Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 194

Thread: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    124

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Joyce View Post
    Better would be to remove completely the extra protection given to badgers and uphold the anti cruelty/baiting laws that have been in place for far longer.
    I think removing the extra protection given to badgers would be very sensible. The problem is the government will need to take that step and no government which has been in power has decided or even attempted to pass this change in legislation. If there had been attempts, there may be hope, but so far nothing has happened.

    I think the bottom line is that any government which comes into power will be completely hamstrung to do anything until dogs, cats and humans start coming down with the disease in numbers.

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    South Staffs
    Posts
    606

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by ssimples View Post
    Gassing was confined to the South West only
    You can't be sure of that which may well lead on to

    and the decline in the South West was no greater than in the rest of England and Wales.

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    South Staffs
    Posts
    606

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by ssimples View Post
    I think the bottom line is that any government which comes into power will be completely hamstrung to do anything until dogs, cats and humans start coming down with the disease in numbers.
    That scenario is already being blamed on cattle, slurry spreading and farms.

    What is really needed is for a vaccinator or badger rescuer to come down with TB.

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    124

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Joyce View Post
    You can't be sure of that which may well lead on to
    Agree you can't be sure that the fire-brigade operations were not beneficial because there were other things happening at the time. For instance there was a change in the tuberculin used, a subsequent adjustment in how vets were instructed to interpret results to account for this change in tuberculin, and imported TB-prone Irish cattle started to be subjected to pre-export testing in addition to the post-import testing measures which were taken already. These events introduced doubt into how to interpret the results. Equally there is no real evidence to say that the gassing operations were beneficial.

    The only strong evidence in the UK is the comparison of 5-year averages in Thornbury with the whole of the South West. Thornbury was a big enough area to allow 5-year averages to have some significance.

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    124

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by gone up the hill View Post
    You don't seem to understand that even if farmers end up paying for TB control the Government of the day will still have the final say on what can/ cannot be done... and you still don't answer the issue of pro badger court challenges??
    The Government will have the final say on what can/cannot be done only where they have a responsibility for doing so. Control by farmers has already begun in a small way. Take for example farmers in Cheshire who are currently testing road kill. To extend on that if farmers had paid for the RBCT although they still would have been constrained by UK and European law, the political steer as illustrated in the discussion shown below would never have happened. The RBCT has probably set back TB control in the UK by decades.


  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    124

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Regarding my earlier comment where I referred to New Zealand's management of wildlife control and NZ's experience of "holes" in wildlife control when their control use to be managed by farmers, I am struggling to find data relating to how well effort was distributed across the Gloucestershire and Somerset cull zones.

    Unfortunately it is not obvious were to look for data which shows how areas on the ground were covered by the shooters. So far I have drawn a blank reading through the various reports listed at

    https://www.gov.uk/government/public...t-expert-panel

    Presumably shooters would have had to have submitted some details with each badger shot in order to receive payment so this data must exist somewhere. In view of this DEFRA should be in a position to answer general questions such as what proportion of the 10 sq km squares in each cull zone, where permission was granted to shoot, returned no or very few shot/caged badgers. Unfortunately I see that it is reported that for some returned badgers, method of capture was not recorded and that the data in general is considered to be unreliable. This does not create a good impression!
    Last edited by ssimples; 03-06-14 at 10:36 PM.

  7. #37
    Senior Member matthew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Cornwall, SW
    Posts
    647

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Ssimples said:
    "The RBCT has probably set back TB control in the UK by decades."

    You're not wrong with that conclusion. Made even more galling when heard from Bourne's lips that at the end of 'his trial' culling badgers would not be an option.

    Not highjacking the thread, but would farmers taking control of trading information be a better alternative to stigmatising those of us who happen to farm in an area where Defra would rather not touch infected wildlife with a 10 ft pole?

    Just floating a thought.

    http://bovinetb.blogspot.co.uk/2014/...sy-as-abc.html

  8. #38

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by ssimples View Post
    The Government will have the final say on what can/cannot be done only where they have a responsibility for doing so. Control by farmers has already begun in a small way. Take for example farmers in Cheshire who are currently testing road kill. To extend on that if farmers had paid for the RBCT although they still would have been constrained by UK and European law, the political steer as illustrated in the discussion shown below would never have happened. The RBCT has probably set back TB control in the UK by decades.

