Scottish Government

7. Attitudes to selected sheep scab control options

In this section, the main findings from the quantitative telephone fieldwork among farmers are presented. These findings are put into context by the inclusion of comments from the qualitative telephone fieldwork among industry stakeholders and representatives of local authorities.

The full results of the survey of sheep producers are presented in Appendix 4. The additional level of detail that was generated from the results of the CBC exercise is shown in Appendix 5.

7.1 Current situation

7.1.1 Quantitative response

Respondents were given a series of eight statements regarding sheep scab and its control. Using a five-point scale, they were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with each statement in turn. As follows:

• Agree strongly;
• Agree slightly;
• Neither/nor;
• Disagree slightly;
• Disagree strongly.

Results that are summarised in Figure 2, below, show that a consistent response was observed for several of the statements. The vast majority felt that:

• Farmers must work together to reduce the number of incidents of sheep scab
  (92% agreed strongly or slightly);
• Sheep scab poses a major threat to the health and welfare of sheep
  (90% agreement).

High levels of agreement were seen in response to:

• The government and local authorities need to co-ordinate efforts to reduce sheep scab (81% agree);
• A small minority of farms are failing to control sheep scab (81% agree);

On the whole, respondents' felt that sheep scab poses a major threat, that farmers need to work together to reduce its impact and that government and local authorities need to work together to reduce its impact. There was also a general feeling that the problem lies with failure to control sheep scab among a small minority of farmers.

Opinions became slightly more divided when it came to whether or not the industry as a whole was doing enough to control sheep scab, and whether sheep scab could be eliminated or only controlled:

• Sheep scab will never be totally eliminated, we can only try to control it - agree 58%, disagree 29%;
• The industry as a whole does more than enough already trying to control sheep scab - agree 39%, disagree 40%.

Figure 2: Opinions regarding sheep scab and its control (base: 169 respondents)

7.1.2 Cluster analysis

To assist in identifying patterns in the data, Cluster Analysis was conducted on the responses using the k-means clustering technique. A 3-cluster solution was chosen as the most appropriate as it delivered reasonably robust sample sizes for each cluster group, whilst giving clear differentiation between the cluster groups. Each group was given a name as shorthand to describe their attitudes. Names and the proportion of the sample that each cluster accounted for were as follows:

• Controllers - this group feels that sheep scab can, at best, be controlled but never eliminated. They feel that the industry as a whole does enough already trying to control sheep scab and that more rigorous application of existing legislation would reduce the number of problem farms (45%);
• Eliminators - this group believes that sheep scab could be eliminated. So-called eliminators are more likely than average to say that additional co-operation and co-ordination is required as they do not feel that the industry is doing more than enough to control sheep scab (28%);
• Do Mores - this group feels that not enough is being done by the industry to control sheep scab. They are also less likely than average to agree that it is a small minority of farmers failing to control sheep scab and they feel that more rigorous application of existing legislation is not enough (27%).

7.1.3 Qualitative response

Control or elimination

There was general agreement among stakeholders that control represented the first step towards effective elimination.

Control represents the first step with a long-term view to elimination. (George Milne, NSA Scottish Region)

Although a minority felt that improved scab control represented the most realistic objective, the majority of stakeholders felt that elimination of sheep scab from Scotland could be achieved, at least in theory. This belief tended to be based on the precedence of previous eradication campaigns or the more recent success of some regional initiatives. Nevertheless, the sustained and rigorous effort that would be associated with eliminating sheep scab from Scotland was emphasised by several respondents.

Eradication requires considerable will and rigorous and sustained effort to achieve; a rigorous approach means detailed risk assessment and effective treatment demands that every sheep is gathered and treated within a short, defined window. The effort can't be underestimated. Treatment itself means correct application of an appropriate acaricide - the approach has to be scientific to achieve the desired results. (Neil Sargison, veterinary practitioner and sheep specialist)

Concerns were voiced that organic producers felt at risk from sheep scab. Access to non- OP dips had assisted in scab control in the past whereas today's organic producers faced a choice between endectocides and OP dips. There were anxieties about the development of resistance associated with the former and use of the latter is not allowed under some certification bodies so restricting potential market outlets. The doubling of withdrawal periods under organic production standards created an additional concern.

