Virbac has announced the reintroduction of chews as part of its dental range.

VeggieDent chews are available in packs of 15 in sizes suitable for small, medium and large dogs. The chews contain chlorhexidine and have a texture and shape designed to optimise plaque removal by physically abrading the tooth surface during chewing.

Product manager Chris Geddes said: "The gold standard of dental hygiene is regular brushing, but that isn't always possible, and products such as this are ideal for those difficult cases." 

For further information please speak to your Virbac representative, phone 01359 243243 or email admin@virbac.co.uk.

The University of Edinburgh and the Royal Veterinary College (RVC) have announced a new initiative to help vet students prepare for their Extra Mural Studies (EMS) placements.

Freda Andrews, RCVS Head of Education said: "This is a free online learning tool which will look familiar to any veterinary student who has recently taken the driving theory test. Any veterinary student can use it as part of their preparation for EMS."

The project was drawn up by Dr Catriona Bell at the University of Edinburgh, and Dr Sarah Baillie at the RVC, two lecturers with experience of practice life who want to make sure that student placements work well for all concerned. The aim is that by helping veterinary students understand what will be expected of them, students can be better prepared and get the most out of their placements.

Sarah Baillie said: "We found that students aren't always aware that doing some simple practical things can make a huge difference to how well their placement goes. There are some common pitfalls, such as not taking a lunch with them so the vet has to find a shop whilst out on call, which can catch out the unwary."

Catriona Bell said that the importance of body language was a consistent theme in the research they undertook for the project: "Students want to do well, however placements are a new environment and can be tiring. Vets are not paid to provide EMS, and say they take on students as they want to support the next generation of vets. Students need to make sure they convey their interest and enthusiasm to all members of the practice team through their body language - they don't always realise, for example, what an impact slouching and looking down at the floor can have."

Other tips for students that came out of the research include making sure that you prepare thoroughly before you go, and offering to help out the veterinary nurses.

Sarah said: "We put in what real students told us they'd wished they'd known. The practising vets who support students also gave us valuable information; for example, by explaining what they expect with regards to confidentiality and professionalism, a working vet's skills."

There is no need for a sign-up for students to use the EMS Driving Licence, and veterinary practices who will be hosting EMS students may also find it useful.  To try it out for yourself visit www.vet.ed.ac.uk/ems_driving_licence/

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 Small Animal Medicine Society is pleased to announce the launch of the SAMSOC Travel Scholarship

The scholarship, worth £250, can be awarded to any SAMSOC member undertaking CPD to study a particular aspect of Small Animal Medicine.

Applicants should describe how they would use the award in 300-400 words and are free to choose the topic to be studied. Recipients of the award are required to undertake the CPD within the subsequent 12 months.  

Following completion of their trip the winner is required to write a summary article (approx 1000 words) which will be submitted to the Veterinary press for publication and placed on the SAMSOC website.

The award is only open to SAMSOC members.

Applications should be sent to the Ian Battersby ( iab@vetspecialists.co.uk ) to arrive no later than 31^st December 2009, the successful applicant will be notified within 6 weeks. The award will be presented at the SAMSOC Meeting on 7^th April 2010.

Merial has launched the latest edition of its Osteoarthritis (OA) Expert series, covering key aspects of management such acute OA flare up.

Produced by Steven J Butterworth MA VetMB CertVR DSAO MRCVS from Weighbridge Referral Centre Swansea, the update advises on key issues, including when surgery might be necessary. Steven is an RCVS Recognised Specialist in Small Animal Surgery (Orthopaedics) and this latest contribution to the guide also looks at patient monitoring and factors such as lifestyle, diet, physiotherapy and the role of NSAIDs.

Previcox product manager Claire Edmunds said: "The quarterly updates are each written by an expert in their field and provide an opportunity for practising vets to update their OA expertise.

"As with every update vets can put their knowledge to the test, and one lucky winner will receive £500 worth of CPD vouchers. Released quarterly, the updates have proved extremely popular. Each paper has a related quiz containing key questions from the discussion and the winner will be the first correct entry drawn at random."

