Zoetis has announced that its Equip EHV 1,4 vaccine is now available and that it has made arrangements to supply an alternative rotavirus vaccine when Equip Rotavirus goes out of stock later this month.

Equip EHV 1,4 is licensed for the active immunisation of horses to reduce clinical signs due to infection with Equine Herpesvirus 1 and 4 and to reduce abortion caused by EHV-1 infection.

Zoetis says it has already communicated directly with veterinary surgeons to inform them that Equip Rotavirus will be out of stock from the end of November 2017 until mid-2018.

During this time an imported vaccine for Rotavirus, will be available to provide an interim solution until supply is restored.

Practices wanting to buy the alternative imported Rotavirus vaccine will need to apply to the VMD for a Special Treatment Certificate (STC).

The company says it acknowledges the concern and frustration this causes its customers and wants to reassure the equine community that it is working diligently to restore the supply of Equip Rotavirus as soon as possible.

For more information, contact your Zoetis account manager or Zoetis technical team.

Leading equine veterinary surgeon Ian Wright has been setting a legal precedent this week, as the Court of Appeal ruled that his ex-wife could not expect him to continue to fund her lifestyle and that she should earn her own living.

Ian, an RCVS Specialist in Equine Surgery and a partner at the Newmarket Equine Hospital, divorced his wife Tracey in 2008 after 11 years of marriage. As part of the settlement, Mrs Wright was given a £450,000 house and Mr Wright was ordered to pay £75,000 per annum, which included £33,200 spousal maintenance.

Last year, Mr Wright, 59, went to the High Court to ask for a reduction in maintenance, arguing that it was unfair to expect him to continue to fund his ex-wife indefinitely, even after he retired at 65, when she made no effort to find a job and support herself.

The case was heard by Judge Lynn Roberts, who agreed there was no reason why Mrs Wright had not worked in the six years since her divorce and said she had been: "evasive on the subject of her own earning capacity".

Mrs Wright challenged the decision in the Court of Appeal this week, where Lord Justice Pitchford rejected her fight to have her future maintenance reinstated, saying: "There is a general expectation that, once children are in year two, mothers can begin part time work and make a financial contribution" and: "The time had come to recognize that, at the time of his retirement, the husband should not be paying spousal maintenance".

Speaking to The Times, Mei-Ling McNab, a partner at Brachers law, said: "This landmark decision provides some much needed clarity and will be a game-changer for future big-ticket divorce cases. The ruling confirms that mothers with children aged over seven should have financial responsibility to support themselves."

The PDSA has announced that it is to close its Pet Practice service (PPS) scheme, through which around 30,000 pet owners on low incomes have been able to access free veterinary treatment delivered through private practices.

Instead, eligible clients are being invited to join PDSA Pet Care, a new scheme costing £4.50 per month which entitles them to veterinary consultation, one primary vaccination course or booster each year (including a health check), a 20% discount on qualifying treatments in private practice, access to a nurse-led 24/7 triage service and preferential rates on PDSA pet insurance. 

The PDSA says that pet owners and practices registered to the current Pet Practice service have been informed directly about the changes, which are being introduced over the next 12 months, as the current service is gradually phased out.

PDSA Director of Veterinary Services, Richard Hooker, said: "Following the review it was clear that the PDSA Pet Practice model was no longer financially sustainable for the charity in its existing form. However, it was important to many practices and PDSA to identify how we can best continue to offer some help to pet owners who live outside the catchment area of our Pet Hospital network and who have a need for affordable veterinary care and advice. 

"We are grateful to all those in the profession who contributed to the development of the new scheme. It provides a more sustainable way in which to support households on low incomes across the UK. We are hopeful that practices will look to work with us to support pets and owners in their local communities by participating in the replacement scheme.

"We are mindful that any changes to our service can have an impact on some pet owners and our colleagues in the profession. This is why we have consulted on these moves and put measures in place to support those most affected."

