# Disgusting badger cull.



## coppo

As a nature lover I am disgusted by the badger cull which begins in August in 2 locations.

Even some of the scientists are against it saying it will be ineffective and will not make any difference.

Badgers were here long before cows, it makes my blood boil as a nature lover and makes it easier for farmers to blame something for TB outbreaks.There is no justification for it.

Just imagine if the TB rate goes down in the 2 cull areas, what next, a nationwide cull?

It makes you want to join an animal rights group and protest, is there any point writing to someone?

Poor, beautiful, innocent animal gets the blame again :evil: :evil: 

Paul.


----------



## 96299

I'm with you man-it stinks.  

Steve


----------



## Bengal

If all the badgers and cows are culled then TB would disappear. Instead of culling the badgers, why not cull the cows instead? As Coppo says, the badgers were here first. 

Seriously though, I also think there is sufficient scientific doubt about the efficacy of culling badgers to make the whole thing a waste of time.

Bengal


----------



## Glandwr

The badger population around us has exploded exponentially over the last 30 years. I’ve lived in the country here off and on throughout my 60 plus years. When I was a child it was a rarity to see a badger set. Now I can take you to half a dozen large ones within half a mile of my house and it is impossible to travel more than a dozen miles on our roads without seeing one of them as road kill.

They are beginning to be a real problem in some areas as far as damage to the rural infrastructure is concerned let alone the link to TB. What do you suggest we do?

Dick


----------



## NeilandDebs

*Badger cull*

Morning All

Rather than getting our knickers in a twist now why not wait until the results of the cull are in. That will decide it one way or the other.
If it proves it the cull will go nationwide, if it proves against that will be the end of it. In the culled areas badgers will re colonise over a few years. Simples!! Neil

Debs on the other hand dead set against the cull !!


----------



## Glandwr

I don't think it will go nationwide. It is very much a local problem with serious hotspots that are growing.

Dick


----------



## coppo

There are many reports around saying it will not work and in fact make matters much worse.


----------



## coppo

They are beginning to be a real problem in some areas as far as damage to the rural infrastructure is concerned let alone the link to TB. What do you suggest we do?

Dick[/quote]

Not a thousanth as much damage as human beings do to the rural infrastructure.


----------



## Glandwr

There is a whole lot of false information coming out from both sides I think Coppo. It's become political (with a small p if you know what I mean)


----------



## coppo

Glandwr said:


> There is a whole lot of false information coming out from both sides I think Coppo. It's become political (with a small p if you know what I mean)


The reason its become political is because the powers that be know full well the outcry which is beginning to ensue when a stupid, pointless idea originally bandied about by farmers is now becoming real.


----------



## SomersetSteve

Lets not forget that badgers are dying horrible deaths due to TB, something needs to be done, not at all sure that a cull will work though.


----------



## motormouth

I have sympathy for both sides. I live amongst the farming community and I can tell you that it is absolutely devastating for a farmer to see his herd slaughtered due to TB. So if some scientist or DEFRA guy has convinced him that badgers are a carrier, he will do what he needs to rid his farm of them. It's all well and good saying that badgers were here before cows, we could exist without badgers, it would be hard to exist without cows and what they give us.
On the other hand, where culls have taken place in the past, the resulting drop in TB cases has only been around 12%. Several experts are also warning that a cull may even make matters worse. So as usual, we have differing views and you can't really argue against either.
One simple answer would be to immunise the badger population, but that would cost a whole lot more than a cull.


----------



## steco1958

Bengal said:


> Instead of culling the badgers, why not cull the cows instead? As Coppo says, the badgers were here first.
> Bengal


Because we don't eat Badgers !!

If the uk don't cure or drastically reduce the instance of Bovine TB we will be importing more beef, and dairy products as a result and as we all know if we import, it costs.


----------



## Jodi1

Deer also spread TB.


----------



## greygit

I wonder how they cope in the rest of Europe; it can't be just confined to the UK or is it? 

Gary


----------



## Glandwr

greygit said:


> I wonder how they cope in the rest of Europe; it can't be just confined to the UK or is it?
> 
> Gary


Wild boar are also noted for carrying TB. I should imagine when there is an outbreak the chasseurs sort it. Numbers are the problem not TB.

Dick


----------



## Penquin

OK some background information from a biologist.......

TB is an infectious disease caused by two different bacteria of the genus _Mycobacteriam_; one of which lives in cattle (_M. bovis)_ and was used to produce the vaccination for humans against TB. that vaccine has been very successful BUT it only vaccinates against the bacterium that causes TB in humans.

There is NO vaccine that will vaccinate against cattle OR badger TB......

neither is there likely to be since there is no possible starting position for it's production.

TB has been in cattle for hundreds of years, BUT the Government insists that all milk for human consumption is certified free from any possible trace of TB.

The ONLY way of doing that is to remove cattle that MIGHT have TB from the system - and since it is infectious that means to remove ALL cattle in the herd that MIGHT have it.

At present the possible presence of TB in cattle is detected using a very poor indicator of reactions - there is a vast amount of undisputed evidence that the identification of TB is woefully false - many cattle have been identified as "reactors" and slaughtered but found to have no trace of TB at all.

The growth of badger colonies has been exponential since it became illegal to cull them - they are now very much more numerous than they have ever been and have caused damage due to their sets undermining whole areas. Sadly there is no reliable way to detect TB in badgers either.......

So since the rise in TB in cattle reflects the exponential rise in badger populations, the ONLY way of proving that there is a link is to remove the entire badger population (that is extremely difficult to do reliably as has been demonstrated in previous trials).

There is no guarantee that it will work - if ONE farm maintains an infected set then the entire cull will be valueless for the area. Badgers do migrate and can contaminate new areas, so if an area is designated "badger-free" it may only remain that way for a short time.

BUT THERE IS NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE to this trial if farmers are going to continue to produce milk for human consumption UNLESS we accept that the milk may not be TB free - and that would mean the reinstatement of the BCG/TB vaccination for humans - stopped in 2005 unless there is a demonstrable need for it due to where e.g. an immigrant was born......

So, what alternative is there? No vaccination is possible for badgers or cattle, no other form of transmission can be identified, there is a direct correlation between badger numbers and TB occurrence in cattle, and all milk for human consumption MUST be certified TB free....

Sadly until a more reliable test for the presence of TB in cattle AND in badgers is developed, there is no alternative possible.

Badgers suffer and die from TB, that is without doubt, but they do it away from human eyes within their sets and in so doing infect the other members of their set, if that could be prevented it should be - dying from TB is not a pleasant way for ANY animal to die.

All of those facts can be checked, it forms part of the A level biology course as part of the "Human disease" section of the syllabus for virtually all exam groups.

May I also PLEASE appeal to all posters to keep this interesting discussion "free from politics" since political thread invariably end up in the Subscribers Lounge....

Dave
Biologist AND Moderator!


----------



## Glandwr

What's your take on the hotspots Dave?

Dick


----------



## Stanner

I've read that the major cause of the spread of TB is farmers who can't be bothered to undertake proper bio-security. Numerous examples have been recorded of farmers falsifying records to allow them to sell infected cattle.

Not unbiased I know but the sources quoted (Welsh Assembly) are valid
http://www.nfbg.org.uk/_Attachments/Resources/277_S4.pdf

Personally I think a cull of farmers would be far more effective. We had a cull of miners when their industry was seen as "too expensive" so lets have the same with our "too expensive" farmers.


----------



## Penquin

Glandwr said:


> What's your take on the hotspots Dave?
> 
> Dick


My interpretation of what I have read - I have no first hand knowledge so cannot claim anything special! would be that in the known hotspots (which can cover quite a few sg km) the badger population may be more migratory than elsewhere IF the badgers are solely responsible.

It could be explained by other migratory factors e.g. farmers moving cattle around, other migratory animals (deer?), or simply a particular genetic susceptibility amongst the badgers in that area - many of which will be inbred........

It is known that inbreeding - mating between genetically related individuals - does allow genetic weaknesses to be expressed more frequently. That COULD explain why some populations of animals are more prone to the disease than others.

BUT I MUST STRESS my suggestion is based solely on the biology of diseases in general and populations (and I am not going to quote the Hardy-Weinburg equations or Chi squared values for population genetics which would be an interesting statistical examination on the gene pool :lol:  ).

There are great difficulties in explaining MANY natural phenomena as regards disease, some cannot be dealt with (think of the Common Cold - actually there are about 90+ viruses which cause similar symptoms AND the viruses undergo changes frequently and we STILL have no cure for even one of them in spite of 60+ years of research at places like the Common Cold Institute).

Some things may never be totally explained or sorted......

Dave


----------



## coppo

Penquin said:


> Glandwr said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your take on the hotspots Dave?
> 
> Dick
> 
> 
> 
> My interpretation of what I have read - I have no first hand knowledge so cannot claim anything special! would be that in the known hotspots (which can cover quite a few sg km) the badger population may be more migratory than elsewhere IF the badgers are solely responsible.
> 
> It could be explained by other migratory factors e.g. farmers moving cattle around, other migratory animals (deer?), or simply a particular genetic susceptibility amongst the badgers in that area - many of which will be inbred........
> 
> It is known that inbreeding - mating between genetically related individuals - does allow genetic weaknesses to be expressed more frequently. That COULD explain why some populations of animals are more prone to the disease than others.
> 
> BUT I MUST STRESS my suggestion is based solely on the biology of diseases in general and populations (and I am not going to quote the Hardy-Weinburg equations or Chi squared values for population genetics which would be an interesting statistical examination on the gene pool :lol:  ).
> 
> There are great difficulties in explaining MANY natural phenomena as regards disease, some cannot be dealt with (think of the Common Cold - actually there are about 90+ viruses which cause similar symptoms AND the viruses undergo changes frequently and we STILL have no cure for even one of them in spite of 60+ years of research at places like the Common Cold Institute).
> 
> Some things may never be totally explained or sorted......
> 
> Dave
Click to expand...

Your last sentence sums it up.

A lot of credible scientists are saying that it will not make any noticeable difference over the long term.

It is a ridiculous, barbaric sheme, shame on the instigators.

Paul.


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS

Cull the Badgers.
Wait for the results.
If there is no downturn in the reported TB cases

We have then slaughted some diseased and non diseased animals.
Sadly we cannot bring back the non diseased Badgers.


Iff the cull was to identify and remove diseased animals , fair enough.
Dave p


----------



## Penquin

Unfortunately due to the badger's habit of living underground, their corpses can only be found if they have been shot, any other method will leave the bodies underground and untraceable......

