LAST year I was invited to act as
the judge for the rst Farm Animal
Welfare Award which was presented
in April this year. I thought it might
be worth increasing awareness of
the award and sharing some of my
experiences over the judging process
and why I consider the award should
be supported
and expanded in
future years.
Those in
companion animal
practice have had
animal welfare
awards for a few
years now. These
have resulted in many worthy winners.
They have rightly been seen and
applauded by the general public as they
come within their ambit of experience
and they are also of interest to the
popular media.
If the winners undertake practical
work, however, their influence is
inevitably restricted, unless they are
concerned and involved in the education
or the management of welfare initiatives
or animal organisations or they are
involved in providing advice.
Inevitably, those undertaking practical
veterinary work in farm animals deal
with more animals than in a similar
situation in companion animal practice;
they also tend to receive considerably
less publicity as they fall outside the
general ambit of most of the public or
media.
Yet very probably, many more people
have indirect exposure to farm animals
via food and animal products than
there is overall exposure to companion
animals.
The important responsibilities of
those who own, tend, heal, transport
and slaughter farm animals are usually taken for granted. Thus, they do not
receive the credit for the work they do
and which they deserve.
Usually the spotlight is only turned on
agriculture when something has gone
wrong. For once then, with the Farm
Animal Welfare Award, the spotlight is being shone for good reasons rather
than bad. It allows the celebration of an
industry where those involved do their
best year-in year-out and at times they
are often exposed to difficult conditions
produced by climatic or economic
situations.
Although the award is hosted by
Ceva, the company does not partake
or influence the judging or choice
of winner. The 2014 award was in
association with NADIS and it was
presented in April 2014, with the
judging occurring around the turn of
the year. The tangible part of the award
is in itself not that great but in other
ways it is beyond value in that it allows
the work of unsung heroes and farming
in general to be acknowledged by a
wider audience.
The award is open to anyone who
works within the farming industry,
be they a farmer, transporter, abattoir
worker, educationalist, besides
veterinary surgeons. The person
chosen is one who strives to provide
and encourage high standards of farm
animal welfare.
The aim of the award is to recognise
someone who has made a tangible
difference to the welfare of farmed
animals through direct action or
education and awareness. People can
nominate themselves although in most
instances nomination by those who
work with them or are in contact with
or exposed to their activities is more
appropriate.
Judging process
The judges come from a diversity
of interests and disciplines and are
concerned with awarding different types
of awards connected with veterinary
practice, animal welfare charities and
various species.
In each award category, the applications were examined
by all of us on the judging
panel irrespective of our
own experience in that
particular area. We looked
at each candidate and
decided whether or not to
consider him or her as a
potential winner. Those not
chosen contained many very
worthy applications which
were unfortunately discarded as others
appeared to have more merits.
What I learnt from the judging
process was that as each candidate
was judged on the application and not
on any previous knowledge of the
judges about the candidate, then the
application, its form and presentation
were most important.
It often helped if there were
several people providing inputs to the
application. What also became apparent
was that most winners showed a wide
variety of welfare activities and had
undertaken one or more activities well
over and beyond the call of duty.
The 2014 Award produced a very
strong eld of candidates. They were
very divergent and included many
aspects of farm animal production.
They included some outstanding
veterinary surgeons, farms providing
electronic information and news to the
general public of the activities (often
routine) on their farms, or looking after
neglected animals, or people just doing
an exceptionally good job.
As I knew several of those
nominated, I let the others on the group
make the decisions. For the most part
they were making their choices purely
on the application in front of them
and from them how they perceived the person portrayed.
In the end, three finalists were selected. One was a
person who ran a weekly
electronic discussion group
for those in farming to air their farm problems
including those with animals
and also the welfare of those
looking after and working in
farming.
It was considered by the group that
not only were animals being dealt with,
but that by also dealing with the welfare
of the farm community it had a knock-
on direct bene t to any animals under
their care.
Another was a farmer who began
tweeting about his farming and the
problems and triumphs encountered
throughout the year, including the
disasters resulting from extreme weather
events. These tweets have become very popular and have been regularly
accessed by the general public in the
UK and throughout the world.
Out of the very strong application
group, the eventual winner was in fact
a veterinary surgeon, Molly McKay
from Norfolk, who was nominated by a
client. She undertook farm animal work
in a professional and efficient manner
and patiently taught undergraduates, as
might be expected from any good farm
animal practitioner. The practice also
runs regular meetings for clients.
What captured the interest of the
judging panel, however, was that the
practice had launched an “Aspire to
Farm Awards” scheme, which is a financial award to a young person to
encourage or inspire the person to enter
or remain in livestock farming within
the east of England.
