| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| cab |
Reprieve for the badgerGood news for badgers:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/badger-cull-to-be-rejected-860089.html According to many, bad news for dairy farmers. I'm in two minds; I accept the argument and reasoning behind badger culling, but I don't believe that there would be political will for a sufficiently widespread and intensive cull. |
||||||
| Northern_Lad |
As I understand it, you'd need to wipe out every last badger, every last cow, and then nuke the effected areas for any decent effect. | ||||||
| cab |
The old 'nuke the site from orbit' approach eh? That'd work. I suspect that there may be some slightly less destructive methods that could be tried... 
|
||||||
| Rob R |
I did always think the badger cull idea was a bit hit & miss and more driven by 'revenge' than anything else. Heard the report on the news that said badgers were fatal to cattle, I always thought it was DEFRA that are fatal to cattle. 
|
||||||
| Azura Skye |
I've been dreaming about badgers recently - everytime I can't sleep, I think of badgers and they take me to sleepy land. So i hope they don't get killed because they've been very helpful, in making me sleep recently : D lol me loco. | ||||||
| vegplot |
I was talking to a chap who monitors badgers on behalf of a local authority. His unbiased view point was that any cull would be fruitless as he's sure it's cattle who transmit TB to badgers so naturally he'd be delighted by this news. If he is right, I have no data to say whether he is or not, then it's going to take a lot of persuading those who believe the opposite that this is the case. | ||||||
| snozzer |
Are Pat & Tony going to trial the selenieum mineral lick.
If you have to ask who Pat and Tony are, dont bother its an Archers thing.... |
||||||
| Mary-Jane |
I knew... 
|
||||||
| Andy B |
Cant you inoculate cattle against TB? | ||||||
| LynneA |
Maybe now it's time to see if deer come into the equation. Like badgers, their population has risen in the past couple of decades. I do wonder if the issue is a three way interaction.
But yes - innoculations would be the ideal answer, but would the animals be allowed to enter the food chain? |
||||||
| milkmaid |
don't we have pre movement testing now ,for cattle | ||||||
| Rob R |
Vaccine Research
Pre-movement testing, yes (in TB areas), and surveillance testing. I can't help thinking that if all the effort put into hating badgers was used to research workable solutions then we'd all be better off. Wether it is badgers playing a part or not, trying to destroy a wildlife population seems like an inefficient way of control. |
||||||
| Stacey |
And supremely arrogant |
||||||
| cab |
I see where you're coming from... But what workable solution? I'm racking my brains, and short of wiping out the pathogen in the wild and immunising, I can't see what could be done. |
||||||
| Rob R |
That's what research is for- if I had the solution I wouldn't be sat here
One thing is for sure though, hating badgers isn't anymore productive than shaking your fist at speeding cars as they pass. A mass cull is a solution but, unlike my most recent mis-fitting analogy, there isn't a definite link to suggest that would work. Knowing badgers (and nature in general) mass culling tends to encourage mass breeding & movement of wild populations, so it could make the problem worse, rather than better. |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
I genuinely have no idea what the best solution is. Why is it that many farmers are so sure that it culling the only workable option. |
||||||
| cab |
Fair enough. I can't fathom how you'd go about eradicating the disease, even just in principle, without both vaccination and eliminating the pathogen in wild populations, otherwise it would remain endemic. In my view, short of some crazy and dangerous new GM bacteriophage designed to take on mycobacteria, it just isn't possible 
I'd find it hard to hate badgers. Its like giving a womble the evils. The problem of movement of wild population is well known, of course, which is why any cull would have to be widespread and thorough; and I don't see there ever being political will to pay for doing it properly. |
||||||
| Rob R |
How about pre-movement testing, of badgers?
|
||||||
| cab |
Go on then, go tell the badgers
|
||||||
| Rob R |
I think some new food labelling is in order; No badgers were harmed in the production of this burger. | ||||||
| Nick |
Why tell them? Couldn't we just monitor their movements? They come with handy bar codes on their noses and all.... (I'll get my coat.) |
||||||
| moonwind |
How much does TB cost?
