Edinburgh-based Braid Vets has signed up its 1000th client to the practice's VIP (Very Important Pet) Pet Health Plan.  

To mark the event, staff at the practice and Kenneth Agnew from Practice Plan For Vets Ltd, presented 1000th member Douglas Roberts and his dog Rudy with a bottle of champagne and a Kong toy.

In common with other schemes, the Braid Vets Pet Health Plan spreads the costs of vaccinations and flea control over the year with a fixed monthly direct debit. In addition, Braid Vets gives its Health Plan members further discounts on selected services provided by the practice, including food purchases.  

Mike Hall MRCVS of Braid Vets, said: "We think the Health Plan has been one of the things that has helped us withstand the worst effects of the recession.  In our experience, Health Plan clients attend the clinic more regularly for health checks, vaccinations and treatments throughout the year."

He added: "We're delighted to have reached our 1000th member of the scheme, but we're not going to stop there. We think there's considerable scope for further growth. The reason is that it's such a no-brainer. Under our plan, vets have complete clinical freedom and always recommend the products best suited to the individual pet. So the pet wins, the client wins and the practice wins."

Anita Bates from Practice Plan for Vets, which manages this scheme and many others on behalf of veterinary practices in the UK, said: "Our health plans focus on preventative services and products. They provide the practice with a regular monthly income and bonded clients as well as improving owner compliance, frequency of visits to the practice and average transactions values for wellness and illness."

For more information about Practice Plan For Vets, visit: www.practiceplanforvets.co.uk

Congratulations to VetSurgeon members Mike Martin, Malcolm Ness and Mark Patteson, who were amongst the winners of the 2010 BSAVA Annual Awards.

Mike Martin actually collected two awards this year: The Dunkin Award for the author of the most valuable article published in the Journal of Small Animal Practice (Canine dilated cardiomyopathy: a retrospective study of signalment, presentation and clinical findings in 369 cases), and the Blaine Award presented by Royal Canin for outstanding contributions to the advancement of small animal medicine or surgery.

Malcolm Ness won the Simon Award for outstanding contributions in the field of veterinary surgery.

Mark Patteson picked up the Melton Award, presented annually by Royal Canin for meritorious contributions by veterinary surgeons to small animal veterinary practice. 

Other winners included Iona Mathieson (Frank Beattie Travel Scholarship), Anne Vaughan-Thomas (deceased) (Amoroso Award), David Church (Woodrow Award), Luke Gamble (J.A. Wright Memorial Award), Olaf Reinhard Schaaf (Petsavers Award) and Steve Withrow (Bourgelat Award).

Dogs Trust has come out firmly against RSPCA-supported proposals to re-introduce the dog licence.

The dog welfare charity says it does not believe re-introducing the dog licence would provide a welfare benefit for dogs. It has also expressed surprise at the RSPCA position, which is that: "a licence would be hugely beneficial in addressing many animal welfare concerns stemming from overbreeding of dogs to a lack of traceable ownership." Dogs Trust has said this view is extremely naïve, that responsible owners might struggle to pay what is likely to be a punitive annual licence, and that a licence is simply a tax on dog ownership. 

Meanwhile, the RSPCA has announced the results of a survey in which 2 out of 3 pet owners said they would be in favour of a licence scheme. 76% said that a dog licence should be enforced in England to help curb problems such as 'puppy farms', stray dogs, stolen dogs and animal abandonments.

The RSPCA also says that research carried out on its behalf by Reading University clearly shows that an affordable and well-enforced dog licensing scheme could provide funding for a range of issues, most of which are currently funded poorly by central and local government. Professor Emeritus Martin Upton from Reading University's school of agriculture, policy and development, said: "Our study into the potential costs and benefits of dog licencing and registration found that such a scheme could greatly contribute to responsible dog ownership and animal welfare."

Dogs Trust says the dog licence has been shown to be an ineffective measure in the UK. In Northern Ireland, where the dog licence is still a requirement, only an estimated one-third of all dog owners currently have their dogs licensed. Northern Ireland still has the highest number of stray dogs per head of population of any region in the UK and the number of dogs put to sleep in the region represents a staggering 34% of the total UK figure.

The charity recommends compulsory microchipping as the most effective means of registration as well as identification of a dog. Unlike the dog licence, which involves an annual fee, microchipping involves just a small one-off fee (Dogs Trust offers microchipping at its centres for £10).  The benefit to responsible owners and their dogs is therefore relatively cheap and effective. Microchipping a dog should infer legal ownership and reinforces the responsibilities of the owner under the Animal Welfare Act. The introduction of compulsory microchipping would allow stray dogs to be quickly returned to their owners, make easier the identification of owners who persistently allow their dogs to stray or cause nuisance, and make all puppies traceable to their breeder, helping to reduce the widespread problem of battery farming of dogs.

The Government has been forced to scrap plans for compulsory dog insurance less than a two weeks since they were revealed in leaked Defra documents.

