Defra’s Sustainable Farming Incentive directs farm support payments towards public goods which include healthier, higher welfare animals.This policy briefing looks at the likely animal welfare impact of two current elements1) The Annual Health and Welfare Review2) Animal Health and Welfare capital grants under the Farming Equipment and Technology Fund (FETF

D'Eath, RB

English

SRUC - Scotland's Rural College

Scotland's Rural CollegeHow well do Defra’s new farm support policies promote animal welfare?D'Eath, RBPrint publication: 24/07/2024Link to publicationCitation for pulished version (APA):D'Eath, RB. (2024). How well do Defra’s new farm support policies promote animal welfare? SEFARI.General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.            • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.            • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain            • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Download date: 05. Aug. 2024     How well do Defra’s new farm support policies promote animal welfare? Author: Prof Rick D’Eath†          June 2024   This policy brief was produced as part of the Scottish Government Rural Affairs and the Environment Portfolio Strategic Research Programme 2022-2027, Theme A, Project SRUC-A3-2 EU exit and animal welfare. For more information please see: https://sefari.scot/research/projects/eu-exit-challenges-and-opportunities-for-animal-welfare. †Animal Behaviour & Welfare Team, Animal & Veterinary Sciences, SRUC.  T: 07973 776850, E: rick.death@sruc.ac.uk  Overview Defra’s Sustainable Farming Incentive directs farm support payments towards public goods which include healthier, higher welfare animals.  This policy briefing looks at the likely animal welfare impact of two current elements  1) The Annual Health and Welfare Review  2) Animal Health and Welfare capital grants under the Farming Equipment and Technology Fund (FETF)  Main Findings A policy analysis was conducted on two elements of Defra’s Sustainable Farming Incentive funding which are intended to enhance animal welfare. Defra is also developing policy on improved enforcement, payment by results, and standardised welfare labelling for food. • Annual health and welfare reviews are an inexpensive way to provide farm-specific health planning and contribute to national herd health. • Capital grants can improve welfare. The list of items in FETF - includes basic farm equipment for handling, feeding, weighing, housing and fencing through to sensor and ID technologies. • FETF capital items are prioritised based on health and welfare, productivity, environment and innovation. - Welfare is not the sole criterion • Welfare improvement from FETF grants is difficult to quantify as it may depend on: - What equipment (if any) is being replaced - How (and how often) the equipment is used - Replenishment of consumables (e.g., enrichment blocks) - Equipment design (e.g., handling systems do not require best practice elements) Cattle brushes funded under capital grants provide enrichment  (Image Credit: Ernie Buts, File:Lely Luna.jpg - Wikimedia Commons) • Capital grants could be criticised for improving ‘status quo’ systems rather than a transition to higher welfare systems.    Introduction Following the UK’s exit from the EU, the CAP subsidies have been replaced1. In England, Defra is phasing out direct payments2 and instead the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) supports a variety of public goods, primarily for environmental sustainability, soils, wildlife, biodiversity and climate mitigation3.  Defra’s Animal Health and Welfare Pathway (AHWP)4 has three elements: 1) Paying farmers for delivery of public goods (healthier, higher welfare animals), 2) Stimulating market demand for higher welfare products (including improvements to labelling) and 3) Strengthening the regulatory baseline.   Under the first element, four funding schemes are planned: 1) The Annual Health and Welfare Review5 (part of the SFI); 2) Animal Health and Welfare capital grants including a) smaller grants for equipment and technology6 and b) larger infrastructure grants for housing and improved pasture; 3) Disease eradication and control programmes and 4) Payment by results.  This report looks in more detail at the already launched schemes: 1 and 2a.  Sustainable Farming Initiative Annual Health and Welfare Review5 How it works: For cattle, sheep or pigs, a vet or ‘team appointed by a vet’ visit the farm to advise on health and welfare. The review requires disease testing and assessments such as body condition or mobility (lameness) scoring; and a written report is produced with recommended actions which may include changes to vaccines and medicines, biosecurity, management, diet, hygiene etc. Payment varies by species between £372 for dairy and £684 for pigs. Scotland has a similar scheme paying £1250 over 2 years for cattle and sheep farmers7. Pros: - Tailored to suit each specific farm needs to improve health (and therefore welfare). - Use of trusted farm vet. - Remains current, so possibility of iterative improvements and response to current disease threats. - Farm production will likely also benefit, further incentivising farmers. - Benefits of disease reduction (and brings eradication closer) for neighbouring farms/regional/national herd health. Cons:  - Recommendations for improvements but no requirement to act. - No financial support for recommended actions which may be costly (e.g. vaccines, biosecurity measures). - Might mean diminishing returns over time at any given farm (would require research to confirm)          1 https://pure.sruc.ac.uk/files/48081877/June_2022_Policy_Spotlight_Farm_Support_Payments.pdf;  2 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/agricultural-transition-plan-2021-to-2024  3 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/sustainable-farming-incentive-guidance 4 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/animal-health-and-welfare-pathway/animal-health-and-welfare-pathway  5 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/sfi-annual-health-and-welfare-review 6 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/farming-equipment-and-technology-fund-fetf-2023 7 https://www.gov.scot/news/improving-animal-health-and-welfare/  https://www.ruralpayments.org/topics/all-schemes/preparing-for-sustainable-farming--psf-/ Sheep grazing on a hill  (Image Credit: SRUC)    Farming equipment and technology fund (FETF) Animal health and welfare theme6 How it works: Includes 101 listed items8 from £17 (hanging enrichment toy) to £35,467 (Robot pen cleaner). Grants total between £1,000-25,000. Defra scores each item combining benefits to animal health and welfare, productivity, environmental benefit and innovation. Funding priority is given to highest average scores. Grant is 40, 50 or 60% of the item value, varying by item but unrelated to the score.   