What a delightful chap. Jack Reedy, vice-chairman of the Badger Trust, interviewed in last week's FG must have had cattle farmers, especially those under herd restrictions and losing shed loads of cattle, enthralled.
His kindly brow, knitting with genteel compassion, Reedy showing genuine understanding of our problems and gave much information, which may be of help to us lesser mortals.
The Badger Trust deals in 'facts' says Mr. Reedy, while TB hit farmers - that's me - trade on emotion. His arguments, he confirms, are based on 'sound science'.
So quite unemotionally I ask, would that be the 'science' with which I am familiar, or the sort of 'political science' so recently delivered by members of the ISG?
Professor Bourne was at pains to make clear to various committees that a small amount of badger culling may be sanctioned, but only to act as an inducement for more brutal cattle measures of the sort Mr. Reedy is proposing. And which he openly told veterinary colleagues at the beginning of his culling trial, would be their only option at the end of it.
He reiterated this political steer which his 'trial' had received when interviewed both by the EFRA committee and the Welsh Assembly in July 2007. His evidence to the latter, prompting this explosive gem from Mr. Paddy Rooney, representing the CLA and a member of the TB Action group who said:
" Perhaps I might preface my remarks by saying that I was brought up as a scientist; it was not in this discipline, but scientific principles hold, whatever the discipline. One of the things that I was taught was that, in designing an experiment to try to address an issue or a problem, you may not like the results, but you accept them. I find it deeply shocking that responsible scientists should have been prepared to undertake a research study having been told at the outset that there is a conclusion that they are not allowed to reach. I find that utterly disgraceful".
Indulging in a bit of political back covering, Professor Bourne also told ministers in 2007 that badger culling 'as was conducted in this trial' had no place in policy. He was careful to say that, he said, as other types of culling which had not been part of the trial and thus may have had a different outcome. For sure, he certainly showed us all how not to cull badgers.
But that is the type of 'political science' which seems to attract Mr. Reedy and his fellow travellers, who appear to neither know nor care about any research pre ISG, or post RBCT.
The basis of Bourne's badger dispersal trial is contained in a description of the way 'risk' was assessed. Farmers involved with the RBCT filled out a long TB99 form which identified the possible causes of why the farm had suffered a breakdown. This still happens and is used to assess the need for back tracing of cattle movements and contacts. (In 2001, mine said 'no risk' from everything - except badgers, but the ISG ignored it along with all the others.)
This form should have formed the basis of the RBCT mathematical modelling. However for whatever reason, it did not. It was binned and the modellers used an 'assumption' of cattle contact across farm borders, bought in cattle and badgers as their points of reference. All three calculations were then given 'roughly equal importance'.
This is despite evidence from local AHOs, which consistently showed that at least 76 per cent and up to 90 percent of TB outbreaks in the worst areas are down not to cattle at all, but to badgers. Mr. Reedy accepts that badgers play a role in TB hotspots and says he "would be an idiot to deny that". Indeed.
On hotspots remaining in the UK after the TB eradication clearances of the 1960s, Mr. Reedy says that the weather and not culling out whole herds, caused the consequent spread of disease. He is wrong on both counts. In the West Penwith area of Cornwall in the early 1970s, whole herd slaughter, cohort slaughter, licensed movements and severe interpretation of synchronised tests were used by the DVM of the time, who was 'fierce' in his goal to clear out TB.
He failed, and the CVO reports of that decade confirm that he failed. Not until badger culling was started in 1974/ 75, did reactor figures finally start to drop. Similar stringent cattle measures were used in the Republic of Ireland with equally expensive and futile results. And climate? The Scilly Isles and Isle of Man share the same air space and geological features as SW England, but have no badgers and no home grown TB.
And the SW's badgers have not migrated northwards and westwards either, as the VLA's TB spoligotype maps show. The disease is circulating in clearly defined patches between tested, slaughtered cattle and free ranging badgers, exercising their right-to-roam.
And then 'closed herds'. Mr. Reedy scoffs at the suggestion, citing show visits, lorries, and shared equipment as other possibilities for the spread of TB. But as I said in my first FG blog post, I have a piece of paper from BCMS written in 2005, confirming 'no bought in cattle on the database'.
We did not show cattle (although we sold some good ones) and our boundaries were inspected by Defra's predecessor as being totally secure, with the cattle accepted as part of their voluntary EBL scheme. Lorries have access directly from the public road (not through cattle entrances) and we share no equipment. At that time (2005) we'd had continuous 60 day TB tests for over 4 years and lost too many good, home bred cattle.
But I'm not about to 'trade on emotion' about their totally unnecessary deaths or the strain it put on our business. Or even the fact that we are still uninsurable, still under TB restriction and unable to run our business as we would like. I'm not 'emotional' at all - but I am bloody angry at the sheer waste of money, time and effort Defra and their assorted snake-oil-peddlers throw into tiptoeing around trying to avoid this elephant in the room.
I am 'disappointed' that having published biosecurity research which they had commissioned, Defra can still publish duplicitous advice to farmers - and offer taxpayer's money for more research. And I am surprised that apparently intelligent people, still believe that the earth is flat.
Recent Comments