Distorted presentation of cattle death stats damages image and profession of farming
Their "discovery" of mortality figures in the Cattle Movement Monitoring System 2002 report, has been received with disbelief by farmers, who feel they have been seriously insulted, and that the distorted and out of context use of the statistics has damaged the image and profession of farming.
With the rare exceptions which can be found in every profession, farmers go to endless lengths to save the life of every animal entrusted to their care.
It is their nature, and they can ill afford any mortality losses.
But the Department inaccurately and unfairly created an impression among the public of a 10% loss of livestock annually.
The CMMS report revealed 192,437 cattle deaths in 2002 out of an end of year national herd of 7, 074,033. (after losses). This represented 2.6% of the national herd (before losses), or an average of 1.5 deaths per farm for the year, mostly under two headings very young calves, and dairy animals in the calving season. Deaths up to six months amounted to 74,841, equal to 3.4% of births. It is not long ago that calf mortality was 7 to 10% of births, and a target of 6% was regarded as attainable. Farmers have surpassed that target by a further 50%. They strive every year to further reduce their losses and, given the progress to date, there is no doubt that they will succeed.
Just one in every 660 male cattle over 30 months was lost.
Losses in female animals over 30 months represented 1.4%, mainly due to difficult calvings and associated problems in the breeding herd.
Anything that the Department of Agriculture can do to further reduce cattle losses will be welcomed by every farmer, but to suggest that they first require an investigation into the causes reflects badly on their understanding of farming and does not give credit to the many excellent people within the veterinary section of the Department who know that animal losses on farms are not near crisis levels.
The 10% relates to the number of cattle slaughtered for beef during the year, not the national cattle population. In any case, it was calculated inaccurately.
In consideration of the tarnishing of livestock farmers by this report there is an onus on the Department to set the record straight.
