Claire Morgan-Davies

Interactions between profit and welfare on extensive sheep farms

Extensive sheep farming systems make an important contribution to socio-economic well-being and the ‘ecosystem services’ that flow from large areas of the UK and elsewhere. They are therefore subject to much policy intervention. However, the animal welfare implications of such interventions and their economic drivers are rarely considered. Under Defra project AW1024 (a further study to assess the interaction between economics, husbandry and animal welfare in large, extensively managed sheep flocks) we therefore assessed the interaction between profit and animal welfare on extensive sheep farms. A detailed inventory of resources, resource deployment and technical performance was constructed for 20 commercial extensive sheep farms in Great Britain (equal numbers from the Scottish Highlands, Cumbria, Peak District and mid-Wales). Farms were drawn from focus groups in these regions where participative research with farmers added further information. These data were summarised and presented to a panel of 12 experts for welfare assessment. We used two welfare assessment methods one drawn from animal welfare science (‘needs’ based) the other from management science (Service Quality Modelling). The methods gave complementary results. The inventory data were also used to build a linear programme (LP) model of sheep, labour and feed-resource management monthby-month on each farm throughout the farming year. By setting the LP to adjust farm management to maximise gross margin under each farm’s circumstances we had an objective way to explore resource allocations, their constraints and welfare implications under alternative policy response scenarios. Regression of indicators of extensification (labour per ewe, in-bye land per ewe, hill area per ewe and lambs weaned per ewe) on overall welfare score explained 0.66 of variation with labour and lambs weaned per ewe both positive coefficients. Neither gross margin nor flock size were correlated with welfare score. Gross margin was also uncorrelated with these indicators of extensification with the exception of labour/ewe, which was negatively correlated with flock size and hence with gross margin. These results suggest animal welfare is best served by reduced extensification while greater profits are found in flock expansion with reduced labour input per ewe and no increase in other inputs or in productivity. Such potential conflicts should be considered as policy adjusts to meet the requirements for sustainable land use in the hills and uplands.

Viability of the Happy Factor™ targeted selective treatment approach on several sheep farms in Scotland

The aim of this study was to examine the use of Happy Factor™ weight based targeted selective treatment (TST) on several commercial farms in Scotland in combination with findings from a long term trial on a research farm to assess the potential for TST use in varying farming operations as an alternative to the current regimen of whole flock treatment. Lambs on each farm were regularly weighed and climatic conditions and pasture availability measured for inclusion into the Happy Factor™ model to calculate weight targets. Half of the lambs were allocated to TST treatment and any failing to reach the weight target was treated with the anthelmintic of choice on that farm, while the remaining half of each flock was treated with anthelmintic as per normal practice on that farm (routine treatment, RT). The research farm (farm 1) hosted a long term trial using four anthelmintic treatment regimes over 6 years, and data from two regimes are presented here, alongside findings from three further farms: two commercial enterprises (farms 2 and 3) and a research farm operating as a commercial analogue with two breeds (farms 4a and 4b). The effect of TST strategy on lamb productivity and the number of anthelmintic treatments was investigated. There was no evidence (p>0.300) that mean bodyweight or growth rate was different between TST and RT groups on any of the farms and 95% confidence intervals of TST and RT groups generally suggested that TST had negligible unfavourable effects on the average growth of lambs for most of the farms. Growth rates ranged from 97.39 to 189.16g/day reflecting the varied nature of the farms. All commercial farms used significantly less (1.34 RT versus 1.14 TST treatments per animal, p<0.05) anthelmintic in lambs following TST, with a reduction from 1, 1, 1.03 and 1.14 to 0.77, 0.57, 0.82 and 0.81 in the number of treatments per animal for farms 2, 3, 4a and 4b respectively. This study suggests that TST is a viable means of controlling parasitic disease without incurring production losses.

Sustainable hill and upland systems: what do people want the hills to deliver?

Management of hill land in the UK is undergoing substantial change with Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform (e.g. Scottish Executive 2003), new agri-environmental schemes, new rural development regulations and changing societal pressures. Land managers and policy-makers are constantly asking ‘What do we want our hill land to deliver?’ Hill and upland systems are complex, with interactions between environmental, biological and human interests. At the site level this often means making trade-offs of one characteristic or output versus another to get the desired outcome. Quantifying these preferences or choices for different outcomes, as defined by those directly interested on the ground, is essential, albeit difficult. Müller and Schmitz (2002) described how to measure preferences for landscape functions in Germany, as did Hillert et al. (2004), using an Adaptive Conjoint Analysis. This paper describes an attempt to apply such techniques to the hill and upland systems in the UK, to understand and quantify what they should deliver and how policies should be prioritised.