    What is the point of testing road kill in Cheshire???.......... the way TB is spreading across the country in the badger population ( 8/10 miles as the crow flies a year ) means that if nothing is done about the problem in the wildlife then its not a case of if but WHEN Cheshire becomes a TB hotspot area............... all you are achieving by supporting testing road kill in areas like Cheshire is giving false hope ( tragically ) to the farmers in those areas........

    Ssimples... you say your not a vet... so what is your connection ( jobwise ) to the UK cattle industry???..

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    147

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by gone up the hill View Post
    What is the point of testing road kill in Cheshire???.......... the way TB is spreading across the country in the badger population ( 8/10 miles as the crow flies a year ) means that if nothing is done about the problem in the wildlife then its not a case of if but WHEN Cheshire becomes a TB hotspot area............... all you are achieving by supporting testing road kill in areas like Cheshire is giving false hope ( tragically ) to the farmers in those areas........

    .
    The point of testing badgers in Cheshire is to provide documented results on the bTB status of Badgers in Cheshire .

    Many of us suspect we already know what the result will be , Cheshire is no longer an Edge area.?
    The TB found will also be typed (I hope) and also provide valuable samples for other work. Whoever controls bTB policy needs good information to base decisions on.
    I think testing of badgers needs to take place across large parts of the country.
    I know from past posts Vaccination of Badgers is not for you , but if the level of infection turns out to be low there just might be some point in at least trying badger vaccination in those areas.
    While I to suspect bTB is spreading through badgers as you say , some evidence to prove it would be good.

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    124

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by gone up the hill View Post
    What is the point of testing road kill in Cheshire???.......... the way TB is spreading across the country in the badger population ( 8/10 miles as the crow flies a year ) means that if nothing is done about the problem in the wildlife then its not a case of if but WHEN Cheshire becomes a TB hotspot area............... all you are achieving by supporting testing road kill in areas like Cheshire is giving false hope ( tragically ) to the farmers in those areas........

    Ssimples... you say your not a vet... so what is your connection ( jobwise ) to the UK cattle industry???..
    What is my connection (jobwise) to the UK cattle industry? I am not sure why you are asking that question but I do NOT have a connection (jobwise) to the cattle industry but I sometimes help during TB testing on a small family run farm.

    Would you like to tell me about yours and, if you have experienced TB in any cattle which you own or trade, if you have had to adjust your business to adapt to the impact of TB? Specifically I would like to know if you would have anything to lose if a structure was put in place which leads to a nationwide reduction in TB.

  11. #41

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by ssimples View Post
    What is my connection (jobwise) to the UK cattle industry? I am not sure why you are asking that question but I do NOT have a connection (jobwise) to the cattle industry but I sometimes help during TB testing on a small family run farm.

    Would you like to tell me about yours and, if you have experienced TB in any cattle which you own or trade, if you have had to adjust your business to adapt to the impact of TB? Specifically I would like to know if you would have anything to lose if a structure was put in place which leads to a nationwide reduction in TB.
    Im asking that question about your job as its easy to spend/ load costs onto someone else if your not the one paying which in this case is very true..

    If you went to any cattle market in Devon ( a TB hotspot area ) and asked the farmers if they will be happy to pay for all the TB control costs then im pretty sure 99% will give you one answer: NO...

    The government's of the UK have let this problem get out of all control the last 15/20 years so they can pay to clear up the mess they have created...

    As for me, iv been under TB2 for the last 7 years non stop ( except for the odd 6 month spell ) , lost nearly all my suckler herd to TB (90 Reactors ) in that time, extra costs of testing/ movement restrictions/ loss of in calve cows/ feeding calves when the dam has gone as a reactor etc etc etc has cost my business at least 100k ... so yea I think I know what im talking about... the industry cannot afford to pay towards TB control... if you are a suckler farmer, want to sell your calves... prmt them and one reactor/ IR then you basically wont have any income for 6 months... so how do you expect a farmer in this situation to be able to pay for TB control measures as well???!!

  12. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    124

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by gone up the hill View Post
    Im asking that question about your job as its easy to spend/ load costs onto someone else if your not the one paying which in this case is very true..

    If you went to any cattle market in Devon ( a TB hotspot area ) and asked the farmers if they will be happy to pay for all the TB control costs then im pretty sure 99% will give you one answer: NO...

    The government's of the UK have let this problem get out of all control the last 15/20 years so they can pay to clear up the mess they have created...

    As for me, iv been under TB2 for the last 7 years non stop ( except for the odd 6 month spell ) , lost nearly all my suckler herd to TB (90 Reactors ) in that time, extra costs of testing/ movement restrictions/ loss of in calve cows/ feeding calves when the dam has gone as a reactor etc etc etc has cost my business at least 100k ... so yea I think I know what im talking about... the industry cannot afford to pay towards TB control... if you are a suckler farmer, want to sell your calves... prmt them and one reactor/ IR then you basically wont have any income for 6 months... so how do you expect a farmer in this situation to be able to pay for TB control measures as well???!!
    ... by weighing up prospects of future costs in view of what DEFRA are proposing doing and what New Zealand have done and how that may, or may not, apply here.

  13. #43

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by ssimples View Post
    ... by weighing up prospects of future costs in view of what DEFRA are proposing doing and what New Zealand have done and how that may, or may not, apply here.
    So im guessing you don't actually run a business then??

  14. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    124

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by gone up the hill View Post
    Im asking that question about your job as its easy to spend/ load costs onto someone else if your not the one paying which in this case is very true..

    If you went to any cattle market in Devon ( a TB hotspot area ) and asked the farmers if they will be happy to pay for all the TB control costs then im pretty sure 99% will give you one answer: NO...

    The government's of the UK have let this problem get out of all control the last 15/20 years so they can pay to clear up the mess they have created...

    As for me, iv been under TB2 for the last 7 years non stop ( except for the odd 6 month spell ) , lost nearly all my suckler herd to TB (90 Reactors ) in that time, extra costs of testing/ movement restrictions/ loss of in calve cows/ feeding calves when the dam has gone as a reactor etc etc etc has cost my business at least 100k ... so yea I think I know what im talking about... the industry cannot afford to pay towards TB control... if you are a suckler farmer, want to sell your calves... prmt them and one reactor/ IR then you basically wont have any income for 6 months... so how do you expect a farmer in this situation to be able to pay for TB control measures as well???!!
    I am quite aware of the mess caused by failures in government policies. I referred to some of the failings in this comment which I submitted to the Farmers Guardian 2 years ago.





    I think it is a case of sussing out what measures are likely to lead to a recovery. My views on what has happened and is likely to happen in the foreseeable future is that something quite radical now needs to happen in order to turn things around.

  15. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    North Somerset
    Posts
    280

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Because of the politics involved and the influence of those who are not directly affected, policy changes be directed towards showing that the government is 'doing something' about the TB problem while not dealing with the reservoir of infection in protected wildlife.
    Looking at what the Kiwis are doing is all very well but they don't have a reservoir of infection in a protected species.
    Those affected cannot look forward to any help from the government so,logically self help is the only answer.
    As a cattle keeper I will not contribute financially to any scheme devised or operated by a civil service that is clearly more interested in Badgers than cattle or public health.
    The Badger cull in West Somerset and Gloucestershire was designed to fail by civil servants more interested in the process than the product.
    How could anyone practical devise a cull process where you know that most of your target are in one place during the hours of daylight but decide to wait until they are dispersed at night before trying to shoot them? You couldn't make it up, I bet the Kiwis don't put up with this kind of nonsense.

  16. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    124

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by topground View Post
    As a cattle keeper I will not contribute financially to any scheme devised or operated by a civil service
    Absolutely agree with that. The protected species issue is a big difference between the UK and NZ and that is why the farming industry has to get together and go on its own for anything which it really wants to achieve. The government is so hamstrung by the pro badger lobby that no reliance should be placed on them whatsoever.

    It is for this reason that I strongly suspect that unless a major catastrophe happens which forces the government's hand they will never relax the monatorium they have on Section 10(2) which would allow farmers to cull badgers. This is regardless of the case which farmers may put to them.
    Last edited by ssimples; 04-06-14 at 10:41 PM.

  17. #47
    Member AtrixMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Devon, SW
    Posts
    59

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by ssimples View Post
    In my last comment I should have asked how many of these restricted farms were closed during the complete study period and to what extent were these farms closed? Specifically, how many farms suffered these persistent and continual breakdowns and, of these, how many used artificial insemination throughout and never allowed stock to come into contact with stock from other farms? These are examples of important details which critics would search for if you were able to present your case in a report.
    I can add on as much information as you like, but that won't make it scientific proof that it works!!

    We have spoken to DEFRA about this, they were not prepared to have a trial / demonstration of our work and look at the fall in cattle TB that could be achieved, preferring to pick and choose some parts of it to see if they could be used to identify infected badger at woodchester park, there was no interest in using the reduction in cattle TB as the measure of success and this we found unacceptable.

  18. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    North Somerset
    Posts
    280

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by ssimples View Post
    Absolutely agree with that. The protected species issue is a big difference between the UK and NZ and that is why the farming industry has to get together and go on its own for anything which it really wants to achieve. The government is so hamstrung by the pro badger lobby that no reliance should be placed on them whatsoever.

    It is for this reason that I strongly suspect that unless a major catastrophe happens which forces the government's hand they will never relax the monatorium they have on Section 10(2) which would allow farmers to cull badgers. This is regardless of the case which farmers may put to them.
    My view is that the politicians hope that farmers will sort the problems out themselves by whatever means that work in their locality while hoping this doesn't lead to any bad publicity for said politicians.
    It would be hard to blame anyone who was affected by a grade three zoonosis on their land who took action to eliminate the source in order to protect their livestock and the wider public health. If fact you have to ask why there is not more of a public clamour to have this public health threat dealt with by the authorities.

  19. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    124

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by topground View Post
    My view is that the politicians hope that farmers will sort the problems out themselves by whatever means that work in their locality while hoping this doesn't lead to any bad publicity for said politicians.
    It would be hard to blame anyone who was affected by a grade three zoonosis on their land who took action to eliminate the source in order to protect their livestock and the wider public health. If fact you have to ask why there is not more of a public clamour to have this public health threat dealt with by the authorities.
    The big tragedy is that doing things on this basis will not get the industry out of the current and widening crisis. The farming industry has to start doing things collectively to stand any chance of making real progress.

  20. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,456

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by gone up the hill View Post
    Im asking that question about your job as its easy to spend/ load costs onto someone else if your not the one paying which in this case is very true..

    If you went to any cattle market in Devon ( a TB hotspot area ) and asked the farmers if they will be happy to pay for all the TB control costs then im pretty sure 99% will give you one answer: NO...

    The government's of the UK have let this problem get out of all control the last 15/20 years so they can pay to clear up the mess they have created...

    As for me, iv been under TB2 for the last 7 years non stop ( except for the odd 6 month spell ) , lost nearly all my suckler herd to TB (90 Reactors ) in that time, extra costs of testing/ movement restrictions/ loss of in calve cows/ feeding calves when the dam has gone as a reactor etc etc etc has cost my business at least 100k ... so yea I think I know what im talking about... the industry cannot afford to pay towards TB control... if you are a suckler farmer, want to sell your calves... prmt them and one reactor/ IR then you basically wont have any income for 6 months... so how do you expect a farmer in this situation to be able to pay for TB control measures as well???!!
    Calm down old boy, he's not asking you to stump up for the whole cost yourself. I'd imagine he's suggesting something along the lines of an industry wide levey of the kind that dairy farmers pay to fund the MDC. It's going to come anyway because governments don't want to carry on funding this open ended money pit indefinitely.

    Ssimples has been a constant voice of sanity and reason in the wider debate on TB outside the forum, you're attacking the wrong person if you're having a go at him.

  21. #51
    Senior Member matthew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Cornwall, SW
    Posts
    647

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by matbrojoe View Post
    Calm down old boy, he's not asking you to stump up for the whole cost yourself. I'd imagine he's suggesting something along the lines of an industry wide levey of the kind that dairy farmers pay to fund the MDC. It's going to come anyway because governments don't want to carry on funding this open ended money pit indefinitely.

