Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 194

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

  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    124

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

    Thank you for your support Arf. This is much appreciated.

    I give my views on what a £1 levy on each bovine in the UK could achieve in the following link.

    http://www.bovinetb.info/index.php#levy

    See the top 3 sections which appear after the above link is clicked starting with the section titled "In 2013/14, DEFRA budgeted £61.3k for work on badger culling methods".

    I have also tweeted these sections at https://twitter.com/bovinetb/statuse...84612048674816)

  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    147

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

    New Environment Secretary says badgers won't be gassed

    http://www.itv.com/news/west/update/...ont-be-gassed/

  3. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by FarmerP View Post
    New Environment Secretary says badgers won't be gassed

    http://www.itv.com/news/west/update/...ont-be-gassed/
    Was surprised to see Truss saying gassing will not be used when they have spent £61 ,397 since August 2013 working on alternative culling methods. See link below.

    http://www.bovinetb.info/docs/gassing-trials.pdf

    Perhaps they have now stopped working on gassing and are spending money on developing ability to use another method. Methods which spring to my mind are

    free shooting
    body restraints (snares)
    cage trapping

    Except for contraception, I wonder if there is any other method now on the table.

  4. #64
    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
    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.
    Comparing the protection 'endangered' badgers receive, with for example the Rare Breeds system which allows a breed to move up or down their protection scale according to numbers, may be a start.

    I'm just floating an idea here, but two studies of badger population densities have been done and published, recording respectively a 77 per cent and 100 per cent increase. You could argue that as an apex predator, badgers have been a victim of their protectors' success. They are neither 'rare' not 'endangered'.

    Without the stranglehold of that 'endangered' label and with a deft rewording of Bern Convention control methods, many things are possible. e.g 'Snares' are banned as a culling method by Bern, so the Irish invented 'leg restraints'.
    Ms. Truss has said 'No' to 'gassing' - but what about 'underground anaesthesia'?

    The product is important, as in a non lethal dose it should not maim. Carbon monoxide does not fulfill that criteria, but Carbon dioxide does. It is licensed as an anaesthetic gas for animal euthanasia, but also used as a recreational gas by aging rock stars to simulate theatrical fog. Which could explain quite a lot....

    Having been shafted twice by civil service groupings on badger control, I am very wary of any levy proposals. This 'green blob' as Owen described the claque of AR activists who control his department, have no intention of relinquishing their milch cow.

  5. #65
    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
    Comparing the protection 'endangered' badgers receive, with for example the Rare Breeds system which allows a breed to move up or down their protection scale according to numbers, may be a start.

    I'm just floating an idea here, but two studies of badger population densities have been done and published, recording respectively a 77 per cent and 100 per cent increase. You could argue that as an apex predator, badgers have been a victim of their protectors' success. They are neither 'rare' not 'endangered'.

    Without the stranglehold of that 'endangered' label and with a deft rewording of Bern Convention control methods, many things are possible. e.g 'Snares' are banned as a culling method by Bern, so the Irish invented 'leg restraints'.
    Ms. Truss has said 'No' to 'gassing' - but what about 'underground anaesthesia'?

    The product is important, as in a non lethal dose it should not maim. Carbon monoxide does not fulfill that criteria, but Carbon dioxide does. It is licensed as an anaesthetic gas for animal euthanasia, but also used as a recreational gas by aging rock stars to simulate theatrical fog. Which could explain quite a lot....

    Having been shafted twice by civil service groupings on badger control, I am very wary of any levy proposals. This 'green blob' as Owen described the claque of AR activists who control his department, have no intention of relinquishing their milch cow.
    I think you make a very fair point about gas type/anaesthetics and body restraints.

    Regarding the levy I am currently looking into the AHDB levy system and the processes which farmers need to follow in order to steer the work which they are funding. I hope to be able to look into this closely with the aim of gaining a view of what is needed for bovine TB control.