The company will produce further editions next year covering topics including conservative management of canine osteoarthritis and rehabilitation.

If you haven't received a manual and would like a copy, please contact your local Merial territory manager or call the customer hotline on 0870 6000 123.

Veterinary surgeon Andrew Reeder, Director of the Stonehenge Veterinary Hospital, in Durrington, near Salisbury, was the lucky winner of a Sony Pocket e-Reader in the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' prize draw at the London Vet Show in November.

The competition was mounted to launch an online quiz to test members' knowledge of the Guide to Professional Conduct. All those who completed the quiz on the RCVS stand at the event were entered into a prize draw: the RCVS would like to stress that it was a random draw, in spite of the serendipity of Andrew's surname!

"This is brilliant, I so rarely win anything!" said Andrew. "I'd recommend that all RCVS members should have a go at the quiz - it's quick, easy to complete and certainly makes you think."

Over 600 people have tackled the quiz so far. Those who fancy testing their knowledge of the Guide should visit www.rcvs.org.uk/guidequiz. The quiz is anonymous, but the College will be collating data to help focus future communications activities and see where extra guidance may be required. On completion of the quiz, it is possible to review answers and view the relevant section of the online Guide.

VetSurgeon.org has been setting new records for the amount of activity recorded on the site.

Membership of the community has grown from 1,832 in April, to 3,524 today. On December 2nd, there were 810 visits to the website, the largest number of visits in a single day. And in the month-to-date, 4,764 visitors have made 11,257 visits, during which they made 83,105 pageviews, an average of 7.4 per visit.

A year ago today, the site recorded 55 visits in a day. Forum posts were by no means an every day event. In fact, it was looking a bit like I'd just blown a very large amount of money on a website which would allow me to sit and talk to, er, myself. Things couldn't be more different now, and I'm over the moon to see how popular the site is becoming. It's especially rewarding to see a friendly, professional, collaborative and very active community becoming established in the forums, as that's at the heart of what I set out to try and achieve. 

Thought to be the first agreement of its kind between a buying group and a veterinary practice, Norfolk Farm Vets and agricultural purchasing group Anglia Farmers Limited have come together to offer mutual members and clients a beneficial discount on their monthly vet account when invoiced through Anglia Farmers.   

Anglia Farmers livestock manager Simon Leach said: "With more than 650 livestock members, Anglia Farmers is keen to give a financial edge wherever possible. Veterinary costs are as much a part of the overall costs we already help with such as feed, equipment and fencing.  In terms of dairy, they account for around 0.8p a litre of milk, accumulating to an average of around £1,200 a month for a typical East Anglian dairy of 150 head.  Our discount agreement with Norfolk Farm Vets is a very positive step in aiding our members to save even more money through Anglia Farmers."

Both parties agree that the time and administration cost saving benefit is equally important.

Molly McKay of Norfolk Farm Vets, which has clients throughout the Eastern Counties as well as Lincolnshire, said:  "Anyone involved with livestock knows how time-consuming all the paperwork can be.  Each month Anglia Farmers collates all the supplier invoices, sends them on to members as part of their monthly statement with a single covering invoice which is so much easier than receiving them piecemeal. And it streamlines administration and cashflow for us as well."

Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health has launched its complimentary blood testing service that allows practitioners to investigate one of the main infectious causes of early embryo loss in sheep flocks.

The annual subsidised Barren EweCheck diagnostic scheme is available from 1^st December 2009 until 31^st March 2010 for breeding ewe flocks. The service establishes whether Toxoplasma gondii is potentially implicated in any empty or aborting ewes.

ISPAH says that data from the 2009 scheme showed that 69% of flocks had been exposed to the toxoplasma parasite at some point before blood sampling. As a result, practitioners were able to give clients receiving a positive diagnosis timely advice on disease control and the benefits of a Toxovax vaccination regime.

Further information and the 2010 Barren EweCheck pads are available directly from the company's Veterinary Support Group by calling 01908 685685.

The Daily Mail yesterday published a 'shocking exposé' which portrays the veterinary profession as one that 'puts pets through painful and unnecessary treatments to fleece their trusting owners'.

