LAST month, I used this column to urge cattle keepers in Wales to respond to the Welsh Government’s consultation on a legislative approach to Bovine Viral Diarrhoea (BVD) in Wales, writes FUW president Glyn Roberts.

Members from the FUW’s policy team travelled virtually around Wales to provide information on the proposed legislation and to gather members’ views on the way forward.

The feedback received was pivotal in the formation of the union’s response to this consultation and we submitted our response at the end of August.

The feedback we received from members demonstrated that BVD remains a problem for the farming industry in Wales and that eradication is essential to improve the health and welfare of cattle in Wales.

According to Gwaredu BVD, infection with BVD virus costs the Welsh cattle sector around £5 million per year through lost productivity.

Despite significant in-roads in tackling this disease in recent years, BVD levels in Wales remain stubbornly high; with around 28 per cent of Welsh cattle herds infected.

The current level of BVD in Wales represents a significant threat to both infected and uninfected herds.

It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that the overwhelming majority of responses that we received from county meetings supported the protectionist approach proposed through a legislative programme.

READ MORE: FUW concerns over increasing energy costs

It is of note that several European countries have already engaged in successful BVD control programmes through the genesis of a legislative approach.

Indeed, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark have now effectively eradicated BVD whilst countries such as Austria and Switzerland have also established successful eradication programmes.

Furthermore, Scotland, Ireland and Northern Ireland have had various forms of BVD legislation in place for many years and Wales has lagged behind in this regard.

The control – and subsequent eradication of BVD – is essential to protect the status of the Welsh cattle industry as a world leader in livestock health and welfare.

However, notwithstanding the above, the FUW requires clarity on several aspects of BVD legislation which have not been fully addressed within the present consultation. For instance, it remains unclear from the present consultation whether cattle testing negative for BVD via the antigen test would be able to move off the holding immediately following that test result; without the need for an additional pre-movement test within 21 days as proposed.

There is also a lack of clarity relating to the potential requirement to pre-movement test cattle between holdings under the same ownership and the same management; a move which the FUW would oppose.

Other areas of concern include proposals for risk based trading and the potential lack of symmetry for cattle moving from England into Wales.

Whilst the FUW works for favourable resolutions to those areas requiring further clarity, I would use this opportunity to urge those that have not already engaged in Gwared BVD to do so before the programme ends In December this year.

One of the proposals for legislation moots a three-to-six month transition period during which “cattle may only be moved from holdings (unless to slaughter) that hold an antibody negative status for BVD, obtained during the voluntary phase”.

In its response, the FUW highlighted that around 17 per cent of cattle keepers have yet to formally engage with the national BVD programme and it is essential that such cattle keepers are able to easily and readily access BVD screening during the transition period.

The FUW believes that cattle should also be able to be moved from such holdings if a negative BVD result is recorded during the transition.

Nevertheless, clearing BVD from a holding can take time and it is imperative that cattle keepers get to know their BVD status and have time to clear the infection to the best of their ability before the onset of legislation and all that this implies.