Original:    July 2004

Latest amendments on 16 May 2009                                                                                                                                                           


V. Kouba

Formerly: Animal Health Officer (Research and Education), Animal Health Officer (Veterinary Intelligence), Senior Officer (Veterinary Services) and Chief, Animal Health Service, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO, Rome; Editor-in-Chief, FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health Yearbook; Vice-Director and Chief Epizootiologist, Czechoslovak and Czech State Veterinary Service; Professor of Epizootiology, University of Veterinary Sciences, Brno


1. Introduction

2. Material and methods

3. Results

4. Discussion

5. Conclusion and recommendations

6. References

7. Annexes (tables)


1. Introduction

1.1 The availability of competent public professional veterinary manpower is a decisive factor for any effective national and international animal health programmes. A shortage of qualified public service veterinarians is a serious obstacle to the control of animal health and diseases as well as to the national livestock husbandry protection and development. Public professional veterinary manpower is of primary importance for successful application of strategies, measures and methods to promote, protect and restore the  health of animal populations and to protect human population health. It is the driving force for effective transfer of scientific research results and of accumulated experience into animal population health practice. This paper tries to evaluate global public professional veterinary manpower situation using available data reported by individual countries to international organizations. This quantitative analysis is dedicated to global aspects complemented by examples from selected countries. The average values of selected indicators  reflect, to a certain extent, the workload of government veterinary officials and their ability to cope with particular responsibility, tasks and problems. Presented analysis was carried out due to the fact that no any global organization involved in animal health  had  done it itself. This indicates general underestimation of veterinary public service importance for the implementation of animal health policy and programmes.

1.2 The global information system on veterinary manpower was established in 1959, within the framework of a joint venture between the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Office of Epizootics (OIE). They produced the FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health Yearbook (2), published by the FAO in Rome.  In 1996, the OIE in Paris took over this role (11).

1.3 Basic text on quantitative analysis of global veterinary human resources was published by the author in Rev. sci. tech. Off. Int. Epiz. (10).


2. Materials and methods

2.1 This study employed available data on public professional veterinary manpower - government veterinary officials - how they were published in relevant international yearbooks. Collecting and disseminating data on public professional veterinary manpower was introduced by the author of this paper when he was Editor-in-Chief of the FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health Yearbook (2) and FAO Animal Health Officer (Veterinary Intelligence) in 1983. Original reporting of “total number of veterinarians” was divided into several categories including “government veterinary officials at central and local levels”. This system is still in use today. The data on veterinary personnel from 1996 onwards were collected by using a common questionnaire as previously, however published only by the OIE in World Animal Health  yearbook (11).

2.2 The term “veterinarian” in the mentioned yearbooks was defined as “a person who has graduated from a university-level veterinary school”. The data on the number of veterinarians working as government officials were supported by national documentation required for their salary payrolls. Presented global analysis was complemented by examples from selected countries significantly influencing the global values and from some other ones representing different continents and conditions. These examples can facilitate the comparison between different countries. Priority was given to major exporting countries having major influence on international trade (potential channel of animal diseases export), giving “lessons” and “examples” to the others and dominating international animal health policy and organizations.

2.3 For more detailed analysis were selected data of the years 2000 and 2002. However, not all countries sent relevant reports for that year. To obtain the most complete global data, the most recent reports available from those countries before the year 2000 were used to substitute the missing information. Statistical publications of the FAO on animal populations, animal production and international trade were used to calculate the different average values  per one  veterinarian.  (4,5).

2.4 The results of this analysis have to be understood as the estimates approximate to the reality. Not all reported data were complete or systematically updated. The data from several countries were estimates only or inexact, due to: deficiencies in reporting and administration systems, changes in information-gathering systems, misinterpretations of the indicators, irresponsibility of relevant officers, etc. Sometimes appeared in the OIE World Animal Health also erroneous data. All these deficiencies  reduced the reliability also of other published data, e.g. on disease occurrence.

Examples of published data: on Belgium number of government veterinary officials in 1999 -  148  and in 2000 -  5463;  on France  number of government veterinary officials in 1998 - 608  and in 1999 and 2000 always 1000; on Italy number of government veterinary officials from 1997 up to 2001 always 5340 without any change; on New Zealand number of all veterinarians in 1999 -  1391  and in 2000 -  2186 ; on Kuwait number of government veterinary officials in  2000 – 1, in 2001 – 0 and in 2002 – 25.

2.5 Many Chief Veterinary Officers, even of the major exporting countries, obviously did not know the size of the main domestic species populations.  The data reported to and published by the OIE differed often significantly from those reported as official ones by their governments to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Examples: Chief Veterinary Officers reported to OIE in comparison with official government data sent to FAO-UN: United Kingdom in 2000 less cattle by 3,184,000, less sheep by 1,411,000; Canada in 2002 more cattle by 1,851,000; USA in 1996 less cattle by 2,339,000 and more pigs by 1,989,000; New Zealand in 2001 less sheep by 4,209,000; France in 1996 less cattle by 1,511,000, less sheep by 2,746,000 and less pigs by 1,530,000; Italy in 1997 less sheep by 2,620,000. How these Chief Veterinary Officers can know the real health status of  animal  populations when they do not know the simplest animal population indicator ?

Considering the above mentioned lack of situation knowledge, so called “risk assessment” according to the World Trade Organization – Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, 1994 (WTO/SPS) and OIE Code methodology, requiring many   r e l i a b l e  animal health data from exporting countries to be available to importing ones, is de facto a mere theory.

2.6 For data processing was employed EPIZOO, version 4.0, a software package developed  for analysing information on animal population health/disease and veterinary manpower (http://vaclavkouba.byl.cz/). Data on the public veterinary services quality and impacts (including social/economic aspects) on animal and human population health were not available.

3. Results

3.1 The global growth of the number of government veterinary officials  during evaluated period from 1983 to 2002 was very slow despite the fact that greater government supervision and more rigorous preventive and disease control measures were required due to rapid increase of the trade (during this period it increased several times) facilitating the spread of infectious diseases as never before. Development of global number of government veterinary officials over these years see in Table I. The trend expressed in time series regression line was   y = – 7620054.5 + 3890.52 x. Reported number of private veterinarians during the evaluated period was growing much faster.

3.2 Reported numbers of veterinarians in selected countries significantly influencing the global values of the year 2002 see in Table II. Among the countries with the highest number of government veterinary officials belonged China (43,900), India (31,425) and Egypt (15,000); former USSR reported in 1982 number of all veterinarians - 80,000, majority of them in government services.

Reported numbers of veterinarians in other selected  countries  in 2002 see in Table III.

3.3 Not all government veterinary officials are trained and able to work under harsh field conditions (clinical and epizootiological investigation, taking samples, identifying effective anti-epizootic measures on-the-spot, issuing certificates for export, inspection of private veterinarians and laboratories, inspection of production and processing sector, etc.) due to physical and health status, women limits, etc. Many (somewhere even the majority) of them are involved only in paper work – legislation, statistics and administration. Therefore, reported numeric data on these officials do not reflect real, i.e. lower ability  of government service to fulfil their practical duties than it could seem according to OIE WAH. No any international organization has carried out any analyses of requiring working time for different activities of public veterinary officials to show that steadily increasing numbers of animal health tasks demanded by OIE, FAO, WHO, WTO/SPS, EU etc. (often extremely wordy, complicated and even confusing provisions) from Member Country governments, i.e. from Chief Veterinary Officers, are out of reality. Incomplete or formal fulfilment, paper fulfilment or no fulfilment at all are the consequences. The problem is that the CVOs can directly exercise their authority only over government veterinary service and not over private not always reliable and controllable veterinary service which plays, a decisive role in animal commodity trade control and field animal health/disease measures, for lack of field working public service staff. Veterinary epidemiology bureaucracy has been introduced by internationally “leading” institutions educating and training undergraduate students and postgraduate trainees converting biological science with very practical impacts in an administrative “science” based on data processing and modelling only without follow-up solving animal population health/disease of problems at grass root level. Unfortunately, these “paper veterinary epidemiologists” from major exporting countries dominate the OIE, FAO, EU, ISVEE, etc. and are professionally responsible for the WTO/SPS and the OIE Code conducing to irreparable globalization of animal infections.

More information in http://vaclavkouba.byl.cz/dictepid.htm .

Following example is represented by the incredible bureaucracy within the European Union making impossible government veterinarians to can dedicate time to country animal population health protection, surveillance, active control and eradication activities at the field level as well as to effective inspection on the spot of the traded commodities. For example in the “Activity Report 2005 – Animal Health, Animal Welfare and Zootechnics (SANCO/10600/2006)” we can read: in this field “the EU has more than 600 regulations, Directives and Decisions in force; Animal Health Section met 18 times, accepted 116 draft proposals; Biological Safety and Control  + Import Conditions met 15 times; 210 SANCO staff missions; 119 Commission Decisions and Regulations”. The activities of the EU in the field of Animal Health have produced “mountains” of papers causing colossal confusions in understanding being multiplied by the mess of “practical” application (very often formal – OK in papers) without effective inspection by the government services. We are witnesses of  historical record of wasting time and taxpayers money without improving animal health within EU territory what should be logically the main task! On the contrary , the EU following anti-sanitary WTO/SPS and OIE Code  supports the export of animal infections within and outside the EU and thus contributes actively to animal infection spreading and globalization ! Similarly as the mentioned organizations, the EU is not interested at all in infection-free trade ! It has been created ideal breeding ground for cheating and corruption mainly in connection with animal commodity profiting export of animal commodities without regard to animal and human health in importing countries.

