# TB - Slaughter of Whole Herd?



## Amymay (4 March 2011)

This is a really sad story;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-12635895

I thought that only affected animals needed to be slaughtered - or are guildelines different around the country?

Must admit, I would be blockading my road too if they wanted to slaughter healthy animals..........


----------



## Sadiemay (4 March 2011)

That is awful 

I dont understand, what is the logic in slaughtering healthy animals?  Can anyone explain.

I think I would also be doing the same if I were in this siutation


----------



## hobo (4 March 2011)

In theory only positive reactors are slaughtered but it sounds like he is being defiant about testing as they require every 60 days when you have a reactor.
If they have a positive reaction it does not mean they are unhealthy we have had to have many killed that are fit and healthy and no TB lesions are found.
It is heartbreaking to go through and is like playing Russion rullette every test day and i feel sick thinking about it, our next test is in two weeks.
I feel for the man but I guess there is more to the story.


----------



## martlin (4 March 2011)

The story is not clear, really. Generally, you slaughter the reactors or animals that tested inconclusive in an infected herd.
I am so glad I'm in a 4 year parish...


----------



## mon (4 March 2011)

they would rather slaughter cattle than the ever increasing bager population, which many blame for the spread.


----------



## applecart14 (4 March 2011)

amymay said:



			This is a really sad story;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-12635895

I thought that only affected animals needed to be slaughtered - or are guildelines different around the country?

Must admit, I would be blockading my road too if they wanted to slaughter healthy animals.......... 

Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned I don't blame the farmer but the law is sadly the law.  As I'm aware a TB outbreak would be disasterous to the farming industry so sadly there is no choice.

We had a terrier stuck down an active badger set at the riding club a couple of years ago.  The fire brigade were called, the RSPCA attended and had to get a faxed certificate of DEFRA giving permission to dig out the badger set to retrieve the dog which took 24 hours.  The fire brigade had vibration monitoring equipment and cameras and knew the dog was down there alive.  I got chatting to the DEFRA guy who attended and was asking him about the number of badgers that seemed the victims of road kill lying at the side of country lanes and posed the question to him "were they really roadkill?"  and he replied that "funny you should ask that but last year in East Anglia DEFRA did a survey and retrieved two badgers that were supposedly road kill from the side of the road and did an autopsy on them and found them riddled with shot gun pellets." The obvious thought being that they'd been on farmers land and the farmer had shot the badger placing them on the side of the road to look like road kill.  Ask yourself this question - if the theory is correct that badgers pass on TB and with a farmer facing possible extinction on the wonderful dairy herd that's been passed down from generation to generation and been in his family for hundreds of years  'for getting rid'????


----------



## Amymay (4 March 2011)

but the law is sadly the law
		
Click to expand...

But what _is_ the law.  I don't understand why non reactors are being slaughtered - that is not part of the law.......


----------



## applecart14 (4 March 2011)

amymay said:



			But what _is_ the law.  I don't understand why non reactors are being slaughtered - that is not part of the law.......
		
Click to expand...

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalhealt...vice-guidance/documents/3_Reactor_Animals.pdf

I've read this leaflet from DEFRA but still not any clearer

With *Brucellosis *non reactors have to be quarantined but not slaughtered unless you look at para 6 of this where it states if the farmer is not prepared or it is not practical to comply with the testing and isolation requirements then the whole herd shall be slaughtered.

SPECIAL PROVISION FOR NON-REACTOR COWS IN CALF AND BULLS


9. (1) Where a reactor is discovered among a herd of cattle, the owner, shall count and isolate from the herd every cow in calf and heifer in calf which is not a reactor.

(2) Every such cow in calf and heifer in calf shall be inspected daily by the owner thereof and shall be subjected to a se-. test for the diagnosis of the disease brucellosis at intervals of not less than 3 weeks, until the cow or heifer gives birth or .out the clinical signs referred to in section 10 appear, whichever event shall first occur, and the owner shall forthwith report to a veterinary inspector the appearance of those clinical signs.

(3) Where such a cow or heifer is about to give birth it shall be placed in a byre or enclosure specially set aside for the purpose.

