Ceva Animal Health has introduced an improved version of Hepatosyl, its liver support supplement for horses.

Hepatosyl Plus for horses contains the same antioxidant ingredients as the original version but now also contains Silybin, the most active isomer of Silybum marianum (milk thistle)¹.

According to Ceva, the addition of Silybin gives new Hepatosyl Plus a triple antioxidant approach to liver support to help neutralise free radicals within the liver. Free radicals are produced by hepatocyte mitochondria and cause oxidative damage to cell membranes, protein and DNA.

The company says Hepatosyl Plus's triple approach includes S-adenosylmethionine (SAMe), in a stable, pure and absorbable form, which is converted into the potent liver anti-oxidant glutathione and also helps to maintain bile flow; Vitamin E, which is well-known as a potent liver antioxidant, and Silybin, which works as an antioxidant by increasing cellular superoxide dismutase.

Hepatosyl Plus remains the only liver supplement to contain Vitamin K which is needed by the liver for the production of many essential clotting factors, such as factors II, VII, IX and X, making it ideally suited for pre and post anaesthetic liver support.

Ceva says an independent trial² on horses with confirmed liver disease has demonstrated the benefits of Hepatosyl. Conducted by European Specialist in equine internal medicine Dr Tim Brazil, the trial involved seven horses of various ages and types. All animals were given Hepatosyl in addition to treatment with antimicrobials, corticosteroids, a low protein diet and vitamin B supplementation. Post SAMe supplementation tests revealed a notable reduction in raised liver enzymes, serum proteins and bile acids and the seven horses showed obvious improvements including better appetite, weight gain and demeanour.

For further product information contact Ceva Animal Health Ltd, 90 The Broadway, Chesham, Bucks, HP5 1EG, telephone 01494 781510 or visit the website at http://www.ceva.uk.com/

References
¹ Flatland B (2003) Botanicals, Vitamins and Minerals and the Liver
² Brazil T (2007) S-adenosylmethionine liver support supplement trial in horses

The RCVS has announced two changes to its CPD policy as it switches from the rolling three year requirement to the annual one, starting in 2020.

The first is that the College will allow veterinary surgeons and nurses to carry over some of the CPD hours they have accrued in 2019 into 2020, to smoothen the transition to an annual hourly requirement.

Vets will be allowed to carry over 25 hours and VNs 10 hours of accumulated CPD from 2019 through to 2020.

This will apply once, in 2020 only, and is only applicable to vets and VNs who have been CPD-compliant from 2017 to 2019 and have a surplus number of hours to carry over.

Secondly, the College is going to allow vets and VNs to take a six-month 'CPD pause' for planned periods away from work, such as parental leave, and exceptional circumstances, such as serious ill health or unforeseen changes to family responsibilities, without the need to make up the hours when they return to work. This will reduce the burden on vets and VNs returning to work after a break.

RCVS Director of Education, Dr Linda Prescott-Clements said: "We hope that these changes to the CPD policy will support vets and VNs to make the transition to an annual hourly requirement.

"We received a sample of feedback from some members of the veterinary professions regarding the move to annual hourly CPD requirements and these additions have been introduced support members during this transition and to mitigate some of the concerns raised."

For more information about the CPD requirement for both vets and vet nurses, what activities might count as CPD, how to record your CPD and a series of frequently asked questions about CPD please visit our dedicated page: www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd.

Vétoquinol has launched a competition to promote its NSAID Cimalgex, in which a veterinary surgeon or nurse will win (get this) an Aston Martin DB9.

In addition, Vétoquinol will be offering the winner a day's performance driving course at the Millbrook Proving Ground and £1,000 towards the costs of insurance.

To enter you need to answer some questions relating to Cimalgex. Until the end of BSAVA Congress, you can do this at the Cimalgex stand (821). Thereafter, you can enter the competition by visiting: www.CiMyDog.co.uk and answering the same questions online.

This competition will close and the winner will be announced on the last day of London Vet Show 2014.

