PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Badger Cull
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 16, 17, 18  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Living in the Future
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 4073

PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:
................. to satisfy those with a craving for it. Persecution of other species is never justifiable.....................


Humans are omnivores. They eat meat. I eat meat, I do not "persecute" animals. Cows eat grass, is it wrong that they persecute grass? why should we tolerate people persecuting carrots?
_________________
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 14558
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodburner wrote:
I eat meat, I do not "persecute" animals.


Heh heh, doesn't take much does it? Anyway, animals might disagree with you.

So you don't like the idea of in vitro meat?
_________________
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 11388
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:
Maybe all the money pumped into cattle herders should be pumped instead into 'growing' meat to satisfy those with a craving for it. Persecution of other species is never justifiable but this would give one less opportunity to do so.


Strongly held beliefs can warp our sense of reality sometimes. On this forum we are constantly railing against complexity, against unnecessary uses of energy, so for a long established and esteemed member to now suggest that we use an inordinate amount of complexity and energy to produce what can be produced on a wholly natural basis shows that we can all fall victim to our prejudices on occasions.

What we need is not a whole new, expensive and energy intensive technology but a reduction in meat consumption among most meat eaters. If we only eat the meat that could be produced from grass or grazing and waste products we would free up a huge area of land for wildlife and the production of vegetable alternatives. The growing of grain and protein crops to feed to cattle and sheep but mainly chickens and pigs is as ridiculous as catching fish and feeding it to other fish in fish farms!

It is a symptom of a monetary and financial system that needs realigning. it is also a symptom of a system of thought that can suggest "growing meat in a test tube!" We have sun and rain and fresh air to produce lovely fresh and healthy natural foods. You can stuff your tofu and textured soy protein and "cultured meat, cruelty-free meat, test tube meat, tubesteak, or shmeat" where the sun don't shine as far as I'm concerned. I'll get by with a little of what I fancy to do me some good.
_________________
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 8179

PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal - lagger wrote:
What we need is not a whole new, expensive and energy intensive technology but a reduction in meat consumption among most meat eaters.

Well said. If we, both nationally and globally, halved our meat consumption over the coming decade many of the current agricultural and land use challenges would be lessened.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18541
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Article by Chris Packam at http://www.badgergate.org/guest-articles/the-damned-shame-of-it-all/
about which
Beck Hoskins wrote:
"If you strip away all the layers of complexity and get to the underlying driver of why TB has spread like wildfire across modern UK herds, it's simple. You don't have to look far for the answer, it's in every supermarket. When you can buy a litre of milk cheaper than a litre of water that's incredibly wrong. Similarly when you can buy a packet of beef burgers cheaper than the bread rolls they will sit in, you know something has gone horribly/fundamentally wrong with our livestock industry in this country. Yes everyone screams for cheap food. Indeed on the surface it might seem financially cheap but there is ALWAYS a large cost to be paid environmentally and within husbandry standards/ animal welfare. So yes this cull is not scientific, it's barbaric, it's not just and it's not fair. But nor is it fair for dairy cows now to have the average life expectancy of just three yrs, live in sheds their entire lives, be constantly lactating and their male calves shot at birth. So good on Chris for supporting high welfare farming instead ...wwoohhooo way to go. Smile)"

_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 11388
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The trouble is the majority of beef herds are kept extensively and it doesn't seem to matter if you keep your animals inside or outside they still get TB.

Yes, if you institute a cull in a limited area badgers are going to repopulate that area and if the surrounding badgers are all TB ridden, which has been the case in previous culls and is the cse in the current cull, the badgers coming back in will be TB ridden as well. Anyone with an iota of sense should be able to work that out. If you kill a large proportion of the infected badgers over the full area of infected animals the ones moving back in are much less likely to be infected.

The cull should start at the edge of the infected area and work inwards. That way the movement of animals will be from clean areas and the reduction in numbers will lead to a more widespread and less dense population which will be less prone to the spread of disease.

Without a cull of some sorts the numbers of badgers will go on increasing because THERE IS NO NATURAL PREDATOR FOR BADGERS (I make no apology for shouting) which is something the likes of Chris Packham seem to be glossing over. The same is true for deer and foxes but these are or were hunted. In the case of foxes this is much reduced as they are only now shot by gamekeepers and irate poultry farmers since the demise of hunting on horseback. Deer are also much less hunted now and their numbers, as I have said above, are reaching unheard of numbers. but at least we can shoot them legally, in season.

Only 34% of people actually object to a badger cull, the remainder either support one or don't give a toss. The NFU said

Quote:
But if we are to successfully tackle TB, action has to be taken to deal with the reservoir of disease in our wildlife. Evidence from countries such as Ireland and New Zealand shows when all fronts of the disease are tackled at the same time a significant reduction in TB can be achieved.


The majority of vets support a cull and you would think that, as with Climate Change scientists, the majority of people would support their reasoning. To be a badger cull denier seems to be OK though whereas being a Climate Change denier is a hanging offence.
_________________
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 7239
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal - lagger wrote:
The trouble is the majority of beef herds are kept extensively and it doesn't seem to matter if you keep your animals inside or outside they still get TB.

Yes, if you institute a cull in a limited area badgers are going to repopulate that area and if the surrounding badgers are all TB ridden, which has been the case in previous culls and is the cse in the current cull, the badgers coming back in will be TB ridden as well. Anyone with an iota of sense should be able to work that out. If you kill a large proportion of the infected badgers over the full area of infected animals the ones moving back in are much less likely to be infected.

The cull should start at the edge of the infected area and work inwards. That way the movement of animals will be from clean areas and the reduction in numbers will lead to a more widespread and less dense population which will be less prone to the spread of disease.

Without a cull of some sorts the numbers of badgers will go on increasing because THERE IS NO NATURAL PREDATOR FOR BADGERS (I make no apology for shouting) which is something the likes of Chris Packham seem to be glossing over. The same is true for deer and foxes but these are or were hunted. In the case of foxes this is much reduced as they are only now shot by gamekeepers and irate poultry farmers since the demise of hunting on horseback. Deer are also much less hunted now and their numbers, as I have said above, are reaching unheard of numbers. but at least we can shoot them legally, in season.

Only 34% of people actually object to a badger cull, the remainder either support one or don't give a toss. The NFU said

Quote:
But if we are to successfully tackle TB, action has to be taken to deal with the reservoir of disease in our wildlife. Evidence from countries such as Ireland and New Zealand shows when all fronts of the disease are tackled at the same time a significant reduction in TB can be achieved.


The majority of vets support a cull and you would think that, as with Climate Change scientists, the majority of people would support their reasoning. To be a badger cull denier seems to be OK though whereas being a Climate Change denier is a hanging offence.
The central point here though, K, is that this cull is only "necessary" in order to allow us to perpetuate, for a little while longer, an utterly unsustainable system of food production for an utterly unsustainable population of people in an utterly unsustainable industrial civilisation.

And so, while I fully understand and appreciate the economic logic of a cull (though the specific one being currently proposed could be argued to make little economic sense, even, never mind philosophical), it's all bollocks in the end.

You must know this in your heart.


Last edited by Little John on Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:30 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18541
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ken, the cull you propose is a plan far removed from what the government is proposing. It makes much more sense.

But the line marking the edge of the infected area is going to be very long, wiggly, and in a somewhat unknown place.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
vtsnowedin



Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Posts: 5357
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

PostPosted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I remember having my 4H heifers TB tested back in the sixties. Odd that they have made so little progress in fifty years. Looking around your government sites that are focused on the problem and the badger cull I can see that you have a fully developed politically correct bureaucracy in charge and they are so rule bound they are doomed to produce only an expensive failure.
It will be hard to watch from this distance and I can't imagine what a herdsman in the UK must be going through watching the government dither about humanely culling just the right amount of badgers and then still coming in and slaughtering his whole herd needlessly.
This site was interesting.
http://www.bovinetb.co.uk/article.php?article_id=10
Good luck Ken.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 4073

PostPosted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From link:

Quote:
DEFRA has now revealed, in the latest consultation document, Bovine Tuberculosis: the Government's approach to tackling the disease and consultation on a badger control policy' (September 2010), that a vaccination for cattle will be available in 2012 (with the DIVA test). The BCG vaccine will not give 100% protection (estimates range from 50 -70%) and is not perfect - but then neither is the existing skin (or blood) test (estimates range from 70%). Vaccination could therefore be used as the basis for a successful control, rather than eradication, policy. It will be easier for farmers and cheaper in the long term too as cattle would no longer have to be slaughtered needlessly (with subsequent compensation costs) just because they are reactors or unconfirmed reactors to an unreliable skin or blood test.

However, the stumbling block is now the EU procedures, which, we are told, will not be completed until 2015! This is not good enough and derogation should be sought NOW so a vaccination programme can be started for cattle as a matter of urgency (already successful in trials in Ethiopia where they cannot afford to keep culling cattle needlessly). If cattle are vaccinated there may then be no need to tackle wildlife reservoirs, thereby saving these costs too. In these times of severe financial restraint and public cuts affecting so many people, the onus is on our politicians to choose affordable options. The Government has persistently failed to adequately justify the need for such an expensive, archaic and draconian bovine TB policy, either on the grounds of human or animal health or even on economic grounds.

The skin test poses real health and safety risks for farmers. In April 2010 an Irish farmer (from Moyne, North Longford), was injured whilst his cattle were being tested for bTB. He was pronounced dead when he reached hospital. About one third of fatalities on farms involve livestock. Change is needed - and now!

_________________
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18541
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the problem with vaccination and the EU is that, as things stand, we would not be allowed to export cattle into the rest of the EU.

And some farmers wouldn't like that.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 7239
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the problem with vaccination and the EU is that, as things stand, we would not be allowed to export cattle into the rest of the EU.

And some farmers wouldn't like that.
Well, as much as I instinctively dislike undemocratic edicts imposed on the UK from the EU, those countries who are voluntarily in the EU are at liberty to set internal EU regulations by agreement with regards to livestock. Thus, if we want to trade with the EU we can either choose to comply with their internal regulations or get out of the EU and find someone else to sell to.

Actually, thinking about it, I would be interested to know how the EU deals with livestock from non EU countries that have been vaccinated. Do they refuse them as well, or is this rule just one that applies to other EU countries? If it is, then yet another reason to get out.

It's not the EU I object to. It's the undemocratic imposition of it on countries whose populations do not want it. I know this is true of my own country and am guessing it is probably true to a greater or lesser extent in many other EU countries. But, those other EU countries are not my primary concern or business.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 11388
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If, or rather when, the system breaks down any wildlife that can support TB will be greatly decimated as people kill and eat them and as farmers kill off any local badgers to get rid of TB. My extensively reared cattle will continue to be extensively reared because it is the one sustainable way of keeping cattle for beef.

They are reared on common land which is unsuitable for anything but rough grazing and could be kept there for virtually the whole year. The animals take longer to mature but that doesn't matter in the longer term. A little supplementary feed in the form of hay is required in very inclement weather, i.e. snow, when the ground is covered.

In the long term the badgers will go and the cattle will stay.
_________________
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 8179

PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal - lagger wrote:
They are reared on common land which is unsuitable for anything but rough grazing...
How much land in your area, or the UK in general really isn't suitable for anything but rough grazing? Sure some is just too cold, too wet, too windy etc... but failing that, surely intensive 'gardening' can be achieved pretty much anywhere given enough labour and time to rebuild soils.

Maybe under today's system your herd's common land is economically unsuitable for anything but rough grazing, but surely in different times the land could have other uses.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
JohnB



Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 6456
Location: Beautiful sunny West Wales!

PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

clv101 wrote:
Maybe under today's system your herd's common land is economically unsuitable for anything but rough grazing, but surely in different times the land could have other uses.

Bring back the cruise missiles!!!!
_________________
John

Eco-Hamlets UK - Small sustainable neighbourhoods
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Living in the Future All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 16, 17, 18  Next
Page 2 of 18

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group