The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week decided that a Lincolnshire-based veterinary surgeon should not be restored to the RCVS Register, having previously struck him off for disgraceful professional conduct, as it was not convinced that he accepted the seriousness of its finding.

In October 2007, Robert Morris, of Brant Broughton, near Lincoln, was removed from the Register having been found guilty of falsely certifying a horse to be fit for sale, despite knowing that it had a respiratory problem that could prejudice its use in the future by its new owners.

At the hearing, which concluded on 7 January, the Disciplinary Committee focused on several areas. On the day following the Committee's decision in October 2007, Mr Morris had falsely certified that two horses had been fully vaccinated every six months by his practice, when he did not know that this was the case. On two occasions during September and October of 2009, he had held himself out to be a veterinary surgeon, including examining, diagnosing and treating animals (horses and dogs). These issues, together with the fact that Mr Morris told the Committee that he was not fully familiar with the Twelve Principles of Certification, as set out in the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, led the Committee to believe that Mr Morris did not understand the seriousness of his conviction for disgraceful professional conduct.

The Committee also felt that there was a risk to future welfare of animals and protection of the public arising from Mr Morris' failure to understand the importance of certification. That he remained unfamiliar with the veterinary medicines regulations (and had been convicted at Grantham Magistrates Court on 1 November 2007 for possession of unauthorised veterinary medicinal products on 7 March 2006), was also taken as relevant in this regard.

The Committee also took into account the fact that Mr Morris had undertaken only limited continuing professional development since his removal, and it was concerned that it had not been presented with sufficient evidence to confirm Mr Morris' assertion that he no longer suffers from an alcohol problem.

Chairing the Disciplinary Committee, Mrs Alison Bruce, said: "In the light of its finding that Mr Morris does not fully understand the importance of accurate certification, nor of practising as a veterinary surgeon when he was not entitled to do so, the Committee considers that there is a risk to the future welfare of animals in the event of his name being restored to the Register."

She went on to add that in the case of veterinary surgeons continuing to work in a practice when struck off: "It is fully appreciated that veterinary practices may be owned and managed by lay people, however there must be a clear distinction between managing or working within a veterinary practice and practising veterinary medicine. It is of particular importance that any member who has been removed should recognise the difference between these activities. A member who has been removed must refrain from examining animals, making diagnoses or performing treatments, even under the direction of another veterinary surgeon, this includes giving veterinary advice."

Research amongst veterinary surgeons by Janssen Animal Health, maker of Cavalesse oral and Cavalesse topical, has revealed that owners could be doing more harm than good when it comes to managing sweet itch in their horses.

92% of vets questioned are aware that people follow old wives' tales by administering lotions and potions such as garlic and olive oil to ward off flies during the summer sweet itch season, when garlic actually has the opposite effect of attracting them.

According to Janssen, it is thought that only a quarter of horse owners are aware that it is important to carry out preventative measures before the start of the midge season to help alleviate sweet itch. 14% of people are thought to go to their vet for advice on sweet itch, while 30% seek help from their country store or tack shop, 27% search for information on websites and 26% ask other horse owners for guidance. This is despite the fact that 92% of those questioned believe that sweet itch would clear up quicker if people sought advice from their veterinary surgeon.

Nicki Glen, marketing manager at Janssen Animal Health said: "Sweet itch can be an incredibly difficult and frustrating condition to manage, however horse owners do not tend to seek advice from their vets. It is therefore important to educate horse owners while you are on yard visits with pro-active advice on the condition for the long-term health and welfare of horses."

Cavalesse is a natural food supplement containing a specialised formulation of water-soluble vitamins and minerals, including nicotinamide.  Once a month the contents of each sachet are dissolved in water to form an oral solution, which can be administered daily via a special pipette, either by sprinkling over a small handful of feed or adding to a treat such as a sugar lump.  Janssen says the supplement helps horses maintain a healthy skin and promotes normal immune function in horses prone to summer allergies.

Cavalesse Topical is a skincare gel that can be used in combination with the Cavalesse solution.  The gel can be applied to the skin to help support natural immunity from the outside, whilst the oral solution works in partnership from the inside.

