Bovine TB — badgers and buyers beware
“Turn on Radio Wan. They’re on about TB in cattle.”
I duly turned the dial on my radio, to find Aonghus McAnally and his panel in conversation with a Con Flynn from the Irish Wildlife Trust, and John Barron, the chairman of the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers’ Association’s (ICSA) rural development committee. Their conversation was indeed about TB in cattle, but more specifically about the Department of Agriculture’s policy of culling badgers in TB hot-spots. I listened with great interest.
Mr Flynn outlined the history of the fight against bovine TB in Ireland, with honourable mention for the late Charles Haughey, who introduced the first national bovine TB testing scheme in the 1960s, which resulted in a dramatic reduction in the incidence of TB in the national herd. However, as progress against the disease “flat lined” during the late ’60s and the ’70s, the reasons for the setback were examined, and by 1984, badgers had been identified as a reservoir of the disease. The decision was then made to begin a cull of badgers in areas identified as bovine TB hot-spots.
It was this policy of culling that Mr Flynn questioned, stating, “Badger culling isn’t delivering for us” and “TB figures are not reducing significantly in a sustainable way”. His solution? “More controls on cattle”. He suggested cattle cross-contamination with other cattle is a far bigger issue than badger contamination.
When asked for his opinion, the ICSA man began by objecting to the impression given that the cull was national, and saying that the department culls only in areas where there is a bovine TB problem.
He said ICSA fully supports the culling of sick badgers policy, which also contains the proviso that where culling took place, remaining clean badgers would be vaccinated.
Mr Flynn replied that Scotland has achieved TB-free status through more rigorous cattle testing, not through indiscriminate culling. He said studies in Britain concluded that culling badgers was of little benefit.
At this point, I wondered what the British policy is — bearing in mind that bovine TB is a very serious problem in some parts of England and Wales.
Mr Barron said farmers here co-operate fully with the department and the law, and there is no case for more cattle testing, culling is the solution.
Mr Flynn replied that the department has spent €70 million on disease control, most of it on TB control, and we aren’t getting acceptable results.
While both men presented their cases very well, I got the feeling that it was a little too easy for the ICSA man fall back on the eradication scheme rules.
Department figures show 20,211 bovine reactors in 2010, and 23,720 in the first nine months of 2011. There is, I believe a case to be made for introducing a pre-movement test, because the purchaser of cattle is at the mercy of a system that can see animals not tested for two years.
While primary producers may baulk at this suggestion, from a buyer’s point of view, it appears only reasonable to be assured that in the not-too-distant past, the animals you are buying have passed the standard required. Animals may not be inspected for nearly two years in cases where they may be within a month or a week of having to be tested in the seller’s herd, and are being introduced into a buyer’s herd which may have just passed its annual test.
If this system is working, why does Northern Ireland require a 30-day test on live animals travelling from the Republic?
I think our system has developed into one of containment more than eradication, and a nice little earner for some people — as long as farmers and taxpayers keep pumping money into it.
