Badgers at risk

[PAULW]

Originally Posted by smallblueplanet
Yeah - meat-eaters!

Oh so you dont pay any tax then, its everybody who pays for the gutless governments inaction.

[johnygreenfeet]

lets have a cull i say

[beefy]

A cull would have to be extensively planned, then properly staffed and supervised to ensure it was done safely and humanely, probably with DEFRA vets present at each site (thousands across the country). The bodies would have to be removed and incinerated. Cattle would have to be confined during the whole procedure etc etc.

If a simple cull is so cheap and easy, why have BSE, foot and mouth and bird flu cost so many billions?

Last week not two miles from where I live Paul the govt decided that a local farmer's cattle which had been imported from Holland had Bluetongue.They turned up and shot all the cattle in the middle of the yard and walked off. Some of the cattle were still alive and a vet had to be called to finish what the govt slaughtermen started . When the farmer asked about disposal he was told that was his problem and nothing to do with them. I saw it with my own eyes Paul 8 cows writhing around not properly slaughtered in the middle of a concrete yard in the middle of a pile of dead animals.And independant tests seem to say that bluetongue was not present .
I cant see anything remotley humane about that can you?
And people wonder why I have no faith in the government.
BBC NEWS | Northern Ireland | More cows culled over bluetongue

[Paul Wagland]

At the risk of repeating myself: If a simple cull is so cheap and easy, why have BSE, foot and mouth and bird flu cost so many billions?

The fact that it's done badly doesn't make it cost any less. The study, mentioned at the start of this thread, cost �34million on its own.

The simple fact is, disease in farm animals is spread more easily in intensive farming conditions. It's immoral, unethical and it costs the tax payers dearly.

Blaming it on badgers, fluffy or otherwise, is a desperate act.

[bubblewrap]

[QUOTE=Paul Wagland;184415]Jeannine has just sent me a press release, written by the RSPCA, about the proposal (by a group of MPs) that a badger cull could be useful in some parts of the country afflicted by bovine TB. Don't know how you grapes feel about this, but it seems pretty loopy to me!



Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Groucho Marx

[beefy]

lets have a cull i say

Badgers or Politicians?

[Protea]

in response to Paul (i can't be bothered to find the right quote - there's too many replies!) about intensive farming practices:

Unfortunately, intensive farming parctices (arable crops, vegetable or animal) are the only way that this country, and increasingly, the world are going to be able to feed all the human population.

I recently attended a conference on this very issue (food sustainability) where the anticipated rise in world population (in terms of sheer numbers, and also those climbing out of poverty by only $1 a day extra to feed themselves) will put huge strain on the worlds productive land. The conflicting demands of food production, biofuels and water plus the reduction or expansion of land suitable for production as a result of climate change means that we will have to farm more intensively to feed us all.

Thus, with increasing intensification of farming pratices we will see more conflicts between wildlife and farmland, whether it produces meat from cattle or wheat for bread. However much it might seem more ethical to go back to less intensive, organic farming systems, it just isn't going to feed everyone.

I know i've gone slightly off topic here but i felt it is an important point, whether you agree with me is another matter of course!

[pigletwillie]

Some 20,000 cattle have to be slaughtered each year, which costs the Treasury �100 million in compensation.

Surely anyone with half a brain cell can see it is stupid to keep throwing good money after bad and it is pointless killing the cattle that are infected without removing the cause of the infection.

And the cause of infection are badgers. We do need animal protection but either we lose the cows or sort the badgers by either inoculating them or by other means, culling should be of last resort but used if needed.

Badgers, like rabbits, and both are cute so get the Ahhh factor from the public, cause huge dameage. Our local farm has to spend thousands each year reinstating fencing and embankments that they rampage through and the gardens which back onto his farm, well lets just say you would not want one as your garden, they look like a JCB has been through them. He is sorely tried by them but takes it on the chin, however he has yet to lose beasts through TB.

Personally I think it will take a mix of all sorts of actions to bring the problem under control dependent upon the severity and local conditions. Some areas will lend themselves to culling but I feel that they will be few and far between so other solutions will need to be actioned there. Some badgers may well be culled but it will not be the wholesale slaughter that was invisaged a few years ago thankfully.

[Paul Wagland]

A good argument Protea (as usual ) but I think the current challenge facing the world's food production industry is that the world's population is getting richer, and is therefore wanting more meat in its diet. People in countries such as India and China have traditionally had little meat in their diets, but are now buying more. A beef farm produces less food per acre than an arable farm (in fact the beef industry is a net drain on the world's food reserves as it takes so much to feed the cows).

A large increase in the number of farms using organic methods would not, in my opinion, lead to food shortages. The Soil Association quote the following figures:

{Organic farms in the EU} have crop yields 20-40% lower but overall productivity is unlikely to be a problem: the EU faces continual problems of over-production with conventional farming (set-aside has been fixed at 10%).

In developing countries, the low cost, information-based, self-sufficient approach of organic farming-type methods has been shown to result in yield increases of 46-150%.

Organic farming is probably the best means for ensuring that food production levels can be sustained, since it maintains rather than exploits the basic resources that are required (eg. good soil quality and clean water).

And there are other benefits too:

Organic farming in the UK provides 32% more jobs per farm than equivalent non-organic farms.

If all farming in the UK became organic over 93,000 new jobs directly employed on farms would be created.

I've done a bit of research on this (I'm a journalist, so I know how to go about that) and I would like to see a huge uptake of organic practices in this country. We'd have many more jobs in the countryside (including the most deprived areas of the country), less pressure on housing in urban areas, better quality food (both meat and arable crops), fewer factory farms, less disease in animal herds, more diverse wildlife, richer habitats, a lower carbon footprint etc etc etc.

[Paul Wagland]

And the cause of infection are badgers. We do need animal protection but either we lose the cows or sort the badgers by either inoculating them or by other means, culling should be of last resort but used if needed.

1.The Independent Scientific Group on bTB (ISG) was tasked by the UK Government with undertaking specific research on the effects of badger�culling on TB in cattle. The painstaking work took eight years, cost the lives of over 11,000 badgers and cost taxpayers �34 million. The ISG concluded that �badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain� and said, �Scientific findings indicate that the rising incidence of disease can be reversed, and geographical spread contained, by the rigid application of cattle-based control measures alone."

This is the most comprehensive study ever carried out...

[pigletwillie]

Oh I agree Paul, I think mass culls are not required but even with cattle controls you will get TB spread from badgers into cattle.

We now know that killing badgers wont make much of a difference so other means are required and with lost catttle costing �100 million a year, sometime soon.

[Protea]

I think the current challenge facing the world's food production industry is that the world's population is getting richer, and is therefore wanting more meat in its diet. People in countries such as India and China have traditionally had little meat in their diets, but are now buying more.

Absolutely right Paul, the more people liften out of poverty, the more they eat (particularly meat). But who are we do say 'no, sorry, you can't expand your livestock farming to feed your people'? In a globalised economy, if they can't produce it themselves, they'll buy it from someone who can.

One of my conference papers states World food demand could double by 2050
– 50% increase from world population growth – all in developing countries
– 50% increase from broad-based economic growth in low income countries
How many presently low income consumers are lifted out of poverty will be the most important determinant of the future global demand for food.

A large increase in the number of farms using organic methods would not, in my opinion, lead to food shortages. The Soil Association quote the following figures:

{Organic farms in the EU} have crop yields 20-40% lower but overall productivity is unlikely to be a problem: the EU faces continual problems of over-production with conventional farming (set-aside has been fixed at 10%).

In developing countries, the low cost, information-based, self-sufficient approach of organic farming-type methods has been shown to result in yield increases of 46-150%.

Organic farming is probably the best means for ensuring that food production levels can be sustained, since it maintains rather than exploits the basic resources that are required (eg. good soil quality and clean water).

There is at most 12% more arable land available that isn’t presently forested or subject to erosion or desertification, and degradation of many soils continues.
The area of land in farm production could be doubled, but only by massive destruction of forests and loss of wildlife habitat, biodiversity and carbon sequestration capacity.
The only environmentally sustainable alternative is to at least double productivity on the fertile, non-erodible soils already in crop production.

Which to me says intensive farming parctices. The other option (which opens up another whole can of worms) is the use of GM to produce more from the same amount of land..... but perhaps thats for another thread eh?