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn has now ruled out the idea.

Apparently, the climbdown followed protests that compulsory insurance was no more than a 'dog tax' which would do nothing to curb the problem of dangerous dogs.

There's a certain irony in the way the story was reported in The Sun newspaper, with the headline: 'Labour forced to ditch pet plan'.

Indeed!

Practices will be able to offer customers increased support for their worming programmes in 2010, as part of a new initiative from Eqvalan® manufacturer, Merial.  

Eqvalan product manager Claire Edmunds said: "The SMART worming campaign is designed to encourage owners to Simply Monitor, Assess Risk and, if necessary, Treat with the most appropriate wormer.

"We know that worming can be confusing for horse owners, so the SMART approach is designed to help them manage their worming programmes more easily, whilst also ensuring that wormers are used in a way that may help prevent the development of resistance.

Practices purchasing Eqvalan Duo during February and March can get 4 tubes free when they purchase 20. In addition, to kick start the SMART campaign for each order on the above offer, Merial will supply 20 free Worm Egg Count vouchers worth £10/€10 each. For those practices with their own testing facilities, the company is also offering promotional support to help encourage increased uptake and client buy-in.

Claire added: "As well as continuing with the successful free worm egg count campaign available for practices during February and March, owners will also have access to a personalised on-line planner, as well as text and email alerts.

"The campaign is being supported with new point of sale material and a prominent consumer advertising campaign. In addition we also have an extensive VN SQP CPD training programme planned for 2010. 

"With the consensus of expert opinion on the future of worming firmly behind the use of targeted programmes incorporating worm egg counts, there has never been a more important time to get closer to clients and help them with their worming strategies."  

If you would like further information, please contact your local territory manager or call the Merial Customer Support Centre on 0845 601 4236. 

The Veterinary Wound Healing Association (VWHA) has become the third veterinary association to make a new home on VetSurgeon.org.

VWHA President Jacintha Wilmink said: "We're very excited about joining VetSurgeon.org and how it will allow our members to connect with each other and share information quicker and more easily than ever before".

In common with the other associations, the VWHA is making its content available for all VetSurgeon members to access, however only VWHA members can submit cases to its section for discussion, or participate in the VWHA forum. Jacintha added: "We hope that the cases and discussions in our section of the site will be of value to all practitioners, and that many more of you will want to join the association and participate".

Information about the benefits of joining the VWHA is available here.

Novartis Animal Health's year long campaign to drive pet-owner awareness of the importance of worming pets regularly got off to a rather damp start in London today, with 63 people in doggy suits - mostly company employees I gather - running around the capital accompanied by two 'pooch vans'.

The 'Worm Patrol' team will be visiting veterinary practices over the summer to help promote, set up and run Pet Worming Awareness Days and attend practice open days. Veterinary practitioners will have access to the Worm Patrol support kit including the branded pooch van, Chewy the dog mascot and a worm patrol ambassador. Additional support will include educational leaflets for owners, giveaways and waiting room materials.

Maggie Fisher, Chairperson of the European Scientific Counsel for Companion Animal Parasites is backing the campaign. She said: "Raising awareness of worm control throughout the life of cats and dogs is important, particularly when it is reported that 80 percent of children kiss their pet and 21 percent let them lick their fingers after sharing food. While the risk may be relatively low, the consequences can be serious, especially in children.

"It's important that pet owners take responsibility for their animals and we are pleased that initiatives such as the Worm Patrol and 'Pet Worming Awareness Days' will help practices highlight the risk that endoparasites pose to humans and companion animals in a novel and light-hearted way."

To arrange for the Worm Patrol to visit to your practice, or for further information about setting up a Pet Awareness Worming Day, please contact your Novartis Animal Health Territory Manager or Novartis Animal Health UK Ltd on +44 (0)1276 694402.

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/

The British Veterinary Association has launched a guidance poster to encourage farm animal vets to use anthelmintics responsibly, following ongoing concern about the development of resistance to these medicines.

According to BVA, misuse of anthelmintics in grazing animals, leading to resistance, is an increasing problem, which has now become a serious threat to the health and welfare of animals.

In response to growing concerns the BVA's Medicines Group has produced a poster that will be distributed to BVA members inside the Veterinary Record (23 January 2010 issue) and will be available to download from the BVA website.

The poster, accompanied by additional online guidance, clearly outlines Do's and Don'ts in the use of anthelmintics and carries the strong message "Think Twice Before Prescribing Anthelmintics". The poster is intended for display in veterinary practices as a reminder to vets and their clients of the need for responsible use of these medicinal products.

The poster carries advice on encouraging farm health planning and worming strategies, targeting the drug used to the parasite, the importance of not underdosing, quarantining incoming animals, and investigating and reporting suspected cases of resistance to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD). It clearly tells vets not to treat unnecessarily and not to blanket treat.

