Badger cull, would you avoid Welsh produce

[Deerhunter]

Originally Posted by Roaring Mouse

Thanks Brains you have hit one of the nails squarely on the head. It's been easier to blame outside influences for the troubles within farming itself than to face up to the fact that farming has these health issues that need to be addressed.

Once they face up to the fact that TB is preventable, just as it is within humans; then maybe we shall hear some sense being said.

I just cannot understand why there is so much resistance to this, not only does it benefit all animals, but farmers in general. Healthy animals equate no culling of animals in the herd. I think most good farmers in general prefer to live from producing healthy animals for market than to scrape by on compensation packages.

Not sure what you mean Roaring Mouse

I produce healthy animals organically which are certified by the soil association.

However, i still get Tb reactors which are killed and I then receive compensation.

Can you tell me about the troubles within farming that cause this and I will make the changes tomorrow?

[eeyore]

As stripee said further up there is no doubt that Badgers can infect cattle - this has been conclusively proven - however it has also been conclusively proven that cattle can infect Badgers , and that both can be infected from other sources - what has not been proven is what is the main vector or whether a Badger cull will effectively control btb.

I'm not convinced about the electric fencing as Badgers can tunnel and probably will if they want to get under such - but that said even if fencing was effective at keeping out Badgers it would also need to exclude deer, Hedgehogs and sundry other wildlife too.

[Deerhunter]

Originally Posted by eeyore

As stripee said further up there is no doubt that Badgers can infect cattle - this has been conclusively proven - however it has also been conclusively proven that cattle can infect Badgers , and that both can be infected from other sources - what has not been proven is what is the main vector or whether a Badger cull will effectively control btb.

I'm not convinced about the electric fencing as Badgers can tunnel and probably will if they want to get under such - but that said even if fencing was effective at keeping out Badgers it would also need to exclude deer, Hedgehogs and sundry other wildlife too.

Hmmm

Good post.

Still, it seems like Tb reached its peak a couple of years ago, so give it another 5 and I guess the problem will have gone !

[eeyore]

at a risk of digressing DH , is it true (as the observer claimed on sunday) that the average beef farmer makes a £150 loss per animal sold ?

if it is it may not be long before the beef market has collapsed totally and btb is no longer an issue anyway

also do any other stock (such as sheep) suffer from related issues such as otb (if there is such a thing ?)

[Deerhunter]

Originally Posted by eeyore

at a risk of digressing DH , is it true (as the observer claimed on sunday) that the average beef farmer makes a £150 loss per animal sold ?

if it is it may not be long before the beef market has collapsed totally and btb is no longer an issue anyway

also do any other stock (such as sheep) suffer from related issues such as otb (if there is such a thing ?)

Not sure where the figure comes from.

And it depends a bit on how they are kept and what they are fed on.

I am sure it is right for many.

But you are right. Only the most intensive cost effective cattle farms will be left soon.

Nearly all warm blooded mammals can get Bovine Tb but it is rare in sheep.

[stripee]

http://www.defra.gov.uk/rds/publicat...cal/tan_15.pdf
There's another pdf file as well about electric fences.

I think that cattle give tb to Badgers primarily, as the recent spread of the disease into areas previously free of bTB in Badgers and cattle for generations shows, Badgers don't move very far and stick to their territories, whereas cattle have been moved around intensively without every animal being tested as Brains points out. Also other mammals carry btb, and possibly birds.
However, once it is in the wildlife then it's possible to go the other way as well. Although from what I have read, transmission has to involve close contact, far easier between cattle to cattle, or Badger to Badger. It may have come from slurry to the Badger. Or cattle grazing outside at night. Or Badgers feeding in the feed troughs giving it to cattle. It would be sensible then to keep Badgers out of sheds, and the birds too.

But in Wales it is a fait accompli, we have a cull, unless there is some sort of last minute change of plan. Hillary Benn will have to make an announcement soon, I read he will be re-shuffled possibly to a new post.

[Deerhunter]

Originally Posted by stripee

http://www.defra.gov.uk/rds/publicat...cal/tan_15.pdf
There's another pdf file as well about electric fences.