In 2007 the European Communities published 28 pages document entitled “A new Animal Health Strategy for the European Union (2007-2013) when “Prevention is better than cure”. This is another bureaucratic document repeating generally known “principles” without any animal health situation analysis to identify critical problems,  places and moments and therefore it is without any concrete controllable tasks to protect population health in EU. The EU will continue in the policy at practical field level “doing nothing” (with exception of paper works and meetings) letting to spread existing and imported infections through international trade in animals and their products without any sanitary guarantee, without any intra-EU border control and without any effective national government services supervising the private sector (in particular  the “accredited veterinarians” replacing public veterinarians incl. issuing veterinary certificates). The document doesn’t mention any objectives to be reached at 2013. It doesn’t know  that the health protection requires also to eliminate infection risks from existing outbreaks, i.e. to  eradicate or significantly reduce them. The document forgets that for the implementation of any animal health strategy must be available necessary well trained and equipped staff in sufficient number (not to have only public service generals and HQs without soldiers),  facilities, material and financial resources, adequate managerial conditions, demanding legislation, target-oriented training and support by farmers, consumers, public and governments. Obviously, the EU irresponsible “armchair” veterinary theoreticians have not any idea what to be done to  protect the health of European animal populations and to stop mass spreading of infection diseases within the EU. This document represents a guarantee that the actual “strategy” will continue creating irreparable worsening of animal health situation due uncontrolled spreading of the infections! Consciously organized long distant spreading is an international crime! Europeanization of animal health – yes, Europeanization of animal infection – no !

More comments on the OIE as the “World Organization for Animal Infection Globalization” () and on the EU animal health “activities” see also in the paragrah 2.10 of http://vaclavkouba.byl.cz/orgglobalization.htm .

3.4 The global number of government veterinary officials reported by individual countries for the year 2000 (including the most recently available figures for those countries which did not submit actual reports) reached 192,020 (i.e. 27.77 % of all reported veterinarians). The reported number of veterinarians employed at laboratories, universities and training institutions was 106,303 (15.38 %)  and reported number of veterinarians in private service reached 320,346 (46.33 %).

3.5 According to officially reported data the global average number of inhabitants and the land area per government veterinary official in the year 2000 was as follows: 31,522 inhabitants; 13,368 people depending for their livelihood on agriculture; 6,867 people economically active in agriculture; 680 km2 of land; 71 km2 of arable land suitable for crop production and 7 km2 of land under permanent crop cultivation.

3.6 The global average numbers of animals per government veterinary official in the year 2000 were as follows: 6,932 cattle, 870 buffaloes, 313 horses, 4,711 pigs, 5,421 sheep, 3,719 goats and 74,581 chickens. Average number of cattle, sheep and pigs per one government veterinary official in selected countries in 2000 see in Table IV.

3.7 The global average number of livestock units (LUs) per government veterinary official in the year 2000 was 9221 *). Average number of livestock units per one government veterinary official in selected countries in 2000 see in Table V. Among the countries with the highest average number of livestock units per government veterinary official belonged from major exporting countries Australia (63,121), New Zealand (57,245) and  USA (46,886). Average number of livestock units per veterinarian, government veterinary official and private veterinarian in individual countries in 2000 see in Table IX.

*) Following conversion rates were applied: cattle  = 0.7;  buffalo = 1; horse = 1; mule/ass; = 0.8; camel = 1.1; pig = 0.25; sheep 0.1;  goat = 0.1; chicken = 0.01. For the calculation it was used EPIZOO software subprogramme 11.11.7 b.

3.8 The global average numbers of animals slaughtered in abattoirs during the year 2000 per government veterinary official were as follows: 1,445 cattle, 2,517 sheep, 1,024 goats and 6,026 pigs Among the countries with the highest average of slaughtered farm animals (cattle, sheep and pigs) per government veterinary official belonged New Zealand (181,133), Australia (93,152), Bulgaria (74,951), USA (62,152), Netherlands (60,763), South Africa (60,391) and Denmark  (42,283). More information see in Table VIII.

3.9 The global average volume of livestock production during the year 2000 per government veterinary official was as follows: 1,211 tonnes (t) of total meat, 295 t beef/veal, 40 t mutton/lamb, 20 t goat meat, 467 t pig meat, 230 t poultry meat, 2,551 t cow milk and 267 t  hen eggs. Average amount of produced meat and milk per government veterinary official in selected countries in 2000 see in Table VI.  

3.10 The global average numbers and monetary values of internationally traded live animals during the year 2000 per government veterinary official were as follows: 43 cattle (US$21,617), 83 sheep (US$4,126), 80 pigs (US$6,638), 2 horses (US$9,226) and 3,910 chickens (US$4,029). Among the countries with highest average monetary value of exported animals per government veterinary official belonged Canada (US$1,573,733), France (US$1,281,685), Ireland (US$984,526) and Australia (US$797,134).

3.11 The global average volume and monetary values of internationally traded animal products during the year 2000 per government veterinary official were as follows: 120 t total meat and meat products (US$232,819), 10 t beef/veal (US$20,028), 5 t mutton/lamb (US$11,286), 12 t pork (US$18,638) and 31 t chicken meat (US$31,609). Average values in US$ of exported animals and animal products per government veterinary official in selected countries in 2000 see in Table VII. Among the countries with highest average monetary value of exported meat per government veterinary official belonged Netherlands (US$10,344,361), New Zealand (US$8,961,854), Denmark (US$6,476,711) and  Australia (US$5,786,006).

Examples:  Countries where monetary value of exported animals and animal products in 2000 was higher than one million US$ per government veterinary official: New Zealand – 14,783,812; Netherlands – 14,480,214; Australia – 8,285,069; Denmark – 7,372,482; France – 6,207,885;  Ireland – 5,933,074, Canada – 5,535,061; USA – 3,728,074; United Kingdom – 2,128,801 and Germany – 1,776,298. (Tab. VII).  In these numbers are not included average values of exported wool per government veterinary official; E..g. in 1996  Australia – 3,644,567 and New Zealand – 3,153,922.               

3.12 Comparative analysis of the number of government veterinary officials between different years demonstrated that in many countries public professional veterinary manpower was reduced in spite of increasing needs, size and complexity of the problems related with animal health programmes and rapidly developing national and international animal trade.

Examples of  numerical reduction of government veterinary officials as reported by the countries:  Albania (1983 – 1,418; 2000 – 450), Australia (1989 – 821; 2003 – 512), Austria (1984 – 587; 2003 - 238), Brasil (2001 – 15,260; 2003 – 2,867), Canada (1984 – 1,080; 2003 – 664), Czech and Slovak Republic (1983 – 4,150; 2000 – 1,770), Greece (1984 – 1,150; 2000 -724), Hungary (1995 – 2,392; 2000 - 1,552),  Indonesia (1998 – 2,675; 2002 – 735), Jamaica (1984 – 25; 2000 – 11), Kenya (1996 – 1,053; 2003 – 531), Kuwait (1992 – 96; 2000 – 1), Latvia (1995 - 458; 2000 – 305), Lithuania (1991 – 468; 2000 – 218), Malawi (1984 – 33; 2000 – 9), Mexico (1996 – 9,029; 2003 – 5,374), Mongolia (1995 – 2838; 2002 – 10), New Zealand (1993 – 263; 2000 – 192), Peru (1983 – 663; 2000 – 360), Poland (1983 – 7,368; 2000 – 1,640), Portugal (1985 – 1,164; 2000 – 512), Romania ( 1990 – 4,637; 2003 – 1,689), Senegal (1985 – 66; 2000 – 36), Somalia (1990 – 273; 2000 – 121), Spain (2000 – 6,936; 2003 – 2,248), Tajikistan (1996 – 1,233; 2000 – 697), Tanzania (1990 – 250; 2000 – 150), Turkey ( 1990 – 1,945; 2000 – 1,535), USA ( 1995 – 4,323; 2003 – 2,782), Uruguay (1990 – 488; 2000 – 299) and Vietnam (1998 – 2,554; 2000 – 1,031). 

4. Discussion

4.1 Presented analysis confirms very critical veterinary public services situation contributing significantly to the general crisis of veterinary medicine due to rapidly worsening animal health situation in the world. (8).  In this context the attention merits the statement of  M.M. Rweyemamu and  V.M. Astudillo : ”Since the mid-1980s structural adjustment programmes in developing countries have led to a demand for the  privatization of veterinary services, thus aiming at drastically diminishing the role of the state  in these activities. Surveillance, early warning, laboratory diagnostic services, planning, regulation and management of disease control programme, as well as ensuring the quality and safety of animal products were secondary considerations. The chain of veterinary command that required notification of disease outbreaks enabling a response to disease emergency and which also ensured the management of national disease control programme, was often dismantled.” (13).   These words are valid not only for developing countries but also for the majority of  the other countries, in particular for the most important exporting ones.

Example: Ozawa, Y., Chang, K, Yoshida, K. and Michino, H. 2003: The present and future organization of Veterinary Services in Asia: the examples of the Republic of Korea and Japan.  Rev.sci.tech.Off.int.Epiz. 22(2): 499-508:To cope with ever-increasing demand on Veterinary Services, both countries have made continued effort to expand the services, which currently only have a limited number of government personnel.” “There are increasing demand for the prevention and control of diseases…. Furthermore, consumers are becoming more and more interested and demanding in regard to the safety of livestock products. This means a heavier workload for the Veterinary Services. However, current veterinary manpower is inadequate to cope and the recruitment of additional workers is difficult in the light of the continued downsizing of the Government.”

4.2 Numerically weak public veterinary service can logically perform properly only formal control, e.g., whether the documents issued by non-government veterinarians and laboratories correspond formally with the regulations and instructions but not whether these documents correspond fully with the sanitary reality (e.g. through reinvestigating animals and products selected for export, etc.). The majority of communicable diseases have subclinical course (invisible spreading), i.e. there are practically not reportable by the animal owners and not detectable by veterinary service without special testing (i.e. BSE). No specific investigation = no detection of affected animals = reporting and certifying specific disease free status also in spite of  the disease agents occurrence. The veterinary certificates are often of limited value due to the fact that the health/sanitary status and epizootiological situation are not fully known or totally unknown and that they are of informative character only and not health guarantee documents. About 9/10 of known communicable diseases of animals are not obligatorily notifiable and therefore they are not controlled and can propagate freely.


- "It is assumed that, for every case of salmonellosis recorded in humans in the United States, at least nine are not reported.". (Toma et. al.:  Dictionary of Veterinary Epidemiology. Iowa State University Press, Ames, 1999,  p. 147).