The total cost of TB, in compensation, research and testing, for the 2003/04 financial year, was put at £89 million. Since then, the cost will have increased further, as there has been a further serious increase in the number of cases of disease in cattle. The number of cattle slaughtered as TB reactors in the Defra West region will be up by almost 50% this year if current trends are maintained. Around 15% of cattle herds in the West region are infected each year and the total number of cattle slaughtered in England and Wales because of TB in 2004 was almost 24'000 http://www.nfuonline.com/documents/factsheetonbovinetb_ia434691cb%5B1%5D.pdf I suppose everything should be trialled to try and reduce the costly loss, the cost from compensation payments is something rarely discussed when it comes to the badger/cattle TB subject. This article from the NFU is very educational. |
||||||
| Stacey |
Are the countries we import cheap meat from TB free? | ||||||
| Rob R |
No, Wales has TB too. |
||||||
| Stacey |
fnar Don't we import from out of the UK? 
|
||||||
| Rob R |
You mean Wales is still part of the UK?  Thought they'd dug a canal & broken free
TB doesn't get transmitted in that way, it's a respiratory disease that relies on living hosts to pass it on (via infected feed or close respiratory contact). The actual disease is associated with bringing animals into close contact ie housing them. Many of the countries don't have a problem with TB out on the range, but when they bring animals into feedlots they come down with it (a bit like when TB became a problem in humans in the industrial revolution when everyone started urbanising). Most of the UK disease levels are subclinical. |
||||||
| moonwind |
I think the point was that the general public do not realise how much of THEIR (if they are working taxpayers) money is going to pay farmers compensation for each animal destroyed due to the CURRENT regulations that were brought into being by the WESTMINSTER (not part of Wales or foreign I believe?) legislation machinery.
The argument FOR or AGAINST badger culling or buying meat expensive or cheap, or buying meat from local sources or foreign sources are different subjects with many different views. Maybe Rob, you should take up your arguments with regard TB with the NFU (NATIONAL farmers Union) head office is NAC Stoneleigh Park Coventry CV8 2TZ which, last time I looked was in England.
To carry on killing many disease free (at post mortem inspection) cattle at horrendous cost to the taxpayer each year, and continue to bury heads in the sand rather than try to sort out the problem in an adult way is very irresponsible for all concerned. BTW Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, if wit was ****, as they say, those who are sarcastic would be constipated LOLOLOL |
||||||
| Rob R |
Arguments?
Really? I thought they had to be incinerated 
|
||||||
| Stacey |
Moonwind, I have to admit you've rather lost me What exactly are you saying?
|
||||||
| moonwind |
The cost to the taxpayer, by way of compensation payments, along with the loss of thousands of animals killed in line with government policy on TB testing (many of the cattle prove to be disease free at post mortem) is unacceptable.
The chosen badger cull in Wales, will, if the findings over a given period of time are given truthfully (these days one wonders if that would be possible) would prove if there was a reduction of TB reactors in surrounding herds or not. It seems that any research with regard the badger vs cattle vs who infects who (of either do) with TB is hindered by two groups of people. 1: Those who would see every badger slaughtered because they are 100% sure that badgers = TB reactors 2: The badger groups who would see all badgers being given priority and definitely no killing them (although it seems unclear what these people think about all the cattle taken and killed just because they happen to react to a BCG type skin test, many of these tests conclusing that the killed animal was disease free). Surely, if the emotional side was taken away and some proper scientific research carried out, unhindered, we could all see results and analysis for ourselves. I am sure the findings would speak for themselves if given a real opportunity. It appears at the moment that the ministry will (are) having to carry out research in secrecy because the group 2 (above) folk would do all in their powers to stop any research involving the killing of badgers. I like to think of myself as open minded with any research and do not take "sides", although I find killing en masse for whatever reason (TB (BOTH cattle and badgers), but to carry on killing cattle and paying out vast sums of money as compensation to the farmers who lose their animals is more abhorrent than having some action to see if TB can be halted. There can be no answers without open and honest trialling, surely? What are your views on the cost to the taxpayer on compensation payouts and of the loss of many healthy cattle killed because they have tested positive at TB test time? With regards vaccination of cattle, there is little evidence to show much research being carried out in this department and if it would be either A: safe to use in animals producing milk for human consumption or B: Cost effective (if safe maybe the producer should be required to pay for vaccinations .. and a rise in milk prices to off set cost?) .. or would the producer expect the taxpayers to fund such vaccination schemes. If the latter is the case you could begin to glimpse why things have been left as are rather than something done to try and tackle the problem. If it is cheaper to kill every animal that reacts to the TB test, than to vaccinate the National herds (whichever part of the UK they are in) then you can begin to see why such slaughter happens. I suppose the government (whichever is in power at the time) is between a rock and a hard place when trying to deal with the TB situation. Do they upset the livestock and milk producers or do they upset the animal rights people, or do they "bury their heads in the sand" and carry on doing nothing? Looking at the stated rise in cases of TB reactors (and one assumes cattle that do prove to have disease or abscess presence at post-mortem) common sense tells us that there will be more and more expense to the taxpayer while nothing is being undertaken to solve the problem or, at the least identify the problem properly, and seek to find a better way, to protect humans, cattle and wildlife from the risk of TB, without just throwing taxpayers money into a vast compensation payment pit. |
||||||
| Stacey |
Has any reasearch addressed whether modern intensive farming methods are having an impact on the increase?
Haven't there been many large scale culls conducted over the last few decades? Why has no conlusive evidence been found? And if it was proved conclusively that badgers are responsible for TB in cattle what then? |
||||||
| moonwind |
Sorry Stacey, I am not sure if your post "Are the countries we import cheap meat from TB free?" was in reply to mine on the cost to the taxpayer of killing TB reactor cattle or not. |
||||||
| Stacey |
It wasn't addressed to anyone, it was an open question. Rob explained that TB doesn't work like that so I understand a bit more now
|
||||||
| moonwind |
OK, but how Rob concluded was not the same conclusion as the report from the NFU which is in the open domain (I linked to it). In fact you have to smile inwardly at that, because it just shows how easily it is to hear (or read) something and take it as true when, if checked out, you can find counter "facts" readily available. It is harder to try and be unbiased and as non-emotional as possible with regard the TB problem. |
||||||
| Brownbear |
I wonder why TB is the sole determining factor in allowing badgers to be culled. They are not endangered, they are invasive, they take stock and pets, their setts cause damage to fields and to drainage systems, and they attack not only stock but crops. They are more destructive than foxes, but do not have the compensatory benefit of controlling rabbit numbers.
The only explanation I can come up with is The Wind in the Willows syndrome. |
||||||
| Stacey |
But does that mean they should be culled (as in widespread culling)? |
||||||
| Brownbear |
Well, fox is listed as a pest species, and landowners have the choice to control numbers or not. I suggest to arable farmers that they leave their fox populations in peace, as they keep the rabbits down. I don't see why, now that it's been decided a national cull is not required, badgers cannot be regarded in the same light as fox, and controlled or not at the discretion of the landowner. |
||||||
| moonwind |
Sorry Rob, didn't see your link until a minute ago, having followed it and read through it, maybe the ministry are trying to find a compromise between farming groups and wildlife groups, but reading more closely it would appear that they are NOT hopeful that they will end up with anything conclusive anyway. Maybe I am wrong, but I see that as an expensive (to the taxpayer) waste of money? I would accept it more if both the livestock producers AND the badger groups were required to pay a good percentage of these vaccination trials (anyone know which company/ies are involved in producing vaccines as it may be worth investing a few quid in shares ).
Defra's idea and the badger killing "trial" would (like it or not) seem to blend in with each other, as both should end up with stats. However, reading between the lines, it seems everyone remains as pessimistic as before, therefore the question remains should the taxpayer have to keep paying the compensation each time cattle are slaughtered to check if they have signs of TB disease? Maybe the producers and badger groups should be made to fund research or find a way forward that they can both accept rather than dumping the bill on the taxpayer, who I am sure would rather the money be spent elsewhere. One thing is for sure if TB did become prevalent again in this Country it would not be for the better good of anyone living here. Do school kids still get tested and vaccinated against TB these days? |
||||||
| Stacey |
In theory I absolutely agree but such is the entrenched hatred of the badger by many farmers that I doubt they could be trusted to use culling in such a way as to merely keep balance |
||||||
| Nick |
It varies from school area to school area. And TB has been on the rise for around 10/15 years, starting with the poorest parts of the urban landscape. It was our fastest growing diagnostic kit in East London, around 12 years ago. Trouble is, vaccination is SOOO expensive....
|
||||||
| Nick |
Dunno, they hate rabbits and foxes, too (depending on the farmer and his crops), but nature finds a balance, usually. |
||||||
| Stacey |
Not as much as badgers IMO. You could present certain farmers with conclusive, scientifically watertight evidence that badgers aren't implicated in TB in any way and they wouldn't believe you. |
||||||
| Nick |
Oh, it's true, but I think nature would win out. How can rabbits and foxes be controlled? Is it only active methods like shooting, or can mass poisoning be done? | ||||||
| Brownbear |
I've never worked for a farmer, never met a farmer, who wanted all of a certain species wiped out. When someone's field drainage system is wrecked, or when their tractor suddenly sinks up the the axles in ground undermined by badgers, or when an electric fence shorts out and a ton and a half of grapes are gobbled up and shat out in heaps overnight, their chicken are raided and their old cat devoured, and then they're told that even giving a badger a dirty look could see them in court, well, it tends to colour their view a bit. The only people involved in agriculture who want all living creatures wiped out if they might hurt profits, are the bean-counting little slabs of damnation who work in corporate food production. Cull them and nature will soon find a healthy balance...
|
||||||
| Stacey |
Well, I bow to your superior knowledge But don't tell anyone, right?! |
||||||
| moonwind |
Brownbear:
That is a fair point regarding being allowed to control wildlife that causes damage. If I remember correctly landowners were able to kill badgers in years gone by, but that this was stopped because badger baiting got out of control and was seen to be done purely for sport (with bets taking place etc. etc) rather than for control. I suppose you could akin the argument with the fox hunting situation. That was purely an argument fought between two "sides", with the side that was loudest "winning" .. if it is correct to suggest any winners ! Again, as in this situation, the government find themselves between a rock and a hard place and politics is playing a large part in a truly awful situation. I have heard that the West Country landowners are really up against it and if true science had been allowed to trial certain areas for results of reactor cattle vs clear cattle in given areas the results would have proven valuable (either way) if looked at openly. However, that is not to be, the trials in Wales will be interesting too, but if they prove that no badgers = clean cattle I cannot see it being accepted, the same as if the opposite applied. It would be interesting to know more, such as if, in trial areas, cattle will be movement restricted during the trial periods? How long would trials have to be carried out? It would not be a case of kill all badgers and then run for 1 year and test cattle would it? A truly complex issue, but I can see no reason why landowners should not be allowed to control any vermin that are damaging to their livelihoods without fear of reprisal from extreme groups, that is not on. There do seem to be more badgers killed on the roads these days, so there must be more about, although many appear to be facing away from the traffic which is unusual because I was always led to believe that a badger will always face what it sees as the enemy head on
What are your views on the taxpayer paying compensation for slaughtered reactors, or do you think the majority do not realise what it is costing them, especially these days when we are told councils and government cannot afford to improve many services, many being cut in fact, taxes rising all the time openly and hidden taxation routes, Council Taxes rising and yet Government seem happy to carry on dishing out compensation for a situation that needs sorting out. |
||||||
| Brownbear |
I am not really knowledgeable enough to debate this from a technical point of view - my area is pest management, not stock animals - but from a public policy point of view, if it is decided to slaughter reactors as a matter of public policy, it seems reasonable that the public purse covers the costs of carrying out this policy. As far as badger-baiting goes, no doubt this sadistic spectacle - like cockfights and bullfighting - has an appeal to certain perverted individuals, but I do not believe that it can be a valid reason to ban the control of badger numbers. It's illegal to torture rats to death, but that doesn't mean they've been made a protected species. You can enforce a good law without having to pass a bad one to keep it company. |
||||||
| moonwind |
That's interesting. It would be awful if we got back to the stage where Governments were forced into having to have sanatoria again. Some history for anyone interested:- http://www.micklebring.com/oakwood/ch18.htm I have scarred lungs from being in contact with TB infection, and yet I was born in what would be classed as an upper middle class area, where professional people lived, not a poor area.Only found out about the scars after an X-Ray following the obligatory (then) test (darn good job I wasn't a bovine (OH suggests I am a silly moo of course!) or I would be slaughtered (((blimey don't tell him he could get compensation for me or I won't stand a chance). Seriously though, it seems that the whole subject of TB is complex and deeply divisive among people, and yet there are seems to be no clear answer to where it comes from, maybe it is a case of some specie are more susceptible than others? Carriers that display no signs of illness? What about immigration? Do people from certain areas have more chance to bring TB into the Country than people from other Countries? Does air travel which has made our World smaller increase the risk of an increase in devastating diseases such as TB? So many questions that only seem to lead to more questions than answers. Yet you mention, as I did in my original post, cost! That is the key to the badger vs cattle issue. Ah well good to see other peoples views |
||||||
| moonwind |
How very true, if only Governments would do this life would be much easier on many issues. |
||||||
| Nick |
Absolutely. However, it's not clear if it's because they are foreign, and therefor more genetically susceptible, have come from areas with lower background immunity, or higher infection rates, or simply because their living conditions here are to blame (poorer families, worse diets, worse housing, etc). My experience is anecdotal, at best, but Asian/black families, East End of London, poorer housing, worse diets were more likely to have TB. Everything is multifactorial, and so open to debate. |
||||||
| moonwind |
So I take it testing is carried out in areas where the more susceptible people are living? ..Of course with vaccination policy to provide protection for the people concerned? Would current day policies mean that vaccination could only be carried out if the people agreed to be vaccinated? In my school days it was obligatory. Interesting subject isn't it? Re contributory factors one assumes the cause of infection/carrier status could be a mixture of genetic and environmental means, both on country of origin and standard of living/lifestyle. I would have loved to have been a scientist and able to research an interesting topic, but missed the boat a bit! .. by about 30 decades LOLOL. A friend of ours does wonderful work but in connection with cancers, especially in young people .. the world owes much to these people indeed. |
||||||
| milkmaid |
does this help any it's an irish veiw
http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/index.jsp?file=pressrel/2007/89-2007.xml no axe to grind either way
|
||||||
| moonwind |
Thanks Milkmaid
That makes very interesting reading, and the trial was over a 5 year period. It will be interesting to see if the Welsh trial gives up similar findings, only time will tell. I did wonder if, once conclusion was reached either way, all "sides" would accept the findings. It is yet another divisive subject with no real winners after all, either way someone loses. |
||||||
| Rob R |
I was going to post this yesterday, but lightening cut me off, so it's probably a bit behind the debate now:
Actually I didn't conclude on the subject, I just referred to how the international situation pans out. I read the 'factsheet' but found it very short on facts and very heavy on opinion (as you say, making it hard to decide where the 'facts' begin & end). As I read it the NFU seem to want (actually they said that's what farmers & vets want) all badgers tested for TB with the healthy ones set free & the infected ones culled, the same as for cattle. The Government seems to be wanting to push more disease control costs onto industry but at the end of the day, if it is Government (and therefore the public purse) telling us what we should do, then expecting farmers to pay for it will put into doubt wether this is actually what farmers want. One slight problem of the kill & check later in cattle is that you are immediately removing any chance of natural resistance being bred into the herd (ie killing everything that comes in contact with the bacteria wether it is particularly susceptible or not.
|
||||||
| dpack |
im unsure about this
i have moos ,i like badgers there is dought over any course of action and the science on this is of mixed conclusions breeding resistance into the national (and superdoopermoo)herd would be a good idea a cull would need to be total to remove that resevoir of infection along with testing all and culling the affected cattle and vacinating for a few years ,there would need to be international cooperation as well mostly i suspect recent decisions have been driven by gordon brown's unwillingness to see the headline "brown orders badger killings " in the morning papers |
||||||
| Rob R |
"brown not budging on badgers" | ||||||
| sean |
Badgers buggered by Brown. |
||||||
| Rob R |
Brown buggered by Badgers. |
||||||
| dpack |
:lol
i dont want badgercide ,i dont want moos with btb i dont know what is best no blame ,maybe a solution |
||||||
| cab |
The evidence of such culls isn't that difficult to interpret. Culling has to be very widespread and very thorough, otherwise more badgers just move in. And if you make badgers move then odds are those with the disease will also spread it. Thats not really controversial, except that people don't like to dislike badgers. The problem is, I think, that to be effective any cull has to be pretty damned major, which is both expensive and unpopular; half measures would likely as not make the problem worse. |
||||||
| cab |
Just to be sure, the relationship between bovine TB (which can spread between cattle, badgers and certain other wild animals) and human TB (which spreads between people) isn't really simple; some people with TB have caught it from animals, but that isn't all that common, and that pathogen does not spread from person to person. While in my view the incidence of bovine TB in people has historically been way under-reported, for sure the two diseases are really very seperate issues. |
||||||
| cab |
Do I remember correctly that there was a shockingly low uptake rate of immunisation among those families? |