No-one (including all of the farmers and certainly all of the scientists involved) would want to kill a "clean" animal. If there was a way of identifying which ones were diseased reliably then they alone could be culled. The only possible way of doing that would be trapping, and that only ever catches a small percentage of the animals in any habitat.

Indeed, one standard way of estimating population size is to use trapping to catch a number of individuals (as large a number as possible), mark them in some indelible manner which does not harm the animal in any way (so no marking them with paint), release them into the wild in the same area, then wait for a time. Then reset the traps and calculate the % of animals trapped that are marked (i.e. trapped before) - that can then be used to calculate the population size reasonably accurately.

BUT it does not solve the problem with TB, neither does it account for animals that die, or migration - so while it gives an indication of numbers present that is all. Coupled with the stress that any such trapping causes makes it a valueless tool for this problem.  

Dave


----------



## an99uk

I watched a programme late last year about the culling of diseased tasmanian devils with horrible cancerous growths that were infectious.
They trapped the TD and those with obvious sores were culled the others were released and the incidence of disease was considerably reduced.

If a way could be found to trap and blood test a few badgers from each sett and only cull the whole sett that carry TB that would be better than the mass slaughter of potentially well animals.

However I did have a lump in my throat when Adam from Country File lost his prize cow who tested positive for TB leaving him to hand rear the calf who was free from TB.

Nobody wins, the badgers or the farmers.


----------



## andyangyh

I like badgers. We have several setts near us ....BUT.......It is likely that TB in cattle is spread by badgers. The key word is "likely". The only real way to find the evidence one way or the other that culling badgers reduces the incidence of TB in cattle is to make a test area free of badgers. You want your milk certified TB Free? You want your beef to come from this country and not be flown in from Argentina/Brazil/Australia wherever? Then we need scientific evidence as to whether culling badgers is the answer or not. We won't get that evidence by speculating - we have to have a proper scientific trial. We get nowhere by both sides shouting with no proper evidence.


We don't have a shortage of badgers and our local brocks have increased in numbers hugely in the last few years. Likewise foxes are rapidly growing to be a pest due to the explosion in numbers. Both these creatures are beautiful but if we want our food and milk to be home-grown, our food miles to be as low as possible then we need to manage our countryside. Managing wildlife sometimes means a cull. Not pleasant but sometimes necessary.

Badgers and foxes are cute but so are calves. A calf with TB is not a nice sight. Neither is a badger with TB. A calf can grow to provide beef or milk. A badger can't. The logical answer is to protect the calf. If, after properly conducted and statistically relevant trials, it turns out that the number of badgers must be reduced to preserve the health of the cows then that is the price that must be paid. 

Unless we want to buy foreign milk at huge expense we must pray that this trial shows that badgers ARE involved in spreading TB. Because if it shows that they AREN'T a factor then we can wave goodbye to our beef and dairy herds as it will show that we are powerless to prevent our country's dairy herds from mass slaughter. There is no Plan B.


----------



## coppo

Penquin said:


> Unfortunately due to the badger's habit of living underground, their corpses can only be found if they have been shot, any other method will leave the bodies underground and untraceable......
> 
> No-one (including all of the farmers and certainly all of the scientists involved) would want to kill a "clean" animal. If there was a way of identifying which ones were diseased reliably then they alone could be culled. The only possible way of doing that would be trapping, and that only ever catches a small percentage of the animals in any habitat.
> 
> Indeed, one standard way of estimating population size is to use trapping to catch a number of individuals (as large a number as possible), mark them in some indelible manner which does not harm the animal in any way (so no marking them with paint), release them into the wild in the same area, then wait for a time. Then reset the traps and calculate the % of animals trapped that are marked (i.e. trapped before) - that can then be used to calculate the population size reasonably accurately.
> 
> BUT it does not solve the problem with TB, neither does it account for animals that die, or migration - so while it gives an indication of numbers present that is all. Coupled with the stress that any such trapping causes makes it a valueless tool for this problem.
> 
> Dave


.

Dave, are you in favour of the August cull or not, sounds like you are, but your not sure if it will be successful or not.

There are lots of save our badger groups springing up and i am thinking of joining one.

There is a place for everything. I have campaigned in past against the illegal killing of birds of prey/mammals by gamekeepers. Hen harriers, buzzards, red kites and stoats have been killed for no reason.(red kites used to so common a few hundred years ago until their wanton persecution-Isn't it lovely to see them making a comeback, thanks to the hard work og conservationists).

I am dead against killing badgers as i think they are beautiful animals and culling won't make an apath of difference in the long term.

Paul.


----------



## Penquin

coppo said:


> Dave, are you in favour of the August cull or not, sounds like you are, but your not sure if it will be successful or not.


Paul, I am neither in favour or against, I do believe that it has to be done if we wish farming to continue - and that I do want since the prospect of everything that we eat or drink being transported in is a horrendous threat to the environment.

Sadly, as I said, the only way of confirming that the observed correlation is due to a direct link is to carry out a scientific investigation - that requires a proper hypothesis to be proposed, then a suitable method to be designed which will give clear, scientifically valid results capable of verification and duplication (remember the controversy that autism was caused by the MMR vaccine - a conclusion that could NOT be supported by any other trials). These results can then be carefully examine and conclusions drawn up as to whether the hypothesis is supported or not.

Without such research and results we are grasping at pure conjecture - and we have seen too much of that in the past.



coppo said:


> There are lots of save our badger groups springing up and i am thinking of joining one.


The best way to support a healthy and vibrant badger population is to carry out the trials and then decide what has to be done; more research into vaccines (unlikely to succeed), separation of cattle and badgers (difficult to conceive), or elimination of badgers from high risk areas (undesirable and probably unenforceable as badgers don't read where they are not allowed to go...... :lol: ). Stopping such an investigation WILL result in the health of the population being reduced. perhaps to a point where badgers CANNOT survive in the UK.



coppo said:


> There is a place for everything. I have campaigned in past against the illegal killing of birds of prey/mammals by gamekeepers. Hen harriers, buzzards, red kites and stoats have been killed for no reason.(red kites used to so common a few hundred years ago until their wanton persecution-Isn't it lovely to see them making a comeback, thanks to the hard work og conservationists).


Totally agree with you there - a healthy population of raptors is highly desirable, persecution simply for the "rich and famous" to enjoy August 12th is TOTALLY unacceptable to me (I used to see several THOUSAND shot pheasants being buried using JCB's after the shooting had stopped and the carcasses were not used for food by those participants.



coppo said:


> I am dead against killing badgers as i think they are beautiful animals and culling won't make an apath of difference in the long term. Paul


their appearance is not under debate, their health and the effects of TB are. As regards a difference a cull now MIGHT clear the badgers from involvement at all, and then something will have to be done to protect the population which differs from the present "Thou shalt not touch" approach.

Sorry, but increasingly I believe the cull IS needed to clarify the position in a scientific manner - the way I work and the ONLY acceptable way to work through such a problem. BUT it has to be done in a proper, scientific manner, not one that is sidetracked by emotions.

Dave


----------



## motormouth

Couldn't have put it better Dave, well said.
I think there is enough evidence to suggest that a cull is necessary. I too love to see a badger, I also love to see foxes, but know what ruthless killers they are and they need controlling.


----------



## jimmyd0g

Dave (Penquin),

Accepting the points that you make, which I do because you are the scientist & any views I have on this are based on emotions rather than science, do you not agree that there is a danger that what starts as a trial will become - without any peer reviewed examination of the results - _de facto_ the permanent situation? In other words, once a 'mentality' of culling is in, it will be a lot harder to stop the culling - whatever the trial results show?


----------



## Penquin

jimmyd0g said:


> Dave (Penquin),
> 
> Accepting the points that you make, which I do because you are the scientist & any views I have on this are based on emotions rather than science, do you not agree that there is a danger that what starts as a trial will become - without any peer reviewed examination of the results - _de facto_ the permanent situation? In other words, once a 'mentality' of culling is in, it will be a lot harder to stop the culling - whatever the trial results show?


Very much so, the scientific procedure is the ONLY one that can be utilised, once emotions are allowed to divert the process then reason stops.

IF and it's a very big IF, the cull does not show a casual link then culling cannot and must not be allowed to proceed. BUT if it does show that the hypothesis is correct then a cull is the only way forward until a successful vaccine can be developed.

One of the points that concerns me the greatest is that with the reduction in research that has taken place due to financial pressure (and this has taken place for about the last 15 years so is NOT a product of current government actions - so is NOT a political point) the likelihood of such research being effective AND acceptable to the European Commission is very small, I would suggest it is as likely as finding a cure for the common cold which will be 100% effective (see my previous comment about that pathway of research).

Any further culling can only proceed if it is based on a successful scientific conclusion.

That is why politics must be kept separate from such things and why science has to be incorruptible and be seen to be incorruptible through openness.

Dave


----------



## Stanner

Or you could put it this way............

It is likely that Bovine TB is spread by farmers who just can't be bothered to keep proper records or ensure adequate biosecurity to ensure that either their herd doesn't infect other herds or other herds do not infect theirs. So we need to cull the farmers to see if that stamps out the spread of BTB. 

If it makes no difference to the spread of BTB the culling of all those innocent farmers for nothing was just bad luck wasn't it?


----------



## seamusog

_Offensive comments removed by Moderator_

Leave the badgers in peace.
seamus.


----------



## coppo

Stanner said:


> Or you could put it this way............
> 
> It is likely that Bovine TB is spread by farmers who just can't be bothered to keep proper records or ensure adequate biosecurity to ensure that either their herd doesn't infect other herds or other herds do not infect theirs. So we need to cull the farmers to see if that stamps out the spread of BTB.
> 
> If it makes no difference to the spread of BTB the culling of all those innocent farmers for nothing was just bad luck wasn't it?


Yes there's a lot of truth in that Stanner, especially with some farmers records regarding bio security.

Its just so easy for them to blame the badgers.

Paul.


----------



## rogerandveronica

Please remember that badgers are not vegetable munching sweet animals that are nice and cuddly. I quote from Wikipedia "The diet of the Eurasian badger consists largely of earthworms, insects, and grubs. They also eat small mammals, amphibians, reptiles and birds as well as roots and fruit. Indeed, in southern Spain, badgers mostly feed on rabbits." 

Please get real ... the badger population has exploded and is now a problem in other ways. Just as with foxes, the balance existing many years ago has changed and the population of these animals is very large, as witnessed by the increased number seen dead at the roadside.


