Earlier this month, veterinary surgeon Matthew Wilkinson caused a storm after giving a controversial interview to the Daily Mail to promote his book: On The Destiny Of Species. VetSurgeon member Martin Jones has read the book to find out whether the book supports the allegations. Here is his review ... 

I can't deal with hypocrisy (and if I do it I want it pointed out), especially when it leads to more suffering.
Matthew Watkinson, on his own fishsnorkel blog

Being subjective isn't about evidence, it's about feelings, and the most fundamental part of being subjective is the projection of extrinsic values...... i.e. X means Y to me so I will assume X means Y to X as well
On the Destiny of Species, p.17

...it should be perfectly obvious that feelings can corrupt perspective and warp reality.
On the Destiny of Species, p.18

I can only say that you make me ashamed to be human.
On the Destiny of Species, p.112

On the Destiny of Species is the Book of Matthew Watkinson. It's a piece of Matthew himself: his theories, his feelings, his world view. It's the document at the centre of the storm, the cause (and topic) of much argument recently, here and on a wider stage. Matthew has attacked the veterinary profession, if not quite by going through the front door, then at least by coming in the windows. He's put his name to the accusations, has been robust in defending them and has inarguably stood by his principles. The response has not, I think, surprised him; but it may have surprised some of us. Despite not having actually read the book, many people have felt qualified to comment - often with some force.

So, in the interests of objectivity I volunteered to read the thing, and to apply some scrutiny to what the man is actually saying; we're all agreed - including Matthew - that the Daily Mail did a poor job on his behalf, reducing his argument in the minds of its readers to an attack on veterinary ethics and profits. Matthew clearly wishes to say more, so why not listen?

Before we start, I'd like to point out that I'm not here to perform a hatchet job on behalf of the veterinary profession. When I asked Matthew for a copy, I was quite open that I might hate it, and that I would say so, but that if I didn't then equally I would say so. So here goes.

Matthew kicks off by defining objectivity and subjectivity; former good, latter bad. Science and reasoning right, emotion and hypocrisy wrong. As with what is to come, he doesn't hold back on this score. However, if this was to be an objective review, in which prose, style and accessibility of content were examined, then it would be fairly short and not particularly complimentary. The typographical errors start on line two and batter the more sensitively tuned reader pretty much continuously to the end. It's rambling, poorly edited, and repetitive for much of its length (the work would decently fit into a book half its current size). It fails to engage the reader on any level that isn't centred on shared anger.

But to concentrate on the book's failing as a work of literature would be to ignore the message, and that's surely what we're here for. The theories and arguments therein are what should concern us, and I'll attempt to review them below.

First, the surprises, in particular that vets feature hardly at all. Our complicity in propagating recessive genes is tackled early on, and whether or not we feel responsible as individuals, it can't be denied that this section is one of the book's successes. The vitriol that Matthew pours into modern farming, and at the breeders behind some of our more extreme patients, is genuine and heartfelt, and he might quite validly have expanded here. Admittedly some of his conclusions are rather worrying, if only for their undeniable plausibility to the layman:

Similarly, in dogs, the congenital heart defect patent ductus arteriosus could not have become a heritable risk without veterinary surgeons

The statement shows a disturbing lack of understanding of the way that recessive genes flow through populations, with a clear implication that we fix 'em up (although I suspect almost none of us could ever attempt the feat) so that they can get back to breeding.

The book is actually about lack of objectivity in conservation, and the inconsistency in preserving a species because of its attractiveness, often at the expense of less amiable species. Matthew espouses the view that we are essentially puny humans, and that nothing we do really matters. I know now that he is Darwin's biggest fan, doesn't believe in God and is dismissive of creationists, doesn't believe that any animals reliant on conservation actually appreciate the fact, and does believe that all animals should be viewed in terms of their ability to adapt and exploit, rather than their usefulness to us:

.... conservation has nothing to do with extinct animals and everything to do with the way some people feel about extinct animals

Matthew sets himself up as the crusader and lone voice of reason, as an unequivocal judge of those who stand in the way of his theories. Among these are pretty much all conservationists, quite a number of biological and global warming scientists and anybody who indulges in post-rationalisation (those who use new evidence to retrospectively confirm their beliefs). And then he goes and says:

