The following comment appeared on the site, after our posting "Survey after survey..." which we quote in full:The Badger Trust has welcomed the admission by animal health and welfare Minister, Ben Bradshaw, that a cull of "sick" badgers is impossible.
Speaking in yesterday's debate on the dairy industry [1], Mr Bradshaw said:
"We are well aware that TB is a difficult problem. However, we also want to be careful to ensure that any decision on badger culling is guided by the science. We do not want to initiate any sort of action that could be counter-productive.
"As he [Mr Geoffrey Cox, Conservative, Torridge and West Devon] well knows, one of the things that all the science says is that a piecemeal, patchy culling regime for badgers could make matters worse. One of the other myths that a number of people still repeat and that it is worth exploding while we are on the subject is that it would be possible to have a cull of sick badgers. That is not possible. One cannot tell whether a live badger has TB. One can tell only through a blood test. Any badger cull would have to include healthy badgers, as well as sick badgers."
Responding, Trevor Lawson, public affairs advisor to the Badger Trust, said:
"The vast majority of badgers, even in bovine TB hotspots, are not infected with bovine TB. Of the minority that are infected, most are not even 'sick' - long term studies at Woodchester Park show that most badgers with bovine TB show no adverse symptoms and go on to live and breed normally for many years. Bovine TB is not even an important cause of death in badgers [2].
"Mr Bradshaw's admission that countless healthy badgers would be slaughtered in a badger killing strategy is welcome. It explodes the myth, repeated by the farming lobby, that only sick badgers would be killed whilst healthy badgers would be protected [3]. The grim reality is that a badger cull would be a grotesque slaughter on a massive scale that will irrevocably damage public support for farmers."
ENDS
1. See Hansard, 8 March 2007, Column 1657.
2. Cheeseman, C., 16 January 2006, Farming Today, BBC Radio 4. Dr Chris Cheeseman is the outgoing director of the Central Science Laboratory's research facility at Woodchester Park, Gloucestershire.
3. On 31 January 2007, the NFU used an opinion poll to claim that 74 per cent of the public supported a cull of sick badgers. The NFU did not report that the 38 people questioned in the poll had been told that the NFU wanted the "culling of infected badgers and protecting healthy ones, in much the same way as diseased cattle are dealt with at the moment". The panellists were not told that no such mechanism exists for killing the minority of infected badgers. On 13 February 2007, NFU deputy president Meurig Raymond admitted that "any badger culling strategy would need to be intensive and thorough". On 28 February, NFU spokesman Anthony Gibson admitted that virtually 100 per cent of the badgers in a culling area would need to be killed.
So despite all the cash, all the 'science', 'one ' may not be able to identify a sick badger? Not true. Another badger can and PCR could - given the political will to use the goddam thing. And that 'vast majority' of badgers which are not infected? Just how vast is a 76 percent infection rate in badgers trapped in Broadway Glos. 1986 - 97? (Bourne's 4th report to Bern Convention) Sheesh, talk about standing figures upside down.
It is absolutely no use the Badger Trust rubbing their hands in glee at these inane comments from a politically engineered spin doctor, which prevaricate the situation to an even worse level than now. We have said many times on this site that a blanket cull of badgers is as obnoxious and counter productive to us, as Defra's carnage was to most sane people during FMD. There is another way, and we are getting seriously fed up of repeating ourselves.
We have described the 'management' of large and mainly healthy badger populations in mid Devon, by man who lets the badgers decide who is sick. When they do and exclude it from the group, he will put this loner, this disperser out of its misery before it can infect anything else. That Tb is endemic in the badger population is not something of which the Badger Trust should be proud, nevertheless as this is the reality of several years of complete protection for the species, it is with this that we all have to deal.
Trevor Lawson is correct in quoting Woodchester's research on the length of time a badger can sustain itself, have cubs, and yet show no ill effects from Tb. That does not mean that it it is not infectious. In fact that is why a badger is such a successful maintenance host. It is not killed by Tb straight away and it can do all these things quite comfortably for several years - while shedding, and infecting everything it comes into contact with. However when the disease does start to debilitate a badger, the remainder of the group will oust it. And it it this 'badger' selection process which has been so successful in mid Devon, clearing a ' hotspot' of Tb in the cattle while maintaining the social structure of healthy badgers.
See BRYAN HILL'S story, which we covered in 2005. Thirty two farms in this 'managed' patch of Devon are still clear of bTb after 8 years.
For boys who like toys, rt-PCR does work on sett materials to identify those inmates capable of onward transmission of the disease, and leave behind the groups not transmitting and healthy. Warwick have had good results, others trying to replicate (repeat?) less so we understand. More recent work is encouraging - but again no fine tuning yet. No urgency there then? Personally we would lock all the researchers into rt-PCR and bTb in a windowless room; no coffee, no toilet - until they had sorted out a viable assay, and set a timetable for validating it. And we would have far more success if the Badger Trust would accept that there are people like us about, who have had no cattle to blame for extensive breakdowns, but who still only want to cull out the infectious badgers.
As farmer Malcolm Light from Hatherleigh, Devon at the recent NFU conference said to David Miliband:
"As farmers and stockbreeders we have been accused of spreading bovine Tb throughout the cattle and wildlife populations. We have been accused of making a profit from the disease compensation - and then complaining to government that it's all their fault. Tell that to the organic dairy farmer with a closed herd, who has never bought a cow in his life, lost half his herd to Tb infection [received 'compensation'] at a fraction of their market value, lost his milk contract, sacked half his staff, and couldn't replace these cattle even if he could find them, because there is no place for 'organic' cattle in the tabular valuation".
It will happen folks. It has to. The technology is there. It is the political will to use it that is missing and the result is 'A slight wheeziness' - or so the RSPCA would have us believe. The pictures tell a different story. And it is with this 'result' - the reality of endemic tb in the badger population - that the Badger Trust is 'delighted'.
43 comments:
Perhaps doubters would be more convinced if you would be so kind as direct us to the evidence (autopsy reports?)that confirms that the badgers that Brian has killed were infected with bovine TB?
Otherwise, he may be accused of pure speculation as to the cause of these individuals being excluded by the clan - there are plenty of other plausible causes after all.
Are you referring to Brian Hill when you state: "We have described the 'management' of large and mainly healthy badger populations in mid Devon, by man who lets the badgers decide who is sick. When they do and exclude it from the group, he will put this loner, this disperser out of its misery before it can infect anything else."
According to a BBC report (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/4651935.stm )Brian Hill was gassing whole setts: "Farmer Brian Hill said he had been carrying out targeted gassing of badger setts he suspected were contaminated with bovine TB since 1999."
I'm sure you'll be quick to clarify this
Anon. 1. & Anon 2.
We cannot nor would not speak for Mr. Hill, neither would we comment on the accuaracy or otherwise of BBC reports.
