EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY

Transcription

1 Ref. Ares(2017) /01/2017 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY Health and food audits and analysis DG(SANTE) MR FINAL REPORT OF AN AUDIT CARRIED OUT IN THE UNITED KINGDOM FROM 19 SEPTEMBER 2016 TO 23 SEPTEMBER 2016 IN ORDER TO EVALUATE THE MEASURES TO ENSURE THE WELFARE OF CATTLE ON DAIRY FARMS In response to information provided by the competent authority, any factual error noted in the draft report has been corrected; any clarification appears in the form of a footnote.

2 Executive Summary The report describes the outcome of an audit in the United Kingdom from 19 to 23 September 2016 as part of the published DG Health and Food Safety audit programme. The objective of the audit was to evaluate the suitability and effectiveness of the measures in place to ensure that cattle on dairy farms are not caused any unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. The report concludes that the measures in place generally ensure that cattle on dairy farms are not caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. The competent authority and all other actors are involved in managing animal welfare on dairy farms including the occurrence of mastitis, lameness, and reproductive and metabolic diseases. The development of actions to manage and improve animal welfare is mainly being led by the farming community and dairy processors and retailers, including quality assurance schemes. Although approximately 8% of dairy farms (in England) are not covered by the system of regular official checks, there is, however, an additional almost equal number of ad-hoc checks that capture all dairy farms. In addition, official welfare controls are also supported by significant pressure from the quality assurance schemes imposed by retailers. The report makes no recommendations to the authorities of the United Kingdom. I

3 Table of Contents 1 Introduction Objectives and scope Legal Basis Background Findings and Conclusions Main actors involved with the welfare of dairy cattle Assurances from competent authority activities on farmers' compliance with legal requirements Indicators of animal welfare Overall Conclusions Closing Meeting...13 II

4 ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS REPORT Abbreviation PLI SCI AHDB APHA BCVA CA CHAWG Defra EU SCC UK Explanation Profitable Lifetime Index Spring Calving Index Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Animal and Plant Health Agency British Cattle Veterinary Association Competent Authority Cattle Health and Welfare Group Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs European Union Somatic Cell Count United Kingdom III

5 1 INTRODUCTION This audit took place in the United Kingdom (UK) from 19 to 23 September 2016 as part of the planned audit programme of DG Health and Food Safety. An opening meeting was held with the UK competent authorities on 19 September At this meeting, the objectives of, and itinerary for, the audit were confirmed by the audit team and additional information required for the satisfactory completion of the audit was requested. The audit team comprised two auditors from DG Health and Food Safety and a national expert from Italy and was accompanied throughout the audit by a competent authority (CA) representative from the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) 2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE The objective of the audit was to evaluate the suitability and effectiveness of the measures in place to ensure that cattle on dairy farms are not caused any unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. In particular the audit tried to identify what factors influence the steps 1 taken by dairy farmers to minimise the occurrence of mastitis, lameness, injuries, reproductive and metabolic diseases and disease in calves. For this purpose information concerning all of the UK was gathered but the evaluation of official controls (see Section 5.2) was restricted to England only. The scope of the audit included: Welfare conditions of dairy cows and calves; calves are included in relation to the prevention and treatment of disease and any mutilations which are carried out. For dairy cows the audit focused on the factors which contribute to prevention and treatment of mastitis, lameness, reproductive and metabolic diseases. These factors included buildings, equipment, land, biosecurity, health management, etc.; and National policy on animal welfare on dairy farms; National legislation and measures such as cross-compliance; Official controls on dairy farms and their outcomes; Other measurements of animal welfare outcomes (e.g. lameness scores, body condition scores, somatic cell count, longevity); Dissemination of information on husbandry systems and information on the impact of change from applied research, economic studies; The ability, knowledge and competence of dairy farmers, and measures that influence their husbandry practices; 1 In order to interpret that owners or keepers of cattle on dairy farms take all reasonable steps, specific articles from Council of Europe recommendation concerning cattle are included in the criteria for the audit. 1

