Thirteen years ago a family (two generations) set up a small suckler herd of Welsh Blacks on a two hundred acre farm. The venture was going well and was profitable until seven years ago when they started having their first problems as a result of the bTB policy. A routine skin test suggested an inconclusive and a reactor.  Over the four years that followed they had to suffer regular skin testing, mainly because the test kept indicating inconclusives. The tests (each taking two separate days) were frequent and often at 60 day intervals, although there were some clearer periods when testing was further apart. The standard of testing was very subjective and oddly the results tended to vary depending on which vet undertook the test. This is hardly surprising as the comparative intradermal tuberculin test (CITT) technique used has massive potential for human error!  Most of the inconclusives had come clear by the following tests. Over the years, seven animals had to be slaughtered and only one of these was found to have any evidence of lesions (in the lung area).  They were on permanent movement restriction which made developing the business, and expanding the herd all but impossible. Two of the animals slaughtered were pedigree bulls. One had been bought in to replace the other. It was one of the bulls that was found to have the lesions.  Both had been bought in from clean herds in areas where there was no bTB. 

This farm had only had a very minor infection, yet the policy to deal with this was a sledgehammer to crack a nut approach - and had a very adverse effect on the family The subsequent years proved to be extremely stressful and expensive for them all. With the arrival of a new baby and an aging father who was no longer able to help with the more strenuous work, additional labour had to be employed for each of the tests. As they were on continual movement restrictions, the cattle could not be sold on and so significant costs were incurred. Animals had to be moved around continually, which caused further inconvenience and complications. They did discover that on the farm adjoining theirs, a serious breakdown had occurred in 2009 with the whole herd having to be destroyed. The neighbour restocked with animals from clean herds, but tragically these too went down with bTB. 

Over the years the family asked many questions to the vets and ministry, but the responses did not seem very credible.
Question: If our culled cattle showed no evidence of bTb on post-mortem or tissue culture how do you know they really did have TB and were infectious?
Answer: You have to accept that your animals did have bTB as seen in the sensitivity estimates for the skin test.
Question: Why, if this is the case, were post-mortems and tissue cultures undertaken?
Answer: To be sure the animals had bTB.
Question: And you found no evidence in most of our cattle, How do you know they had it?
Answer: Because of the skin test. It was not in the lungs because it hadn't developed there yet.
Question: How do you know it would have developed in the lungs when you have slaughtered the animal, and when many animals react during the skin test at one visit, and then don't react 60 days later?  
Answer: Look, the skin test showed they had it....
Question: Then why don't you slaughter all animals that show up on the skin test?
Answer: Because it doesn't develop in all of them.
Question: And if the animals you slaughtered show no lesions, how do you know they had it?
Answer: Look, the skin test showed they had it....
(and repeat till the cows come home...)


In the end, the hard decision was made to sell off the herd as the family decided they could no longer cope with the stress, expense and problems caused by the intense testing regime and the slaughter of what looked like perfectly healthy animals. Instead they tacked out the land to other cattle owners. They have been doing this over the last two summers and one winter. Two different herds have used the land and these animals have all passed their routine skin tests, despite the problems on the  adjoining farm, where they later discovered the farmer was blaming the badgers. However, this raised another question - the same badgers used their land too and yet the herds now on the land are testing clear?

The badger issue has raised yet other problems too for the families with the onset of the proposal to cull badgers in their area in the summer of 2010.

Since the sale of their own herd the families established a business supporting vulnerable people.This is in line with the policy of making the countryside more accessible to this sector of the community. An enormous amount of money and effort has been put into making the land accessible, encouraging diversity and wildlife. The badgers have become an integral and important part of this new business, even being used as a marketing asset. Badger watching has become very popular, particularly for the vulnerable people. It is now the badger cull proposals that are having an adverse effect on the family and it is this issue that is threatening to divide them and ruin yet another business venture. In the last season very real concerns were put forward to the WAG about the possibility of armed and masked individuals checking traps and shooting the badgers whilst vulnerable people were visiting the land. There are also many well used public footpaths on this farm and its woodland areas. To make matters worse the family were not even able to get any details as to when this was likely to happen as it was apparently 'sensitive' information. They were advised that contractors would just turn up. The family were therefore all pleased when the appeal courts allowed the Badger Trust's appeal and agreed that the Tuberculosis Eradication (Wales) Order 2009 was unlawful.

However, the cull is now back on the agenda and currently the subject of further consultation. In the meantime although the family realises that wildlife is their biggest asset and are not convinced the badger is the problem regarding bTB, they have differing opinions on how the issue should be addressed. This has led to great rifts and upsets within the family, with the son even considering giving up his tenancy because he cannot agree with his father and cannot support the proposals to cull badgers because he believes the case for culling is not scientifically proven or even necessary. He is also concerned by the evidence showing it could make the situation worse. However, his father is worried about possible anarchy in the future if people go against the government. It has got to a stage where the son feels completely powerless against faceless bureaucracy which, yet again, is threatening his business and family life.

Posted November 2010