----------



## motormouth

That's a great idea, lets cull the farmers. Then we can pay through the nose for imported meat, milk and other dairy products. Not to mention the huge increase in carbon footprints. Oh, and we can also look forward to our wonderful countryside turned into housing, supermarkets, motorways, airports etc etc.
I would like to see the hard evidence that farmers are falsifying documents in order to sell infected herds, I think we would hear a lot more about it if it were true. Many farmers have decided to stop breeding cattle due to the crippling costs in feed, and legislation etc, far more than our foreign farmers have to endure.
I would be careful what you wish for.


----------



## Stanner

motormouth said:


> That's a great idea, lets cull the farmers. Then we can pay through the nose for imported meat, milk and other dairy products. Not to mention the huge increase in carbon footprints. Oh, and we can also look forward to our wonderful countryside turned into housing, supermarkets, motorways, airports etc etc.
> I would like to see the hard evidence that farmers are falsifying documents in order to sell infected herds, I think we would hear a lot more about it if it were true. Many farmers have decided to stop breeding cattle due to the crippling costs in feed, and legislation etc, far more than our foreign farmers have to endure.
> I would be careful what you wish for.


It's already happened, we either pay through the nose to import it or pay through the nose to the EU NOT to import it.
Farmers hard up?? Get real, when did you last see a truly hard up farmer.

Ryanair can SAY they are creating 1000 new jobs and farmers can SAY they are hard up, but it doesn't mean either would know the truth if it bit them on the a........... behind.

My point (obviously lost on you) was that it is all too easy to use the blunderbus method to solve a problem - just blast away blindly hoping that one shot will hit a target and worry about the effects later.

Surely it's better to really enforce the biosecurity side in the areas worst affected - there IS evidence from the Welsh Assembly of farmers falsifying records, lying about cattle movements, etc. to suit their own selfish ends. Lets stamp that out first before taking more drastic measures.

I live in a farming area and I know full well what farmers can get up to when it suits them.


----------



## motormouth

[/quote]

My point (obviously lost on you) was that it is all too easy to use the blunderbus method to solve a problem - just blast away blindly hoping that one shot will hit a target and worry about the effects later.

Surely it's better to really enforce the biosecurity side in the areas worst affected - there IS evidence from the Welsh Assembly of farmers falsifying records, lying about cattle movements, etc. to suit their own selfish ends. Lets stamp that out first before taking more drastic measures.

I live in a farming area and I know full well what farmers can get up to when it suits them.[/quote]

Your totally biased link to the badgers trust argument shows ONE example of a rogue farmer, where are all these other verified cases please. And can you give some factual examples of what farmers get up to in your area. It's all very well throwing accusations around, but unless you can substantiate them, I would be careful in doing so.


----------



## Glandwr

Some facts

The problem of BTB has definite geographical dimensions. Nearly all severe out breaks are SW of a line from the Mersey to East Devon.

It is spreading alarmingly Eastwards and Northwards. Not along Animal trading routes that are national these days, but parish by parish.

Bio cleanliness issues against farmers are virtually exclusively instances of Badgers having tunnelled into cattle food stored on farms. It has long been known that Badgers urinating and defecating on cattle food is how it is transmitted to cattle and vice versa. 6 month’s of the year cattle eat grass off the ground.

This has been used by campaigners to show the blame lies with farmers.

There has been a population explosion of badgers. In the area mentioned above (Wales and South West) sample surveys for the govt. show populations of 20 plus breeding adults per square kilometre.

DEFRA until the early 80’s (shortly before badgers became a protected species) were confident of eradicating BTB from the UK in the near future.

It is a very emotive issue, the Badger was protected as much as for cruelty issues (illegal baiting) as conservation.

Dick


----------



## jimmyd0g

Just one question for those of you who support the badger cull:-

When you have culled all of the badgers that you can &, as is likely, BTB _still_ persists who, or what, do you cull next?


----------



## Penquin

On that debate......

the Inquiry conducted by Professor Hugh Pennington which includes information relating to farmers falsifying records relates to an outbreak of _Eschericihia coli _(_E.coli_) which affected 44 schools in South Wales in 2005 - 7 years ago........

http://wales.gov.uk/ecolidocs/3008707/reporten.pdf?lang=en

_19. The Outbreak occurred because of food hygiene failures at the premises of John Tudor and Son. The responsibility for it falls squarely on the shoulders of William Tudor, the Proprietor._

it relates to the proprietor of that abattoir falsifying records and does not relate to farmers at all...... the proprietor (William Tudor) was sent to prison for 12 months for numerous failings in hygiene and food inspection and banned from working in the food industry in future.

He was the one who falsified the records NOT the farmers..........

His failings were numerous and are detailed in that report, reading it shows the farmers were NOT responsible for the outbreak.

Please, as a matter of principle, do not accuse the farmers of falsification unless you are prepared to back your assertion with clear, evidence from a reliable source (that does NOT include ANY newspapers) such as a Government body or report.

As regards "hard up farmers", I know VERY many who would certainly fulfil that category, their farms are rented, not owned by them, and their costs exceed their income. That is one of the main reasons that large parts of agricultural Britain are no longer being actively farmed - the returns are so small that it is not possible to supply a decent life.

Importing food or milk is a disaster since we have NO control over how it is produced; the standards of welfare and animal care fall way short of UK standards in many other countries (see the evidence behind the veal campaign as regards veal crates in 1987;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_in_World_Farming

or the campaign about battery hens which reached a successful conclusion in January 2012 with their ban throughout the EC).

A successful agricultural industry in the UK is essential - in the past our "home grown food" has saved us from disaster - check the effects of WW2 on imported food........

Not something that is directly related to the topic of badger culls. but I am only including it in response to other emotional posts without adequate foundation.

Dave

)


----------



## Glandwr

Magpies! to see them work down a hedgerow in a pair and methodically take chicks and eggs is a sight you'll not forget when you see it Jimmy.

Remember the rhyme "one for sorrow etc." it was fairly uncommon to see them other than singly, now you can see as many as 6-10 on a field together.

Too many farmers are now frightened to shoot anything! There has also being a massive increase in these too. Even the RSPB is ambivalent on the question.

It will never happen though as there is no financial imperative unlike BTB. 

Dick


----------



## Stanner

Sorry, of course you are all quite correct.

Farmers to a man (& woman) are the most angelic, law abiding of all members of society and never ever do anything wrong, whatsoever, at all.


----------



## Glandwr

They are certainly not a race apart as you appear to want to make them Stanner.

Dick


----------



## motormouth

Stanner said:


> Sorry, of course you are all quite correct.
> 
> Farmers to a man (& woman) are the most angelic, law abiding of all members of society and never ever do anything wrong, whatsoever, at all.


The point, obviously lost on you, was for you to show some hard evidence of all these falsifications and dubious practices in your area. 
Your response says it all really doesn't it??

Moving on, around 9 dairy farmers PER WEEK are selling their herds because they do not make any money out of selling milk. It costs them approximately 25P per litre to produce, exactly the same as they get from our supermarkets. There were once 28000 dairy farms, now there are less than 10000.
3 years ago we were totally self sufficient in milk. Now we import 1.5 million litres every day.
These figures were from a report in 2010.

I know this has nothing to do with the badger cull topic, but something needs to be done to protect our countryside and to encourage farmers to produce as much as possible.


----------



## loughrigg

I have been trying to understand a litle more about the availability of vaccines for both badgers and cattle. I don't have a scientific background, so I'd be happy to be corrected if anything that follows is inaccurate.

From reading notes on the Defra website, it appears that vaccines for both cattle and badgers have been developed, but that their introduction is subject to resolution of various secondary issues.

Laboratory studies with captive badgers demonstrated that vaccination of badgers by injection with BCG (vaccine) significantly reduced the progression and severity of the disease and excretion of infective material.

A four year field study in a naturally infected population of over 800 wild badgers in Gloucestershire, found that vaccination resulted in a four-fold (74%) reduction in the proportion of wild badgers testing positive to the antibody blood test for TB in badgers.

A summary paragraph contains a caveat that says that the blood test is not an absolute indicator of protection from disease and concludes that combining the laboratory and field test results "do not lend themselves to giving a definitive figure for badger vaccine efficacy".

I take that to mean that whilst a vaccine exists, Defra are not sufficiently sold on its effectiveness.

Cattle Vaccine

There does appear to be a vaccine available for cattle (BCG vaccine). I haven't read an analysis on its effectiveness, but its inherent problem appears to be that it falls foul of EU hygiene regulations.

The Defra notes suggest that after vaccination, it becomes more difficult to distinguish between an infected animal and a vaccinated animal. The existing EU test relies on a skin test. Vaccination causes an animal's skin to become sensitised to that skin test so it will/may record a positive result for bovine TB. A positive test prevents the animal or any its product being approved for human consumption.

Before the vaccine is licensed for use, a test (called a DIVA test) has to be developed that allows a vaccinated animal to be distinguished from an infected animal. Once the DIVA test has been developed, then EU law would have to changed to allow use of the vaccine and DIVA test in combination to prove the health of an animal. It is the availability of the DIVA test /change in EU law that seems to be a long way off.

That leads me to a conclusion that while a vaccine does exist, its use is inhibited by EU law that would currently render a vaccinated animal worthless (to a farmer).

Am I misreading/misinterpreting the Defra notes ?

Mike

Edited for grammar and spelling


----------



## Stanner

Glandwr said:


> They are certainly not a race apart as you appear to want to make them Stanner.
> 
> Dick


Where have I said it's only farmers who are guilty of "protecting their interests"?

They are no different to any other business(wo)man in that respect - it's just that their "protectionism" can sometimes have more widespread effects.



> The point, obviously lost on you, was for you to show some hard evidence of all these falsifications and dubious practices in your area.
> Your response says it all really doesn't it??


The falsification of records has been widely recorded

E.G.
http://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/news/local-news/breach_of_rules_costs_farmer_dear_1_3998095

As for general misbehavior I couldn't possibly comment on the misuse of "Red" diesel, passing of non-farming business expenditure through the farm's books, cash sales of produce being recycled into "family antiques" at the local auction rooms or one I have commonly seen, all expenditure on the wife/daughter's horse(s) lost in the books.

As I say they are probably no better nor worse than any other business, but they are very good at shifting the blame elsewhere when it suits them.

PS Some of my best friends are farmers, but it doesn't mean I agree with everything they do.


----------



## spykal

Farmers have been the custodians of our countryside for several hundred years ...without them, the farming and the animals both domesticated and wild that they tend, our countryside would not look or be the way it is. 