6 Mechanisms for supporting change to husbandry systems (e.g. funding, communication, training and education); o Involvement of the dairy industry in the above issues (e.g. dairy processors, milk purchasers or farmer co-operatives); o Market led initiatives which promote animal welfare (voluntary schemes); o Involvement of advisory services such as farm advisory or private veterinary groups; o The audit concentrated on the period 2013 September In addition to the scope, information was collected on the prudent use of antimicrobials in dairy farms (see Annex II). The main legal requirements are included in: Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes; Commission Decision 2006/778/EC concerning minimum requirements for the collection of information during the inspections of production sites on which certain animals are kept for farming purposes; Council of Europe recommendation concerning cattle of 21 October ("the Recommendation"), and in particular those provisions which relate to: a. Inspection of animals for good health and where there are signs of ill health, the taking of steps to establish the cause and take remedial actions (Article 3 and 4 of the Recommendation); b. Maintenance of good conditions of hygiene, limiting the risk of disease or traumatic injuries, and provision of accommodation which allows animals room to lie down, to rest and to rise (Article 6 and Appendix B of the Recommendation); c. Seeking advice on welfare aspects when new buildings are to be constructed or existing buildings modified (Article 7 of the Recommendation); d. Following of certain procedures when mutilations are carried out (Article 17 of the Recommendation). Council Directive 2008/119/EC lays down minimum standards for the protection of calves. However, the scope of the DG Health and Food Safety audit will be limited to the provisions laid down in paragraphs 6 and 15 of Annex I to the Directive regarding: a. inspections of calves; b. treatment where a calf appears to be ill or injured; and c. obtaining veterinary advice for any calf who is not responding to the stockkeeper s care. d. providing bovine colostrum to each calf as soon as possible after it is born

7 Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules. In pursuit of the objectives, the following meetings were held: Meetings with Competent Authorities Competent authority Site visits No. Comments Central 2 Opening and closing meeting Other 2 Meetings with representatives from the APHA Dairy farms 2 Visits to two dairy farms in South West England Meetings with representatives of bodies contributing to the welfare of cattle in dairy farms 2 Meetings with representatives from: the Cattle Health and Welfare Group (CHAWG); the National Farmers Union; the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB); the British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA); Red Tractor; the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. 3 LEGAL BASIS The audit was carried out under the general provisions of European Union (EU) legislation and, in particular Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules. EU legal acts quoted in this report are provided in Annex I and refer, where applicable, to the last amended version. 4 BACKGROUND EU animal welfare rules for dairy cattle stem from Council Directive 98/58/EC which provides general requirements for animal welfare in all farmed species. These rules are based on the 1978 European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes drawn up within the Council of Europe 3. Pursuant to Article 9 of the European Convention, in 1988 the Council of Europe adopted a Recommendation Concerning Cattle which has subsequently become part of EU law. Furthermore since 2003, the reform of the Common Agriculture Policy has introduced the concept of cross-compliance. In this framework direct payments to farmers will be granted only if farmers comply with certain animal welfare rules 4. 3 The EU approved this Convention by Decision 78/923/EEC (OJ L 323, , p. 12) 3

8 In April years after they were established the EU removed quotas for milk production. The EU milk quota system was set up in 1985 after subsidised European milk production persistently outstripped consumer demand. Under the milk quota system Member States were penalised if they produced too much milk. Different studies indicated that the ending of the milk quota system would lead to an increased concentration of milk production in Northern European countries. The abolition of quotas was also expected to trigger further changes in the sector, including the attitude of farmers to size of farms, land intensification and/or size of herds. One of the aims of the abolition of quotas is to increase efficiency through economies of scale in milk production. This could, amongst other possibilities, be through structural changes such as increased herd size, intensified land use and the entrance of new producers into the sector. This could have either a negative or positive impact on the implementation of animal welfare rules depending on how this transition is managed. On this last point, DG Health and Food Safety planned for its 2016 programme, a series of audits aimed at identifying activities that are suitable and effective in ensuring that cattle on dairy farms are not caused any unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. In this regard competent authorities were invited to identify other parties, both public and private, whose activities contribute to the audit objective, for inclusion in these audits. This series also attempts to identify any good or best practices for prevention, treatment and control of diseases. The audits will also be used to collect information on the prudent use of antibiotics particularly in relation to the relevant points from the guidelines for the prudent use of antimicrobials in veterinary medicine (2015/C 299/04) 5. The United Kingdom is the third biggest EU milk producer by volume and had 1,918,000 dairy cows in December The number of dairy farms has decreased in recent years but average herd size has increased. The distribution of dairy farms in the UK is mainly along the west of the country since it is a wet area i.e. grass grows all year round. The average annual milk yield for dairy cows is approximately 7,897 litres. The UK is 73% self-sufficient. 50% of total milk production is sold as fresh milk whereas the remaining 50% is used for the production of cheese (12.5%) and other dairy products. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) informed the audit team that a research survey conducted in 2012 reported that 31% of dairy farms maintain a traditional grazing system of winter housing and grazing from spring through to autumn. A further 55% of farms, in addition to grazing during the summer months provide some feeding indoors during part of the day during the grazing season. A system of housing dairy cows for 24 hours per day is implemented by 8% of farms, whereas 1% of farms do not house their cows at any time of the year 6. More recent data from a 2015 survey conducted across Great 4 Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ L 270, , p. 1). 5 Commission guidelines for the prudent use of antimicrobials in veterinary medicine (OJ C 299, , p.7) 4

9 Britain by the Dairy division of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) indicated that 83% of farms graze their milking cows for between 21 and 52 weeks with 5% of farms providing no grazing throughout the year for their milking cows. 5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1 MAIN ACTORS INVOLVED WITH THE WELFARE OF DAIRY CATTLE 1. The organisation of Defra/APHA, based on information supplied by the UK, is described in detail in the Country Profile for the UK, including the control systems for animal welfare at farm and is accessible at: 2. The CA's strategy on animal welfare in dairy farms is included in the umbrella of general animal welfare. A consultancy research carried out before 2008 had indicated mastitis and lameness as the animal-based criteria to use to evaluate animal welfare. 3. The Cattle Health and Welfare Group (CHAWG) is an independent group made up of key industry organisations and farming representative bodies who have an interest or responsibility for cattle health and welfare. Key organisations include the CAs, AHDB, the National Farmers' Union, non-governmental organisations, Quality Assurance Schemes, and private veterinarians (including the BCVA). It produced a strategy report for the welfare of cattle in dairy herds in 2010 that led various members of this group to lead work on different areas for animal welfare. The most recent update to this dairy sector strategy was in 2015 and is reflected in the table below: Activity Improving the management and prevention of mastitis Improving the management and prevention of lameness Cow nutrition Improving welfare through breeding programmes Improving the survival rate of calves and heifer rearing Lead AHDB, Dairy division BCVA Red Tractor AHDB, Dairy division Holstein UK 4. Defra informed the audit team that it has funded an extensive range of research into dairy cow welfare over the last 15 years. Of particular significance: Behavioural studies relating to the welfare of intensively managed dairy cows ; The welfare of dairy cows in organic milk production systems ; Identifying and characterising robust dairy cows ( Robust Cow ) ; 6 March et al., Current trends in British dairy management regimens. J. Dairy Sci. 97:

10 Control of digital dermatitis in cattle: understanding transmission and spread of disease ; Alleviation of lameness in heifers: development of a Lameness Control Plan ; A study to investigate the management and welfare of continuously housed dairy cows ; The influence of Social Networks on Welfare and Productivity in Dairy Cattle ; Ante- and Post-mortem inspection indicators of ruminant welfare The AHDB is a levy funded not-for profit organisation. Its Dairy division: works on behalf of British dairy farmers; provides a wide range of best practice guidance and information factsheets and films for farmers and their staff. Namely on: Welfare assessment including scoring sheets in relation to mobility, body condition scoring, hair loss, swellings and cleanliness; Correct vaccination technique; Calf management and pre-weaning nutrition. has developed and manages two British breeding indexes for dairy cattle: the Profitable Lifetime Index ( PLI), that was last revised in 2014 to reduce the weighting of milk production traits from 45.2% to 32.2% and placed greater importance on somatic cell count (SCC), legs, udder, fertility, lifespan, calving ease and maintenance; the Spring Calving Index ( SCI), developed in 2014 to target spring blockcalving herds. This breeding index has been constructed with the knowledge that cows in these herds are producing from grass and therefore inputs are restricted by the extent of the grazing platform. Compared to the PLI, the SCI has a lower weighting on milk production (29.3%) and greater importance placed on fertility, Somatic Cell Count (SCC), maintenance and calving ease. carries out research and development on identified knowledge gaps to improve farm management, including on animal welfare. These initiatives include: The Mastitis Control Plan is a structured and bespoke plan for farmers to tackle mastitis on their farm with a focus on prevention. It facilitates two-day training courses of veterinarians and consultants as mastitis control plan deliverers. The BCVA's Advanced Practitioner Course on Bovine Mastitis counts towards one day of training for delivery for delivery of the AHDB Dairy Mastitis Control Plan. The plan aims to reduce cows affected with clinical mastitis by 22%; 6

11 The Healthy feet programme is a plan for lameness reduction on farm. It provides training to veterinarians and licenced hoof trimmers and provides farmers with a toolbox of management resources (including a lesion recognition card and guidance for proper cow tracks) to assist with reducing lameness through prevention, early detection and effective treatment; The Calf to Calving initiative promotes best practice in calf management across Great Britain and is composed of a series of meetings over a two-year period delivered on over 20 host farms. The target of this initiative is for farmers to double the birth weight of calves by weaning, to reach 50% of the mature body weight at 10 months, 55-60% of mature body weight by first service and 90% of mature body weight by calving. Key topics include optimal colostrum management, improving calf survival, improving calf pre- and post-weaning nutrition leading to improved growth rates and healthy calves; The Dairy Webinar Programme monthly webinars held on a variety of topics allowing farmers and participants from the industry to listen to experts from across the world. 6. AssureWel 7 is a 5-year project aimed at developing a practical system of welfare outcome assessment for the major farm animal species, which can be used in farm assurance schemes. It contains tools to improve dairy cow welfare, and to manage resources aimed at improving welfare of dairy cows % of dairy farmers are members of the Red Tractor Assurance scheme as this is a requirement of most retailers. The Red Tractor Assurance scheme: audits all its members once every 18 months; included the AssureWel protocols in October 2013 to be used by its inspectors; requires a private veterinary practitioner to carry out an annual visit on farm and put in place a herd health plan together with the farmer. Most farmers met by the audit team indicated that they viewed their private veterinary practitioner as a good source of information and support to manage the health and welfare of their dairy herd; is the basis for more specific quality standards established by retailers and dairy processors. The majority of farmers met by the audit team indicated that the management of animal welfare on farm was in part influenced by requirements of quality assurance schemes. 7 In their comments to the draft report, the CA indicated that AssureWel is an initiative of Bristol University, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Soil Association. 7

12 5.2 ASSURANCES FROM COMPETENT AUTHORITY ACTIVITIES ON FARMERS' COMPLIANCE WITH LEGAL REQUIREMENTS Legal requirements Directive 98/58/EC. Commission Decision 2006/778/EC. Articles 3, 4, 6, 7, 17 and Appendix B of the Council of Europe Recommendation Concerning Cattle. Paragraphs 6 and 15 of Annex I to Directive 2008/119/EC. Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. Findings 8. National legislation on animal welfare is found under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (England and Wales), The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) These Acts all contain similar general provisions which apply to all cattle (including calves) and make it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any animal. They also contain a duty of care to animals; this means that anyone responsible for an animal must take reasonable steps to make sure the animal s needs are met. 9. The above general requirements are supplemented by more detailed Regulations for farmed livestock. In terms of cattle and calves, these Regulations implement Directives. 98/58/EC and 2008/119/EC. In addition: A series of species specific welfare codes (The Code of Recommendations for Livestock: Cattle / Code of Practice for Dairy Cattle) reflect the Recommendation, providing additional guidance to keepers and farmers, and support APHA animal welfare checks. The APHA informed the audit team that although failure to follow a code's recommendations by itself will not require enforcement actions it can be used as evidence in court to support a welfare prosecution. UK legislation specifies which procedures are permitted in cattle (namely for identification, reproduction and management) and, in line with Paragraph 19 of the Annex to Directive 98/58/EC, does not allow tail docking; 10. Official animal welfare checks on dairy farms are performed by APHA inspectors. The checks are carried out on a regular basis: as part of the annual 1% minimum official checks required under cross-compliance rules (1% for all relevant species combined not just dairy cattle) for farmers that receive the single farm payment (Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003); Or ad-hoc: in response to complaints concerning animal welfare; and 8

13 in reaction to notifications arising from other official controls, such as slaughterhouse or market checks, indicating possible animal welfare problems at farm. 11. This means that farmers that do not receive the single farm payment (8% of the dairy farms in England) are outside of the 1% regular checks and will be subjected to official animal welfare checks only if they are the object of a complaint or of a slaughterhouse or market notification Data on official checks provided by the APHA to the audit team showed that the number of dairy farm welfare checks performed ad-hoc (i.e. in reaction to a complaint, other notification or during a regular tuberculosis control) is as much as, or more than, the number of dairy farm checks performed on a regular basis (i.e. for cross-compliance). The table below illustrates this data as well as the most frequently detected noncompliances in the last three years. UK Total number of dairy farm inspections Most frequent non-compliances Cross-compliance Ad-hoc Disease/animal care Record keeping Feed, water & other substances Buildings and accommodation Within the annual 1% of farms selected for official checks, 20% are randomly chosen and 80% are selected according to APHAs' risk assessment system. This risk assessment system is currently being reviewed but nevertheless it already includes the relevant points required by Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 882/ As required by Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, documented procedures are available for planning and carrying out official controls on animal welfare in dairy farms. 15. Instructions and guidance for official controls include the relevant points from Directives 98/58/EC, 2008/119/EC, and the Recommendation. They also refer to animal-based indicators that should be taken into account (health, body condition of the animal, lameness) and include indications of reference guidance that can be used to 8 In their comments to the draft report, the CA indicated that markets are used by the majority of farmers and are an important on-farm indicator. Markets are attended routinely by the Local Authorities and on a risk base or in response to complaints by APHA. 9

14 assess herd lameness and body condition, supporting effective and consistent official controls, as required by Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 882/ The audit team visited two dairy farms. APHA officers explained to the audit team what information they gathered about a farm when performing cross-compliance checks and in relation to complaints, prior to a welfare inspection and how they performed these controls: For cross-compliance checks the advance information collected would vary between inspectors but mostly it would focus on the previous compliance history of that farm, and the total area used by the farmer (sheds, adjoining pasture and other nearby pastures or facilities used by the farmer) and in which animals could be found. Other relevant information (mortality, movements, etc.) can be gathered either in advance or directly on site; In the case of complaints the advance information, in addition to the previous compliance history of the farm, could include contacting the private veterinary practitioner of the farm; The official control activities on farm include verification of treatment and mortality records, amongst others, and checks on the facilities. Animal based indicators, particularly body condition and lameness, are also taken into account to confirm the welfare of the animals. 17. Both farms visited had previously been checked by the APHA after being the object of animal welfare complaints, as well as ad-hoc checks. One of the farms in fact did not receive the single farm payment so was part of the 8% of dairy farms in England not covered by the regular APHA welfare checks. Both farms had adult cattle and a few calves. The adult animals were kept at pasture in summer and in loose housing during winter. The audit team did not detect any significant non-compliance during the visits. The results of the APHA investigations of the complaints were as follows: for one of the farms it concluded that the complaint (some very thin animals and some lame) was not justified. This was because after evaluating the "thin animals" using the body scoring instructions they were found to not be too thin for their breed and the lactation stage. The lame animals had been seen by the private practitioner and were being treated. In addition, the farm was found to be in compliance for all other animal welfare aspects; for the other farm it concluded that the complaint (calves kept in individual veal crates) was in some way justified. The calves were placed in individual hutches that did not allow them to have direct visual and tactile contact and some were older than the maximum allowed age of eight weeks, both not in line with Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 2008/119/EC. The non-compliances were formally reported to the farmer and a follow-up visit confirmed that they had been addressed. However, during this follow-up visit some non-compliances concerning the facilities for the dairy cows 10

15 were noted, and again formally notified. A second follow-up visit confirmed their resolution. 18. The audit team saw detailed evidence of the system in place to register the results of animal welfare checks performed showing: the action taken to address non-compliances detected; systematic follow-up visits for verification of implementation of corrective actions; and enforcement measures when necessary. Conclusions on assurances from competent authority activities on farmer's compliance with legal requirements 19. Welfare controls provide satisfactory assurances of compliance with animal welfare requirements for cattle in dairy farms. Although only 1% of farms are visited annually, and approximately 8% of dairy farms (in England) are not covered by the system of regular official checks, there are an additional almost equal number of ad-hoc checks that capture all dairy farms. The official welfare controls are also supported by significant pressure from quality assurance schemes imposed by retailers. 5.3 INDICATORS OF ANIMAL WELFARE Findings 20. The main animal welfare indicators identified, and how they are used, are listed in Table 1 below: Table 1: Identified indicators of animal welfare WHO uses them? HOW are they being used? Identified TRENDS Indicators related to MASTITIS AHDB (Mastitis Control Programme, PLI/ SCI). Genetic Selection The national average SCC has been steadily decreasing since 2008 (162,000 in 2015) 9. SOMATIC CELL COUNT Dairy Processors/Retailers, Penalties/premiums. 9 In their comments to the draft report, the CA indicated that there has been a steady decrease in SCC with the 2015 average being 162,000/ml, 5,000/ml below the 2014 average of 167,000/ml. Since 2008 there has been a steady increase in the percentage of milk recorded that has a SCC below 200,000 cells/ml (73.8% in 2008 and 79.7% in 2015). 11

16 Farmers. Selective dry cow therapy (initial stages) Indicators related to LAMENESS APHA. Official Controls. CA guidance uses 5% lameness as a "call for attention". LAMENESS SCORING AHDB (Healthy Feet Project, PLI/ SCI), Quality Assurance Schemes, Genetic Selection, Hoof Maintenance. The concept behind the Healthy Feet Project is for farmers to reduce lameness in their herd by 20%. Farmers. Indicators related to REPRODUCTIVE diseases/issues AHDB ( PLI/ SCI). Genetic Selection EASE OF CALVING Indicators related to METABOLIC diseases APHA. Official Controls, BODY CONDITION SCORE AHDB, Quality Assurance Schemes, Ideal Body Condition Score depending on the cow's production cycle. Farmers. 21. Mastitis causes pain and suffering in the dairy cow. One indicator of this disease is the increase of SCC in milk. Dairy farmers have started using SCC values to decide, with the support of their private veterinarians, on selective dry-cow therapy for the prevention of mastitis. Dairy farmers met by the audit team were aware that some processors and retailers intend to include selective dry cow therapy into the requirements of quality assurance schemes. Conclusions on indicators of animal welfare 22. Animal-based indicators are being used to varying degrees both by the CA and the different actors, to evaluate and improve the welfare of cattle on dairy farms. Although there are several actors involved in the measurement of these indicators, data is only available for SCC and reveals a positive trend. 12

17 6 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS The measures in place generally ensure that cattle on dairy farms are not caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. The CA and all other actors are involved in managing animal welfare on dairy farms including the occurrence of mastitis, lameness, and reproductive and metabolic diseases. The development of actions to manage and improve animal welfare is mainly being led by the farming community and dairy processors and retailers, including quality assurance schemes. Official controls are carried out on only 1% of farms annually, and approximately 8% of dairy farms (in England) are not covered by the system of regular official checks. There is, however, an additional almost equal number of ad-hoc checks that capture all dairy farms. Official welfare controls are also supported by significant pressure from the quality assurance schemes imposed by retailers. 7 CLOSING MEETING A closing meeting was held on 23 September 2016 with representatives of the competent authorities, at which the main findings and preliminary conclusions of the audit were presented by the audit team. 13

18 ANNEX 1 LEGAL REFERENCES Legal Reference Official Journal Title Dir. 98/58/EC OJ L 221, , p Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes Dir. 2008/119/EC OJ L 10, , p Dec. 2006/778/EC OJ L 314, , p Reg. 882/2004 OJ L 165, , p. 1, Corrected and re-published in OJ L 191, , p. 1 Reg. 1782/2003 OJ L 270, , p Dec. 78/923/EEC OJ L 323, , p Council Directive 2008/119/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves 2006/778/EC: Commission Decision of 14 November 2006 concerning minimum requirements for the collection of information during the inspections of production sites on which certain animals are kept for farming purposes Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/ /923/EEC: Council Decision of 19 June 1978 concerning the conclusion of the European Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes

19 ANNEX 2 PRUDENT USE OF ANTIMICROBIALS Information was collected on measures which included any of the following points in Section 6.4 of the guidelines for the prudent use of antimicrobials in veterinary medicine (2015/C 299/04): Avoid the prophylactic use of antimicrobials in new-born calves (e.g. antimicrobials added to milk replacers) by instead implementing good farming practices (e.g. to ensure high standards of hygiene); Develop preventive strategies (e.g. vaccinations and feeding colostrum to calves); Avoid the systematic treatment of cows at drying-off, and consider and implement alternative measures on a case-by-case basis. Actions being taken on the prudent use of antimicrobials are listed in Table 2 below: Table 2: Prudent use of antimicrobials ACTORS TOOLS DESCRIPTION UPTAKE AHDB and Farmers Processors, Retailers and Farmers 3Qs Mastitis Control Plan Quality Assurance Schemes Ensuring that calves receive at least 3 litres of colostrum, containing greater than 50g/litre of IgG within 2 hours. Promotion of selective dry cow therapy Selective dry cow therapy at varying SCC targets Still in initial phase; farmers testing it in cows with SCC less than 100,000. The sale of mastitis tubes for dry cow therapy has been constant between 2010 and The 3Qs (Quantity, Quality and Quickly) is a concept promoted by AHDB and other industry bodies. It recommends farmers to give new-born calves a first feed of three litres (Quantity), or 10% of the body weight, of good quality colostrum (50g/litre of IgG) as soon as possible after birth (Quickly) and ideally within 2 hours. Most farmers met by the audit team frequently referred to this concept when being interviewed. Processors and retailers have started pushing for selective dry cow therapy through the quality assurance schemes and all farmers met were well aware of this intent. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate indicated that in the UK there are no antimicrobials authorised to be used in milk-replacers 10. Additionally, this Directorate: o monitors the sales of pharmaceutical ingredients by collecting reports of sales from the pharmaceutical companies on a regular basis. Data from the Department of Medicines indicates that the sale of mastitis tubes (for dry cow therapy) has remained constant between 2010 and 2014 ( tonnes of active ingredient sold each year). 10 In their comments to the draft report, the CA clarified that this statement refers to milk replacers in advance (for example by the manufacturer). There is a small number of products authorised which, following a clinical assessment by the vet, can be added on the farm to milk replacers immediately prior to feeding calves.

20 o indicated that an anti-microbial steering group has been set up to establish a system to monitor the use of antimicrobials in dairy cattle. These measures are included in the Commission's guidelines for the prudent use of antimicrobials in veterinary medicine. The CA additionally indicated that useful information on the preventive use of antimicrobials is available on the websites of the Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance ( and 'Farm Antibiotics' (