I've done a bit of research on this (I'm a journalist, so I know how to go about that) and I would like to see a huge uptake of organic practices in this country. We'd have many more jobs in the countryside (including the most deprived areas of the country),

I think this is very hard to justify. It is in fact terribly difficult to get people to work on farms, most of the farm workers in the UK (other than management/owners, some laborours and occasional seasonal workers) are not British, most are Eastern European who come over for seasonal work. Creating more jobs in the countryside will cause more problems than it solves - if the farmers can't get the workers, at the right time, then crops will stand unharvested. This is a huge problem in the Strawberry sector, where farmers rely totally on foreign labour for harvesting. Various government measures have recently made it even harder for these farmers to get workers (the reduction of the SAWS scheme - seasonal agricultural workers) and the industry is very concerned for its future. It used to be Portugese workers who came for seasonal work, then the Poles, and the Bulgarians, now its the Romanians. As each country lifts its level of poverty just a fraction higher, they choose to stay at home and get better paid jobs there, rather than travel to the UK. Very soon we're going to run out of cheaper labour to harvest the crops, and those from China, Africa etc will not be able to afford to travel the long distance to the UK. The possible answer is paying higher wages to UK workers but they don't want to do menial tasks, and is Mr Tesco really going to give the farmer more � per punnet just because there's a lack of Romanians to pick the crop? i don't think so.....

Yes, organic farms are more labour intensive, which means less non-organic inputs (fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides etc.) but where is this labour going to come from? If you're talking worldwide use of organic principles, there's going to be a shortage of people willing to work the land.

[Paul Wagland]

We're a bit off topic here, but what the hey!

But who are we do say 'no, sorry, you can't expand your livestock farming to feed your people'?

But it has to be said, doesn't it? If the global meat industry continues to expand as it has done recently, there won't be enough food to feed humans (as I've said, meat is a net drain on the World's food resources). The poorest of the World's people will starve. There is already a huge number of people living on fifty cents / one meal a day because the price of food is rising fast. The reason the price of food is rising is the global demand for meat.

The area of land in farm production could be doubled, but only by massive destruction of forests and loss of wildlife habitat, biodiversity and carbon sequestration capacity.
The only environmentally sustainable alternative is to at least double productivity on the fertile, non-erodible soils already in crop production.

According to many different sources I've found, we can increase productivity by 700% by turning livestock farms into arable ones. Seven kg of grain/soya/veg protein to produce one kg of meat isn't sustainable.

I think meat should be much more expensive, as it has been in the past. We shouldn't expect to be able to afford a meat meal twice a day. The Sunday roast is a special event in our society for many reasons, but the extravagance of a leg of lamb or a whole chicken used to be a big part of it. Now you can buy a chicken for �2.50. Not that you'd want to eat it if you knew what was in it.

The rise in cost would help to pay for some of the labour involved in organic farming. And I bet you'd get more people applying for jobs on an organic farm than you would an intensive meat farm. Personally I'd like to see an end to the WTO and the Common Market, so that British farms didn't have to compete with South American or Chinese ones. Prices (and hence farm wages) could be higher (we can afford to spend more on our food in this country, even if we might not want to) but that's a hugely complex issue and one we'd better not get into! I'll settle for saying I'm delighted we have so many economic migrants from eastern Europe - they work hard, they're polite and friendly, most of all they don't expect life on a plate like many people do in the UK.

The other option (which opens up another whole can of worms) is the use of GM to produce more from the same amount of land..... but perhaps thats for another thread eh?

Let's save that one for a wet Sunday!

[lainey lou]

Here here!!! Well said!

[Protea]

According to many different sources I've found, we can increase productivity by 700% by turning livestock farms into arable ones. Seven kg of grain/soya/veg protein to produce one kg of meat isn't sustainable.

When i said this:
"The only environmentally sustainable alternative is to at least double productivity on the fertile, non-erodible soils already in crop production."
I was actually reffering to the production of arable crops, not livestock! We're still going to face problems producing enough cereals to feed the population because of the conflicting demands of food, energy crops and water.

I think meat should be much more expensive, as it has been in the past. We shouldn't expect to be able to afford a meat meal twice a day. The Sunday roast is a special event in our society for many reasons, but the extravagance of a leg of lamb or a whole chicken used to be a big part of it. Now you can buy a chicken for �2.50. Not that you'd want to eat it if you knew what was in it.

I absolutely agree, eat less meat but make it better quality. Free range all the way