Announcement Tomorrow on Banning Live Exports and More Restrictions On Domestic Journeys

AndrewM said:

alot of the rules are only going to apply to journeys over 65km , so those of us with sheep or cattle and a local market it wont be a major problem

short journey = over 65km but less than 8 hours, long journey over 8 hours

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1011728/animal-welfare-in-transport-consultation-response.pdf

Maximum journey times
Currently, the welfare in transport regulation does not provide absolute maximum journey limits. Existing journey time requirements, including mid-journey rests, may be repeated indefinitely, provided animals are unloaded, fed, watered and rested for a minimum of 24 hours. After which, the whole process may be restarted and repeated. As FAWC state, this may pose significant animal welfare concerns, as animals in theory may be transported indefinitely.13 Having fully considered the consultation responses and evidence available, the government is committed to introducing maximum journey times for live animals. Recognising the range of different opinions and evidence on the specifics, we have reviewed and revised our original proposals. We will have further discussion, working closely with industry on the practicalities, including the challenges faced by remote rural communities such as the Scottish Islands, with a view to introducing maximum journey times as outlined below. • A maximum journey time of 4 hours for broiler chickens, excluding the time taken for loading and unloading. By excluding loading and unloading time, we aim to remove the risk of potential welfare issues arising from rushed loading and unloading to meet journey time requirements. We believe this is a balanced approach, which takes onboard the industry’s concerns about the impacts on existing journeys whilst addressing the scientific evidence on welfare risks and mortality rates for broilers on journeys longer than 4 hours. • A maximum journey time of 24 hours for recently hatched chicks. Evidence provided in responses to the consultation indicated very high survival rates of chicks beyond the proposed maximum journey time of 21 hours. The government values the importance of the global trade of breeding stock to facilitate improved genetic diversity and, where 13 FAWC: Opinion on the Welfare of Animals during Transport 27 of 31 welfare during transport can be ensured, export journeys of recently hatched chicks longer than 24 hours may be permitted if additional criteria are met. Evidence provided in responses also indicated that journey length and time from hatching to arrival are key risk factors for the welfare of recently hatched chicks. Evidence suggests there are detrimental effects on chick growth and development if feed and water isn’t provided as the yolk reserve depletes. The exact criteria for potentially extending export journeys would be determined through our further engagement with stakeholders. We propose as a minimum the requirement for a journey log and the provision of specialist gels for sustenance. • A maximum journey time of 18 hours for pigs. We have considered the consultation responses and scientific evidence available and propose to allow an exception for breeding pigs if additional criteria are met. The exact criteria would be determined through our further engagement with stakeholders. Consultation responses indicate that strict control measures are already in place to ensure that these high-value pigs arrive in very good condition and their welfare is protected. The government is proud of the UK’s high health status and appreciates the importance of distributing our valuable breeding lines globally to improve pig production. • A maximum journey time of 12 hours for newly weaned pigs, in line with scientific evidence and, taking on board comments from industry, to allow pigs to receive necessary vaccinations during unloading in order to minimise handling. • A maximum journey time of 9 hours for calves up to the age of 9 months. Some animal welfare organisations and members of the public did not believe such journeys should be permitted at all. However, the government understands that domestic journeys of calves are often necessary and having considered the scientific evidence, we propose to introduce a 9-hour maximum journey time to ensure calf welfare is protected. We acknowledge that some industry respondents have concerns about the financial impacts of these measures; however, we believe this is a balanced approach. Responding to concerns about the effect these proposals would have on farmers in more remote areas of the UK, we propose a potential exemption for journeys if additional criteria are met. The exact criteria will be determined through the further work we will be doing with stakeholders. • A maximum journey time of 12 hours for horses. Most responses to the consultation were largely in agreement with this maximum journey time proposal. However, the government is aware of the implications such measures may have on the horse racing and competition industry. Thoroughbred horses travel regularly, often internationally, to compete. Consultation responses and available evidence indicates that it is in the interest of those transporting these high value horses to protect their welfare during long journeys. The government will consider exemptions to the maximum journey time for those competing or racing, or thoroughbreds for breeding, if additional criteria are met. The exact criteria will be determined through the further work we will be doing with stakeholders. 28 of 31 For cattle, sheep and all other animals, we proposed a maximum journey time of 21 hours. Many farmers were supportive of this proposal however they, along with those opposed, raised concerns about journeys from remote parts of the UK, and journeys that involve livestock markets, collection centres and multiple pickups and drop offs. The government understands that such facilities are an integral part of domestic livestock movements. It is a complex issue with many practicalities to consider, and we therefore intend to work with stakeholders to explore the issues of journey times and how these relate to markets and collection centres in more detail. For other species, we proposed a maximum journey time of 21 hours. The exotic and aquatic animal sectors raised valid points about the diversity of these species groups. We intend to work with stakeholders to devise appropriate maximum journey times for other species, including exotic and aquatic animals. The consultation sought views on the minimum rest period before another journey can commence. While animal welfare organisations were concerned that the proposed 48-hour period was too short, responses from industry raised serious concerns about how the required rest time may work in practice. We will therefore do further work with stakeholders to determine an appropriate rest period that ensures both animal welfare and market function. We do not intend to take forward the minimum 7-day rest period proposed for cattle.