For further information on Cavalesse and Cavalesse Topical please contact your Janssen Animal Health account manager or phone 01494 567555.

Eight vet students have been recognised for their exceptional work with the Intervet / Schering-Plough Animal Health Connect Bursary Awards, designed to provide financial assistance for students for elective research during their college years. Three main awards were made for projects focussing on laterality in dogs, stallion semen preservation, and developing a better understanding of wobbler syndrome in horses.

Charlotte Cockburn from the Royal Veterinary College (RVC) and Hayley Harwood from the Royal Dick School of Veterinary Studies (Edinburgh) were the joint winners of the main Bursary Award, while the RVC's Holly Claridge was presented with the inaugural Equine Award.

Charlotte's research investigated tests for laterality in dogs to determine if domestic dogs show a significant paw preference and to identify a test that can be used for this purpose by veterinary practices.  The results showed a lateralisation bias in the dog population towards the left with no significant correlations between paw preference and the sex, age or breed of dog.  In addition, the initiation of gait test used in the study was the only test that gained a response from 100% of the dogs.

Hayley set out to investigate the motility of stallion spermatozoa thawed at various rates and maintained for up to 24 hours with the aim of designing a protocol for the thawing of semen that would allow cooled transported frozen-thawed semen to be used effectively.  The study showed that for total motility, thawing the straws at 72°C resulted in significantly higher motility than when compared with other treatments.

Holly's research aimed to describe the 3D anatomy of the cervical articular process joints in relation to the spinal cord and whether artificial distension of these joints, mimicking effusion, would cause the pouches of the joints to compress the spinal cord in the horse.  The study concluded that in the absence of any other soft tissue or bony changes effusion of these joints is unlikely to cause spinal cord compression.  However, given that these joints and the spinal cord are in close approximation, in the presence of other changes, an effusion may have the potential to cause compression.

While Charlotte, Hayley and Holly were the overall winners, five other students also received a Connect Bursary from Intervet / Schering-Plough Animal Health to fund their research.  The Bursaries were awarded to Rebecca Johnson and Sharon Brown (Glasgow), Gabrielle Laing (Liverpool), Alex Torrance (Cambridge) and Amy Gordan (Bristol).  Students were required to present their work to a judging panel from Intervet / Schering-Plough Animal Health, representatives from the veterinary schools and industry key opinion leaders. Two further Bursaries were also awarded to students from Nottingham.

David Hallas, General Manager at Intervet / Schering-Plough Animal Health said:  "Being part of the Connect Bursary is intended to give veterinary students both the freedom to explore new ground as well as providing a taste of working in industry.  The fact that we awarded a record number of Bursaries this year, elected joint winners and launched the new Equine Award is testament to the refreshingly high standard of work being undertaken by veterinary undergraduates."

Vets and farmers must do more to improve dairy cow welfare in the UK, according to the British Veterinary Association (BVA). The call comes after careful consideration of major reports and opinions on the welfare of dairy cattle by FAWC (Farm Animal Welfare Council) and EFSA (European Food Safety Authority).

In a new policy statement, released last week, the BVA outlined the need for veterinary surgeons to take an active role in educating farmers and promoting better welfare, as well as working with farming clients towards a 'Herd Welfare Plan' that can be followed alongside the 'Farm Health Plan'.

The BVA says it recognises that some improvements have been made in certain welfare areas, such as longevity, but that issues relating to lameness, mastitis, housing and infectious diseases, such as TB, continue to be of concern.

Veterinary surgeons are well placed to offer help and advice in order to educate farmers on welfare aspects and how they affect herd health, productivity and ultimately, profit.

The policy also addresses issues around breeding for certain traits, which should always be discussed with a vet through a breeding plan, and the challenges of housing dairy herds. The BVA believes much can be done to achieve high welfare standards through good housing.

Finally, the BVA supports retailers who reward farmers financially for improving welfare standards for dairy cows and their calves.

Professor Bill Reilly, President of the BVA, said: "Recent reports have highlighted a number of major concerns about the welfare of dairy cows and their calves, and the BVA feels strongly that vets can take a leading role in addressing these issues.

"Lameness, mastitis, inadequate housing and infectious disease can all lead to poor welfare. Not only is this unacceptable for the animals, but it can be bad for the farmer's business.