Clients currently using the Pet Practice service who have a pet with a lifelong chronic condition will continue to receive some financial support towards the cost of their pet’s ongoing care and treatment via the PDSA Chronic Voucher scheme, which offers £25 per month towards the ongoing care of their pet for its lifetime.

The charity says it is also looking at a number of specific locations, where existing clients and their pets could supported by its Pet Hospital network when the current Pet Practice service closes.  

Richard Hooker added: "The changes to the Pet Practice service are part of a much wider review of PDSA charitable services carried out this year. We have also made changes to our Pet Hospital service: reducing the number of eligible pets that owners can register for free treatment, from three to one, and withdrawing our Pet Treatment Fund.

"These important steps ensure that our available funds are targeted as effectively as possible, achieving our charitable aims of preventing illness, educating pet owners and treating sick animals.

"As a charity we receive no Government funding and rely on the generosity of our supporters and clients to run our services, which cost more than £60 million each year to fund."

The RCVS Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee has directed that London-based veterinary nurse Paul Chaney is removed from the Register after he was found guilty of a stealing, possessing and unlawfully administering various veterinary drugs, and that he dishonestly made and deleted clinical records about his own dog. 

Mr Chaney was charged with stealing Trazadone and Metacam from the Hampstead practice he worked at, and of unlawfully possessing Trazadone and Metacam. He was also charged with unlawfully administering Butorphanol to a dog and failing to record the administration of the drug in the dogs records. He was also charged with making and deleting false entries into the clinical records of his own dog to the effect that it had been seen by a vet at the practice and that Metacam had been prescribed. The final charge was that his conduct over the false records was dishonest and misleading. 

The Committee heard that Mr Chaney’s conduct in relation to the first two charges was discovered when, in July 2018, the Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), accompanied by police officers, executed a warrant (for unrelated matters) on the property where he lived. During the course of the search, police officers found Metacam and Trazadone in Mr Chaney’s bedroom which did not seem to have a prescription and so Defra officers launched an investigation.

During the course of this investigation, a Defra investigator was also provided with a video and messages that indicated Mr Chaney had unlawfully administered Butorphanol to a Husky dog in frustration with the animal as it was being too noisy.

The Committee heard that, in November 2018, Mr Chaney accepted a police caution in relation to his possession of Trazadone and Metacam, and the unlawful administration of Butorphanol. The Committee also heard that following the police attending his property and finding the medicines, Mr Chaney went on to create false records at the practice in relation to the examination of his dog in order to justify his unlawful possession of the drugs.

The Committee found all the charges against Mr Chaney proven.

The Committee then went on to consider if the charges, taken both individually and in totality, amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional capacity. 

Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee had no doubt that administering a sedative to an animal that required prescription by a veterinary surgeon and then failing to record it in the clinical record with the resultant risk to the animal’s welfare due to lack of knowledge of the administration fell far below the expected standard.

"The Committee also considered that possession of prescription only medicines by a registered veterinary nurse, without the sanction of law, having stolen the same from a practice also fell far below the expected standard.

“The Committee also considered that tampering with the clinical record for a dog, in order to create a misleading impression and in doing so dishonestly, was conduct which fell far below the expected standard.

“Taken as a whole, the Committee considered that Mr Chaney’s conduct had fallen far below the expected standard.”

The Committee therefore found him guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional capacity in relation to all seven charges.

It next went on to consider what sanction, if any, to impose taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors.

In considering the aggravating factors, the Committee took into account that Mr Chaney’s conduct had presented a risk of injury to the animal and that much of his conduct was pre-meditated. It also considered that Mr Chaney’s conduct involved a breach of trust to both the practice where he was employed and the owner of the Husky, and it was also an abuse of position in gaining access to and stealing medication. Lastly, because the charges related to two separate incidents, there was a common thread in Mr Chaney disregarding rules on veterinary medicines.

In mitigation, the Committee considered that Mr Chaney had reflected on and gained some insight into  his behaviour, and acknowledged he had made admissions at the outset of the hearing, including apologising for and showing regret about aspects of his conduct.