My decision to study veterinary medicine was based on the naïve assumption that it would involve the pragmatic application of objective selection principles

Really? At sixteen, I remember liking animals and wanting to impress girls. Those who live by the sword, Matthew. His approach to people who might seek a different view is robust, to say the least:

peace-promising Harp Seal fanatic Rebecca Aldworth.... the chief scientist of the IUCN has completely forgotten, or never actually known, that species don't evolve themselves in the right direction..... despite their own quite ludicrous beliefs...... but to anyone with half a brain...... Honestly, what the hell is wrong with these people...... is obviously controlled by idiots...... thus it should be face-punchingly obvious.....

All of which contrasts nicely with the statement made at the start of the book:

I believe that ethical diversity is as natural as biological diversity, but either way, I'm not preaching

The book makes huge promises to "conclusively destroy the empirical basis for almost everything the conservation community has ever said." It fails to do so, quite spectacularly. Matthew's interpretation of both the science and the motivation of conservation (and remember, in being objective, we should be seeking evidence) is deeply flawed and he resorts to the kind of mudslinging that ends in rubbish fights behind the bike sheds. On the more recent efforts to conserve cod stocks by harvesting other species in preference, he comes to an embarrassingly asinine conclusion:

'Atlantic Pollock...can be distinguished from cod by their greenish hue.' 119

Is that it? Are the 'stewards' really telling us to kill Pollack instead of Cod because Pollack have a 'greenish hue'?

Yes. They are.

Really, Matthew? You're actually claiming that fishermen catch Pollack because they're colour-biased, rather than because this population may currently be harvested without threat to its viability? Yes, you are. In fact, you do: it's right there on page 72.

Similarly, Matthew isn't above misappropriating the views of others to prove his point. Here, on the conservation groups which appeal to the public for funds:

Surely they don't mean the end of climate change, and rampant habitat destruction, and rapid population growth, and extreme poverty in many areas of the world, and global food shortages, and extinction threats etc. etc.

If they're promising salvation, I guess they do, and I'm sure they really believe it too. In the words of Richard Dawkins:

'...these people actually believe what they say they believe.' 376

OK, so Professor Dawkins was talking about religious fundamentalists, rather than wildly optimistic nature 'managers', but faith is faith regardless of what it's making up on the spot.

I wonder what Richard Dawkins would think about having his thoughts hijacked to somebody else's agenda? Post-rationalisation, Matthew.

Conclusions that Matthew draws from the statistics he presents are prone to error:

2 million dairy cows will suffer at least 3.1 million cases of disease every year, and if you share the incidence risk equally, each individual has a 155% chance of getting sick every year.

Perhaps I should repeat that, for all those who think life should be preserved at all costs:

If you share the incidence risk equally, each individual dairy cow has a 155% chance of getting [sic] each year.

Another stick which Matthew uses to beat the reader: the phrase 'perhaps I should repeat that'. It can be a nice conceit, a device to use sparingly when one has a show-stopping point to make; by the fourth or fifth instance, it had me clenching my teeth. The valid point here, that lameness in cattle is one of the greater scandals of modern farming (and that the RSPCA isn't entirely objective in its approach to animal welfare), is lost in the bungling of the message.

Possibly the least successful portion of the book is where Matthew attempts to take on climate change and the science behind it. Now, I'm not sure that either Matthew or I are equipped to take this on, and there is a fair amount of confusion evident as a result, not to mention some self-contradiction about the importance of the role of carbon dioxide. He also clings to the quaint notion that because the earth hasn't died yet, it won't. It brings to mind the apocryphal story of the Bronx housewife, on being arrested for murdering her husband, "Whaddya mean - I stabbed him loadsa times before and he never died".  It's pretty likely that when the human race kills itself off, plenty of other lifeforms will flourish - but the simple facts are that we don't know how and when we're going to do it, or how much we'll destroy on the way out. I was particularly tickled by Matthew's assertion that dumping nuclear waste into the rainforests is