Thermal conditions and ventilation
The current transport regulation defines short journeys as being over 65 km and up to, and including, eight hours in duration. Long journeys are defined as any journey which exceeds eight hours in duration. We did not propose any changes to the current journey definitions, and therefore the following policy proposals on thermal conditions would not apply to journeys under 65 km, such as local farm to farm movements. At present, the welfare in transport regulation does not prevent journeys in extreme external temperatures. The current regulation requires that the vehicle is able to maintain a temperature between 5°C and 30°C with a tolerance of +/- 5°C. The external temperature during a journey may be significantly outside of this range, but as long as the vehicle is approved as being able to maintain the required temperature on board the vehicle then it would be in compliance with the current Regulation. We are aware that in extreme temperatures, especially in hot weather, vehicles that do not have the ability to thermoregulate do struggle to remain within the temperature range. We have carefully considered all the arguments put forward, both for and against temperature limits for journeys and have adapted our proposition accordingly. Bearing in mind the strong welfare benefits in doing so, we do plan to introduce an external temperature limit for poultry, livestock and horses outside of which transport cannot take place unless the vehicle is able to regulate the internal temperature within this range for the duration of the journey by means of a thermo-regulation system. Before concluding on the specifics, we would like to do some further work with the various industry sectors to consider the practical implementation of this policy, taking into account the different ways in which poultry, 29 of 31 livestock and horses are transported, so that collectively we can secure evidence-based, good welfare outcomes. For poultry journeys, we propose to introduce the external temperature range of 5°C to 25oC. The available evidence, as well as consultation responses from veterinary representatives, make clear that extreme temperatures have a severe effect on poultry mortality, and therefore we believe this to be a proportionate and sensible approach. We appreciate that thermoregulated vehicles are currently not widely in use in the sector. Longer term however, the government is clear that the industry should aim to operate within the agreed external temperature range or use thermo-regulated vehicles. During our further work with stakeholders we will agree what suitable mitigations may be taken in the short term, and on the longer-term approach. For livestock and horses, we propose to prohibit short journeys of less than 8 hours where the external temperature is above 30°C. Long journeys of over 8 hours would be prohibited where the external temperature is outside of 0 to 25°C. In both cases, journeys could take place outside these ranges if the vehicle is able to regulate the internal temperature within this range for the duration of the journey by means of a thermo-regulation system. Animal welfare organisations and livestock industry representatives acknowledged the risks of heat stress when transporting animals in excessively high temperatures. It is for this reason we are minded to implement these upper external temperature limits to protect animal welfare. Consultation responses from livestock industry and equine groups highlighted significant concerns with the proposed lower temperature limit. Respondents stated that such a limit would result in significant disruption and economic loss, especially during the winter months. Respondents commented that many livestock and horses are outdoors year-round and acclimatised to lower temperatures, and so transporting animals in temperatures below 5°C should not negatively impact welfare. We have carefully considered these arguments and as a result, we will not take forward the proposed lower temperature limit for short journeys and we will decrease the proposed lower temperature for long journeys to 0°C. On board water systems are already a requirement for vehicles transporting animals on long journeys of over 8 hours. We propose to set a lower external temperature limit for animal transport during long journeys to reduce the risk of water systems freezing and depriving animals of access to water, which APHA report is an observed issue on livestock vehicles in below freezing temperatures. Many industry respondents did not believe that the external temperature should be a consideration, only the internal conditions of the vehicles. However, the government understands that thermoregulated vehicles are not universally used for transporting livestock and horses, which means external temperature is the most appropriate measure currently available through which to protect animals from suffering the effects of cold or heat stress during transport; we propose to explore this further in our discussions with the relevant sectors. Respondents representing reptile and exotic trade and aquatic species raised valid points on the specialised transport conditions of these animals. We intend to engage with them 30 of 31 further to devise appropriate requirements for thermal conditions for other species, including exotic and aquatic species.

