HEFTED SHEEP
By Ruth Watkins
The extensive grazing of hefted sheep on the commonland of Britain is a unique
phenomenon in Europe, enabling livestock to be kept in unfenced areas without
constant shepherding. Each hefted flock
has its own territory and is self-confining to that area, a heft. Extended
areas are divided into numerous hefts, with each flock knowing its own area and
returning to it after lambing, veterinary treatment or other husbandry
requirements.
Commonland
is typically pasture over which common grazing rights are exercised. It is unfenced, and consists of lowland and
upland habitat, much of it moorland and mountainous. There is a great diversity
of breeds grazing the hefts. Many are
specific to a particular area and derive from ancient sheep brought over by
invaders such as the Neolithic peoples, Celts, Romans and Vikings and their
descendants have remained in remote places on the Western seaboard of Europe.
The sheep breeds, the practice of hefting and the biodiverse habitats that have
emerged as a consequence are in some cases well over a thousand years old. They
provide valuable environmental, agricultural and social benefits but these are
now at risk as the result of the foot and mouth control policy adopted by the
UK government during and after the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak.
The word heft is derived from the Old Norse word 'hefda' which means
'to acquire by right or prescription (hefdad is the past tense). In welsh the word used for hefted sheep is
'cynefin' (pronounced kinevin) and means sheep 'with their own habitat'.
The system of grazing hefted sheep on unfenced
commonland either the whole year round or in the warmer months only is an
ancient one. No shepherding is
needed. In Cumbria hefted flocks may go
back a thousand years to the time of the Viking invaders from Scandinavia who
shaped the landscape of the Cumbrian and Yorkshire moorland 'fells' in northern
England. The practice may have become
more widely prevalent in England after the Black Death in the 14th
century, when the severe population decline meant that there were acute labour
shortages: the number of sheep (breeding ewes) that may be grazed is still
adjusted according to medieval 'manorial' law on some commons.
Grazing rights on commonland are purchased with the
farm, as is the hefted flock of sheep. Because the sheep range over an area
with a notional boundary, their 'heaf' or 'walk', the farmer knows where they
can be found and can call in or round up his flock for shearing, de-worming,
tupping or for their own safety. A more recent example of hefting is the
Ministry of Defense-owned 8,500-hectare
'battle area' in the Breckland of Norfolk. Here the 5,000 sheep are hefted to
42 specific areas. When the army holds battle exercises, firing live rounds, the
sheep are rounded up and enclosed. When the exercise is over, they are released
and each hefted flock returns to its own area.
Each family of sheep, a ewe and her daughters over
several generations, stay together as a small group within the flock and the
whole flock grazes one area so that the entire common or moor is a mosaic of
different hefted flocks. Genetic material is introduced by selecting rams but
the matriarchal lineage is not interrupted.
A hefted ewe possesses knowledge that she teaches to
her lambs. A hefted sheep needs to know
where to go to graze and find nutritional benefits, such as the protein-rich new shoots of cotton grass, where
streams or bogs may be safely crossed, where to go in different weather and at
times of day or night to find shelter, shade or safety.
The environment is usually bleak, cold, wet and nutritionally poor.
Lowland animals could not thrive on it. The land is too high or too wet and the
soil too poor or rocky to plough and cultivate. The hefted sheep are adapted locally to their environment. As
well as being thrifty, they must cope with mineral or micronutrient imbalance
and prevalent environmental organisms, such as clostridial species of bacteria,
and parasites such as the liver fluke.
Hill sheep from one area may not thrive in another. Hill sheep from the dry cold moors of East
Yorkshire will not thrive in Cumbria with its higher altitude, wetter climate,
different soils and different plants.
This is why such a variety of hill sheep breeds have developed over the
years, centuries or even millennia, adapted to certain localities to which they
are confined.
As the result of the foot
and mouth epidemic and the culling policies that accompanied it, whole commons
and mountains have been completely cleared of sheep or have few hefted sheep
left. Of those killed some were from infected farms and proved to be so on
diagnosis, some were culled as suspected cases but later after testing proved
negative, some were contiguous or 3-km culls and some were culled for welfare
reasons (food ran out and movement restrictions meant that they could not be
moved to better pasture or for lambing). In many cases, the only females
remaining from the hefted flock are the older ewes left out on the hill during
the winter, all the young ewes having been culled on lowland farms whilst being
over-wintered there. (Over-wintering young and breeding stock on the more
fertile lowland farms is a common practice, enabling them to build up their
strength for the breeding season. Unfortunately, many of these lowland farms
were culled out in addition to other cases in the uplands.)
Though overgrazing has occurred recently and impoverished some
highland habitat, under-grazing because there are no sheep left - or very few -
can be at least as damaging environmentally and much harder to correct. A
population of sheep can be reduced but it is very much more difficult to
replace a population once it has been killed out or reduced to unsustainable
numbers. Without any grazing at all, large areas may return to impenetrable
scrub. This will mean that the existing biodiversity and the balance of
wildlife will be affected adversely.