Robert Simpson, Cimalgex Product Manager said: "Giving this beautiful DB9 to a vet or nurse in the UK is an incredibly exciting opportunity. This competition stands out as one of the most sensational and audacious I have heard of in the veterinary industry and hopefully it will create a lot of fun and excitement both at BSAVA and beyond."

The BSAVA has published the third edition of the BSAVA Guide to Procedures in Small Animal Practice, updated with new video content.

Four new procedures have been added: cystostomy tube placement, endotracheal intubation, point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS), and wet-to-dry dressings.

The new video content, access to which is included with the printed book, has been designed as a ‘go to’ resource to reference prior to performing a procedure.  

Nick Bexfield, one of the editors of the new edition, said: “We have built upon the success of the previous editions by responding to the feedback received from the BSAVA readership, and hope this new guide helps to further increase the confidence and accuracy with which these procedures are performed.”

Print copies are available through the BSAVA store, you can also access the digital version in the BSAVA Library.

Prices are £45.50 for BSAVA members; £70.00 for non-members.

VetSurgeon.org member Julian Earl MRCVS has published 'Cows in Trees', a warm and witty memoir of his life as a veterinary surgeon.

Having been told at school that he'd never cut it as a veterinary surgeon, Julian qualified from Liverpool in 1981. He became a partner at Banovallum Vets in Horncastle in 1989 and later the sole owner. Along the way, he also gained AP status in Sheep and Animal Welfare and served as President of the Sheep Veterinary Society and the Lincolnshire Veterinary Association. Oh, and in 1991, he was part of a team that set a world record relay time cycling from Land's End to John O'Groats, raising £8,500 in the process.

Then, in 2012, everything changed. Julian had a cycling accident during a road race in Lincolnshire. He fractured his skull and suffered multiple brain haemorrhages, broken ribs, a fractured shoulder and a punctured lung. Doctors told his wife he'd be unlikely to survive.

But survive he did, and with his injuries precluding a return to practice, he's reinvented himself as an author and approved para-cyclist. 

His book is a collection of light-hearted anecdotes and memories from his life in practice, with practical advice about what to try and avoid when working as a veterinary surgeon. 

And yes, he was once called out to attend a cow stuck in a tree!

You can buy the book on Amazon in hardcover for £12.95, here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Julian-Earl/e/B01EVCT67K/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1461874827&sr=1-1

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded one veterinary surgeon and suspended another for four months, following a joint hearing regarding their professional conduct while they were in practice in Slough, Berkshire in August 2016.

The Disciplinary Committee considered a number of charges against Javier Salas Navarro MRCVS and Roman Kristin over 35 days.

The charges against Dr Navarro concerned his treatment of a kitten named Marnie. They included: 

• In August 2016, failing to read the anaesthesia consent form in relation to a surgical spay he performed;

• When Marnie was readmitted for surgery, failing to read the anaesthesia consent form, failing to undertake adequate assessment of Marnie’s condition; performing surgery without adequately considering her condition; subjecting Marnie to anaesthesia without recognising the seriousness of her illness; failing to obtain informed consent from the owners; administering medication which was contra-indicated; and failure to make an adequate record of his involvement in Marnie’s care.

The charges against Dr Kristin also related to his treatment of Marnie. They included:  

• In August 2016, failing to undertake an adequate assessment of her condition; failure to recognise and record the fact that Marnie could not pass urine; failure to refer or offer her for specialist treatment; and failure to ensure Marnie received care and treatment overnight. 

• When admitting Marnie for surgery, that he made a number of clinical mistakes including failure to gain informed consent; and failure to recognise the seriousness of her illness;

• that there were a number of failings in relation to Marnie’s care, including failure to arrange adequate overnight care, failure to monitor and record her condition, and failure to gain informed consent for the overnight care.

• that he failed to advise Marnie’s owners that he suspected her uterers had been ligated during the spay, failed to advise Marnie’s owners that she required specialist veterinary treatment; and advised that Marnie undergo further surgery at the practice in spite of this meaning her having to undergo further anaesthesia in a week and with poor chances of survival;

• that the above conduct was misleading and dishonest.