Space allowances
Although the majority of respondents did not agree with the proposal to use allometric principles to calculate space allowances, there was widespread support across industry and welfare groups for the concept. There was, however, some concern about how the principles would work in practice; without further information on the allometric formula (i.e. the k value), industry respondents were unable to determine the impacts of the changes on their business. The government therefore proposes to undertake further work with a range of stakeholders, to gather a greater evidence base and understand better the practical implications of using allometric principles before bringing forward any further proposals.

Headroom allowances
The government has considered the consultation responses and available evidence and we have simplified our proposal. Subject to further work with industry, we propose to introduce new headroom allowances of 10cm above head height for pigs and 20cm above head height for all other animals. The requirements would apply to long and short journeys and would be measured from the highest point on the head of the tallest standing animal, as recommended by FAWC.14 Consultation responses and the available evidence emphasise the importance of sufficient headroom above standing height to ensure adequate ventilation as well as comfort for the animals. Measuring head room above head height rather than the shoulder or withers, as proposed by some respondents, ensures adequate ventilation as well as comfort by allowing animals the ability to stretch. Many pig industry representatives stated that a lot of headroom was not required by pigs, as they commonly lie down during transport. We acknowledge this is a common behaviour during transport; however not all pigs will lie down for the entire duration of the journey and adequate headroom is also required to ensure adequate ventilation.

Click to expand...

kfpben said:

Not fantastic, but it could have been a lot worse. Thank you to all farmers who responded!

Will any of it ever be enforced? Trading standards at my local mart appear once every few months, drink a few cups of tea then leave. Never seen them ever do any actual inspections

Click to expand...

AndrewM said:

how do you measure 20cm above the head of a cow? ever seen them eating trees. they can strech along way when they want to! health and saftey wouldnt let the inspector enter the vehicle anyway?

Click to expand...

AndrewM said:

alot of the rules are only going to apply to journeys over 65km , so those of us with sheep or cattle and a local market it wont be a major problem

short journey = over 65km but less than 8 hours, long journey over 8 hours

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1011728/animal-welfare-in-transport-consultation-response.pdf