- The exceptional case of BSE in Canada detected in 2003 showed that during longer period (years) this disease occurrence was reported  to international organizations using symbol of “disease never reported” in spite of its existence; one cow with subclinical BSE was exported  as healthy animal in USA.

– Author remembers the case in May 1980 when for final editing of the FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health Yearbook 1979 were missing data from Lesotho; FAO sent a telex to Maseru, capital of the country, asking for  missing information; next day arrived  the answer  that Lesotho had no any animal diseases of international notification; that time there were only two  national veterinarians (one was as refugee in Botswana as district veterinarian in Gaborone and the other one in an office in Rome, Italy); traders were obviously happy for the absence of veterinary strict measures and the government for saving money on public veterinary service.

4.3 Chief Veterinary Officers are responsible for health quality of exported animals and animal products – as  the OIE International Animal Health Code (12) sets down: “Article The Head of the Veterinary Service of the exporting country is ultimately accountable for veterinary certification used in international trade.”. How the  Chief  Veterinary Officer can be responsible for the certificates based on investigations by private veterinarians ? Having not enough staff in government services, he resembles of a general having only his strong headquarters but without any army and therefore he must rely on not always reliable, independent and properly trained private service. Without effective supervision/inspection it is difficult to expect necessary discipline in implementing the “official” duties of accredited veterinarians and laboratories. The discipline depends not only on the supervision but also on drawing conclusions from not implementing the obligations. The history teaches that if there is a possibility for cheating, somebody it abuses. For this kind of control there is a need of having sufficient number of qualified government veterinary officials what is not the case in the majority of the countries. The problem is also the recruitment of  qualified government officials what often depends inter alia  on unfortunately lower attractiveness of their salary in comparison with the income in private sector.

4.4 The first international document defining public veterinary services duties was published by R.B. Griffiths and H.O. Konigshofer in 1974 (6).The duties of government veterinary services are multifaceted. Comparing the number of government veterinary officials and their enormous responsibility and tasks it is clear that numerically weak staff of public services is not in the position to cope effectively and in full with all their duties. In some countries they can have difficulties also with obligatory administration consisting in paper work, using computers (data processing), management, etc. even without any on-ground supervision and additional initiative as far as new national animal health programmes are concerned. Very important is the duty of public veterinary service national administration to prepare necessary animal health legislation for general application and instructions for veterinary services. In the majority of the countries there is minimum or no time of public services for the work at grass root level to investigate on-ground situation, to test animals for trade (at least for international one), to issue official attests, to supervise non-government veterinary services (accredited veterinarians and diagnostic laboratories), to control the implementation of animal health legal duties by the owners of animals and animal product processing facilities; there is minimum or no time for initiating and organizing effective territorial and national disease surveillance (e.g. nationwide survey testing of specific diseases) and control (reduction, elimination and eradication) programmes, for organizing postgraduate training of own staff,  of accredited veterinarians as well as training of all veterinarians for emergency situations, etc.; there is minimum or no time for controlling properly national and international trade in animals and their products, for border controls to protect country territory against the introduction of animal diseases, etc.

There is difficult to imagine how numerically relatively weak government veterinary service staff of some countries can cope with and be responsible for country animal population health protection and disease control, human protection against zoonoses (incl. food hygiene) as well as for  sanitary guarantee of exporting animals and their products when for example in 2002 (not considering territory size):

- USA with 2,607 government veterinary officials  reported 96,700,000 heads of cattle and 59,074,000 pigs, export of  243,394 heads of cattle, 405,705 sheep , 206,659 pigs and 4,586,088 t meat and import of 2,505,279 heads of cattle, 5,741,275 pigs and 1,701,935 t meat;  slaughtered 37,588,000 heads of cattle,  98,106,000 pigs and 3,527,000 sheep;

 - Australia with 549 government veterinary officials  reported 50,669,000 heads of cattle, 113,000,000 sheep and  export of 6,078,287 sheep ( 223,000,000 US$ value),  972,340 heads of cattle and 1,466,968 t meat; slaughtered 8,649,000 heads of cattle, 5,014,000 pigs and  33,565,000 sheep;

 - Canada with 670 government veterinary officials reported  13,699,000 heads of cattle and 14,367,100 pigs, export of 1,690,708 heads of cattle, 5,741,363 pigs, 139,692 sheep  and 1,424,057 t meat and import of 511,987 t meat; slaughtered 3,838,300 heads of cattle,  19,684,400 pigs and  611,800 sheep;

- New Zealand with 224 government veterinary officials reported  9,632,510 heads of cattle and 43,141,900  sheep and export of 750,977 t  meat; slaughtered 3,304,369 heads of cattle, 725,525 pigs and 30,747,702 sheep; according to the OIE WAHID information system  in 2006 “Animal Health Public Veterinarians“ = 29 ! How this extremely small group reported in 2006 can be able to control animal infection situation and sanitary quality of exported animal commodities of  immense (record) quantity into all the continents?

4.5 There is obviously a critical global situation of lacking necessary number qualified government veterinary officials for effective disease control and for the guarantee of communicable disease free status of exported animals and their products. The situation becomes much more difficult when particular disease penetrates among wild animals creating wildlife reservoirs.


- Considering the size of animal population (11,423,000 heads of cattle, 44,656,000 sheep and 7,284,000 pigs, etc.), animal production (708,000 MT beef, 359,000 MT mutton/lamb, 923,000 MT pork and 105,000 MT chicken meat) and animal export (US$108,157,000) in 2000, British government veterinary service was numerically weak (number of government veterinary officials in 2000 – 729 (reduced from 856 in 1995) unable to cope effectively not only with the emergency situation; British private veterinarians failed during  foot-and-mouth disease panzootic in 2001 giving priorities to their current curative practice (mainly due economic reasons) before their participation in demanding long-term eradication campaign out of their homes; it was necessary to invite foreign veterinarians in spite of not having experience with this disease or proper training. It is difficult to understand that only 2000 British veterinarians were involved in 2001 FMD eradication campaign when the same year UK reported 928 government veterinarians and 11,323 private veterinarians (total 14,730) ! One would expect the mobilization of all veterinarians in this case of emergency of enormous, unknown in living history, economic and international importance. Then is the question what for emergency planning ? This case reconfirms that without strong government service cannot be successful control of communicable diseases. To my surprise the UK instead of strengthening this service following the 2001 FMD lesson  reduced its staff  to 880 veterinarians in 2002 !? The reason cannot be financial in a country belonging among the richest in the world.

-  A large rendering company in UK continued and expanded its export of meat and bone meal, which may have been contaminated with BSE, for 8 years after EU ban in 1988, to 70 countries in the Middle and Far East.”(7).

 – Agriculture University of Prague imported 60 pregnant heifers from Denmark to Lany-Pozary university ranch in 1993 and 395 pregnant heifers from France to Ruda university ranch  in 1995  – import supported by government grant; in spite of international veterinary certificates according to OIE Code both shipments were found as affected by trichophytosis (Trichophyton mentagrophytes) infecting also 76 persons and by paratuberculosis (disease never reported among indigenous cattle in the whole country): the breeding programme instead to be improved was paralysed in both ranches, originally with healthy herds; these ranches were eliminated from normal trade and until today the paratuberculosis cannot be eradicated.

- New Zealand managed to reduce bovine tuberculosis prevalence below 0.1 % in 1979; however in spite of all efforts the disease spread in wild animals - for the first time reported in 1985 also in possums (Trichosurus vulpecula), in 1987 in farm deer (Cervus elaphus) and from 1991 up today also in ferrets (Mustela furo).  In 2004 this disease was reported  (WAH 2004, page 251) “occasionally in other wildlife species (pigs, cats, stoats, hedgehogs and hares)”. These cases “ have been identified in 17 discrete areas of New Zealand in association with persistent infection in cattle and deer herds. These are known as ‘vector risk areas (VRAs) covering approximately 39 % of New Zealand’s land area”. Similar situation happened also in other countries, e.g. in UK Mycobacterium bovum penetrated among badgers (Meles meles). (2,11).

4.6 Private veterinary service cannot fully replace public veterinary service and cannot be fully involved and reliable in demanding nation-wide disease control programmes requiring full continuous active participation. Public and private services interests and priorities are diametrically different ! Public veterinary service orientation is toward the protection of animal population health while private veterinary service natural orientation is toward the treatment of sick animals, i.e. it needs disease cases to have work and income - profit. Private service work for the government represents only side temporary activity and secondary income, i.e. minor interest. Due to the shortage of public veterinary service staff, the private veterinarians and laboratories are not subject to any effective control. In practice they are out of criminal liability and prosecution in the cases of consciously exporting communicable diseases thanks to their “certificates” not corresponding with the reality and not guaranteeing the health. In spite of innumerable cases of animal disease export conducing to the globalization of communicable diseases, there is not known any case where disease exporting veterinarian was prosecuted. These criminal acts are practically without punishment (thanks also to the “new” WTO and OIE trade policy at the expense of importing country animal and human health) and majority of animal diseases can be spread  freely.

4.7 There are also some countries with major number of government veterinary officials, but due to lack of necessary material, facilities, budgetary and other support their activities are also limited. It depends a lot on the availability of supervisory power with respect to the private practice of veterinary medicine, to  the owners of animals and animal product processing facilities as well as to traders and exporters/importers. Weak public services in many poor importing developing countries, having few government veterinary officials and lacking of almost “everything”, are unable to control local and imported animal communicable diseases.

Example:  In Egypt relative “overproduction” of new veterinarians conduced in the past to an undesirable situation when many of them were unemployed or working outside of its profession.

4.8 One of the criteria how far the public veterinary service is able to control  the  e x p o r t   of animals and animal products is the average of monetary values (in US$)  per one  government veterinary official (Tab. VII). It can be supposed as logical that the major average value of this export per government veterinary official can mean the minor chance to control effectively private accredited veterinarians testing and issuing official certificates for  this trade, i.e. major risk to export also etiological agents of communicable diseases. This indicator clarifies in what countries was the origin of the “new” WTO/SPS and OIE trade policy replacing original z e r o   r i s k  trade by non-transparent theoretical “r i s k   a s s e s s m e n t”. This policy ‘’facilitates the export’’ at the expense of animal and human health in importing countries due to significantly reducing their requirements for necessary  protection against the introduction of  animal diseases. This policy favouring exporting countries represents in practice inadmissible pressure on importing country public veterinary services to reduce sanitary defence and to avoid  the reclamations in  disease introduction cases.  This concept is logically welcome by those exporting countries  having not good knowledge of true national animal health/disease situation, not controlling effectively animal diseases and being not able to guarantee full sanitary innocuousness of exporting commodities.

