On not scanning

[Lovegoodstock]

I would say that you run a different system to most commercial men by breeding extreme show type animals. It was a good job she did breed that show animal. For us producing commercial calves it wouldn't be worth it. Would you have kept her if she had a poorer calf as a heifer?

Almost definitely , barely find a cow/ heifer that doesn't "click" with one of my bulls, most go fine with any but some seem suited to just an odd one, so not all the time if say mad busy at lambing, but generally get cows to go with bulls that suit them.

 

[digger64]

[Qdon't ="Walterp, post: 4543444, member: 321"]The monetary cost is £300; the imaginary calf is a 'Chinese Loss' i.e. it never existed.

To turn that Chinese loss into a realisable profit you'd sell the cow (+£600) then retain a heifer (-£1,200) thus increasing the monetary loss from £300 to £600.

This is on a cash basis - on a capital basis you've still got the hopefully calved-down heifer, worth £1,200 (and gently depreciating down to £600).

[Julie runs cows in management groups of c 25, each with a bull from July - December.][/QUOTE]
I dont get your figures at all if didn't finish your heifer she would stand at say £ 900 as a very strong but rangey
store if you had fed your cow (the finishing feed you saved from the heifer )she would stand at say £900 - if your heifer was in calf you would have something to sell next year as well and a nice young cow at little or no extra cost .
I think the Chinese are smarter than you think

 

[Walterp]

We run cattle in a high risk area as well and have just been placed in a 6 mth testing interval. We are fortunate to have not had a case on the farm, despite a farm a mile down the road losing half his herd this yr. Our main income is from stores and breeding stock so keeping clear of TB is our biggest concern. Hence why I might sound a bit narked that someone is knowingly keeping an animal that will potentially fail a post mortem.
In my eyes it's akin to keeping a PI calf because "isn't it a good calf" or "it might grow into a good heifer and breed a good calf".
Plus it gives the badger huggers plenty of canon fodder when someone's bragging about it on an open forum.
Sorry if I've offended you, but that's just my opinion.

You'd be wrong in that opinion.

1. Every animal can potentially fail a TB test

2. The rules clearly stipulate that anyone can slaughter even a reactor, so long as they do not expect compensation.

3. I have bragged about nothing.

You need to step back and re-examine the circumstances.

 

[Walterp]

[
I dont get your figures at all if didn't finish your heifer she would stand at say £ 900 as a very strong but rangey
store if you had fed your cow (the finishing feed you saved from the heifer )she would stand at say £900 - if your heifer was in calf you would have something to sell next year as well and a nice young cow at little or no extra cost .
I think the Chinese are smarter than you think

A 'Chinese Loss' is one that never really happened, but might have given enough contingencies - they are notorious complainers about what they might have got. (That doesn't make the complainer stupid, it makes them devious).

Take your point: an old cow isn't going to be fattened - feeding her would just increase the loss. And the heifer won't be a rangy store, she'll be fit to go off grass, most of the time.

As I said at the outset, other types and weights of cattle are available, these are just what is here: aiming for 600 kg l/w, 325 kg d/w. The cows would be much the same, both Angus and Limousin.

 

[bovine]

2. The rules clearly stipulate that anyone can slaughter even a reactor, so long as they do not expect compensation.

Not something I'd ever really thought about but it's really a missed opportunity for TB surveillance, and I'm surprised it's not been closed.

 

[digger64]

A 'Chinese Loss' is one that never really happened, but might have given enough contingencies - they are notorious complainers about what they might have got. (That doesn't make the complainer stupid, it makes them devious).

Take your point: an old cow isn't going to be fattened - feeding her would just increase the loss. And the heifer won't be a rangy store, she'll be fit to go off grass, most of the time.

As I said at the outset, other types and weights of cattle are available, these are just what is here: aiming for 600 kg l/w, 325 kg d/w.

18 year old ones dont fatten very well but 10 year old ones usually do

 

[Walterp]

Not something I'd ever really thought about but it's really a missed opportunity for TB surveillance, and I'm surprised it's not been closed.

I've never heard of anyone who's ever slaughtered a reactor merely to avoid a re-test, and I don't suppose it'd happen?

 

[Walterp]

18 year old ones dont fatten very well but 10 year old ones usually do

My understanding is that it's non-economic, at £1/kg.