The Disciplinary Committee found a number of the facts in the charges against both Dr Navarro and Dr Kristin proven (the full details can be found in the documentation at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary). 

The Committee found that Dr Navarro breached a number of aspects of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons including: making animal health and welfare the first consideration when attending to animals; the provision of appropriate and adequate veterinary care; responsible prescription, supply and administration of medicines; communication with professional colleagues to ensure the health and welfare of the animal; being open and honest with clients and respecting their needs and requirements; effective communication with clients; keeping clear and accurate clinical records; and working with the veterinary team to coordinate the care of animals. 

Of the proven charges, the Committee found that his initial failure to read Marnie’s anaesthesia consent form on 5 August did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, but that the repetition of this failure on 9 August did amount to disgraceful conduct. It also found that Dr Navarro’s failure to undertake adequate assessment and perform surgery without this assessment amounted to serious professional misconduct. Furthermore, the Committee found that subjecting Marnie to anaesthesia in spite of her being unwell, failure to obtain informed consent and failure to keep adequate records also amounted to serious professional misconduct. 

For Dr Kristin, in summary, the Committee found not proven the allegation that he had failed to respond on 5 August 2016 to concerns from Marnie’s owners about her condition while she was recovering from a surgical spay and also all the allegations relating to Dr Kristin’s admission of Marnie to the practice on 9 August on the basis that it was not satisfied so as to be sure that Dr Kristin had been the veterinary surgeon who admitted Marnie on that day. 

The Committee found proven the remaining charges and found he breached the following parts of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons: making animal health and welfare the first consideration when attending to animals; keeping within area of competence and referring responsibly; providing appropriate and adequate veterinary care; responsible prescribing, supply and administration of medicines; communication with colleagues to ensure the health and welfare of the animal; being open and honest with clients and respecting their needs and requirements; communicating effectively with clients and obtaining informed consent; keeping clear and accurate clinical records; and working with the veterinary team to coordinate the care of animals.

Of the proven charges, the Committee determined that his failure to adequately assess Marnie’s health, to obtain a clinical history, to undertake blood tests and recognise that she was seriously ill, amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect and led to “Marnie’s underlying condition going undetected and undoubtedly contributed to her eventual death two days later”. 

The Committee also found that Dr Kristin’s decision to hospitalise Marnie without adequate overnight care, place her on IV fluids without monitoring the treatment or her condition, and failure to obtain adequate informed consent – among other things – amounted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "As a direct result of Dr Kristin’s acts and omissions, Marnie was left alone overnight on fluids when those fluids had nowhere to go. Had he done his job properly he would have known that and Marnie could have avoided the prolonged suffering caused by the chosen course of treatment that did not address the underlying condition. Every element of Dr Kristin’s behaviour was catastrophic for Marnie, and yet he took no personal responsibility for her welfare and just went home.” 

Following its findings on disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, the Committee then went on to consider its sanction for both Dr Navarro and Dr Kristin.

In respect of Dr Navarro, the Committee considered the mitigating factors including previous good character, admissions to some of the facts of the case from the outset; genuine insight and remorse into the seriousness of the actions; his youth and inexperience; and relevant and good-quality testimonials from colleagues. The Committee noted that the testimonials were universally positive and demonstrated that Dr Navarro had reflected on his conduct, had become more mature and confident in his practice and made efforts to rectify the areas in which he had fallen below standards. 

Stuart Drummond said: “Although the consequences for Marnie and her owners were clearly devastating, the Committee considered that Dr Navarro’s part in her demise has to be seen in the context of all the evidence. In light of the extensive mitigation, including significant evidence of insight and remediation, the Committee was able to conclude that Dr Navarro did not represent a future risk to animals or the public. In such circumstances, the Committee considered that it was not necessary to restrict Dr Navarro’s registration and that a reprimand was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in his case.”