Industry control of sheep scab

Although respondents tended to agree that the majority of producers were well-intentioned there was concern that this did not always translate into the most effective or efficient behaviour.

Many farmers are investing in biosecurity measures but their actions are not always well co-ordinated. Where they're treating, product choice is not always optimal and the results achieved not always optimised. There's potential to achieve better value through co-ordination. (Nigel Miller, livestock producer and former Chair of SSSI)

The impact of the current economics of sheep production on flock health programmes was widely acknowledged. The false economy associated with part-flock rather than whole-flock treatment was identified as a particular concern by one respondent. Changes to the structure of the industry were highlighted by a couple of respondents. One respondent cited the increase in the number of sheep kept by hobby-keepers with little husbandry experience that made this sector vulnerable to disease. At the other end of the spectrum, the pressure on margins in commercial flocks often meant a reduction in the availability of labour. This, combined with an increasing industry age-profile, could impact on implementation of future disease control programmes.

There was general agreement among stakeholders that the efforts of the majority of producers were undermined by a lack of engagement among the minority.

Vast majority of industry (95%) does enough but undermined by minority (5%). (Rod McKenzie, sheep breeder)

Generally the industry does do enough to control sheep scab. It is only the odd farmer who doesn't bother to control or treat usually because of money. These farmers mostly have other welfare problems on their farms. Generally the industry does go a long way to control it, good farmers always try their best. (Mungo Howat, South Lanarkshire Council, Chair of the Animal Health and Welfare Panel).

With a high proportion of hill sheep producers amongst its membership, the organic sector was realistic about the challenges of maintaining effective on farm bio security.

… boundaries are not always well defined, grazing may be open and fencing, let alone double-fencing, is not always an option. It has to be recognised that it's almost impossible to achieve a complete gather of the hill and anything less than 100% treatment undermines any effort at compulsory control. (Jane Ellis, SOPA)

Role of government and local authorities

Two stakeholders emphasised that local authority involvement tended to be restricted to interventions on the grounds of animal welfare. One of whom went on to consider whether there was scope for more pro-active follow-up to ensure that any improvements were sustained for the long-term. This theme was echoed by a third stake-holder, they expressed concern that industry had been fire-fighting against sheep scab for too long, a more pro-active approach now being called for. Another two stakeholders identified the benefits associated with voluntary initiatives. One of whom felt that improvements were more likely to be effectively achieved if driven voluntarily, meanwhile the other expressed concern that although a voluntary approach was the preferred option, it could be difficult to make headway without the support of legislation. Similarly, the importance of any scheme having the backing of the Scottish Government was emphasised by another stakeholder.

With regard to the organic sector, the Organic Aid Scheme was cited for its role in encouraging contact between producers and their veterinary surgeons and promoting good bio security practice by its requirements for a livestock management plan / in-conversion plan.

Among representatives of the local authorities, it was broadly agreed that there was scope for improved co-ordination between government and local authorities. Examples were cited were joint initiatives e.g. involving Crofters' Commission, Animal Health ( SVS), and Local Authorities had been used to good effect.

More liasion between Government and Local Authorities required. This is a fault on both sides. Things need to be more proactive. I thought sheep scab initiative was great as this was proactive in that it helped to prevent the disease. There are too many instances where involvement follows a complaint - this is too late. (East Ayrshire Council)

7.2 Scottish sheep scab initiative

7.2.1 Quantitative response

At 58%, the majority of respondents had heard of the SSSI. Less than one in ten, 8%, had participated in the scheme. Just over half (53%) felt that the scheme had helped in the control of sheep scab in Scotland. One in ten (11%) felt that it had not helped. At 36%, just over one third did not know whether it had helped or not.

7.2.2 Qualitative response

Stakeholders were unanimous in agreeing that the SSSI has raised awareness of sheep scab.

The SSSI has been a success to the extent that it has raised the profile of sheep scab. (Robin Anderson, Immediate Past President of the IAAS)

One respondent highlighted the perceived success of the scheme in removing the stigma associated with sheep scab thereby encouraging more responsible behaviour e.g. through improved communication with neighbouring flocks in the event of infection. Although most were unsure as to the impact of the scheme on levels of sheep scab, some respondents perceived that the SSSI had achieved a reduction in disease levels.