Example: Historical world record of  average monetary value  of exported animals and their products per government veterinary official was reached in New Zealand in 1996 -  US$ 17,782,000 ! This fact discovers the reason why this country and its internationally influential veterinary officers were in ‘’front line’’ to change previous WTO and OIE fair trade of zero risk policy into “facilitating trade” through abusing “risk assessment” methods. It can be supposed that S.C. MacDiarmid (as the member of OIE Working Group for Informatics and Epidemiology, as the most frequent author of “risk assessment” theoretical unrealistic papers, without practical prove of its feasibility, in OIE journals and as the “leader” of many OIE risk assessment courses and meetings)  was obviously behind this “new” policy combined with incredible reduction of  previous international information system;  he wrote to the author of this paper a letter dated 15 January 1996 defending WTO/SPS by non convincing arguments and containing following words “If for a particular trade, we have available risk reducing tools (tests, treatment, whatever) which will reduce the risk by 10,000 or 100,000 times, what does it matter what starting risk was ? ”.

4.9 It is strange that up to now no any international organization has carried out the most important “risk assessment” study, i.e. how far  the WTO/SPS and the OIE Code trade policy is risky for importing countries and for animal populations health in the whole world. There is obviously fear to inform truthfully the farmers and consumers in the world about serious risks and consequences, often irreparable and catastrophic, for animal and human health in importing countries (8,9), what would seriously complicate relatively easy “life of the exporters” of not fully healthy animals and products.

4.10 Numerically weak public veterinary services of some exporting countries having not full control of international trade can indirectly contribute to international spreading of animal diseases.

4.11 Almost all major exporting countries belong among the richest in the world. Therefore, it should not be economic reason for keeping their public services so weak. It is obvious that they cannot control at all the immense export but only formally, i.e. usually through “paper” control and even without seeing  exporting animals and their products. Many of them do not want to or cannot guarantee the export of 100 % epizootiologically (epidemiologically) healthy animals and innocuous products, i.e. free of  agents of  a l l  communicable diseases. They are not required by the WTO/SPS or the OIE Code to admit and to declare openly what they cannot guarantee (e.g., identifying side effects – specific diseases risks - early warning of  the importers) as it is normal fair trade practice in any other commodity. Instead of respecting basic principles of market economy some of them apply the “principles” of camouflaging the troublesome truth on unfavourable sanitary reality, if they know it at all. This was obviously the main reason why they welcome and probably initiated the “new” WTO/SPS and OIE policy minimizing health protective measures of importing countries and even imposing the obligation to accept also non-healthy animals and non-innocuous food, i.e. with the pathogens of communicable diseases!  The export of pathogens represents for importing countries undesirable problems difficult to detect and solve, if the solution is feasible at all.

On the FAO web-site dated 27.5.2002 in the Spotlight "World livestock trade" can be found following sentence ‘The OIE Code was basically written to protect the health of livestock in developed countries.’’

4.12 Numerically weak public veterinary services cannot organize effective national animal health programmes (e.g. eradication of diseases), usually very demanding and costly. Exception is foot-and-mouth disease and some the most dangerous diseases threatening the developed countries. Considering the weakness of public veterinary services there is understandable that the most frequent strategy against communicable animal diseases is trouble-free and cheapest  (gratis) “doing nothing” and applying the philosophy “what does it matter what starting risk was ?” when trade business runs in spite of diseases occurrence and spreading. Businessmen are happy commending “new international  veterinary policy” when getting relatively easy their profit. (The annual size of legal international trade in animals and animal products has reached globally about 100 billion US$). They are not interested in negative, up to disastrous, consequences in importing countries where weak public veterinary services very often, in particular in developing countries, are not able to cope with the imported diseases. We are witnesses of unscrupulous discrimination of importing developing countries, in particular the poorest defenceless ones. Chief Veterinary Officers of importing  countries have often difficulties to resist the pressure not only from exporting countries and by discriminating documents of some international organizations (WTO, OIE, etc.)  but also from local businessmen and somewhere even from the politicians giving the priority to risky import without full sanitary guarantee (sometimes subsidized) before the protection of national animal and human populations health. Chief Veterinary Officer not having sufficiently strong support of the government or lacking professional authority and experience sometimes succumbs to the pressure in favour of exporting country and to the detriment of his home country health. The OIE instead of supporting importing countries’ measures to protect animal and human health against the introduction of diseases/pathogens from abroad consistently knock down these countries. Their Chief Veterinary Officers have not any support in applying correct and necessary protective sanitary measures and they must fight themselves under contrary pressure from the WTO, OIE, exporting countries’ CVOs, foreign and local businessmen, local politicians, unilateral economic and political arguments, etc., and on the other hand they are pressed by the farmers and consumers requiring only healthy animals and pathogen-free food of animal origin. Protection of the health is extremely difficult task when weak government public health service must fight every day against a wall of contrary interests. It can be compared to the fight of  David against Goliath. The worse is that the OIE as international organization established for assisting member countries governments in protection animal health, i.e. to protect also government veterinary services, is on the side of  the powerful, i.e. of  Goliath and not of David. The natural conflict of interests in this case means that any CVO decision regarding population preventive actions is criticized by some who feels as “damaged”. This is unfortunately the fate of government public animal health services, in particular when lacking local and international support and defence.

Example: One of the shames regarding the eradication of very dangerous diseases is represented by the African swine fever introduced in Sardinia, Italy 30 years ago (1978). Neither Italian government  nor European Union have not been able to eradicate this plague threatening other European countries while many others, no so rich ones with similar or more difficult conditions, successfully eradicated it (Malta, Brazil, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, etc.). Where are the OIE and the FAO having programmes in Africa also for the ASF control and eradication? Following was the justification in “EU Animal Health, Animal Welfare and Zootechnics Activity Report 2005”, page 18: The epidemic recrudescence of ASF in 2004 continued during 2005 in some areas of Sardinia, Italy. Numbers of outbreaks were recorded adding up to a total 198 outbreaks in 2005. The disease was found in the provinces of Nuoro, where ASF was endemic and spread from Sassari and Orestano. The evolution creates a lot of concern about future development. A number of risk factors have been identified for the areas where ASF is to be considered as endemic and that hamper the eradication of the disease. The existing habit of keeping free ranging pigs living in contact with wild boar and the presence of many small holdings are in particular of significant importance. A renewed CSF-ASF surveillance and eradication program was elaborated by the Italian authorities and approved by CD 2005/362/EC.” This is the same “song” of explanation as during all three decades. However, for the Italy and the EU is obviously much more important to maintain and increase significantly Italian pork export. When Italian government service and the EU are not able to control properly ASF situation in Sardinia, how it can be trusted in sanitary innocuousness of Italian and EU animal commodity export? This case is typical example of converting not-eradicated timely initial local acute forms into chronic ones and finally in enzootics including wildlife (much more difficult to eradicate it). Italy reported in 1990  29 outbreaks, in 2000  11 outbreaks and in 2004  248 outbreaks. This country, as a leading one in the OIE, has been for decades giving lessons to others how to control animal  infections !?

4.13 Chief Veterinary Officers very often lose in conflicts of interests – on one side private sector profit interests supported by strong quantifiable economic arguments and on the other side public sector health protection interests supported by relatively weak not always measurable arguments to convince decision-making persons outside of public health services. Animal population health research to provide necessary scientific arguments has great debt in this field. The difficulties to apply necessary health protective measures are linked also with public service duties complicating the “life” through dictating and controlling anti-epizootic measures, prohibiting normal  operations to protect the others, i.e. requiring more sources and/or conducing to undesirable losses. The demanding anti-epizootic measures are not welcome by non-veterinary institutions and somewhere even by private veterinarians when being controlled by government service. The worse is to give up of anti-epizootic principles and to accommodate the demands of the powerful institutions and thus saving good job and avoiding troubles (= easy life).

4.14 To ’’facilitate international trade’’ there are two possibilities: either to strengthen public veterinary service and significantly improve animal population health status in exporting countries to can guarantee the export of only healthy animals and innocuous animal products, i.e. pathogen-free commodities or to limit considerably the protection of animal and human populations health in importing countries. WTO and OIE selected the second alternative, i.e. de facto  the spreading of communicable diseases into importing countries through international trade ! In this case public veterinary service of the exporting countries can minimize animal population health programmes. Debilitation instead of strengthening of public services in developing countries as the consequence of the WB a IMF originated policy contributed also to the policy of ‘’facilitating international trade’’ at the expense of importing countries sanitary situation.

4.15 The major exporting countries mentioned below seem to have almost decisive influence on relevant intergovernmental organizations policy (WTO, OIE, etc.) in spite of representing  only 6 % of all government veterinary officials in the world. These countries were very probably behind the WTO/SPS policy at the expense of animal and human health in importing countries abusing risk assessment method replacing previous reasonable recommendations of the Code by “new philosophy“: Import risk analysis is preferable to a zero risk approach (OIE Code 1997, paragraph Instead of strengthening public veterinary services and properly controlling sanitary situation together with disease reduction and eradication programmes (to can export really healthy animals and animal products), they managed through WTO/SPS to start almost unlimited trade (“unimpeded flow” – OIE website of 7.6.2001) in animals and animal products with minimal risks for exporting countries and their profits. Instead of  guaranteeing the health of animals and the innocuousness of animal products, they imposed very problematic and not quantifiable (non-objective) “risk assessment” requirements making difficult up to impossible to refuse non-healthy animals and non-pathogen free animal products ! The main consequence of this  catastrophic antisanitary policy is the globalization of animal communicable diseases = global crisis of veterinary medicine (9).