.....a good plan that will inevitably fall on deaf ears

In asserting that all lives must end, but Life will continue indefinitely (neatly ignoring the principle that entropy will eventually win, but not for a little while yet), Matthew aims to apply objective scrutiny to the abiding principles of conservation - and thereby expose it for the pointless sham that he believes it to be. However, such an approach to our relationship with our ecosystem and to individuals' rights to life may help to reduce sentimentality, but it's also distinctly joyless and seeks to take from humans their capacity to find pleasure in activities that don't necessarily influence their own survival. Like it or not, we've evolved to enjoy stuff, we're the dominant species and Darwinism dictates that we strive to maintain this status. If we want to save a bunch of polar bears, we can. It might help, it might not. If we want to cull jellyfish so that our marine food stocks are safeguarded, then we're following simple Darwinian principles. But as the species that made it through to master abstract thought, to at least understand the principle of altruism and to be able to seamlessly construct shields against our own hypocrisy, we can save what we like, when we like. Matthew seems to be angry about this, and that's not entirely healthy.

There are points to be made here: Matthew wants to take on the indiscriminate dog breeders; he rightly pulls up some of the eco-babble that promises total world destruction - and the unwarranted guilt that it engenders; he makes a nice point about the parallels between ecological proselytising and religion - but then ruins it by repeating it over and over again, page after page. Simply, if rather brutally, the book doesn't work for me on any level. I wasn't convinced by a single argument that I hadn't already considered and I found it an absolute chore to read.

I apologise to Matthew. I wanted to be positive and to be able to demonstrate that his actions were at least well-motivated, and had allowed him to bring something to the table with his book. But I fear that he'll be remembered simply as the man who tried to fight overcharging in the profession, and it's clear that that's the one point he hasn't actually tried to make.

One last thing. Matthew contends that we must strive for objectivity, and that we should fight hypocrisy. He makes the clear point that dead animals do not have feelings, and that to give them significance is subjective. In his words elsewhere though, he has described how in dealing with his agent, he became frustrated by the lack of pace; Darwin's great work was nearing its 150^th anniversary, and in order to tie in properly with this it was imperative that the book be published without delay.

To this, I have to say: the anniversary wasn't aware of the book's arrival. The anniversary has no thoughts on the matter; it isn't animate or sentient or in any way aware. The anniversary didn't care whether or not it was celebrated. In fact, the:

.... [celebration of the anniversary] has nothing to do with [the anniversary itself] and everything to do with the way some people feel about [anniversaries]

The subjective course of action was to sack the agent and self-publish in a hurry. The objective course of action would have been to retain the agent, forget about an arbitrary date and get a good editor in. There was the basis of a decent book here: Matthew has some things to say; unfortunately, he seems to have gone out of his way to make sure that few people want to listen, both in the writing of the book and in its promotion. What a shame.

To Matthew, I apologise again. I wish you the best of luck, I respect and defend your right to air your beliefs and if I'd liked the book, I would have said so. To others, who might accuse me of kicking a man when he's down, I say that I cannot hurt the man financially: Matthew has now started to give the book away as a pdf download. You can find it, along with debate and biography, on his blog:

http://fishsnorkel.wordpress.com/

The British Veterinary Association has launched a guidance poster to encourage farm animal vets to use anthelmintics responsibly, following ongoing concern about the development of resistance to these medicines.

According to BVA, misuse of anthelmintics in grazing animals, leading to resistance, is an increasing problem, which has now become a serious threat to the health and welfare of animals.

In response to growing concerns the BVA's Medicines Group has produced a poster that will be distributed to BVA members inside the Veterinary Record (23 January 2010 issue) and will be available to download from the BVA website.

The poster, accompanied by additional online guidance, clearly outlines Do's and Don'ts in the use of anthelmintics and carries the strong message "Think Twice Before Prescribing Anthelmintics". The poster is intended for display in veterinary practices as a reminder to vets and their clients of the need for responsible use of these medicinal products.

The poster carries advice on encouraging farm health planning and worming strategies, targeting the drug used to the parasite, the importance of not underdosing, quarantining incoming animals, and investigating and reporting suspected cases of resistance to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD). It clearly tells vets not to treat unnecessarily and not to blanket treat.

Peter Jones, Chair of the BVA's Medicines Group, said: "Every use of anthelmintics increases the risk of resistance developing.  Veterinary surgeons have a duty to ensure anthelmintic use is judicious and limited to circumstances when treatment can be effective, targeted and based on sound veterinary diagnosis.

