‘Welfare is a wide term that embraces both the physical and mental wellbeing of the animal. Any attempt to evaluate welfare, therefore, must take into account the scientific evidence available concerning the feelings of animals that can be derived from their structure and functions and also from their behaviour.’ So stated the Report prepared by the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems under the chairmanship of Professor Rogers Brambell (Command Paper 2836, 1965).

The importance of disease as a limiting factor in beef production may be highlighted by the problem of calf disease, where mortality as high as 5% may be considered as ‘acceptable’ and even 10% being ‘not unusual’. It is sad to think of passive acceptance of this undesirable situation, but there is ample support for the statistics quoted. The Ministry of Agriculture Calf Wastage Survey (Leech, Macrae and Menzies, 1968) recorded average losses of between 5 and 6% in the first 10 days of life. Some estimates suggest losses as high as 9% before 6 months of age which, on a national scale, presumably indicates a loss of 260 000 calves annually. Important though this is, wastage of calves is not the only source of loss—there are also diseases of the cow and mature fattening stock to be taken into account. Other surveys of wastage draw attention to the importance of these. However, it would be misleading to present a picture of gloom. Rather this paper will describe advances and successes due to veterinary research and also draw attention to new ways ahead which seem to be opening.

A Productive and efficient dairy industry seems likely to be a valuable national asset for many years to come. At this time of great change in the economic and political forces governing the dairy industry it is more apt to concern ourselves with what will be required of the cow of tomorrow, rather than to indulge in self congratulation on what has already been achieved, great as those advances have been. Analyses of this kind are essential before we can decide what information will be required to meet future conditions; in other words, what research will be necessary.

Calculations on the relative efficiencies of cattle, sheep and pigs as meat producers indicate that the main factor limiting the energetic efficiency of sheep meat production is the low average fecundity of the ewe (Blaxter, 1968). Nevertheless with an estimated ‘biological ceiling’ of five lambs per ewe per pregnancy, and a potential mean lambing interval of 6 months (Wilson, 1968), the sheep industry is much further from achieving its biological ceiling than any other form of domestic livestock production. Because these estimates are based on the performance of specific individuals one must question their attainment on a flock basis. Furthermore, even if the necessary technical information were available, its adoption on a commercial scale may be prohibitive on economic grounds. These uncertainties should not deter us from seeking a greater understanding of the basic factors controlling ewe productivity, nor from attempting to integrate this knowledge into existing production systems.

Professor Bunting of the Faculty of Agriculture at Reading University, said, when speaking to an International Seminar on Change in Agriculture (Bunting, 1969), ‘the traditional division between veterinary medicine and animal production is wider in many countries than the interests of the producer and the consumer require’. The BSAP has made a step towards bridging the gap by holding this meeting. As a veterinarian I am sure I speak for all my colleagues when I express our appreciation of the interest members of the Society have shown in improving this relationship.

Prices of protein-rich foods increased dramatically in the summer of 1973. This caused considerable concern amongst BSAP members and a meeting of 36 scientists involved in studies of protein or allied aspects of nutrition was convened by the BSAP and held at the NIRD. The objective was to provide a statement of present knowledge on the protein requirements of the dairy cow. The Chairman of the day-long meeting was Dr C. C. Balch. A vigorous and wide-spanning discussion took place and while a definitive statement of quantitative requirements for protein was not produced, in compensation for this the state of the present knowledge on protein was revealed, so that it may be hoped that further studies will be prompted by these findings. This paper and the following one present respectively the minutes and an interpretation of the discussion.

This paper provides a practical interpretation of the arguments advanced at the meeting, summarized in the previous paper, on the protein requirements of the lactating cow. The evidence is by no means sufficiently detailed that all issues can be comprehensively resolved. Personal interpretation becomes necessary at some points. Far more important than this is the attention the meeting focused on the scope and ramifications of the problem, ranging from the nutrition of the rumen microflora to the fertility of the cow, such has hitherto not been achieved. This survey has been completed here by reference to several issues not dealt with extensively in the meeting.

It is indeed an honour to be asked to present the 1974 Sir John Hammond Memorial Lecture, and I face this honour with some trepidation knowing the high esteem held for Sir John and his outstanding contributions to world animal science. As most of you know, Sir John was somewhat of a one-man multi-disciplinary team himself, publishing and researching in the fields of animal breeding, reproductive physiology, meat science and animal nutrition. With the rapid and sometimes almost exponential increase in new findings in each of these areas, one person, even one of Sir John Hammond's stature, would now have great difficulty making significant contributions in the several scientific disciplines closely associated with animal production.