Bull prices

[hiddenfind]

SHANVALLY Haddon, a May 2012 British Blonde bull by Clarkhill Reliant from Savage Brothers, Co Down, Northern Ireland, led the trade at 4,500gns at the breed society show and sale at Carlisle last week. The buyer was W.A.M. Hall, Stranraer.



Next at 3,800gns was the overall and male champion, May 2012-born Hallfield Hagrid, by Blackwater Ainsley. Consigned by P. Weightman and Sons, Peterlee, it sold to I. Woodhead, Thirsk. Selling for 3,000gns was another bull from the same vendors and by the same sire. This was December 2011-born Hallfield Griffon, which went to E. Burgess, New Abbey, Dumfries.

Females sold to 2,400gns for January 2013-born, Gleniffer Iris, by Ark Diego, from A.R. Walker, Auchinlech, Ayrshire, which sold to W. Hall, Stranraer.

AVERAGES

5 bulls, £3,560; 4 females, £1,968.5.

 

[Davy_g]

Where you at the sale hidden?

 

[hiddenfind]

Unfortunately not but like to keep my eye on what's going on, did you make it, seems there was a great turnout.

 

[Davy_g]

Watched it online. I think there where only 5 bulls sold in the ring. Poor numbers. Some very nice animals though with good clearance at a healthy average.
Seems the blonde breeders from Manchester down are choosing the society sales at Worcester and Beeston. Closer for many but also don't have to tb test prior to movement.
Is it the death of blondes at Carlisle?

 

[Samcowman]

Speaking to David Knight when he delivered our bull yesterday he was saying that when they last took bulls up there the northern and Scottish buyers were reluctant to buy his bulls because they are in a TB1 so there's no point him going up there which is why he goes to Worcester now

 

[hiddenfind]

Being from worcester it's my regular haunt

 

[Penmoel]

Speaking to David Knight when he delivered our bull yesterday he was saying that when they last took bulls up there the northern and Scottish buyers were reluctant to buy his bulls because they are in a TB1 so there's no point him going up there which is why he goes to Worcester now

Friend of mine selling Saler bulls has often said the same, understandably when they find out they are from West Wales they look away, regardless of the animal

 

[Davy_g]

I struggle with the attitude of some tb 4 farmers. One I recently spoke two from Scotland insisted Scotland was clear of Tb. I beg to differ given all the outbreaks. He would not understand that testing every 4 years when there is a risk of tb either being imported, coming from a neighbours herd or wildlife. It could be through his whole herd and he could be directly responsible for yet unaware of spreading it on.

He just insisted Scotland was tb free. Is it a bit like their bvd programme where herds are accredited without continual testing of calves?

I'm not for one second knocking Scottish farmers but their department may be sending the wrong signals.
I have lived and farmed in a country that has always had annual tb testing. I know no different and see my annual tb and br tests as a royal pain but important in my herd health. God forbid If there where ever a problem we may catch it early and minimise the damage to my and surrounding herds.
I suppose this is for another subject but is buying from a tb 4 not even more of a risk than a tb 1 that has a recent clear herd test and an additional test on the animal before the sale.

Tin hat on

 

[GenuineRisk]

Couldn't agree more, davy_g. Scottish farmers are probably far safer buying from an annual testing area, from farms like ours that so far, have never been shut down and are high health herds, rather than from a four year testing area! I've seen the damage that an occur on farms that were on 4 year testing, going down so badly when they had their proscribed test that upwards of 50 animals were affected and sent on. It's taking them years to get free of the disease and they are still intermittently down some six years on. As for the claim that Scotland is bTb free - hmmm........

 

[Bojangles]

Eric 2.5k

 

[M-J-G]

I struggle with the attitude of some tb 4 farmers. One I recently spoke two from Scotland insisted Scotland was clear of Tb. I beg to differ given all the outbreaks. He would not understand that testing every 4 years when there is a risk of tb either being imported, coming from a neighbours herd or wildlife. It could be through his whole herd and he could be directly responsible for yet unaware of spreading it on.

He just insisted Scotland was tb free. Is it a bit like their bvd programme where herds are accredited without continual testing of calves?