(4) When the cow or heifer has given birth all solid matter expelled in giving birth to the calf together with any hay, straw or other bedding material or fodder shall be destroyed in accordance with section 8 as if that matter was the carcass of a reactor and the place where the birth took place shall be cleansed of blood and other liquid material and shall be disinfected in such manner as a veterinary inspector may direct.

(5) Where a bull which is not a reactor is in a herd of cattle in which a reactor is discovered, it shall be isolated immediately and if it passes 3 serum tests at intervals of not less than 2 months between each test it shall be permitted to resume breeding. Where a test is unsatisfactory the bull shall be slaughtered or castrated forthwith.

(6) Where it is not practical to comply with the requirements of the foregoing subsections of this section, the animals shall be slaughtered and the carcasses disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Act.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (4 March 2011)

The farmer was to blame as he refused for Animal Health to test his cattle on a regular basis, that is why the whole herd has to gofor slaughter as there could be unknown reactors within the herd, so i do not feel sympathy for him whatsoever. We all have to comply with this law, unfair as it is, either yearly,2 yearly or whatever.


----------



## FairyLights (4 March 2011)

TB is rife round where I live. Badgers are too. we need a Badger cull,they are spreading disease and all that is done is that peoples cattle are slaughtered.


----------



## Amymay (4 March 2011)

we need a Badger cull
		
Click to expand...

Or perhaps a vaccination???


----------



## perfect11s (4 March 2011)

Horsesforever1 said:



			TB is rife round where I live. Badgers are too. we need a Badger cull,they are spreading disease and all that is done is that peoples cattle are slaughtered.
		
Click to expand...

 I think thats been ruled out due to the fluffie bunnie brigade
obviously as it's more important for badgers to breed like rabbits , and spread TB than to have  viable UK 
farming and food production ....


----------



## jrp204 (4 March 2011)

I don't know what the answer is, this disease is rife in 2 species yet only 1 is regularly tested and culled, how is this good disease control. It is now irrelevant who gives it to who as it is way past this. 'Bunny huggers' will fight tooth and nail to save the badgers but seem to overlook the 1000's of cattle being slaughtered by being reactors. In Cornwall, livestock farming is being crippled by TB, badger numbers have reached epic numbers. As to what the answer is??


----------



## mon (4 March 2011)

need a petition for badger cull any one set one up


----------



## glenruby (4 March 2011)

There have been countless petitions. They are useless. Permission can be granted on individual basis. The "cull" as far as i have been informed has not yet been ruled out and at this stage is the only viable way forward. Vaccination is impractical and there are too many limitations.


----------



## JanetGeorge (4 March 2011)

jrp204 said:



			I don't know what the answer is, this disease is rife in 2 species yet only 1 is regularly tested and culled, how is this good disease control.
		
Click to expand...

Actually, it's probably rife in three species - certain red deer herds in the West Country being the third!  Quite a lot to do with red deer being lured onto certain areas with feed, keeping concentrations artificially high!


----------



## stroppy (4 March 2011)

badgers are a protected species, the way forward is a vaccine not a cull of either animal!!


----------



## Alec Swan (4 March 2011)

mon said:



			need a petition for badger cull any one set one up
		
Click to expand...

mon,

sadly you are well behind the times.

When government stops being so worried about votes,  and starts to address the massive,  and entirely responsible badger population,  then we may make some progress.

*Badgers carry Bovine TB.* Hardly a scientific explanation,  I realise,  but fact.  

The only enemy to the badger is man,  and occasionally,  his motor car.  Over the last 30 odd years,  the badger population,  within GB has multiplied,  several times,  and to unsustainable levels.  With this current level within the wild badger population,  those who lose livestock aren't the only ones who pay the costs.  We all do.

No countryman,  and yes that does include those who keep dairy cattle,  wants to see the badger eradicated.  That would be unthinkable to any right minded person.  The numbers need to be contained,  and kept at realistic levels,  where the threat to our milk producing industry isn't likely to prove crippling.

The General Public tend to listen to those who would explain that they have the well being of our wild life at heart.  Government,  so terrified of losing votes,  will,  with soft options,  listen to the Public.  The Public have been ill advised.

My heart goes out to that poor man,  who will have been heartbroken at the loss of his herd,  especially when there was a planned management system in place which could have prevented it.

