Minutes of twentieth Meeting of the Pig Technical - Minutes of the

Document Sample
Minutes of twentieth Meeting of the Pig Technical - Minutes of the Powered By Docstoc
					         Web Minutes of the Twentieth meeting of
              the Pig Technical Committee
                               Wednesday, 16th June 2010
                     9.30am at Farm Energy Centre, Stoneleigh Park

In Attendance
Dr Mike Varley (Chair)
Meryl Ward
Alison Johnson
Dr Zoe Davies
Dr Dan Tucker
Jim Burling
Richard Longthorp
Sue Wickham (Minutes)

      No apologies
      MV welcomed Jim Burling to his first PTC meeting.

      The minutes from the meeting held on 3rd March 2010 were asked to be amended by
      AJ. Additional wording has been inserted as follows:-

      9.0 PIVIT

          Elaboration of PIVIT – and the process of application to BPEX. This was
          discussed in relation to the BPEX Board’s decision to support a £10,000 scoping /
          review paper composition to identify IT usage and needs in the pig industry


      Queries were raised regarding the current budgets –
        • AJ asked how the figure against ‘Technical Division Generic’ was made up
        • MV agreed to look into this
                                                        Action: MV to liaise with Finance

         •   The committee felt that unless they were able to see actual spend in relation to
             the proposed budget, critical decisions about which projects to support could not
             be made.
         •   As such all projects and applications reviewed in this meeting would be
             considered against merit of application, whether or not they would be funded
             would be determined once the finances were available.
                                                                                  Action: MV

PhD Applications

      AJ – PTC need to give scoring feedback to all applications following decisions made –
      all agreed.
                                                                                  Action: MV

      A general discussion took place regarding the 5 PhD applications that were approved
      at the PTC meeting in March 2010. The process of timing of payments and
      requirement for reports was queried, and it was questioned whether the full £20,000
      needed to be paid up front or whether this was better made in staged payments on
      delivery of report updates. MV confirmed that contracts and payment schedules had
      been sent out for these applications and MV was asked to check that the 5 new PhD
      applications had amended their applications to incorporate observations made at the
      March meeting.
                                                                                  Action: MV

        • Mandy Nevel, RVC
          Economic and welfare impact of lameness in sows in the UK

      This application had already been submitted at the previous meeting and one summer
      studentship approved. MV confirmed that a contract had been sent out to RVC.

      Very few producers had attended the meeting and ZD asked whether the next F&S
      meeting could be incorporated into the next KT Conference (scheduled for March
      2011) as it is always well attended. AJ suggested that there could be a primed
      facilitator at each table and an agreed topic allocated to each table to be discussed
      over lunch with feedback afterwards. MV felt that this could possibly take away what
      the KT Conference already achieves but did agree to give some thought to options.
                                                                                     Action: MV

      MV outlined the background to how the Innovation Fund works.

      All agreed that applications should be submitted using the correct forms available on
      the BPEX website, sent in by the agreed deadlines and must detail funding required.
                                                                                  Action: MV

      MV to circulate an Innovation Fund application checklist and guidance notes to the KT
      Managers for discussion at the next KT meeting so that criteria can be adhered to and
      to look at the objectives of the Innovation Fund.

                                     Action: MV to issue KT team with PTC scoring sheet

        Action: SW to email guidelines and list of Innovation Fund applications to PTC

ZD suggested a panel of peer reviewers could look through applications/proposals and
then PTC review comments and make final decisions. All agreed this would save the
committee a lot of time. NB this was proposed at the 24 September 2009 meeting with
action for MV to follow up.
                                                                          Action: MV

6.1   John Richardson, Intervet Schering Plough Animal Health
      PTC’s view was why do they need funding from BPEX. PTC agreed that no
      funding would be given.

6.2   Paul J Goddard, UK Farm Feeds Ltd
      PTC agreed that this application was not an innovation and funding would not
      be granted.

6.3   Lester Bowker, Cotley Farm, Devon
      MW – PTC had already agreed not to fund this application.
      MV explained Helen Thoday’s feedback on this application, that fencing was still
      a real issue. ZD – thought that it would be useful for the applicant to set out a
      strategy that all outdoor pig producers could use to prevent badgers from
      accessing their pigs.
      RL – suggested that Helen Thoday as KT Manager needs to pull this together.
      MV & JB both agreed with RL’s comment.
      MW asked that MV write to the applicant asking for a detailed strategy for the
      South West including costs and details on how they plan to evaluate success
      before the PTC can consider the application.
                                                             Action: MV/ZD to action

6.4   Andrew Houston, Microware Pig Systems
      If already successfully used in Europe by Unitron why should BPEX produce
      literature for them?
      No evaluation shown as part of the application - we need more detail on what
      they actually intend to measure and how.
      Not sure as part of AHDB whether we can fund capital costs.
                                                         Action: MV to investigate