We would merely point out that out of one of the worst Tb 'hotspots' in mid Devon, he has brought a measure of sanity. Over thirty herds clear - now into their 8th year - and a controlled population of healthy badgers, at no cost to the taxpayer.
The state of the badgers when he started this, are mirrored (he says) in our pictures which were kindly provided by SVS postmortem facilities.
If they offend - so be it.
So,
NO EVIDENCE,
only complete speculation!
You 'Matthews' are tired of repeating yourselves.
With no supporting evidence, what do you expect?
perhaps you would like to contact BH, and get him to supply the evidence to support his theory (aka wild speculation)
Anon - you ask for 'evidence', but are completely missing the point. It is the 'messengers' to whom we have to look for confirmation - the cattle.
And as with Thornbury, "no other contempourous change took place" in this area except 'management' of the badger population to reduce the disease load endemic in them, and thus opportunities for its onward transmission both within the species, and outside.
With Thornbury the whole area was cleared of badgers over time, and kept clear until the cattle tested clear. Then, gradually, badger occupation took place again. The cattle, regularly tested, are the sentinels.
Mr. Hill has not taken this very drastic step of eradicating a big area of a single species. He has, we understand, left a single main sett in about 200 acres, then monitored 'off setts' to see if they get occupied. It is the occupants of these that he will take action on, before they seek sanctuary in farm buildings. He has no doubt, (he says) that Tb is still rumbling through the badgers in the area, but by reducing population density, thus reducing feed and territorial stress, the disease mainly remains walled up.
Mr. Hill made films of the sick and dead badgers on his farm before he started this management of a diseased population. They have been seen by the great and the good of Defra - from the CVO downwards, as have the stunningly successful results of his actions.
The ecological balance of the area is the 'proof' that you are looking for. Healthy groups of badgers, not subject to stress from overcrowding causing territorial fighting and 'peturbation', and cattle over a very large area now, all testing clear on annual tests - and remaining clear.
We like that.
No mention of the use of rt-PCR from you guys? Usually veterinary medicine has pioneered the route for human medicine (AI and embryo transplant in cattle 40 years ago, now subject to TV series on IVF) but hospitals and veterinary facilities across the world are steaming ahead with the use of PCR, both lab based and real time [rt], yet we are dragging our heels. It would give you the 'proof' of disease you seem to need.
And no mention of the results on your badgers of the disease allowed to become 'endemic' in the population? "Badgers don't suffer from Tb" you are told. Our pictures tell a different story.
And you still haven't given us an explanation as to why, when there have been no 'bought in cattle' to our herds, three of us have suffered prolonged Tb breakdowns.
From Trevor Lawson, Badger Trust
Oh dear. More nonsense about PCR and badger evictions. Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand what PCR does. It is a tool for amplifying DNA and, as such, it can detect the presence of bacterial DNA but not the presence of infection.
To illustrate just one problem with this tool, bovine TB can live for at least two years in soil. Thus, PCR might be indicating the presence of bacteria from two years ago and not today.
Thus far, Defra has only asked the University of Warwick to look for PCR evidence around badger setts. But does not prove "infection", since the rest of the farm environment has not yet been subject to similar testing. It is likely that the TB bacterium is endemice in the farm environment in TB hotspots. Let's put it this way: how would farmers feel if we used PCR in the farmyard and slaughtered the whole herd if the bacterium was detected?
James Paice MP recently claimed that "targeted" badger killing could be delivered using PCR (Farming Today, 5 January 2007). He said: "When I talk about targeting I’m talking about targeting badgers with disease and therefore the only ones that would be left would be the ones that were coming through clear on the test."
Mr Paice appears not to have grasped either the limitations of PCR or the fact that in a badger sett not all the animals will be infected.
In addition, in talking up PCR no-one has actually quoted the views of the scientists. We asked Dr Orin Courtenay at the University of Warwick about the application of PCR. The University has developed some brilliant techniques (including something remarkable called immuno-magnetic capture) and he responded as follows:
"It doesn't make the culling any more selective than it already is, because you can have badgers visiting neighbouring uninfected setts.
"It would also be very piecemeal - we found that something like 50 per cent of setts per farm were PCR positive and that would lead to perturbation and an increase in incidence.
"So the application of this technology could only really be used for detecting BCG after a vaccine trial to see that it is not causing skin test interpretation difficulties in skin testing with cattle when badgers are immunised."
Scientists are currently working on amplifying RNA (rather than DNA) which might prove to be a more reliable indicator of the presence of live infection. However, this is still in the very early stages and still doesn't circumnavigate the problem of perturbation. If you exterminate the badgers in 50 per cent of the setts on a farm, you'll cause perturbation and make things worse. It's not clear which part of that equation you don't understand.
On the issue of Bryan Hill, I'm curious. If his "badger management" has been so successful for so long, why is his parish of Beaworthy still on annual testing? Doesn't this indicate that there is still a bovine TB problem there? Surely his badger management should have sorted that out by now?
Finally, you contradict yourself. You accept that badgers with bovine TB can live and breed normally in their social group for many years (as evidenced by Woodchester Park). Then you claim (without a shred of supporting evidence, because there is none) that badgers can identify an infected sett-mate and evict it. You can't have it both ways.
I'd certainly be interested to know the answer to Trevor's question: "On the issue of Bryan Hill, I'm curious. If his "badger management" has been so successful for so long, why is his parish of Beaworthy still on annual testing? Doesn't this indicate that there is still a bovine TB problem there? Surely his badger management should have sorted that out by now?"
Perhaps he doesn't have enough support from his fellow farmers to cover a whole Parish - if not, there doesn't seem much likelihood that he has a workable solution does it?
If he can't convince his neighbors, is it any surprise that he can't convince the wider public?
Trevor, we love PCR technology - mainly because Defra hate it.
They turned it down on March 12th. 2001, when the late Fred Brown offered it instead of carnage-by-computer for FMD..
As you say it is progressing - too slowly, but the longer research grants for universities are tied to state funded research, the longer wheels will continue to be invented.
It is our understanding that levels of DNA are being developed rather than blanket yes / no which would take care of small amounts of latent infection in setts, not actively transmitting, and the very much larger levels needed to keep the disease cycle active. If this invloves the use of RNA, then that is significant progress.
From memory, DNA works on identifying genetic chromosomes and RNA on protein synthesis, so possibly the two in tandem?
You are correct and we are aware that infection can cycle through badgers in a group, with not all individuals shedding at the same time, and some not continuously. We would also have thought it important to break the cycle of infection from mother to cubs, but let that pass.. However when the disease does become full blown, as it does in the 'super excreter' it is at this stage that this now very sick member of the group is excluded. So, yes we can have it both ways, depending on the stage of the disease and the behaviour of the individual concerned. (see later)
If heavily infected setts were gassed, then their territorial area would be clear, thus preventing peturbation. It is the fracturing of a social group, as in Bourne's blasted 'trial' that caused the havoc - particularly if the alpha scent markers were captured first.
Taking out a complete group does not seem to cause the havoc that we saw in the 'badger dispersal trial'. As the scent marks fade over time, remaining groups gradually spread to fill the gap.
Believe me Trevor, when we were tearing our hair out in the middle of our 5 year breakdown, every tool in the box was considered - including PCR and gamma interferon. Our problem was not in the cattle. Only a couple had the very beginnings of lesions, and then not capable of onward transmission to other cattle. Our problem was a super excreter badger, living alone in an unmapped single hole sett, and 'visiting' the cattle yards on a regular basis. When this thing was trapped - and what a sight it was - we soon went clear.
We also see a use for PCR technology to identify clean badger setts as candidates for vaccination. Not much point in vaccinating where infection is already there, and as much as protecting cattle, we need to protect uninfected populations of badgers.
The 'shreds of evidence' which we use to indentify these 'loners' and excluded 'super excreters' is both from personal observation, and PQ's for which, as ever we thank Mr. Bradshaw.
23rd. March 2004 :col 684W [158375]
describes super excreters as:
"in an advanced stage of disease progression; having a higher mortality; and exhibiting behavioural differences including much wider 'home ranges' and more likely to visit farm buildings".
Those 'wider home ranges' are a transmission opportunity to other groups, and yup, they certainly do visit farm buildings. That do?
You will have to enquire of SVS why the parish(s) in which Mr. Hill's farm reside(s) is on annual testing. We suspect that the area covered involves more than one parish, and if neighbours have breakdowns, then the 30 + farms 'managed' in this way would be drawn into the loop under the new EU regs. Until we have this disease under control, then annual testing should be mandatory anyway.
When will you learn that these so called animal/badger lovers aint animal/badger lovers at all, they are just insignificant little minded bigots that love to argue their point of view cos they aint ever had to deel with any disease first hand! If they had,perhaps they would be more willing to actually help get to grips with the infection be it in any animal, bovine, badgers or humans.To read some of these comments from the so called badger lovers is why we have a world like we have! Full of hate and self rightiousness.
Be ashamed of yourselfs and start to help not hinder in the eradication of all T.B.
Anon : 4.54.
Your question echos 'his master's voice', but on behalf of both of you, we have spoken to Mr. Hill for an update.
As we suspected, his 'managed' farms are spread over several thousand acres, and are not a single block. In between are areas of village (where badgers are fed), woodland belonging to anon., sheep farms who are 'unaffected' and thus disinterested and a few cattle farms or hobby farmers whose cattle were OK, so "don't touch my badgers".
We say were, because the endemic infection has reached a few of these now, and in this area will keep the parish or its neighbours under annual testing.
It also has brought frantic telephone calls to Mr. Hill for help and advice on what to do.
In fact he has visited much of Devon, especially areas subject to new and bad breakdowns, mainly to confirm that the management strategy which he instigated 8 years ago in his own patch is relevant and workable in these new areas. Also sadly, to see that what he predicted to the CVO ten years ago on his own farm, come into fruition.
He tells us that it is the same. And further to that, he is not happy for 'farmers' to be issued licenses with no technical or ecological advice as to how to operate a 'cull' system which will be both humane, fast and effective while leaving badgers still part of the ecological balance.
By that he means tracing the problem setts to source, and dealing with them, while leaving the main alpha group completely alone.
Mr. Hill underestimates his own skills here we feel, and thus PCR could, with political will back up this 'middle ground'.
He also pointed out that having abandoned the problem for so long, it will soon be very difficult to find uninfected badgers to recolonise. When Tb hit the mid Devon population, it was already at saturation point, and ripped through whole setts causing havoc on a scale not seen in Mr. Hill's lifetime. It it this situation he now sees mirrored in the emerging hotspots.
Despite being pilloried and subject to lightweight jibes, some of which we have seen on this posting, Mr. Hill is still willing to share his policy with anyone who wants to learn. Every part of his scattered farm, which is in six blocks with twelve miles of boundary, has badgers. And he tells us it is his duty as custodian of this land, to keep them there and keep them healthy.
Anon: 7.18.
As we've said before, you can take a horse to water....
We started this site because and only because, the mantra of 'cattle to cattle' tb transmission did not apply to any of us. Two years on, and still the clackety old train rattles on. Cattle to cattle, cattle to cattle, cattle to cattle...
"There were no CAFTTLE bought in"
"There's no 'F' in CATTLE"
"You got it. At last. Good"
Now we can go home.
Bl---y well said Mathew, you are banging your head against a brick wall trying to explain to these 'hand up my bum type'. We have in this country a horrible section of people that are nothing but terrorists to try and prove their point and that includes the R.S.P.C.A!
I was a regular money supporter to this cause but they too have made me feel sick at how they can turn a blind eye to the needs of other animals. So you so called badger fanatics, get a life, get into the real world of all animals, go and stay on a farm that has cattle being taken with T.B, study what you really see and perhaps we might just get to grips with this disease.
Trying to get my head around the various options being proposed!
Option One
No badger killing
Option Two
Kill all badgers in 300 sq Km around TB hotspots - The NFU option
Option Three
Use PCR to identify 'infected setts' and gas these (this option not yet available as PCR testing requires more refinement?) - the BlogSpotters option
Option Four
Use the 'Brian Hill Magic' (shreds of evidence?)to identify superexcretors and then remove all badgers from their (infected) sett.
It would seem that options 3 & 4 are not viable at present as a solution to a national (world wide) problem, and that it's 'all or none' that has to decided upon.
There seems to be a gulf between not only the for/against any form of badger killing, but perhaps more harmful to your cause the obvious split between farmers who are divided between all four options.
To anonymous, the farmers are not split, its the likes of you who would like to think they have caused a split, as I have said, the so called 'animal lovers' are only trouble makers and certainly like to see animals suffer.
Wake up folks!
All farmers do not agree!
There are other health problems for cattle!
Dairy Cows
If you were an alien visitor, by now you would surely be wondering if all creatures on earth took second place to money. And of course the answer would have to be yes. But the biggest shock is yet to come. Unlike many humans, the alien would know that an animal can only give milk when it has given birth to its offspring and it doesn't pour from an animal tap whenever needed. For a continual supply of milk it would be obvious that a cow would have to be made pregnant every year but the method involved would shock anyone.
After a nine month pregnancy, a cow's tiny, teetering calf is separated from her after only one or two days.
Calf
That's how long it takes for the calf to suckle the disease-preventing colostrum from its mother but not long enough to snatch the milk which must all be kept for humans, up to a staggering 7,000 litres a year, ten times more than her little calf could ever drink. If the calf is a male it is very likely, at only 2 or 3 days old, he will be shot - an unwanted by-product of the dairy industry. (Before BSE he would have been crammed into a lorry with hundreds of other calves and despatched on a journey to France or Holland, petrified, bewildered and often deprived of water, food or rest. On arrival he would have been placed in a veal crate.)
But what of his mother, cow 324? It was her eighth calf and will probably be the last. The genetic manipulation and dietary controls which have led to her extraordinary output of milk carry with them a cost, all borne by the cow. She has a one-in-three chance of her udders secreting pus and painfully swelling with mastitis, and the antibiotics forced up her udders don't have much success in controlling the disease.
Because of the strain of carrying her oversized udders, she is likely to be amongst the one third of cows who are lame from foot and leg disorders. And her body consumes so much energy for milk production that her muscles simply waste away. From a distance, these skin-covered coat racks, munching grass, seem to be in an idyll. But the ugly truth is that a quarter of dairy cows are so exhausted by the process they never see their third year, despite having a life expectancy of 21 years or more. Most cows are killed at four to seven years, often pregnant when they die.
Milking
Professor John Webster, Department of Animal Husbandry, Bristol University says:
"The dairy cow is a supreme example of an overworked mother. She is the hardest working of all our farm animals and it can be scientifically calculated. It is equivalent to a jogger who goes out for six to eight hours a day which is a lunatic pursuit”. He states that almost 100 per cent of cows suffer from laminitis - a disease which causes 'great pain to the cow' (MAFF). Tissue lining of the foot becomes inflamed and may lead to ulcers. Professor Webster continues: "To understand the pain of laminitis it helps to imagine crushing your finger nails in the door then standing on your fingertips."
In intensive farming, many cows are kept in "zero-grazing" systems. This means that they are kept indoors, where they can't follow their natural, very strong instinct to graze. Grass is brought to them, and they are also given a high-protein diet to increase their milk yield.
from: http://www.factoryfarming.org.uk
Anon 12.57.
Do not confuse the revolving door of NFU / Gov'ment with 'farmers' in general. The NFU is there to keep the peasants from revolting.
When Gov'ment say jump, NFU reply "how high?".
There are not 4 options. There is just one - or should be. The eradication of a very serious zoonosis.
Doing nothing is therefore not an option. Gov'ment have all along wanted 'farmers' to do the job for them, but some of us balk at that, feeling that SVS must have the overall view of farms which are under restriction and control of any culling policy.
From the many surveys, described in our postings below, the public would also seem to want SVS involvment, with farmer 'participation'. That is what 'sharing responsibility' means - at least to us.
Your last two 'options' are one in the same - a 'targetted' cull, not a wipe out. As we said, we feel that Mr. Hill underestimates his skills, and PCR would support both his observations and subsequent actions, allowing less able participants to 'target' with more accuracy.
At a meeting several years ago now, the room was in uproar at the suggestion of 'eradicating badgers'. Not so, it is Tb that is the target. We value a healthy group of badgers as much as - er Trevor?
Anon 4.22
Straying off the thread a tad?
Yup, we've read this rubbish too.
There are 1000 cow units going up; that is what happens when the price of the commodity (in this case, milk) is forced below the cost of most farm's production.
But most of what you've quoted is frankly laughable.
That the calf is taken from its mother is sometimes true - that some cows couldn't give a damn about their calf is also true, and some are also quite capable of lying on it - not a good idea. Colostrum is produced by the cow for at least four days, sometimes more and this cannot be put into the tank for collection (different setting times, curdles on pasteurisation) so after separation, the calf is fed by hand either its own mother's colostrum or pooled colostrum for weeks. If it was not, the disease preventing microbes would not protect it and it would die - very quickly. And that is not very clever.
Can't comment on the veal trade. Most of our bull calves were shot as we were under Tb restriction and could not sell anyway - except for slaughter. Delightful experience.
Laminitis - only seen it in overfat ponies. Not on our farm so that knocks a hole in Prof's 100 per cent. Poor nutritional balance is the cause, and with today's nutritionists on farm regularly, I would say overstated.
Mastitis. It happens; but with penalties for high cell counts in milk / hygiene etc., our instances were very low. Can't speak for others. Women get it too I understand. If your 'report' is to be believed, that's down to overstocked boobs.
The contributers who started this site had between 20 and 100 dairy or beef cattle, plus followers. Not exactly the factory farm that makes headlines, but the family farm expected to do the window dressing.
Our oldest cow was 15 by the way, still fit and healthy and weighing in at 800kg, so not a 'bag of bones, despite 100 tonnes of milk under her belt. We bred them to last - can't speak for others but a four year old down the road is a complete waste. As it was when we lost 40 of that age and younger to Tb. They were in calf too.
Again blah blah blah from someone with a full belly! go study somewhere real, not so called statistics from comics and so called experts! you know what the definition of an expert is do you? well you seem to think you know it all, try and guess and then you might nearly get it right for a change.
PS, not ment for Mathew, the last posting, but for the other unteachables!!! or rather untouchables brain wise!!!!
Matthew said...
There are not 4 options. There is just one - or should be. The eradication of a very serious zoonosis.
Doing nothing is therefore not an option.
Unfortunately eradication may not be possible. To minimise/control would be more realistic.
You presumably consider the millions of pounds of taxpayers money spent on bovine TB every year to be 'doing nothing'
Don't you mean - not killing badgers is not an option?
Anonymous 9.07pm said...
Again blah blah blah from someone with a full belly! go study somewhere real, not so called statistics from comics and so called experts! you know what the definition of an expert is do you?
Brian Hill?
Comparing the bTB figures for 2005 & 2006 given on the DEFRA website at http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/tbpn.pdf gives some good news for farmers!
Totals for the months of January to November:
2006 number of herd tests UP (2005 - 53,254, 2006 - 61,399)
2006 number of cattle tested UP (2005 - 4,443,982, 2006 - 4,800,235)
2006 number of Cattle compulsorily slaughtered DOWN!!!! (2005 - 27,624, 2006 - 27,624)
Perhaps the increased vigilance with regard to the testing and movement of cattle is actually helping?
Perhaps cattle give TB to badgers?
Perhaps ?
Perhaps I can't count?
I can't count!
Oops!
Error in previous message!
Cattle compulsorily slaughtered in 2006 should read 20,023
Anon; 6.02
Check out the CVO's report (also on the Defra website, and links from this site) on the 'drop' and you will see as we reported here that she feels that the use of Lelystatd tuberculin antigen from late 2005 was possibly missing early NVL reactors, cattle which would be a) picked up as slaughterhouse cases (up by 50 per cent in spring of 2006, and levelling to average an increase of 25 per cent July - December) or b) identified at a later stage of the disease in a later test,( and thus in a later statistical period).
Although as you point out, the number of cattle slaughtered has dropped from 30,082 to 22,094 2005 - 2006, the percentage of herds under restriction has risen, and NHI (New confirmed herd incidents) has risen steadily over the year from a staggering minus 29 per cent down on 2005 in March, when we first discussed it, to just minus 6.5 per cent currently.
