FAWC casts doubt on need for castration and tail-docking

Published on Wednesday 2 July 2008 22:27

LIFE down on the farm can be a fairly basic business at times, with some practices regularly employed far removed from the starry-eyed perception of many urban dwellers.

Welfare standards on UK farms are among the highest in the world, but sometimes short-term pain endured by animals is reckoned to be in their longer-term interest.

The lambing season is now over for another year, and virtually all of the 15 million lambs born in the UK will have been subject to a slight modification of their physiology. Sheep naturally have long tails and farmers invariably shorten them by the use of a rubber ring applied within seven days of birth.

A long tail can easily become contaminated with faeces during the summer months. A "dirty tail", in shepherd's parlance, tends to attract bluebottle flies that lay their eggs in the soiled wool. The resultant maggots frequently eat right into the flesh of the affected sheep.

A slow and painful death can ensue. "Fly strike" is not a pleasant sight – hence the need to reduce the possible incidence by cutting the length of the tail.

Half of the lambs born each year are males and farmers take the view that the vast majority, unless they have the potential to become stud rams, should be castrated. The preferred method of performing this procedure is by the application of a rubber ring on the scrotum, again within seven days of birth. The short-term discomfort normally lasts for a few minutes.

That is nothing compared with the general practice of the early 20th century, when the farmer or shepherd would open the scrotum with a knife and extract the testicles with his teeth.

This week the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), an independent organisation established by the UK government in 1979, published a report on the welfare implications of castration and tail-docking for lambs.

FAWC chairman Professor Christopher Wathes pulls few punches in his report, saying: "We believe that scientifically-based advice can now be given that will minimise the suffering arising from tail-docking and castration.

"If castration is warranted, some methods cause more suffering than others and pain relief should be given once practical methods of delivering local anaesthetics and analgesics have been developed." Wathes concedes that tail-docking is less stressful, but that farmers should discuss the necessity for this procedure with their vets. However, NFU Scotland contends that the FAWC deliberations ignore practical realities.

A spokesman said: "We had a sensible debate on this in Scotland as the Animal Health Bill went through Holyrood. The Scottish Parliament recognised that exemptions were needed to ensure that essential management practices, which included castration, tail-docking and de-horning, could continue.

"We need … consider the benefits of practices across an animal's lifetime. In a nutshell, some short-term discomfort can deliver a long-term benefit. Without castration, we would have to remove animals from extensive units or face potentially serious pregnancy problems."

Brian Hosie, head of veterinary services at the Scottish Agricultural College (SAC), was involved with research into this vexed topic some years ago. He said yesterday: "Surgical castration was the most painful method. Rubber-ring castration caused considerable pain for up to two hours, while bloodless castration using a 'Burdizzo' instrument to crush the spermatic cords caused least pain."

The SAC developed an improved bloodless castrator that was marketed with limited success as the Ritchey Nipper.

Further work with Edinburgh University led to the development of combined rubber-ring/bloodless castrators and needleless injectors.

The castration issue may be a subject that farmers seek to ignore, but that might just be at their commercial peril in an age of increasing concerns over animal welfare.

Hosie added: "SAC, in association with other organisations, has considered the management of entire ram lambs destined for slaughter. "It is essential that farmers have practical solutions and tools to comply with FAWC recommendations."