  6. #66
    Senior Member Bald Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Anglesey
    Posts
    1,010

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

    Had a very interesting conversation with my vet who leads a large practice. He was of the opinion that TB is being blown out of all proportion in relation to human hazard & that W country vets have a vested interest in keeping the testing regime going as they are funding a large proportion of their practices' from TB testing.
    He thought that there was no way that the reservoir in the wild population could be control effectively and that ultimately it would find its own level. It would therefore be up to individual farmers to either attempt their own methods of stopping TB spreading in their herds or getting out of cattle all together.

    Potentially highly controversial but there is sense in there.

  7. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bald Rick View Post
    Had a very interesting conversation with my vet who leads a large practice. He was of the opinion that TB is being blown out of all proportion in relation to human hazard & that W country vets have a vested interest in keeping the testing regime going as they are funding a large proportion of their practices' from TB testing.
    He thought that there was no way that the reservoir in the wild population could be control effectively and that ultimately it would find its own level. It would therefore be up to individual farmers to either attempt their own methods of stopping TB spreading in their herds or getting out of cattle all together.

    Potentially highly controversial but there is sense in there.
    It is possible that Gloucestershire, Devon and Hereford Worcester may have already reached saturation point. The following graph which shows levels since 2008 suggests that this may be the case. However there is a lot of counties in the West which have some way to go and cattle dense counties such as N Yorks, Lancashire and Cumbria have got it all to come.



    The following map also shows that Anglesey had very little TB up until 2010 (at least) even though it had high cattle movements just after Foot and Mouth in 2002.


  8. #68
    Senior Member Bald Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Anglesey
    Posts
    1,010

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

    I personally have nothing but complete sympathy for everyone who tries to farm within any of the hotspots.

    HOWEVER, the vet's point was that Government may decide that it cannot justify ever increasing sums of money in testing & compensation in the future as the disease can be controlled in the human population through pasteurisation and direct inoculation. Ultimately, bovine vaccination may be one solution although there are question marks about its efficacy.

  9. #69
    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 Bald Rick View Post
    I personally have nothing but complete sympathy for everyone who tries to farm within any of the hotspots.

    HOWEVER, the vet's point was that Government may decide that it cannot justify ever increasing sums of money in testing & compensation in the future as the disease can be controlled in the human population through pasteurisation and direct inoculation. Ultimately, bovine vaccination may be one solution although there are question marks about its efficacy.
    And your vet is in practise on Anglesey, I presume?

    m.bovis, as carried by Mr. Brock does not just affect cattle. We find it there because we look. Many sheep flocks are now affected, as well as deer, goat and pig herds. But more worryingly are the reported incidents of upspill into domestic pets and companion mammals. And they are increasing exponentially, despite Defra's valiant attempts to 'manage' the statistics.
    By how much, see here:
    http://bovinetb.blogspot.co.uk/2013/...or-george.html

    Through direct contact with their pets, several people have now contracted TB. And that is the reason we are signed up to international statute to control this grade 3 zoonotic pathogen. It's no longer a 'bovine' problem - if after the eradication sweep of the 1960s, it ever was.

  10. #70
    Senior Member Bald Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Anglesey
    Posts
    1,010

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

    Quote Originally Posted by matthew View Post
    And your vet is in practise on Anglesey, I presume?

    m.bovis, as carried by Mr. Brock does not just affect cattle. We find it there because we look. Many sheep flocks are now affected, as well as deer, goat and pig herds. But more worryingly are the reported incidents of upspill into domestic pets and companion mammals. And they are increasing exponentially, despite Defra's valiant attempts to 'manage' the statistics.
    By how much, see here:
    http://bovinetb.blogspot.co.uk/2013/...or-george.html

    Through direct contact with their pets, several people have now contracted TB. And that is the reason we are signed up to international statute to control this grade 3 zoonotic pathogen. It's no longer a 'bovine' problem - if after the eradication sweep of the 1960s, it ever was.
    No only ......... covers N Wales. We signed up to Kyoto too and look where "greening" & Climate Change is/has got us. Governments have a nasty habit of U turning. As I said, I have nothing but sympathy for you all caught in the middle of this.

  11. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ssimples View Post
    I think you make a very fair point about gas type/anaesthetics and body restraints.

    Regarding the levy I am currently looking into the AHDB levy system and the processes which farmers need to follow in order to steer the work which they are funding. I hope to be able to look into this closely with the aim of gaining a view of what is needed for bovine TB control.
    The following outlines what I think is needed to control TB in the UK.

    Broadly three things need to happen in the UK and these are as follows.

    Firstly, I think it is inevitable that farmers will need to contribute a greater share of the finance. It will be impossible for farmers to steer the programme if they do not finance it. However cattle farmers are already paying a substantial levy each year. The forecasted levy income from cattle farmers for 2014/15 to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) is about £22 million. This represents the fund submitted by cattle farmers. Of this, a paltry £36,000 is being used to control TB. This is for a long term, partly public-funded project (genetic resistance of cattle to TB) which will be of no, or very little, benefit to the current generation of farmers who are paying the levy. This situation does not make any sense. TB is currently one of the biggest problems facing the cattle industry. Why are so little funds being channelled into addressing TB and why is the existing program of so little relevance to the farmers who are funding it? Apparently, this TB program was discussed with the NFU, The Bovine TB Eradication Advisory Group and DairyUK. The TB program needs to be "accountable to" rather than just "discussed with" farmers.

    Secondly, a dedicated and accountable team needs to be set up which is solely responsibility for reducing TB. There is already a Bovine TB Eradication Advisory Group for England (TBEAG) but the job of this group is to advise ministers. A group needs to be set up which is independent of government in terms of legislation. The Animal Health Board in New Zealand became an independent legal body in 1989. The new group should report to farmers, set targets, and be responsible for hitting these targets. It should be responsible for monitoring, reporting and reviewing progress, and be accountable in terms of how funds are spent and how targets are met.

    Thirdly, the government's intent must change. Currently much effort goes into pacifying and mollifying the general public. Effort needs to be redirected into actually looking at ways of reducing TB for today's generation of farmers. In order for programmes aimed at developing cost-effective and practical means of controlling TB to come to fruition, the government will need to play a role in setting up frameworks to allow things to happen. For example the government will firstly need to play a pivotal role to set up a farmer-funded TB team. The government will also need to implement a framework which will make it easier to roll out a badger control programme.

    I think the catalyst for change will be when farmers pay the major share and a dedicated TB team is set up. The first of these moves will need to be
    initiated by government and the government will need to be party to the second, so the solution lies with the government. The farming industry will only be able to take responsibility when circumstances allow.
    Last edited by ssimples; 13-08-14 at 12:03 AM.

  12. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    124

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

    In July 2012 John Cross was tasked with drafting a New 25 year Strategy for the Eradication of Bovine Tuberculosis in England.

    http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/john-cross-frags/62/1a1/92b

    John runs a mixed arable and livestock family farm business in North-West Norfolk producing cereals, oilseeds, sugar beet, proteins and potatoes, cattle and sheep. He has also worked in the red meat industry for more than 20 years. He is Chair of EBLEX and Chair of the TB Eradication Advisory Group for England (TBEAG).

    http://www.ahdb.org.uk/news/biogs.aspx

  13. #73
    Senior Member skoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ruthin ,Denbighshire,N Wales
    Posts
    1,063

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

    Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.

  14. #74
    Senior Member Henarar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    zumerzet
    Posts
    341

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bald Rick View Post
    Had a very interesting conversation with my vet who leads a large practice. He was of the opinion that TB is being blown out of all proportion in relation to human hazard & that W country vets have a vested interest in keeping the testing regime going as they are funding a large proportion of their practices' from TB testing.
    He thought that there was no way that the reservoir in the wild population could be control effectively and that ultimately it would find its own level. It would therefore be up to individual farmers to either attempt their own methods of stopping TB spreading in their herds or getting out of cattle all together.

    Potentially highly controversial but there is sense in there.
    Farmers can and do attempt there own methods of stopping TB spreading to their herds,Its not controversial its common sense
    Never was a problem that made so expensive and difficult to fix for no good reason

  15. #75
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    South Staffs
    Posts
    606

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

    Government lifts badger super-protection - no-one parts with any money and job will be done.



    http://bovinetb.blogspot.co.uk/2013/...sultation.html

    snip
    The cynical amongst us will also observe a pattern here. In fact with the benefit of hindsight, one could say, shaft me once, shame on you. Shaft me twice, shame on me.

    Alternatively, all cattle farmers could apply for charitable status - as 'Badger Sanctuaries'.

  16. #76
    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?

    Without the loosening of the ultimate protection enjoyed by this animal, a responsibility government has enshrined in law but refuses to operate, no matter who pays, eradication is a non starter.

    http://bovinetb.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/what-now.html

  17. #77
    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
    Without the loosening of the ultimate protection enjoyed by this animal, a responsibility government has enshrined in law but refuses to operate, no matter who pays, eradication is a non starter.

    http://bovinetb.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/what-now.html
    But gaining control through funding the work will at least put farmers on the road to recover. At the moment there is no hope.

    Why do people talk of eradication? This expression has no meaning. Gaining TBFree status on the other hand is realistic and has meaning.

    Regarding funding, farmers may not be given choice but if they are, I think they should either do nothing or pay the major share. Paying more but not achieving major share will just cause pain with no gain.


    It is important to reflect on what pushes policy & to be able to think ahead. I think farmers either need to accept and adapt to worsening TB, or take the plunge. If government forces farmers to pay more but not pay the major share that will be extremely annoying and totally unfair. If however farmers are given the opportunity, reaching major share is likely to be more painful than it was for farmers in NZ. In NZ TB reached max of 0.07% reactors. Here in England it is 0.5%+. As TB spreads, the price will go up. England spends about £100m each year on TB. In 2013 there were 5.4 million cattle & calves in England. If 55% is the share target, £10 per bovine will need to be found each year by every farmer in England. This assumes no levy collection cost and no cost trimmings.


    This is a very simplistic way of looking at levy cost. AHDB calculate levy per litre for milk producers and per head for beef producers. Cost of collecting the levy ranges from about 0.5 to 2.5% of the amount collected. Cattle farmers (dairy,beef & lamb) are forecasted to submit about £22m in 2014/15 to the AHDB of which only £36k will be spent on TB research and this is to go into genetic resistance of cattle. This to me is not very inspiring and in fact I find this worrying! According to current published AHDB levy rates, beef producers currently pay about £4 per head whatever this means. Cattle farmers would have to pay £10 per bovine (all cattle & calves) if they were to take on 55% of the costs to control TB (Costs here mean test, compensation, research, admin costs - everything)

  18. #78
    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
    But gaining control through funding the work will at least put farmers on the road to recover. At the moment there is no hope.

    Why do people talk of eradication? This expression has no meaning. Gaining TBFree status on the other hand is realistic and has meaning.

    Regarding funding, farmers may not be given choice but if they are, I think they should either do nothing or pay the major share. Paying more but not achieving major share will just cause pain with no gain.


    It is important to reflect on what pushes policy & to be able to think ahead. I think farmers either need to accept and adapt to worsening TB, or take the plunge. If government forces farmers to pay more but not pay the major share that will be extremely annoying and totally unfair. If however farmers are given the opportunity, reaching major share is likely to be more painful than it was for farmers in NZ. In NZ TB reached max of 0.07% reactors. Here in England it is 0.5%+. As TB spreads, the price will go up. England spends about £100m each year on TB. In 2013 there were 5.4 million cattle & calves in England. If 55% is the share target, £10 per bovine will need to be found each year by every farmer in England. This assumes no levy collection cost and no cost trimmings.


    This is a very simplistic way of looking at levy cost. AHDB calculate levy per litre for milk producers and per head for beef producers. Cost of collecting the levy ranges from about 0.5 to 2.5% of the amount collected. Cattle farmers (dairy,beef & lamb) are forecasted to submit about £22m in 2014/15 to the AHDB of which only £36k will be spent on TB research and this is to go into genetic resistance of cattle. This to me is not very inspiring and in fact I find this worrying! According to current published AHDB levy rates, beef producers currently pay about £4 per head whatever this means. Cattle farmers would have to pay £10 per bovine (all cattle & calves) if they were to take on 55% of the costs to control TB (Costs here mean test, compensation, research, admin costs - everything)
    I don't think England can go this alone. Badgers don't recognise borders, and neither do other susceptible animals hedge hopping Offas' Dyke or Hadrian's wall. The 9.8 million cattle in GB would lower costs enormously.

    I don't disagree with your concept, just saying that the vice like grip government and its agencies have on this animal's protection is our biggest hurdle. And the pseudo research paid for by levies already collected from us, reflects this.

  19. #79

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ssimples View Post
    But gaining control through funding the work will at least put farmers on the road to recover. At the moment there is no hope.

    Why do people talk of eradication? This expression has no meaning. Gaining TBFree status on the other hand is realistic and has meaning.

    Regarding funding, farmers may not be given choice but if they are, I think they should either do nothing or pay the major share. Paying more but not achieving major share will just cause pain with no gain.


    It is important to reflect on what pushes policy & to be able to think ahead. I think farmers either need to accept and adapt to worsening TB, or take the plunge. If government forces farmers to pay more but not pay the major share that will be extremely annoying and totally unfair. If however farmers are given the opportunity, reaching major share is likely to be more painful than it was for farmers in NZ. In NZ TB reached max of 0.07% reactors. Here in England it is 0.5%+. As TB spreads, the price will go up. England spends about £100m each year on TB. In 2013 there were 5.4 million cattle & calves in England. If 55% is the share target, £10 per bovine will need to be found each year by every farmer in England. This assumes no levy collection cost and no cost trimmings.


    This is a very simplistic way of looking at levy cost. AHDB calculate levy per litre for milk producers and per head for beef producers. Cost of collecting the levy ranges from about 0.5 to 2.5% of the amount collected. Cattle farmers (dairy,beef & lamb) are forecasted to submit about £22m in 2014/15 to the AHDB of which only £36k will be spent on TB research and this is to go into genetic resistance of cattle. This to me is not very inspiring and in fact I find this worrying! According to current published AHDB levy rates, beef producers currently pay about £4 per head whatever this means. Cattle farmers would have to pay £10 per bovine (all cattle & calves) if they were to take on 55% of the costs to control TB (Costs here mean test, compensation, research, admin costs - everything)

    £10/ head for every bovine animal on the farm.... totally un-realistic and un-affordable to UK cattle farmers so FORGET suggesting/ pushing for this approach!! wouldn't be so bad but your not a cattle farmer so hence are happy to be pushing for farmers to pay more as you are not a cattle farmer so thus will not be personally putting your hand in your OWN pocket and being forced to pay this levy... simple answer is for landholders with a holding number being granted a licence to remove infected/ ill badgers on their own land..................... what you are suggesting is just not workable and all you will end up doing is making farmers pay for the tb situation without having ANY more say in badger/ wildlife controls.....

  20. #80
    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
    £10/ head for every bovine animal on the farm.... totally un-realistic and un-affordable to UK cattle farmers so FORGET suggesting/ pushing for this approach!! wouldn't be so bad but your not a cattle farmer so hence are happy to be pushing for farmers to pay more as you are not a cattle farmer so thus will not be personally putting your hand in your OWN pocket and being forced to pay this levy... simple answer is for landholders with a holding number being granted a licence to remove infected/ ill badgers on their own land..................... what you are suggesting is just not workable and all you will end up doing is making farmers pay for the tb situation without having ANY more say in badger/ wildlife controls.....
    Good luck then.

  21. #81
    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
    Good luck then.
    Have you got a 'solution' to government interference as here, because I don't believe whatever farmers pay, the gov will allow the huge cull that is necessary. They'll all lose their jobs!

    http://bovinetb.blogspot.co.uk/2013/...sultation.html

    snip
    The cynical amongst us will also observe a pattern here. In fact with the benefit of hindsight, one could say, shaft me once, shame on you. Shaft me twice, shame on me.

  22. #82
    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
    Have you got a 'solution' to government interference as here, because I don't believe whatever farmers pay, the gov will allow the huge cull that is necessary. They'll all lose their jobs!

    http://bovinetb.blogspot.co.uk/2013/...sultation.html

    snip
    The cynical amongst us will also observe a pattern here. In fact with the benefit of hindsight, one could say, shaft me once, shame on you. Shaft me twice, shame on me.
    Wales may be looking to make the situation easier for themselves by carrying out a national survey of the extent to which badgers are infected with TB.

    [START OF EXTRACT]
    Audience members also heard details of a survey due to begin testing dead badgers for TB.
    Prof Glossop said: “That will take place across the whole of Wales, giving us a better understanding of the disease picture in badgers.
    “We are testing our cattle for TB what we aren’t doing is testing our badgers, so that’s the next stage, building up the evidence base because we all have opinions but not hard facts.”
    [END OF EXTRACT]

    http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wa...orking-7495767

  23. #83
    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
    Wales may be looking to make the situation easier for themselves by carrying out a national survey of the extent to which badgers are infected with TB.

    [START OF EXTRACT]
    Audience members also heard details of a survey due to begin testing dead badgers for TB.
    Prof Glossop said: “That will take place across the whole of Wales, giving us a better understanding of the disease picture in badgers.
    “We are testing our cattle for TB what we aren’t doing is testing our badgers, so that’s the next stage, building up the evidence base because we all have opinions but not hard facts.”
    [END OF EXTRACT]

    http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wa...orking-7495767
    They already know in England.

    IN 2008, FERA discarded 43 per cent of the 844 badgers trapped in Glos. prior to their vaccine 'trial' as they were positive to blood assays or culture or all three screening tests. Chambers (lead author) confirmed that level of infection was 'typical in areas of endemic TB'.

    In some areas it is higher - over 50 per cent. And 17 years ago, during the last decade of badger culling in response to cattle breakdowns, the highest recorded level (by pm on dead badgers associated with cattle breakdowns) was over 70 per cent infected. That was in the area covered by Broadway, Worcs.

    The information is there, it just needs updating.

  24. #84
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Lawrenny, Pembrokeshire
    Posts
    67

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

    Quote Originally Posted by matthew View Post
    They already know in England.

    IN 2008, FERA discarded 43 per cent of the 844 badgers trapped in Glos. prior to their vaccine 'trial' as they were positive to blood assays or culture or all three screening tests. Chambers (lead author) confirmed that level of infection was 'typical in areas of endemic TB'.

    In some areas it is higher - over 50 per cent. And 17 years ago, during the last decade of badger culling in response to cattle breakdowns, the highest recorded level (by pm on dead badgers associated with cattle breakdowns) was over 70 per cent infected. That was in the area covered by Broadway, Worcs.

    The information is there, it just needs updating.


    I had a badger get itself trapped in an old chook feed bin at my parents' house the other day so i thought.. ideal opportunity to see if the poor devil has any zoonoses i might like to know about given that i have children and dogs and a B&B... I rang AHVLA and the duty vet advised me that the NA were thinking about possibly bringing in road side testing in the next couple of years but as yet have no testing regime for random badgers... this in the same week that i had another cow taken as a reactor... Any case for treatment of ANY nature requires an understanding of what disease levels there are out there.. so this testing really needs to be taken seriously...

  25. #85
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForegoneConclusionII View Post
    I had a badger get itself trapped in an old chook feed bin at my parents' house the other day so i thought.. ideal opportunity to see if the poor devil has any zoonoses i might like to know about given that i have children and dogs and a B&B... I rang AHVLA and the duty vet advised me that the NA were thinking about possibly bringing in road side testing in the next couple of years but as yet have no testing regime for random badgers... this in the same week that i had another cow taken as a reactor... Any case for treatment of ANY nature requires an understanding of what disease levels there are out there.. so this testing really needs to be taken seriously...

    I hope Wales are actually planning rather than just thinking about testing RTA badgers and that they do not take as long as 2 years to start doing it. An extract of what Prof Glossop said is shown below.


    START OF EXTRACT
    Audience members also heard details of a survey due to begin testing dead badgers for TB.


    Prof Glossop said: “That will take place across the whole of Wales, giving us a better understanding of the disease picture in badgers.
    END OF EXTRACT

  26. #86
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    124

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

    Regarding costs of culling and what spend may be needed to see TB levels reduce, England & Wales may need to spend about £1 per bovine (£6.5m).

    DEFRA currently spend about £5m on cattle & badger vaccination R&D each year.

    http://www.bovinetb.info/spend-on-culling.php

  27. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    235

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

    I read an interesting article the other day that said the NFU advised the government not to carry on with the badger cull, not the other way around. it also said the NFU has a huge say in the farming policy of most governments and just makes out it doesn't agree with them most of the time, when it in fact does. This article also alleged they are basically drawing up the governments policies for them.
    also the vaccine needs to be injected every year to work, not just a one off.

  28. #88
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by banjo View Post
    I read an interesting article the other day that said the NFU advised the government not to carry on with the badger cull, not the other way around. it also said the NFU has a huge say in the farming policy of most governments and just makes out it doesn't agree with them most of the time, when it in fact does. This article also alleged they are basically drawing up the governments policies for them.
    also the vaccine needs to be injected every year to work, not just a one off.
    For any administration in which the ratio of the number of voting public to the number of farmers is very large (as it is in England), farmers would have very little say on farming policy. Ministerial policy has to be driven by the wishes of those who are funding the work. This is because ministers are responsible for how money in the public purse is allocated and ministers are dependent on support from the voting public to retain their power. As such saying that the NFU basically draws up government policy is plain mischievous and misleading rubbish which many anti-badger cull campaigners try hard to promote.

    This ministerial strangle-hold on TB policy in the UK is responsible for why the UK is now in such a mess over bovine TB.

  29. #89
    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
    For any administration in which the ratio of the number of voting public to the number of farmers is very large (as it is in England), farmers would have very little say on farming policy. Ministerial policy has to be driven by the wishes of those who are funding the work. This is because ministers are responsible for how money in the public purse is allocated and ministers are dependent on support from the voting public to retain their power. As such saying that the NFU basically draws up government policy is plain mischievous and misleading rubbish which many anti-badger cull campaigners try hard to promote.

    This ministerial strangle-hold on TB policy in the UK is responsible for why the UK is now in such a mess over bovine TB.
    Would agree with that, but substitute Defra, AHVLA, NE and EA instead of a mouthpiece 'Yes minister' : a position which, unlike the former listed, changes regularly.

    Combine that with the need for universities to obtain funding doing 'research', much of which is now a lightweight predicted repeat, instead of salaried scientists who were above such manipulation, and 'we' are in a considerable mess.

  30. #90
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    South Staffs
    Posts
    606

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

    ............. and then you've got these:

    http://www.hiwwt.org.uk/news/2014/08...ion-government


    and these - quote "The longer the decision takes the longer we have to prepare, so in no rush for a decision, we will be ready whatever is decided.... "

    https://www.facebook.com/GlosABS

Posting Permissions

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