That 'blip' in the early spring has not been sustained, and slaughterhouse cases and subsequent tests are finding the infection - but at a later stage, as the CVO explained.
That cattle may, if in full blown infection, be a factor in onward disease transmission, we have also discussed. It is rare, but in areas of 4 year testing it could happen, and we therefore agree with Trevor Lawson (wow!!) that at least until the UK has a grip on the situation, annual tests are a must. We also have fought long and hard for post movements tests on breeding cattle entering a longer testing regime area - but have lost that argument too.
We hear that tests in January to March are revealing many breakdowns in areas not previously affected. This, we think is a combination of two very dry summers on badger feeding/watering sources and the stress that has caused + the use of Lelystad antigen, last year which we described above.
At 6.5 percent of herds under restriction during 2006, against an OIE Tb free trading requirement level of 0.2 percent, the figures are a disgrace. Not even Scotland qualifies at 0.4 per cent, and the worst regional office, Glos. has 25 per cent of its herds under restriction at some time during 2006.
Just to remind you dear readers, that the problem farmers have with bovine TB is the movement restrictions and the inconvenience and cost of the testing regime.
Whilst it may be upsetting to see livestock 'removed' on failing the test, the numbers involved across the industry are in fact very small when you consider the millions of cattle in 'the national herd'. And cattle die from other causes in significant numbers too.
Figures can be interpreted in many ways of course, but looking at the same period as above (Jan Nov 2005/2006)movement restrictions are given as:
2005 - 29,998
2006 - 28,877
That's a decrease - but don't forget these figures do not include herds under restrictions due to the tighter controls on the testing regime.Just those caught at the testing. But 8145 more herds were tested in the period.
Matthew refers to the CVO's report on the DEFRA website.
Perhaps the best we can do is read from that website:
We are asked to note that "Whilst bTB incidence in Great Britain has fallen recently, this follows a steady increase over recent years. Furthermore, the overall level of the disease remains unacceptably high."
No argument there perhaps?
They go on: "There has been a provisional 6% reduction in the number of new bTB incidents in Great Britain in 2006 compared to 2005. There was a considerable drop in the number of new incidents in the first four months of 2006 compared to 2005. However, after May 2006 the number of new TB incidents reported was slightly up on 2005. As a result, the percentage decrease in new incidents reported in previous months has now reduced.
The bTB testing effort was consistently higher in 2006 than in 2005. The reduction in new incidents in 2006, when combined with an increase in the number of herds tested over the same period, equates to a provisional decrease in TB herd incidence of 22%."
And now it gets confusing:
"On 10 August, the Chief Veterinary Officer issued a report on this reduction, based on data for the first six months of 2006. She concluded that we need to monitor the apparent fall over a longer period to determine whether this is a temporary phenomenon or part of a sustained trend. The decrease is likely to be caused by a complex combination of factors. The switch in tuberculin supply from the Veterinary Laboratories Agency to that purchased from Holland (that commenced in October 2005) is not considered a significant contributory factor."
Once more with feeling:
"The switch in tuberculin supply from the Veterinary Laboratories Agency to that purchased from Holland (that commenced in October 2005) is not considered a significant contributory factor."
Although of course as Matthew says "she feels that the use of Lelystatd tuberculin antigen from late 2005 was possibly missing early NVL reactors" but this is not considered significant overall.
From Trevor Lawson, Badger Trust
Matthew, Bryan, et al. You guys just crack us up. Even vets accept that there are no practical tools for distinguishing the majority of uninfected badgers from the minority of those with the disease. And in the field, the tiny number of infetious badgers can't be distinguished either. The picture you've used is one that's been knocking around for decades. Where are all the others? There should be thousands of images of sick badgers if your claims are right. So where are they?
But you guys can apparently pinpoint an infected badger with cruise missile accuracy. Your intensive field work has even introduced an entirely new concept in badger ecology - the "main alpha group". What's that then? You are perhaps being confused by the fact that there can be dominant, alpha individuals within a group.
Incidentally, I didn't say that infection can cycle through a group. Within a group, it's not unusual for most individuals not to be infected at all. And the minority that are are not usually infectious - they display no sign of the infection and live and breed normally.
You claim that "taking out the complete group" prevents perturbation. Unfortunately, there's no data to support your claim and it is not backed up by the data from the RBCT. You have this daft notion that the badgers not killed get lonely and wander off to infect badgers further afield. Wrong. Badgers further afield encroach onto the vacated terriroty and acquire bovine TB. How they get it is not clear. It might be from badgers left behind. But the evidence also shows that cattle quickly infect badgers with bovine TB, so it could also be through increased contact with infected cattle or some other form of environmental contamination. So taking out the whole social group, including the seven out of eight healthy badgers in it, will not help.
I've been trying to disentangle what's going on in Bryan Hill's parish from your posting. It just doesn't make sense. Is he talking about his parish in the defined VETNET sense or has he chosen a number of farms that happen to be run by people that he knows, some of which are outside the parish? If Bryan Hill is to be taken seriously, let him list the farms are and present their TB history. Better still, let's see them on a map so that we can see how contiguous this supposed management is. With more than 30 farms we can even do a basic Chi squared analysis of the data to test his hypothesis. Come on. Let's see the data.
On the subject of vaccination, you claim that there is no point in vaccinating badgers in setts where infection already exists. Again, it's another illustration of your poor understanding of what's going on. BCG as vaccine is notoriously unreliable. My mum, for example, was vaccinated but still acquired TB whilst working as a nurse in her 20s. BCG helps, but pasteurisation probably achieved far more.
In badgers, the current evidence suggests that BCG does not prevent infection, but inhibits progression of the disease with the result that the minority of infected badgers are less likely to become infectious. Thus, if a vaccinated badger acquired the disease from cattle, the likelihood of it later returning the infection would be reduced. So vaccinating in setts on infected farms would be valid. That, however, depends on finding a practical way of administering the vaccine to a large number of subterranean, nocturnal animals that are not about to volunteer for an injection.
Finally, you say: "Our problem was not in the cattle. Only a couple had the very beginnings of lesions, and then not capable of onward transmission to other cattle." I really do despair at this. Who told you they were not capable of onward transmission? Here's a paragraph from the ISG's Fourth Report, summarising the latest research:
"7.7 Experimental and field studies on the pathogenesis of TB in cattle as part of the on-going programme of Defra-funded research, have demonstrated opportunities for disease transmission from infected animals in the very early as well as later stages of the disease process. Some of the infected animals were not diagnosed by the tuberculin test but were diagnosed by the IFN assay test."
Are farmers wilfully ignoring this evidence? Actually, I don't think so. It seems increasingly likely that farmers are being ill-advised by vets. The Badger Trust is concerned that only now the BVA is making Continuous Professional Development a mandatory requirement. Some vets will be diligent in keeping up to date with critical research like this. But it seems that a lot are not.
