 70 per cent of the size.

Higher production has seen calving interval ease out to 406 days. The Board accepts that operating an extended calving regime can be a good policy. However, it must be managed rather than the result of poor heat detection or low animal fertility. To guard against the latter more emphasis is being put on bull and daughter fertility in ‘Jersey Sires’ semen selection.

Jerseys market share is up from 1.7 per cent in 1999 to 2.6 per cent in 2006 / 7.

The society’s clear breeding goals are designed to provide the strong foundation for the breed’s future.

Jersey milk consumption on the up

TNS research data reports increased liquid milk sales between January 07 - 08

It is very pleasing to see this upswing in Jersey and Guernsey consumption. It remains the smallest volume category of those recorded, so there is plenty of scope to go at in selling more

DEFRA Cost sharing and responsibility consultation

PLEASE MAKE YOUR VIEWS KNOWN BY 15 APRIL to

Mike Weavers, Defra RCS Programme, Area 310, 1a Page Street, London SW1P 4PQ
or rcsharing@defra.gsi.gov.uk

The Defra consultation is limited to England only with a possibility that English farmers could be involved in disease prevention decision-making and, also, contributing to the associated costs from as early as 2010.

The EU intends introducing legislation ‘to harmonise minimum standards across all member states from 2013.’ At such a time the remainder of the UK will have to introduce the policies as well.

Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France and RoI all have schemes in place, although they vary in their scope and method of operation.

While the 57 page briefing document with its 42 questions is intimidating, there are a number of key principles where we all need to make our feelings known:-

1. What type of organisation would work best?

a) Working partnership – eg the Bluetongue Project Board, where industry advises government but decision making remains with ministers

b) Statutory Advisory Body – eg Climate Change committee, SEAC where the body has to be consulted by Defra before decisions are taken

c) Independent Body – eg Environment Agency, takes on Defra’s responsibilities for money collection, budgeting and expenditure.

d) Industry Mutual Organisation – such an organisation administers animal health policy and funding in Australia. - This is a significant shift from anything currently operating in the EU. Once in place, industry carries full responsibility for farm animal disease, nationwide.

2. How should farm animal disease control and compensation be funded?

a) Livestock levy – collected at slaughter or sale of milk etc

b) Annual producer levy – through a licence to farm stock

c) Product or service charge – eg passport charge

d) Insurance – compulsory, or complementary financial support underwritten by the Treasury, but costs have to be repaid by industry.

3. Should there be an incentive, either financial or through reduced farm administration, for those who have enhanced bio-security provision?

Probably assessed through the Farm Assurance Schemes.

4. How should industry representatives be elected?

Currently government appoints representatives to its bodies following advertising and interviewing.
The alternative is election from within the industry.

5. Should the UK establish its own policy prior to the EU 2013 timetable?

6. Does the industry want involvement in the process at all?

Boycotting the process could leave industry in a weaker negotiating position during periods of disease outbreak.

At a recent Defra briefing day, it became clear that there is a wide range of opinion between various industry sectors.

Cattle farmers have an exceedingly low level of trust in Defra, demanding control of bovine TB before further changes to government policy.

Pig and poultry farmers wished to see a swift implementation of a new policy, claiming that cattle farmers will be better placed to wrest control of the TB issue from within an empowered industry-government body.

It was sobering to learn that 75 per cent of the EU Veterinary budget has been spent on the UK over the past ten years.

Trust and communication –
key issues at Surrey Foot and Mouth Stakeholders Seminar

Lord Rooker, Minister for Sustainable Food and Farming and Animal Health, answered a number of hard hitting questions in forthright manner at Surrey County Agriculture Society’s Foot and Mouth Stakeholders Seminar held at Losley Park in January.

The Minister and a representative from the Cabinet Office also in attendance, were given a very strong message from the 80 delegates that farmers want trust to be restored, and a more cooperative working environment created for the future.

The seminar came a highly appropriate time in the context of the ‘Cost Sharing & Responsibilities’ consultation.

Problems were encountered in Surrey during the August 2007 FMD outbreak as a result of centralised decision-making in London; lack of a clear chain of communication; and failure to provide a single farm and livestock data-base to all the agencies involved.