 

[digger64]

If that's all you can get yes but mine left this morning to an abbatoir much nearer you than here hope your wrong

 

[Lovegoodstock]

Im fairly sure you can slaughter a reactor, yet your herd is still under restrictions which is surely an obvious sensible rule. Otherwise every short thinking person would kill an isolated reactor and sell all stores quick in fear of another failure

 

[Walterp]

Im fairly sure you can slaughter a reactor, yet your herd is still under restrictions which is surely an obvious sensible rule. Otherwise every short thinking person would kill an isolated reactor and sell all stores quick in fear of another failure

An isolated reactor would normally justify lifting movement restrictions on the rest of the herd, thus enabling anyone to sell whatever stock they wished. The reactor goes into isolation (and is liable to, and sometimes is, physically spot-checked).

No need for subterfuge, it's normal procedure.

The converse - that an historically-troubled herd cannot have movement restrictions lifted even though there is a sole reactor - would invite the herd owner to consider whether the sacrifice of the value of one animal is worth it, given that herd re-testing is on the cards anyway.

It's a separate question from whether an old cow, in poor condition, is a sensible proposition for selling rather than culling. Julie tends to cull, for the reasons stated. Compared to the problems if TB shows up in prime cattle at the abattoir, it's a minor issue.

 

[topground]

Not something I'd ever really thought about but it's really a missed opportunity for TB surveillance, and I'm surprised it's not been closed.

The meat inspection protocols require incision of the lymph nodes so that they can be examned for Tuberculosis lesions. This method of Tb surveillance is universal even where there is no wildlife reservoir of the disease. Consequently there is no 'loophole' to be closed in Tb surveillance by allowing slaughter in the manner you are worried about @Walterp
Having had a reactor here two years ago for the first tme in 14 years I was under restriction until two clear 60 day interval tests so where do you get the idea that an isolated reactor would justify lifting restrictions in the rest of the herd from? Unless of course the rules are different on your side of the Bristol Channel!

 

[digger64]

My understanding is that it's non-economic, at £1/kg.

Been thinking about this , surely the reason people buy cows at 90p/kg is to turn them into heavier cows at 130p/ kg not very feed efficient but isnt the profit in the price ?

 

[digger64]

The meat inspection protocols require incision of the lymph nodes so that they can be examned for Tuberculosis lesions. This method of Tb surveillance is universal even where there is no wildlife reservoir of the disease. Consequently there is no 'loophole' to be closed in Tb surveillance by allowing slaughter in the manner you are worried about @Walterp
Having had a reactor here two years ago for the first tme in 14 years I was under restriction until two clear 60 day interval tests so where do you get the idea that an isolated reactor would justify lifting restrictions in the rest of the herd from? Unless of course the rules are different on your side of the Bristol Channel!

If the cow had scar /lesions at slaughter would you still get paid properly for it ?

 

[Walterp]

The meat inspection protocols require incision of the lymph nodes so that they can be examned for Tuberculosis lesions. This method of Tb surveillance is universal even where there is no wildlife reservoir of the disease. Consequently there is no 'loophole' to be closed in Tb surveillance by allowing slaughter in the manner you are worried about @Walterp
Having had a reactor here two years ago for the first tme in 14 years I was under restriction until two clear 60 day interval tests so where do you get the idea that an isolated reactor would justify lifting restrictions in the rest of the herd from? Unless of course the rules are different on your side of the Bristol Channel!

1. Renderers don't carry out TB surveillance

2. WAG will, as a general rule, lift restrictions on condition of isolation of the reactor.

I bet you never even asked for restrictions to be lifted?

 

[Henarar]

The meat inspection protocols require incision of the lymph nodes so that they can be examned for Tuberculosis lesions. This method of Tb surveillance is universal even where there is no wildlife reservoir of the disease. Consequently there is no 'loophole' to be closed in Tb surveillance by allowing slaughter in the manner you are worried about @Walterp
Having had a reactor here two years ago for the first tme in 14 years I was under restriction until two clear 60 day interval tests so where do you get the idea that an isolated reactor would justify lifting restrictions in the rest of the herd from? Unless of course the rules are different on your side of the Bristol Channel!

1. Renderers don't carry out TB surveillance

2. WAG will, as a general rule, lift restrictions on condition of isolation of the reactor.

I bet you never even asked for restrictions to be lifted?

@matthew ?