I think that cattle give tb to Badgers primarily, as the recent spread of the disease into areas previously free of bTB in Badgers and cattle for generations shows, Badgers don't move very far and stick to their territories, whereas cattle have been moved around intensively without every animal being tested as Brains points out. Also other mammals carry btb, and possibly birds.
However, once it is in the wildlife then it's possible to go the other way as well. Although from what I have read, transmission has to involve close contact, far easier between cattle to cattle, or Badger to Badger. It may have come from slurry to the Badger. Or cattle grazing outside at night. Or Badgers feeding in the feed troughs giving it to cattle. It would be sensible then to keep Badgers out of sheds, and the birds too.

But in Wales it is a fait accompli, we have a cull, unless there is some sort of last minute change of plan. Hillary Benn will have to make an announcement soon, I read he will be re-shuffled possibly to a new post.

Thanks.

I like the link !!

Unfortunately I have Badger setts in my fields.

I also have gates.

Plus rights of way.

Plus several miles of hedge border.

Plus a lane leading from the public road, to my house and then to the yard.


I don't think it is going to work.


When you think about it the cattle and Badger actually have very close contact.

My cattle are always outside at night.

I can tell you that they would not be very happy indoors at the moment and would probably get ill.

Do you think the more or less steady increase in Tb over the last 20 years is down to a steady increase in cattle movements?

[muldonach]

Originally Posted by Brains

............... And my cynical mind says that the NFU and Governments and many farmers just want a cull of Badgers because they think there are too many (as you have said on many occaisons). They know that they could never get a cull of Badgers through on those grounds, so they use the Badger/TB route. They can portray it as an animal/human health issue to make it more publically acceptable. Call me cynical - but that's what I think is going on here.

OK you're a cynic - now why on earth would Government want to cull Badgers on the grounds that they think there are too many? I can see a (very) odd farmer or gardener advancing that argument where local damage has occurred but I cannot see it as a majority view.

Regards
mac

[muldonach]

Originally Posted by eeyore

at a risk of digressing DH , is it true (as the observer claimed on sunday) that the average beef farmer makes a £150 loss per animal sold ?

if it is it may not be long before the beef market has collapsed totally and btb is no longer an issue anyway

also do any other stock (such as sheep) suffer from related issues such as otb (if there is such a thing ?)

lies, damned lies and statistics. I have not read the article in the Observer but I think you may well find that that figure comes from SAC research and refers to the annual loss on keeping a suckler cow. The magnitude of the loss arises due to the inclusion of "fixed costs" and does not relate directly to the trade on the animal itself. I have not read the research in detail yet either but I would be a bit suspicious of putting too much credibility on the figure quoted.

I think you will find that far from collapse the beef market is headed in the other direction at the moment.

Regards
mac

[muldonach]

[quote=Brains;272963]Hi mac

Hi Brains

I don't think the pertubations seen at the edges of cull areas can be dismissed, as Sir David King tried to do in his report. They've been demonstrated pretty clearly and so must be taken into account in any assessment of the economic impact of a cull. Similary, the level of access to land also needs to be taken into account.

Ahh - never actually intended to imply that it could be dismissed, merely that Bourne's calculations assumed that it would always apply in full, which may well not be the case if suitable boundaries are available. Bourne certainly supplies a credible baseline figure which needs to be taken into account or its reduction justified in any cost / benefit analysis.

The estimate of £1000/km2 presumably includes all the necessary equipment - if cage trapping or gassing. I can't see farmers who are already pushed to the limits of sustainability taking on such a cost. The only way the costs could be brought down is if snaring is used - and I can see no humane way of snaring a badger (or indeed anything).

Since Bourne quotes separate and higher costs for both trapping and gassing I would agree that it is unlikely that licenced culling could be done at the figure quoted without the use of snares - which discussion is probably best left for another thread. Live catch Fox traps are available at £150 /unit snares are £2 / unit so it is easy to see where the economics will head towards.

As for whether TB can be brought down to acceptable levels whilst diseased badgers are present - I think it's very likely as long as the disease is controlled properly in cattle.

Not too sure about that one, if I recall correctly infection rates (in Badgers)are up to 35% in places, so I would say the question is - is the disease self sustaining in the Badger population at that level or will it still need cattle as a vector to keep the Badger infection rates up? I certainly have no idea - anybody got some info on this point?

In bringing TB down from 40-50% of the cattle herd to 2-3%, badgers were not even considered.

I stand to be corrected but were Badger populations not at much lower levels than at present whilst the above drop was achieved?