Examples of proportions from global reported number of government veterinary officials in 2000:  New Zealand – 0.0013, Netherlands – 0.0024, Australia – 0.0034, Denmark – 0.0034 Canada – 0.0046, United Kingdom – 0.0049, France – 0.0067, USA – 0.015 and Germany – 0.0186.

Example of a country influence on the OIE: OIE World Animal Health 2002 yearbook cover page contains the advertising of New Zealand main export commodity what is something unprecedented in the history of official statistical publications of all intergovernmental organizations applying neutral policy. In the same publication on the page 244 there is following sentence: ’’MAF (The New Zealand Food Safety Authority) expertise in import risk analysis and primary processing and food export is widely respected in international forum and New Zealand is well known for the leading edge approach it has taken in food safety management, primarily through the former MAF Food Assistance Authority (now NZFSA). MAF export certification has been, and is, recognised for its credibility and integrity internationally.’’ Where is convincing p r a c t i c a l   international field prove, based on scientific comparative study, of this exaggerated self-pricing propaganda statement ??  The truth is that this country itself, in spite of its import risk analysis (‘’widely respected in international forum’’ ? - this is not objective criterion) , has reported during recent years the import of infectious equine anaemia, haemorrhagic virosis of rabbits and varroosis (reported with delay – OIE WAH 2002, page 249: ‘’national eradication of varroa was unlikely to succeed’’). This country itself did not respect WTO/SPS and OIE Code in case when their fulfilment was not in its interest: in January 2001 it prohibited import of beef and beef products from all countries of Europe including from BSE free countries (even not importing from BSE countries) - this behaviour was, using WTO/SPS  wording, "inconsistent with the provisions of the SPS", without "sufficient scientific evidence", without "documented transparent risk assessment techniques", without any discussion with exporting countries,  without respecting bilateral agreements, without respecting that BSE free countries have the same BSE free situation as in New Zealand which "unjustifiably discriminates countries where identical conditions prevail" and "constitutes a disguised restriction on international trade. This country reported  scrapie occurrence in 1976 and 1978, up to 1984 reported correctly the last case to be in 1978, however from 1985 reported the last case to be in 1955, in 1989 the last case to be even in 1952 and from 1990 has reported last case to be in 1954 ?!?  (Discrepancies can be found also in the reports from other countries. Errare humanum est !  However giving lessons to the others  requires exemplary fulfillment of relevant principles at home.)

4.16 The tendency to minimize public veterinary services involvement in trade control  is reflected in some international documents  trying to “facilitate trade” at the expense of health not considering diseases introduction in importing countries. There are also documents  calling for giving up animal health protection of importing countries and population preventive medicine at all.

Example: "The need to remove technical obstacles to the  f r e e   c i r c u l a t i o n   of animals and their products …" (!?!). "It is not longer possible to apply the old system under which animals and animal products had to come from specific free zones, and were subjected to isolation, quarantine, inspection and diagnostic testing before and after export.". (1)  This is clear instruction for disease spread through international trade ! The tragedy is that these texts were written by a very influential person of the OIE : Chief, OIE Collaborating Centre for Epidemiology and Organization of Veterinary Services in Developing Countries;  Secretary General, OIE Foot and Mouth Disease and Other Epizootics Commission and finally President, OIE Scientif Commission for Animal Diseases.

4.17 The Table IV with data on average number of cattle, sheep and pigs per government veterinary official confirms the difficulty to control properly national animal population health. The same conclusion can be made considering average number of livestock units per  government veterinary official. It can be supposed that usually the major value of these units per government veterinary official can mean the minor knowledge of country epizootiological situation and the minor supervision of private (accredited) veterinarians as well as the minor possibilities to control and eradicate diseases. (Table V).

4.18 The World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fond (IMF) imposed mainly upon developing countries a privatization policy, somewhere ad absurdum, to minimize public services (loosing the ability to control directly on the spot sanitary situation, trade and import) instead to strengthen them (13). There is a sad fact that so called “experts”  from so called “developed countries” were imposing bilaterally or through international organizations upon these countries the policy of reducing their public services not respecting local needs and conditions, current and future disease control and eradication programmes. They were arguing by their home country “exemplary models” of reduced public services and by unilateral economic criteria being attractive for the governments (minimizing public services budgets, avoiding many complications due to necessary strict veterinary public services control of diseases and trade, etc.). Importing countries have to cope not only with local diseases but also with imported diseases what is not the case of major exporting countries having no need for risky imports.


Significant reduction of public veterinary service was carried out in Mongolia (livestock country with about 2 million cattle, 20 million sheep and goats and  0.3 million camels) where foreign “advisers” of the EU carried out a project hypocritically entitled “Strengthening of Veterinary Services in Mongolia” (World Animal Health in 1996, page 231): “The Epidemiology Unit and animal disease database was established through the EU project ‘Strengthening of Veterinary Services in Mongolia’. The EpiInfo, EpiMap and Access programs are now used for handling and reporting data.” As follow-up of this “project” (?!) the functioning strong government veterinary service was dismantled through absurd privatization: number of  government veterinary officials was reduced from 2838 reported in 1995 (FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health Yearbook 1995, page 181) to 674 reported in 1996, to 449 reported in 1997 and to 20 reported in 2000 and 10 (!?) reported in 2002  (World Animal Health 2002, page 774).  The “help” , in line of World Bank and International Monetary Fund policy of minimizing government role and control, conduced to paralysing  public veterinary service reflecting the false concept of veterinary epidemiology confused with statistics *); veterinary epidemiology is first of all the field surveillance and disease control/eradication and not software processing unreliable data sitting in offices. What can do only several government veterinarians left in this huge country and with enormous number of animals ? Number of private veterinarians increased from 104 reported in 1995 to 1,223 reported in 2002 reaching world record of the ratio private/public veterinarians = 1 : 122.3, i.e. 68.35 times higher than world average of  1 : 1.7850 !. One would expect better data reported to Office International of Epizootics, Paris. Unfortunately, e.g. in OIE World Animal Health 2004, page 629 there is reported by Chief Veterinary Officer 17,928,000 cattle population and the government official data on the same indicator sent to United Nations are significantly lower : 2,200,000 !  In OIE World Animal Health 2003, page 589 there was reported 1,793,000 cattle, i.e. ten times less !  Prof.Dr Badarchiin Byambaa, Rector, Mongolian State University of Agriculture, Ulan-Bator informed, at the occasion of his visit at Czech Agriculture University, Prague on 5 April 2006, on almost “absolute privatization” of veterinary services.

This case demonstrates absolutely unreliable OIE World Animal Health data; the editorial obviously does not carry out any logical control to avoid publishing  this kind of nonsense. Consistent editorial control comparing all new with previous year data was always normal in the former FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health Yearbook which was abolished in 1996 after 40 years of its existence by  Dr Y. Cheneau (France), Chief, Animal Health Service, FAO and  Dr J. Blancou (France), Director General, OIE without any reasonable justification and without  full replacement. For more information see http://vaclavkouba.byl.cz/globsurveillance.htm.

*) See http://vaclavkouba.byl.cz/dictepid.htm.

After 1990 public veterinary services in many Central and Eastern Europe countries, according to so called “western model”, were significantly reduced through  privatization of former strong, effective and successful services (when considering their results in population health prevention and diseases eradication); almost all national eradication, control, surveillance and preventive programmes as well as population etiological  active investigations (surveys) must be stopped; public service direct control of national and international trade was significantly reduced and somewhere even eliminated (investigations of animal and animal products for trade and issuing the majority of certificates must be therefore transferred  to private practitioners). Public veterinary services lost their capacity to control effectively epizootiological situation, import of animals and their products as well as inspect of private veterinarians and laboratories. State diagnostic laboratories were minimized in number and capacity. Simultaneously, undergraduate teaching of animal population health prevention and communicable diseases control was considerably reduced in favour of curative  medicine of sick individual animals (mainly pets), to be in line with the above mentioned “model.” E.g., strong action-oriented undergraduate curriculum subject of theoretical/practical Epizootiology was in many schools significantly reduced or eliminated as separate subject or converted into purely theoretical Veterinary Epidemiology with  very limited number  of teaching hours.

Very deterrent example represented Bulgaria where strong, well organized  and effective (e.g. among the first eradicating brucellosis) government veterinary service was destroyed reducing it  to  99 veterinarians in 2003 (almost world record of the ratio private-to-public veterinarians – 17,36 : 1, i.e. 10 times more than world average!) loosing supervising capacity. During the same period up today (2007)  Dr Nikola Belev, Bulgarian Chief Veterinary Officer and Delegate to the OIE  has been also OIE HQs official employee as a Coordinator  for Central and Eastern Europe (knowledge of Russian), Member of OIE Administrative Commission (OIE highest body between General Sessions) and President, OIE Regional Commission for Europe. He is the main responsible officer for the OIE policy in this region reducing ad absurdum public veterinary services (following the “West European model”) and their ability to avoid   spreading of animal diseases through international trade as a consequence of anti-sanitary WTO-SPS policy strongly supported by him toadying to the new rich “employer”. His very bad example is represented also by not reporting during 1983 - 1990  any data on the numbers of Bulgarian veterinarians and during 1983-1992 any data on the number of government veterinarians, i.e. not respecting basic duty of the member countries. One would expect that OIE Officers influencing international animal health should be the best ones with exemplary behaviour and work results.

4.19 In some country the lack of veterinary manpower was solved through “importing” professional staff (foreign experts) with fixed-term contracts to help coping with local animal health programmes.

Example: The author, professionally responsible as FAO UN Animal Health Officer (Research and Education)  also for one FAO project in Saudi Arabia – Veterinary and Animal Production Training Centre, Al-Hofuf (TF SAU/3/SAU), visited in this context Dr Saleh A. al Mezaini, Director General, Animal Production and Health Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Riyadh on 14 June 1978. Asking him how many veterinarians the country had, he answered “One”. “Who” ? “It’s me”. That time Saudi Arabia was “importing” many veterinarians (with fixed-term contracts) from Arab countries (e.g. about one hundred from Egypt). At the mentioned FAO project there were working more than ten foreign  professors – almost all from Sudan.