    Ssimples has been a constant voice of sanity and reason in the wider debate on TB outside the forum, you're attacking the wrong person if you're having a go at him.
    I agree.

    But getting farmers to agree is - not easy.
    We need a bottom up policy to eradicate disease, driven and run by the people affected. Not top down from civil servants who leave it all behind on a friday afternoon.

  22. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    124

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by matthew View Post
    I agree.

    But getting farmers to agree is - not easy.
    We need a bottom up policy to eradicate disease, driven and run by the people affected. Not top down from civil servants who leave it all behind on a friday afternoon.
    I think it would be worth examining how the New Zealand system was set up and run. I think we need to know what the differences are between their management structures and what we have set up in the past without success. In terms of top-level composition, according to correspondence with the program manager dated 2009, all 6 directors of the Animal Health Board were either farmers or had farming connections.

  23. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    North Somerset
    Posts
    280

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by ssimples View Post
    I think it would be worth examining how the New Zealand system was set up and run. I think we need to know what the differences are between their management structures and what we have set up in the past without success. In terms of top-level composition, according to correspondence with the program manager dated 2009, all 6 directors of the Animal Health Board were either farmers or had farming connections.
    Sorry but all this would do would be to play into the hands of those who seek to use bureaucracy to prevent the root cause of the problem , infected wildlife, being dealt with.
    Setting up management structures without knowing what you will manage sounds typical civil service mentality to me, all process and no product and in this case at Farmers expense.
    Now if there was a plan on how to eradicate infected wildlife reservoirs agreed and in place, I would agree with you that there might be merit in looking at how others put the plan into action to deliver the product, infection free wildlife and domestic livestock and pets and ultimately humans.
    Without a plan in place about how to eradicate infection in wildlife there is no point Farmers doing anything other than self help, otherwise the buck will be shifted by government whereby the responsibility for disease control lies with the farmer but the farmer has no tools available to control that disease.

  24. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    South Staffs
    Posts
    606

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by topground View Post
    If fact you have to ask why there is not more of a public clamour to have this public health threat dealt with by the authorities.
    It isn't perceived as a public health threat. All milk is pasteurised, don't you know

    and sites like this are believed by the public - http://www.badgerland.co.uk/animals/faq.html

    Can I get TB from a badger?

    In normal circumstances, the chances are vanishingly small. Generally it is accepted that the only badgers with TB live in the South-West of England; and only a proportion of those are infected.

    Also, TB is basically a respiratory disease, so the most likely possible infection route is breathing in air or particles breathed or coughed out by an infected badger.


    However:
    If you feed badgers and you handle any dishes they have used be very careful with personal hygiene. You won't know whether a badger has TB, and there may be a vanishingly small chance that the TB infection could be passed from a dish used by a badger to you if you handle the dish afterwards. Obviously, avoid washing the badgers dish with your own food dishes.
    In the "wild", of course, badgers don't use dishes, so there is generally no actual need to give them a dish of food. However, many people do use dishes because it either helps keep their patio cleaner or it's just so brilliantly funny watching a badger eating moist spaghetti out of a metal dish!
    Last edited by Joyce; 05-06-14 at 12:58 PM.

  25. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    124

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by topground View Post
    Sorry but all this would do would be to play into the hands of those who seek to use bureaucracy to prevent the root cause of the problem , infected wildlife, being dealt with.
    Setting up management structures without knowing what you will manage sounds typical civil service mentality to me, all process and no product and in this case at Farmers expense.
    Now if there was a plan on how to eradicate infected wildlife reservoirs agreed and in place, I would agree with you that there might be merit in looking at how others put the plan into action to deliver the product, infection free wildlife and domestic livestock and pets and ultimately humans.
    Without a plan in place about how to eradicate infection in wildlife there is no point Farmers doing anything other than self help, otherwise the buck will be shifted by government whereby the responsibility for disease control lies with the farmer but the farmer has no tools available to control that disease.
    There needs to be clear and well defined objectives and these will change over time as circumstances change. I think the first objective will need to be to change public perception of what TB is doing not only to cattle but also to badgers. This is necessary because work which will support efforts to reduce TB with best prospects has largely stopped.