The story is based on an interview with ex-vet Matthew Watkinson to promote his new book: 'On The Destiny Of Species'.

In the interview, Mr Watkinson claims the veterinary profession is to blame for much of the animal suffering in the UK, and that 'money - not the welfare of the animal - is often at the forefront of the vet's mind'. 

In the interview, Mr Watkinson

• accuses vets of performing expensive and totally unnecessary procedures
• describes how vets Google pet owners' home addresses to see how much treatment they might be able to afford
• accuses vets of being complicit in the breeding of dogs with congenital problems, such as bulldogs and daschunds

The RCVS issued a swift response, which you can read here.

Later in the day, Mr Watkinson appeared on Radio 5 Live opposite ex BVA President, Nicky Paull. The interview can be heard for the next 6 days on BBC iplayer here.

It is not yet clear the degree to which the Daily Mail might have sensationalised Mr Watkinson's interview.  In his blog, he claims it did, but defiantly defends his main argument that the profession is fighting natural selection, and thereby harming animal welfare.

Seems to me that some aspects of Mr Watkinson's argument are perhaps worthy of debate, but they've been obscured by the glare of the critical headline, and the Daily Mail's predictable preoccupation with the sensational but unrepresentative. So I'm delighted to see that whilst writing this story, Mr Watkinson has joined us in the VetSurgeon forums to put forward his case.

Brave man.

Lantra, the Sector Skills Council for environmental and land-based industries, is calling for veterinary nurses, their employers and veterinary organisations to take part in a consultation this winter and help ensure apprenticeships meet their needs.

Jo-Anne Bryan, Project Manager for Apprenticeship Frameworks at Lantra, said: "Lantra is responsible for designing apprenticeships and for ensuring that they meet employers' needs so veterinary practices can continue to benefit from this type of training scheme. The veterinary nursing apprenticeship is now being revised and it is likely that the framework will look very different to the current apprenticeship framework, so Lantra is inviting industry representatives to review and comment on the frameworks that set out what their apprenticeships will involve."

The revision coincides with the introduction of a new national framework for accredited awards, the Qualifications and Credit Framework (QCF). All accredited awards must be either transferred or newly accredited into the QCF in order to be eligible for public funding in 2010 and this includes the apprenticeship framework.

Jo-Anne continued: "We are very aware that the veterinary nursing industry is currently involved with a number of reviews, in particular the review of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) Awards in Veterinary Nursing. However, we do still need to review the existing veterinary nursing apprenticeship framework and we are working closely with the RCVS to take the apprenticeship review forward to bring it up-to-date and ensure it is fit for purpose."

"Well-trained veterinary nurses are more important than ever to businesses as they aim to meet today's many challenges. Many businesses offer apprentice places because they understand the benefits that apprentices bring. They are a great way for employers to ensure their workforce has the practical skills and qualifications they need now, and in the future."

The consultation process is starting with an online questionnaire, open now until Monday 4 January 2010, where the qualification aspect of the apprenticeship will be reviewed. The qualifications test the apprentice's knowledge and practical competence and Lantra wants feedback from industry professionals to make sure the framework encompasses the skills required by today's employers.

Jo-Anne added: "These questionnaires will be a great opportunity for industry to let us know what they need from an apprenticeship. But if you can't take part online, there are other ways to get involved as further consultation meetings will take place later this year in various locations across the UK."

For more details on Lantra's apprenticeship reviews visit www.lantra.co.uk/apprenticeships, call 0845 707 8007 or email apprenticeships@lantra.co.uk.

The exciting programme for our satellite meeting in 2010 is attached! Please register early to avoid disappointment.

Our 2010 satellite meeting will include a session which will be particulalrly useful to candidates preparing a medicine case book.

The meeting remains very good value for money (£65). If you wish, subs for 2010 can be included with your payment for the meeting (Total cost =£90).

Lunch will be included  if registration forms and payment for the meeting are received BEFORE March 15th (catering deadline).

Best wishes

Yvonne