Maximum journey times
Currently, the welfare in transport regulation does not provide absolute maximum journey limits. Existing journey time requirements, including mid-journey rests, may be repeated indefinitely, provided animals are unloaded, fed, watered and rested for a minimum of 24 hours. After which, the whole process may be restarted and repeated. As FAWC state, this may pose significant animal welfare concerns, as animals in theory may be transported indefinitely.13 Having fully considered the consultation responses and evidence available, the government is committed to introducing maximum journey times for live animals. Recognising the range of different opinions and evidence on the specifics, we have reviewed and revised our original proposals. We will have further discussion, working closely with industry on the practicalities, including the challenges faced by remote rural communities such as the Scottish Islands, with a view to introducing maximum journey times as outlined below. • A maximum journey time of 4 hours for broiler chickens, excluding the time taken for loading and unloading. By excluding loading and unloading time, we aim to remove the risk of potential welfare issues arising from rushed loading and unloading to meet journey time requirements. We believe this is a balanced approach, which takes onboard the industry’s concerns about the impacts on existing journeys whilst addressing the scientific evidence on welfare risks and mortality rates for broilers on journeys longer than 4 hours. • A maximum journey time of 24 hours for recently hatched chicks. Evidence provided in responses to the consultation indicated very high survival rates of chicks beyond the proposed maximum journey time of 21 hours. The government values the importance of the global trade of breeding stock to facilitate improved genetic diversity and, where 13 FAWC: Opinion on the Welfare of Animals during Transport 27 of 31 welfare during transport can be ensured, export journeys of recently hatched chicks longer than 24 hours may be permitted if additional criteria are met. Evidence provided in responses also indicated that journey length and time from hatching to arrival are key risk factors for the welfare of recently hatched chicks. Evidence suggests there are detrimental effects on chick growth and development if feed and water isn’t provided as the yolk reserve depletes. The exact criteria for potentially extending export journeys would be determined through our further engagement with stakeholders. We propose as a minimum the requirement for a journey log and the provision of specialist gels for sustenance. • A maximum journey time of 18 hours for pigs. We have considered the consultation responses and scientific evidence available and propose to allow an exception for breeding pigs if additional criteria are met. The exact criteria would be determined through our further engagement with stakeholders. Consultation responses indicate that strict control measures are already in place to ensure that these high-value pigs arrive in very good condition and their welfare is protected. The government is proud of the UK’s high health status and appreciates the importance of distributing our valuable breeding lines globally to improve pig production. • A maximum journey time of 12 hours for newly weaned pigs, in line with scientific evidence and, taking on board comments from industry, to allow pigs to receive necessary vaccinations during unloading in order to minimise handling. • A maximum journey time of 9 hours for calves up to the age of 9 months. Some animal welfare organisations and members of the public did not believe such journeys should be permitted at all. However, the government understands that domestic journeys of calves are often necessary and having considered the scientific evidence, we propose to introduce a 9-hour maximum journey time to ensure calf welfare is protected. We acknowledge that some industry respondents have concerns about the financial impacts of these measures; however, we believe this is a balanced approach. Responding to concerns about the effect these proposals would have on farmers in more remote areas of the UK, we propose a potential exemption for journeys if additional criteria are met. The exact criteria will be determined through the further work we will be doing with stakeholders. • A maximum journey time of 12 hours for horses. Most responses to the consultation were largely in agreement with this maximum journey time proposal. However, the government is aware of the implications such measures may have on the horse racing and competition industry. Thoroughbred horses travel regularly, often internationally, to compete. Consultation responses and available evidence indicates that it is in the interest of those transporting these high value horses to protect their welfare during long journeys. The government will consider exemptions to the maximum journey time for those competing or racing, or thoroughbreds for breeding, if additional criteria are met. The exact criteria will be determined through the further work we will be doing with stakeholders. 28 of 31 For cattle, sheep and all other animals, we proposed a maximum journey time of 21 hours. Many farmers were supportive of this proposal however they, along with those opposed, raised concerns about journeys from remote parts of the UK, and journeys that involve livestock markets, collection centres and multiple pickups and drop offs. The government understands that such facilities are an integral part of domestic livestock movements. It is a complex issue with many practicalities to consider, and we therefore intend to work with stakeholders to explore the issues of journey times and how these relate to markets and collection centres in more detail. For other species, we proposed a maximum journey time of 21 hours. The exotic and aquatic animal sectors raised valid points about the diversity of these species groups. We intend to work with stakeholders to devise appropriate maximum journey times for other species, including exotic and aquatic animals. The consultation sought views on the minimum rest period before another journey can commence. While animal welfare organisations were concerned that the proposed 48-hour period was too short, responses from industry raised serious concerns about how the required rest time may work in practice. We will therefore do further work with stakeholders to determine an appropriate rest period that ensures both animal welfare and market function. We do not intend to take forward the minimum 7-day rest period proposed for cattle.

