Reflections on disease control measures for sheep keepers

The sheep scab intervention (in particular dipping) has led to renewed understandings and forged new working relationships. The social capital built has allowed crofters to recall the advantages of working together, whilst showing newcomers what collective action can do. Crofters hope this is the start of a journey that can lead to a sheep scab free island flock.

Although the sheep scab intervention has been going well it has not yet influenced the control of other diseases. When discussing other parasitic infections, crofters showed interest in joint management, but sheep scab is a priority. As the collaborative way of working gathers momentum, the control of other diseases might be considered. It will be interesting to follow this journey to identify on-going benefits of returning to traditional ways of working in the townships and communities. Providing information on other diseases, and messaging on recommended practices may highlight areas where collaboration could be beneficial.

Island-wide disease management is something crofters were keen to engage with although more information is required to inform future decisions. Several barriers were discussed, including: Funding for necessary infrastructure on the island, logistical concerns over where infrastructure would be situated, the need to engage with crofters with small numbers of sheep, how to achieve island-wide agreement, support for additional private vet roles on the island, and policy and legislative changes to support island-wide livestock health management, similar to legislation for Shetland Animal Health Scheme (SAHS).

Decision support tools were not commonly used. Many believed that the advice would not be specific enough. The Sustainable Control Of Parasites of Sheep (SCOPS) Nematodirus forecasting map and “FEC check” were selected as tools crofters would be keen to trial. Paid services were not welcome. A few crofters said they would be interested in an interactive planner with targeted notifications that identified actions they could undertake.

Crofters were asked to indicate which disease control measures they currently use, which they are planning to start using, and which might be challenging to implement. Easier to implement measures are currently in place, whilst more time consuming to set up, costly, or resource rich measures are deemed either impractical or out of reach of the small crofting enterprises. Measures must be tailored to the crofting system and ideally co-designed with the crofters and associated institutions, e.g., the L&H Sheep Producers Association, The Scottish Crofting Federation and the Crofting Commission.

There was confusion about what a closed flock was, however, some crofters could see the benefits. Barriers to the development of closed flocks included, the regular use of common grazing and sharing equipment and infrastructure. Some crofters said they kept closed flocks, but only in relation to female animals. Tups are often shared and moved, increasing the risk of disease spread. One participant suggested that L&H could have an ‘island flock’, but this is currently hampered by a lack of community and island level coordination.

Most fences were described as in a poor state of repair. Fences are used for stock control, not biosecurity. Participants noted that when crofters seek to improve fences, they prioritise fields used for lambing and tupping. Crofters felt that it was expensive to repair and replace fences, and there were few contractors willing to take on the work. A participant questioned the role of fencing within a system that uses communal grazing. However, future funding for the upgrade of fencing at the township level could have significant impacts on disease control.

Messages need to be simple and targeted, giving advice and clear, precise, practical measures that can be implemented easily. Crofters suggested that the format should be varied. There is no one format that is suitable for all. The learning preferences of people, with diverse backgrounds, should be taken into consideration. Care needs to be given when disseminating information as some areas and communities can be difficult to reach, whilst others have preferred ways of receiving information. Word of mouth is still one of the best ways to communicate on the islands.