Fallowfield
Member
The usual subjects, with the usual answer to whatever the problem might be..
Kill something.
Kill something.
Have some of that Chris Packham
- Thread starter Yosemite Sam
- Start date
I prefer to go by the results of every cull that was ever done which showed a drop in TB cases every time, even the ones that were designed to fail. I followed the RBCT evidence closely and couldn't believe the results they came up with. Perturbation was given far more publicity than it merited and "may" quickly became "will" in some people's eyes.
and what would you do ?
after you have got your head out the sand that is
Ah yes - lets leave any logic out of it if it does not suit our own pov?
Culling is a technique which works very well - it is practiced in one form or another by every livestock farmer in the world and has been since time began.
Its efficacy is very well demonstrated by many government enforced schemes depending on where you are. 2001 saw a spectacular demonstration of how ruthless culling could eradicate a widespread disease in very short order indeed compared to early half baked efforts.
It does not work very well in Bovine Tb in England - because there is an endemic wildlife reservoir and no permissible vaccination for cattle, however as I uderstand it it is now making inroads now that the wildlife reservoir is being cullled
I’ll ask yet again as you yourself don’t seem to like to answer direct questions....,
What is your background in this, Do you have specific professional knowledge or are you just an interested bystander/ley person.
It’s very easy to google answers to questions and throw out stats, but as I and others have said stats are just stats, they need backing up with real world experience, something most farmers have in spades.
We are in the countryside day after day, far more than any scientist doing a survey, that is probably flawed before it is even started!
The key thing which most folks miss in the RBCT chain is that they were given a very clear political steer that widespread and significant population reductions of badgers were not acceptable.
They then set out to conduct an experiment into the effects of severly limited culling efforts and reported faithfullly on the results.
How would you eradicate tb?
Fallowfield
Member
The first question I would ask is why cattle now seem to be so much more susceptible to it.
The second question I would ask is whether the drive to eradicate the disease is driven by health/animal welfare considerations or economic ones (like foot and mouth was).
The third question I would ask is whether eradication is a realistic goal.
- Location
- Montgomeryshire
Q1. Because there is a bigger pool of infection loitering & spreadinginfection, whether that be infected cattle that wouldn’t have been about in such numbers if the lid was more firmly on, or the abundance of uncontrolled wildlife vectors known to be ‘superexcretors’.
Q2. Both. Contrary to what readers of The Guardian like to believe, farmers want their animals to be in good health, if only because animals under poor welfare don’t even pay for their own keep, let alone that of their keepers.
Q3. It was almost eradicated from farmed livestock and the local wildlife........until culling in infected areas was stopped.
Damn, damn, damn! I’ve responded to the troll.
I promised myself not to feed it.
Last edited:
short version:-
" I have no idea but I don't want to admit that culling badgers forms an essential part of any realistic strategy"
A1an
Member
Last edited:
Quite honestly, @Fallowfield's approach to this is disgusting. Leave the farmer out of this for a moment; and the cattle, which at least don't suffer, being put down before they feel the real effects of the disease; forget the huge danger to humans, which will really hit home as and when the infection reaches the urban badger populations; think about what happens to the infected badger.
Badgers are social animals; they probably spend more than half their lives in a nice cosy sett among their own kind. So, a badger becomes infected from contact with the member of another sett, or from an infected badger's body fluids. In the muggy warmth of the sett it unknowingly passes on the disease, but eventually becomes sick itself, at which stage the others can sense that it is ill, and drive it out, though it is too late to save them from the infection. Its throat and lungs will be on fire; the internal organs riddled with oozing lesions; but badgers are tough and it is still just about functional, alone for maybe the first time in its life, looking for a safe place to hide and to find food, and driven away by every other badger it meets, in a slow, painful decline into death.
Imagine inflicting this on a dog, or a cat.
Fallowfield sneers that the farmer's way out of a situation like this is to "kill something". Yet the Fallowfields of this world have actually created this hideous torture and destruction of, ultimately, far more living creatures than would be removed by a humane cull.
I just cannot understand the mentality of someone, seemingly intelligent enough to reason and understand, who so lacks any sort of empathy with the living animal, that he (?) will try to create this situation, presumably to take the moral high ground as a Saviour of Wildlife. It is, I repeat, disgusting. Actually a worse death than badger baiting, which is fast by comparison.
I think that someone with access to pictures of autopsies on badgers dead from TB should post a few to give some idea of what these animals suffer, and Fallowfield should have a good look at them and open his / her mind, just a little.
Badgers are social animals; they probably spend more than half their lives in a nice cosy sett among their own kind. So, a badger becomes infected from contact with the member of another sett, or from an infected badger's body fluids. In the muggy warmth of the sett it unknowingly passes on the disease, but eventually becomes sick itself, at which stage the others can sense that it is ill, and drive it out, though it is too late to save them from the infection. Its throat and lungs will be on fire; the internal organs riddled with oozing lesions; but badgers are tough and it is still just about functional, alone for maybe the first time in its life, looking for a safe place to hide and to find food, and driven away by every other badger it meets, in a slow, painful decline into death.
Imagine inflicting this on a dog, or a cat.
Fallowfield sneers that the farmer's way out of a situation like this is to "kill something". Yet the Fallowfields of this world have actually created this hideous torture and destruction of, ultimately, far more living creatures than would be removed by a humane cull.
I just cannot understand the mentality of someone, seemingly intelligent enough to reason and understand, who so lacks any sort of empathy with the living animal, that he (?) will try to create this situation, presumably to take the moral high ground as a Saviour of Wildlife. It is, I repeat, disgusting. Actually a worse death than badger baiting, which is fast by comparison.
I think that someone with access to pictures of autopsies on badgers dead from TB should post a few to give some idea of what these animals suffer, and Fallowfield should have a good look at them and open his / her mind, just a little.
It was within touching distance in the 1970s
Princess Pooper
Member
- Location
- East Mids
What makes you think cattle are now more susceptible to TB? Cattle used to be absolutely riddled with TB which was then caught by humans drinking raw milk which is why early in the 20C voluntary testing and culling was brought in and then that became statutory to speed the process up. That is how it was very nearly eradicated. But now cattle are exposed to infection far more frequently so of course they get TB more often again. We ran a closed herd and had NO contact with other cattle there are none anywhere near our boundaries but we lost a whole load nearly all in calf heifers. As we are a very 'wildlife friendly' farm with lots of lovely thick hedges etc we have had a large increase in our badger population. We find new short term latrines all over the place as well as at the established sites and it is a nightmare trying to keep our cattle away from these infection hotspots.
Total eradication is not necessarily realistic but getting it down to a very low level of incidence is realistic - it was nearly achieved and in other countries where wildlife hosts can be controlled then that is what is maintained - a very low level of incidence.
That hasn't answered my question.
@Fallowfield seems you have missed my question.........you’ve replied to posts after my original question and my latest repeating the same question.
Maybe I should add a few ################# to get your attention?
Princess Pooper
Member
- Location
- East Mids
It's only very recently - since he visited some leading environmental farmers - that he has come out with the 'visit a farm' line, prior to that he was just slamming us at every opportunity, which is what led some to invite him to visit. all he is doing is alienating those that do a good job of environmental management and there are plenty of us.
renewablejohn
Member
- Location
- lancs
Well if you do live in no mans land than you wont have a problem. At least have the decency to put in your avatar a rough idea where you live.
...and fallow fields bear no fruit.
that's in Devon