However, the Committee did not believe he had addressed his understanding of the effect that this conduct had on the risk to animals, the standards of the profession or the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. In mitigation the Committee also considered a number of positive character references and his previous good character.

Judith Way said: “The Committee determined that it would not be sufficient in the circumstances of the case, to satisfy the public interest to suspend the Respondent’s registration. In its view this case involved a serious departure from identified professional standards. The disregard had been deliberate, in relation to ignoring legislation in respect of prescription-only medication and dishonesty in stealing medication.

"There was evidence of attitudinal issues in relation to that behaviour and insufficient evidence of the development of insight. The dishonesty in relation to the clinical record relating to dog O [his own dog] had been an attempt to conceal earlier dishonesty relating to the theft of the medication. In administering the Butorphanol to dog L [the Husky], Mr Chaney had been putting his own interests in quieting the dog ahead of the dog’s interests, which would have required checking with a veterinary surgeon as to appropriate steps.

"The Committee acknowledged that, by directing removal, there would likely be professional reputational damage to Mr Chaney and possible financial loss. However, in the view of the Committee the requirements of the public interest outweighed these factors.”

Accordingly, the Registrar of the RCVS was directed to remove Mr Chaney’s name from the Register of Veterinary Nurses.

Full details can be found here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/

The RCVS has updated its Code of Professional Conduct to require that before euthanasing an otherwise healthy dog, veterinary surgeons must first scan the animal for the presence of a 'rescue backup'.

The updated guidance follows a public campaign known as ‘Tuk’s Law’, which was started after a healthy dog by that name was euthanased despite its microchip being dually registered with a rehoming centre as a 'rescue backup'.

In response, the RCVS and the BVA agreed that more should be done to prevent occasions where a dog might be needlessly put to sleep, but voiced concerns that a legislative approach could undermine a vet’s clinical judgement, unfairly involve veterinary surgeons in ownership disputes or potential criminality, and leave vets unfairly exposed to financial sanctions.

In consultation with Defra, the RCVS and BVA therefore jointly agreed to strengthen the Code of Professional Conduct as follows:

Chapter 8 (para 8.9)

There may be circumstances where a request is made by a client for the destruction of a dog, where in the clinical/professional judgement of the veterinary surgeon destruction of the dog is not necessary, for instance where there are no health or welfare reasons for the dog to be euthanised.

In these circumstances, before carrying out the request for euthanasia the veterinary surgeon should scan the dog for a microchip and check the relevant database if a microchip is found. 

Chapter (paras 29.25 -29.27)

Clients may have a contract with the shelter from which they acquired the dog such that it can be returned to that shelter, and that it may be appropriate to discuss this with them prior to euthanasia. Alternatively, there may be another individual willing to take responsibility for the dog (who may be named on the microchip database), and this may also be discussed with the client.

The updated guidance supports existing best practice in terms of discussing alternatives to euthanasia with clients, and give vets flexibility where, in their professional judgment, scanning is not appropriate; this might be if scanning would itself cause a welfare problem, or where a vulnerable client might be involved.

The RCVS Standards Committee says it recognised the difficulties experienced by veterinary surgeons in dealing with the current microchip database system, but felt that introducing these provisions into the guidance was a more proportionate response than the alternative of legislation with substantial fines. 

BVA Senior Vice President Dr Daniella Dos Santos MRCVS said: “One of the most important jobs as a vet is having those difficult conversations with clients about euthanasia where we talk through all the options that are in the animal’s best interests. But where the vet doesn’t consider that euthanasia is necessary, the new guidance clearly sets out the steps we need to take. We support this constructive approach that addresses the campaigners’ concerns without undermining veterinary judgement.”

RIP Fleas, the environmental flea treatment from Genitrix, has been given a new formulation to ensure it acts more quickly in the killing of adult fleas and that it continues to kill fleas as they emerge from pupae for up to 12 months.

