Badger Cull

[ThursdayLast]

Anyone have any opinions on the badger cull?
Or the protests surrounding them?

But it is working. If you look at the data up to 2012 it will show a rise in the incidences of bTB. However, since the eu forced the uk to adopt the current testing and control measures in January there has been a month on month drop. According to DEFRA the incidence of bTB in cattle in March 2013 was 3.6%, compared to 3.9% a year ago, and a drop from 4.7% in December 2012. This is from an average over the last six years of around 5%. Early days and with caveats but clearly heading in the right direction.

Cazboldy - ridiculous analogy. Childminders don't routinely pack their charges off to the abattoir.

I think you can see Cazs point though?

Those statistics don't mean much to the farmers who's farms are under restriction and severe interpretation. And has been reported, the spread is not under control at all.

It is an incredibly stressful test on the animals, and interpretive, and often inaccurate.

Exactly, MLL. Nor do they artificially inseminate them (some would call this rape) merely so that they can continue to have calves (which are taken away from them, not allowed to nurse, and packed off for veal if they are male, or back into the vicious dairy cycle if they are female) and be able to lactate day in day out, for the rest of their sorry short lives.

ThursdayLast, yes, I am absolutely against the dairy industry. Not eating meat is not extreme. Slaughtering animals, when we have no biological need (all the vegans on this planet can attest to that), is extreme. Wrecking the planet, with animal agriculture, is extreme. Killing badgers, is extreme.

And if everyone on the planet ate a vegan diet, that wouldn't affect any change on ecosystems?! Arable farming isn't any more or less intensive or intrusive.

I don't believe that anthropomorphising cattle is a valid way of arguing against everything, so I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that point.
I do believe that the quality of life of farm animals is paramount, and IME that is an opinion shared by those in charge or their care.

Better to be kept and killed for a purpose, than killed pointlessly for being suspected of having a disease.

Thursday

The point I'm trying to make is that it is a bogus claim to say that the reason we (the EU) will not permit a vaccine for cows is because we cannot then tell which cows have been vaccinated and which cows are showing a reaction to TB.

Cows have ear tags.

Have yellow ear tag = cow unvaccinated

Have red ear tag after cow has been vaccinated

Red tagged cows don't enter food chain

Yellow tagged cows, if they test positive (false or otherwise for TB) get culled - as they do now.

But it negates the 'we cannot tell which are which 'argument.

I was referring to frostyfingers very informative post upthread:

Q. Why can't we vaccinate animals to stop them contracting TB? A.Vaccines have been developed but there is no test to distinguish between vaccinated animals and ones that have the disease.

You don't need a test if you trust farmers and vets to tag correctly.

That is a good idea, my experience is with the dairy industry, and that could work in theory. It does seriously reduce the value of cull cows at the end of their dairy life if they can't go into the food chain.

Although, now I've written that, I'm not sure being vaccinated means that they can't enter the food chain...have I made that up??

But I think where it is unworkable is the beef industry. If the EU won't allow vaccinated animals to be exported, those farmers who rely on selling beef abroad will be screwed. So it doesn't solve any problems there.

And I take a little offence to the question of whether farmers and vets can be 'trusted' to tag properly.

They are doing everything they can in the current guidelines to make their lives, and the lives of their animals better.

The EU stance on this is not the fault of British farmers.

They're reducing the badger population by 70% for a 12-15% reduction in TB? Wow, really seems worth it.

If everyone ate a vegan diet, it would affect the environment positively. How can it not?

I'm not anthropomorphising animals, but I've seen enough evidence to show that animals wail for their babies when they are stolen from them, they hide their calves if they can, because they know what happens. I've seen enough to know that they exist for their own reasons, and don't want to be milked or killed. I've researched enough to know that animal agriculture and human greed is devastating our planet.
I've read enough to understand that if you kill a cat or dog in this country you are seen as a sadistic killer, but if you are responsible for the deaths of thousands of cows/pigs/sheep, you are merely a farmer. Weird.

I don't think an animal knows though whether it has been killed for meat or killed because it may have a disease. So no, neither is better for them.

Because to supply the worlds population in a vegan diet would necessitate greater rice paddys, orchards, large scale wheat/corn/etc farming. From researching animal agriculture I'm sure you're aware of the effects of arable. Erosion, hedgerows destroyed, their wildlife along with them. Rainforests and other natural habitats are under no less threat from arable than animal.

But anyway, this is to stray from the point.

You believe that all animal farming is bad so I think I can safely assume that any side effect of it will be offensive to you. We're not going to be able to have a rational debate!

They do have to be tested regularly though, it's nothing to with trust. You can't tell if an animal is carrying TB by looking at it, the test proves or disproves that.