"The BVA advises all vets to work with their farming clients to develop a farm health plan that encompasses an effective worming strategy and a full grazing management programme to reduce the need for treatment.

"Vets must also promote good worming practice to ensure dosage is based on accurate weight measurements. Underdosing is a major factor in the development of resistance."

Professor Bill Reilly, President of the BVA, added: "Action to minimise the development of resistance is urgent and essential and we hope this poster will serve as a constant reminder to vets to think twice before prescribing anthelmintics."

The British Veterinary Association's Council has agreed unanimously to reject Animal Health's proposal to base fees for Official Veterinarians (OVs) on the available budget instead of an hourly rate, which the BVA negotiating team has been pushing for for some time.

The BVA team argued consistently for a professional fee for professional work and based its demands on the independent ADAS report and SPVS fees surveys. Animal Health proposed a matrix for TB testing fees based on the number of animals tested and the distance travelled and said that there would be no further discussion on an appropriate professional fee due to budget constraints. The BVA Council felt strongly that it could not accept a proposal that was based on a finite budget and did not respect the need for a professional fee for veterinary work.

BVA President Bill Reilly said: "While we understand the budget squeeze on Animal Health, BVA Council has taken a principled stand that vets should be paid a professional fee for a professional service, not a fee based on the available budget.

"With the launch of the draft Animal Health Bill last Monday we call on the Government to consider the central role OVs play in this new disease control set up and to provide sufficient funding.  Launching the draft Bill, Defra's Minister of State spoke of partnership. OVs are such a partner, professionals integral to the disease prevention and control mechanisms. The country has a major disease problem in TB which requires professionals to ensure control and protection of the public and animals alike.

"Let me clarify that Animal Health will not be negotiating with individual vets - they will simply be paying at the same rate in 2010/11 as in 2009/10 and no guarantee that the budget will not be reduced in the future. Each individual veterinary practice will need to decide whether or not they wish to continue TB testing or other OV work."

The BVA and BCVA are advising members that they will need to take a decision in their own practice on whether or not it is financially viable for them to continue OV work.

BEVA President, Madeleine Campbell will be announcing plans for a veterinary-led European Transport Forum at BEVA Congress this year (8-11 September 2010), to discuss how the welfare of horses during transport can be improved through the better enforcement of legislation.

Dr Campbell is also the British Veterinary Association representative on the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE) working party for transport. The Forum, which will be held in Brussels on 29 November 2010, has been jointly organised by the FVE and BEVA and is sponsored by World Horse Welfare (WHW). It is hoped that it will be attended by over 150 participants, including representatives of EU Member States, CVOs, Members of the European Commission and European Parliament, scientific experts, national veterinary organisations, animal transport associations and animal welfare associations.

The Forum will review the enforcement of the existing European regulations that currently govern the transport of horses for slaughter and for other purposes. Areas for practical improvement will be identified with the key focus on the enforcement of current legislation and the role of vets in ensuring that the welfare of horses in transit is protected. The conference will endeavour to define the critical control points, effective control systems and good practices. It will also look into trade flows, animal health risks, horse identification and the effects of closing horse slaughterhouses.

Dr Campbell said: "It is all very well to campaign for new regulations but at present even the existing regulations are not being enforced adequately. The crux of the matter is enforcement and there are none better placed to help with this than vets. If we can all work collectively we should have the strength to make a real impact. This is what the Forum is about."

Dr Campbell will be speaking about the European Transport Forum at the Congress press conference on 10 September between 9am and 10am.

BEVA Congress runs from 8-11 September 2010 at the International Convention Centre, Birmingham. For further information and to register visit http://www.beva.org.uk/

Merseyside police are urging members of the public and veterinary practices to exercise caution following the theft of some prescription veterinary medicines from a commercial vehicle in Prescot.

The missing medication is around ten 100ml bottles of Micotil, a prescription-only veterinary medicine used to treat respiratory problems in cattle and sheep, but which could prove fatal if taken by humans.

The drug, which was packaged in cardboard with Spanish labelling, was stolen from a lorry that had parked last Thursday night on an industrial park at Caddick Road, Prescot, prior to making a delivery to a company in Speke.