    Regarding the governments 25 year strategy, the strategy says the aim is to eradicate TB but has not given any plausible explanation of how we are going to achieve that aim. Look at the graph below to see the proportion of control which DEFRA expects to be achieved through wildlife control. How can the vast majority of TB control be achieved through measures other than wildlife control in view of the profound and lasting impact wildlife control had on TB at Thornbury? The graph below implies that DEFRA are basing the size of the wildlife contribution on the findings from the RBCT where culling was partial.

    My views on how to proceed from here is to identify blockers and levers in order to suss out the best way of freeing this gridlock. I think the biggest current blocker in the current system is a misinformed public who are putting enormous pressure on ministers who in turn are responsible for how money in the public purse is spent. As such ministers have control over what strategies are pursued by TB teams in administrations. See the turn around the election of Alun Davies caused to the Welsh strategy. Ministers also control what work is pursued in universities and this has to have some bearing on the emphasis given when such work is written up.

    I may be naive in what I am about to say but maybe a possible lever is the EU who in a report dated 2012 said that UK politicians must accept their responsibility to their own farmers and taxpayers as well as to the rest of the EU and commit to a long-term strategy that is not dependent on elections. I guess the EU as a whole has got a stake in how well the UK cattle industry fairs but I am struggling to identify how that could be used as a lever. Perhaps I am missing something here.

    However I can identify positive steps which will help free the deadlock and these are as follows. (a) Change the widely held view that badgers do not significantly suffer from TB, (b) establish that when population density reduces when density is above a certain threshold, TB in that population will also reduce, and last and probably the most important (c) develop a humane and effective way of culling badgers by looking at all options. The farming industry could fund work which is looking into these areas. The results of such work would have no impact on the views of extremists but such work could have a large impact on the majority of the voting public who ministers represent.
    Last edited by ssimples; 05-06-14 at 04:40 PM.

  26. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    South Staffs
    Posts
    606

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Need to change the view that Tuberculosis is a cattle-only problem and that cattle are infecting each other and all other species which are being [occasionally] diagnosed.
    It would be more than interesting if, say, teenagers were all skin tested as used to be done in schools.

  27. #57
    Senior Member matthew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Cornwall, SW
    Posts
    647

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by ssimples View Post
    There needs to be clear and well defined objectives and these will change over time as circumstances change. I think the first objective will need to be to change public perception of what TB is doing not only to cattle but also to badgers. This is necessary because work which will support efforts to reduce TB with best prospects has largely stopped.

    Regarding the governments 25 year strategy, this is a joke. It says the aim is to eradicate TB but has not given any plausible explanation of how we are going to get there. Look at the graph below to see the proportion of control which DEFRA expects to be achieved through wildlife control. How can the vast majority of TB control be achieved through measures other than wildlife control in view of Thornbury? Thornbury had a profound and lasting impact on TB. Compare TB levels in the Thornbury area with those in the whole of the South West during the last 35 years.

    My views on how to proceed from here is to identify blockers and levers in order to suss out the best way of freeing this gridlock. I think the biggest current blocker in the current system is a misinformed public who are putting enormous pressure on ministers who in turn are responsible for how money in the public purse is spent. As such ministers have control over what strategies are pursued by TB teams in administrations. See the turn around the election of Alun Davies caused to the Welsh strategy. Ministers also control what work is pursued in universities and this has to have some bearing on the emphasis given when such work is written up.

    I may be naive in what I am about to say but maybe a possible lever is the EU who in a report dated 2012 said that UK politicians must accept their responsibility to their own farmers and taxpayers as well as to the rest of the EU and commit to a long-term strategy that is not dependent on elections. I guess the EU as a whole has got a stake in how well the UK cattle industry fairs but I am struggling to identify how that could be used as a lever. Perhaps I am missing something here.

    However I can identify positive steps which will help free the deadlock and these are as follows. (a) Change the widely held view that badgers do not significantly suffer from TB, (b) establish that when population density reduces when density is above a certain threshold, TB in that population will also reduce, and last and probably the most important (c) develop a humane and effective way of culling badgers by looking at all options. The farming industry could fund work which is looking into these areas. The results of such work would have no impact on the views of extremists but such work could have a large impact on the majority of the voting public who ministers represent.
    That theoretical graph is a damned disgrace.
    No wonder we're in a pickle.
    Vaccinate all the badgers? job done then.

    http://bovinetb.blogspot.co.uk/2013/...n-5-years.html

    They actually believe their own guff, too.