Anon 10.57
"upsetting to see livestock 'removed'. Well that's one way of putting it I suppose. Loaded up, often heavily pregnant, to be shot is more to the point, and yes it's devastating.
6.5 per cent of herds under restriction when the OIE Tb free trading level is 0.2 percent is by no stretch of the imagination 'small'. Especially when hotspot counties are around or over 20 per cent.
The figures which you quote we cannot trace. (28 / 29,000 herds - or cattle?) Defra website does not define numbers of cattle under restriction, and is showing 89,134 registered herds on Vetnet,of which 5,787 were under Tb 2 restriction at some time during Jan - Dec 2006 (5,683 in 2005)
The CVO's report is a pdf file, where she blamed her vets for bad practise and suggested, nay insisted, they were all retrained.
Buried on pages 3 and 15 are the relevant ones re efficacy of Lelystad.
The CVO's conclusions, and the executive summary are not born out by the year's stats, which back up page 15's observations, where the authors decribe the Dutch product as differing significantly" from Weybridge antigen. Their conclusion - not ours - was that Lelystad was "failing to pick up, NVLs", which would result in "an under detection of cases, resulting in a transient decline of cases reported, despite there being no true decline in cases".
The authors leant towards this conclusion at the time of the report (July 2006) with the limited data available.
Trevor;
"You guys just crack us up"
Glad to be of service.
Matthew said: "The figures which you quote we cannot trace."
They are at:
http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/
esg/datasets/tbweb.xls
Sorry this link is truncated over two lines - it seems your blog doesn't accept full links
And: ""upsetting to see livestock 'removed'. Well that's one way of putting it I suppose. Loaded up, often heavily pregnant, to be shot is more to the point, and yes it's devastating."
Happens to beef cattle all the time (albeit not pregnant bullocks!
I have watched this blog spot for the last 3 years and thought then that trying to put your case over as farmers/cattle keepers would be helpful to who ever would be prepared to help in this 'orrible' disease, but now I can honestly say that you, the badger so called trust, are a complete waste of time. You are just not interested in any thing but your own ego's.
On the subject of Bryan Hill your conjecture of him is oh so nasty, at least he has the guts to get out into the field and do something for both species at his own expence I bet you, not like yourself who I quess are as useless as your writings on this particular blog!. If you think we the tax payer likes to pay for cattle that are slaughtered because of T.B, it just does show you, that you are really not worth the breath you breath. God help us all, especially our poor badgers and cattle.
Anonymous said...
"I have watched this blog spot for the last 3 years and thought then that trying to put your case over as farmers/cattle keepers. . . . . . ."
Unfortunately the participants have failed to convince anyone important of their treatise that FARMERS KNOW BEST (at least if their names begin with M - many other farmers don't agree with them), and that NATURE MUST BE CONTROLLED - if it interferes with profitability.
Unlike Trevor, you don't make me laugh - I find it rather sad that you expect people to ignore the (very costly) science in favour of your own opinions.
Perhaps the low visitor numbers to this Blog are proof enough that you will have to present a much more reasoned argument with supporting evidence if you are to achieve anything more than a sore head.
Have you bloggers made any progress over the years?
It is not me, or the Badger Trust, that you have to convince. It is Government.
Perhaps you think Tony Blair reads your blogg??
Maybe he does.
I bet he'd be impressed if you answered all the questions put, including a recent one from Trevor that seemed perfectly reasonable to me:
If Bryan Hill is to be taken seriously, let him list the farms and present their TB history. Better still, let's see them on a map so that we can see how contiguous this supposed management is. With more than 30 farms we can even do a basic Chi squared analysis of the data to test his hypothesis. Come on. Let's see the data.
Anon; 9.13
Not for us to say who is influenced or who is listening with ears tight shut.
Not all 'science' is good, and much deserves to be challenged.
And that is not because we do not agree with the conclusion, but have seen first hand the extraordinarily weak basis for the progression of its data.
We have put up as much 'supporting evidence' as we can lay our hands on over the couple of years, and the 538 PQ's which rattled the Minister of Agriculture so much, form the base of the site.. It is to these that any epidemiologist would look, to satisfy the 'gold standard' of disease transmission, the Evans Postulates, (which follwed the Koch postulates of 1895).
They are satisfied.
Trevor's question, repeated by yourself, is addressed to the wrong people. But be assured that Defra are monitoring the farms, and their disease history extremely closely.
We have no direct contact with Mr. Hill, and he is not a contributer to the site. But it is our understanding that he is willing to show 'in situ' to anyone with an interest in ecology and healthy badgers, exactly what he has achieved and how, by accepting 'badger selection' of chronically sick animals, he has achieved it. As far as we are aware 'anyone' includes the Badger Trust, or members of Wildlife groups as well as the great and the good of Defra (and John Bourne) who have all had a guided tour of the farms concerned.
As for 'convincing' anyone, that is not the issue. When the five of us talked about starting this site, it was with the intention of finding points of agreement between two 'sides' which government for far rather keep apart. Divide and rule.
The main factor which we keep banging on about, is that four of us had NO BOUGHT IN CATTLE prior to devastatingly long breakdowns. So cattle contact and the pernicious drip feed of infection was not cattle based. Nevertheless the taxpayer shelled out his pounds, and the beneficiaries - collected. And by that we mean, all the associated 'industries' which have grown to support this level of testing, samples, transport, slaughter, tracing, paperwork and the RBCT.
We have found at least one point where the Badger Trust and ourselves are in agreement.
Anuual testing for at least the time it takes to get a handle on the cattle situation - and that is not a hike of cattle /cattle hypo, but a realistic appraisal that cattle moving into a 4 year testing regime, breeding cattle particularly, need checking post movement - not pre. Which is something we had in common with the lovely Elaine, who suggested grant funded isolation facilities to do just that.
Now, if we could hear Mr. Lawson's explanantion of the index source of our own breakdowns, we would be getting somewhere. And please do not spit 'red deer' as his predecessor did. They cannot scuttle under sheeted gates, nor climb into troughs where cattle are feeding.
Matthew said...
"And please do not spit 'red deer' as his predecessor did. They cannot scuttle under sheeted gates, nor climb into troughs where cattle are feeding."
OK
How high are your boundary fences?
Anon. asked "How high are your boundary fences?" (re deer).
We have red deer, fallow and sika in 20 acres of woodland which form a boundary on the edge of the edge of the farm. They are 'managed' courtesy of Defra (? - we don't pay the team) by a deer management team who regularly cull the older ones and a few stags. All have proved very healthy (they say). (Venison is sold into France I believe and do go past post mortem MHS inpspection before transit and export is allowed)
Our woods are stock fenced to about 5 feet, (sheep netting + two strands wire over). We have never seen evidence of deer in pasture at all. (This fence was cut with wire cutters to remove Kreb's traps.)