Thermal conditions and ventilation
The current transport regulation defines short journeys as being over 65 km and up to, and including, eight hours in duration. Long journeys are defined as any journey which exceeds eight hours in duration. We did not propose any changes to the current journey definitions, and therefore the following policy proposals on thermal conditions would not apply to journeys under 65 km, such as local farm to farm movements. At present, the welfare in transport regulation does not prevent journeys in extreme external temperatures. The current regulation requires that the vehicle is able to maintain a temperature between 5°C and 30°C with a tolerance of +/- 5°C. The external temperature during a journey may be significantly outside of this range, but as long as the vehicle is approved as being able to maintain the required temperature on board the vehicle then it would be in compliance with the current Regulation. We are aware that in extreme temperatures, especially in hot weather, vehicles that do not have the ability to thermoregulate do struggle to remain within the temperature range. We have carefully considered all the arguments put forward, both for and against temperature limits for journeys and have adapted our proposition accordingly. Bearing in mind the strong welfare benefits in doing so, we do plan to introduce an external temperature limit for poultry, livestock and horses outside of which transport cannot take place unless the vehicle is able to regulate the internal temperature within this range for the duration of the journey by means of a thermo-regulation system. Before concluding on the specifics, we would like to do some further work with the various industry sectors to consider the practical implementation of this policy, taking into account the different ways in which poultry, 29 of 31 livestock and horses are transported, so that collectively we can secure evidence-based, good welfare outcomes. For poultry journeys, we propose to introduce the external temperature range of 5°C to 25oC. The available evidence, as well as consultation responses from veterinary representatives, make clear that extreme temperatures have a severe effect on poultry mortality, and therefore we believe this to be a proportionate and sensible approach. We appreciate that thermoregulated vehicles are currently not widely in use in the sector. Longer term however, the government is clear that the industry should aim to operate within the agreed external temperature range or use thermo-regulated vehicles. During our further work with stakeholders we will agree what suitable mitigations may be taken in the short term, and on the longer-term approach. For livestock and horses, we propose to prohibit short journeys of less than 8 hours where the external temperature is above 30°C. Long journeys of over 8 hours would be prohibited where the external temperature is outside of 0 to 25°C. In both cases, journeys could take place outside these ranges if the vehicle is able to regulate the internal temperature within this range for the duration of the journey by means of a thermo-regulation system. Animal welfare organisations and livestock industry representatives acknowledged the risks of heat stress when transporting animals in excessively high temperatures. It is for this reason we are minded to implement these upper external temperature limits to protect animal welfare. Consultation responses from livestock industry and equine groups highlighted significant concerns with the proposed lower temperature limit. Respondents stated that such a limit would result in significant disruption and economic loss, especially during the winter months. Respondents commented that many livestock and horses are outdoors year-round and acclimatised to lower temperatures, and so transporting animals in temperatures below 5°C should not negatively impact welfare. We have carefully considered these arguments and as a result, we will not take forward the proposed lower temperature limit for short journeys and we will decrease the proposed lower temperature for long journeys to 0°C. On board water systems are already a requirement for vehicles transporting animals on long journeys of over 8 hours. We propose to set a lower external temperature limit for animal transport during long journeys to reduce the risk of water systems freezing and depriving animals of access to water, which APHA report is an observed issue on livestock vehicles in below freezing temperatures. Many industry respondents did not believe that the external temperature should be a consideration, only the internal conditions of the vehicles. However, the government understands that thermoregulated vehicles are not universally used for transporting livestock and horses, which means external temperature is the most appropriate measure currently available through which to protect animals from suffering the effects of cold or heat stress during transport; we propose to explore this further in our discussions with the relevant sectors. Respondents representing reptile and exotic trade and aquatic species raised valid points on the specialised transport conditions of these animals. We intend to engage with them 30 of 31 further to devise appropriate requirements for thermal conditions for other species, including exotic and aquatic species.

Space allowances
Although the majority of respondents did not agree with the proposal to use allometric principles to calculate space allowances, there was widespread support across industry and welfare groups for the concept. There was, however, some concern about how the principles would work in practice; without further information on the allometric formula (i.e. the k value), industry respondents were unable to determine the impacts of the changes on their business. The government therefore proposes to undertake further work with a range of stakeholders, to gather a greater evidence base and understand better the practical implications of using allometric principles before bringing forward any further proposals.

Headroom allowances
The government has considered the consultation responses and available evidence and we have simplified our proposal. Subject to further work with industry, we propose to introduce new headroom allowances of 10cm above head height for pigs and 20cm above head height for all other animals. The requirements would apply to long and short journeys and would be measured from the highest point on the head of the tallest standing animal, as recommended by FAWC.14 Consultation responses and the available evidence emphasise the importance of sufficient headroom above standing height to ensure adequate ventilation as well as comfort for the animals. Measuring head room above head height rather than the shoulder or withers, as proposed by some respondents, ensures adequate ventilation as well as comfort by allowing animals the ability to stretch. Many pig industry representatives stated that a lot of headroom was not required by pigs, as they commonly lie down during transport. We acknowledge this is a common behaviour during transport; however not all pigs will lie down for the entire duration of the journey and adequate headroom is also required to ensure adequate ventilation.

