Ghastly Statistics!
Originally from: Farmtalking
I've had a call from one of my Vet friends who has told me that in his area, of the 78 cases :- 15 had positive sample results
37 had negative sample results
26 were confirmed on clinical signs and no samples were taken.
These are appalling statistics if the 37 negative results really were NOT FMD, then how many of the confirmed on clinical cases were not either? Every Infected Premises had contiguous premises culled.
Every Infected Premises and consequent Dangerous Contact or Contiguous Culls had official Cleansing & Disinfecting at huge expense to the tax-payer It would seem that a huge amount of it was a complete waste of time and money not to mention the animals and farmer who suffered.
These sort of statistics are cetainly worthy of careful scrutiny
and highlight the absolute necessity of a public inquiry and the abolition of the slaughter policy as a control measure for FMD.
Vets should be allowed to do what Vets traditionally do best. They must be allowed to obtain a positive diagnosis, when clinical diagnosis is in doubt, they should be encouraged to obtain a second opinion or obtain accurate test results and then prescribe the best treatment for recovery. They should not be ordered to slaughter the animals by a civil servant in a distant office.
Jane Barribal – Farmtalking.com
Originally from: Val Collinson
My neighbour has said that he has heard that the EU only agreed to fund compensation on the understanding that at least 4 million animals were culled and that the uplands and lfa's were not re-stocked but were planted with trees to combat global warming. This may be wild speculation but it does fit in with the predominant geographical distribution of 'the disease'
Val C
Originally from: Susan Staunton
I agree, though I must confess to no responsibility for any of the authorship. It was sent to me as yet another excellent item from Chris Keene who works so tirelessly forwarding such material for the Green Party.
Originally from: Susan Staunton
Hi Val
What your neighbour heard might well have been true, but equally not quite as sinister as the "spin" which is often put on it. The fact is that the sheep population is (or was) twice what it was in 1980 with significant increases sinces 1990 alone, much of it purely on the back of subsidies and the uplands are being dangerously overgrazed – plenty of evidence of that around here where I live. The government has made no secret of the fact that it wants a reduction in the poorer quality animals which are, after all, being kept merely as a commodity and not as the sentient being which the EU has recently redefined them as, and a move towards animals with added value and I can only admit to being all in favour of that. Under those circumstances I think it is entirely acceptable that the EU (if it indeed it did say this) did stipulate a reduction in what was, after all, an overpopulation of sheep – which of us would after all hand out money to someone with the carte blanche "oh and by the way just keep doing what you've been doing wrong for the past 20 years why dont you!"
Originally from: Susan Staunton
Yes you wonder at the naivete of headage payments of any description dont you since I understand slaughtermen are similarly paid – hardly conducive to encouraging limited slaughter really is it? I think there have been expediencies adopted, not least WRT the issue of the 30% excess of sheep and lambs directly as a result of the loss of our export market this year, and whilst I deplore the moral (or rather the immoral/amoral) aspect of slaughtering healthy animals in this way, there is an economic argument for this – albeit a flawed one – and farming remains an industry with the same bottom line considerations as any other. I do however remain totally unconvinced that any other viable British government would have handled it differently at this time (I know that UKIP and the SLP have supported vaccination but neither is capable of forming government and the more cynical might even perceive a certain element of political opportunism in taking this stand – it is easy to make gestures when you know you are never going to have to put them into action) and I also think that the reasons for the policy adopted are many and varied – historical, economic, political etc. I also think that the chronic underfunding of the SVS over a period of decades has had some bearing (significant IMHO) with regard to the mis- and inaccurate diagnosis of FMD. It is not simply enough to say that this particular strain of Panasian type O is difficult to detect since Knowles and Samuels of AHI Pirbright were presenting papers it more than a year ago – surely that it enough time to familiarise oneself with it!
Originally from: Val Collinson
Hi Susan
Yes, I entirely agree with you about the EU subsidies and overpopulation of sheep (what did they think would happen in response to a headage payment?) It just seems that the possibility that the FMD outbreak, if not deliberately engineered, has been used as an excuse to kill healthy animals for a reason other than the necessity to control the disease, is government dishonesty at its very worst!
Val
Originally from: coleen
I to do not see the Cons or the Libs as having handled it any other way. Farming was in a mess – we were grossly overstocked, and farming policy was changing. Farming is a industry just like mining and steel which had to cut its cloth accordingly. The problem being, coal piles will naturally reduce and so will steel once you stop mining/making it. Animals go on producing – so how do you wipe them out – answer FMD and a massive slaughter programme. Once the ball was rolling NO Government was going to call a halt to it. All the Cons would have done was slaughtered 'quicker'! They have never admitted to having any other policy. I wonder if the Government had of said to farmers 'right we are overstocked so no more breeding, let all your animals take their natural courses, i.e. meat, end of milking life etc, and we will then compensate and buy you out of farming' – what would most of our reactions of been. Is it only the inhumane the way animals have been treated that brings us to this board and our protests. What are we trying to achieve – to save farming in it's present format! Did we try and save other industries – I didn't. A good friends husband was told after 30 years of working for the same company 'thank you – but goodbye'. I was upset for them, but life can be cruel. So just what is it we are so against – other than the slaughtering of the animals in such a cold, inhumane way.
Coleen
Originally from: Duncan
It has always been a sore point here from low land farmers about the amount of subsidies paid to fell farmers for keeping sheep. As I am sure we are all aware, some fell farmers only kept the sheep because of the subsidies they brought in, and these farmers are known among the farming community. Perhaps this is why there has been no real outcry regarding the slaughter of so many sheep.
I was told that a 'study' of this area was done some months prior to FMD regarding it's suitability outside of agriculture. It is, so I was told deemed to be some of the best pasture in the Country on a level with the Cheshire plains and therefore excellent diary and beef pasture (which is what is is/was before FMD. Who did the study I was not told.
Many farmers in Italy who used to keep sheep and a few cattle and receive subsidies – are still receiving subsidies – but for growing hedging trees. Interestingly enough I noticed that grants of £4000 per a year are being offered to farmers here to house at max 4 wind turbines on their land. Local MP's and local NFU have called for planning restrictions to be relaxed so that more farmers can take up this offer. Four thousand does not seem a lot – but as most farmers say they only take five thousand profit out of the farm a year – this will I think attract a few interested parties. It all seems a million miles away from farming – but with so many other Countries coming into the game – it does seem the end of farming as we know and understand it. Whether FMD was introduced or the Government just took this opportunity to get rid of what was surplus to requirement – there will be NO going back.
Strange how some months back we all wrote on this board that the Countryside would look a wilderness come Summer. No sign of that in Cumbria, fields have been maintained and apart from the absence of animals – it all looks the same. Life does go on – and we have to move with it – what is it – 'time and tide waits for no man'!
Coleen
Originally from: Rox
The whole handling has been undemocratic and that is what I am against other than the cruelty ,people have been forced to lose pets and rare breeds and their lifes work in some cases without any way to fight back if it was just big business getting a pasting I would leave them to it ,but no way can I turn a blind eye to what I have seen happening under the pretence of disease control which is also still not under control if there had ever been a need to do this I would have not uttered a word of protest about the burials in my village, I would have accepted it and if the disease had been life threatening again I would have been unhappy but would have accepted it as nessesary .
But not when the disease is not lifethreatening and there is a vaccination available ,and we wont use it because of some silly EU rules that could be changed .
Vaccination seems to be the locical answer for people who want to keep their animals and maybe then I would have put up with the rest of the industry doing what they have too ,
But not killing everything with no consultation and no choice .
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Originally from: Susan Staunton
Originally from: Lisa
Hi Susan,
can I join in here?
point one – who necessarily defines the "Poorer quality sheep?" The Europeans love our light lambs from the hills and with significant reduction bang goes a big export market. They are also potentially alot healthier to eat (less fat). Blair has no understanding of farming. you cannot improve or put added value on the stock on the hills ( other than by lowering losses). These clever little sheep are the only sheep capable of surviving in the rough conditions. We do not and should not look at sheep merely by value of fat lamb. The quality and taste of the meat should be examined also the wool. Hill sheep are remarkable breeds and without them all high country will be lost. On the Beacons the ecology is already altering due to 20,000 sheep gone.
The issues have to be examined very closely. Farmers are willing to cut back on stock, but the hills to remain the same or improved can only run a certain type of stock.
There is an arrogant assumption that farmers do not know what they are doing among politicians. Those that have the land to run "added value" sheep already do it for obvious financial reasons. land and animals have to be viewed with knowledge! it is not just a question of stocking a better type because the returns are better such as a computer in an office. farmers know their job, it is political enforcements that cock the whole thing up. The "poorer animals are no more a commodity than the heavier fat lambs" if anything it can be the opposite. Talk to the the hill farmers of their dedication and the conditions they endure and you will see it surpasses in dedication to many lowland farmers.