Hefted sheep are integral to maintaining the unique and 'wild' or
semi-natural environment of which they form part. The recreational and tourist value of the areas grazed by sheep
is very great. Re-hefting sheep is a
difficult, expensive and time-consuming process, even supposing suitable breeds are
available.
Herdwick, Rough Fell, Dalesbred, Swaledale, North
Country Black face and Hill Cheviot, Lonk, White Faced Woodland, White Faced
Dartmoor and Hill Radnor are examples of some of the native breeds affected by
the large numbers of sheep culled in 2001 because of FMD infection in the area
to which they are special. 30 to 60% of
the breeding population of ewes has been lost which will have a significant
effect on the gene pool, since none of these breeds are strong
numerically. In the case of Herdwicks,
they are the only breed adapted to the harsh conditions of the high tops of the
Lakeland hills in northern England and have been described as a 'cultural icon
of the Lake District and its landscape'. The breed has lost 30,000 females out
of a pre-FMD total of 75,000. Moreover, most of the Herdwicks available for
restocking have come from one large flock so the genetic pool is not only
impoverished but skewed. The Rough Fells, which graze the Howgill fells in
northern England, have lost over 8,000 ewes from a pre-FMD total of
18,000. A lowland breed such as the
Wensleydale, widely distributed in Britain, has been reduced by only 7%.
Re-hefting sheep is expensive and
time-consuming. Extra shepherding is
needed for at least five years. Initially the shepherd may have to live with
the sheep and then visit daily to turn sheep back into their heaf. Where the whole mosaic of hefted flocks has
been disrupted or vanished, electric fencing is being tried. Very large areas of moorland and mountain
will present special difficulty,
supposing they can be re-hefted at all.
The process is not complete for ten to fifteen years. Territories need
to become established, as does selection of families, the survival of the
fittest and those best adapted to the environment takes place and there is a
high rate of die-off and those ewes which fail to thrive are weeded out by the
shepherd. English Nature, the
government-funded body which promotes the conservation of England's wildlife
and natural features, the National Trust and other environmental organisations
are all concerned about the environmental implications of the loss of hefted
sheep. They are all endeavouring, with difficulty, to work out ways of
repopulating the livestock-denuded areas with hefted flocks at an
environmentally and economically sustainable level.
SUMMARY
Hefted sheep are a valuable agricultural, genetic,
environmental, biodiversity and, ultimately, social resource. Their numbers
have been severely reduced by the 2001 FMD epidemic and the culling policies
that accompanied it. The hefted hill
sheep of Britain would probably not survive another FMD epidemic with the
'slaughter only' policy including the culling of such a large number of
uninfected flocks (75% or more of all farms culled out were not infected. Such data as there is is not openly
available and the majority of premises culled were never tested for
infection. Infection of contiguous
premises, the pre-clinical phase so that animals were apparently well, is
likely to have been greatest in areas of the most intense infection such as
Cumbria) The socio-cultural structure of many rural communities dependent on
agriculture and tourism has been very hard hit. Family farms and environmentally friendly farming have suffered
most severely. Recovery will take
years. The management of the 2001 epidemic has been a financial disaster. Morally, the policies pursued have been
abhorrent. They have also been
unnecessarily severe and have compromised an ancient, important system of extensive
livestock management unique to the United Kingdom.
The
EU should recognise the unique importance of the hefted flock in the UK when
drawing up policies for future outbreaks of FMD.
The
EU should facilitate re-hefting areas that have lost their flocks by
(a) allowing the UK to make use of Commission
Regulation (EC) 1750/1999 Section 6, Article 13 (which is incorporated into the
England Rural Development Programme), by which Member States can make payments
for maintaining local breeds of livestock 'in danger of extinction'.
(b) re-examining the State Aid Rules in relation to post-FMD assistance
to hefted flocks, allowing the UK government to 'disapply certain restrictions'
in order to re-establish the hefted flocks.
My
thanks to many persons for introducing me to the ways of hefted sheep:
Richard Mawdesley farmer near Kendal in Cumbria
Geoff Brown secretary of the Herdwick Society
Geoffrey Sedgewick farmer near Sedburgh Cumbria
Julia Horner farmer's wife Warfdale Yorkshire
Suzanne Greenhill linked to Cockermouth market
Cumbria
Andrew Foreman shepherd to Breckland army battle
area in Norfolk
Colonel Pedley secretary of the Wensleydale Society
Eifion Jones farmer at Gwynfe Brecon Beacons
National Park Wales
Richard Wright of English nature
Rob Macklin of the National Trust
Leslie Stebbings, sheep consultant
My
own hefted flock of White Faced Welsh Mountain flock was not put on the Black
Mountain in 2001.