Now known as RIP Fleas Extra, the product is also licensed for the control of house dust mites in the environment for up to 12 months.

According to Genitrix, the reformulation makes RIP Fleas Extra the only environmental flea treatment to contain three active ingredients while complying fully with new EU Biocides regulations. It is the only such treatment to be fragranced and is also the only product to be presented in a volume which will cover 120 square metres – ie the size of an average house. RIP Fleas Extra contains:

Tetramethrin – a second generation synthetic pythrethroid and a contact insecticide with a rapid knockdown action of insect pests

Permethrin – a potent insecticide with a powerful contact action on insects but with a low toxicity to most mammals

Methoprene – a compound that mimics the insect juvenile hormone and arrests development of fleas and house dust mites in the environment.

When used synergistically, Tetramethrin and Permethrin provide a rapid knockdown and kill of fleas as they hatch from pupae. Studies have shown that this combination works four times more quickly than Permethrin alone.

Leeds-based Gary James Cassius Samuel has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee following his conviction for animal welfare offences in 2016.

The Disciplinary Committee heard that Mr Samuel had been convicted of five animal welfare offences at Leeds Magistrates' Court in January 2016. The charges related to causing unnecessary suffering to a number of animals including twelve dogs and four cats, and failing to take steps to ensure that the needs of the animals for which he was responsible were met. The animals were kept at the Armley Veterinary Practice, for which Mr Samuel was, at the time, practice principal.

Mr Samuel was sentenced to 12 weeks' imprisonment suspended for 12 months on the condition he completed 150 hours' unpaid work and paid a fine of £100. He was also ordered to pay costs of £500 and a victim surcharge of £80. He was also made subject to a disqualification order for three years.

Dr Samuel subsequently appealed against his conviction in April 2018. His appeal was dismissed in respect of five of the charges but was upheld in respect of one charge, which, as a result, did not form part of the College’s case.

Dr Samuel declined to attend the hearing in person and was not represented before the Disciplinary Committee. In considering the facts of the charges against Dr Samuel the Committee found them proven.

The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges, both individually and cumulatively, rendered Dr Samuel unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

The College’s case was that the convictions concerned animal welfare and therefore went to the heart of his practice as a vet, that Dr Samuel behaved in a manner incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon, that he failed in his core responsibility as a veterinary surgeon to protect and act in the best interests of animal welfare, and that he maintained he had no responsibility for the animals on his practice premises – an assertion referred to as ‘an extraordinary position for a veterinary surgeon to take’. 

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "ust as the judgment of the Crown Court and the Magistrates Court had found, the Committee also found that Dr Samuel must have known that the animals were in distress and were in a neglected state. The Committee was sure that Dr Samuel must have been aware of the animals notwithstanding his continued denial. The Committee concluded that Dr Samuel was unfit to practise because of the facts underlying the convictions. Dr Samuel had an overriding duty of care for the animals and to take action in relation to their health and welfare because they were living under the roof of his veterinary practice."

In considering its sanction against Dr Samuel, the Committee concluded that removal from the Register was the most appropriate option. It took into account the fact that the animals were found starving in a cellar without water, that Dr Samuel had not demonstrated insight into the serious nature of his offences, that he continued to deny responsibility and, furthermore, found no evidence that he no longer posed a risk to animals in the future. 

Ian Green added: "The Committee decided that the behaviour found proved was fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon because in this case there had been a serious departure from standards as set out in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons…. Furthermore, there had been serious harm caused to a number of animals and a risk of harm to a number of other animals."

Dr Samuel has 28 days from being informed of the Disciplinary Committee’s decision in which to make an appeal to the Privy Council.

The Committee’s full decision and findings can be found here

ITV's Tonight programme broadcast last night portrayed a veterinary profession in which overcharging is commonplace.

Researchers for the programme took three healthy animals (a cat, a dog and a rabbit) to a number of different vets, telling them that the animals were off their food. The advice they were given varied. In the case of the rabbit from no treatment necessary, to dental work under general anaesthetic.