 

[matthew]

Not something I'd ever really thought about but it's really a missed opportunity for TB surveillance, and I'm surprised it's not been closed.

If a herd is under TB2 then knacker stock is inspected, I believe.

I've never heard of anyone who's ever slaughtered a reactor merely to avoid a re-test, and I don't suppose it'd happen?

A reactor which doesn’t go through the correct channels which demand inspection for visible lesions and / or culture will automatically trigger a herd test in England. I doubt Wales is any different. But could be wrong.

Im fairly sure you can slaughter a reactor, yet your herd is still under restrictions which is surely an obvious sensible rule. Otherwise every short thinking person would kill an isolated reactor and sell all stores quick in fear of another failure

Yes.

An isolated reactor would normally justify lifting movement restrictions on the rest of the herd, thus enabling anyone to sell whatever stock they wished. The reactor goes into isolation (and is liable to, and sometimes is, physically spot-checked).

No need for subterfuge, it's normal procedure.

The converse - that an historically-troubled herd cannot have movement restrictions lifted even though there is a sole reactor - would invite the herd owner to consider whether the sacrifice of the value of one animal is worth it, given that herd re-testing is on the cards anyway.

It's a separate question from whether an old cow, in poor condition, is a sensible proposition for selling rather than culling. Julie tends to cull, for the reasons stated. Compared to the problems if TB shows up in prime cattle at the abattoir, it's a minor issue.

Normal procedure? Isolate a reactor, and carry on trading in the open market?
Don’t think so. I know the Welsh are said to have some strange customs, but......

Who am I to argue with Walterp.

 

[Walterp]

Who am I to argue with Walterp.

From the government website, today:

"If at least 1 animal has had an inconclusive skin test result, it’s an inconclusive reactor, or IR, and your herd’s TB free status is lost. Depending on the herd’s TB history in the previous 3 years:

• OTF status may be reinstated
• movement restrictions may be limited to the IR only while waiting for the IR to be retested"

Applies to both England and Wales.

Looks like no farmers have been even asking...

Here the agency can be asked, and sometimes they will volunteer, to lift restrictions in these circs. We've explored both avenues.

Any more doubters as to my accuracy, and I will post a copy of the last such AHVLA suspension of restrictions to this place, this Summer, which puts the matter beyond doubt. Gives you two months to sell stock, which can get you out of an awful lot of trouble.

(Thank you in advance for the various apologies, which I accept graciously. I am especially chuffed to have explained something to Matthew - normally it is the other way around, so just look on it as repaying, if only partially, a debt of gratitude).

 

[Poorbuthappy]

From the government website, today:

"If at least 1 animal has had an inconclusive skin test result, it’s an inconclusive reactor, or IR, and your herd’s TB free status is lost. Depending on the herd’s TB history in the previous 3 years:

• OTF status may be reinstated
• movement restrictions may be limited to the IR only while waiting for the IR to be retested"

Applies to both England and Wales.

Looks like no farmers have been even asking...

Here the agency can be asked, and sometimes they will volunteer, to lift restrictions in these circs. We've explored both avenues.

Any more doubters as to my accuracy, and I will post a copy of the last such AHVLA suspension of restrictions to this place, this Summer, which puts the matter beyond doubt. Gives you two months to sell stock, which can get you out of an awful lot of trouble.

(Thank you in advance for the various apologies, which I accept graciously. I am especially chuffed to have explained something to Matthew - normally it is the other way around, so just look on it as repaying, if only partially, a debt of gratitude).

It would appear to me you've just moved the goalposts Walter.
Your earlier post referred to a reactor.
Your quote here refers to an inconclusive or IR.
My apologies if I've misunderstood you. No doubt your apologies will ensue if I haven't.

 

[Walterp]

It would appear to me you've ust moved the goalposts Walter.
Your earlier post referred to a reactor.
Your quote here refers to an inconclusive or IR.
My apologies if I've misunderstood you. No doubt your apologies will ensue if I haven't.

All test failures are 'reactors', in the jargon.

To you and me, they'd be 'IR's' but, when you think about it, our conception of a 'reactor' wouldn't be hanging about for a re-test in two months.

We've been saved by this clause, more than once, hence the familiarity with it - but I'd make the point that isolation is strict, and liable to spot checks with no notice. Happens around here, to my knowledge - although why farmers would flout such a dispensation is completely beyond me.