Would say that it has been a success in raising awareness levels and reducing disease levels - now need to go to next stage. (George Milne, NSA Scottish Region)

Nigel Miller, former Chair of the SSSI, described evidence of a positive impact of the initiative in some regions but little impact in other regions, reflecting levels of local buy-in among producers. It was expected that the structure of the initiative and in particular its inclusive nature would have a valuable role to play in informing any follow-on work.

There was agreement among local authority representatives that the SSSI had raised the profile of sheep scab. Some suggested that the initiative had worked better in some areas than others and where it had worked well it was cited as an example of industry working together towards a common-goal.

SSSI helped keep the profile of scab in the public eye and keep the government aware of the extent of the problem. It showed that there can be good channels of communication between farmers and vets. (Scottish Borders Council).

7.3 Control options

7.3.1 Quantitative response

Research approach

Five potential control options were presented to respondents, as follows:

• A scheme to support all farm practice vets in diagnosis and appropriate and effective control for sheep scab;
• Regional farming champions, these will be farmers who will deliver local meetings with veterinary back up. The meetings would include dipping and injection demonstrations and discussions amongst participating farmers;
• A scheme that requires farmers to be given a prescription from a vet in order to purchase products licensed to treat sheep for scab;
• A compulsory treatment period during which all sheep must be treated for sheep scab. During the compulsory period all producers must treat all of their animals by either dipping or injecting, not showering. Producers could opt out, in which case they would have to go through a rigorous risk assessment which will decide if that producer has to treat or not;
  
  This information was then supplemented as follows:
  • If a compulsory treatment period was introduced, some ideas are that each farmer would need to inform the authorities when treatment was taking place and there would be a random checking system. Producers could choose the treatment method, and once treated a certificate would be issued so that animals could be sold through the breeding store sales. Treated animals would be subject to the meat withdrawal periods specified by the manufacturers. No treated sheep could be sold for slaughter during this withdrawal period;
• To test all flocks for the presence of sheep scab and to target treatment at infected flocks only.

For each option, respondents were asked to rate the control option in terms of how effective they thought it would be in controlling sheep scab and how easy or difficult they thought it would be to implement. Both effectiveness and ease of implementation were rated using a four-point scale (plus an option to state don't know). Scores were subsequently assigned to each point on the scale as detailed below, and mean scores calculated for both measures for each of the potential control options.

Table 4: Allocation of scores to rating of perceived effectiveness and ease of implementation

No score was allocated to those answering 'don't know'.

Although outside the scope of this piece of work, cost represents a third dimension. Where costs are borne and their scale relative to returns within the sector, are factors that may be expected to impact on perceptions of the proposed options among producers. For example, responses to the option of blood testing flocks and treating infected flocks only, may be influenced depending on the extent to which the producer is required to meet the associated costs.

Research findings

As illustrated in Figure 2, below, all options were considered broadly similar in terms of perceived effectiveness and ease of implementation - a compulsory treatment period was rated slightly above the other options.

A scheme to support farm practice vets in diagnosis and appropriate and effective treatments for sheep scab was rated as the most difficult of the options to implement, although its effectiveness was judged to be on a par with the concepts of Regional Farming Champions and subsidised veterinary diagnosis.

A scheme whereby farmers were required to be given a prescription from a veterinary surgeon in order to purchase products licensed to treat sheep scab, received the lowest rating in terms of perceived effectiveness in controlling sheep scab.

Smaller farms (less than 100 ewes) tended to rate the control options more highly than their larger counterparts. There were few instances of differences in reaction to control options by sub-group.

Whilst the compulsory treatment period was rated amongst the easiest to implement, there were still 19% of respondents that rated this option as very difficult to implement, and a further 23% that rated it as quite difficult to implement. Indeed, a similar proportion rated all of the control options in this way, indicating that whichever option is/are chosen, a sizeable minority will see them as potentially difficult to implement.

Figure 3: Summary of reactions to control options - effectiveness and ease of implementation (base: 169 respondents)

Response to control options by cluster groups

There were no statistically significant differences in the rating of the ease of implementation of the control options between the 3 cluster groups, as shown in Table 5, below.

Table 5: Ease of implementation rating of control options by cluster group

No significant differences were seen in terms of the rating of effectiveness between the three cluster groups regarding the compulsory treatment period or the option of regional farming champions.