TV vet Marc Abraham then looked at each animal and told viewers that the correct advice in each case would have been the least expensive.

The programme also highlighted the substantial savings that pet owners can make by buying drugs online, and questioned whether the penalty meted out to a vet that had committed malpractice was sufficient (the vet had been struck off for 14 months, where presenter Jonathan Maitland argued it should have been for life).

Veterinary business consultant Mark Moran said: "So often, vets rely to a large degree on what owners are telling them, and the degree to which they insist the animal is ill, or off its food, will affect the advice and treatment given. Marc Abraham had the luxury of being presented three animals that he knew to be perfectly fit and well."

However he agreed wholeheartedly with the response from RCVS President Jill Nute this morning, that the thing both vets and pet owners need to learn from the programme is "the importance of communicating with each other".

Mark said: "It's a question of managing people's expectations. There'll always be a variance in the advice being given, but being up-front and open will help mitigate the risk of being accused of overcharging".

Click here to watch the programme.
Click here to read the reactions to Marc Abrahams' blog

Two more companies have now joined Pawsquad in announcing the launch of online veterinary consultations for pet owners.

First out of the stalls was Vet AI, a company founded in 2017 by Paul Hallett and Robert Dawson MRCVS, which announced last November that it had filed patents for artificial intelligence technology to deploy in giving online consultations through its newly-launched app: Joii.

More recently, a Swedish company called FirstVet has announced the UK launch of a consultation service it has offered in the Scandinavian countries for a few years now. 

All three companies charge £20 for an online consultation with a veterinary surgeon.

All of these services are currently limited in what they can offer pet owners here in the UK, because veterinary surgeons are not allowed to prescribe medicines without having physically examined the patient. FirstVet says that in Sweden, similar rules apply, except that under current guidance, antiparasiticides and feline contraceptives can be prescribed remotely.

This means that for the moment at least, online consultations in the UK can only advise pet owners whether they do or do not need to see a veterinary surgeon in person, or recommend OTC treatments, such as flea control. 

Personally, I'm not convinced that it's worth £20 for the privilege of asking a vet whether or not my pet needs to see a vet, although to be fair, Joii includes a free symptom checker to differentiate between those cases that need directing to see a vet in person, and those that would benefit from the online consultation. Also, if a case needs to be referred to another vet after a consultation, Joii refunds the consultation fee. 

Nevertheless I think I'd just ring my normal practice and ask. But that's just me. Perhaps others will see a value in the immediacy of the online service, or that it entails less commitment.

FirstVet does, however, have another string to its bow. It has been busy forging relationships with insurers to fund the majority of its consultations. The insured owner gets a free consultation subsidised by the insurance company; if the animal requires treatment, the owner is referred to their normal vet, unless they don't have one, in which case the referral is to the nearest practice which can help.

That seems to make all sorts of sense for insured clients. It really adds value to the insurance policy, to be told you'll have access to free, immediate online veterinary consultations. Almost certainly it will mean pet owners seeking veterinary advice sooner than they might otherwise have done. For the insurer, that in turn might mean earlier diagnosis and therefore cheaper treatment. One assumes it also translates into cost-savings for the insurer by dealing with certain queries without needing a trip to the practice.

Still, the really big prize here for remote consultation companies will come if and when the regulations allow remote prescribing. Not necessarily because they'll make a mark up on the sale of prescription drugs, though of course they will, but because suddenly the proposition to the pet owner is that the consultation can, in many cases, offer more convenient and cheaper treatment than if they had to visit a practice in person.

The problem with that, however, is that the £20 remote consultation may carry a greater risk of misdiagnosis. It may mean that the preventative approach to veterinary medicine goes out of the window, at least until remote monitoring technology catches up. There is also a risk that these new limited service providers will take the bread and butter consultations from bricks and mortar practices, consultations that may have been to some degree subsidising care for other patients. These are all the sorts of things that were hotly debated at RCVS Council last November. 