"By working together, vets and farmers can and should do more to improve dairy cow welfare through Herd Welfare Plans, breeding plans and improved housing conditions."

Keith Cutler, President of the British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA), added: "While the UK enjoys higher standards of dairy cow welfare than many other countries, there are still some issues that need to be tackled.

"Vets and farmers need to work together to address problems.  In my experience most farmers are pleased to discuss issues with their vets and then work in conjunction to improve the health and welfare, and ultimately the productivity and profitability, of their herds."

Virbac has announced the reintroduction of chews as part of its dental range.

VeggieDent chews are available in packs of 15 in sizes suitable for small, medium and large dogs. The chews contain chlorhexidine and have a texture and shape designed to optimise plaque removal by physically abrading the tooth surface during chewing.

Product manager Chris Geddes said: "The gold standard of dental hygiene is regular brushing, but that isn't always possible, and products such as this are ideal for those difficult cases." 

For further information please speak to your Virbac representative, phone 01359 243243 or email admin@virbac.co.uk.

The University of Edinburgh and the Royal Veterinary College (RVC) have announced a new initiative to help vet students prepare for their Extra Mural Studies (EMS) placements.

Freda Andrews, RCVS Head of Education said: "This is a free online learning tool which will look familiar to any veterinary student who has recently taken the driving theory test. Any veterinary student can use it as part of their preparation for EMS."

The project was drawn up by Dr Catriona Bell at the University of Edinburgh, and Dr Sarah Baillie at the RVC, two lecturers with experience of practice life who want to make sure that student placements work well for all concerned. The aim is that by helping veterinary students understand what will be expected of them, students can be better prepared and get the most out of their placements.

Sarah Baillie said: "We found that students aren't always aware that doing some simple practical things can make a huge difference to how well their placement goes. There are some common pitfalls, such as not taking a lunch with them so the vet has to find a shop whilst out on call, which can catch out the unwary."

Catriona Bell said that the importance of body language was a consistent theme in the research they undertook for the project: "Students want to do well, however placements are a new environment and can be tiring. Vets are not paid to provide EMS, and say they take on students as they want to support the next generation of vets. Students need to make sure they convey their interest and enthusiasm to all members of the practice team through their body language - they don't always realise, for example, what an impact slouching and looking down at the floor can have."

Other tips for students that came out of the research include making sure that you prepare thoroughly before you go, and offering to help out the veterinary nurses.

Sarah said: "We put in what real students told us they'd wished they'd known. The practising vets who support students also gave us valuable information; for example, by explaining what they expect with regards to confidentiality and professionalism, a working vet's skills."

There is no need for a sign-up for students to use the EMS Driving Licence, and veterinary practices who will be hosting EMS students may also find it useful.  To try it out for yourself visit www.vet.ed.ac.uk/ems_driving_licence/

Earlier this month, veterinary surgeon Matthew Wilkinson caused a storm after giving a controversial interview to the Daily Mail to promote his book: On The Destiny Of Species. VetSurgeon member Martin Jones has read the book to find out whether the book supports the allegations. Here is his review ... 

I can't deal with hypocrisy (and if I do it I want it pointed out), especially when it leads to more suffering.
Matthew Watkinson, on his own fishsnorkel blog

Being subjective isn't about evidence, it's about feelings, and the most fundamental part of being subjective is the projection of extrinsic values...... i.e. X means Y to me so I will assume X means Y to X as well
On the Destiny of Species, p.17

...it should be perfectly obvious that feelings can corrupt perspective and warp reality.
On the Destiny of Species, p.18

I can only say that you make me ashamed to be human.
On the Destiny of Species, p.112

On the Destiny of Species is the Book of Matthew Watkinson. It's a piece of Matthew himself: his theories, his feelings, his world view. It's the document at the centre of the storm, the cause (and topic) of much argument recently, here and on a wider stage. Matthew has attacked the veterinary profession, if not quite by going through the front door, then at least by coming in the windows. He's put his name to the accusations, has been robust in defending them and has inarguably stood by his principles. The response has not, I think, surprised him; but it may have surprised some of us. Despite not having actually read the book, many people have felt qualified to comment - often with some force.

So, in the interests of objectivity I volunteered to read the thing, and to apply some scrutiny to what the man is actually saying; we're all agreed - including Matthew - that the Daily Mail did a poor job on his behalf, reducing his argument in the minds of its readers to an attack on veterinary ethics and profits. Matthew clearly wishes to say more, so why not listen?

Before we start, I'd like to point out that I'm not here to perform a hatchet job on behalf of the veterinary profession. When I asked Matthew for a copy, I was quite open that I might hate it, and that I would say so, but that if I didn't then equally I would say so. So here goes.

Matthew kicks off by defining objectivity and subjectivity; former good, latter bad. Science and reasoning right, emotion and hypocrisy wrong. As with what is to come, he doesn't hold back on this score. However, if this was to be an objective review, in which prose, style and accessibility of content were examined, then it would be fairly short and not particularly complimentary. The typographical errors start on line two and batter the more sensitively tuned reader pretty much continuously to the end. It's rambling, poorly edited, and repetitive for much of its length (the work would decently fit into a book half its current size). It fails to engage the reader on any level that isn't centred on shared anger.

But to concentrate on the book's failing as a work of literature would be to ignore the message, and that's surely what we're here for. The theories and arguments therein are what should concern us, and I'll attempt to review them below.

First, the surprises, in particular that vets feature hardly at all. Our complicity in propagating recessive genes is tackled early on, and whether or not we feel responsible as individuals, it can't be denied that this section is one of the book's successes. The vitriol that Matthew pours into modern farming, and at the breeders behind some of our more extreme patients, is genuine and heartfelt, and he might quite validly have expanded here. Admittedly some of his conclusions are rather worrying, if only for their undeniable plausibility to the layman:

Similarly, in dogs, the congenital heart defect patent ductus arteriosus could not have become a heritable risk without veterinary surgeons

The statement shows a disturbing lack of understanding of the way that recessive genes flow through populations, with a clear implication that we fix 'em up (although I suspect almost none of us could ever attempt the feat) so that they can get back to breeding.

The book is actually about lack of objectivity in conservation, and the inconsistency in preserving a species because of its attractiveness, often at the expense of less amiable species. Matthew espouses the view that we are essentially puny humans, and that nothing we do really matters. I know now that he is Darwin's biggest fan, doesn't believe in God and is dismissive of creationists, doesn't believe that any animals reliant on conservation actually appreciate the fact, and does believe that all animals should be viewed in terms of their ability to adapt and exploit, rather than their usefulness to us:

.... conservation has nothing to do with extinct animals and everything to do with the way some people feel about extinct animals

Matthew sets himself up as the crusader and lone voice of reason, as an unequivocal judge of those who stand in the way of his theories. Among these are pretty much all conservationists, quite a number of biological and global warming scientists and anybody who indulges in post-rationalisation (those who use new evidence to retrospectively confirm their beliefs). And then he goes and says:

My decision to study veterinary medicine was based on the naïve assumption that it would involve the pragmatic application of objective selection principles

Really? At sixteen, I remember liking animals and wanting to impress girls. Those who live by the sword, Matthew. His approach to people who might seek a different view is robust, to say the least:

peace-promising Harp Seal fanatic Rebecca Aldworth.... the chief scientist of the IUCN has completely forgotten, or never actually known, that species don't evolve themselves in the right direction..... despite their own quite ludicrous beliefs...... but to anyone with half a brain...... Honestly, what the hell is wrong with these people...... is obviously controlled by idiots...... thus it should be face-punchingly obvious.....

All of which contrasts nicely with the statement made at the start of the book:

I believe that ethical diversity is as natural as biological diversity, but either way, I'm not preaching

The book makes huge promises to "conclusively destroy the empirical basis for almost everything the conservation community has ever said." It fails to do so, quite spectacularly. Matthew's interpretation of both the science and the motivation of conservation (and remember, in being objective, we should be seeking evidence) is deeply flawed and he resorts to the kind of mudslinging that ends in rubbish fights behind the bike sheds. On the more recent efforts to conserve cod stocks by harvesting other species in preference, he comes to an embarrassingly asinine conclusion:

'Atlantic Pollock...can be distinguished from cod by their greenish hue.' 119

Is that it? Are the 'stewards' really telling us to kill Pollack instead of Cod because Pollack have a 'greenish hue'?

Yes. They are.

Really, Matthew? You're actually claiming that fishermen catch Pollack because they're colour-biased, rather than because this population may currently be harvested without threat to its viability? Yes, you are. In fact, you do: it's right there on page 72.

Similarly, Matthew isn't above misappropriating the views of others to prove his point. Here, on the conservation groups which appeal to the public for funds:

Surely they don't mean the end of climate change, and rampant habitat destruction, and rapid population growth, and extreme poverty in many areas of the world, and global food shortages, and extinction threats etc. etc.

If they're promising salvation, I guess they do, and I'm sure they really believe it too. In the words of Richard Dawkins:

'...these people actually believe what they say they believe.' 376

OK, so Professor Dawkins was talking about religious fundamentalists, rather than wildly optimistic nature 'managers', but faith is faith regardless of what it's making up on the spot.

I wonder what Richard Dawkins would think about having his thoughts hijacked to somebody else's agenda? Post-rationalisation, Matthew.

Conclusions that Matthew draws from the statistics he presents are prone to error:

2 million dairy cows will suffer at least 3.1 million cases of disease every year, and if you share the incidence risk equally, each individual has a 155% chance of getting sick every year.

Perhaps I should repeat that, for all those who think life should be preserved at all costs:

If you share the incidence risk equally, each individual dairy cow has a 155% chance of getting [sic] each year.

Another stick which Matthew uses to beat the reader: the phrase 'perhaps I should repeat that'. It can be a nice conceit, a device to use sparingly when one has a show-stopping point to make; by the fourth or fifth instance, it had me clenching my teeth. The valid point here, that lameness in cattle is one of the greater scandals of modern farming (and that the RSPCA isn't entirely objective in its approach to animal welfare), is lost in the bungling of the message.

Possibly the least successful portion of the book is where Matthew attempts to take on climate change and the science behind it. Now, I'm not sure that either Matthew or I are equipped to take this on, and there is a fair amount of confusion evident as a result, not to mention some self-contradiction about the importance of the role of carbon dioxide. He also clings to the quaint notion that because the earth hasn't died yet, it won't. It brings to mind the apocryphal story of the Bronx housewife, on being arrested for murdering her husband, "Whaddya mean - I stabbed him loadsa times before and he never died".  It's pretty likely that when the human race kills itself off, plenty of other lifeforms will flourish - but the simple facts are that we don't know how and when we're going to do it, or how much we'll destroy on the way out. I was particularly tickled by Matthew's assertion that dumping nuclear waste into the rainforests is

.....a good plan that will inevitably fall on deaf ears

In asserting that all lives must end, but Life will continue indefinitely (neatly ignoring the principle that entropy will eventually win, but not for a little while yet), Matthew aims to apply objective scrutiny to the abiding principles of conservation - and thereby expose it for the pointless sham that he believes it to be. However, such an approach to our relationship with our ecosystem and to individuals' rights to life may help to reduce sentimentality, but it's also distinctly joyless and seeks to take from humans their capacity to find pleasure in activities that don't necessarily influence their own survival. Like it or not, we've evolved to enjoy stuff, we're the dominant species and Darwinism dictates that we strive to maintain this status. If we want to save a bunch of polar bears, we can. It might help, it might not. If we want to cull jellyfish so that our marine food stocks are safeguarded, then we're following simple Darwinian principles. But as the species that made it through to master abstract thought, to at least understand the principle of altruism and to be able to seamlessly construct shields against our own hypocrisy, we can save what we like, when we like. Matthew seems to be angry about this, and that's not entirely healthy.

There are points to be made here: Matthew wants to take on the indiscriminate dog breeders; he rightly pulls up some of the eco-babble that promises total world destruction - and the unwarranted guilt that it engenders; he makes a nice point about the parallels between ecological proselytising and religion - but then ruins it by repeating it over and over again, page after page. Simply, if rather brutally, the book doesn't work for me on any level. I wasn't convinced by a single argument that I hadn't already considered and I found it an absolute chore to read.

I apologise to Matthew. I wanted to be positive and to be able to demonstrate that his actions were at least well-motivated, and had allowed him to bring something to the table with his book. But I fear that he'll be remembered simply as the man who tried to fight overcharging in the profession, and it's clear that that's the one point he hasn't actually tried to make.

One last thing. Matthew contends that we must strive for objectivity, and that we should fight hypocrisy. He makes the clear point that dead animals do not have feelings, and that to give them significance is subjective. In his words elsewhere though, he has described how in dealing with his agent, he became frustrated by the lack of pace; Darwin's great work was nearing its 150^th anniversary, and in order to tie in properly with this it was imperative that the book be published without delay.

To this, I have to say: the anniversary wasn't aware of the book's arrival. The anniversary has no thoughts on the matter; it isn't animate or sentient or in any way aware. The anniversary didn't care whether or not it was celebrated. In fact, the:

.... [celebration of the anniversary] has nothing to do with [the anniversary itself] and everything to do with the way some people feel about [anniversaries]

The subjective course of action was to sack the agent and self-publish in a hurry. The objective course of action would have been to retain the agent, forget about an arbitrary date and get a good editor in. There was the basis of a decent book here: Matthew has some things to say; unfortunately, he seems to have gone out of his way to make sure that few people want to listen, both in the writing of the book and in its promotion. What a shame.

To Matthew, I apologise again. I wish you the best of luck, I respect and defend your right to air your beliefs and if I'd liked the book, I would have said so. To others, who might accuse me of kicking a man when he's down, I say that I cannot hurt the man financially: Matthew has now started to give the book away as a pdf download. You can find it, along with debate and biography, on his blog:

http://fishsnorkel.wordpress.com/

Eskimo, a reindeer at Edinburgh Zoo has received life-saving surgery just in time for Christmas, making him the first reindeer in history to receive keyhole surgery.

Vet Romain Pizzi successfully removed one of Eskimo's testes, which had been lodged in its abdomen since birth, using specialist surgical instruments donated to the zoo by one of Ark Surgical's strategic partners Surgical Innovations.

The zoo was worried that the retained testicle may have been developing into a tumour giving off abnormal hormones, and that this could become life-threatening. Thankfully, zoo surgeons found that the retained testicle, although abnormally sized, had not yet developed a tumour.

It is thought that the abnormal testicle was affecting Eskimo's production and flow of testosterone and, as a result, he was showing submissive behaviour and being bullied by the other male reindeer in the herd. He had also started to show some abnormal and delayed antler growth and development. Removing the testicle will halt any abnormal hormone production so hopefully Eskimo will return to full vigour just in time for Christmas.

Gavin O'Brien, Director at Ark Surgical said: "We were only too happy to help when Romain mentioned the challenging operation faced by Eskimo and in the season of goodwill we approached Surgical Innovations who kindly donated the instruments for this pioneering surgery." 

Although laparoscopic surgery is routine in humans, the standard procedure in animals is still open abdominal surgery.  Open abdominal surgery is 20 years behind human medical advances and has a number of negative factors on animals such as more post-operative pain, slower recovery and a higher risk of post-operative complications and infections.

Romain, a veterinary surgeon for the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, based at Edinburgh Zoo, said: "Laparoscopic surgery is still very uncommon in veterinary medicine, even amongst common species such as dogs, cats and horses, so for keyhole surgery to be carried out on a reindeer shows a great advancement in veterinary surgery."

It is estimated that nearly one out of every two households in the UK are pet owners. Veterinary surgeons perform on average 600,000 open abdominal procedures annually but it is believed that less than 1% of vets currently practice laparoscopic surgery. 

Romain believes that with the right instrumentation available through innovative companies such as Ark Surgical, UK vets now have more opportunity than ever to introduce laparoscopic techniques as part of their operating procedures.

Romain said: "This procedure was only really possible thanks to a cutting-edge designed retractor which we were able to use in this case. Ironically although a reindeer is a reasonably large animal, due to their unique anatomy and massive four chambered stomach that takes up most of the space in the abdomen, there is a very limited internal operating space. For this reason the operation was much more difficult than in a human, or in a dog, where there is more space to work, despite their smaller size."

"We were especially pleased with how quickly Eskimo recovered after surgery, he was standing and happily eating lichen again within 10 minutes of recovery from anaesthesia. He hardly seemed to notice he had even had surgery, although he was still slightly groggy from the anaesthesia. This would simply not have been possible with traditional open abdominal surgery, as the long wound would have been much more painful and debilitating."

The minimally invasive nature of laparoscopic surgery means there are numerous benefits for animals such as a reduction in post-operative pain, a faster recovery and reduced post-operative care.   It also has a decreased risk of infection after surgery and a lower risk of any wound complications. 

For veterinary surgeons laparoscopic surgery can offer better visualisation of the operated area, allowing them to be more precise and reach areas that are difficult to see in open surgery such as the liver and pelvic canal.

Romain carries out laparoscopic operations on dogs, cats and exotic pets at his own veterinary practice Inglis Veterinary Centre (Scotland) and has pioneered several new laparoscopic techniques.

He said: "Laparoscopic surgery has so many benefits for the animal, the veterinary surgeons and the zoo, so there is no reason why it should not be more common practice within veterinary surgery.  I hope Eskimo's experience helps raise its profile and encourage more veterinary surgeons to look in to it as a standard surgical procedure."

Ark Surgical offers a wide range of laparoscopy instruments and peripherals to vets across the UK and to suit all budgets. The company says it is already working with many of the UK's leading vets and agencies such as the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, as well as the UK foremost laparoscopic medical device manufacturer Surgical Innovations, to be at the forefront of veterinary laparoscopic surgery

For more information on animal laparoscopic surgery contact Ark Surgical on 01732 862882 or http://www.arksurgical.co.uk/

Animalcare's new Cephacare flavour antibiotic has received a response of 'good' or 'very good' in 80% of cases in a recent field study of superficial pyoderma in dogs. When asked to rate the effectiveness of the cephalexin-based antibiotic, more than half of the cases were awarded the highest response level of 'very good'.

Animalcare asked vets from across the country to participate in the study in order to confirm the company's own opinion. Each vet recorded five cases of superficial pyoderma in dogs and scored the effectiveness of treating the condition with Cephacare flavour. The first vets to complete their assessment forms received a free copy of the BSAVA Manual of Small Animal Dermatology worth £85.

The antibiotic proved effective across 19 different breeds, with animal weights ranging from 7kg to 70kg. Varying degrees of condition severity from mild through to severe were recorded with the average treatment length being 14-17 days. A number of 'severe' cases were treated with positive results. Severe was defined as long standing or recurrent areas of papules, crusting papules, epidermal collarettes and intact pustules.

Tony Liepman, Animalcare Market Manager, said: "A study like this confirms the product's effectiveness and, importantly, the acceptance of Cephacare flavour in real-world cases."

Veterinary practices are being encouraged to enter the annual Veterinary Marketing Association's (VMA) awards, which now include a practice-only category.

The annual VMA awards are intended to recognise excellence in all aspects of veterinary and animal health marketing. The Practice Marketing Award, sponsored by Pfizer, is awarded to the companion or production animal practice that demonstrates the most initiative and innovation in the marketing of its products and/or services to end users. This can involve the use of any form of activity, including advertising, websites, direct mail and media relations.

Last year's winner of this award was Kessock Equine Vets from Aberdeen, who travelled down to London to receive their award at a presentation lunch. The 2009 awards presentation ceremony takes place on Friday, 19th March at the Old Brewery in Chiswell Street, London. The meeting also presents a very good opportunity for vets to meet representatives from all the major animal health companies.

Tickets for the event cost £115+VAT for VMA/VMPA members (£150+VAT for non-members). The price includes a three-course meal (prepared by a two-star Michelin chef) with wine, a champagne reception and entertainment by a top comedian.

Further information on the awards is available on the Veterinary Marketing Association's website - http://www.vma.org.uk/. Closing date for entries is 5th February 2010.

The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies has become the first place in the UK to offer reptile training recognised by the European College of Zoological Medicine.

Kevin Eatwell, who is part of the School's Exotic Animal and Wildlife Service, has been awarded diplomat status by the European College of Zoological Medicine (ECZM).

This will enable him to offer training to residents at the School wishing to gain European accreditation in the area of herpetology, which covers reptiles.

The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, which is part of the University of Edinburgh, also gained the endorsement of the ECZM to train residents to treat reptiles following a visit by its president.

The diplomat status recognises Mr Eatwell as a specialist in Europe. In addition, he is also one of only two RCVS diploma holders in reptile medicine in the UK.

To qualify as an ECZM diplomat a vet needs to meet stringent criteria. This includes the time spent specialising in a particular field as well as three first author and a minimum of three second co-author publications relevant to the specialty.  

Many of Mr Eatwell's scientific papers followed on from a dissertation, which was funded through an educational grant through the RCVS Trust.

As a diplomat for the European College of Zoological Medicine, Mr Eatwell will input into the ECZM training criteria for vets specialising in the care and treatment of reptiles.

Mr Eatwell said: "I am delighted to have achieved such status by the European College of Zoological Medicine. It is very exciting to be involved in the education of specialist veterinary surgeons throughout Europe. This will also open the door for residents at the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies to obtain European qualifications relating to the specialist treatment of reptiles."

Mr Eatwell is one of only a handful of ECZM diplomats in the UK and the first in herpetology. Other ECZM diplomats cover disciplines including avian, small mammals and wildlife and conservation.

Cherry Bushell, Director of the RCVS Trust, said: "It's always wonderful to hear that the grants awarded by RCVS Trust do help make a difference to young vets and to the development of animal care in the UK and overseas.  We congratulate Kevin on his achievement and wish him every success in the future."

The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies also has the UK's first European resident in Small Mammal Medicine, Elisabetta Mancinelli, who is being supervised by Anna Meredith, head of the Exotic Animal and Wildlife Service.

Veterinary surgeon Niall Taylor has signed a deal worth a reported £100 to become the new face of VetSurgeon.org.

As part of the deal, Niall will appear in magazine adverts for the community website in Veterinary Practice magazine. VetSurgeon publishers have so far not confirmed rumours that he will also be appearing on billboards alongside the M4, M1 and M25 motorways, and in TV ads after Coronation Street.

Niall said: "I'm donating my earnings from this contract to support our practice manager, Alyson Gough, who'll be running the London Marathon to raise money for SENSE, a charity which supports deafblind people. If any of my colleagues would like to join me in supporting this important cause, you can do so at: http://www.justgiving.com/Alyson-Gough  

Niall replaces the outgoing face of VetSurgeon, Gillian Mostyn MRCVS. She said: "I've had a wonderful year. Being the face of VetSurgeon has opened so many doors for me. I wish Niall all the very best".

Pedigree® has announced the launch of national Oral Care Month, which will take place during March 2010.

Recognising that canine periodontal disease affects over 80% of dogs in the UK, yet with only 2% of owners following a regular oral care regime for their dog, Oral Care Month will seek to encourage owners to visit their veterinary practice for free dental check-ups.

The company says the initiative will be supported with a wide range of marketing material for practices, including striking waiting room posters, leaflets and free Pedigree DentaStix samples. A far-reaching national press and TV advertising campaign will also take place leading up to the campaign to encourage existing and potentially new clients to seek advice from their vet.

Pedigree's oral care expert, Dr Marie-Louise Baillon says that most owners simply aren't aware that four out of five dogs over the age of three are likely to have gum disease. "We've found that around 90% of owners rate their own dog's teeth and gums as being either good or perfect. What our campaign is aiming to do is educate owners to look out for the telltale signs, such as bad breath, which many will often wrongly accept as being normal, or bleeding and inflamed gums."

Practices can sign up to Oral Care Month from 1st January at: http://www.oralcaremonth.co.uk/.

Promotional materials will be sent to registered surgeries in the New Year. All practices that sign up will be listed on the campaign's consumer website so that dog owners can easily find their nearest participating vet.

All registered Oral Care Month practices will also be entered into a free prize draw. Prizes include a dental X-ray system worth £2,500, 25 free places on next year's 'Improving Periodontal Health' autumn lecture tour and 50 periodontal probes.