Alec.


----------



## ofcourseyoucan (4 March 2011)

my father had TB many years ago. as children we were all routinely tested and jabbed. also went through the TB innoculations at big school, had jab again big abcess. having spent many years in the agri world, and yes many litres of tank milk and lots of pheasant work, i grew some lumps, 5 full ga surgeries later, and was diagnosed as TB. took the drugs 42 pills a day!!!!! and then a few more for the side effects. only good side effect was i dropped 3 stone in weight. didnt complete the full course as my liver went into mal function big time. more drugs. am ok now still get tired. SO i am totally for culling of badgers, positive testers, reactors and in times of need full herds. it is a nasty disease.


----------



## ladyt25 (4 March 2011)

amymay said:



			Or perhaps a vaccination???
		
Click to expand...

As Amymay said - why can't animals be vaccinated against TB?? I assume it's due to cost? Oh, so much better to just kill a load of badgers then even though, as far as I am aware there is no actual proof they are wholly to blame at all. Plenty of other species carry TB i believe.

I don't get why in this day and age we can't vaccinate livestock against these diseases - same with foot and mouth. Horrific that millions of animals have to be slaughtered due to a disease that doesn't actually kill the animal at all. In many countries (for example Brasil) foot and mouth is pretty common.

Anyway, I digress.


----------



## ofcourseyoucan (4 March 2011)

because vaccines dont work, as the disease migrates in its form.


----------



## competitiondiva (4 March 2011)

With regard to the source of this thread, the farmer gets no sympathy here, the system maybe flawed but it was the farmers choice to deny access for testing, it was the farmers decision to obstruct the law, unforunately it's his cattle that have had to pay for his behaviour.  As said previously healthy non reactors wouldn't usually be culled/pts the farm would be quarantined after the testers were removed and then re-tested once free of reactors the quarantine is lifted.

With regard to badgers etc, I've been informed that several farms have noticed a decrease in tb reactors by just raising their cattle feed and being careful of where it is stored, if a badger cannot wee on the feed then they reduce transmition of the disease! 

Vaccination wouldn't work because there is no guarantee or way of trapping every badger from a set to vaccinate it.  Some badgers as with some cats and some foxes etc WILL NOT go in a trap no matter how hidden or camouflaged (sp?!) it is!!!

By vaccinating cattle, we as a country hold our hands up to the rest of the world saying we have cattle with tb, thereby restricting where our cattle can go in the world (no export) and badly affecting our meat industry.


----------



## glenruby (4 March 2011)

ofcourseyoucan - not necessarily. Two universities(that I know of) have been working on badger vaccines for the last few years. As far as i know both have got to the final stages. The problem comes with administering the vaccine. Badgers are wild animals - and not particularly pleasant. Also in order to vaccinate, you would need to flush out setts - again a problematic process.

And, no I do not feel sorry for this man. HE has ignored the previous attempts to screen for and control the problem in his herd so the only viable option after confirmation of TB is to cull the entire lot. Had he complied with the authorities, there is no doubt that only the affected ones would be culled. For what its worth, I think it sounds like there must be a sizeable percentage of his herd affected otherwise Animal Health would not go to such extreme measures.  How else do you suggest you deal with someone who refuses to follow the law(which in this case is reasonable) and puts his neighbours farms at risk?

As for bovine B in humans - do we really want to backtrack to where we were 20-30years ago in terms of TB where every other farmer was affected and many young children died from it? I think not. I have also had family with TB, my 2 granfathers had TB (and 1 had Brucellosis), my uncle died as a teenager from it and I very nearly lost my best friend to it 15years ago. It also posed a threat to vets (as did Brucellosis) - personally I know 6 vets with Brucellosis and 9 who have TB. Once infected, it never goes away.

IMO, eradication will never be realised unless a cull of affected badgers( and I believe ALL badgers in areas with a high TB incidence) is carried out. Vaccination is just not going to be a practiceable solution.