All our other fields are bounded with with mixed thorn/hornbeam/beech/oak/holly hedges. These are about 8 - 10 feet high and fenced both sides as before with sheep netting + two strands of strained wire.. Width from back fence to back fence approx 15 feet. Gates hung at about 5 feet.
Our biggest breakdown was in a group of youngstock, some of whom had never been outside. (too young)Infection 'came in' to them - and took out almost a whole group over the summer of 2003. That was bad. We found badger dung in the central feed passage in March 2003 - up until then we had no idea we were 'sharing' the cattle feed. We thought the sheeted gates on the central feeding passage were secure against badgers. They were not, we think, actually getting in there, but once in, were unable to get out; hence the carnage in that last pen of incalf heifers, which was nearest the 'exit' gate.
May 2003, the wildlife team trapped two appalling specimens, one similar to the pics above, and then our breakdown subsided. We went clear after almost 5 years under restriction - and no bought in cattle.
Matt 5.
"We found badger dung in the central feed passage in March 2003"
begs the question...
WHY NOT CLOSE THE DOOR??
I should say that in answering the previous comment, with an explanation re 'closed sheeted gates', I speak for myself.
Other contributers to the site point out that they are delighted to get cattle housed inside as their Tb tests are clear in winter. But they expect to go under restriction again when they test mid summer onwards, after cattle have grazed contaminated grass in April / May.
This was a 'regular scenario' described to us by members of the old 'Badger Panel'.
Matthew said..."Other contributers to the site point out that they are delighted to get cattle housed inside as their Tb tests are clear in winter. But they expect to go under restriction again when they test mid summer onwards, after cattle have grazed contaminated grass in April / May.
This was a 'regular scenario' described to us by members of the old 'Badger Panel'."
So some hearsay from old panels now.
Couldn't it be the case that the infection was picked up whilst in the sheds, but was not detected until the animals were outside?
Or was some 100% reliable test used?
Anonymous 6:55 PM said...
I have watched this blog spot for the last 3 years and thought then that trying to put your case over as farmers/cattle keepers would be helpful to who ever would be prepared to help in this 'orrible' disease, but now I can honestly say that you, the badger so called trust, are a complete waste of time.
Just like you Mr 6.55pm
You are just not interested in any thing but your own ego's.
Certainly we are not interested in yours!
On the subject of Bryan Hill your conjecture of him is oh so nasty, at least he has the guts to get out into the field and do something for both species at his own expence I bet you, not like yourself who I quess are as useless as your writings on this particular blog!.
Is that Brian? or Bryan?
Blimey riley, a farmer in a field - a rare site outside of a machine.
At least you have the decency to admit that you are guessing!
Others are not, and we the taxpayers (that seems to include you) have shelled out £millions for research - not to mention the £billions spent propping up a certain industry.
If you think we the tax payer likes to pay for cattle that are slaughtered because of T.B, it just does show you, that you are really not worth the breath you breath. God help us all, especially our poor badgers and cattle.
Your god doesn't seem to have a very good track record so far. Our poor badgers and cattle, and the rest of the ecosystem, need to be defended against the onward march of our species.
You (and your god?) need to be stopped running rampant over our planet consuming all in the name of freedom/farming/profit - whatever.
The badgers will do just fine if you leave them alone and you figure out some way of minimising disease in farmed animals without destroying what's left of the planet's wildlife.
For all our farming career we have attempted to minimise disease in our cattle by running a closed herd.Our reward has been to see over 60 slaughtered as TB reactors in the last two years after being free of the disease for nearly 40 years. With no bought-in cattle where has this disease come from? We have a large badger population on our land and dead and dying badgers were found on the farm in the months before our outbreak. Trevor Lawson appears unwilling to give an opinion on this all important question of TB in closed herds.Until he does I shall not be attaching much credibility to anything else he has to say.
To the last 3 or 4 Anon comments.
Re. "begs the question, WHY NOT CLOSE THE DOOR"
Now why didn't we think of that?
Cattle do not come in hermetically sealed packages, and clearance for the automatic passage scrapers at one end of the building complex could allow access. To get to feed, they then had to come through cattle, and across covered yards. Once in the feeding area, which was secure, they were bounded by two lines of curious cattle and couldn't get out - with devastating results. The feed passage doors were shut.
Anon 6.55
re cattle tb while inside. Other contributers test in the autumn, prior to housing and have gone under restriction then. Cattle were thus on 60 day testing while housed. It is then that they go clear, only to pick up re-infection at turnout.
The intradermal skin test offers 95 - 98 per cent specificity, and 68 - 95 sensitivety. When applied to a herd, in 60 day consecutive tests - no problems. (The 68 per cent applies to a single animal within a herd, when tested only once. When animals re tested,( as in IR's) sensitivety "quickly rises to 100 per cent - PQ's - thank you Ben)
Anon 4.49, answering another Anon. You said " badgers do just fine if left alone"
That would be "fine" as in the pics then?
Thanks to its elevation to cult status, and a grade 1 listing on its ancestral home, tb is endemic in the population. If you approve of their suffering and eventual death from this ghastly disease, then your idea of 'animal welfare' is different from ours.
However onwards transmission of that endemic disease into other mammalian species, as described by Anon 12.59 who suffered a breakdown which has taken 60 cattle out of a closed herd, is not something which the taxpayer, cattle keeper, pet owner should have to support.
From PQ's - 300,000 units of Tb bacteria in 1 ml of urine are voided in 30ml incontinent streams, from a badger with kidney lesions (kidney lesions were the highest source of badger tb found on postmortem). Only 70 units inhaled will provoke a skin test failure / reaction in the poor cow which has the misfortune to sniff it. A bite wound from an infected badger to an uninfected individual (see that lovely pic at the top of the posting) results in "generalised tuberculosis".
It isn't rocket science to see why so many of us who have kept our cattle herds 'closed' (none bought in) are feeling er - disappointed, that our efforts have not been worth a light. ("Disappointed" is weasel speak for bloody angry, devastated and let down by the way)
But hey, leave the badgers alone and er - spread it around, why not?
Here's a novel idea from www.arabtimesonline.com
Seems that veterinarians in Kuwait treat bTB infected cows and only slaughter those that do not respond to treatment!
I'm sure a tirade of reasons for not doing this will follow - but for anyone intersted here is the full item:
Bovine TB tests negative; ‘Don’t drink unpasteurized milk’
KUWAIT CITY: There are no cases of bovine TB in the country as recent tests conducted in this regard came negative, says Dr Mohammad Muhanna, Deputy Director General of the Animal Resources Affairs at the Public Authority for Agricultural Affairs and Fish Resources (PAAAFR). This comes after 200 TB cases were discovered by PAAAFR recently, mainly in Sulaibiya area. PAAAFR had launched a massive campaign that included testing samples of cows from farms in Wafra, Kabad and Sulaibiya. Soon after the discovery of bovine TB, the country witnessed an outbreak of bird flu and a total of 54 birds were found infected with deadly H5N1 strain of avian flu.