Nevertheless, Vet AI is unashamedly pushing for remote prescribing rules to be relaxed. Founder Robert Dawson MRCVS said: "I think that the ease and reduced cost of access to veterinary advice and medicines will have a positive impact on animal welfare. I also think that it will free up vets' time to see the cases they really need to see.

"But in truth, what I think is not the point. The whole debate at the moment is characterised by members of the profession saying what they think will happen as a result of remote prescribing. What we actually need is some evidence. I'd really like to see some movement from the College on this, for a limited number of treatments like parasiticides, before the end of the year."

As Robert says, the debate is characterised by a lack of evidence. But there is, of course, another way that online consultations could really add value to the client/vet relationship without any of these problems, and that is as an adjunct to the service offered by bricks and mortar practices. 

Bricks and mortar practices can already prescribe medicines to animals under their care without physically seeing the animal on every occasion. Furthermore, there are a number of situations where a remote consultation could save both the practice and pet owner time and money. For example, post-operative follow-up consultations.

However, none of the existing providers I've spoken to plan to offer a 'white label' solution. So, if I owned a practice, I tell you what, I'd be looking into online consultation software right now. It is already possible, of course, to offer online consultations via things like Skype. But better still would be a system that allowed clients to schedule an online appointment with their normal vet, perhaps slotted in between their face-to-face consultations. As opposed to the existing online providers, you wouldn't need to refund money if a physical consultation was needed, just - perhaps - set it against the later consultation. You could also offer annual plans to include a certain number of online consultations. You could have online triage consultations carried out by veterinary nurses. 

There are lots of possibilities. But if you're a bricks and mortar practice, one thing is for sure, the time to look into all this is now. You could do worse than to start here: https://www.vetsurgeon.org/news/b/veterinary-news/archive/2019/01/15/now-all-vet-practices-can-offer-remote-consultations.aspx

A new peer-reviewed paper which compares veterinary drugs with homeopathy should arguably be required reading for all veterinary professionals, not just because it provides a bulletproof case against a form of pseudo-science quack medicine, but because it offers a valuable reminder of the errors in human thinking which all veterinary surgeons need to guard against when assessing the effect of any treatment, not to mention a fascinating history lesson.

Part 1 of "Comparison of veterinary drugs and homeopathy", by Peter Lees, Professor Emeritis in Pharmacology at the RVC, Ludovic Pelligand, Senior Lecturer in Veterinary Clinical Pharmacology and Anaesthesia at the RVC, Martin Whiting, Lecturer in Veterinary Ethics and Law at the RVC, Danny Chambers, an RCVS Councillor currently working at Langford Veterinary Services, University of Bristol, Pierre-Louis Toutain, a European Veterinary Specialist in Pharmacology and Toxicology, and Martin Whitehead Co- and Clinical Director at the Chipping Norton Veterinary Hospital, is published in last week's (August 12th) edition of the Veterinary Record.

The paper considers some of the reasons why medicinal products work and the errors in human thinking which make them seem to work when actually they don't. It also takes a look at the history of veterinary and homeopathic medicine, which helps explain how something as scientifically implausible as homeopathy ever gained traction in the first place.

VetSurgeon.org Editor Arlo Guthrie said: "As the parent of a child with a severe, chronic and highly variable disease, I’ve had prolonged first-hand experience of just how easy it is to fall prey to the sorts of errors in human thinking that can make you believe a treatment is working when in reality it is not. It’s something I continue to have to fight against, despite being well-educated about things like cognitive bias and regression to the mean.

"I believe all veterinary surgeons, and doctors for that matter should constantly remind themselves of these errors and importantly keep them front of mind when advising clients. Not just so they can explain cogently why quack medicine offers nothing more than false hope and a thinner wallet, and why randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials are so important, but also to improve their own assessment of a patient’s response to treatment."

The paper can also be downloaded here: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/181/7/170 

Part 2 of the paper is due to be published in next week’s edition of the Veterinary Record.