In some countries due to the lack of necessary public service veterinary manpower the farmers themselves must purchase and vaccinate their animals as requested by relevant legislation.

Example: In the nineties of the 20th century in some South American countries (e.g. Uruguay) the obligatory territorial vaccination against FMD must be carried out by the farmers themselves and public service was able only to inspect it ad hoc and formally, i.e. to control the documents of vaccine purchase; by using new oil vaccine the possibility to palpate the residua disappeared what was not the case before when the vaccines were based on aluminium hydroxide adjuvants.

4.20 Great discrepancies between numerically relatively weak manpower of public veterinary services and their very demanding responsibilities explain the interest of major exporting countries to minimize (e.g. through WTO-SPS and OIE Code) protection measures of  importing countries and to make them impossible to refuse the import  of non-healthy animals or  non-pathogen-free products without “scientific transparent and documented justification” !? (12). Why to justify, even scientifically, the requirement for the import of healthy animals and innocuous animal products ?  On the contrary, the transparent, documented and convincing justification of sanitary innocuousness of animals and animal products being exported should be the duty of exporting countries ! Simultaneously some of exporting countries managed in 1996 to minimize global information regular system on the occurrence of all internationally reportable diseases together with abolishing regular reporting on disease introduction cases through trade (8) making impossible the analyses of these events (“to facilitate trade” ?!) or of objective import risks.  It is probable that these countries were behind the OIE avoiding the inclusion of repeatedly demanded data on the size of active specific investigations of animal populations (active surveys)  into  international animal health information system; these data are extremely important for informing how far reported and published absolute numbers on disease occurrence are reliable, i.e. if based only on ad hoc reporting (= underreporting) or not.

4.21 The most responsible public veterinary official work such as investigation of animals and animal products to be exported or sold locally and issuing “official” certificates is today, due to lack of public service capacity,  in the majority of the countries practically in the hands of private service. So called “accredited private veterinarian” is often not independent (when investigating and certificating health status of animals or products originated from the same area of his current activity) on the animal owners - breeders and producers who give him  the work representing for him the income. How importing countries can trust in these cases in informative certificates, in their objectivity and reliability? The purchaser needs  h e a l t h    g u a r a n t e e   d o c u m e n t   with full economic responsibility, e.g. penalization for eventual selling or exporting of not healthy animals or products with pathogens of communicable diseases. It often looks like the accredited veterinarian controls  “results of his work” in the given area. Enormous number of cases of disease introduction through international trade (8,9) were very probably caused by almost incontrollable and practically non-punishable accredited veterinarians when issuing “official certificates” not corresponding with the sanitary reality (gap in particular education and training, not investigating properly, use of non-adequate tests, test results misinterpretation, not knowing the sanitary situation in place of origin, benevolent and holey OIE Code requirements, eventually in some cases corruption and cheating, etc.). Supervision of “accredited” veterinarians and diagnostic laboratories by government services is usually absolutely insufficient which is obvious when considering for example limited number of government veterinary officials. The most critical situation is in the majority of developing countries where weak government services are dedicating almost all their working time to administration activities only, without necessary supervision of non-public sector, and are often almost defenceless against the introduction of animal diseases through trade without full sanitary guarantee and almost powerless against introduced diseases. The businessmen prefer the testing by private accredited veterinarians than by independent public service specialists  who are less benevolent, more consistent in respecting the regulations and more resistant to eventual corruption.

Example: During the nineties USA authorities were sending to Mexican Chief Veterinary Officer lists of individual cattle imported from Mexico with positive tests on bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis carried out in postimport quarantine indicating exact identification of animals and full names of Mexican certifying accredited private veterinarians. In 1993 USA required Mexican Government to start effective national programme against bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis by 1st January 1994 (start of  North American Free Trade Agreement - NAFTA)  or the import of Mexican cattle (more than one million heads annually) would be stopped. Mexican Federal Agriculture Ministry asked the author of this paper (working that time as Visiting Professor, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana) to analyse the situation and present respective project proposals. For this purpose he was also sent, together with Dr Francisco Guría, Chief, Federal Department of  tuberculosis and brucellosis, to Chihuahua State. They analysed epizootiological situation in affected ranches, laboratories and on 6 May 1993 visited preexport quarantine in Rancho Ojos Azules, area Malajha. In this quarantine 3 USA veterinarians from neighbouring Texas were castrating heifers  to avoid risk of brucellosis import, i.e. absolute distrust to export certificates issued by private “official” veterinarians ! (Note: Average duration of one castration was about 5 minutes – one veterinarian carrying up pre-and post- operation treatments, one operating and one registering and marking animals.)

4.22 Very important is the grade of requirements for the selection of accredited veterinarians when the quantity to be combined with quality (education, training and practical experience) of these professionals. For so important work in name of government for national and international trade, such as carrying  out official tests  as the basis for  issuing official certificates on the sanitary status of animals and their products, should be selected only the most competent veterinarians.

Example: USA reported in the OIE World Animal Health 1998, page 340: “The National Veterinary Accreditation Programme has almost 50 000 qualified veterinary practitioners who carry out official tests and vaccinations; conduct herd and flock health programmes; and prepare animal health certification.“ In the same year USA reported 42,825 private veterinarians and in laboratories, universities and training institutions 5,783 veterinarians. Do these data mean that accreditation certificate was given to almost everybody of them ?  The American Veterinary Medical Association reported (www.avma.org/cim/vstat1.htm) following number of veterinarians (active AVMA members) in August 2001: total  private practice - 45,115 (large animal exclusive – 1,831, large animal predominant – 3,112, mixed animal – 3,608, small animal predominant – 5,134, small animal eclusive – 27,829, equine – 2,017 and other – 1,584); total  public and corporate - 8,789 (federal government  - 682, state or local government – 554, college or university – 4,059, uniform services – 463, industrial – 1,496, other – 1,538); employment unknown – 6,583; grand total – 60,487. It is obvious that reported only 1,236 government veterinarians could not control effectively animal population health and disease situation in the USA, national and international trade in animals and animal products and supervise private veterinary service testing and issuing official certificates. (The same source informs that  in 1999 the mean individual income of veterinarians, before taxes, reached in private practice 73,002 US$ while in federal government 68,153 US$ and in state and local government 65,294 US$; the highest income was reported by industrial veterinarians – 109,941 US$). The question is if private “official” accredited veterinarian export certificates of the US or other exporting country are more trustworthy than the Mexican ones mentioned in the above example ? Unfortunately, the WTO/SPS and the OIE Code does not care about this key sanitary problem of international trade in animals and their products (credo: trade “at all cost”).

The author had the opportunity to attend as observer an accreditation  course for selected private veterinarians in one American continent country: after five days of theory without any practical training and examination every participant got the certificate to can play key “official” role in animal trade.

4.23 There were also cases when international health certificates were issued in spite of exported animals having clinical symptoms of infectious disease or originated from herds with specific clinical symptoms.

Example: Veterinary service of the Czech Republic detected in the 90th  from 326 shipments of 19,350  “healthy” cattle imported from several “developed” European countries in 86 shipments  trichophytosis, i.e. zoonosis with clinical manifestation very easy to recognise (even by the farmers), in spite of official “perfect” veterinary certificates according to OIE Code; many persons became specifically infected. (8).

4.24 One century experience confirms extraordinary importance of public veterinary manpower for any animal health programmes for health prevention, disease control and eradication as well as for national and international trade. In 1990 WHO and FAO together with Italian institutions published a very useful document ’’Guiding principles for planning, organization and management of veterinary public health programmes’’ (14). The author having experience of anti-epizootic programmes, after becoming the Chief of FAO Animal Health Service (AGAH) in 1988, included as the main priority of the AGAH Regular Programme and Budget the strengthening of public veterinary services in developing countries. Based on rich experience of FAO member country governments and  of international experts and as well as on the results of particular FAO Expert Consultation, 15-19 October 1990 attended by many Chief Veterinary Officers from different continents, it was produced and published in 1991 a manual “Guidelines for Strengthening Animal Health Services in Developing Countries” (3) translated and issued also in French and Spanish.

Unfortunately, the pressure from the World Bank, International Monetary Fond and some other international organizations (e.g. OIE) dismantled existing public veterinary services in these countries minimizing up to avoiding their ability to control properly animal population health/disease situation and trade (13). Similar fate suffered also the majority of other countries. The privatization mania influenced also animal health programmes of the FAO.

4.25 The most critical situation is in poor developing countries, mainly in Central and Southern Africa. The numbers of veterinarians in many of these countries were and still are absolutely insufficient. Often, the majority was represented by veterinarian-foreigners having short-term contracts and dedicating their working time mainly  to curative medicine giving priorities to rich clientele mostly in capital cities !

Example: The author together with Dr Alexander Wilson, Chief Veterinary Officer visited on 17 March 1981 Zimbabwe north border district  to be acquainted with protective measures against nearing wave of rinderpest from east African territory. In this district there was only one veterinarian (a foreigner recently graduated, with two year contract) who was not concerned about nearing danger for the country and was fully involved in treating individual diseased animals.

4.26 Serious problem has been  the brain drain, i.e. when the best students of international fellowships have been overpaid by developed countries offering them better living and working conditions than in their poor home country. Fragile infrastructure of public veterinary service in these countries was during 1990s dismantled by unscrupulous privatization. The governments of the poor countries have minimal number of veterinarians for controlling animal health and disease situation, private veterinarians and for assuring protection against the introduction of communicable diseases from abroad, mainly through import of animals and animal products. This critical situation has offered to many countries the chance for exporting different diseases in the poor countries being unable to eradicate them.