What are the potential animal welfare benefits of these items? Provisos- actual funded items are not yet known, actual health and welfare benefits have not been directly assessed. - Scores are derived from benefits other than ‘animal health and welfare’ (productivity, environment, innovation), which dilute the welfare focus. The logic behind the weighting is unclear - see table - Many items are ‘basic equipment’ for animal management (handling, weighing, ventilation, feeding, drinking, housing, fencing). - Well-designed handling/weighing equipment minimises stressful handling, improves safety and the human-animal relationship9. Handling systems enable interventions which benefit animal health and welfare such as vaccinations, veterinary treatments and hoof trimming. Specified items include some good design elements such as non-slip flooring, but not others recommended for welfare such as curved raceways and high solid sides10.  Table showing the number and types of FETF capital items and examples of the highest and lowest scoring Type of item Number Highest scoring Score Lowest scoring Score Maternal/young 15 Handheld colostrum milking kit 97 Mobile calf milk pasteuriser and dispenser 42 Handling 20 Fixed handling system for pigs 93 Sheep conveyor 47 Weighing 9 Individual electronic weigh system 89 Automatic weighing and drafting crate for sheep 53 Enrichment 9 Block holder for pigs 96 Swinging brushes for calves 63 Comfort/thermal 16 Heat lamps for calves 98 Mobile livestock shade 43 Ventilation 7 Positive pressure tube ventilation system 83 Blinds for livestock housing 54 Feeding/drinking 19 Vermin proof feed storage (portable) 98 Electronic sow feeder 44 Housing/flooring/ fixtures 18 Freestanding ramps/platforms for poultry 96 Plastic slat flooring for sheep 43 Fencing 3 Electric fencing package 74 Perimeter fencing for cattle 50 Health/hygiene 18 Vaccine refrigerator with external monitor 97 Hand-held automatic teat washing system 43 Technology 29 Temp and humidity sensor for livestock buildings 94 Robot pen cleaner (pigs) 48    8 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/farming-equipment-and-technology-fund-fetf-2023/annex-4-fetf-2023-animal-health-and-welfare-eligible-items 9 Titterington et al 2022 https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12060776 10 Grandin 1997 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(97)00008-0 Graphic created using the free online software ‘Canva’    Consequences of funding only equipment Realised welfare benefits of equipment are difficult to quantify since they: - Depend on the extent of improvement over what is being replaced (e.g., pair or group housing for calves would benefit welfare more if replacing single housing). - Are dependent on management actions (e.g. EID and electronic weighing could improve welfare through better management of animal condition or health recording; be neutral for welfare - e.g., used in production decisions on optimal slaughter weight, or they might not be used at all). Health and welfare improvements that depend on consumables such as vaccines, medicines or bedding straw are not funded. ‘Foraging tower for pigs’ or ‘Enrichment block holder’, for example, have no welfare benefit if left empty.  Lack of ambition Much of FETF supports current management practices and systems, not those which go beyond it11. For example, the mobile calf handling crate specification states “The crush is intended for … tasks such as disbudding, vaccination, identification and castration on calves.” It would be more ambitious to encourage breeds, systems and management where painful mutilations are unnecessary.  Alternative approaches Defra is developing and piloting “payment by results”4 measuring animal-based welfare outcomes directly, allowing flexibility and innovation in how they are achieved. For example payments for animals in good physical condition and health at slaughter: pigs with intact tails, poultry with full feather cover and cattle without lameness. Defra’s ‘Strengthening the regulatory baseline’ could mean improved inspection and enforcement of legal standards at all farms, small-holdings and markets, and at transport and slaughter. Another improvement would be to better align the payments and labelling elements of the AHWP by: - Legislating for welfare information on food packaging12 reducing variability and consumer confusion. - Supporting producers transitioning to a higher welfare tier within a new labelling scheme (or existing Organic, RSPCA Assured), this could include capital equipment such as free-farrowing systems. - Working with retailers to reward certain animal welfare practices ‘item by item’ allowing for gradual improvement and diversity of systems13.   11 https://www.rspca.org.uk/webContent/staticImages/Campaigns/IntoTheFold_HelpForFarmersReport.pdf 12 https://www.bmel.de/EN/topics/animals/animal-welfare/state-run-animal-welfare-label-pigs.html 13 German Initiative Animal Welfare https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10120609 For more information on this work please contact: E: rick.death@sruc.ac.uk  T: 07973 776850 W: https://sefari.scot/research/projects/eu-exit-challenges-and-opportunities-for-animal-welfare  @SEFARIscot                   info@sefari.scot       Policy Implications - Annual health and welfare reviews have potential for continuing improvement of animal health and represent good value. - Equipment may improve welfare directly: e.g., enrichment, improved comfort or indirectly: e.g., facilitating better animal handling, or management decisions to improve welfare. - Equipment grants could be more ambitious, supporting change to higher welfare systems e.g., by aligning with assurance scheme labelling, or with Defra’s draft proposals for ‘tiered’ labelling schemes for systems. - ‘Payment by results’ approach could be a more  direct way to enhance animal welfare if a scheme can be well designed.  

How well do Defra’s new farm support policies promote animal welfare?

https://pure.sruc.ac.uk/files/93410739/Defra_welfare_subsidy_policy_brief_SEFARI_Final.pdf

How well do Defra’s new farm support policies promote animal welfare?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

SRUC - Scotland's Rural College