There was no general agreement on the form that reporting from the consultant should take. Most popular alternatives were verbal with written follow-up (30% KC, 40% EI group responses) and verbal plus telephone discussions (32% KC, 26% KNC respon- ses). Most were not prepared to pay extra for a written report (76% KC, 67% KNC, 55% EI responses).

Forty eighi % of the KC group and 66% of the EI group thought that the most suitable basis for payment was based on breeding ewe equivalents, whereas an annual retainer plus a fee per visit was nominated by 40% of KNC group farmers. Only 8% of KC and 3% of EI group farmers nominated this latter method. There wasnogeneral agreement to an appropriate annual fee for asheep consultancy service. Some KC group farmers were prepared to pay up to $2000 for the service, EI farmers up to $3000, whereas no farmer in the KNC group nominated an amount over $800.

When asked their opinion on how a consultant should keep up-to-date, most farmers considered subscribing to a wide range ofbooks andjournalsasmostimportant (88%KC andEIgroups), 60% of responses from the KNC group). Conference attendance was also rated highly.

Discussion This survey showed that a veterinarian specialising in services

to sheep farmers could be confident of continuous employment, at least in the short term. This has been the experience of sheep consultants in Western Australia.

Farmers in the KC and EI groups indicated a willingness to accept most of the advice offered by a consultant. A comment made by one of the KC group was interesting. The farmer stated that ‘very few farms (farmers) would not benefit from contact with a consuItant in some way. It seems that mmy of the farmers who from my personal observation would benefit most, are those who are least inclined to accept advice from anyone except a stock agent - the least reliable source of all’. By comparison one of the KNC group farmers commented ‘(I) do not believe in consultants, there is no substitute for farming experience, hard work and commonsense’.

Sheep producers in the USA perceived that veterinarians had greater knowledge of diagnosis and treatment of sick animals, but rated themselves above veterinarians in terms of knowledge about flock management, feed, nutrition, reproduction, breeding, agribusiness and economics (Wise 1988). No comparable data are available for Australian sheep farmers. Nutrition. breeding and genetics, farm economics and reproduction were the areas ranked as important by farmers in the survey reported here. With the exception of farm economics, these are subjects included in undergraduateveterinary courses, but many farmers are probably unaware of veterinary training and knowledge in these areas.

Communication skills were rated by the farmers in this survey to be more important than technical skills, for example, computer expertise, mulesing, sheep classing and treating sick animals. Veterinarians may thereforerequire additional training in getting a message across. Farmers obtain much of their information from rural radio and press (Edwards el al 1989). These are obvious targets for selling veterinary consulting services.

Treatment of individual sick animals was not rated by farmers as important. There are reasons why consultants shouldnot treat sick animals. Firstly, ‘fire-brigade’ work may interfere with planned services. Secondly, individual animal work usually does not contribute to farm productivity, and thirdly, avoidance of this type of work would mean that a speciality sheep practice could be set up in an area already serviced by a local veterinarian.

It may take time for the employees of a consultant to gain the confidence of their clients, a similar finding to that in any other type of pactice.

There was no general agreement as to the appropriateremunera- tion for a veterinarian consulting to sheep farmers. This may be because advice is not easy to value. Traditionally farmers have been willing to pay for emergency treatment for sick animals, but

are reluctant to pay for veterinary advice when the results of that advice are not immediately apparent.

In conclusion, data reported showed a consultant to sheep farmers should specialise in sheep management and production, live in the district, be enthusiastic and have good communicatim skills.

The service provided should be exclusive to members of a consultancy group, and include regular newsletters and field days. A whole-farm service using a team approach was favoured by many farmers. Benefits to farmers through using a consultant included some that were not financial.

Acknowledgments Dr KJ Bell, Sheep Production and Management Consultant,

Kojonup, and Mr M Hendley of Esperance for providing addres- ses of farmers. Murdoch University Personal Research Grant provided the finance for the survey.

References Bell KJ (1986) A Study on Productivity in Sheep Flocks in the South West of

Western Australia. A Model for the Application and Evaluation of Health andProduction Programmes, PhD thesis, Murdoch University, Perth

Edwards JR, Chapman HM and Dunsmore JD (1989) JAgric WA 30: 116 Wise JK (1988) J Am Vet Med Assoc 192: 808

(Accepted for publication 23 January 1991)

BOOK REVIEW

Environmental Health Criteria 79 DICHLORVOS Published under the joint sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organization and the World Health Organization. World Health Organization 1989 Geneva. 157 pp. Obtainable: Directly or from Hunter Publications, 58a Gipps St, Coliing wood Victoria 3066.

This is a giant resume of the research carried out world-wide on the properties of dichlorvos. The task force which compiled this report consisted of 19 personnel from a wide range of countries.

There is a summary followed by details on physical and chemi- cal properties, sources of exposure for man and environment, effects on the environment, metabolism, effects on animals and in in vitro tests, risks to human health, recommendations for general use. There is a useful discussion of earlier evaluations.

It appears to be targeted as a whole to departments such as those of primary industry and pollution control but it is an informative reference book for those concerned for the environment of man and animals, and for those considering long term large scale use, as in fisheries and intensive animal production.

As a small animal practitioner I learned that it is not safe for children and sick persons or elderly persons to have continual exposure to dichlorvos.

It is potentiated by malathion, but very little work has been done on the effects of combining it with other pesticides, the way it is usually used. Its degradation in the environment depends on the presence of bacteria, and although this is very speedy, the actual effects of tipping a whole tanker load into the local sewer are not documented. This recently happened here inMomingside, where a tanker had an accident and spilled the load. It is uncertain whether it is carcinogenic in animals.

It is highly toxic to honey bees; other insects are not mentioned. As a pesticide, it is relatively safe as most damage to mammals occurs only at high dose rates. I was impressed with the detail and extent of knowledge of the compound, but there is much we do not know about the effects on the environment. I found the report fascinating reading.

C harissa Smith

198 Australian Ve ter iMryJowM~, Vol68, No 6, June 1991