PC Dufton-Kelly of Huyton Police Station's Crime Management Unit said: "We believe this was simply an opportunist theft, which has left the offenders with a rather unusual product on their hands, with little or no opportunity for gain.

"We would like to alert the veterinary industry, particularly in the Merseyside area, in case the goods are handed in or offered for sale. The drugs could present a danger to the public if they fall into the wrong hands."

Anyone who finds the drugs is asked to contact their nearest police station via 0151 709 6010. Anyone with information about the theft can contact Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111. All information provided will be treated in strict confidence.

The RCVS is holding a session at the London Vet Show on Saturday 23rd October from 8:30am-9:30am to provide guidance and advice concerning the work your nursing team does in practice.

As the RCVS says, the recent Panorama programme "It shouldn't happen at a vets'" was a stark reminder of the importance of ensuring that all practice staff are working within the appropriate legal framework.

The session will answer such questions as:

• Are your veterinary nursing staff working legally?
• Do their job titles mislead the public?
• Is your veterinary team delegating appropriately?
• Do you understand Schedule 3?
• Are your VN 'students' really students?

Because of the early start, the RCVS is providing breakfast from 8:15am, though I wouldn't get your hopes up for eggs benedict and freshly smoked Loch Fyne kippers.

The RCVS says the session will be relevant for all members of the practice team, but that if you can't make the session, they will be on hand to discuss VN legislation on stand M26. 

Merial has launched Equioxx, a new pain management product which the company says is the first COX-2 specific NSAID for horses

Traditional NSAIDs act by blocking the action of both COX-1 and COX-2 enzymes at the same time. Although COX-2 produces prostaglandins associated with both inflammation and pain, COX-1 has a pivotal role in maintaining normal physiological function, so inhibiting this enzyme may have an increased risk of side effects e.g. gastric ulceration. Merial says Equioxx is the only NSAID that is highly COX-2 selective (up to 643 times more selective for COX-2 than COX-1), acting to reduce pain and inflammation but without affecting the COX-1 enzyme at therapeutic levels.

Equioxx contains the active ingredient firocoxib, and Merial says it is proven to be effective at reducing chronic lameness in horses. Appearing in blood plasma within 30 minutes of oral dosing, its pharmacokinetic profile allows once daily dosing. Field studies have confirmed that firocoxib is highly effective at controlling pain and improving function in horses with chronic osteoarthritis.

Equioxx is available as either a low dose injectable solution or a palatable oral paste.

For more information contact Merial Customer Services on 0870 6000 123

New research released today by Petplan has revealed that at a time when marriage is in decline and the average child bearing age is increasing, a new breed of pet owner has emerged: women between the ages of 25 and 34 who bought their pet as a substitute for a child.

More than 10,000 pet owners were surveyed for the research and the results apparently reveal 'pet parenting' as a growing trend. According to the survey, women not only look to their furry friend for companionship but also treat them like they would a child, with nearly 70% buying them birthday and Christmas presents, 28% adapting their homes for their pet and 20% changing their holiday destinations to allow their pet to come along too. 

Just like working parents, owners worry about leaving their pet alone when they're working. So much so that they make a concerted effort to make sure their pet is not left alone for more than five hours a day - employing dog walkers and cat sitters to stem their concern (approaching 1 in 7). When an 8 hour working day is the national norm and the average parent only spends 49 minutes a day with their children, this demonstrates considerable pet commitment.

Dr Deborah Wells, expert in the study of the psychology of the pet-human relationship said: "Dogs and cats can offer their owners many of the benefits frequently provided by children, including companionship, entertainment and happiness.  For some owners, notably women, pets can provide a useful training ground in 'motherhood', in some cases helping to shape important decisions on whether or not children are to be a part of their future.  For others, pets can serve as a child 'substitute', offering people who choose not to have, or cannot conceive, children, an outlet for emotional attachment and nurturing behaviour."

Petplan's marketing manager Alison Andrew said: "This pet parenting theme is one of the most significant trends to come out of Petplan's biggest body of research to date - the Petplan Pet Census - which looks into the realities of pet ownership. We see the amazing lengths that owners go to for their pets every day and the level of worry that goes with it. Our job is to give owners peace of mind through our insurance plans, so they can be confident their beloved companion will always receive the best care and treatment without having to worry about the financial costs. We want to use this research to truly understand modern pet ownership in the UK so that we can better provide help and guidance for our nation of pet lovers!"

