and please use their services
BBC2 9.00pm-Badgers
- Thread starter JohnC6
- Start date
OP
- Messages
- 11,042
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes,it was wasn't it. Hopefully there's going to be a way forward now that won't involve, what now seems to have been, an unnecessary culling programme. DEFRA has wiped out almost half the population. In response to the BBC asking for a atatement re this documentary the answer was..business as usual. The Labour Pary said it would stop the cull but it doesn't sound like it from their latest statement.
- Messages
- 4,413
- Name
- Stu
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thank you John , I've never been happy about this cull.........all kudos Mr May. John plausibly you know at some stage in my life I was a farmer of sort.a rare breeds poultyman to be more precise.so I see both sides. The pivitol moment for me was when the Welsh farmer that didn't particularly like May was asked why brock hadn't infected his closed flock in the last 30years had he brought in a bull? Were the tests on said bull actually accurate?
Mate farmers live and breath their livestock ( also their livelyhood) they walk a hard path, never not thinking of stock. So when somethiing as harsh as TB enters a herd I understand why brock could be blamed. Do folks actually understand what a closed flock /herd means?
For me , well i'm really hopeful .brock is low on the list of our new gov John, but honestly if all parties can work together, I think with time things will change. Farmers don't want brock culled they just want freedom from this awful disease.
So I'm full of hope matey..what I don't really have the intelligence to assimilate is just how brock will fare having aprox 1/2 it's number and genetic variety wiped from the face of the earth here in blighty
But then it ain't just badgers is it?
- Messages
- 12,178
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, I watched it and found it quite convincing.
Stu, you asked the question did anyone understand what a closed flock meant. The TB test was found to be completely useless. The theory was that the bull (allegedly clear of the virus) brought the TB into the so-called closed flock. Perhaps you did understand that - I couldn't quite tell from your post.
One thing I have learned from the observation of farmers and their ways is that they love a scapegoat. It used to be foxes, then it became badgers and sometime soon it will be something else. One farmer explained to me how badgers killed lambs. (in all seriousness.) The lamb is asleep on the hill at night and the badger blunders along in its nightly foraging. The lamb wakes up and starts following the badger. This annoys the badger so it turns around and bites the lamb on the nose, The wound becomes infected and the lamb dies. That's it.
Once the farming unions to start jumping up and down demanding badgers are "culled" despite the lack of evidence, their friends in government are only too happy to oblige.
Stu, you asked the question did anyone understand what a closed flock meant. The TB test was found to be completely useless. The theory was that the bull (allegedly clear of the virus) brought the TB into the so-called closed flock. Perhaps you did understand that - I couldn't quite tell from your post.
One thing I have learned from the observation of farmers and their ways is that they love a scapegoat. It used to be foxes, then it became badgers and sometime soon it will be something else. One farmer explained to me how badgers killed lambs. (in all seriousness.) The lamb is asleep on the hill at night and the badger blunders along in its nightly foraging. The lamb wakes up and starts following the badger. This annoys the badger so it turns around and bites the lamb on the nose, The wound becomes infected and the lamb dies. That's it.
Once the farming unions to start jumping up and down demanding badgers are "culled" despite the lack of evidence, their friends in government are only too happy to oblige.
OP
- Messages
- 11,042
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I see that despite this government saying it will end badger culling it's going to allow the current permits to run and it's happening now. Is the farming lobby so powerful ?
What's annoyed me is that I watched a report about it on TV and I heard another one on the radio and they had to be aware of Brian May's TV documentary but the reporters, in each case, didn't even mention it and the findings re the way they currently test bulls.. ie a skin test that is flawed.
What's annoyed me is that I watched a report about it on TV and I heard another one on the radio and they had to be aware of Brian May's TV documentary but the reporters, in each case, didn't even mention it and the findings re the way they currently test bulls.. ie a skin test that is flawed.
- Messages
- 12,178
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
According to the documentary the skin test is flawed in all cases so infected animals remain in the herd un-noticed. The virus is shed in the animals dung and dairy cattle (at least) are continually wading around in slurry. If that is the case it is no surprise that it gets passed from animal to animal. That is my understanding of it anyway.
Yes, the farming lobby is incredibly powerful . In Wales it is so powerful that it is no longer a lobby. In rural Wales farmers ARE the establishment - witness the controversy earlier this year about the Sustainable Farming Scheme which the Welsh Government were/are trying to bring in. It would have changed the way that farming subsidies were paid. Farmers were up in arms about it. They are so used to being paid from the public purse for doing what they want to do that having conditions put on the way they farm before getting their subsidies was completely unacceptable to them. I'm not sure how aware people are that in large parts of rural wales about 3/4 of farming income comes from the public purse, and it is probably the same in other parts of the UK.
- Messages
- 4,413
- Name
- Stu
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Buddy yes, I completely understood how the skin test leads a farmer to believe his new aquisition is healthy when it was not. got that mate,
My question was do folks understand "closed flock" it's implications to what the farmer said and to the breeds one sees in our world now
Jerry be patient with me mate I know what I'm trying to get out, lol but it might be hard won.
Jerry let me try to explain a closed flock..leastways bro my understanding...................a closed flock is probably the base of a breed in domestic stock. A closed flock is going to be seriously inbred, the stockman is working with ( within )a genepool to extrapolate desired characters.
A closed flock means little comes in. VERY little Jerry. Buddy the flock is closed, one brings in another animal with HUGE care thought and resonsibility AND RISK !!!!!!!!