----------



## ofcourseyoucan (4 March 2011)

well the human vaccine certainly doesnt work! i have been vaccinated 3 times in my life so far!!!! had 5 surgeries and still have TB in my lymph nodes (the ones that are left!!!!!) had both sides of my groin stripped out. my armpits stripped out and one side of my neck. the farmer in this case does not have my sympathy, as he has obviously not had his herd routinely tested. badger culling is only part of the way to go. and sadly i do think it is routinely brought in by humans from other countries.as TB is on a serious rise in the human population, mainly through people from other continents.


----------



## glenruby (4 March 2011)

The badger vaccine is not fully developed hence cannot be the same as the hman one. Apparently it is effective(well I guess nothing is ever 100%). Obviously sounds like the human one isnt!


----------



## Gamebird (4 March 2011)

The main argument against cattle vaccination is international trade - a vaccinated animal will give the same reaction to a TB test as an infected animal so they will become impossible to differentiate. I do not believe that there has been a marker vaccine developed (as there has been for eg. IBR) so that it is possible to tell vaccinates from those carrying the disease. All bovines being exported from the UK (other than going directly to slaughter) must be TB tested before movement so we would lose our position in international trade.

We are lucky enough to live in a 4-yearly testing area however I hae dealt with a couple of outbreaks and I would have to say that two irregularities struck me: 1) the calves belonging to reactor cows were not slaughtered (I thought that this was poor disease management, and a huge burden on the farmers being left to hand rear a large number of orphan calves with powdered milk prices virtually prohibitive) and 2) the definition of 'contiguous herds' seemed rather arbitrary. A next door farm that was designated in a different parish was not marked for contiguous testing yet one several miles away, with no common boundaries but in the same parish was required to be tested.,


----------



## glenruby (4 March 2011)

Gamebird - I have to say I have found similar issues. AH imo do not seem to have a consistent approach to TB management. Its always worrying when one of their own vets gives incorrect information to a farmer - (even after I told her her info was contrary to what I had learned!). 
I have also been involved in a case where during the retest fter removal of a number of reactors - 3 bulls on the farm (belonging to another farmer but in the herd) were not included on the list. When AH were questioned about the testing of these bulls they said it wasnt necessary (!)- 12mths later one has been tested positive! What?!
ETA - AH WERE aware that the bulls were in the herd during and after the initial reactors were found during a premovement test.


----------



## mon (4 March 2011)

nice to see a sensable thread on what is a serious problem we are in a 48month testing but  neighbouring farmer has had a reactor in a bought in bull, they have managed to isolate just that part of the herd, a cull and or vaccinating programme is a must, if goverment wont try orther ways of beting TB why should farmers be made to test and or cull


----------



## Heigh Ho Silver (6 March 2011)

I don't mean to sound heartless here, as I don't like to think of a whole herd being culled any more than anyone else........

But where do you think these animals end up  eventually anyway?

Someone else has written that it is bad to see healthy animals slaughtered, but healthy animals go to the abbatoir every day for us to eat.

 They all go to a slaughterhouse in the end ( apart from the odd one) , 
....sometimes I wonder which is worst......


----------



## mon (6 March 2011)

When they have finished there useful life, thats like saying we are all going to die sometime so whats the point of being born and living.


----------



## letrec_fan (6 March 2011)

mon said:



			When they have finished there useful life, thats like saying we are all going to die sometime so whats the point of being born and living.
		
Click to expand...

Not quite the same. Surely cows for consumption go to slaughter when they are fairly young..? Correct me if wrong as I have very little idea but most farm animals don't get to live a very long life before slaughter surely so IMO it is not the same thing - they haven't had a useful life.


----------



## ester (6 March 2011)

It also needs to be mentioned that farmers that do not have a TB problem are not really in favour of a cull and it is a concern that a cull might increase the cases of TB in cattle. This is because farmers with no problem well may have a local population of badgers that are TB free, a cull of badgers may well result in significant badger movement so that they might then end up with infected badgers. 


I think that's the trouble really, there isn't an easy and certain solution. 

I have been vaguely involved in some of the badger vaccine work but them being a wild animal obviously has it's own problems.


----------



## perfect11s (6 March 2011)

letrec_fan said:



			Not quite the same. Surely cows for consumption go to slaughter when they are fairly young..? Correct me if wrong as I have very little idea but most farm animals don't get to live a very long life before slaughter surely so IMO it is not the same thing - they haven't had a useful life.
		