If you'd like to take part in the Petplan Pet Census, documenting the picture of pet ownership in Britain, visit www.petplan.co.uk

The British Small Animal Veterinary Association has announced the appointment of Dr Frances Barr as Academic Director, tasked with developing the new BSAVA postgraduate qualification in association with the Open University, ready for launch in 2012.

Frances is a European Specialist in Veterinary Diagnostic Imaging, and a double diplomat of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the European College of Veterinary Diagnostic Imaging. She has worked both in practice and as an academic, with 26 years working in Higher Education, and has a long history of working as a BSAVA volunteer, eventually taking on the presidential mantle in 2007.

BSAVA says it aims to provide the best possible educational offering to the profession, particularly to those in practice. Grant Petrie, BSAVA President, said: "Producing a postgraduate qualification is a natural progression to BSAVA's current CPD offering - there is clearly a need for it and we have a strong legacy as a provider of quality CPD. We want to make sure that the profession is served well - with a programme designed by vets for vets. As a charity with education at the core of our remit, BSAVA is best positioned to create something that will keep investing in the knowledge and talent of the profession. However, we always knew that we would need an exceptional individual to oversee the programme, and, in Frances Barr, we know we have that person."

Frances said: "This will fill a really important need. Many practitioners have a real appetite for learning more about their particular area of interest. Of course, they can currently do this with general CPD courses, but this new qualification will provide a structured and focussed learning programme which is flexible enough to fit around the busiest lifestyle, yet challenging enough to make the qualification a personal achievement, one that will be well respected by the whole profession."

She added: "The proposed new certificates in small animal medicine and surgery will comprise a combination of traditional taught courses, a wide-range of web-based material that will include interactive sessions, and workplace-based projects. This is the way forward for practitioners and will lead the profession into a more secure future."

The qualifications will be aimed primarily at the general practitioner, so they are not designed to replace the European Diploma system or aspiring to provide specialised knowledge. Instead they will be created very much for the interested, busy practitioner for whom an accredited residency programme is not an option. Grant Petrie said: "Encouraging small animal practitioners to embark on a clinically useful, challenging yet achievable, highly regarded postgraduate qualification sits very well with the BSAVA's remit to promote excellence in small animal practice through education and science."

The BSAVA postgraduate programme will launch in 2012, with more information about registration available at Congress 2011 and online from April next year. Frances Barr will begin working with the Open University and the BSAVA team in November.

Boehringer Ingelheim has launched a cat-specific presentation of Metacam Injection combined with a new indication which permits the company's existing oral suspension (0.5mg/ml meloxicam) to be used for up to four follow-on days.

The company says this will give veterinary surgeons increased flexibility for managing feline post-operative pain, and that the new Metacam 2mg/ml Injection helps accurate dosing. Used at the recommended dose rate of 0.2mg/kg, the injection can be followed by Metacam 0.5mg/ml Oral Suspension to provide up to five days of analgesia following surgical procedures in cats. The licensed claims for Metacam 5mg/ml Injection for dogs and cats have not changed.

Boehringer added that Metacam is now the only brand which enables vets to offer their feline patients several days of post-operative analgesia, as well as being approved for long-term use for chronic musculoskeletal disease.

Claire Fowler, Boehringer Ingelheim's companion animal marketing manager, says that the new presentation and indication are significant developments in feline post-operative pain management: "Around half of all dogs undergoing surgery receive an injectable NSAID followed by a follow-on oral NSAID. In cats this figure is around 22%, yet there is no evidence to suggest that pain perception in cats should be any different to that of dogs". 

The RSPCA has reported a dramatic increase in the number of cats being abandoned.

The number of abandonments reported to the RSPCA was 10,610 in 2010, a 28% increase on the number reported in 2009 (8,310), and a 40% increase on the number in 2008 (7,609).

The charity received 205 reports of cats being shot in 2010, more or less the same as the year before. However, the charity says anecdotal reports suggest the number of cats being attacked (including being set upon by dogs or thrown from buildings) is increasing.   