In relation to Dr Kristin, the Committee took into account positive character evidence from Mr Karel Daniel, a semi-retired veterinary surgeon and Vice-President of the Czech Republic Veterinary Chamber, a similar body to the RCVS in that country, as well as other testimonials on his behalf. In mitigation, the Committee considered Dr Kristin’s previously unblemished career, the fact that it was a single case involving a single animal; some development of insight into his conduct; no evidence of repetition; expressions of remorse; the impact of a family bereavement during the course of proceedings; and his financial position.

However, the Committee also took into account aggravating factors including a lack of candour from Dr Kristin when he was giving evidence, demonstrated by a tendency to blame others rather than take responsibility, as well as his recklessness in suggesting a third operation on Marnie that was not in her interests, rather than referring her into specialist care.

The final decision of the Committee on the sanction for Dr Kristin was that, given the seriousness of the misconduct, it was satisfied that this warranted a six-month suspension period. However, given the mitigating factors, the Committee decided that four months was appropriate and proportionate. 

Commenting on the sanction Stuart Drummond said: “The Committee determined that it was important a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and not to be tolerated. It brings discredit upon the respondent and discredit upon the profession and, most importantly, caused harm to Marnie and great distress to her owners.

"The Committee did consider whether to remove Dr Kristin from the Register. However, in light of the mitigation in this case, the fact that this was a single case in an otherwise unblemished career, together with the unlikelihood he would repeat his disgraceful conduct, the Committee decided that, in all the circumstances, to remove him from the Register would be disproportionate.

"The Committee therefore decided to order that the Registrar suspend Dr Kristin’s registration…. The Committee was satisfied that a period of four months was appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances."

The full facts and findings from the case can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary 

Novartis Animal Health has announced the launch of a campaign to improve awareness of and improve education about atopic dermatitis (AD), to coincide with the 10th anniversary of Atopica. 

As part of the campaign, the company is inviting veterinary surgeons to take part in an online survey for the chance to win an iPad mini: www.surveymonkey.com/s/atopica

In addition, Novartis says it will be offering all sorts of new educational materials for both vets and owners, including research into current trends and attitudes towards AD, insights from experts in the field, and case studies.  

Ricardo Garvao, Category Manager for Atopica said: "This year marks an important milestone for the Atopica brand that wouldn't have been possible without the backing of so many vets. Continued investment by Novartis Animal Health into research and education seems a fitting way to extend thanks for this support and so forms one of the key elements of the 'Decade of Comfort' campaign. I am constantly amazed at just how dedicated and hard-working vets are and am immensely proud that Novartis Animal Health shares their goal to help pets remain happy and healthy."

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended Aberdeenshire-based James Gracey from the Register for six months after he was found guilty of conduct that risked undermining procedures designed to promote  public health and animal welfare.

At the beginning of the hearing legal applications were made to rule that the whole proceedings should be stopped as an abuse of process on various grounds including the delay that had occurred in the matters being referred to the RCVS, and that there had been flaws in the original investigatory process.

There was also application that the evidence of one of the College’s witnesses should be excluded on the grounds that the witness had been convicted of bribery.

The Committee decided that the proceedings should continue but ruled that the statement and evidence of one witness should be excluded from the hearing based upon their conviction.

Mr Gracey faced five charges, all of which he was found guilty of. They were:

• that he signed a Food Chain Information form in relation to a cow without declaring that there was a conflict of interest because the cow belonged to his father and without including his and his practice’s contact details with his signature
• that he signed a Food Chain Information form in relation to a cow, also without declaring a conflict of interest or leaving sufficient contact details;
• that he signed an Emergency Slaughter form for a cow without declaring a conflict of interest as above, and that he stated that he hadn’t not administered any treatment to the cow within the previous seven days of signing the form when he himself had
• that he signed a Food Chain Information form stating that a cow was fit for travel when it was not;
• that his conduct in relation to the proven charges risked undermining public health and animal welfare, and in relation to the Emergency Slaughter Form his conduct was dishonest and misleading. 

Three other charges were found not proven and one allegation was withdrawn by the RCVS.

The Committee then considered if the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In doing so it made reference to the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, particularly in relation to the 10 Principles of Certification.

Dr Hazel Bentall MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered individually and cumulatively all matters it had found proved.

"It concluded that the public relies on veterinary surgeons to be honest and transparent when completing and signing forms.

"There is a public interest in being able to trust the profession to uphold high standards of probity because veterinary surgeons are trusted to play an important role in the promotion of animal health and welfare and associated human health.

"The Committee therefore concluded that cumulatively Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4 amounted to serious professional misconduct because the respondent had failed to meet the necessary high standards of honesty and transparency.

"In particular the fact that there were four separate events relating to animal welfare and public health was significant when considering what sanction to impose.”

“The Committee is satisfied that such conduct, when taken together, would be considered deplorable by other members of the profession.

"The respondent’s conduct on four occasions in respect of four animals and three conflicts of interest called into question his competence in relation to completing such forms.”

In considering the appropriate sanction for Mr Gracey, the Committee took into account both mitigating and aggravating circumstances, as well as a number of character witnesses for the respondent who highlighted his positive personal and professional qualities.

In mitigation, the Committee considered that Mr Gracey has hitherto been of good character with no previous disciplinary findings, that he had admitted some parts of the charges against him at the outset of the hearing, that he had made efforts to avoid repeating the misconduct and remediate it – this included making alternative certification arrangements for his father’s farm and taking more appropriate care with record keeping.

The Committee also acknowledged the significant lapse of time between the date of the misconduct and the hearing and the stress that had caused to Mr Gracey, as well as the insight he had shown into his misconduct.

Taking into account all the factors, the Committee decided that imposing a period of six months suspension from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons was the appropriate sanction for Mr Gracey.

Dr Bentall added: “The Committee concluded that suspension of the respondent’s registration for a period of six months was proportionate.

"The Committee considered whether a shorter period was appropriate bearing in mind the mitigating factors it had found applied in this case.

"It decided that a period of six months was proportionate and the minimum length necessary to meet the public interest balancing the seriousness of the misconduct and the mitigation.

"It decided that a shorter period of suspension would be insufficient to uphold proper standards within the profession, or to have a deterrent effect.

“The Committee was satisfied that the respondent had shown sufficient insight and efforts to remediate his misconduct and it concluded that at the end of this period of suspension he would not pose a further risk to animal welfare or public health.

"The Committee considered that the respondent was a valued veterinary surgeon with extensive farm animal experience and that a more severe sanction such as removal from the RCVS Register would not properly reflect the Committee’s findings on the scale of dishonesty and would not take account of the respondent’s mitigation.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary  

The Privy Council has partially upheld and partially dismissed an appeal submitted to it by Dr Gerhard Schulze Allen against a decision by the Disciplinary Committee in January 2018 to have him removed from the Register.

The Disciplinary Committee had found Dr Schulze Allen guilty of four charges, namely that he had been convicted of the criminal offence of petty theft in the US which rendered him unfit to practise, and that on three subsequent occasions, twice to the RCVS and once to a notary in California, dishonestly represented that he had no criminal convictions. 

Following the DC hearing, Dr Schulze Allen submitted an appeal to the Privy Council. The basis of his appeal revolved around whether, under Californian law, his conviction for petty theft was a conviction for a criminal offence or an infraction, and whether an infraction under US law was a criminal offence.

The RCVS had argued that while the theft is not a criminal felony in California, it would be considered so under English law. 

However, the Board of the Privy Council which heard the appeal – comprising Lords Wilson, Carnwath and Lloyd-Jones, found the College had not proven beyond all reasonable doubt that Dr Schulze Allen was convicted of a criminal offence under Californian law. It therefore upheld his appeal against the DC’s finding that he had committed a criminal offence.

The Privy Council then considered Dr Schulze Allen’s appeal against the third and fourth of the charges against him - that he was dishonest in his representations to the College that he did not have a ‘criminal’ conviction and did not have a ‘criminal record’. The Privy Council found that, since the conviction for petty theft was an infraction, and was not a criminal offence and did not leave Dr Schulze Allen with a criminal record, then, strictly speaking, his representations to the RCVS were not false and so upheld his appeal against these two charges.