Too many infected cows are missed at the minute, and Governments baulk at paying proper levels of compensation for those that are found. A proper control strategy based on identifying many more infected cattle, removing them and controlling movements will see TB rates come down. That will cost lots of money - but it will be needed whether or not Badgers are culled. It's already been shown that Badger culling has a limited impact on TB rates - I'd prefer the money that would be spent on it to be used to tackle the problem properly.

No problem with any of that - the only objection I could see is if the disease has reached self sustaining levels in the Badger population thus leaving a reinfection reservoir

Regards
mac

[stripee]

Yes, deerhunter, I think its mostly down to cattle movements. And a cull of Badgers won't make enough difference for it to be worth it. However, it is obvious that some farmers badly want to cull Badgers no matter what the outcome. There were questions in the Commons a week or so ago about how many Badger traps were available for a cull, none apparently, although 600 are kept for scientific research.
The Government ruled out snares and gassing I thought, but in Ireland snares are used, and I don't see how they can use anything else in Wales on cost grounds and expediency.

[Brains]

[quote=muldonach;274285]

Originally Posted by Brains

Ahh - never actually intended to imply that it could be dismissed, merely that Bourne's calculations assumed that it would always apply in full, which may well not be the case if suitable boundaries are available. Bourne certainly supplies a credible baseline figure which needs to be taken into account or its reduction justified in any cost / benefit analysis.

Hi mac

while that is strictly true - the overall message of King's report was that Bourne was being much too pesimistic. But King used all the best scenario figures he could to justify his view (including his analysis of the edge effects) whereas as Bourne used the scientifically valid mean data. But that is for another discussion!!!

Originally Posted by muldonach

Since Bourne quotes separate and higher costs for both trapping and gassing I would agree that it is unlikely that licenced culling could be done at the figure quoted without the use of snares - which discussion is probably best left for another thread. Live catch Fox traps are available at £150 /unit snares are £2 / unit so it is easy to see where the economics will head towards.

Exactly

Originally Posted by muldonach

Not too sure about that one, if I recall correctly infection rates (in Badgers)are up to 35% in places, so I would say the question is - is the disease self sustaining in the Badger population at that level or will it still need cattle as a vector to keep the Badger infection rates up? I certainly have no idea - anybody got some info on this point?

recent data published last year suggested a strong influence of cattle-Badger transmission, and that it was necessary to maintain high levels of infection in the Badger population - I'll see if I can dig it out.

Originally Posted by muldonach

I stand to be corrected but were Badger populations not at much lower levels than at present whilst the above drop was achieved?

This is a bit of a contentious point. the Badger population was thought to be at around 25,000 - 30,000 in the late 70's and early 80's, which is one of the main reasons why they were given protected status. However, I remember reading somewhere fairly recently that this figure was in fact far too low, and there were up to 200,000 (population today is estimated at about 250,000, I think). So, if you believe the first estimate, there's been a 10 fold increase in Badger numbers, but if it's the second, then there's been only a small increase! Anecdotally, I reckon that there has been a significant increase in Badger numbers, but a 10-fold increase in 20 years since culling last stopped seems a bit steep, given their ecology.

Originally Posted by muldonach

OK you're a cynic - now why on earth would Government want to cull Badgers on the grounds that they think there are too many? I can see a (very) odd farmer or gardener advancing that argument where local damage has occurred but I cannot see it as a majority view.

Deerhunter has said many a time on here that he thinks there are just too many Badgers and that they dig up his fields, break fences ..etc. I don't think he's unusual, as other discussions on this point I've had bear out. And Governments want to keep farmers and those in the countryside on their side, especially somewhere like Wales. And given the pain for the UK Govt caused by the Hunting Act, they don't want it all to kick off again. So I see this as very much a sop to a powerful lobby, lead by the NFU.

cheers
Brains

[Brains]

Originally Posted by Deerhunter

But I was asking what YOU think about compensation levels.

Hi DH

I said that if you give me the numbers, I'll give you an opinion on whether I think the level of compensation you receive is too low - you haven't given me any figures on which to base an opinion. What I also said was that, in general, the authorities are more concerned with short term cost than long term gain.

The long term cost is continuing Tb in cattle, which culling Badgers will do nothing to curtail. Lots of money will be spent either by the public or by you trying to reduce Badger numbers, taking the focus off the real issue, which is the disease in cattle.

Originally Posted by Deerhunter

Surely if more cattle are tested and then more disease is discovered the best solution would be to kill all the cattle next week and then import some and start again.

In fact, that is the only option isn't it?

Facetiousness doesn't really help the situation. More infected cattle are found by increasing the numbers tested - but the PROPORTION found has not been increasing. Thus the REAL rate of Tb has been at worst stable. Once you get to a point where virtually all cattle are tested annually and the removal rate of diseased animals is greater than that of new infections, and TB will start to fall. Controlling the movement of these animals helps to prevent the further spread of the disease. Unfortunately for you, the SW will probably be one of the last areas for Tb to be brought fully under control. In the mean time, you receive more in compensation, even if it's a bit more than your costs. Once the disease is properly under control, then the compensation will naturally fall away.

This strategy is expensive, but so is culling Badgers! Tb rates in Northern Ireland have been falling in the last few years through such an aggressive control policy - not through Badger culling.

[Deerhunter]

Originally Posted by stripee

Yes, deerhunter, I think its mostly down to cattle movements. And a cull of Badgers won't make enough difference for it to be worth it. However, it is obvious that some farmers badly want to cull Badgers no matter what the outcome. There were questions in the Commons a week or so ago about how many Badger traps were available for a cull, none apparently, although 600 are kept for scientific research.
The Government ruled out snares and gassing I thought, but in Ireland snares are used, and I don't see how they can use anything else in Wales on cost grounds and expediency.

I think most farmers, like me, just want to earn money and not lose cows to Tb.

I have nothing against Badgers.

[Deerhunter]

Originally Posted by Brains

Hi DH

I said that if you give me the numbers, I'll give you an opinion on whether I think the level of compensation you receive is too low - you haven't given me any figures on which to base an opinion. What I also said was that, in general, the authorities are more concerned with short term cost than long term gain.

The long term cost is continuing Tb in cattle, which culling Badgers will do nothing to curtail. Lots of money will be spent either by the public or by you trying to reduce Badger numbers, taking the focus off the real issue, which is the disease in cattle.

Facetiousness doesn't really help the situation. More infected cattle are found by increasing the numbers tested - but the PROPORTION found has not been increasing. Thus the REAL rate of Tb has been at worst stable. Once you get to a point where virtually all cattle are tested annually and the removal rate of diseased animals is greater than that of new infections, and TB will start to fall. Controlling the movement of these animals helps to prevent the further spread of the disease. Unfortunately for you, the SW will probably be one of the last areas for Tb to be brought fully under control. In the mean time, you receive more in compensation, even if it's a bit more than your costs. Once the disease is properly under control, then the compensation will naturally fall away.

This strategy is expensive, but so is culling Badgers! Tb rates in Northern Ireland have been falling in the last few years through such an aggressive control policy - not through Badger culling.

Hi Brains

The compensation varies with age and sex.

£661 for a 20 month old cow.

I will ask the same question as I always do.....if the real issue is the disease in cattle, how are the government going to solve it ?

Or rather, how SHOULD they solve it ?

If it is test all cows annually I say bring it on. Then the problem will be solved !


Why will the SW be the last place to bring TB under control ?

By the way, culling Badgers is really quite cheap. We used to do it.

And we had healthy Badgers and healthy cattle.

[eeyore]

imo the difference is that you used to cull to control population not to erradicate - or you wouldnt have had "healthy Badgers" or indeed any Badgers. culling to erradicate is what defra etc are talking about and that isnt cheap.

as to how to control btb - an effective vacine is the long term answer - if cows can't contract the disease the problem will effectively be solved - however as this is an expensive course of action it is unlikely that the govt will pursue it with any vigour

[Brains]

Originally Posted by Deerhunter

I will ask the same question as I always do.....if the real issue is the disease in cattle, how are the government going to solve it ?

Or rather, how SHOULD they solve it ?

If it is test all cows annually I say bring it on. Then the problem will be solved !

Hi DH

I will give you the same answer I have been doing - treat the disease in cattle by rigorous testing and removal of positives alongside strict movement controls. Culling of Badgers is an irrelevance. It is only cheap if you (a) use snares and (b) aren't trying to eradicate them from an area. Just taking out a few here and there has be shown to make things worse, but you just won't accept that that is the case. You've said many times that you don't want to eradicate Badgers, but that's the only way for a cull to have any significant impact - and it would still leave you with the great majority of TB cases left to deal with.