RSPCA chief veterinary officer, Alastair Macmillan, said: "The news of massive rises in abandonments and other attacks is alarming and shows a frightening trend in cat abuse and neglect. We don't know why we are seeing such increases and hope that people are not starting to see cats as worthless things which can be targeted with weapons or just dumped when people don't want to care for them anymore".

Hill's Pet Nutrition has announced that it will not be exhibiting at the British Small Animal Veterinary Association Congress this year, and instead will be found in a restaurant round the corner called The Strada.

The press release containing this news fluttered in at almost exactly same time as one from the BSAVA, in which President Grant Petrie revealed that Congress already has a record-breaking exhibition.

Hill's' spin on the story is that it's all part of a new way of thinking about how the company does business. Blake Hawley, DVM and Managing Director at Hill's Pet Nutrition said: "It's easy to fall into the same old habits and routines. In fact, it can be enormously comforting to predict that in the year ahead, one will deliver, and probably receive, expected results. We don't think that's really quite good enough.  So, we made the difficult and very conscious decision to question what we do and challenge how we think about the way we do business."

Hill's goes on to say that it will continue to support BSAVA and help provide a great experience for people attending the Congress, by offering free Italian food, coffee or a glass of beer or wine from its new restaurant location.

Some might call that supportive of BSAVA. Others, less generous, might call it a way of benefitting from all the work that the BSAVA does to bring everyone together at Congress without contributing towards the costs.

Thankfully, though, it doesn't look like BSAVA has been hit that hard by the news. Grant Petrie said: "BSAVA is a not-for-profit registered charity, and Congress is run by vets and nurses. So all of us -  organisers, delegates and exhibitors - are supporting the veterinary profession simply by being involved. Together, we are officially part of a record breaking year - with 241 exhibitors in the NIA, along with our fellow associations in the ICC.

"That's more than we've ever had before, and there is a waiting list of companies wanting to join us at this flagship event. So every company who is seriously committed to vets and being involved in supporting the small animal veterinary profession will be with us in the NIA. BSAVA really appreciates the involvement of exhibitors in making Congress such a vital event in the veterinary calendar. It means that not only can we offer remarkably cost-effective CPD, but also provide a showcase of new advances in the industry and the opportunity to get the most from your practice budget. It is where budget holders get the best value, and where exhibitors can meet key decision makers.

"Plus, of course, there's a lot of fun and plenty of free gifts to be found in the NIA too!"

A new study carried out by academics at the University of Bristol's Animal Welfare and Behaviour research group has revealed that chickens empathise. So, if you've wondered why the chicken crossed the road, it was probably to help a friend.

More specifically, the research - funded by the BBSRC Animal Welfare Initiative and published online in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. - demonstrated that domestic hens show a clear physiological and behavioural response when their chicks are mildly distressed.

Researchers say the study is the first to demonstrate that birds possess one of the important attributes that underpins empathy, and the first study to use both behavioural and physiological methods to measure these traits in birds.

During one of the controlled procedures, when the chicks were exposed to a puff of air, the hens' heart rate increased and eye temperature decreased. The hens also changed their behaviour, and reacted with increased alertness, decreased preening and increased vocalisations directed to their chicks.

Some of these responses have previously been used as indicators of an emotional response in animals. In domestic chickens, time spent standing alert is associated with higher levels of fear.  Previous research carried out by the same group has shown that hens also selectively avoid surroundings associated with high levels of standing and low levels of preening.

Jo Edgar, PhD student in the School of Veterinary Sciences, said: "The extent to which animals are affected by the distress of others is of high relevance to the welfare of farm and laboratory animals.

"Our research has addressed the fundamental question of whether birds have the capacity to show empathic responses.

"We found that adult female birds possess at least one of the essential underpinning attributes of 'empathy'; the ability to be affected by, and share, the emotional state of another."

The researchers say they used chickens as a model species because, under commercial conditions, chickens will regularly encounter other chickens showing signs of pain or distress due to routine husbandry practices or because of the high levels of conditions such as bone fractures or leg disorders.

Reference:
'Avian maternal response to chick distress', J L Edgar, J C Lowe, E S Paul, C J Nicol, published online ahead of print Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 9 March 2011.

Picture:
Gemma Richards, University of Bristol