I'm not for one second knocking Scottish farmers but their department may be sending the wrong signals.
I have lived and farmed in a country that has always had annual tb testing. I know no different and see my annual tb and br tests as a royal pain but important in my herd health. God forbid If there where ever a problem we may catch it early and minimise the damage to my and surrounding herds.
I suppose this is for another subject but is buying from a tb 4 not even more of a risk than a tb 1 that has a recent clear herd test and an additional test on the animal before the sale.

Tin hat on

So are you saying that the TB skin test is a good and accurate test and is a good indicator of the levels of TB in the area?

Do you suggest that buying from TB1 areas and doing extra testing is as low risk as buying from a TB4?

Would you be happy to import a beast from a country that has officially got problems with a disease that you are clear of when there are alternatives?

Anyone that I know in Scotland that has found reactors have brought cattle in from hotspots.

I'm from NI and I know how many herds are shut and I know what it's like to bring cattle in every two months for testing, and I aint wanting to go back to that method of wasting of time.

I know of no other way of attempting to keep the disease to a minimum other than buying from areas where there is less TB than others.

No point in risking it when there are plenty of cattle from clean areas.

 

[Davy_g]

So are you saying that the TB skin test is a good and accurate test and is a good indicator of the levels of TB in the area?

Its the only economical test our departments have. If it isn't then what do you use? Im not sure what your getting at here, and im definitely not looking to fall out, we have to live with the skin test, like it or not.

Do you suggest that buying from TB1 areas and doing extra testing is as low risk as buying from a TB4?

In some cases yes I do. There are different hotspots in TB1 areas. NI as you know only too well is TB1 yet some regions have never had TB, others on the other hand.....well sounds like you know where they are. That doesnt make them TB free or TB4, NI is simply on a TB1 and probably and always will be.

Would you be happy to import a beast from a country that has officially got problems with a disease that you are clear of when there are alternatives?

Has Northern Ireland 'officially got problems'? Yes it has TB, as does England, Wales and Scotland. I will buy a bull from anywhere if he is Tb free and from a Tb free farm in a Tb free area.

Anyone that I know in Scotland that has found reactors have brought cattle in from hotspots.

I dont doubt it, but then Scotland can not be Tb free, can it? Even if its officially Tb free.
http://www.farmersguardian.com/home...-bovine-tb-outbreak-in-scotland/46262.article
Closed herd since 98, 60 reactors. No animals bought in since 1998.....has to be 'wildlife issues'.

I'm from NI and I know how many herds are shut and I know what it's like to bring cattle in every two months for testing, and I aint wanting to go back to that method of wasting of time.

Agreed, its horrible we last had an outbreak in 2001, took 3 60 day tests to get clear (and clear out our herd in the process). I wouldnt wish it on anyone. I just hope that Scotlands department work very hard to stamp on any isolated outbreaks and contain them minimising any spread. This is the point im trying to make, there are outbreaks of Tb in Scotland. Do all surrounding farms get tested immediately, do they remain on Tb 1 for a reasonable length of time? Or is everyone on a Tb4 and keeping their heads in the sand. If so this could be the case where its better to buy from a clean Tb1 herd/area and a Tb4.


I know of no other way of attempting to keep the disease to a minimum other than buying from areas where there is less TB than others.
No point in risking it when there are plenty of cattle from clean areas.

Agreed 100%

 

[M-J-G]

Sorry if I gave the impression that I'd want to fall out @Davy_g it's not at all on my agenda!

Scotland are still skin testing every 4 years on herds that aren't slaughtering a fairly high proportion of their herd, 20% rings a bell, but cannot quite remember. On the slaughtering herds the cattle are monitored at the meat plant.

If anything is found the at slaughter the tb4 status is lost for that herd and all that it has sold to.

Testing was only allowed to be reduced due to little or no TB being found in the country apart from that linked to bought in cattle. I would guess that an area that currently has TB to higher levels if the authorities suggested testing every 4 years nobody would be protesting and demanding extra tests done.

4 year testing is something I'm not going to risk loosing. It's like with Johnes, never but from anyone with a lesser status than yourself.