Click to expand...

Um yes  some of the posters on this have even less understanding about agricultual practices
  than I do!!! but the way I see it a farmer has cows some are femail and go on to produce caves and milk  some breeds/ types are better at dairy like the frisian  and others make better meat animals, .   They all have a life span which is when they dont give milk or for beef
reach a certain weight  they go off to slaughter,,  if they catch TB then the usefull life is cut short and they dont produce what they were suposed to so food/milk isnt produced and the tax payer picks up some of the tab and the farmer loses breeding,milk or meat producing stock,  this farmer didnt play by the rules ie testing to control the tb infected ones in his herd so  the whole lot are now for the chop...


----------



## Aru (6 March 2011)

Badgers carry tb...the cattle version, M bovis and express symptoms of it.
In study where badgers were removed from a tb area the tb rate dropped significantly...Well in Ireland anyway..in the UK there was a remarkable amount of media attention and pressure from on different groups and politics involved.Which seems to have led to a different interpretation of the data..*rolls eyes 

In Australia,where tb was sucessfully eradicated, they had to wipeout the wildlife host to remove disease successfully.
However as badgers,unlike the auzzys hosts,are a native species this isn't exactly an option?? control maybe but a total cull would be to far. Plus badgers aren't the only hosts some species of deer carry it to...Culling badgers might help to control tb but it cant be the only solution.

At the minute there is a hugh amount of research going on into TB.Vaccination of badgers,removal of badgers from tb areas,and research into blood tests and elizas to detect the bacteria are all ongoing.

Vaccination has issues as as someone already pointed out in the rules of international trade,which is vital to the farming community,animals needs to prove tb clean to be considered and animals which recieve vaccines come up as tb possitive.Plus even the vaccine for human tuberulosis only has a sucess rate of 70 percent or so.

At the minute cattle which react to the tb test are removed and slaughtered.The herd goes into lockdown for a set amount of days and is retested until the whole herd is deemed to be clear of tb.It is unusual that the whole herd be slaughtered..id imagine there is a lot more to this story posted on here.

The odd thing is that in England and Wales the rate of tb is increasing yearly..Theres a saying that "the only area of wales without tb is the area with no cattle in it".. but here in Ireland its quite static year after year...id be very interested to see if there is a matching growth in the badger populations?

I have a recent report from  2007 into tb control if anyone is interested in having a look...plus a couple of recent lectures from collage I can fall back on for detail and more depth of imfo if anyone wants to know more


----------



## Wishful (6 March 2011)

I think badger culls would be effective only where there is known TB in the area - Badgers are VERY territorial and a healthy badger will drive off any interlopers...  So there are some farms that don't have TB (and are therefore on about annual/48 month retesting).  Most now are on 60 - 120 day retesting, and there are a LOT more now than there were 5 years ago.


----------



## Hairy Old Cob (12 March 2011)

The Badger poulation is totaly out of control and it is high time that a Badger Cull was allowed to take place to help reduce the incidence of Bovine TB.It could be carried out humanely under  licence by people who hold open firearms certificates who are out at night lamping Foxes  with Centrefire Rifles NOT Shotguns. No one wants to the Badger population erradicated but it most certainly needs to brought under control. At this moment in time Bovine TB spread by Badgers is not only destroying long established Herds but Peoples Health and Livelyhoods.
The spineles last government which was so in bed with the fluffy bunnie brigade failed the British people on this issue, I just hope this lot we have know have the *******s to get a grip on this situation before it is too late.


----------



## irish_only (12 March 2011)

The law protecting badgers is another fine example of implementation without thought of consequences. The law was brought in to protect badgers from the thugs who cruelly bait and torture. It has failed, as those who are intent on this continue. Meanwhile, as the badger has no predator other than man, it continues to rise in population, and what was a woodland animal has moved out onto pasture land to accomodate the rising numbers. Prior to the Bill, farmers were able to control numbers by shooting. Control by man taken away, the badger has become a pest and a liability to farmers trying to earn a living, and a huge expense to us, the taxpayer, who funds the compensation. 
The law needs changing. How can you compare a farmer/landowner shooting badgers to keep numbers down with those who capture and torture them?


----------