Example: The author, after becoming FAO Animal Health Officer (Research and Education) in 1978, started analysing veterinary manpower situation in the world. In October 1979 he visited together with Prof. Dr M Braend (Norway), FAO Consultant, several Southern African countries (members of the United Nations, i.e. not including racist South Africa Republic and Rhodesia) within a new project “Identification Mission on veterinary training in Southern Africa” – project RAF/78/052. The mission visited Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, Zambia, Mozambique and Angola. In all these countries of vast South African subcontinent there were working only 32 national  veterinarians  and 111 foreign veterinarians! E.g. in Swaziland as well as in Botswana there were working only 3 national veterinarians ! Foreign veterinarians were concentrated mostly in capital cities treating pets mainly of rich owners. As the result of this mission, the author suggested to establish  one new regional veterinary faculty in Lusaka, Zambia (visited South African Republic Veterinary Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, University of Pretoria was entirely only for white students). As follow-up, the author organized a “Preparatory Mission for the Establishment of a regional School of Veterinary Medicine in Lusaka” which took place during 1 to 11 December 1980 with following Terms of Reference: (i) to asses location and facilities available for the establishment of Veterinary Faculty in Lusaka, Zambia, with regional responsibility; (ii) to prepare a draft project document  which will serve as a working paper for the inter-governmental meeting; etc. This meeting at the level of participating governments (Members of SADC – Southern African Development Community) took place in Lusaka, 7-14 March 1981. The author explained and defended the project which was, after not easy discussions (e.g. Malawi delegate insisted on Harare location in Zimbabwe), accepted. The faculty, for producing about 60 new veterinarians yearly, was finally constructed within local university campus thanks to generous financial support (about 80 million USD) of Japanese government, including initial provision of  teaching staff (thanks also to important support of Dr Y. Ozawa, Chief, Animal Health Service, FAO). That time it was the most modern veterinary faculty in Africa. Among those who deserve the appreciation belong also Prof.Dr A. Kelly, Vice-Chancelor, Lusaka University and Prof.Dr Robert Lee, the first Dean (both from Ireland).

4.27 Public veterinary services are perhaps the only ones where current management principles are not applied. For their tasks and activities, majority of them can be planned and well defined, there is lack of corresponding staff and support. Therefore, their duties can be fulfilled only very superficially. It is logical that with limited staff can be done only limited work. Public veterinary service management is unfortunately out of veterinary research and social/economic studies needed for optimization of this service development and for providing supporting arguments.

4.28 Without necessary number of properly managed competent public service veterinarians, well supported materially and financially, the majority of national and international animal health strategies, programmes, emergency plans, etc. as well as of applied research results can be put in the drawers or in the waste baskets as paper scraps without follow-up practical implementation.

4.29 The critical situation in veterinary manpower is stressed also by inadequate territorial distribution. The majority of veterinarians are concentrated in capital and major cities. Private service is giving priority to the treatment of individual sick animals, mainly pets, preferably belonging to rich owners. In the rural territories the density of veterinarians is significantly lower, i.e. disease surveillance of food producing animal populations is very limited (ad hoc) and the real situation in not sufficiently known. Veterinary workforce distribution remains a very serious problem. There are too many areas and territories underserved which plays negative role in disease surveillance and monitoring, causing late discovery of communicable disease new outbreaks, late application of necessary anti-epizootic measures, late reporting to the higher level veterinary authority, etc. The veterinary manpower maldistribution reflects in lacking or even in absence of necessary sanitary control of the trade in animals and their products. This is of particular importance in the exporting countries being unable to avoid export of non-healthy animals and non-pathogens-free products due to lack of government and private veterinarians in terms of number and distribution. The alleviation of this maldistribution represents a very complex and difficult task depending on many different factors.

Example: The author of this paper was during 21 May -11 June 1976 in Ontario Province, Canada, selecting young bulls to be exported to Czechoslovakia for insemination stations. When visiting daily many ranches and farms in the most important cattle breeding districts he met only once a field private veterinarian dedicated to food producing animals, while in all (even small)  cities there were well equipped veterinary facilities for small animals.

4.30 Qualitative analyses of global veterinary resources are still waiting for being elaborated. In this context it must be considered not only professional quality of actual veterinary manpower but also the profiles of the new veterinarians being prepared in more than five hundred veterinary faculties in the world. Unfortunately, there is a general tendency to prefer lucrative curative medicine treating individual diseased animals mostly pets, i.e. for private service and to reduce (somewhere up to almost zero) the preparation (often only theoretically) for animal population preventive medicine, communicable diseases’ control and eradication, i.e. for public service employment.

The serious problem is also the availability of food producing animals and their herds (populations) for practical training of the students and in postgradual courses. Somewhere were problems also with the avilability of other animal species (healthy or diseased). The lack of available animals conduce to the tendency of teaching mainly theory (easier and cheaper).

Examples: At Al-Hofuf oasis in Saudi Arabia in 1980 there were three veterinary institutions:  Veterinary and Animal Production middle level school for the Golf States (that time having only one donkey), new first veterinary faculty and original municipal clinic while there were minimal animals for practical training (it was necessary to borrow mutually ad hoc available cases); the local farmers, due to getting good price for their place with its underground rich of petroleum, sold their animals as well. In Mexico City, the biggest in the world, two veterinary faculties had difficulties to have available food producing animals for practical training. Similar problems have all veterinary faculties located in the center of big cities, i.e. far from livestock husbandry.

It is preferable the veterinary faculties to have their own school farms providing conditions for necessary practical training.

When the author started as visiting professor at Veterinary Faculty, Havana University in 1967, located in the centre of the city, there were for all departments’ teaching on food producing animals’ health and disease only one lean cow; the problem was solved after  transferring the faculty in 1968 to a great school farm outside of the capital with thousands of animals of all important species. The alma mater of the author, University of Veterinary Sciences, Brno has  for practical field training from 1945 a school farm in Nový Dvùr with 210 ha of agriculture land  and from 1970 also a school ranch Nový Jièín with about 7,000 ha of agriculture land  with corresponding number of domestic animals, training facilities for the students - including accommodation and catering - and with necessary number of employees (in 1993 their number reached 789).

4.31 The “new” policy of the OIE and the FAO has been dedicating much more attention to strengthening private services able to solve their problems themselves (supported also by World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Veterinary Association, rich banks, pharmaceutical industry, etc.) instead to public veterinary institutions depending only on government very limited budget. The OIE did not present to member country governments any risk analysis and warnings to avoid the dismantling of public veterinary institutions having the key irreplaceable role in any anti-epizootic activity (originally main task of the OIE) including trade control. The OIE did not protest when  the World Bank was imposing unscrupulously on developing countries to minimize government support and budget for public veterinary institutions and anti-epizootic programmes.

4.32 The consequences of minimization of public veterinary services unable to control national and international trade in and transfer of animal commodities are catastrophic due to mass spreading of animal diseases by uncontrolled (or uncontrollable) private sector very often not respecting country borders and national laws.

Example: In August 2007 it was reported hog cholera in a pig farm in Cenei, Romania. The farm belonged to American Smithfield Food, the major producer of pork in the world, having 22 pig farms in Romania. When investigating the hog cholera way of introduction it was discovered that 7 pig farms have not any  veterinary permission for their activities (i.e. illegal and sanitary uncontrolled production = disease spreading). A month before in this farm died about three thousand of pigs by the same disease but not reported to government authorities.


5. Conclusion and recommendations

5.1 Presented analysis demonstrates deep gap between the number of government veterinary officials in the majority of the countries and the requirements for  necessary animal and human population health protection, effective disease surveillance,  control, reduction and eradication to avoid pathogens spreading mainly through national and international trade.

5.2 The analysis reflects serious  g l o b a l   c r i s i s   of public veterinary services.

5.3 Public veterinary services in all the countries to be significantly strengthened in terms of the staff quantity and quality together with ensuring necessary material, facilities and budget to be able to cope effectively with national animal health/disease problems and international trade. This suggestion is not easy to implement, particularly in the countries having serious economic problems. The number of government veterinary officials is the internal problem of each country. However, the exporting countries must strengthen public veterinary services to be able to guarantee the export of healthy animals and animal products free of pathogens avoiding international spreading of animal diseases.


5.4 All provisions of international documents facilitating, admitting or even supporting  communicable disease spreading through trade to be abolished as soon as possible giving importing country public service the freedom to decide about  import conditions without any external interference or dictate (as it was before WTO/SPS).


(Full texts of two letters to Dr Mike Moore (New Zealand),  Director General, World Trade Organization asking for and justifying the abolition of the WTO/SPS see in http://vaclavkouba.byl.cz/warning.htm).

5.5 International animal health information system, necessary for decision making of importing country public service, to be significantly improved to provide regular information on  a l l  internationally reportable diseases (at least as it was before WTO/SPS).

5.6 Education and practical training in animal population health protection, control and eradication of emergency and other communicable diseases, in diagnosis of general and specific  epizootiological (epidemiological) h e a l t h (not only of diseases) of individual animals, herds/flocks and populations as well as in the diagnosis of innocuous, i.e. pathogen free animal products to be strengthened (diagnosis of   epizootiological health is much more demanding than the diagnosis of the disease, but absolutely necessary for effective animal population health programmes and for communicable disease-free trade).

5.7 The use of private sector to fill the gap in public professional veterinary manpower is today enforced necessity. Strict selection of persons for getting status of “accredited veterinarian” for carrying out some public service duties to be applied, i.e. only after intensive course ended by practical examinations. Full independence of accredited veterinarians and laboratories on  exporting persons and agencies to be ensured.

5.8 Public veterinary services manpower development (including qualification requirements), organization, structure, management, legislation, norms, economics, impact and effectiveness to be included among basic and applied research programmes.

5.9 Relevant international organizations to analyse regularly global public veterinary professional manpower situation in relation to animal and human population health needs and to present to the governments corresponding suggestions for further development towards strong public services able to cope with actual animal health problems. For this purpose to carry out also studies to compare national veterinary services according to achieved concrete results in prevention, control and eradication of animal diseases (= main criterion of public veterinary service quality and usefulness).

6. References                             

 1.    Caporale, V. (1994). - Harmonization of activities of the veterinary services in Europe with special respect to principles of certification and to accreditation of European laboratories and the mutual recognition of analysis results. Document for the OIE European Commission. 22 pp.

2.      Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization/International Office of Epizootics (FAO/WHO/OIE) (1956-1995). – FAO/WHO/OIE Animal health yearbook. FAO,  Rome.

3.      Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1991). – Guidelines for strengthening animal health services in developing countries. FAO, Rome, 141 pp.