Badgers have never ever been an endangered species so I really do feel that protecting the badger by law was a mistake as this has interfered with the balance in our countryside and man has to be included into that balance as he is the only real predator of the badger. 

Before the badgers were protected by law 1992 the farmers and countrymen controlled the badger population ...they did not exterminate the badgers they controlled them. I know that some badgers still suffer "Badger Baiting", a vile act that continues and the law does nothing to protect them from a barbaric death. The sort of folk that bait badgers have no regard for the law.

Badgers do obviously have to have a place in the countryside so it upsets me to see that those who wished to protect the badger may have, by mistakenly protecting them by law, be the very ones responsible for setting the badger up for culling and possibly extinction. 


Mike 

P.S.
50,000 badgers are run over on our roads every year . 
I know where the badgers from a local set run and they are often seen crossing in my car headlights at the same spot.. I am always careful when passing the spot so hopefully I will never run one over.


----------



## rogerblack

coppo said:


> . . . Not a thousanth as much damage as human beings do to the rural infrastructure.


Agreed! Let's start a cull of some of the townies who move to the countryside then start complaining about stuff they don't understand :twisted:


----------



## Glandwr

rogerblack said:


> coppo said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . Not a thousanth as much damage as human beings do to the rural infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed! Let's start a cull of some of the townies who move to the countryside then start complaining about stuff they don't understand :twisted:
Click to expand...

Now now Roger! take those horns off.

Dick


----------



## Penquin

Stanner said:


> The falsification of records has been widely recorded E.G. http://www.*northumberland*gazette.co.uk/news/local-news/breach_of_rules_costs_farmer_dear_1_3998095


As far as I am aware Northumberland is NOT in Wales........



Stanner said:


> there IS evidence from the* Welsh Assembly *of farmers falsifying records, lying about cattle movements, etc. to suit their own selfish ends.


I also, of course, commented about the validity of suitable evidence;



Penquin said:


> do not accuse the farmers of falsification unless you are prepared to back your assertion with clear, evidence from a reliable source (*that does NOT include ANY newspapers*) such as a Government body or report.


Newspapers give a very biased account of what happened and as he pleaded guilty there is no detail about what happened or, more importantly, WHY it happened................

Have you evidence about the falsification of records from the Welsh Assembly? I searched through their records and was unable to find ANY.

If you have such evidence I would be delighted to read through it,

Loughriggs comments about suitable vaccine are absolutely correct, until a system is found that will comply with EC law the vaccine's cannot be used. Their efficacy is certainly not 100%, but very few vaccines are. Sadly DeFRA are placing all of their support behind a fundamentally flawed system for testing for "reactors" which has a massive proven unreliability rate.

Badgers have certainly increased exponentially due to the reduction in "natural" control mechanisms. There are no natural predators on the European Badger (_Meles meles_) according to the Journal of Zoology;

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1982.tb03492.x/abstract

thus in the absence of other control mechanisms such as hunting, the only checks on their growth as a population are disease (including TB), and lack of food or suitable living space/mates.

As has been commented there is very clear evidence of badgers gaining food from stored supplies on farms, they are protected from hunting, their sets are protected and cannot be disturbed, thus there are no checks on their increase. Sadly, as Spykal commented, that is as a direct result of their protection since 1992.

They are visually attractive animals, but so are foxes and few people would disagree with their control since they are now an established problem in many, if not all, cities having migrated from the countryside due to a lack of their natural food source - rabbits were eliminated by the use of Myxomatosis as a control mechanism since the 1950's;

http://www.future-of-vaccination.co.uk/myxomatosis-rabbit-disease.asp

Myxi eliminated the rabbits so many foxes were forced to migrate to seek alternative food sources - and the "ideal, safe" route for them direct into the heart of cities was provided by the railway system - protected behind wire fences. They have now become established as natural predators in cities as "the urban fox".

When man (as an organism) interferes with the natural balance of populations through the best intentions or whatever the results are usually disastrous e.g the introduction of rabbits into Australia as a food source, or the introduction of the cane toad into Australia - now MAJOR problems due to a total lack of natural predators....






100 were introduced in 1935 to control sugar beetles, they are now estimated to have a total in excess of 200million and are poisonous to touch or eat.......... So how can they be controlled other than by such methods as on the link above.......

Badgers have increased in a similar manner since 1992.........

No-one wants to see any animals destroyed that are healthy, but the natural balance no longer exists due to man's interference.....

When will we ever learn?

Dave


----------



## Annsman

Mutjack Deer! Not a native species in the UK and one without a natural preditor so its population has increased massively over the years. These are slowly moving across the country and carrying TB and they can contaminate the land cattle graze, just as easily as Badgers.

I do sympathise with farmers who suffer the distress and loss of losing valuable cattle, but they must surely be as close to 100% certain badgers are responsible before culling any. And as far as I've read they aren't. Even some farmers don't believe badgers are the main culprits. 

Deer, badgers, bad bio security and let's face it in a small minority of cases corrupt farmers claiming compensation are all to blame for TB in cattle. When they've culled one culprit, which is next on the list!

Slightly off topic but someone has raised the issue of farmers honesty, here's an example of both. My mate has a farm where Foot & Mouth was nearby during the last outbreak. He had to have some animals culled by the RSPCA because they were starving to death in the field because he couldn't move them to feed them because of the restrictions in place. A farmer from a couple of miles away offered him an infected carcass so he could claim more compo. Farmers who culled uninfected beasts got 75% of the value and those with F&M got 125% of the animals value. My friend refused, in his words, mainly because he didn't want all his beasts killed, but others did and no one knew any better. So there you are. A dishonest farmer and a honest one, all in the same paragraph!


----------



## peribro

I like animals - we have two cats and two dogs - but I find it difficult to relate to the views of those who oppose the cull. Not because I am anti-badger but because the scientific view appears to be that a cull is in the best interests of all concerned (other than the poor badgers of course). If I was a vegetarian and believed in the sanctity of animal life then my view would be the opposite. However it's not (I've just had a roast beef lunch) and therefore I would be a hypocrite to oppose the cull on the grounds of morality if the majority view was that it was in the overall bests interests.


----------



## Stanner

peribro said:


> but because the scientific view appears to be that a cull is in the best interests of all concerned (other than the poor badgers of course).


Really?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10613984

http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/livestock/badger-cull-would-not-work-–-krebs/40208.article

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...sg=AFQjCNFebwJcs_hPzB25xXJ5Jd7QvSIFUg&cad=rja

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/aug/11/badger-cull-dont-stop-bovine-tb

It all depends who you believe. :wink:

Or who you are allowed to believe.


----------



## Penquin

Stanner,

we can continue to swap extracts from various sources and get nowhere.

Sadly the ONLY way of determining whether badgers are involved in the transmission of TB is through a well constructed and executed scientific study. So far this has not been possible due to emotional pressure from a variety of people and organisations - all well intentioned.

The previous attempt at a trial was stopped before completion and was not valid in a scientific sense due to a sincere lack of a control (part of the design of the experiment to eliminate chance occurrences being regarded as significant).

Once this trial has been conducted then a plan can, and should, be elucidated by those in charge with due regard to the scientific evidence.

Until that is done we are all making assertions with no basis in fact.

Dave


----------



## loughrigg

loughrigg said:


> I
> I take that to mean that whilst a [badger] vaccine exists, Defra are not sufficiently sold on its effectiveness.


Just a clarification:

Badger BCG vaccine received UK marketing authorisation from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate in March 2010. Defra has contracts in place with the manufacturer and wholesale distributors, so the vaccine can be used in the UK.

Mike


----------



## Penquin

loughrigg said:


> Badger BCG vaccine received UK marketing authorisation from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate in March 2010. Defra has contracts in place with the manufacturer and wholesale distributors, so the vaccine can be used in the UK.
> 
> Mike


But the problem is that it is impossible to work out how many of a badger colony HAVE been vaccinated.......

hence the reticence to use it I suspect........

IF the vaccine could be trialled properly in a population then it should be done in conjunction with other measures to work out the most effective course of action.

One single solution probably does not exist for such a complex problem; a future plan MIGHT have to include selective culling, use of vaccines, separation of milking herds geographically, or other measures, but any such actions must be firmly established on a scientific basis.

Of course it also has to obtain EC approval..........

Dave


----------



## Stanner

Penquin said:


> Sadly the ONLY way of determining whether badgers are involved in the transmission of TB is through a well constructed and executed scientific study. So far this has not been possible due to emotional pressure from a variety of people and organisations - all well intentioned.


The very point of my "cull the farmers" post.

There is a widespread belief amongst some farmers that badgers spread TB.

There is also a widespread belief that farmers spread TB by poor practice.

Yet there is no corresponding call to "cull" (not by actually shooting them :roll: just take them out of the industry) the bad farmers.

So what happens if the cull has no effect or even worse (as some suspect) increases the problem - will all the badgers have been culled for nothing?


----------



## Penquin

Stanner said:


> The very point of my "cull the farmers" post.


but perhaps your expression was not guaranteed to help people understand your intention.......

culling generally refers to humane killing of a selected group of animals.....



Stanner said:


> Yet there is no corresponding call to "cull" (not by actually shooting them just take them out of the industry) the bad farmers.


taking undesirable practitioners out of business is impossible without using the criminal justice system, otherwise many MP's would have been removed from post a long time ago.......

and bankers ? journalists ? the list is endless and who decides who is a "bad farmer"?

Someone convicted of poor animal hygiene etc should be (and is) banned from working in the food preparation business - as I commented about William Talbot and the _E. coli _outbreak in S. Wales in 2005 - so that system exists.



Stanner said:


> So what happens if the cull has no effect or even worse (as some suspect) increases the problem - will all the badgers have been culled for nothing?


no since through those actions scientific evidence will have been gained which clarifies the situation. The same happens throughout society, many organisms have died out because it was felt they were not doing what was required. (Hence Historic Breeds Preservation Trust)

BUT the present unchecked system totally protecting one organism (badger) while ignoring the effects that it may be having elsewhere is totally crass and cannot continue. If it is allowed to continue then much of Britain will lose any milk or beef production, and then other sources of meat production will be affected.

The present situation cannot continue - it is not good for anyone, or even for the badgers long term health and survival.

Dave


----------



## Glandwr

Why has this become a party politics issue? It was/is nothing to do with them. It was a Labour Welsh assembly that proposed the welsh culls that they currently still have in abeyance. It is essentially (at the moment) at crisis point in mainly in Wales and the South West). The relevant paid govt people on balance are in favour.

Last august the Labour UK party announced it was launching an anti cull campaign and 3 days ago released this.