You want the simplistic notion that fewer Badgers means less disease, but it is so much more complex than that. You don't want to accept that moving cattle around when you don't know if they have tb or not is a perfect mechanism for the spread of the disease. You would not accept that when you get a Tb reactor when the previous tests had been negative, that doesn't mean that Badgers have been responsible, but that it could easily be explained by a false negative. You don't want to accept that farming practices are ultimately responsible for the current situation. Historically, the period we've had recently of a low incidence of Tb in cattle is rare - tb in cattle was pretty 'normal' in the 19th and early 20th centuries and probably was long before that. So when you say that farming in your area essentially hasn't changed in that time (as you have said many times), is it really a surprise that Tb is still around? Farmers, and in particular the NFU, need to take the science on board and not try constantly to wriggle out of it's conclusions. Governments need to grasp the nettle, and roll out proper annual testing and maintain stringent movement controls ... and pay the money that is required to deal with the disease properly.

Ultimately, the only way to eradicate tb is to vaccinate cattle - Badger culling is irrelevant

[Deerhunter]

Originally Posted by Brains

Hi DH

I will give you the same answer I have been doing - treat the disease in cattle by rigorous testing and removal of positives alongside strict movement controls. Culling of Badgers is an irrelevance. It is only cheap if you (a) use snares and (b) aren't trying to eradicate them from an area. Just taking out a few here and there has be shown to make things worse, but you just won't accept that that is the case. You've said many times that you don't want to eradicate Badgers, but that's the only way for a cull to have any significant impact - and it would still leave you with the great majority of TB cases left to deal with.

You want the simplistic notion that fewer Badgers means less disease, but it is so much more complex than that. You don't want to accept that moving cattle around when you don't know if they have tb or not is a perfect mechanism for the spread of the disease. You would not accept that when you get a Tb reactor when the previous tests had been negative, that doesn't mean that Badgers have been responsible, but that it could easily be explained by a false negative. You don't want to accept that farming practices are ultimately responsible for the current situation. Historically, the period we've had recently of a low incidence of Tb in cattle is rare - tb in cattle was pretty 'normal' in the 19th and early 20th centuries and probably was long before that. So when you say that farming in your area essentially hasn't changed in that time (as you have said many times), is it really a surprise that Tb is still around? Farmers, and in particular the NFU, need to take the science on board and not try constantly to wriggle out of it's conclusions. Governments need to grasp the nettle, and roll out proper annual testing and maintain stringent movement controls ... and pay the money that is required to deal with the disease properly.

Ultimately, the only way to eradicate tb is to vaccinate cattle - Badger culling is irrelevant

Hi Brains

One of us is confused. And I am sure that is something you never suffer from.

But anyway,

1. I am happy with rigorous testing. Tell me what YOU think constitutes rigorous testing ?

2. Positives are already removed.

3. What do YOU think constitutes strict movement controls.



I am quite happy to use snares and I can confirm I don't want to eradicate Badgers. I want Badgers at the same numbers we had in the 70's. When we had almost no Tb.

I don't want any notion, simplistic or not, despite what you like to imagine I think.

You may be extremely clever but you probably quite know everything.



You are basically suggesting (guessing) that many of my cattle have Tb and it is not being picked up in tests.

And you talk down to me for my opinions !!!

You have no idea if my cattle have TB.

You are SO sure that Badgers are not a problem it clouds your judgement.

I, on the other hand, am happy to concede that cattle movements can spread Tb.


I actually CAN accept the possibility of a false negative.

You CANNOT accept that it may be Badgers.

To me that is extreme and slightly ridiculous bias.


No I don't accept that farming practices are responsible for the problem.

I do know you know very little about farming practices.

However I DO accept that some farming practices can cause some of the problems. Just as I KNOW Badgers with TB search for grubs in the cow muck right next to cattle at night.


If you can give me the statistics for Btb, Cattle numbers and Badger numbers for the 19thC, the whole of the 20thC, the 1970's and 2007 I will be impressed.


I am happy to grasp science Brains, no matter what you think. We do use a little science, my point is that we still practice free range extensive (organic) livestaock farming. Really it is what everyone prefers.


You suggest annual testing !!!!!

Have you any idea what you are talking about and how often my cattle are tested ?