The farmers were overstocked DUE TO THE GOVT. A farmer wont often get it wrong – he knows his land and animals. the govt is obviously still displaying the same agricultural ignorance it has done throughout. What else can you expect from a metropolitan lawyer!
What farmers need is a fair price for their product and the support from the country concerning their contribution to it's well being, both environmentally and otherwise. They keep England looking like England by the stock they run and the tending of the land.
incidentally i am of the firm opinion that the brain of a hill sheep is far superior to the lowlands. If they are to be considered "sentient beings" which we have all considered them for sometime – it is only the govt who does not and will continue not to, we should start to appreciate the irreplaceable value these less economically viable animals represent. It is not all about economics. We are on the end of more spin doctoring!
my contribution hope you don't mind,
Lisa
Heart of Devon
Originally from: Farmtalking
Hi Lisa! _ I think you've made some good points there for all of us! – Jane _______________________________________________________
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Originally from: Rox
In terms of organic I would assume the hill sheep are also better I dont suppose a lot of spraying is required on the hills ,tougher stock who dont need to be given contaminated hard feed,also they have a free natural lifestyle probably safer all round as long as it is well managed .
Not that I know anything about sheep farming really ,just an observation.
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Originally from: Duncan
I agree with you Ann regarding innocent pet people caught up in this, and being given NO other choice but to slaughter all these animals as a way to fight FMD. But why did the people this was affecting the most not stand up and fight more. The pet people did – they told Blair where to go – many still ended up loosing – but I still maintain had the farmers made more noise instead of letting Blair ride rough shot over them – then 'perhaps' and it has to be a perhaps – because we will never know, things might have been different. Look at what lengths the miners went to – rightly or wrongly (I do not want to get into the politics of that here) they stood up what they believed in. It would also have been nice if more of the farming community could have given more support to the pet people – instead of decrying them for trying to save their animals. After all we were trying to stand up and fight the same policies.
At the risk of getting shot down here but here goes – if you are putting in 70 plus hours a week and only making five thousands pounds profit, and facing a future that is going to get worse not better, would you not take the compensation and run. I know farmers who have done that, some will retire, some are going back into farming in a very, very small way to stop having to pay Gordon Brown the 40% back in tax – but not in the numbers they where doing pre FMD.
On the point of vaccination I do not think it is that simple. Vaccination for pet people should have been offered, and for any one that really wanted it – but I think unless we vaccinate the whole of the Country – then vaccinated livestock will be discriminated against. It is really easy to say we won't do this, we won't do that if you vaccinate – to late when you have done it and no one wants your animals etc. There is never a simple solution to anything – one things always leads to another. Did you know that all the vaccine that was sitting in Cumbria – for the Cumbrian farmers, has been sent to North Yorkshire. Is it Doc or Prof Colin Fink, said on radio Cumbria last week it is ALL out of date – but perfectly alright. Strange but I seem to remember reading that when Dog and Cat vaccine are out of date it is as they say 'well and truly passed its sell by date'. So is this what they are going to be given, out of date vaccine – and when that does not work – they will be able to say 'oh well at least we tried'!
Coleen.
Originally from: Susan Staunton
HI Lisa
I am very grateful for your contributions after hearing so much about you and everything you have been doing down in Devon, so hello to you. I am also grateful for opposing views to my own – or at least ones which I am putting forward – as that is what a discussion group is all about as far as I am concerned. We dont get very far just nodding in agreement with one another do we? Personally I think it is great when a thread develops like this as we all benefit from the input. I live in Aberdeenshire and whilst I am fully aware that hill sheep are necessarily different both physically and mentally from lowland sheep, I could take you on many walks around here where you would spot pitiful creatures whose "owners" are very far from being dedicated farmers. I will leave aside the issue of the "dedicated" owner who decided to dump 6 ewes and their lambs on a busy main road one Saturday evening thus rather curtailing my husband and my plans then as we attempted to shepherd them in to a safe field before calling the police. My neighbour admits he has lambs purely for the subsidy, he has no interest in them in the way that he does his beef cattle. I could also show you many instances of dangerously overgrazed land just along from me and yet sheep are still there grazing on practically non-existant vegetation. If the high grounds were managed perfectly adequately in the past why do we now have double the sheep population we had in 1980? These are of course isolated incidents in an industry which by and large is run by caring and indeed dedicated people and who have my utmost regard for doing a demanding and thankless job in increasingly difficult circumstances, but unless the industry is seen to acknowledge that this does happen and should not continue to do so then it will lose the respect of those of us who can perhaps see there is a flip side to this coin. I also think we have to get away from the culture of "the farmers know best so let them do it the way they want to". If nothing else FMD has demonstrated that the support of the public is essential in how the industry survives or doesnt and I am quite sure that other national industries would have welcomed the support of the public to have saved them, opinionated or otherwise. That the EU and successive governments have created and continued the subsidy culture is no reason not to look at alternatives now to ensure a viable and sustainable future for Britains' farmers. Regrettably if this is to be successful I think there will have to be reductions in numbers as there was in New Zealand when a similar approach was adopted. As to a sheep's brain being considerably sharper than some give credit for, well I have been convinced of it since I read a story about a New Zealand merino farmer (of Scottish parents I add quickly) who not so long ago obtained the highest price ever recorded for a bale of merino wool – NZ$120,000! He is 76 now and has farmed sheep all his life. He told the interviewer that all sheep were clever little creatures and the cleverest of all on his farm were his pets! If it is good enough for him it is certainly good enough for me! Best wishes
Sue
Originally from: Lisa
Hi Sue,
Yes I agree. You'll always get the few hardnuts. I'm right behind having the public involved, but the problem is farming is political! Politics are constantly catering to the Public perceptions which often they get totally wrong anyway. I want to see the public involved in a meaningful way. They need to be informed and we most definitely in this country need to get more interested in what we eat. It is slowly happening, but the Supermarket domination is very different here from France where they definitely live to eat rather than eat to live.
We are a Supermarkets dream! As a rule we just buy the cheapest don't care where it's come from or particularly about the farms feeding us. This will have to change, but the public have to be told what they are eating and the Welfare issues surrounding it before they can make informed choices. Scotland is slightly different in flavour than England. But the problems are fundamentally the same, (although I feel Scots are slightly more supportive of their farmers than the English)
You always get 'em – the hard nuts, but this is not the majority and unfortunately too much attention on them one gives an inverted boost to their ego's and two: detracts from the thousands of really conscientious farmers. i m a great believer in freezing these people out and I think it will happen in the future anyway. These bad few look angels compared with some of the Welfare surrounding imports that sit on our supermarket shelves. This is the Tragedy!
What we need is more quality support emotionally for our farmers, more British produce being sold, drives towards including the Public and a Govt that has some understanding of farming!!
We have the most varied and well cared for stock in the World and the variety of this plus the quality plus the environment are the only factors for consideration. Unfortunately the lack of knowledge of what keeps our environment beautiful and the haphazard way the govt plays with livestock completely ignores the knowledge and expertise the farmers do have.
my land evokes different conditions and diseases to my friends down the road. my upland friends have different problems again. the knowledge of the land and conditions is not something that can be learned overnight. It takes years of learning the hard way. This includes management of the environment. I have more knowledge of the birdlife and wildlife on my farm than any specialist coming on. I also know how to protect the wildlife better than he as my patch has it's own cycle ie: the vixen's route each spring where her cubs are (even when she and our resident badgers cross the road). I know this because I've been out day and night with them lambing and the like. I even knew when she cut her paw and how it healed!
i have different types of land within one field. one end benefits from one fertilizer 3 metres away a bit less! It's an art form.
My hill sheep produced the highest priced lambs at market due to their condition, but this is only possible with the right income to look after them accordingly. my dogs have won sheep trials same principle.
my argument is you work with the stock that suit the conditions and the farmers do know this best without a doubt. This is their skill. the govt don't and neither do the public – sorry!
There's a saying a little knowledge is a dangerous thing! My aim is let's give the farmers the authority for the knowledge they do have, then inform the public accordingly.
does this agree with you?
Lisa
Originally from: coleen
Hi Lisa
I do question your 'because I know my land, my animals and what I am doing'. I know countless people who breed dogs for a living they show them and yes they win PRIZES, I would not class many of them in any way shape or form as having the best interests of the animals at heart, and in some cases even knowing what they are really doing – they just let nature takes it's course. On the other hand I know a lot of people who keep dogs as pets and they DO know what they are doing and talking about – so with NO disrespect to yourself, surely it is not that clear cut.
Coleen
Originally from: Lisa
Hi Coleen,
I'm no