I have just received figures which show that in 2009, of the 95637 holdings with sheep & goats, EU officials checked  3068. (3.2%)

They found 1091 non compliances of individual sheep and 43 goats out of a total of 1864319 animals checked ( 0.06%)

This was in 2009 before EID and so thanks to Hilary Benn (now thankfully gone) we can now expect dramtic improvements in the level of non-compliance. (sic)

Mind you they did find 85044 document discrepancies in the 1864319 animals checked (4.56%) and 67359. (3.6%) Failure to notify movements. (note that this is not failure to record movements, it is failure to notify movements.)

Penalties were imposed on 74 of the 3068 Holdings visited.

It is good to know where the Hundreds of millions (net) given by the UK to the EU is being spent isn't it?

Peter, Do you have a breakdown by country - just so that we can say we always knew that X country did not follow the rules. Seems like they were also targetting the little man with an average of just under 20 animals per farm visited.

old mcdonald:

Seems like they were also targetting the little man with an average of just under 20 animals per farm visited.

A friend who works for the Welsh Assembly agri dept. (who shall remain nameless) let slip that sometimes they had targets to inspect so many holdings, so they would go for smaller units. At other times they had targets of x amount of sheep/cattle to inspect thus causing their computer to mysteriously throw up larger unit's holding numbers.

Hmmm, tricks of the trade ?

Oldmac, the number of sheep checked means individual tags inspected. They usually inspect a certain number, if everything is OK they do not individually check all the rest in the flock. If discrepancies are found they then individually check all sheep on the holding. At our last inspection all tags in 60 sheep were inspected and recorded and then several thousand sheep were inspected and counted from a distance. I doubt very much that smaller flocks are targeted, I believe it is done on perceived risk and the computer throws out the holding numbers. Average flock numbers inspected would be in the hundreds not the twentys.

w'n'w/farmerbill, A big difference in your responses!! I tend to accep w'n'w's answer.

And, farmer bill, how could "several thousand" sheep be accurately counted "at a distance"? You must have a pretty big place to be running "several thousand" too. If so, I would suggest that 60 is not a statiscally valid number of tags to inspect, so, accepting your post as being accurate, the whole exercise was basically a waste of time and taxpayers' money.

We do not have that problem in Portugal, because once a year a vet (appointed and approved by the equivalent of DEFRA) makes an appointment, inspects all ear tags, takes a blood sample, and worms every sheep and goat on the premises. Also applying tags to proposed and untagged breeding animals. As a consequence every tag is verified every year - or replaced, and since it is a rare occurrence, it is usually possible to identify the animal with lost tags (double tagging, both ears) back to its orginal tag. This winter will see the introduction of electronic tagging.

old mcdonald:

w'n'w/farmerbill, A big difference in your responses!! I tend to accep w'n'w's answer

Old mac, I believe that both of our responses are correct. I have had a visit similar to which farmerbill relates, where a sample number of tags were checked and in our case 2500 were counted and inspected at a distance. The inspector was quite pleased with himself when he arrived at a total that was within 20 of what the records showed.

Old Mac, by inference you are calling me a liar. I have always tried to keep my posts accurate and resist temptations to exaggerate. I also read a great deal of posts on here but only post sparingly, keeping my posts to actual experience.  By reading the tags in 60 sheep and finding everything text book correct, the risk assessment meant there was no need to individually check all the rest.  The "rough" count was done and counted all sheep including lambs to verify my lambing and movement records, which were also inspected, both books and individual movement licences and further checked with trading standard records.  A very thorough inspection which also included my ear tag records and inspection of my supply of ear tags.  At the end of the day the inspector could see that everything in her remit to inspect was satisfactory and I was obeying legal requirements. If you thing this was a complete waste of taxpayers money so be it.    I may think it a waste of taxpayers money for highly qualified vets to worm sheep and wonder why a sheep farmer worth their salt can not worm their own ruddy sheep and indeed tag them. I think it would cost tax payers in the UK a huge amount of money if we had nannies looking after our sheep paid for by the government.

farmerbill, I have obviously offended you, and for that I apologise. I certainly was not suggesting that you were not telling the truth, and I did not mean to infer it. When I said that I tended to accept Welshnwilling's answer, it was from the point of view of the "targets" he referred to - ten small units being easier to notch up the required ten farms, rather than ten big ones. And I did say I accepted your post as being accurate.

I still think it a waste of time and effort to attempt to count a big mob of sheep at a distance - in my younger days I had a sheep and cattle station in Australia so have farmed bigger numbers too, but only about 1500 sheep.

I also totally agree with you about the waste of money of a "nannie" vet worming and ear-tagging my animals, but I do not make the rules. I worm them myself in between his annual visits, but it is compulsory for him to do so, and I fit my worming programme around his visit - except it can be anytime between mid-October and Christmas week, with 24 hrs notice. I originally had quite a problem convincing him that I had wormed sheep before, I had brought a drenching gun to Portugal with me, and that I did not need him to do the job for me, but only wanted the drench.

Again, I assure you that I was not suggesting you were lying.