Cheaper than treating flock
Cheaper than treating flock
JUSTIFYING costs of bio-security to avoid sheep diseases is easy, when comparing the costs of isolating and treating replacements with treating the whole flock for disease.
Cheshire-based independent sheep vet Chris Lewis told congress delegates that before foot-and-mouth the sheep industry had little concept of bio-security.
"The spread of F&M illustrated the hazards of trading sheep through markets. Not only were most sheep mouthed, spreading virus far and wide, but they were mixed and sold through other markets within days. Some sheep changed hands three times in a week, just to gain £1 in value."
But if the ultimate bio-security of F&M, necessary for the conditions at the time was to become the norm the industry would be paralysed.
But better bio-security will pay on sheep units. "As a consequence, flock health and perhaps profitability will improve. Stopping just one disease coming in will pay for the bio-security," he said.
This should include isolating incoming sheep for a minimum of 21 days. Assume these sheep have scab and lice and treat them during this period, advises Mr Lewis.
He believes organophosphate plunge dips offer a good control method for both scab and lice. But care is needed with the concentrate, which poses a danger to dippers.
Vaccinating against foot-rot should be considered, giving stock four months protection. "A foot-rot free flock is much less work."
A wormer is also needed to ensure replacements are free of resistant worms. And, a toxoplasmosis vaccine can also cut labour requirement for dealing with weak lambs at lambing time, he added.
"The cost of treating all these conditions in replacements is less than treating the whole flock for any one disease." *