All domestic breeds have a progenitor. That is the base wild thing man started to breed to pull out desirable characteristics. Jerry in chucks( the progenitor) that's the red jungle fowl, in dux most likely a mallard, although the musk duck is a player with moscovey. Dogs a wolf, piggy pigs, wild boar and onwards ......................sheeps and cattle hell I dunno the base, but it's there for sure.
Buddy for millenia man( farmer's stockmen /women) have worked with those base progenitors to produce all these different breeds. These breeds are not species, they have the same founding genepool ( progenitor). So one can cross one breed with another and produce fertile offspring
How man has done that is largely down to a closed flock. .and inbreediing within said flock. One closes a flock two fold in part one wants no outside desease( important re topic in hand), and also to work with the genes in our flock to produce desirable traits.
EG: By working with a strain of aminals and selective breeding/line breeding one can produce stock that is incredibly well adapted to a specific local, without bringing in new blood. But there are caviats...said closed flock might be devastated by a new desease it's never seen...............before.because fundamentally it is so inbred.
Jerry does this all make sense...when a farmer says to me I had a closed flock for 30 years and I brought in new blood,
I'd be slightly aghast my first question to him or her is why? What are the potential gains to your flock? closely followed by what do you perceive are the desease risks?................. you are working with iinbred genes are you sure you want to do this after 3 decades ??
That's Why I asked do folks understand a closed flock is in part because there is a plausible weakness to desease within a limited inbred genepool, ha or visa versa a greater resistance which is very relevent to topic and was stated in the film John linked
Also because a closed flock is the base of the astounding relationship between man and domesticated live stock, which is basically just plain fascinating. for all that adore nature
Does that help buddy?
- Messages
- 12,178
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
Buddy yes, I completely understood how the skin test leads a farmer to believe his new aquisition is healthy when it was not. got that mate,
My question was do folks understand "closed flock" it's implications to what the farmer said and to the breeds one sees in our world now
Jerry be patient with me mate I know what I'm trying to get out, lol but it might be hard won.
Jerry let me try to explain a closed flock..leastways bro my understanding...................a closed flock is probably the base of a breed in domestic stock. A closed flock is going to be seriously inbred, the stockman is working with ( within )a genepool to extrapolate desired characters.
A closed flock means little comes in. VERY little Jerry. Buddy the flock is closed, one brings in another animal with HUGE care thought and resonsibility AND RISK !!!!!!!!
All domestic breeds have a progenitor. That is the base wild thing man started to breed to pull out desirable characteristics. Jerry in chucks( the progenitor) that's the red jungle fowl, in dux most likely a mallard, although the musk duck is a player with moscovey. Dogs a wolf, piggy pigs, wild boar and onwards ......................sheeps and cattle hell I dunno the base, but it's there for sure.
Buddy for millenia man( farmer's stockmen /women) have worked with those base progenitors to produce all these different breeds. These breeds are not species, they have the same founding genepool ( progenitor). So one can cross one breed with another and produce fertile offspring
How man has done that is largely down to a closed flock. .and inbreediing within said flock. One closes a flock two fold in part one wants no outside desease( important re topic in hand), and also to work with the genes in our flock to produce desirable traits.
EG: By working with a strain of aminals and selective breeding/line breeding one can produce stock that is incredibly well adapted to a specific local, without bringing in new blood. But there are caviats...said closed flock might be devastated by a new desease it's never seen...............before.because fundamentally it is so inbred.
Jerry does this all make sense...when a farmer says to me I had a closed flock for 30 years and I brought in new blood,
I'd be slightly aghast my first question to him or her is why? What are the potential gains to your flock? closely followed by what do you perceive are the desease risks?................. you are working with iinbred genes are you sure you want to do this after 3 decades ??
That's Why I asked do folks understand a closed flock is in part because there is a plausible weakness to desease within a limited inbred genepool, ha or visa versa a greater resistance which is very relevent to topic and was stated in the film John linked
Also because a closed flock is the base of the astounding relationship between man and domesticated live stock, which is basically just plain fascinating. for all that adore nature
Does that help buddy?
No, I think I understood what a closed flock meant in general terms but I didn't understand the reasons for it in such detail. I assumed that farmers started working with a closed flock to try to eliminate the risk of TB, and when TB suddenly appeared they had to find a reason for it, hence badgers became the scapegoat. The TV prog suggested that the bull that was brought in could well have been the source of the infection even though it had been tested and found negative, because the test itself is fundamentally flawed.
Thanks for the explanation!
- Messages
- 9,832
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Until this documentary I never realised that:
1) A cow can eject up to 45kg of dung in a day, that's a huge amount of (possibly) infected slurry. The fact that they collect this potentially infected slurry and spread over the fields in which the the same cattle graze really did open my eyes.
2) The current skin test is totally infallible. So much so that cattle can be walking around carrying the virus and spreading it while the farmer thinks his herd are "good".
3) Farms really are a hive of industry for infections....
1) A cow can eject up to 45kg of dung in a day, that's a huge amount of (possibly) infected slurry. The fact that they collect this potentially infected slurry and spread over the fields in which the the same cattle graze really did open my eyes.
2) The current skin test is totally infallible. So much so that cattle can be walking around carrying the virus and spreading it while the farmer thinks his herd are "good".
3) Farms really are a hive of industry for infections....
- Messages
- 12,178
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 9,832
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, indeed...........fallible......