STOP PRESS 
VetSurgeon.org has funded the Open Access publication of this paper, so both parts are now available for all to read here:
Part 1: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/181/7/170
Part 2: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/181/8/198 

Photo: The father of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann, Wikipedia

Ceva Animal Health has announced that it is to launch Prid Delta with grip tail; a new and updated version of its progesterone-releasing intravaginal device for use in cattle.

The company says that Prid Delta with grip tail retains the unique properties of Prid Delta, but now comes with a new and easy-to-use grip tail which makes it easier to extract from the cow.

In addition, research and development has enabled Ceva to produce a smaller applicator with a bevelled tip, making it more suitable for use in heifers. Lastly, Ceva says the applicator is more robust, leading to a reliable application and a better user experience.

Carol Atkinson from Ceva said: "Prid Delta with grip tail combines the well-liked features that already existed in Prid, higher progesterone release and the comfort that comes from the triangular shape, with a new and improved tail for easy removal of the product."

According to the company, Prid Delta with grip tail contains 12% more progesterone than a T-shaped device and its larger surface area (29% greater) results in higher progesterone levels in the cow. 

Prid Delta with grip tail will be available in wholesalers from 1^st August 2017.

In addition, there will be a webinar: Reproductive Management Strategies for High-Producing Dairy Herds, presented by Dr Paul M. Fricke, Ph.D. Professor of Dairy Science and Extension Specialist in Dairy Cattle Reproduction Department of Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin on 27th July at 1:00pm. The webinar, which is being hosted by www.thewebinarvet.com, will cover resynchronisation strategies and synchronisation strategies in heifers.

Ceva is also launching a new app to help veterinary surgeons and farmers improve farm performance and sustainability through better fertility management.

The app will be made available to Prid users only. Further information is available from your Ceva territory manager. If you are a Prid user and would like access to the new app you can also email Ceva: reprodaction-group@ceva.com.

Vet Futures, the joint initiative by the RCVS and the BVA to help the profession prepare for and shape its own future, has published a guest blog in which an academic argues that the profession needs to introduce safeguards to prevent inappropriate profit-seeking behaviour.

David Main is Professor of Animal Welfare at the School of Veterinary Sciences at the University of Bristol, with research interests in welfare assessment, animal welfare education and intervention strategies to improve welfare.

In his blog (www.vetfutures.org.uk/discuss), Professor Main says he believes the vast majority of individual veterinary surgeons and practices are not motivated by money and do have animals’ best interests at heart, but that the differences between the business structure of veterinary and medical practitioners in the UK means the profession is always at risk of standing accused of excessive profiteering. 

He said: “Since we still live in the age of the media scare story, it would seem prudent for the profession to embed some anti-profit seeking safeguards in our regulatory controls before, rather than after, a problem is highlighted.” One suggestion he makes is for the prohibition of turnover-based incentive schemes in favour of incentives based on health outcomes. 

He believes that such safeguards, which he says could be incorporated into the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme, would be a “healthy demonstration” that the profession has animal welfare rather than profit as its main priority.

Professor Main also argues that the profession urgently needs to deliver on society’s expectation of vets as animal welfare experts: “Veterinarians could perhaps... do more at an individual level to act as animal welfare advocates. It is easy to inform clients on the technical rationale for a specific husbandry change but then walk away knowing full well the client will not action the advice. In the medical profession, advanced communication techniques are becoming more widely accepted to promote positive change within their patients. Perhaps we should be more explicit in teaching our veterinary students influencing skills.”

In response to David’s blog, this month’s Vet Futures poll asks visitors ‘Do vets always act as animal welfare advocates?’

The previous month’s poll, which was based on an article co-written by Erwin Hohn and Adi Nell from MediVet, asked to what extent vets would be willing to work collaboratively with others if it would benefit all. Of the 50 people who answered the poll, 60% said they would be completely willing to work with others, 32% a lot and 8% to some degree – no one said they would be unwilling to work with others.