Something like this is too important to be hijacked and used as a way of further embarrassing the government.

I hope I have not placed this in the bar Dave but I feel strongly.

Dick


----------



## loughrigg

Penquin said:


> IF the vaccine could be trialled properly in a population then it should be done in conjunction with other measures to work out the most effective course of action.
> Dave


Unfortunately, I think that is a fairly faint hope.

Until mid-2010 something called the "Badger Vaccine Deployment Project" was proposed, but the part of the scheme planned for Staffordshire, Herefordshire/Worcestershire and Devon was cancelled. The logic for retaining part of the scheme (in Gloucestershire) was to provide capacity to train "lay-vaccinators".

I'm not sure that a training prgramme and scientific research are natural bedfellows, so I get the impression that the balance between vaccination and culling in the governments strategy for "carefully-managed and science-led badger control" (Agriculture Minister Jim Paice) is not entirely equal.  

Mike


----------



## CliveMott

Other countries in Europe vacinate the badgers by leaving treated food. No culls. Why not us?

C.


----------



## Stanner

Penquin said:


> BUT the present unchecked system totally protecting one organism (badger) while ignoring the effects that it may be having elsewhere is totally crass and cannot continue. If it is allowed to continue then much of Britain will lose any milk or beef production, and then other sources of meat production will be affected.
> 
> The present situation cannot continue - it is not good for anyone, or even for the badgers long term health and survival.
> 
> Dave


Once again you state this as FACT when it isn't and has never been proved to be. There is significant scientific opinion that is is pure wishful thinking.


----------



## Penquin

Totally agree with you about them not being good bedfellows :lol:

Unfortunately unless a scientific study is carried out which is above reproach the discussions exemplified by this thread will continue _ad nauseam_.

BUT science is not a front-runner in any spending plans for the present or the future UNLESS it pays for itself, and since badgers are notoriously poor (well that phrase has been used extensively by many people throughout this thread - "poor badgers" :lol: ) and farmers do not have the clout, or the lobbying power, or the finance to bring it about.

And of course, if such a group DID have the wherewithall to sponsor such a research project then the results would no longer be valid in a scientific sense since they could not be said to be impartial.

So, I doubt that there will be any reliable resolution to the problem in the foreseeable future; if the cull goes ahead it will be decried as cruel, unreliable and prejudiced, if it does not go ahead then all will lose, including the badger population.

Head we lose, tails they win - comes to mind :?

Dave


----------



## Penquin

Stanner said:


> Once again you state *this *as FACT when it isn't and has never been proved to be. There is significant scientific opinion that is is pure wishful thinking.


PLEASE explain what you mean by *THIS* since sadly your sentence does not make sense as you have written it.

The word "this" refers to a previously stated point, there is no previously stated point in your post.

If you are referring to my post (which you have used as a quote)



Penquin said:


> BUT the present unchecked system totally protecting one organism (badger) while ignoring the effects that it may be having elsewhere is totally crass and cannot continue. If it is allowed to continue then much of Britain will lose any milk or beef production, and then other sources of meat production will be affected.
> 
> The present situation cannot continue - it is not good for anyone, or even for the badgers long term health and survival.


I can only presume that you are referring to this part;



Penquin said:


> If it is allowed to continue then much of Britain will lose any milk or beef production, and then other sources of meat production will be affected


in which case I suggest you seek clarification as to how many milk herds no longer exist in the SW and Wales (where TB is at it's most virulent), and then try to find an explanation for that other than the poor returns that dairy farmers have had c/w the costs of operating the farm under the present situation.

Farmers spend years trying to build up a milking herd based on sound farming techniques and then because of the unreliable results of a known poor test their entire herd is slaughtered. How are they expected to continue in that manner?

No herd = no milk = no income = foreclosure by bank and loss of herd and farm.

Yes they will eventually get compensation for the cattle, but the key word is eventually. Such a situation cannot continue (as I said), and a suitable answer must be found.

What do you suggest is the answer? :twisted:

Dave


----------



## Stanner

The low price for milk might have less to do with badgers and more to do with TESCO and the like forcing down the price they will pay for it.

Badgers might have a slight effect, but not as much as supermarket buyers. :wink: 

PS I'm lost as to where the party politics came into this Dick - I'd better go back and read from the beginning.


----------



## NeilandDebs

*Badger cull*

Good morning All
Wow several of us seem to have our knickers well and truly twisted over this subject. You just need to put it into perspective.

Which is the more useful animal to society, cows or badgers. I would have to say cows! Not to sure what badgers give to society as most of the population have probably never seen one, other than lying dead at the side of a road. The whole situation is costing us ,the tax payer, a small fortune. Something has to be done!

It seems to me that you just have to wait for the results of the cull. If TB reduces in the cull area then it was a success. If it does not then there will have to be other, as yet unthought of, solutions. This cull is as good a start point as any.
Neil


----------



## Zebedee

I wonder if this thread would be 7 pages long and going strong if TB was spread by rats??

Serious comment!

Dave


----------



## Penquin

Zebedee said:


> I wonder if this thread would be 7 pages long and going strong if TB was spread by rats??
> 
> Serious comment!
> 
> Dave


Serious reply;

No, but we could be discussing the spread of _*Leptospirosis*_ and *Weil's disease* if we want to talk about rats, or we could go back in time and discuss *Bubonic Plaque*.....

or if you want to make yourself feel very unwell;

http://www.aaanimalcontrol.com/ratdiseases.htm

Dave 8O  :lol: 
(That's the trouble with being a biologist! :lol: )

all of which (sadly) is {offtopic}


----------



## Bengal

*Re: Badger cull*



NeilandDebs said:


> "Which is the more useful animal to society, cows or badgers. I would have to say cows! "
> 
> To some people it is not just a case of which animal is more useful to society but, rather, the principle that one type of animal should not be killed just to save another. Economics and scientific experiments (as outlined by a number of posters) do not come into it for these people. A solution that respects all animals would be preferable.
> 
> One aspect not considered, is a loss of the badgers might cause a severe shortage of sporrans...which could be in high demand if those north of the border go independent!
> 
> Bengal


----------



## coppo

rogerblack said:


> coppo said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . Not a thousanth as much damage as human beings do to the rural infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed! Let's start a cull of some of the townies who move to the countryside then start complaining about stuff they don't understand :twisted:
Click to expand...

Agreed. And what about the country people who do understand what they are talking about and are passionately against the cull, cull them too?

This is an interesting thread, there's Dave the biologist saying he's neither for or against the cull, then explaining in every post why it should go ahead :lol:

I am trying to keep it civil as i feel so strongly, history shows that when you introduce farmed animals as a way of life then you inevitably create problems with disease.

Can't believe that someone has said badgers are not the nice animal we think they are because they eat small mammals etc, its absolutely laughable. Clearly no understanding of nature.

Paul.


----------



## Zebedee

coppo said:


> Can't believe that someone has said badgers are not the nice animal we think they are because they eat small mammals etc, its absolutely laughable. Clearly no understanding of nature.
> Paul.


Hi Paul

I'm determined not to get into this ( :roll: ) but your comment suggests that nice animals should be considered differently to nasty ones?? (_See my post above which mentions rats_.)

Surely that is a classic emotive response - which is why this topic is so controversial.

Badgers are "nice" animals so it's wicked to consider culling them, but I doubt if anyone would be too upset if the government announced a wholesale poisoning campaign against "nasty" little rats!

I am a countryman, born and bred, and I do understand nature.

I'm not sure I always understand the "nature" of my fellow man though!! :roll: (But I fully appreciate how difficult it is to separate sentiment from cold hard reason.)

Dave


----------



## spatz1

Seems to me you should need to be pretty dam sure of the TB facts before you go around culling these majestic animals and having been within 2 ft of 4 wild ones at Shatton you get a sense of what nature really is and how clean and striking they really are...

cant we lock the cows up and eat more veal :lol:


----------



## Penquin

spatz1 said:


> cant we lock the cows up and eat more veal :lol:


*Lock the cows up?*
One of the points that needs to be checked and eradicated is that badgers seem very adept at locating food even behind locked doors, so if a food source is attractive to them they will gain access.

*Eat more veal?*
Perhaps we should be eating more veal anyway since in the UK male calves have virtually no market and are simply killed......

BBC Countryfile yesterday evening had a very good section exactly about that problem, they tried market research but most people said "No way it's cruel" in spite of the outlaw of the inhumane methods that used to be used.

The campaign from the 70's and 80's has stuck in the public memory and changing such things will be difficult, so male calves are shot.

Dave


----------



## SpeedyDux

At the risk of being controversial, I suggest we carry out a wider re-examination of the dairy farming industry from top to bottom before there is a mass cull of badgers. I am grateful to Penquin for his informed comments on the biology of TB in cattle and badgers, and Loughrigg for his contribution.

[From my personal experience of local "cowboy" farmers, I think there is a ring of truth in Stanner's accusation against some farmers whose misconduct has made the problem worse. It is too easy for the farming lobby to pick on the badgers as scapegoats without addressing their own bad practices.]

First, why is the dairy farming industry unwilling to address the possibility that too narrow a gene pool is making the national dairy herd susceptible to TB and other common diseases in cattle? I have read that the entire UK dairy herd is descended from just 3 ancestral cows. They are bred to maximise milk yields above all else, to the point where they start having difficulty walking. There is a continuing practice to use Artificial Insemination for breeding, from a small number of prize bulls that typify this priority for increasing yields. Breeding healthier cattle (both dairy and beef) with better resistance to TB, foot-and-mouth, etc. does not seem to be a priority. At least they should aim for a wider gene pool so ALL the cattle do not share the same immune deficiencies and disease susceptibility. Then we could see the problem largely disappear anyway.

Second, we need to carry out proper studies into the long-term effects of lifelong consumption of milk and other dairy products from cows. Humans were meant to be weaned off milk at an early age. In China, until recently milk (after infancy) was not part of the national diet. This is changing as the Chinese become richer and want to enjoy our Western luxuries, including cheeses. Until recently a Doctor could practice in China without ever encountering a patient with a case of breast cancer. It was a very rare disease among the Chinese yet in the UK it is extremely common and affects roughly about one in every eight women. There could be a link between breast cancer in our country and the Western diet which typically includes high consumption of dairy products from cattle, which in turn means ingesting cattle hormones.

Do we really need such a large dairy herd? It is a wasteful use of agricultural land especially when we need to consider how the future food requirements of a UK population of £70 million can be met if the majority of other countries with growing populations also become net food importers. Even GM crops are not going to solve this problem.