Questions:
On
vaccination
q
There
were 5 million doses of the O Manisa vaccine in the EU vaccine bank (Veterinary
Record of 24th march 2001). Why was no vaccination programme in
place (thoroughly planned, resourced, publicly consulted with farmers and
unions and rehearsed, prior to the outbreak) as part of the control strategy
for an epidemic of FMD?
q
Why
was the only vaccination programme applied to the EU by the UK for permission
to vaccinate at the end of March and not at the beginning?
q
Why
was only one vaccination strategy applied for by the UK, namely the protective
vaccination of dairy cattle with the slaughter of all other receptive animals
in the vaccination zone?
q
The
inactivated oil-based FMD vaccine works well in sheep. Why was this never considered?
q
Why
was the vaccination of hefted sheep flocks that could be kept under bio-secure
conditions such as on moorland e.g. the Brecon Beacons National Park, never
made part of a vaccination programme?
q
Why
was vaccination of other flocks and herds, rare breeds, zoo animals,
sanctuaries and other irreplaceable
animals such as long pedigrees, never considered (bio-security would have
precluded mixing of vaccinated animals with unvaccinated animals) and not
included in a vaccination programme?
q
Why
were individual requests to vaccinate entire flocks or herds to save breeding
stock refused outright?
q
If
vaccination was only to be used to control and eliminate the virus from a
vaccination zone why was it then never used at all in Britain?
q
Why
could we not restock previously infected premises with vaccinated animals?
q
Without
a vaccination programme we are susceptible to bioterrorism- introducing FMD O
Pan Asia from one of the many areas where it is current in the world could
easily be accomplished and probably be impossible to detect.
Why has bioterrorism using FMD not been seriously
considered?
q
Why
is there so little published data on vaccination against the most prevalent
strain of FMD in the world, O Pan Asia?
q
There
should be no time penalty for vaccination as compared with slaughter. Modern virology can detect herds or flocks
with potential carrier animals so that natural disappearance of vaccine
antibodies should no longer be considered a limiting factor to prove a flock or
herd is uninfected. The role of the
vaccinated carrier animal has been exaggerated whilst the role of the
unvaccinated carrier has been overlooked.
Why does the EU allow the OIE to retain out of date
rules regarding the resumption of FMD-free status after an epidemic has been
controlled?
q
Rules
based on regaining FMD-free status for trading purposes skew the policy for
controlling an epidemic. Why does the
EU not propose rules that would allow an epidemic to be controlled in the most
efficient way- the quickest time to elimination of the virus?
q
Why
does the EU not set out guidelines for both the use of vaccination at the onset
of an epidemic and proof of elimination of virus after an epidemic?
q
Why
are virologists with practical expertise in control of FMD including
vaccination so poorly represented on Britain's Science Committee and on the EU
Standing Veterinary Committee?
Diagnosis
of infection with FMD
Most of the farms culled out and cleansed in Britain
were never infected with FMD. The
method of extensive culling was experimental and never properly reviewed as it
was adopted intra-epidemic.
The work at Pirbright showed this strain of O Pan
Asia rarely if at all in 2001 gave rise to uncontrolled spread by virus plumes
carried on the prevailing wind.
Apart from antigen detection the methods used in
Britain had been used 34 years ago in the 1967 1968 epidemic.
The activity and priorities of diagnosis are
different from and may conflict with those of research.
Consumption
of vaccinated products
The EU recommends hanging and deboning lamb and
pasteurising milk from a vaccination zone. Many cheeses cannot then be made,
nor is it possible to debone lamb economically and the hanging conditions for
lamb unlike beef are not established.
The Food Standards Agency in the UK and Consumers Association have both
agreed that vaccinated products (milk and meat) are safe to eat.
Economic
environmental and social effects
X
Why
does commonsense not prevail in the EU rules?
-Rules that are not justified on safety nor on
reasonable grounds of the virology of an infectious agent should be weeded out
of the EU if their remaining on the statute book gives rise to mismanagement of
a virus infection for economic reasons.
-Farmer's acceptance of vaccination was prevented by
the lack of compensation for produce such as vaccinated meat or milk that could
not be sold.
X
Epidemic
control should be at the least economic cost whilst most acceptable and
humane. Why was tax-payers money
wantonly wasted in slaughtering and incinerating so many healthy uninfected
stock?
X
Why
are some costs externalised from consideration of policy?
As socio-economic circumstances change it is imperative that the
prevailing economic reality is fully taken account of in costs when forming
policy and keeping it up to date.
-Huge financial damage to another industry, tourism,
was never taken into account in policy making.
People were not allowed to use footpaths during a time prolonged by
failure to use vaccination e.g. on hill flocks (footpaths can be safely used
after vaccination is completed).
I wish to thank Michael Sayer and Caroline Cranbrook
of the CLA for their help in preparing this document and Dr Keith Sumption of
the Royal Edinborough Veterinary School for his advice.