    The PR machine (for badgers, if not their welfare) fueled by the May Queen, RSPCA and Badger Trusts' lobbying skills is way ahead of us. We kill cattle anyway, so earlier or later, what's the difference? They say that quite openly.
    As most have never seen a live badger except on C/File, leave alone a manky half dead specimen, all can have an opinion which they will voice at every opportunity.
    We have a lot of catching up to do, not least with the long term danger to domestic pets and companion mammals, and thus to owners. And the biggest block to that information is Defra itself.

    http://bovinetb.blogspot.co.uk/2013/...or-george.html

    Those were the figures for 2012.
    We await those for 2013, with eager anticipation.........

  28. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    124

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by matthew View Post
    That theoretical graph is a damned disgrace.
    No wonder we're in a pickle.
    Vaccinate all the badgers? job done then.

    http://bovinetb.blogspot.co.uk/2013/...n-5-years.html

    They actually believe their own guff, too.

    The PR machine (for badgers, if not their welfare) fueled by the May Queen, RSPCA and Badger Trusts' lobbying skills is way ahead of us. We kill cattle anyway, so earlier or later, what's the difference? They say that quite openly.
    As most have never seen a live badger except on C/File, leave alone a manky half dead specimen, all can have an opinion which they will voice at every opportunity.
    We have a lot of catching up to do, not least with the long term danger to domestic pets and companion mammals, and thus to owners. And the biggest block to that information is Defra itself.

    http://bovinetb.blogspot.co.uk/2013/...or-george.html

    Those were the figures for 2012.
    We await those for 2013, with eager anticipation.........
    The graph and DEFRA's lack of reference to Thornbury implies to me that they are basing the size of the wildlife element on the findings of the RBCT. Regardless of whether or not the Thornbury method can be used today, the Thornbury exercise should be taken into account because it provides evidence of what can be achieved in a badly affected area after removing the badger element. This was back in the 70's. In view of the partial culling carried out during the RBCT, the RBCT did not provide this information.

    How big is the badger element today in HRA's?

  29. #59
    Senior Member matthew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Cornwall, SW
    Posts
    647

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by ssimples View Post
    The graph and DEFRA's lack of reference to Thornbury implies to me that they are basing the size of the wildlife element on the findings of the RBCT. Regardless of whether or not the Thornbury method can be used today, the Thornbury exercise should be taken into account because it provides evidence of what can be achieved in a badly affected area after removing the badger element. This was back in the 70's. In view of the partial culling carried out during the RBCT, the RBCT did not provide this information.

    How big is the badger element today in HRA's?
    Risk assessments done on new breakdowns by AHVLA, exclude everything but badgers in up to 90 per cent of cases in Devon / Cornwall (2004)
    Green et al, (2008) put the figure of breakdowns attributed to cattle at 16%.

    The RBCT had the same figures, chose not to use them and attributed 33% of new breakdowns to badgers. (Final Report 7:24, p 148)

    So in the HRAs no amount of bio garbage, non sharing of equipment or not buying cattle will help the situation if cattle are to graze outside. Keep them in a hermetically sealed box and you may get clear - provided Mr. Brock doesn't dig, climb or slither his way in to either the cattle or their feed sources..

  30. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Gloucestershire
    Posts
    223

    Re: Would it be in farmers interests to pay for TB control?

    Quote Originally Posted by matbrojoe View Post
    Calm down old boy, he's not asking you to stump up for the whole cost yourself. I'd imagine he's suggesting something along the lines of an industry wide levey of the kind that dairy farmers pay to fund the MDC. It's going to come anyway because governments don't want to carry on funding this open ended money pit indefinitely.

    Ssimples has been a constant voice of sanity and reason in the wider debate on TB outside the forum, you're attacking the wrong person if you're having a go at him.



    I too agree most strongly . Ssimples is your friend not your enemy !
    loose does not rhyme with choose but lose does and is the word you meant to write

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •