Badger cull, would you avoid Welsh produce

[stripee]

Blackwell Synergy - Cookie Absent (rather odd title)
This is an interesting letter, which raises the possibility of other sources of infection of bTB in closed herds such as by birds. There are still unknowns about the bacterium and its behaviour. All the infectious diseases of the last hundred years in people have only been brought under control by either vaccination or antibiotics. It will probably be the same for bTB.
Badgers rarely die from the disease and can carry it without symptoms. If there are 3 healthy Badgers for every one carrying it, then a disproportionate number of healthy animals will need to be removed. It depends then on your value system, as others have posted, as to how much killing it is worth to produce your piece of beef. Some find this acceptable and others don't. It may be about economics, but it is still unacceptable to many taxpayers who are the ones who will be paying for a cull. A cull is not going to bring about TB eradication in cattle. Even the Welsh Assembly acknowledge that.

[muldonach]

[quote=stripee;272552]Blackwell Synergy - Cookie Absent (rather odd title)

This is an interesting letter, which raises the possibility of other sources of infection of bTB in closed herds such as by birds. There are still unknowns about the bacterium and its behaviour. All the infectious diseases of the last hundred years in people have only been brought under control by either vaccination or antibiotics. It will probably be the same for bTB.

Thanks for that stripee I have read through the letter a couple of times and there is obviously a lot of further reference within it. Also broadly agree with your comments in the second sentence, whilst noting that for several animal diseases eradication by culling remains the primary existing control.

Badgers rarely die from the disease and can carry it without symptoms. If there are 3 healthy badgers for every one carrying it, then a disproportionate number of healthy animals will need to be removed. It depends then on your value system, as others have posted, as to how much killing it is worth to produce your piece of beef. Some find this acceptable and others don't. It may be about economics, but it is still unacceptable to many taxpayers who are the ones who will be paying for a cull. A cull is not going to bring about TB eradication in cattle. Even the Welsh Assembly acknowledge that

.

(my Bold), again would broadly agree and I think that this is the hurdle that the pro-cull lobby have to get over. In order to have any hope of public acceptance they must demonstrate that what is proposed is practical in terms of cost and effective in terms of disease control. I don't think anyone would attempt to sustain an argument that culling Badgers will, on its own, result in the eradication of TB in cattle and certainly I would not find that argument credible.

I also agree that who funds any culling operation that goes ahead is something that should be debated. The principle I woukld suggest is that those who benefit should fund the operation proportionately. Certainly if those who propound culling are not willing to fund the operation on their land then one would have to wonder. Again the devil would be in the detail, and the method of culling would I am sure be the subject of yet more debate.


Regards
mac

[Brains]

Originally Posted by muldonach

How would you acount for the several instances of bTb breakdowns within closed herds and what advice would you offer to the farmer concerned as to the best way to prevent a re-occurrence?

bTb in closed herds is an interesting one. I remember a few years ago a post on this very topic relating a story where TB in a 'closed herd' was initially blamed on Badgers but it turned out that some bedding had been brought into the farm from another farm that had a TB breakdown a little while later. There are, of course, many other mammals that are capable of transmitting this disease which could be responsible for breakdowns in closed herds, as well as Badgers. I've also posted on here about reseach that has shown that the bacterium responsible for TB can survive for long periods in soil and that once infected, cattle can take upto 3 years to show up as a reactor in the normal tuberculin tests. That can make it extremely difficult to trace the source of infection.

I've posted many times on this topic and fully accept that Badgers can (and in some circumstances probably do) transmit TB to cattle. It is also true that cattle transmit TB to Badgers. But that is not really the issue. The issue is whether a cull of Badgers would be effective in controlling TB in cattle - and I have to say that the supporting evidence for this is very poor. If you actually LOOK at the TB stats, especially for Wales, you don't see a great rise in TB infection rates. What you DO see though is an uncovering of disease that was already present and NOT being dealt with in the cattle population. If you remove the infected cattle at a higher rate than new infections, then the disease will be brought under control. This will necessarily be expensive, as the compensation that needs to be paid will rise - but that's an inevitable consequence of dealing with the disease. I think that Governments see a Badger cull as a cheap alternative - the costs can be loaded onto the farmers who think they're doing a good thing whereas in fact they are doing the exact opposite by not dealing with the actual problem. They can also be seen to be 'doing something', while actually sitting on their hands.

I've posted many a stat here to show that the spread of TB is governed by cattle movements and is maintained due to the type of farming prevalent in a region. The sudden rise in TB incidents in Cumbria following FMD was not due to sudden Badger migration but re-stocking of cattle. Exchange of cattle within a region can generate hotspots very easily. The density of cattle on farms in the UK is higher that anywhere else in Europe - and guess who has the worst TB rates? This all points ot the fact that there's an enormous amount that can be done to reduce the number of TB breakdowns within farming. Someone said on this forum last year 'culling Badgers won't work, but at least we'd be doing something' ... that seems to be the way things are going - and that's a sad day indeed.

[paulthomas]

Originally Posted by Brains

bTb in closed herds is an interesting one. I remember a few years ago a post on this very topic relating a story where TB in a 'closed herd' was initially blamed on Badgers but it turned out that some bedding had been brought into the farm from another farm that had a TB breakdown a little while later.

And what is considered a closed herd can vary. The Badger Trust's April newsletter highlights the case of a farmer who has had several cases of bTB in cattle he has shown. Apparently shows rarely require cattle to undergo pre-movement testing for bTB.

Originally Posted by Brains

This will necessarily be expensive, as the compensation that needs to be paid will rise - but that's an inevitable consequence of dealing with the disease. I think that Governments see a Badger cull as a cheap alternative - the costs can be loaded onto the farmers who think they're doing a good thing whereas in fact they are doing the exact opposite by not dealing with the actual problem.

Under the best possible conditions in an area with hard boundaries, culling will be 4 to 5 times as expensive as compensation. So for each £million saved in compensation £4 million+ will have to be spent on culling. That's the economics of stupidity.

Originally Posted by Brains

They can also be seen to be 'doing something', while actually sitting on their hands.

The Badger Trust are trying to get a judicial review of the Assembly's decision. If the suceed the I believe they have every chance of winning.

[vole-woman]

Oh, I do hope so!

[Brains]

Originally Posted by paulthomas

And what is considered a closed herd can vary.

Indeed it can

Originally Posted by paulthomas

Under the best possible conditions in an area with hard boundaries, culling will be 4 to 5 times as expensive as compensation. So for each £million saved in compensation £4 million+ will have to be spent on culling. That's the economics of stupidity.

couldn't agree more - but if the cost is loaded into the farmer, it's cheap for the government. It would mean that the cull would end up being carried out using snaring, as it would be the cheapest way to do it.

Originally Posted by paulthomas

The Badger Trust are trying to get a judicial review of the Assembly's decision. If the suceed the I believe they have every chance of winning.

And with luck they will!

[muldonach]

Originally Posted by paulthomas

...............
Under the best possible conditions in an area with hard boundaries, culling will be 4 to 5 times as expensive as compensation. So for each £million saved in compensation £4 million+ will have to be spent on culling. That's the economics of stupidity.
..........

Agreed, if it is correct but where are you getting this information from please paul?

Also the figure paid out in compensation is by no means the entire cost of a breakdown. Bourne put the average cost of a breakdown at £27,000 with costs split 70:30 taxpayer:farmer affected. He`also noted that other parties had refused to develop an average figure since there was such a wide variation.

I also believe that changes to the compensation rules may have altered the proportions of costs slight to the taxpayers favour.


Regards
mac

[Brains]

Originally Posted by muldonach

Also the figure paid out in compensation is by no means the entire cost of a breakdown. Bourne put the average cost of a breakdown at £27,000 with costs split 70:30 taxpayer:farmer affected. He`also noted that other parties had refused to develop an average figure since there was such a wide variation.

Also from the final RBCT report:

the total financial benefit of reduced TB breakdowns was costed at £313,200 per 100Km2 (@ £27K per breakdown) whereas the cost of culling was £1,425,000 per Km2, assuming 75% land access and a five year cull (pg 158) - a ratio of over 4:1 cost:benefit. Even if gassing rather than cage trapping was used, the cost:benefit would be 3:1 (based on a cost of £2,400/Km2 for gassing). This does not include edge effects. If you include those, the cost-benefit is much much worse. Thus it makes no economic sense. It would be much cheaper to compensate farmers properly and to deal with the disease in cattle.

Also - the Dunnet report showed the costs of culling (gassing) in the 1970s-1980s to be £10m for a benefit of £2m - a 5:1 ratio. Thus the cost of culling seems to greatly outweigh the benefits.

[muldonach]

Originally Posted by Brains

Also from the final RBCT report:

the total financial benefit of reduced TB breakdowns was costed at £313,200 per 100Km2 (@ £27K per breakdown) whereas the cost of culling was £1,425,000 per Km2, assuming 75% land access and a five year cull (pg 158) - a ratio of over 4:1 cost:benefit. Even if gassing rather than cage trapping was used, the cost:benefit would be 3:1 (based on a cost of £2,400/Km2 for gassing). This does not include edge effects. If you include those, the cost-benefit is much much worse. Thus it makes no economic sense. It would be much cheaper to compensate farmers properly and to deal with the disease in cattle.

Also - the Dunnet report showed the costs of culling (gassing) in the 1970s-1980s to be £10m for a benefit of £2m - a 5:1 ratio. Thus the cost of culling seems to greatly outweigh the benefits.

Thanks Brains, I was aware of the absolute figures quoted by Bourne but had not picked up on the ratios. In fairness can I point out that he puts the costs of a farmer licencing scheme at £1000 per Km2 per year? His calculations still indicate that this has a net negative effect but he assumes that the effects of peturbation will persist.

My own impression is that £1000 per Km2 per year is on the high side given the possible synergies of checking traps/snares along with early morning stock checks and other possible combinations. I still think however it is for the pro-cull lobby to provide a realistic cost/benefit analysis before any cull should be sanctioned.

The problem on the other hand of course is - can the disease be eradicated, or brought down to levels acceptable in cattle whilst diseased Badgers remain on the same ground? If so how?

Regards
mac

[paulthomas]

Originally Posted by muldonach

Agreed, if it is correct but where are you getting this information from please paul?

The ratios are from the ISG final report.

[stripee]

I am puzzled as to why it is so difficult to assess the health of the Badgers in a particular sett on an infected farm. When Badgers are released from wildlife rescue centres it has to be according to "the Badger Protocol" as follows "Badgers should only be released following three consecutive negative blood test results." These tests are done on live Badgers.
But noone wants to carry out live testing of Badgers it seems. Only on dead ones. The removal of all Badgers from all setts is being proposed whether healthy or not within the pilot cull area.
Today I spoke with a farmer who said that in the 70s because one of their herd had a reactor, MAFF came and took 3 of the Badgers on their property away for testing (and had enormous difficulty catching them), the rest of the sett ran away.
The farmer would have liked to have the Badgers back as they were OK, but MAFF said not possible. The farm had no other bTB problems since.
Is this to do with lack of holding facilities for Badgers. Or is it more expedient for various reasons to remove all the Badgers and simpler to kill them than test them.

[Brains]

Originally Posted by muldonach

Thanks Brains, I was aware of the absolute figures quoted by Bourne but had not picked up on the ratios. In fairness can I point out that he puts the costs of a farmer licencing scheme at £1000 per Km2 per year? His calculations still indicate that this has a net negative effect but he assumes that the effects of peturbation will persist.

My own impression is that £1000 per Km2 per year is on the high side given the possible synergies of checking traps/snares along with early morning stock checks and other possible combinations. I still think however it is for the pro-cull lobby to provide a realistic cost/benefit analysis before any cull should be sanctioned.

The problem on the other hand of course is - can the disease be eradicated, or brought down to levels acceptable in cattle whilst diseased Badgers remain on the same ground? If so how?