As illustrated in Table 6, below, the Do Mores were less positive regarding the option to support farm practice vets in diagnosis and the appropriate and effective treatment for sheep scab. Controllers were the most enthusiastic of the three groups with respect to subsidising veterinary diagnosis; blood testing all flocks and treating infected flocks only; and farmers being given a prescription to purchase licensed products.

Table 6: Effectiveness rating of control options by cluster group

A. Significantly different from column a at 99% level of statistical confidence
a: Significantly different from column a at 95% level of statistical confidence
B: Significantly different from column b at 99% level of statistical confidence
C: Significantly different from column c at 99% level of statistical confidence
C Significantly different from column c at 95% level of statistical confidence.

7.3.2 Qualitative response

Respondents were asked to discuss each of the proposed control options in turn. In particular, aspects of potential efficacy and ease of implementation were considered. Stakeholders were encouraged to consider each option from their respective point of view to bring a broad cross-section of opinion to the process.

Support farm practice vets

This concept was presented to respondents as follows:

• A scheme to support all farm practice vets in diagnosis and appropriate and effective treatments for sheep scab.

There was consensus among stakeholders that a scheme of this sort may have a role to play as part of a wider initiative. In isolation it would be expected to have little impact. In particular, concerns were expressed about low levels of contact between that minority of producers not addressing sheep scab and their veterinary surgeons.

Not enough on its own, need to get stuck in to have an impact, it's not just about identifying and treating outbreaks but about a culture of prevention; the real cost of diagnosis is not in looking for mites but in the call-out of vets to the farm; might help to raise awareness and profile of control programme if part of a wider scheme, diagnosis part of adequate risk assessment process. (Neil Sargison, veterinary practitioner and sheep specialist)

Among respondents of the local authorities, while the value of achieving an accurate diagnosis was recognised, limited contact between producers and their veterinary surgeons was identified as an obstacle to effective implementation of this option.

In the context of organic production where producers are required to diagnose with a view to targeting treatment accordingly, a concept to support farm practice vets was seen as particularly helpful.

Subsidising veterinary diagnosis

This concept was presented to respondents as follows:

• In the survey, just over a third of respondents never sought a veterinary diagnosis when they had itchy sheep or wool loss. One possibility to try to reduce this figure would be to subsidise the cost of veterinary diagnosis to farmers.

Against the background of an industry working to low margins with a perception of veterinary support as high cost, the majority of stakeholders saw some merit in this approach.

Can be effective to educate farmers' through their pocket and may help to overcome risk of producers turning a blind-eye to itchy sheep or wool loss. (Robin Anderson, Immediate Past President of the IAAS)

In particular, the concept was cited as likely to help stimulate contact between producers and their veterinary surgeons while at the same time leading to more effective targeting of treatments and a better understanding of disease levels.

Potential merit in this - it's the first thing that people say when they contact us "we think we've got sheep scab" - and we always say "get it diagnosed!". We've seen an increase in lice and ticks as well as scab in recent years. (Rob Morris, NAAC)

One stakeholder added the caveat that any scheme would need to be widely publicised to encourage uptake and that contact might need to be initiated and driven by the veterinary practitioners.

It was also suggested that subsidising the cost of diagnosis may encourage earlier intervention by producers.

Cost is always a barrier so subsidising the cost should result in better uptake, even if it's just a suspicion - would help to pick the disease up sooner. (Jane Ellis, SOPA)

The concept of subsidised diagnosis to farmers was welcomed by representatives of the local authorities.

Very good idea. Vets are the best profession to deal with this, any increase in farmers asking for an expert diagnosis can only be a good thing. (Angus Council)

Regional farming champions

This concept was presented to respondents as follows:

• Another possibility is to have Regional Farming Champions. These will be farmers who will deliver local meetings with veterinary back up. The meeting would include dipping and injection demonstrations and discussions amongst participating farmers.

The majority of stakeholders were sceptical about this concept. Concerns tended to focus on the likely profile of the audience and the challenge of getting the message across to that minority of producers that were seen as most in need of advice.