Besides, it is very, very difficult to buy food in UK Supermarkets that doesn't contain dairy from cows in some form or other (milk powder, lactose, whey, cream, etc.) often because it is a cheap filler to add weight. Look at the labels. Even Salami, Pate, fishcakes, Tikka sauce … a long, long list.

Time for a re-think about our priorities.

SD


----------



## Autumn

We were told that the person who had to make the decision to cull the badgers thought about it long and hard, and I do not have all the data at hand, as that person presumably did, to contradict the wisdom of the decision. However, given there are many who do not think it will be effective, and even counter productive, that is sufficient reason surely not to undertake such a serious measure.

It doesn't matter whether the cows or the badgers were there first, as usual it is a human problem. Without suggesting a cull of humans (god knows, we seem to do that anyway throughout the world for political reasons), we should learn to live in harmony with nature. Perhaps that means not farming animals like cows. As a vegetarian of more than 40 years, I am testament to that being possible. As far as I know I am healthy, do not suffer from any modern day maladies (apart from age-related grumpiness and intolerances, such as unnecessary cruelty to animals) and do not take any medicines.

There is something hideous about slaughtering an animal that is shy, lives quietly in forests avoiding contact with humans, and is a very beautiful member of our natural habitat. 

Perhaps a petition can be put together via this site and sent to Downing Street. If not, I am encouraged to write myself.

Autumn


----------



## Penquin

Thank you to Speedydux for a very sensible post - I would not disagree with anything he has written on that.

From personal experience one of my children developed a lactose intolerance while a baby, trying to find lactose-free food for my wife to consume while she fed him was very difficult and took hours of careful study of the ingredients lists of products.

Hence, home grown and home consumed is preferable for us - we know what the food that we grow contains and what the chickens have eaten too!  

Sadly, the financial power wielded by such supermarkets as Tesco's must be contributory to the decline of the agricultural industry (as well as the reduction in small corner shops).  

GM of course, is still not licensed for growth in the UK....... 8O 

Dave


----------



## Autumn

I posted before reading SpeedyDux's contribution, which presents a very informed and convincing argument.

Consuming such large quantities of the milk intended for a baby animal can't be right, and research has continually found evidence of its health risks to humans. Large supermarkets probably do dictate farming policy, and while I do understand good farmers spend years building up their herds and are proud of the products they produce, eating animal products is not the most cost effective, sustainable or healthy way to feed a population. I really do believe that eventually dairy farming will be phased out as public opinion becomes more enlightened.

Would I feel the same about rats spreading Bubonic plague? Well, I make no distinction between cuddly and less cute animals (rats are intelligent and I quite like them, bats too, who preen themselves like cats) but that would be a matter of survival for a whole population - a cull of badgers is not in the same league.

Imagine a cull of Pandas - also furry, and black and white - the world would go mad!!

Autumn


----------



## motormouth

Autumn,
I think you will find petitions if you do a search on google.
The shame is that most people who "sign" these petitions have little or no knowledge about the facts, they just see a cute little badger (in most cases a picture of one) and can't cope with the fact that they may be responsible for the slaughter of over 200000 cattle over the last 7 or 8 years.

The more I read from responsible and scientific evidence is that a controlled cull should take place. 

Speedydux has put forward some very interesting points but we can't undo what has gone with breeding methods etc. I also question whether dairy products have been proved to have a link to breast cancer, though I stand to be corrected on that. In fact, looking on the cancer research website, it says that there is no evidence to support any link, but more research is needed.

A report carried out by the NFU in Oct 2010 showed that a dairy farmer actually LOSES about 3 pence per litre of milk he sells. Average selling price is approx 26 ppl, supermarkets sell for approx 90ppl !!!!! 

Farmers may well have a case to answer in not carrying out the full range of bio security measures, can you blame them??

Perhaps we should do nothing. After all, at the rate farmers are ditching herds, going out of business or diversifying, there may not be a problem to worry about in 20 years time.


----------



## Penquin

Autumn said:


> Imagine a cull of Pandas - also furry, and black and white - the world would go mad!!


quite rightly too, in the latest academic survey that I have been able to access (November 2009), based on molecular genetic samples;
the total number is regarded as being less than 3,000 - a very low number when their specialised diet and low fecundity rate are considered.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/nature08696.html

as compared with an ESTIMATED 288,000 badgers in the UK of which about 45,000 estimated are killed by road vehicles each year. According to the Berkshire badger protection group;

http://www.binfieldbadgers.org.uk/about_badgers.htm

I am in no way reducing the "value" of this animal, merely seeking a proper scientific trial into whether they are involved with spreading TB. Once that has been elucidated (or should that be IF :? ) then a programme must be put together using the best scientific information available to maintain a vibrant, healthy population of these retiring animals.

Surely such a trial is better than emotional knee jerk reactions with little or no basis in the biology of this animal? Those reactions emanate from *BOTH* sides of the debate, neither is justifiable without scientific evidence of a reliable and trustworthy nature.

Dave


----------



## Glandwr

The world did go mad when South Africa (I think it was) proposed an elephant cull for environmental reasons.

They called it off and the growing population of elephants is now degrading and denuding the national parks and they can’t do a thing about it for fear of the wrath of those who have no knowledge of the situation.

I repeat, the badger population in certain parts of the country is growing at an unsustainable rate. Some think that TB could be nature’s way of telling us that.

Dick


----------



## Glandwr

No one is talking of eradication. The problem is confined to a relatively small proportion of the UK, Wales and the Southwest. It is however expanding north and east parish by parish. 

Dick


----------



## loughrigg

Speedydux - your proposal might be controversial in some quarters if only because it involves additional costs. My view - if costs of dairy and meat products have to rise to ensure healthier animals in a financially healthy industry, then that is cost that I would have to bear (willingly).

I went looking for an article I remembered from some while ago about the effect of mineral deficiency on animal health. On the way, I came across numerous comments/papers suggesting a link between bovine TB and mineral/trace element deficiency in cattle (and badgers). One story that popped up frequently was of a farmer in Gloucestershire who has fed his cattle and the local badgers with a cake containing molasses, high doses of silenium and other trace elements. In his view that has kept his farm (said to be in disease hot-spot) free of BTB for many years. Whether that story has any particular credence I can't tell.

I tried to find a study on the effect (on BTB) of the mineral enrichment / introduction of trace elements into cattle feed (proposed as long ago as 1999) but I'm still looking. (Dave - have you encountered any papers/studies along those lines?)

It was a little saddening that the question:

Will supplementing cattle feed with trace elements and/or selenium prevent a TB outbreak?

can be found on the Defra website by following a link titled "Debunking the myths about Bovine TB".

Is it a myth debunked? Well not really. The answer given is a monosyllabic "No" - a tad short on any supporting evidence, perhaps - with a following sentence that says that mineral deficiency should be addressed as part of routine animal husbandry.

I'm glad that possibility seems to have been ruled out in the "carefully managed and science-led badger control" strategy championed by a government minister. :?  

Mike


----------



## Glandwr

Farmers have used what are called "salt licks" containing every trace element and minerals thought to have been beneficial for at least 50 years from my knowledge, for all ruminates . They make up for deficiencies in individual pastures.

Dick


----------



## Penquin

In response to Loughriggs interesting post I have checked through several hundred papers relating to TB and come across this very interesting article from 2004;

http://www.sopa.org.uk/news_sopa.php?id=33

It comes from the Scottish Organic Producers Association and contains the following paragraphs;

_What does that leave? Well, buried deep in the Defra website is a reference to some work that has been going on to see if there is any correlation between mineral deficiencies and incidence of TB, the theory being that cattle not in the peak of condition will be more likely to succumb to whatever infection there may be in the environment.

The results so far are inconclusive. Researchers in Ireland found that cattle that were given mineral licks appeared to be less susceptible to TB than those that were not, particularly if the farm included rough grazing. *This is referred to in the Phillips Committee report on husbandry techniques for reducing the TB risk, which concluded that: "The provision of mineral supplements is likely to be beneficial as soil consumption will be reduced and improved mineral status may improve resistance of cattle to the disease."*

However, this is a reference to conventional mineral licks. But there is another way of tackling mineral deficiencies, which is to go to the root of the problem, in the soil. A few weeks ago, I was telephoned by Wesley Wyatt, who farms near Wiveliscombe, in West Somerset, to say that he had been so impressed with a new technique for tackling soil mineral deficiencies that he thought I ought to meet the people involved. And Wesley being a man whose judgement I respect, it was a suggestion I was happy to take up. Martin Lane and John Wanklyn from Field Science, as their company is called, came to see me last week.

They explained the theory behind their approach, which is basically to put back into the soil whatever minerals may have been leached out or locked up by decades of intensive farming and fertilising. They carry out a detailed appraisal of the mineral status of the farms they are asked to treat, which usually reveals at least five or six mineral deficiencies, and produce a tailor-made programme of mineral applications. The cost depends on the precise mix of minerals prescribed, but usually works out at around £20 per acre._

I will continue to see what I can find (the emboldening is entirely mine)........

Dave


----------



## Stanner

Penquin said:


> In response to Loughriggs interesting post I have checked through several hundred papers relating to TB and come across this very interesting article from 2004;
> 
> http://www.sopa.org.uk/news_sopa.php?id=33
> 
> It comes from the Scottish Organic Producers Association and contains the following paragraphs;
> 
> _What does that leave? Well, buried deep in the Defra website is a reference to some work that has been going on to see if there is any correlation between mineral deficiencies and incidence of TB, the theory being that cattle not in the peak of condition will be more likely to succumb to whatever infection there may be in the environment.
> 
> The results so far are inconclusive. Researchers in Ireland found that cattle that were given mineral licks appeared to be less susceptible to TB than those that were not, particularly if the farm included rough grazing. *This is referred to in the Phillips Committee report on husbandry techniques for reducing the TB risk, which concluded that: "The provision of mineral supplements is likely to be beneficial as soil consumption will be reduced and improved mineral status may improve resistance of cattle to the disease."*
> 
> However, this is a reference to conventional mineral licks. But there is another way of tackling mineral deficiencies, which is to go to the root of the problem, in the soil. A few weeks ago, I was telephoned by Wesley Wyatt, who farms near Wiveliscombe, in West Somerset, to say that he had been so impressed with a new technique for tackling soil mineral deficiencies that he thought I ought to meet the people involved. And Wesley being a man whose judgement I respect, it was a suggestion I was happy to take up. Martin Lane and John Wanklyn from Field Science, as their company is called, came to see me last week.
> 
> They explained the theory behind their approach, which is basically to put back into the soil whatever minerals may have been leached out or locked up by decades of intensive farming and fertilising. They carry out a detailed appraisal of the mineral status of the farms they are asked to treat, which usually reveals at least five or six mineral deficiencies, and produce a tailor-made programme of mineral applications. The cost depends on the precise mix of minerals prescribed, but usually works out at around £20 per acre._
> 
> I will continue to see what I can find (the emboldening is entirely mine)........
> 
> Dave


You could have learned that by listening to the Archers, Ed Grundy and Oliver are trying it on the Jerseys.


----------



## Stanner

motormouth said:


> Farmers may well have a case to answer in not carrying out the full range of bio security measures, *can you blame them??*


You well know the answer to that question, but you just cannot bring yourself to say it.


----------



## Penquin

Sadly Stanner, I do not listen to the Archers since we could only get it via the satellite...........

but if what you are saying is correct it does suggest that someone who works for the BBC writing the Archers is aware of the possibility at least........

It adds still more pressure for any and ALL possible beneficial procedures to be rigorously tested in a scientific manner.

Sadly, I cannot find any reference to a "Phillips Committee", having even checked Hansard, so if anyone can provide a definite link I will be very grateful.

DeFRA's response has been poor on so many problems since they were established, they have dragged their feet repeatedly and appear to have very blinkered vision about so much......

I am sure that we can all recall the controversy over the outbreak of F&M disease and it's handling by DeFRA.........

F&M is so infectious that all animals MUST be killed by law within contiguous farms.......... :evil: 

Then we will leave the dead carcasses on the farms near the boundaries for a period of weeks while we work out what to do next..... :twisted: 

Sadly DeFRA also totally mucked up the Single Payment System" which replace farm subsidies from the EC - in some cases delaying payment by TWO years........ (is it any wonder that desperate farmers try to sort things by whatever method they can - not something I wish had happened).

DeFRA does not embrace scientific principles unless they feel it would be to their benefit......  

I suppose we should not be surprised as politicians set it up, oversee it's running and simply support what it says......

Dave


----------



## Glandwr

If this is the answer Dave surely an interim measure would be to add it to the licks and trial it before spraying it all over the land?

I was thinking earlier that although to the satisfaction of many the link between smoking and cancer was established in the late 50s early 60s. Experts and scientists however where at hand to cast doubt on it until was it the late eighties? 

Dick


----------



## coppo

Everyone involved in health food circles has been banging on for many years about cows milk not been fit for humans, it is meant for young cows, the molecules are too large for humans to digest and is the reason i have not drunk any cows milk for about 20 years.

The food industry is so money orienatated and corrupt(and is the reason why none of speedydux proposed enquiries will ever take place as health food experts have been calling on them for years) , take hydrogenated fats for instance, lethal things but it took a long time for the food industry to take note and use an alternative, although the technique is still used.

I grew up in the country and everything has its place, even rats, good food for the birds.

You can't keep on messing about with nature to suit a farmed animal, look what they try to do in India and the rainforest for example, introduce cattle to forest clearings and then hunt down tigers, leopards etc when a few cattle are killed.

Paul.


----------



## Glandwr

What are we designed to eat Paul?  

Dick


----------



## coppo

Certainly not cows milk Dick.

Nuts, seeds, some fruit ,some plants, fish.

Its complicated and there are millions of different theories, food combining, raw food diets.

I, along with many others have believed the food industry to be corrupt for many years, the cocktail of chemicals is unbelievable which is used, just look on the packets for the ingredients, so many chemicals and although these are said to be safe on their own no one has really studied what happens when you mix huge quantities together and consume them.

I eat a lot of pumpkin seeds, sunflower seeds, almonds, brazils, walnuts, flax oil, hemp oil, evening primrose oil, raw garlic, sweet poato, millet, lentils, aduki beans, mung beans, seaweed, oats, avocados, mackerel, herring,salmon(not farmed), soya milk. lemons, water melon, some meat(not processed) we have a lot of venison in the freezer. If you eat well 90% of the time then you can eat a little junk for the remainder, chips etc.

Now lets stick to badgers  but you did ask. ( I dont want to follow my mother, father and sister who all succumbed to cancer early)

Paul.


----------



## Penquin

Glandwr said:


> If this is the answer Dave surely an interim measure would be to add it to the licks and trial it before spraying it all over the land?


I do not KNOW what the answer is (I barely even know what the question is :lol: :!

My point is a simple one - if there is evidence that such a course has proved effective (which there is, apochryphal as it is since it is only comes from a VERY small number of possibly linked reports). then there is a duty and responsibility on "those at the top" whether they be the Chief Scientist or the Minister of whichever Government happens to be in power at the time, to investigate such reports through a scientific trial of proven quality i.e. not one that is sponsored, paid for and conducted by the company producing the mineral additions...... (such a sponsorship renders the trial invalid as it cannot be impartial)



Glandwr said:


> I was thinking earlier that although to the satisfaction of many the link between smoking and cancer was established in the late 50s early 60s. Experts and scientists however where at hand to cast doubt on it until was it the late eighties? Dick


because of the way science works with control experiments and the like, even what we think of as such a well established fact is only a very strong correlation, it is NOT PROOF - as the tobacco manufacturers are keen to point out in the various court appearances where they have been acquitted as not guilty of causing lung cancer, emphysema, bronchitis, heart disease, vascular failure and so on.....
(Sounds daft doesn't it!)



coppo said:


> ... about cows milk not been fit for humans, it is meant for young cows, the molecules are too large for humans to digest and is the reason i have not drunk any cows milk for about 20 years.


Totally true, human babies CANNOT digest cows milk as the protein molecules are not broken down by the enzyme present in the baby's gut. Before it can be supplied for babies (as formula milk) it has to be chemically broken down into smaller proteins that human babies CAN digest - but even then not brilliantly as any Mum will tell you when they wean from breast to bottle and finds the consistency of the nappy changes considerably!

Babies and young animals only produce lactase (the enzyme that breaks down lactose in milk into simple sugars for absorption) for a limited time.....in most children in diminishes from about age 2 - 5 - about the time of weaning and in some cases stops completely. Most adults only produce about 10% of the amount that a child would have and many produce none at all. This leads to an inability to break down the sugar lactose and can lead to lactose intolerance - which can be the cause of severe gastric upset! 

So yes, I very much agree with what coppo has contributed - all organisms in a habitat have a particular role, even if we cannot work out what it is at the time! :lol: (Crane flies and wasps are two that many people question as to what good they do :lol: - even though they are good food sources for other animals e.g. spiders, hover flies, dragonflies all enjoy wasps).

That is the problem when man (in his infinite wisdom) interferes with the natural environment. Culling badgers *WILL* have an effect on the index of diversity for that area and may well be very bad news as other animals will proliferate and may well cause other worse damage.

That is why any such trial *MUST* be organised and conducted by scientists *NOT politicians *and must be vigorously peer reviewed *BEFORE* they are carried out - to prevent more, man-made disasters.

Dave


----------



## coppo

Just visit any maternity ward and you will see all the posters on the walls, breast is best by far.


----------



## coppo

Penquin said:


> Glandwr said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this is the answer Dave surely an interim measure would be to add it to the licks and trial it before spraying it all over the land?
> 
> 
> 
> I do not KNOW what the answer is (I barely even know what the question is :lol: :!
> 
> My point is a simple one - if there is evidence that such a course has proved effective (which there is, apochryphal as it is since it is only comes from a VERY small number of possibly linked reports). then there is a duty and responsibility on "those at the top" whether they be the Chief Scientist or the Minister of whichever Government happens to be in power at the time, to investigate such reports through a scientific trial of proven quality i.e. not one that is sponsored, paid for and conducted by the company producing the mineral additions...... (such a sponsorship renders the trial invalid as it cannot be impartial)
> 
> 
> 
> Glandwr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking earlier that although to the satisfaction of many the link between smoking and cancer was established in the late 50s early 60s. Experts and scientists however where at hand to cast doubt on it until was it the late eighties? Dick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because of the way science works with control experiments and the like, even what we think of as such a well established fact is only a very strong correlation, it is NOT PROOF - as the tobacco manufacturers are keen to point out in the various court appearances where they have been acquitted as not guilty of causing lung cancer, emphysema, bronchitis, heart disease, vascular failure and so on.....
> (Sounds daft doesn't it!)
> 
> 
> 
> coppo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... about cows milk not been fit for humans, it is meant for young cows, the molecules are too large for humans to digest and is the reason i have not drunk any cows milk for about 20 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally true, human babies CANNOT digest cows milk as the protein molecules are not broken down by the enzyme present in the baby's gut. Before it can be supplied for babies (as formula milk) it has to be chemically broken down into smaller proteins that human babies CAN digest - but even then not brilliantly as any Mum will tell you when they wean from breast to bottle and finds the consistency of the nappy changes considerably!
> 
> Babies and young animals only produce lactase (the enzyme that breaks down lactose in milk into simple sugars for absorption) for a limited time.....in most children in diminishes from about age 2 - 5 - about the time of weaning and in some cases stops completely. Most adults only produce about 10% of the amount that a child would have and many produce none at all. This leads to an inability to break down the sugar lactose and can lead to lactose intolerance - which can be the cause of severe gastric upset!
> 
> So yes, I very much agree with what coppo has contributed - all organisms in a habitat have a particular role, even if we cannot work out what it is at the time! :lol: (Crane flies and wasps are two that many people question as to what good they do :lol: - even though they are good food sources for other animals e.g. spiders, hover flies, dragonflies all enjoy wasps).
> 
> That is the problem when man (in his infinite wisdom) interferes with the natural environment. Culling badgers *WILL* have an effect on the index of diversity for that area and may well be very bad news as other animals will proliferate and may well cause other worse damage.
> 
> That is why any such trial *MUST* be organised and conducted by scientists *NOT politicians *and must be vigorously peer reviewed *BEFORE* they are carried out - to prevent more, man-made disasters.
> 
> Dave
Click to expand...

Now i,m in total agreement with your thoughts Dave. BUT, can we really trust a trial to be carried out in such an independent way knowing the enormity of what could conclude from it.

Paul.


----------



## Penquin

coppo said:


> ...... BUT, can we really trust a trial to be carried out in such an independent way knowing the enormity of what could conclude from it. Paul.


That is the biggest challenge that must be faced. There are a VERY large number of independent scientists of proven reliability and honesty. These should be sought to design, check and run such trials to identify how TB is being spread.

The Government appoints eminent lawyers or peers to carry out reviews into e.g. the Irag War, Phone Hacking, the way the Press works and so on. It should be the same process but for some reason it is NOT.

That is not just the present Coalition but ALL Governments; science is used as a tool to give them the backing they want. If the science does not deliver what the politicians want then the scientists involved are removed from power (remember the controversy over the way that Alan Johnson sacked Professor David Nutt from being the chairman of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs after Nutt had accused ministers of "devaluing and distorting" the scientific evidence over illicit drugs by their decision to reclassify cannabis from class C to class B against the advice of the ACMD.)

So do I have confidence that the trials will be properly run?

Sadly the answer is a resounding "NO" however essential such trials are to work out the cause.

Dave


----------



## rod_vw

"As a nature lover I am disgusted by the_ rat _cull which begins in August in 2 locations.

Even some of the scientists are against it saying it will be ineffective and will not make any difference.

_Rats _were here long before _humans_, it makes my blood boil as a nature lover and makes it easier for _humans_ to blame something for _Plague_ outbreaks. There is no justification for it.

Just imagine if the _Plague_ rate goes down in the 2 cull areas, what next, a nationwide cull?

It makes you want to join an animal rights group and protest, is there any point writing to someone?

Poor, beautiful, innocent animal _(rat)_ gets the blame again."

By simple changing the animal I am sure you will see that all of this depends on an individual's perception of the creatures involved.

Consider this. When you have nurtured your baby (calf) into an adult only to have it destroyed due to an illness that someone may be able to eradicate perhaps a different perspective can be seen?

Think on this…

My neighbour complains when the bird of prey takes the blackbird but never complains when the blackbird takes the worm!

Sorry if this upsets anyone, it's just how I see nature and survival of the fittest.


----------



## coppo

rod_vw said:


> "As a nature lover I am disgusted by the_ rat _cull which begins in August in 2 locations.
> 
> Even some of the scientists are against it saying it will be ineffective and will not make any difference.
> 
> _Rats _were here long before _humans_, it makes my blood boil as a nature lover and makes it easier for _humans_ to blame something for _Plague_ outbreaks. There is no justification for it.
> 
> Just imagine if the _Plague_ rate goes down in the 2 cull areas, what next, a nationwide cull?
> 
> It makes you want to join an animal rights group and protest, is there any point writing to someone?
> 
> Poor, beautiful, innocent animal _(rat)_ gets the blame again."
> 
> By simple changing the animal I am sure you will see that all of this depends on an individual's perception of the creatures involved.
> 
> Consider this. When you have nurtured your baby (calf) into an adult only to have it destroyed due to an illness that someone may be able to eradicate perhaps a different perspective can be seen?
> 
> Think on this…
> 
> My neighbour complains when the bird of prey takes the blackbird but never complains when the blackbird takes the worm!
> 
> Sorry if this upsets anyone, it's just how I see nature and survival of the fittest.


I,ve never read so much rubbish, have you not read the whole thread :?

I/We/Some are talking about mans interference with the delicate balance of nature and how it will not work longterm, you have got to understand how the eco system works and obviously you and your neighbour do not.

Paul.


----------



## Andysam

coppo said:


> I/We/Some are talking about mans interference with the delicate balance of nature and how it will not work longterm, you have got to understand how the eco system works and obviously you and your neighbour do not.


What delicate balance of nature is that then? For 1000s of years badgers have been hunted by man and beast. The predator beasts have now been extinct for centuries and man no longer takes badgers in anything like the numbers he used to. That was the delicate balance of nature. The eco system is currently out of line.


----------



## Al42

Fully agree with rod vw, none of us would live the lives we do (or even exist) if man had not interfered with nature. Man is also part of nature.

I think many posters are suffering from the 'fluffy bunny' syndrome, there was a very good article in last Thursday's Independent about the very real correlation between the large increase in the number of badgers to the huge decline in the hedgehog population. 30 million in the 1950's down to 1 million today. Of course there are other factors involved mostly involving man but I for one would like to see more hedgehogs even at the expense of badgers that cause damage in other ways besides being carriers of bovine TB.

Man has always and always will interfere in nature, what we have now is a product of man's interfrerence in the past and not usually to the benefit of everyone.


----------



## farmerboi

only came on here to reply to the poster who said we should have a cull of farmers .... well there was , over the last 10 years.... !!!!! .... i am a farmer in dorset were there is a terrible problem with tb ,,, i have been shut down for the last 10 months ,, and am a great lover of nature , so i am in the middle , the goverment are to blame here for putting the protected act on the badgers in the 70s , a controlled population is all ways going to be better than an over exploded 1 , and now we have ended up in this situation .... i see badgers most months mooching about, i have never seen or spoke to any 1 who has seen an infected badger , but i am told the males walk for miles when breeding , and cld be the possible carriers, who knows,,,, no tests or anything are carried out on the badgers, that are near to the farm , which i find strange ,..... but hey ho , its a ****ty old world at times ..... just for the record , i dont want to see a cull , but we do need something done , its a complete nitemare being shut down ..... all my cows are reared from calves and are like pets , its a very sad situation......soz for all the waffle , just needed, wanted, to say something from reading all above .


----------



## Penquin

IMO Farmerboi has summed up WHY scientific research needs to be carried out, not just a cull but one that takes the time and effort to find out whether the badgers that have been culled ARE infected with _M. bovis_ (TB causing bacterium).

A cull that simply kills on sight is NOT the answer, the data must be gathered before, during and after the proposed cull to ensure that the maximum amount of information can be elucidated which is then used to direct where policy goes from then on.

Please,no more "jokes" about culling farmers - it causes offence and is unnecessary.

Thank you to Farmerboi for those pertinent comments, it is easy to lose sight of the real people involved.......

Dave


----------



## SpeedyDux

Al42 said:


> Fully agree with rod vw, none of us would live the lives we do (or even exist) if man had not interfered with nature. Man is also part of nature.
> 
> I think many posters are suffering from the 'fluffy bunny' syndrome, there was a very good article in last Thursday's Independent about the very real correlation between the large increase in the number of badgers to the huge decline in the hedgehog population. 30 million in the 1950's down to 1 million today. Of course there are other factors involved mostly involving man but I for one would like to see more hedgehogs even at the expense of badgers that cause damage in other ways besides being carriers of bovine TB.
> 
> Man has always and always will interfere in nature, what we have now is a product of man's interfrerence in the past and not usually to the benefit of everyone.


Poor hedgehogs. A perhaps better correlation with the fall in hedgehog numbers is the increase in road traffic. In the 1950s only 1 family in 10 had a car. Go figure. Don't try to shift the blame onto the badgers.

I haven't seen a live hedgehog where I live for about 4 years now. There used to be a big individual who visited my garden to eat slugs and bird food. I dug a litte trench to make it easier for him to come in under my back garden gate. He was the only local hedgehog known to me and my neighbours. Probably the only hedgehog foraging around our estate of 600 dwellings. He was even discussed at meetings of the Residents' Association. One morning I found him dead in the access road not far from my front door. It made me really angry that some unthinking driver caused his unnecessary death. He was big for a hedgehog and easily seen and avoided.

We are very low on wildlife here even though it is on the edge of the city. Not one sparrow. No blackbirds. No squirrels. No rabbits. The Council's Streetcare Department still keeps destroying hedgerows to create bus lanes. We used to see rabbits, foxes and deer, and an occasional badger at night. Now nothing but traffic.

Most of the neighbours' houses are now BTLs and the gardens gravelled over. Very few lawns, trees and srubs left. The tenants don't have any bird feeders or nest boxes, and clearly are not interested, or perhaps unaware that there are so few wild birds still in the area.

Dire. End of rant.

SD


----------



## coppo

Penquin said:


> IMO Farmerboi has summed up WHY scientific research needs to be carried out, not just a cull but one that takes the time and effort to find out whether the badgers that have been culled ARE infected with _M. bovis_ (TB causing bacterium).
> 
> A cull that simply kills on sight is NOT the answer, the data must be gathered before, during and after the proposed cull to ensure that the maximum amount of information can be elucidated which is then used to direct where policy goes from then on.
> 
> Please,no more "jokes" about culling farmers - it causes offence and is unnecessary.
> 
> Thank you to Farmerboi for those pertinent comments, it is easy to lose sight of the real people involved.......
> 
> Dave


The research also needs to be widened to include the cattle, why they are prone to TB and not just centre on the badger, I know it will probably never happen though.

A big, docile, disease prone, genetically weak animal kept alive half the year by a combination of artificial feed and manufactured drugs, packed together in farmyards, sheds and fields to further increase the risk.

Remember when i was about 7 and we did the usual school farm trip. Teacher saying the cow is a lovely natural animal, lives in a field and eats nothing but grass and gives us milk which is so good for us, then we all drink a glass full. 

Should have sued her :lol: :lol:

Paul.


----------



## SomersetSteve

TB doesn't just affect the modern, high output Holstein-Friesian but all cattle, including rare breeds, Adam, on Countryfile, has lost Longhorn oxen and White Parks for instance. TB is therefore threatening genetic diversity in cattle rather than lack of diversity causing it. The really intensive units which keep cattle indoors all the time may end up being the only way to viably produce milk.

It is possible that the increase in infections among badgers is due to their population density in some areas, that they are stressed by the number of other badgers around and/or their food is getting harder to find due to competition with others. Research is needed into the badgers to help rid them of the disease which is leading to so many of them dying a horrible death.


----------



## coppo

Resurrecting this old thread of mine as news today is that 30 scientists are saying the cull will INCREASE TB and are asking the government to abandon it. I did say in my original post that some scientists are dead against it and this confirms it.

Paul.


----------



## Penquin

This post confirms my earlier posts that research is needed - if the cull is simply selective on those that they see there is a whole population that is unseen and who knows what their status is........

AFAIK the six week trial that will be carried out soon in some selected areas is NOT designed to check whether it eradicates TB in badgers or cattle but is simply designed to check whether they can kill badgers humanely from a distance using firearms.

Sadly no research seems to be planned, so the 6 week trial will attract negative comments and criticism (justifiably IMO) and add nothing to the knowledge base about bovine or badger TB.

BUT those i/c will never listen to points that appear to be against their prejudiced opinions.......

that is exemplified by the NHS reforms in the face of massive informed professional opinions, or welfare reforms or armed forces reductions or ....... the list goes on and we could all add our thoughts to it in the safe knowledge that no-one listens.......

Dave


----------



## erneboy

Yes Dave, we elect them to represent us then they do as they like.

It makes me wonder why we bother at all, Alan.


----------