Regards
mac

Hi mac

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.

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).

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

[Deerhunter]

Originally Posted by Springer5

Yes, you (and one or two of your 'mates' on this forum).

Btw, I'm surprised you didn't reply to Roaring Mouse's excellent post here...

Badger cull, would you avoid Welsh produce

It's not like you to run out of verbal diarrhea so quickly.

I think you should moderate the insults a little bit !

I see you have had a warning on another thread.

But Maybe I will reply to it.

I don't like to avoid things.

[Deerhunter]

Originally Posted by Springer5

I'm not usually very comfortable talking to members of the criminal fraternity (although I now realise it's probably second nature to you), but on a brighter note, it does help to explain your lack of morality - which now obvously applies in more than one direction.
I also have to say I got the impression that "bothering people in a mist of prejudices" (be they legal or illegal ones) was one of your regular activities, so there's no need to apologise for it on my account.

However, to answer the only serious part of any of your recent posts. I think stripee clearly explained the kind of farming standards that need to be cleaned up, here....

Badger cull, would you avoid Welsh produce

as to how, that should be obvious.

But I wanted YOU to explain what I should change.


In any case, Stripee's post does not answer that question at all !

Why are you so reticent ?

[Deerhunter]

Originally Posted by Brains

Hi mac

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.

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).

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

Hi Brains

good to see you back.

Do you think the compensation levels I get for Tb reactors is too low?

[stripee]

Part of email response I received from Pembs National Park:

"Whilst supportive of most of the measures identified by the WAG to eradicate bovine TB in Wales, the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority, along with many other organisations and individuals, has concerns and reservations regarding Badger culling as the scientific evidence does not support the theory that Badger culling reduces the incidence of TB in cattle. Indeed the evidence is to the contrary."

[Deerhunter]

Originally Posted by stripee

Part of email response I received from Pembs National Park:

"Whilst supportive of most of the measures identified by the WAG to eradicate bovine TB in Wales, the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority, along with many other organisations and individuals, has concerns and reservations regarding Badger culling as the scientific evidence does not support the theory that Badger culling reduces the incidence of TB in cattle. Indeed the evidence is to the contrary."

Sounds reasonable.

I suppose the incidence of Btb in cattle will start to reduce fairly soon in Wales.

What are the other measures identified by the WAG ?

[stripee]

Originally Posted by Deerhunter

Sounds reasonable.

I suppose the incidence of Btb in cattle will start to reduce fairly soon in Wales.

What are the other measures identified by the WAG ?

Welsh Assembly Government | Bovine TB Eradication
All here.

[Deerhunter]

Originally Posted by stripee

Welsh Assembly Government | Bovine TB Eradication
All here.

Thanks.

The contributor Lorraine Barrett, AM, PM or whatever they are called over there, seems to concur that Badgers can infect Cattle with T.B.


She mentions that the Badger Trust has come up with a way of separating cattle and Badgers by using electric fencing.

Does any one know how this will work in practise ?

[muldonach]

Electric fencing, energised either by battery or transformed mains
electric supply, can be an effective deterrent. It can also be
installed either temporarily or permanently, and can be used to
protect the whole or a specific part of a garden. Mains electric
supply fencing can also be controlled with a time clock which will
automatically switch the current on in the evening and off in the
morning.
7
Permanent mains supply electric fencing using unobtrusive
materials can provide a cost effective and lasting deterrent.
Electric fencing needs to be firmly installed with at least two taut
wires. These wires should be placed at heights of 75mm and
200mm above the ground. A third wire positioned at 300mm above
the ground could also be installed. The wires should be adequately
supported (minimum interval 3 metres), follow the ground contours
and be well earthed. Vegetation should be kept cut back to avoid
the wires shorting to earth during operation.

From Badger trust website - refers to domestic gardens. Should be do-able on a large scale but difficult to keep that bottom strand clear. gates, culverts, streams and ditches also present obvious problems.

Let me know if you plan to do it- might buy a few shares in whoever is making roundup these days

cheers
mac