Peter Jones, Chair of the BVA's Medicines Group, said: "Every use of anthelmintics increases the risk of resistance developing.  Veterinary surgeons have a duty to ensure anthelmintic use is judicious and limited to circumstances when treatment can be effective, targeted and based on sound veterinary diagnosis.

"The BVA advises all vets to work with their farming clients to develop a farm health plan that encompasses an effective worming strategy and a full grazing management programme to reduce the need for treatment.

"Vets must also promote good worming practice to ensure dosage is based on accurate weight measurements. Underdosing is a major factor in the development of resistance."

Professor Bill Reilly, President of the BVA, added: "Action to minimise the development of resistance is urgent and essential and we hope this poster will serve as a constant reminder to vets to think twice before prescribing anthelmintics."

The British Veterinary Association's Council has agreed unanimously to reject Animal Health's proposal to base fees for Official Veterinarians (OVs) on the available budget instead of an hourly rate, which the BVA negotiating team has been pushing for for some time.

The BVA team argued consistently for a professional fee for professional work and based its demands on the independent ADAS report and SPVS fees surveys. Animal Health proposed a matrix for TB testing fees based on the number of animals tested and the distance travelled and said that there would be no further discussion on an appropriate professional fee due to budget constraints. The BVA Council felt strongly that it could not accept a proposal that was based on a finite budget and did not respect the need for a professional fee for veterinary work.

BVA President Bill Reilly said: "While we understand the budget squeeze on Animal Health, BVA Council has taken a principled stand that vets should be paid a professional fee for a professional service, not a fee based on the available budget.

"With the launch of the draft Animal Health Bill last Monday we call on the Government to consider the central role OVs play in this new disease control set up and to provide sufficient funding.  Launching the draft Bill, Defra's Minister of State spoke of partnership. OVs are such a partner, professionals integral to the disease prevention and control mechanisms. The country has a major disease problem in TB which requires professionals to ensure control and protection of the public and animals alike.

"Let me clarify that Animal Health will not be negotiating with individual vets - they will simply be paying at the same rate in 2010/11 as in 2009/10 and no guarantee that the budget will not be reduced in the future. Each individual veterinary practice will need to decide whether or not they wish to continue TB testing or other OV work."

The BVA and BCVA are advising members that they will need to take a decision in their own practice on whether or not it is financially viable for them to continue OV work.

BEVA President, Madeleine Campbell will be announcing plans for a veterinary-led European Transport Forum at BEVA Congress this year (8-11 September 2010), to discuss how the welfare of horses during transport can be improved through the better enforcement of legislation.

Dr Campbell is also the British Veterinary Association representative on the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE) working party for transport. The Forum, which will be held in Brussels on 29 November 2010, has been jointly organised by the FVE and BEVA and is sponsored by World Horse Welfare (WHW). It is hoped that it will be attended by over 150 participants, including representatives of EU Member States, CVOs, Members of the European Commission and European Parliament, scientific experts, national veterinary organisations, animal transport associations and animal welfare associations.

The Forum will review the enforcement of the existing European regulations that currently govern the transport of horses for slaughter and for other purposes. Areas for practical improvement will be identified with the key focus on the enforcement of current legislation and the role of vets in ensuring that the welfare of horses in transit is protected. The conference will endeavour to define the critical control points, effective control systems and good practices. It will also look into trade flows, animal health risks, horse identification and the effects of closing horse slaughterhouses.

Dr Campbell said: "It is all very well to campaign for new regulations but at present even the existing regulations are not being enforced adequately. The crux of the matter is enforcement and there are none better placed to help with this than vets. If we can all work collectively we should have the strength to make a real impact. This is what the Forum is about."

Dr Campbell will be speaking about the European Transport Forum at the Congress press conference on 10 September between 9am and 10am.

BEVA Congress runs from 8-11 September 2010 at the International Convention Centre, Birmingham. For further information and to register visit http://www.beva.org.uk/

Merseyside police are urging members of the public and veterinary practices to exercise caution following the theft of some prescription veterinary medicines from a commercial vehicle in Prescot.

The missing medication is around ten 100ml bottles of Micotil, a prescription-only veterinary medicine used to treat respiratory problems in cattle and sheep, but which could prove fatal if taken by humans.

The drug, which was packaged in cardboard with Spanish labelling, was stolen from a lorry that had parked last Thursday night on an industrial park at Caddick Road, Prescot, prior to making a delivery to a company in Speke.

PC Dufton-Kelly of Huyton Police Station's Crime Management Unit said: "We believe this was simply an opportunist theft, which has left the offenders with a rather unusual product on their hands, with little or no opportunity for gain.

"We would like to alert the veterinary industry, particularly in the Merseyside area, in case the goods are handed in or offered for sale. The drugs could present a danger to the public if they fall into the wrong hands."

Anyone who finds the drugs is asked to contact their nearest police station via 0151 709 6010. Anyone with information about the theft can contact Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111. All information provided will be treated in strict confidence.