I lost pedigree stock, including two healthy pedigree bulls with blood-lines tracing back 118 and 120 years

I am a Devonshire farmer with pedigree South Devon cattle. They comprise an extensively kept beef herd with around 200 cattle on 240 acres. Prior to 2001 the farm was on a three-year routine TB testing regime. In 2004 one cow was slaughtered as a positive reactor but had no sign of the disease on slaughter. The cattle are now tested annually. They were all clear until 2007. I am very skeptical about the accuracy of the skin test and believe it is killing too many (around a third) healthy animals NEEDLESSLY.

During 2006 and 2007 we tested 23 cattle in 9 pre-movement tests (which I had to pay for myself). All were clear so I was not prepared for what was to happen in October 2007!

In January 2007 testing revealed one positive reactor and one inconclusive reactor. The positive reactor had no signs of lesions on slaughter. The inconclusive reactor was clear on the subsequent re-test. We were then again clear until the six-month check in October 2007. At this skin test we were devastated to find eleven were classed as positive reactors, and twenty as inconclusive reactors. The eleven went off for slaughter at different times. The first five killed (aged between four and five years) revealed on post mortem that one was clear and four had lesions in the chest cavity. Of the remaining six taken to the abattoir to be killed, only one of these had signs of lesions, again in the chest cavity. One of these six had been inconclusive in the previous January test, went at the re-test and then was positive in October. She was in calf when tested in October. She had no signs of disease on post mortem. Interestingly two different private vets have said that inconclusive in-calf cows often go clear if they calve before the re-test! This is hardly surprising as the skin test only measures hypersensitivity to tuberculin and does not necessarily mean an animal is infected with bTB. A pregnant animal has additional demands on its immune system, thereby probably making them more sensitive.

One cow taken was an old, lame animal, she was found to have lesions. Two calves were taken, one of these was found to have lesions. So out of the 21 cattle slaughtered 14 had signs of lesions. I was paid just £1200 per animal in compensation, even for those in calf. The compensation did not cover my costs. I could expect to receive up to £1000 as cull beef animals when they were at the end of their lives, so £1200 for an in-calf animal at the prime of its life is an INSULT. Following the skin test in January 2008 more cows were slaughtered. Three went first. Two of these had lesions and one had no signs. One that did have lesions had been a two times inconclusive. It would normally have been give a third chance (as was policy at that time in England) but, after much pressure from Defra, I reluctantly agreed they could take it. This animal did have lesions even though it has not been identified as a positive reactor to the skin test. Two more went. They were in calf heifers and neither had any signs of TB. One of these had been shown in the summer and won first prize. It was in superb condition. Four more followed – four heifers aged one year to eighteen months. All these had lesions in the chest cavity.

Sadly during this bout of killing, two bulls were taken as positive reactors. These bulls had pedigree blood-lines that could be traced back 118 and 120 years respectively and twenty and twenty-two generations respectively. They were valuable animals and my pride and joy. I asked if I could take semen from each of them for my own use to preserve the blood line. Whilst my request was being considered I was allowed to keep them in isolation. During this time I obtained and submitted to DEFRA two affidavits from two retired ministry vets who believed I should have the right to collect semen from these animals. I even suggested that if evidence of such lesions were found in the reproduction tract I would destroy the semen. Whilst TB can infect the reproductive system and the bacteria can be present in semen it is extremely rare. DEFRA eventually decided they could not allow this as it would set a precedent. Both animals were slaughtered six months after testing positive. NEITHER of these bulls were found to have any evidence of disease. To make matters worse when I contacted Animal Health to ask if they had looked at the reproductive system for lesions I was told no, they had not. They had also only submitted one for tissue culture (it was negative) as I was advised they had done enough cultures already on my animals.

In April 2008 I lost another four animals. Three had lesions, one had no sign of disease. Later five more went – all had lesions. Some had been positive reactors and some inconclusive (taken under the severe interpretation rules). One of these was a show cow – a breed champion on 5 occasions and an inter-breed champion on 3 occasions. She was just five years old and had calved just three times. She had a good life in front of her and she should have had several more calves – I received just £1250 in compensation for her. The valuer said she was worth at least three times more than this. All of my animals were worth far more than the compensation I received. Two other animals that had been inconclusive and heavily pregnant tested clear on subsequent tests and are still on the farm. One bull, which was inconclusive twice and then went clear, then inconclusive twice again was eventually taken and found to have no lesions and a negative culture.

The effect on the caring farmer when he sees healthy cows being slaughtered needlessly MUST NOT be underestimated. After seeing one young batch going off, some of which had only had one calf and were in their prime, I came in, sat down at the kitchen table and cried in utter despair. One of those that went had been particularly dear to my father.

I take enormous pride in condition of my animals and I regularly show some of them. I must stress that all the cattle killed appeared perfectly healthy, with no clinical symptoms. The need for slaughter is questioned, as the welfare and condition of those animals killed, even the ones displaying lesions, had not affected the animals in any way during their lifetime and lesions were only found in the chest cavity so the remaining meat could be used in the food chain as cooking kills the bacteria that causes bTB. I believe cattle vaccination would be a better option for farmers than all this needless slaughter of healthy animals.

The feeling of helplessness is a common thread among farmers who bear the brunt of this dreadful bovine TB policy, the foundations of which cannot be substantiated. I have suffered from headaches and been under the Doctor since early 2008. The Doctor is convinced it is stress related, but how can I get out of this cycle of testing, killing, testing … There must be another way, after all we are in 2012. Cattle vaccination must be the answer.