4.      Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2000). – FAO Quarterly Bulletin of Statistics, Vol. 1, No. 2. FAO, Rome, 151-162.

5.      Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2002). – FAO Statistical Databases (FAOSTAT). FAO, Rome.   (http://apps.fao.org/ accessed 22 October 2003).

6.      Griffith R.B., Konigshofer H.O. (1974). – Standard of Veterinary Services. FAO, 16 pp.

7.      Hodges, J. (2001). – Editorial. Livestock Production Science. 69: 59.

8.    Kouba V. (2003). - Globalization of Communicable Diseases of Animals – A Crisis of Veterinary Medicine. Acta Vet. Brno, 72: 453-460    (www.vfu.cz/acta-vet/vol72/453-03.htm).

9.   Kouba V. (2003). – Globalization of communicable diseases and international trade. Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium for Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, Vina del Mare, Chile, 17-21 November 2003: 34-36     (http://vaclavkouba.byl.cz/globdisease.htm).

10. Kouba V. (2003). – Quantitative analysis of global veterinary human resources. Rev. sci. tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2003, 22 (3), 899-908       (www.oie.int/eng/publicat/RT/2203/A_R22311.htm).

11.    OIE (International Office of Epizootics) (1996-2002). – World Animal Health (yearbook). OIE, Paris.

12.    OIE (International Office of Epizootics (1997-2002). – International Animal Health Code. OIE, Paris.

13.   Rweyemamu M.M. and  Astudillo V.M. (2003). - Global perspectives for foot and mouth disease control . Rev.sci.tech.Off.int.Epiz. 21 (3): 765-773.     (www.oie.int/eng/publicat/rt/A_rt21_3.htm).

14. WHO/FAO/ISS/IZSTe (1990). – Guiding principles for planning, organization and management of veterinary public health programmes. Veterinary Public Health Reports. WHO/FAO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Veterinary Public Health, Instituto Superiore di Sanita, Laboratorio di Parassitologia, Rome, Italy, 143 pp.


7. Annexes

Table  I

Number of total government and private veterinarians in the world  reported  during 1983-2002


Year      Reports         Reported number of veterinarians                Missing major countries

                                 Total            Government     Private


1983     116              240404             65930             79026                             China(C), USSR(U)

1984     136              260711             96372             81581                                    C,U

1985     151              289969           100057           104679                                    C,U

1986     154              310441           110577           107957                                    C,U

1987     160              333424           118909           124426                                    C,U

1988     165              359501           125087           138481                                    C,U

1989     166              383933           130782           145317                                    C,U

1990     165              403924           120642           166545                                    C,U

1991     169              436701           132342           185615                                    C,U

1992     156              417463           128662           181908                                C,Russia(R)

1993     135              552331           144888           228697                                 R,France

1994     110              520263           141317           215676                                      R

1995     132              565500           154126           229956                                      R

1996     140              524342           151529           206761                                    C,R

1997     152              527074           125173           219692                                    C,R

1998     145              530626           153995           226699                                    C,R

1999     128              490668           156344           212286                                 C,R,USA

2000     136              548660           149561           260923                                    C,R

2001     144              574824           133035           271494                                    C,R

2002     174              645727           196783           306135                                        R    



Table II

Numbers of veterinarians, as reported by the countries significantly influencing the global values of the year 2002


Category                                USA              China               India              Japan             Mexico             Egypt                 UK             Germany         Spain           Australia        


Government officials           2,607              43,900               31,425                8,039                 5,374              15,000               768               2,398               6,846           507

Laboratories, education     5,565                6,000                 3,075                1,396                 5,940                4,500               596               2,479                2,791          333

Private practitioners         45,116                                         1,900               16,458               16,970                4,000           11,568             10,387               8,532        1,795

Others                                   1,538                                         1,475                 3,750                                          3,500             8,654               5,690               2,127          500


Total                                    54,826              49,900              37,875                29,643              28,284             27,000            21,586             20,954             20,296       7,562


Note: Former USSR reported 80,000 veterinarians in 1982 .


Table III

Numbers of veterinarians, as reported by selected countries  in the year 2000


Category                               Argentina     Canada           Cuba          Denmark         France          Indonesia        Italy      Netherlands   N. Zealand    Poland       S.Africa        


Government officials               2,530              685              5,382                512                1,000                   724              5,340               355               192             1,640               253               

Laboratories, education         2,875              352                 937                 321               1,200                    500                578               304               126                242               162               

Private practitioners                6,512           6,206                     0              1,193               8,000                2,176            10,247            2,513            1,073             6,200              932               

Others                                                              846                 268                  921                     ?                    100              1,940               295               795             1,732            1,052


Total                                        11,917            8,089               6,587              2,947            10,200               3,500             18,105             3,467           2,186             9,814            2,399           


Table IV

Average numbers of cattle, sheep and pigs per one government veterinary official in 2000


Species                                  USA              China               India              Japan             Mexico             Egypt               UK             Germany        Spain          Australia


Cattle                                    43,438               2,921             10,251  *)          571                 5,675               490 *)           11,179             5,199                907              52,422

Sheep                                      3,089              6,795 **)        6,328 **)             2                  1,189              300 **)        38,657                 985             2,659            227,724

Pigs                                      26,696             10,420                  677              1,220                 2,921                  4                 8,180              9,255             3,472                5,179


                            Argentina     Canada           Cuba          Denmark         France          Indonesia        Italy      Netherlands   N. Zealand    Poland       S.Africa       Zambia


Cattle                   19,904            21,556              764             3,648               20,097             20,099 *)        1,345           11,465               43,872         3,715          40,942          27,302

Sheep                    4,775               1,263              190                284                 9,509            10,320             2,054             3,683             216,798            193           85,030          9,877 **)

Pigs                           968            17,888               387           23,284              15,993              10,032           1,574           36,952                 6,631        10,040            4,281          3,217


*) Including buffaloes; **) including goats.


Table V

Average numbers of livestock units *)  per one government veterinary official in 2000


                                     USA              China               India              Japan             Mexico             Egypt               UK             Germany        Spain          Australia


Number of  LU          46,886             5,329                9,101                708                6,147                  563               16,932             6,614             2,229              63,121


                            Argentina     Canada           Cuba          Denmark         France          Indonesia        Italy      Netherlands   N. Zealand    Poland       S.Africa       Zambia


Number of LU       15,503          22,140             794              8,907                 22,889              31,970           1,961            21,024             57,245          5,748          42,380           22,910


*) Livestock units – rates:  cattle – 0.7, buffaloes – 1, horse – 1, sheep – 0.1, goat – 0.1, pig – 0.25 and chicken – 0.01.


Table VI

Average amount of produced meat and milk  (in  MT) per one government veterinary official in 2000


                                     USA              China               India              Japan             Mexico             Egypt               UK             Germany        Spain          Australia


Meat total *)             15,592            1,128                   90                    374                 808                     61                 4,399              2,277               685              7,085

Milk total                   34,600                                    2,225                1,057              1,788                   274               19,836            10,213               941            22,057


                            Argentina      Canada           Cuba          Denmark         France          Indonesia        Italy      Netherlands   N. Zealand    Poland       S.Africa       Zambia


Meat total *)              1,595          5,639              47               3,898                 5,120              2,434              2,277            7,930              6,776            1,696           5,400             823

Milk total                    3,874        11,810            115              8,720                25,620                 975              2,114          30,423            62,573            7,157          10,542            667


*) Meat total = beef and veal, mutton and lamb, pig meat and chicken meat


Table VII

Average value in US$ of exported animals and selected  animal products per one government veterinary official in 2000


                                     USA              China               India              Japan             Mexico             Egypt               UK             Germany        Spain          Australia


Animals                    173,688             8,427                 12                    16                   75,252                 5               148,567            154,777          37,554            797,134

Meat total              3,369,462           28,627          10,376               2,209                  44,446              124           1,235,647             758,460        176,796         5,786,006

Milk total                  184,924             1,133               551                  492                    8,140               171             745,587              863,061          38,460         1,701,929


Total                       3,728,074           38,187          10,939               2,717                127,838               300          2,128,801          1,776,298         252,810        8,285,069


                            Argentina      Canada           Cuba          Denmark         France          Indonesia        Italy      Netherlands   N. Zealand    Poland       S.Africa       Zambia


Animals                1,800            1,573,773                              273,308            1,281,685          4,982           4,850          863,115            29,349           55,806         18,885

Meat total        312,168            3,821,330             45           6,476,711            3,360,102      102,866       185,838     10,344,361       8,961,854                187       200,343          2,073

Milk total           97,620               139,958               2              622,463            1,566,098         18,515           6,705       3,272,738       5,792,609         102,806       113,162          1,240


Total                411,588             5,535,061            47            7,372,482            6,207,885       126,363      197,393       14,480,214     14,783.812         158,799      332,390           3,313



Table VIII

Average numbers of slaughtered cattle, sheep and pigs per one government veterinary official in 2000


Species                                  USA              China               India              Japan             Mexico             Egypt               UK             Germany        Spain          Australia


Cattle                                    16,780                     ?                   447                 162                 1,222                 106               3,337                1,539               367               17,059

Sheep                                      1,575                     ?                2,102             9,797                    841                 339              25,214                   781                  ?               66,203

Pigs                                       43,797                     ?                   527             2,055                 2,335                    5                17,414             15,527            5,118                 9,890


                            Argentina     Canada           Cuba          Denmark         France          Indonesia        Italy      Netherlands   N. Zealand    Poland       S.Africa       Zambia


Cattle                    4,901             5,603                 95             1,215                 5,476                 2,342             829             6,330               17,210         1,204            10,739          2,656

Sheep                   2,354                893               116                133                 8,226               11,120           1,395             2,141             160,144              65            42,451          4,406

Pigs                       1,084           28,736               332           40,935              26,903                       ?            2,420           52,293                 3,779        13,816             7,202          2,396



Table IX

Average number of livestock units per veterinarian, government veterinary official and private veterinarian in 2000

                   Country                           Total livestock units               Livestock units          Livestock units per            Livestock units per

                                                                                                      per veterinarian          government veterinarian     private veterinarian