…the people that attend the meetings are "the usual suspects" so you end up preaching to the converted. The challenge is to get through to the 5%. (Rod McKenzie, sheep breeder)

However, one respondent described the success of a regional approach that had been initiated by two local producers. Working with local veterinary practices and with the support of local farmers, meetings had attracted strong support and provided a forum to communicate the principles of effective control, the importance of a thorough risk assessment and the application of an effective treatment within a defined time period. The programme ran for a period of three years and an improvement in scab control was achieved. The point was made that against the background of sheep scab in the rest of the country, the programme could not be effectively sustained.

While some benefits were associated with farmer meetings, as a means of communication about sheep scab, most representatives of the local authorities felt that they were not likely to be successful in reaching the target audience.

Meetings generally have a good turnout, although you do tend to be preaching to the converted. Need to get message to the others if at all possible. (Gillian Bain)

Compulsory treatment period

This concept was presented to respondents as follows:

• To introduce a compulsory treatment period during which all sheep must be treated for sheep scab. During the compulsory control period all producers must treat all of their animals by either dipping or injecting. Producers could opt out, in which case they would have to go through a rigorous risk assessment which will decide if that producer has to treat or not.

Responses among stakeholders to the concept of compulsory treatment varied and views were strongly held.

The key to making any control programme effective is to make it compulsory. (Robin Anderson, Immediate Past President of the IAAS)

A couple of respondents felt that the concept should go further to insist on dipping as the treatment of choice. This reflected their concerns about achieving effective whole flock coverage with injectables in the farm environment and subject to all the variables that this entails. It was also suggested that additional benefits could be associated with dipping - e.g. protection against fly-strike - that may act as an incentive.

Farmers tend to be happier to dip if they can benefit from fly-strike cover too e.g. mid-Aug to end-Sept, it helps to sweeten the pill for those that are not affected by sheep scab. (Rob Morris, NAAC)

While one school of thought suggested that there should not be exemptions, the majority accepted the necessity of opt-outs, e.g. to allow for early-lambing flocks. Nevertheless, it was emphasised that any opt-outs should be subject to detailed inspection and it was recognised that defining the detail was likely to be problematic.

One respondent rejected the concept of a compulsory treatment period in favour of an industry driven initiative of targeted treatment.

What's needed is a co-ordinated treatment period driven by industry; risk assessment is a difficult process but will play a critical role - absolutely wrong to insist on blanket treatments when we're trying to preserve the long-term efficacy of the treatments we have available to us; a blanket approach is simply not sustainable. The aim must be eradication, control cannot be sustained over the long term; need to be mindful of risks that compulsion takes away the responsibility to some extent and danger of producers going through the motions to the benefit of no-one; process must be done properly to be effective and successful. (Neil Sargison, veterinary practitioner and sheep specialist)

A compulsory treatment period does not sit well with an organic philosophy that recommends the targeted use of treatments and does not encourage the routine use of treatments. Organic producers have been and are encouraged to participate in local initiatives where the risks of sheep scab have been evaluated and the evidence points to the need for a co-ordinated approach to achieve the best results. Nevertheless, the focus of SOPA is understood to be on raising awareness about sheep scab among producers, encouraging risk assessment and implementing effective biosecurity measures.

There was consensus that autumn represented the most effective time of year to implement scab control treatments. That said, while some stakeholders argued for an extended treatment window to provide producers with maximum flexibility - albeit with the caveat of movement controls/licenses - others suggested that the window should be as narrow as possible in order to achieve the best possible results. Furthermore, some stakeholders highlighted that summer dipping treatment could confer additional benefits in terms of protection against fly-strike and it was also mentioned that some producers dipped routinely ahead of entering stock for the breeding sheep sales. It was suggested that either this should be taken into account in defining the treatment window or that summer dipping with a scab-active dip and with effective biosecurity measures in place could be used to demonstrate exemption from autumn dipping. It is recognised however that fleece length may be to be too short in recently shorn animals to allow for prolonged protection from re-infestation.

A majority of stakeholders identified contractors and mobile-facilities as the means to achieve widespread treatment within a defined time period. At the same time, the potential costs to producers were recognised against a background of low margins and the poor economic returns associated with sheep farming at the time of the survey. Furthermore, concerns were expressed with regard to the capacity within Scotland to support national treatment within a defined time period.

Reflecting the changing structure of the Scottish sheep sector, on the one hand, advantages were associated with mobile dipping facilities for their ability to overcome the need for a single gather of dispersed batches of sheep within a flock to one central site. While on the other hand, the provision of central dipping facilities was seen as necessary to cater for the increasing number of hobby-keepers.