The Privy Council then considered Dr Schulze Allen’s appeal against the College’s second charge against him. This charge was that he had, in a written application for restoration to the Register, represented that he did not have any cautions, criminal convictions or "adverse findings". The College argued that he still had a responsibility to make a full and frank disclosure about his infraction, even if it did not meet the threshold of ‘criminal’ under Californian law. 

The Board of the Privy Council said it had, on Dr Schulze Allen’s behalf, done its best to identify some argument that his conviction for a petty theft infraction did not amount to an "adverse finding", but failed. Rather, it found that "the conviction obviously amounted to an adverse finding." 

The Board added that "there is no material by reference to which the Board [of the Privy Council] can depart from the [Disciplinary] Committee’s conclusion that, in answering “no” to that question, he knew that his answer was untrue. In other words, his denial was dishonest."

The Board therefore allowed the appeal against the DC’s conclusion on the first, third and fourth charges. But it dismissed the appeal against its conclusion on the second charge, namely that in that regard Dr Schulze Allen had been guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."

The Board then set aside the original sanction, that Dr Schulze Allen be removed from the Register, and tasked the Committee with identifying the appropriate sanction in relation to the second charge.

The Disciplinary Committee will now hold a further hearing to decide the sanction, at some time in the future. In the meantime Dr Schulze Allen remains on the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.

Colourful CPD, the leading provider of non-clinical skills training to the veterinary profession set up by Brian Faulkner FRCVS, has been acquired by Agilio Software, the UK’s leading provider of frontline healthcare operations software.

Brian (pictured right), said: “I am absolutely delighted that Colourful CPD has joined Agilio and I see this as a win-win-win for Colourful CPD, Agilio and the veterinary profession.

"Colourful CPD’s courses complement Agilio’s vast array of existing statutory and mandatory courses which they already distribute within the UK as well as all around the world, thus enabling Colourful CPD to make the move up to the next level, both here and abroad.

I believe veterinary practices, as well as all the roles working within them, will benefit from being able to access a range of new courses and management services from Agilio.”  

To mark its expansion into the veterinary sector, Agilio will be launching iTeam, its HR and rota software, together with iLearn, an online training and CPD accredited platform at the London Vet Show  in November.

https://www.colourfulcpd.com
https://agiliosoftware.com 

The BVA and the BCVA have launched a joint position paper which states that calves should be routinely provided with appropriate analgesia alongside local anaesthesia to effectively manage pain during necessary veterinary and husbandry procedures.

The recognition, management and treatment of pain in calves was identified by the BVA and the BCVA as a priority animal welfare problem following the launch of the BVA’s Animal welfare strategy last year, with the two organisations working closely together to progress an evidence-based best practice position and set of recommendations for the profession.

The new position statement specifically recommends the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in addition to local anaesthesia when conducting disbudding and castration in calves, as these are procedures that have been shown to cause acute pain at the time of the procedure and chronic pain afterwards. Analgesics have been shown to reduce the signs of pain in this post-operative period in a wide range of research studies. 

The position also recommends the 'Three Rs' approach to castration and disbudding of calves, advocating that, where possible, these procedures are: Replaced by, for example, selecting polled sires to replace disbudding; Reduced by, for example, appropriate use of sexed semen to reduce the number of male calves requiring castration; or Refined, with the use of analgesics.

BVA President Gudrun Ravetz said: "BVA and BCVA’s joint position further reinforces the profession’s focus as animal welfare advocates, and conveys the need for adequate pain management that is reflective of current scientific understanding of pain recognition and treatment in cattle.

"Existing legislation requires a level of anaesthesia and we would encourage veterinary colleagues and stock-keepers to also discuss appropriate analgesic regimes used so that vets prescribe appropriately licensed NSAIDs and other analgesic medicines as required, as part of ensuring a good life for the animals we farm for food."

