EU audit shows some dairy farmers unaware tail docking banned here since 2003
However, they found that awareness of the prohibition of tail docking (mutilations) was low, and there was a continuing, albeit low level, of noncompliance with this requirement.
As a result, the Department of Agriculture has indicated that it intends to increase efforts to reduce tail docking non-compliance.
Non-medical tail-docking of bovines has been prohibited in Ireland since 2003.
The objective of the FVO 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, FVO auditors investigated what dairy farmers do to minimise mastitis, lameness, injuries, reproductive and metabolic diseases, and disease in calves.
Department of Agriculture inspection results were made available to the audit team.
There were 101 general animal welfare inspections of cattle farms (dairy or beef) in 2013, and 117 in 2014 with, respectively, 81 (80%) and 79 (68%) farms reported in full compliance.
In 2013, mutilation was the most frequent non-compliance, in about one third of the total (10 of 32).
For 2014, the Department gave its inspectors a specific instruction to check replacement heifers for tail-docking.
In that year, mutilation non-compliances were about 5% of the total (3 of 61).
In both years, of the main non-compliances reported, 50% or more of the total concerned incomplete records of medicines, and buildings and accommodation issues related to cleansing and disinfection of housing, pens, equipment and utensils, sharp edges and protrusions likely to cause injury to calves, and environmental conditions.
There was a pilot series of inspections of 39 herds in the seven main dairy counties last January and February. Herds were selected according to three risk criteria — expansion, being new entrant farmers, increased mortality.
The most common non-compliance concerned records of medicines administered (varying from some records not being available at the time of inspection, to incomplete records being maintained, or records not kept for the required five years); small numbers of tail docked cows (most bought-in already tail docked, but in one herd, the cows had been tail docked by the farmer); and availability of suitable sick pens.
On one farm, 111 cows had tails docked; this farmer has been a certified member of the Sustainable Dairy Assurance Scheme since 2014.
A letter was sent to him stating tail docking was a non-compliance, and that penalties and a reduction from single farm payments would follow if this was repeated.
The farmer committed himself, in writing, not to repeat such practice.
The audit team was informed by the Department that farmers detected using tail-docking claimed they did it for hygiene reasons, and they were unaware of the prohibition on tail-docking.
Less frequent pilot series non-compliances were insufficient cleanliness (which, along with shortage of sick pens, was attributed to increased numbers of animals putting extra pressure on winter accommodation).
SCC has steadily fallen, to below 200,000 in 50% of dairy herds in 2014.
The average dairy cow is currently kept for 4.5 lactations, compared to an industry target of 5.5 lactations.
The FVO audit team visited two dairy farms, in Co Limerick and Co Kilkenny, which had been inspected in the Department’s 2016 pilot series on 39 herds.
The audit team did not detect any significant additional shortcomings.
They concluded that where there is increased industry involvement, such as prevention of mastitis and survivability, welfare indicators are improving trends.
On the other hand, where there is less involvement, such as tail docking, awareness of the legislation on tail docking is low, and there is a continuing, albeit low level, of non-compliance.
According to the FVO audit team, only Bord Bia (SDAS) uses tail docking as a welfare indicator.