The majority recognised that some form of enforcement would be required in the event that a compulsory treatment period was introduced. This role tended to be associated with local authorities. The need for a pro-active stance and the ability to move quickly and firmly were identified as the key characteristics associated with effective enforcement. The importance of producers' correctly observing the withdrawal periods associated with any treatments was emphasised.

Several stakeholders described the potential role in any future control programmes for regional co-ordinators.

There is a role for regional co-ordinators that have the technical know-how and back-up to drive activity through local practices and to jigsaw together the key players; success will depend on the individuals involved and it's recognised that it could be costly to fund several posts across Scotland. (Nigel Miller, livestock producer and former Chair of SSSI)

Environmental matters were highlighted by all stakeholders. Most felt that producers and contractors used dips and disposed of them in a responsible manner. This was felt to reflect an increasing awareness of the potential impacts of farming activities on the natural environment. Nevertheless, SEPA was identified as likely to play an important role in providing best-practice guidelines and in processing disposal licenses.

From SEPA's perspective, would not stand in the way of compulsory treatment even if it meant an increase in dipping activity. This assumes that good practice guidelines are followed, that the environmental risks are covered and that spent dip is disposed of safely and legally. There may be environmental issues to consider in the transport of spent dip if disposal is off-site. Our emphasis would be to ensure that good practice was followed. (Darrell Crothers, SEPA)

Among representatives of local authorities, the majority agreed that a compulsory treatment period was required to overcome sheep scab. Having said that, concerns were expressed about the enforcement and the resources that this would entail.

Dipping must be enforced in a similar way to before (by local authorities). The farmer should send in paperwork saying when s/he is dipping, where and how many. Then the LA's can do random checks and test that the correct strength of dip is used. (Les Fernie)

A number of respondents expressed concerns about the need for a GB-wide policy to reflect the practicalities.

It will have to be across Scotland, England and Wales to make sure it is really effective. There are always problems with the farms on the border and I'm sure this will not be any different unless the same legislation is enforced across the UK. (Scottish Borders Council).

In terms of enforcement, while fleece samples were cited as a potential means of checking for compliance with dipping, the question of how use of injectables could be checked was identified as a concern by several respondents.

Test and targeted treatment

This concept was presented to respondents as follows:

• To use a blood test to identify scab infected flocks, and then target treatment at those flocks that test positive.

Most respondents recognised the need for further information to help inform their response e.g. where would costs lie and who would have responsibility for testing?

It seems to make a lot of sense to target treatment to where it's most required. Would like to understand more about the process and the number of animals that need to be tested to provide a robust representation of the wider flock. Having said that, it seems to make sense in principle not to treat flocks free from scab - not just from an environmental point of view but from all perspectives. (Darrell Crothers, SEPA)

Nevertheless, the majority of stakeholders and local authority representatives welcomed the concept for its potential role in the risk assessment process.

Random sampling may be part of a risk assessment process, targeted to everyone's advantage and helping to make best use of scarce resources. (Nigel Miller, livestock producer and former Chair of SSSI)

Since testing to assist in effective targeting of treatment is fundamental to the organic production system, advances in diagnostics were welcomed by this sector.

Several stakeholders voiced concerns about the reliability of the existing ELISA test that forms part of the Swiss scab control programme.

The risk assessment process will be key and it has an important role to play; - the Swiss ELISA test is understood to be crude and concerns about specificity and sensitivity suggest potential for false positives, work understood to be underway working-up an ELISA test is of fundamental importance and this also ties in with development of a vaccine. (Neil Sargison, veterinary practitioner and sheep specialist)

Some concerns were expressed with regard to the timeliness of this approach and the risk that scab could spread from the flock prior to detection.

7.3.3 Choice based conjoint exercise

The Choice Based Conjoint ( CBC) exercise indicated that farmers did have a preference with regard to when animals would be treated and what method and approach would be used for this treatment, should a compulsory control option be introduced. In relation to treatment time period, they would prefer to treat in September/October rather than February/March. The most preferred approach to treatment would be for all animals in all flocks to be treated and the most preferred method of treatment would be a single OP dip. Farmers did not consider treatment period, treatment approach and treatment method in isolation when they indicated their preference and further work to explore these relationships would be useful.