Kuwait has taken a number of measures to tackle bird flu including the temporary closure of bird market in Shuwaikh and sale of poultry and its byproducts have been banned in residential areas.
Experts are of the view that migratory birds may have contributed to the outbreak and they are currently being monitored by a team of experts formed by PAAAFR.
Commenting on the current situation in relation to bovine TB in the country, Dr Muhanna told the Arab Times that, “at present, we have already prepared a TB control program whereby all cattle in the country would undergo TB testing and animals tested positive would be slaughtered.”
Replying to a question as to whether fresh milk was safe for human consumption, Dr Muhanna went on to say that since pasteurization kills micro-organisms in milk, PAAAFR strongly recommends that the public should give up drinking unpasteurized milk.
According to Dr Muhanna, cattle in a few farms were found to be infected with TB and that once PAAAFR begins its TB control program “it will know the real picture. “When we start the control program, we will conduct the testing on a daily basis until we make sure that all cattle are tested.”
Commenting on the possible cause for the spread of TB among cows, he said it is difficult to exactly pinpoint the source of the infection. “But since TB is a chronic disease without visible clinical manifestations, introduction of 1 TB carrier could be enough to spread the disease gradually to healthy animals.”
Elaborating further, Dr Muhanna said: “We suspect TB positive animals could have been imported from other countries without being noticed.” Sounding a note of caution, Dr Muhanna went on to explain that cattle owners have been advised to take necessary precautions in an effort to prevent the spread of the disease. Earlier Dr Muhanna had said: “Immediately after hearing reports about the cow TB cases found in Sulaibiya last month, PAAAFR formed a committee consisting of the best veterinarians in the country to conduct tests not only on animals in the area but also in other farms.”
Al-Muhanna had assured that there is a remote possibility of an outbreak as tests are conducted regularly on the animals and their by-products. He added the veterinarians at PAAAFR treat infected cows soon after conducting the tests and slaughter those that do not respond to treatment.
By Francis A. Clifford Cardozo - Arab Times Staff
Anon: 11.43
Thanks for that. Good piece.
Although they give no details on exactly what 'treatment' to cattle is offered, the usual (for humans) is a six month course using a synergistic cocktail of several antibiotics. These have pretty nasty side effects, which tend to put patients off completing it. In fact we have been told that payment is offered as an inducement, to try and prevent the disease becoming 'antibiotic resistant' which it would if only partial 'cure' was undertaken and the course not completed in full.
If this type of treatment was offered to milking cattle, then no milk could be used for the time they were undergoing it, and afterwords for up to 28 days. But it could work for valuable beef animals or youngstock.
We see that Kuwait plans a 'test and slaughter' programme to screen all its cattle.
Thanks again.
You say "If this type of treatment was offered to milking cattle, then no milk could be used for the time they were undergoing it, and afterwords for up to 28 days. But it could work for valuable beef animals or youngstock."
Thereby proving that you are concerned primarily with profit - not whether your cattle live or die.
Matthew said...
Anon 10.57
"upsetting to see livestock 'removed'. Well that's one way of putting it I suppose. Loaded up, often heavily pregnant, to be shot is more to the point, and yes it's devastating.
But not worth trying to save them by treatment.
Never mind, this blog now has a new first topic and interest will soon wane regarding the questions that you have chosen not to answer.
Whe you'e killed all the badgers, I expect you'll go for the deer. But what will be your next target when all the killing fails to eliminate your cattle TB.
I would just like to point out to anon@10.57am that in the this country you are not allowed to treat a TB reactor.
This person should go and have a read of "The end of a dream" post from earlier this month, I would imagine that Mr Bown would have jumped at any opportunity to save Ecstasy Journalist Roxy from her doom.
At 7.33pm Anonymous said...
I would just like to point out to anon@10.57am that in the this country you are not allowed to treat a TB reactor.
Thanks for mentioning this
I am well aware of the current situation.
Almost anything can be changed - although it might be difficult to get he slaughter of human TB reactors as a policy.
The 'treatment' of our livestock may say something about our society that is way beyond the scope of this blog!
I don't think I'll bother reading this site any more - nothing gets answered properly here - if you ever convince those that count, I'm sure it will hit the press.
Anon:10.57.
Your comment re Kuwait was interesting, and for that we thank you. On some obscure trawl, we found that Russia had vaccinated some cattle last year. No details and probably more to do with intercommunity trade. We posted that too.
Thankyou Anon. 7.33. We expect Sheila Kremers would have 'jumped at the chance' to treat young Fern, the Dexter bull calf so publically shot last year. But, as you say, a strict policy of test and slaughter exsists across Europe, America, Australia and NZ to name but a few, with regard to policy in the control of this very serious zoonotic disease. And in the absence of a wildlife reservoir, many countries have cleared it completely, relying now on post mortem (slughterhouse cases0 for their surveillance.
To the previous poster Anon 10.57 again:
I take great exception to jibe "concerned only for profit, not whether your cattle live or die". How dare you? After 5 bloody years of continuous restriction, trying every which way to get clear, it wasn't until the blasted sick badgers you are soooo desperate to 'protect' were removed that we went clear - and pretty quickly too.
How the hell would you 'treat' a specimen like the one pictured above this posting that? It certainly is very different from the glossy individuals which decorate the collecting boxes of the Wildlife trusts. But this is the reality of advanced tuberculosis - which thanks to the ultimate protection the animal has received, is now 'endemic' in the badger population - and if it offends, tough. It offends us too.
As for killing all the badgers, that is emotive claptrap, perpetuated by the main beneficiaries of the polemic, which for two years at least, we have done our best to bridge. It isn't necessary, it won't work and it won't happen.
Why not push for the use of PCR to weed out the poor individuals like the example pictured? It is 'unmendable', it is chronically sick and it is spreading the disease wherever it moves.
Your last comment is directed at farmers in general, I expect. This is sad, because the downward pressure of prices means that farms such as operated by most of the contributers to this blog, are considered 'uneconomic'. Too small. But we do have a use. Window dressing to provide a pretty cover for the grim reality of industrial sized units which the big buyers, supermarkets and ultimately that elusive 'consumer' encourage. We too have no time for that.
And if you broadly accuse us of accepting Defra's bribes to kill healthy animals you are quite wrong. One contributer blockaded his farm during FMD and refused considerable 'compensation' on a point of principle. Another refused to identify BSE cohorts for similar 'hush money'.
When you have sat up all day and two nights, nuturing one sick calf, then you may have grounds to criticise. Until then, don't insult us with your prejudices.
Post a Comment