Click to expand...

gone up the hill said:

Only just got in after a very long day so not had chance to read the above article and this may have been posted already on this thread.

Are they saying that the 9 hour rule ( i think it is ) for young cattle will or will not include market time??

Are they saying that for trips over 65k the head room/ temp issue wont apply? ( ie only apply to trips under 65km )

.......

The more they come up with these stupid rules the more people will just ignore any rules.

Sounds very much like farmers/ hauliers will have to invest in temp controlled livestock trucks/ boxes and markets will have to provide heating/ air con for the ringside/ cattle pens etc if this nonsense is complied with.

Click to expand...

kfpben said:

Not fantastic, but it could have been a lot worse. Thank you to all farmers who responded!

Will any of it ever be enforced? Trading standards at my local mart appear once every few months, drink a few cups of tea then leave. Never seen them ever do any actual inspections.

Click to expand...

BELOWAVERAGE said:

They wouldn't be like trading standards though who now would struggle to find anything wrong in a market, they would be the equivalent of a Red Tractor inspector, stick 10 of those on the docks in a market and they'd bring the place to a standstill.

Click to expand...

BELOWAVERAGE said:

They wouldn't be like trading standards though who now would struggle to find anything wrong in a market, they would be the equivalent of a Red Tractor inspector, stick 10 of those on the docks in a market and they'd bring the place to a standstill.

Click to expand...

Ffermer Bach said:

Dear Mr Sunak,

I am emailing you, as the chancellor, because the economic fall out for the consultation presently being undertaken by DEFRA will fall into your remit for running the economy.

I have attached the consultation link below:

https://consult.defra.gov.uk/transf...nonimprovementstoanimalwelfareintransport.pdf.

I know that there was a manifesto commitment to end live animal export (I fail to see how a short "hop over the channel" is worse than Scottish islands to the mainland), but I think the officials at DEFRA have added to this commitment with an underlying agenda to curtail livestock farming in the UK.

The proposal to stop movement if it is below 5 degrees C (or above 30) without using a stock box that is heated or has air conditioning will stop all farm movements. For virtually the last two months it has been below 5 degrees in Scotland, so all movement would stop.

All small farms have a livestock box which they take animals to market with. No farms would be able to justify a heated trailer and even if they did, would the livestock markets be open? If the markets were to have to shut for two months in the winter, would they continue to trade? If they closed, that could be the death knell for the rural economy. Remember 65% of the farmland in the UK is grass (so produces animals).

There are also proposals (with no scientific justification) to increase space above animals heads in transport, this would halve the carrying capacity of livestock trailers and lorries. Is doubling road transport journeys really a good idea? Not just for the economic impact, but also reducing green house gas emissions?

My local abattoir in West Wales kills lambs from Scotland (for Sainsbury's), is imperilling the food supply chain a good idea with both Covid and Brexit damaging the food supply chain?

There is cutting edge scientific understanding of global warming, showing regenerative agriculture integrating animals production into arable farming sequests carbon into the soil, for this to happen, store animals ( produced in the "wet" west) will be moved to the "dry" east to finish. If these proposals are adopted, they will curtail this trade.

I am not even going to talk about the wording of the consultation, which betrays an agenda to anthropomorphise farmed animals.

There is already good protection for movement of farmed animals in law (the Welfare of Animals (transport)(England) Order 2006), where the driver is responsible for the livestock welfare.

I am worried that if these proposals come into law, they will devastate the rural economy and hope that the treasury can intervene.

yours faithfully

Click to expand...

Anymulewilldo said:

From what I could make of it, the only part which seems well set too affect all of us is the headroom section? Each other part which involves ruminant livestock is a massive grey area which lots more information gathering required? Apart from the moving of sub nine month old cattle that is.
I can see BFL & Border Leicesters becoming very unpopular if measured from the tups of their ears up 20cm!!!

Click to expand...

delilah said:

This head clearance thing, is it from the top of the head, or the tip of horns ? Does it mean we will have to get rid of the Manx with their pointy upwards horns ? (please say yes).

Click to expand...

delilah said:

This head clearance thing, is it from the top of the head, or the tip of horns ? Does it mean we will have to get rid of the Manx with their pointy upwards horns ? (please say yes).

Click to expand...