This is from the MRCVS site: Cattle vaccination will not work on its own., and this from TBFree England website: There are calls for cows to be vaccinated against bTB. However there is no legal vaccine available. Currently the only option is the BCG vaccine (Mycobacterium bovis Bacille Calmette-Guérin ? ref 1,2,3,4,5). The problem is that at present it is impossible to distinguish between a BCG-vaccinated and TB-infected cow. And for this reason it is currently illegal under EU law to vaccinate cattle with the BCG jab. Work is underway to devise a DIVA test (ref 6,7,8) - a test that can Differentiate between Infected and Vaccinated Animals. But even when this has been fully developed, it will need to go through EU and international approval.

So, it's not just a question of vaccinating the cattle and leaving the badgers with TB, nor vice versa - it has to be a coordinated process limiting the disease in each animal.

As I said before, it's all very well saying "it's not worth it, it's cruel, don't do it" - what do you suggest farmers do now to reduce TB? Going vegan is never going to happen so it's pie in the sky to produce this as the answer - just saying you don't like it is fine, but it doesn't help anyone. And don't forget that all the time you say "don't cull the badgers" they are suffering too, this is from the Badgers Trust website: The disease chiefly affects the lungs and kidneys. Infected animals lose weight and body condition and experience breathing problems.

I seem incapable of making a short comment on this, I'd better go away and hide it!

Thursday that was a pretty ignorant comment. Reducing the amount of livestock we raise would greatly improve the environment and ecosystem, not least because of the huge amounts of methane gas they produce which contributes to global warming. Cattle rearing has a massive carbon footprint.

Oh frostyfingers, don't go away, you make much more sense than me!

ANormalOne, I'm not trying to be combative, please don't accuse me of being ignorant! I am interested to hear how you would tackle the problem?

Thursday, animal agriculture is a burden on the planet. Let's not pretend it isn't. Eating plants directly is a much more efficient system, and I am absolutely sure you know this, and are merely protecting your livelihood arguing otherwise.

"Isn't man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife - birds, kangaroos, deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice, foxes and dingoes - by the million in order to protect his domestic animals and their feed. Then he kills domestic animals by the billion and eats them. This in turn kills man by the million, because eating all those animals leads to degenerative - and fatal- health conditions like heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer. So then man tortures and kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases. Elsewhere, millions of other human beings are being killed by hunger and malnutrition because food they could eat is being used to fatten domestic animals. Meanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter at the absurdity of man, who kills so easily and so violently, and once a year, sends out cards praying for "Peace on Earth." - from Old MacDonald's Factory Farm by C. David Coats

I'm not trying to deny the carbon footprint of cattle rearing either, I'm rational enough to understand the downsides. But I refute the suggestion that a worldwide vegan lifestyle (even if it were plausible) is the whiter than white option as it is being presented here.

And frostyfingers makes a good point that I can't believe I I missed! If every cow was vaccinated, every cow would show as a reactor on the tests...

Lentil.

You too are man.

Those statistics don't mean much to the farmers who's farms are under restriction and severe interpretation. And has been reported, the spread is not under control at all.

You are ignoring the fact that the eu legislation is working though has had little time to work, and that it had to be forced on the uk, yet you are prepared to back something that virtually every scientific advisor has said will not work. As for the reporting, the reduction in incidences is not something which is widely being promoted since it does not fit with the political agenda. Of course you can plough through pages of DEFRA statistics if you're interested (like i did), but I could only find those stats I quoted reported on two sites. If you were of a conspiratorial turn of mind you could almost think it is like they don't really want people to know...

"In fact, if one person is unkind to an animal it is considered to be cruelty, but where a lot of people are unkind to animals, especially in the name of commerce, the cruelty is condoned and, once large sums of money are at stake, will be defended to the last by otherwise intelligent people" - Ruth Harrison

I don't kill animals. None. Perhaps an ant, if I accidentally tread on one, but I make an effort not to. I am against the badger cull. This planet has issues.

It is ignorant though, the affects of wide scale cattle rearing on the environment has been known for years, not the least the effect on our own health.

As for the badger cull, I don't think it's effective at all. Like I said previously, reducing the badger population by 70% is only going to reduce TB by 12-16%. That's a huge reduction of numbers for what is essentially a tiny benefit. It's a short term, short-sighted, attempt at currying favor with farmers. We need a long term solution, we should be vaccinating badgers, developing a workable vaccine for cattle and, as the man who originally commissioned the original cull in 1990 has stated, creating 'bio-security' measures to prevent cattle and badgers from coming into contact with each other.

I think lentil that this is where we agree to disagree.
I understand your point. I just don't agree with it.

ANormalOne.

I couldn't agree more that other avenues need to be explored as well. It's just that I also believe that this trial needs to go ahead so as to definitively demonstrate if it is or is not effective.