6.5   Cash poultry killer
      PTC agreed to fund the application but more information is required regarding
      costs and we would need confirmation that they would address health and
      safety issues.
                                                                        Action: MV

6.6   University of Nottingham, re. Decontamination regimes for weaner pens
      (1 year extension requested)
      The proposal outlines operating procedures of disinfectants to “Gold Standard”
      Need to look at what is measurable and propose that they shared information
      with Jill Thompson’s work at SAC.
                                                                           Action: MV

                                                                           Action: MV

      6.7   Alan Stewart, Harper Adams
            Demonstration and development of air cleaning equipment and processes
            for the reduction in airborne emissions

            Recommended that they ask RDA’s to fund the equipment and BPEX could
            support an innovation grant that would evaluate the systems. Within AHDB we
            need continuous liaison with RDA.

            It was agreed that BPEX emphasise that we cannot currently commit to funding
            this application but we do support it.
                                                                             Action: MV

      The applications were considered and a score out of 25 was allocated to each one,
      and comments were recorded.

      MV – referred the PTC to the latest published Annual Report.

      MV proposed that PTC have a brainstorming session regarding industry knowledge
      gaps that could be addressed. DT mentioned a document that Colin Whittemore had
      put together detailing various areas to be addressed. PTC requested a separate
      session for “blue sky thinking” at the next PTC meeting to ensure this is given
      adequate time. MV to incorporate into the next PTC meeting in September.

                                                  Action: DT to forward document to MV/SW

      MV – emphasised one area that could be looked at is Health status linked to
      ZD – More work needs to be done looking for treatments to prevent tail biting once it
      has started (the industry used to have Bitex but now there is very little available). We
      also need to better understand manipulable materials from an unbiased view as to
      what the pig actually needs rather than what people think it needs.
      RL – Management skills & training is the most important issue within the industry. MW
      agreed that training/development and recruitment issues all need addressing. JB also
      agreed that training is a big issue.
      MV – expressed concerns that we need to give an overview of where genetics are
      going i.e. behaviour.

      The applications were considered and a score out of 25 was allocated to each one,
      and comments were recorded.

      9.1   Dr Emma Snary, VLA
            Risk Assessment & Epidemiological Approaches to Animal Welfare
            All agreed that the money would be better invested into the existing welfare
            outcomes project.

       9.2   Dr Ilias Kyriazakis, University of Newcastle
             Is it possible to reduce the environmental impact of pig systems without
             compromising pig welfare?
             All agreed not to fund this application.

       9.3   University of Bristol, Newcastle University, BQP
             Ceasing Tail Docking without compromising welfare
             MW asked whether BPEX should drive this themselves as an industry project. It
             could even run as stage 2 of Nina Taylor’s project. MV suggested it could be
             run as a PhD instead.

             All agreed that it was a good application, and liked the idea but the cost at this
             stage is prohibitive.
                                                                    Action: MV to speak to AJ

       9.4   Harper Adams University College re. Fallen Stock
             The application was not given a score as no costs were outlined in the
             application. All agreed that more information was required on costs, detail on
             why the extra work was needed and what had been found so far.

                                                                       Action: MV to action
       9.5   ADAS/SAC – Tess Howe
             Transport of Weaner Pigs
             All agreed that this topic had been covered before. RL pointed out that this was
             also detailed in a BPEX A4P. MV suggested that this application could be
             tailored to an Innovation Fund application.
                                                              Action: MV to write to Fawley


       Plans to change structure of PTC
       MW asked if there were any plans to change the structure of the committee.
       MV suggested we could have 2 national meetings a year with say BBSRC and Defra
       RL - It might dilute what the PTC are trying to do.

       PIVIT Initiative
       MV outlined the PIVIT objectives and asked what the PTC felt about proceeding with
       the concept and that there was a £10k maximum budget set for this by the BPEX

       MW & JB both felt that in their experience good data collection was difficult because of
       practical issues on farm.

       MV – The BPEX Board have expressed a wish for this to be looked into further.

       There was a prolonged discussion on this and the value of collecting data on farm for
       interpretation off farm and using it with various other streams of data to improve farm
       performance. The feeling was that although this was seen as a worthy aim, we first had
       to focus on those businesses that were actually on farm doing the work as they needed

       the proper support and training to anticipate the pigs needs and improve stockmanship
       skills. All agreed not to offer funding to the project.

                                             Action: MV to relay decision to BPEX Board.

       MW asked what action had been taken to cover maternity leave for both Tess Howe
       and Lis Ravn. MV confirmed that job ads had been agreed and were being placed on
       the BPEX website.

       The next meeting is to be held from 2pm on 30th September 2010 to 3pm on 1st
       October, at The Ramada Hotel, Kenilworth.
                                                                              Action: SW


Shared By: