Farmers should pay more for TB tests – AHVLA boss

[llamedos]

1 August 2014 | By Alistair Driver

FARMERS will need to bear more of the cost of bovine TB (bTB) testing as efforts are stepped up to improve surveillance for the disease, the head of the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA) has suggested.



Chris Hadkiss claimed farmers had become ‘heavily reliant’ on Government support and said there needed to be more sharing of costs and responsibility on bTB policy in future.

The AHVLA chief executive also raised the prospect of non-vets, including farmers, carrying out more TB testing in future.

Full article here http://www.farmersguardian.com/home...more-for-tb-tests-–-ahvla-boss/66413.article?

 

[Gulli]

Ahvla's responsibility they should pay.

Their cost cutting drive is going to end us up in a worse state than 2001 when we have another disease outbreak

 

[RobFZS]

Well if they don't want us to rely on the government, the government can remove protected species status on badgers, seems a fair compromise to me, put that to Chris Hadkiss while he's filling his boots.

 

[jellybean]

Why should we bear the cost of TB testing when they won't even begin to look at using a test that actually works? I am talking here as a deer farmer. We have to pay for all our own TB testing and we know, and AHVLA know, that the test does not work properly in deer. Other countries have developed testing regimes that do work for deer but nobody seems remotely interested in adopting them in this country.
One can only assume that they want us gone.
I think farmers would be prepared to pay for things themselves IF, as has been said above, we also had control over the wildlife TB problem AND could have an input into choosing better tests.

 

[roscoe erf]

where does he live

 

[Yale]

Well if they don't want us to rely on the government, the government can remove protected species status on badgers, seems a fair compromise to me, put that to Chris Hadkiss while he's filling his boots.

I can't like this enough.

 

[Sid]

Cost sharing when we get information sharing! Like where the outbreak is! They were quick enough to tell everyone where the contiguous farms were in 2001 but I don't know which block of land is causing my check test for tb!

My conversation with AHVLA vet couple of weeks ago he told me I didn't have to pay for test so I should be grateful! Thats when i let rip into him and told him i'd pay for the vet if he'd pay for getting cattle in, handling facilities, lost production, abortions,workers pay, holding cattle in different fields during test,my stress etc etc I told him they pay for the cheap part of a vets wages for 4 hours to test and read 180 head!

 

[Walterp]

More shirt trailing, like the proposals (repeated every now and again) to make farmers pay for BCMS passports.

 

[jade35]

Well this quote certainly shows their skewed viewpoint:-

“[AHWBE chairman] Michael Seals points to the fact – and my view would be – that the industry is heavily reliant on Government full stop in terms of solutions and owning problems.

“There has to be sharing of responsibility, risk and cost. That is always taken to be passing costs but the welfare board is trying to empower various parts of the industry to own these problems.

“My observation would be this industry is quite accustomed to Government subsidy and compensation.”

I will leave Matthew and GUTH to demolish their argument but I would like to know why with ever more frequent testing and full movement details and restrictions of cattle they have not stopped TB in it's tracks yet. As mentioned previously, between 1956 and 2001 Father in law had one South Devon cow go inconclusive on one test, since then . We have brought no new animals on to the farm since 2001 and have only one short hedge on the farm where there could be possible direct nose to nose cattle contact but the problem goes on and on.

(and yes, I fully understand the one variable that we are not allowed to touch because we are 'heavily reliant' on Government rules and regulations 'in terms of solutions and owning problems')

 

[joe soapy]

Been searching my files copied from Min of Ag report

 

[jade35]

@joe soapy do you think there were any less cattle movements going back over the years?

 

[joe soapy]

there was weekly busy markets at Plympton, tavistock launceston liskeard holesworthy hatherliegh kingsbridge newton abbot
five lanes hallworthy selling fat cattle calves and sheep plus some stores, then there were the big monthly sales on stores,
autumn suckled calf sales. tavistock goose fair with 2 days and 2000 cattle, then you would also have the annual sales, prison, sherberton, chagford, widecombe and many more all what i would call local, with buyers comeing from as far as yorkshire
tavistock was adjoining thev rail station and i cab just remember walking cattle to the market where they were sold then loaded onto the rail wagons. most local stations had a siding and some pens. We would have bulls and even sheep dogs delivered from Scotland.
Trains would collect milk, eggs, fruit, soft fruit, veg, rabbits, flowers

 

[jade35]

.....and nothing pre movement tested.

 

[Old Boar]

“There has to be sharing of responsibility, risk and cost."
Has this guy even an inkling of what he is saying? There is a grade 3 zoonosis at large in the countryside. Farmers try to be responsible, but it is impossible while the infection stalks the land. It is farmers alone that take the risk that they will lose generations old blood lines, their livelihood, and the cost - does he count the distress, the feeling of impotence, the anger, let alone the drop in the milk tank?
So come on, let see the responsibility on the other side of the fence.

 

[joe soapy]

“There has to be sharing of responsibility, risk and cost."

The chap is correct, and the sooner the gov/public paid thier share the better.
most farmers know the cause and cure, and could easily and cheaply sort the job.
The public want us to share our farms with aggressive disease ridden animals that
most will have never seen, but dont want to bear the true costs

 

[joe soapy]

.....and nothing pre movement tested.

A lot weren't even TB tested, there was a period when we in devon were not supposed to buy out of cornwall,
not sure if it was enforced though

 

[matthew]

For once farmers speaking in unison Yeah.

Responsibility? Owning the problem? All weasel word spin when government are certainly shirking theirs. Having wrapped up management of this particular animal in red tape, made its control subject to licenses and from 1997 refused to issue any such license, what do they expect?

This posting in 2008 explains the legal framework to which we [that's 'we' as a country] are signed up.

http://bovinetb.blogspot.co.uk/2008/07/governmental-responsibilities.html

And the EU's DG SANCO went much further in 2012 with this blast:

http://bovinetb.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/uk-politicians-must-accept-their.html

... which is very much along the lines of these comments.

It's a start.

 

[gone up the hill]

Well this quote certainly shows their skewed viewpoint:-

“[AHWBE chairman] Michael Seals points to the fact – and my view would be – that the industry is heavily reliant on Government full stop in terms of solutions and owning problems.

“There has to be sharing of responsibility, risk and cost. That is always taken to be passing costs but the welfare board is trying to empower various parts of the industry to own these problems.

“My observation would be this industry is quite accustomed to Government subsidy and compensation.”

I will leave Matthew and GUTH to demolish their argument but I would like to know why with ever more frequent testing and full movement details and restrictions of cattle they have not stopped TB in it's tracks yet. As mentioned previously, between 1956 and 2001 Father in law had one South Devon cow go inconclusive on one test, since then . We have brought no new animals on to the farm since 2001 and have only one short hedge on the farm where there could be possible direct nose to nose cattle contact but the problem goes on and on.

(and yes, I fully understand the one variable that we are not allowed to touch because we are 'heavily reliant' on Government rules and regulations 'in terms of solutions and owning problems')

Anything Michael Seals gets his hands on ALWAYS ends up costing farmers money.... Take the fallen stock scheme he set up.... a Ponzi scheme that ended up costing the farmers in it more to get dead animals collected than if they had called the renderer direct....

Unless badgers are taken off the protected list then ALL testing cost's where AHVLA order a test have to be paid for by the government... simple as...

If they want to save money on TB testing/ removing reactors then I suggest the following.... STOP making farmers do tracer test's on animals a week before they have a whole herd test booked ( this alone for one animal cost about £100 in vet fee's ) and TWO.. stop paying the haulier's £100 to pick up each reactor and take it on its own to the Abb IN A 6/8 wheel lorry and then go to the neighbours the next day and do the same again ( seen this done 4 times in one parish the other week so aka £400 just to move 4 animals from four farms in the same parish to the same Abb, 2/3 years ago they would have all been collected on the same day and the haulier would have got about £200 for doing it so go back to that system... but in the name of cost cutting they changed the rules and its increased transport costs 100%... that's two simple ways they can start saving money for starters........

Another point this chap made about having non vets doing the testing to cut cost's... well given the dracion cost's to farms if they go down with TB then only a fully qualified vet is acceptable to do the testing...when they abolish cattle movement restrictions on farms that get a reactor then perhaps ley people can do it but until then it has to be done by a fully qualified vet as far too many mistakes/ incorrect readings etc ect will end up being done by people they drag of the streets of London to do it.....

 

[joe soapy]

mattew, just found a pdf file in your archive "consultative panel badgers and bovine tb"
could you post a link please, make interesting reading for people.
cheers

 

[caveman]

It wouldn't be because they have had to put the job out to tender now and vets have stood together and said, "Fekk you. We want so and so to do the job, or you can stick it", would it?