The recommendations support the University of Nottingham School of Veterinary Medicine and Science’s study, published yesterday in the Veterinary Record, which has found that calf husbandry procedures were significantly less likely to include the use of analgesics in addition to the local anaesthetic (that is routinely used) for other similarly painful procedures. While local anaesthesia can reduce or eliminate much of the acute pain, chronic pain may still remain once the relatively short duration of local anaesthetic action wanes.

John Remnant, a member of BCVA Board and Clinical Assistant Professor in Farm Animal Health and Production at the Nottingham Vet School, said: "It appears that veterinarians’ awareness of pain in cattle and willingness to use analgesics in general has increased over the last decade. However, whilst this should be commended, the apparent lack of use of appropriate analgesia specifically in calves undergoing routine husbandry procedures such as castration and disbudding requires urgent action. I am delighted that the findings of Nottingham University’s study support BVA/BCVA’s statement."

BVA and BCVA’s joint position paper on Analgesia in calves can be found at: https://www.bva.co.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/News,_campaigns_and_policies/Policies/Ethics_and_welfare/Analgesia%20in%20calves%20BVA%20branded.pdf

Photo: A calf in England, New Forest national park. Jim Champion. Wikipedia.

Elanco has increased the pack size of its Coliprotec vaccine, which protects piglets against the F4 and F18 strains of E. Coli that lead to post weaning diarrhoea (PWD), to treat 200 piglets.

Jack Fellows, Elanco swine sales leader, said: "With the potential zinc oxide restrictions coming into place next year, it’s crucial that vets work with their farmers to start trialling alternative PWD prevention strategies now, while the use of zinc is still permitted.

“Keeping PWD at bay going forward will require a multifaceted approach to piglet management. Gradually reducing the level of zinc oxide, while simultaneously incorporating alternative preventive techniques, will reduce the likelihood of problems arising during this transition.

“It’s far more convenient to have the vaccine in a 200 head dose, rather than the current pack size that offers 50 treatments. This will greatly cut down the time required to dilute and stabilise multiple individual packs, while helping to minimise any margin of error during administration."

Research has shown over 90% of farmers¹ would head to their vet as the first port of call when it comes to advice on treating PWD.

“It’s crucial that vets are aware of all the preventive tools and options for managing the disease as over half of farmers surveyed² also said they would treat PWD with antibiotics, which is obviously something we’re trying to steer away from as an industry, and why vaccines play such an important role going forwards.

“The Coliprotec vaccine is proven to prevent against these issues, delivering healthy pigs that reach a heavier market weight up to 7 days earlier³, while substantially reducing the in-nursery use of antibiotic treatments."

To mark the launch of the new 200 dose pack size, Elanco is offering veterinary practices the chance to buy five packs for the price of four, a total of 1000 doses, through their wholesaler.

For more information, contact Jack Fellows at jack_michael.fellows@elancoah.com or call 07771 798157.

References

1. Farmers Weekly Elanco PWD research
2. Farmers Weekly Elanco PWD research
3. Vangroenweghe, F. et al., 2018. Proceedings of the 10th ESPHM: 252.

Yorkshire-based Paragon Veterinary Referrals has announced that it has signed the former England youth team basketball star Andrea Holmes to join the team.

Andrea, who is also an EBVS Specialist in Small Animal Internal Medicine, is joining Paragon after returning from a spell in Australia. The transfer fee was not disclosed.

Andrea graduated from Bristol in 2011 and became a Specialist in 2017. She said: "I'm so pleased to be returning to my beautiful home county of Yorkshire and joining the brilliant team at Paragon.

"Internal medicine will be my key area and my main interests are infectious diseases and post graduate clinical teaching."

Andrea represented England youth at basketball between 2000 and 2002, starring in tournaments in Hungary and Italy, and her passion for sport is still high on her list of priorities.

She added: "Now I’m back home I’m looking to join a triathlon club and will attempt to master the ukulele, which I recently began playing."

Paragon managing director, Ian Monteith, said: "Andrea is the fifth high-calibre specialist addition we’ve made in the past six months which illustrates our dedication to delivering the highest level of care and treatment to our patients."