I have a small-holding in Pembrokeshire and up until recently have kept a small number of cattle for our own needs – for meat and as grazers for our fields. Sadly, we recently took the decision not to have any more cattle following the slaughter of our last two as a result of the bovine TB programme. We will really miss the superb quality and taste of our own meat and will have to look at other options for our fields.

We became incensed and fed up with all the bureaucracy involved in keeping even a very small number of cattle. Over the last testing experiences we also had to contend with a serious family illness (cancer) with a family member dying just a week before but we were told the test had to proceed. Our last two were ten years old and had never failed a test previously. These were very content animals fed only on grass and hay and kept extensively. They always looked the picture of health with their beautiful, shiny coats and neither had any evidence of any clinical symptoms or health problems of any kind. On the last test, however, one of them was proclaimed a reactor. The other tested clear. After their slaughter we were informed that both had lesions. In fact the one that had tested clear apparently had a lot of lesions!

We had always been told by the powers that be that if one of our animals were proven to be a reactor both would have to be slaughtered under the 50% rule. I was told that under this regulation if 50% of a herd was found to react positively to the test, then whole herd had to be slaughtered. As we only had two animals this meant that if one reacted, both would have to be taken. However, the Ministry vet that came out then denied this and even said we could sell the one that had tested clear. Presumably this was to avoid compensation being paid, yet I know that the meat from the reactors, once lesioned areas have been taken out, are sold into the food chain.

For some reason the reactor was taken away separately. She went in a huge, empty lorry. It had no divisions and there was no means of restraining her. There was no water available either. We did not feel this was satisfactory from a welfare point of view. It also meant that remaining animal was left on her own – not satisfactory for a herd animal and we understand that this may even be contrary to the Animal Health regulations. We mentioned the size of the lorry and it was interesting that when a lorry came for the second animal it was much smaller, but again with no divisions and she was not restrained and water was not provided. I would have preferred for them to have been slaughtered on the farm but this has to be managed carefully to avoid unduly stressing the animals concerned.

With regards to handling the cattle for the test, we have to borrow a crush. The cattle dislike entering it but we get them through without too many problems as they are used to us. They would prefer to be restrained using just a halter but this is no longer acceptable to the vets who are not allowed to participate in handling because of health and safety issues – yet the cattle owner has to take all the risks!

We question the knowledge and ability of some of the vets who have visited. It is significant and somewhat disturbing that when one asks questions of vets (Ministry or private) they all say something different and no-one seems to be able to answer the most basic questions properly. This sows many seeds of concern in our minds. Some too who have visited us have been so arrogant one gets the feeling we should not even be asking questions – yet surely we have a right to do this as our ‘healthy’ animals are being taken from us without proper explanation.

We were very concerned about the questions we were asked in the follow up visit after our cattle were slaughtered and TB was confirmed. The questionnaire was focussed mainly on the badger and not on any other area, which may be of equal or even greater significance. Some questions that are asked seem utterly ridiculous; ‘would you fence of badger tracks’, and ‘ would you cut hay from fields where badgers roamed’? We don’t know how our cattle came to have lesions but we doubt it was from badgers, as we have seen none here for some six years. They mysteriously disappeared and we suspect they were illegally exterminated, as we are in an area with regular breakdowns for local farmers.

Bio-security is another issue. Some vets and (valuers) disinfect and take bio-security measures seriously, others do not. It is also evident that local contractors do not take much notice of cleaning their lorries when they move slurry around.

Of concern to us too is the way people are being treated in all this, particularly in the area where we are. The legal systems and usual procedures regarding warrants are not being used to gain access to land. Instead the WAG instead is taking a heavy-handed approach to ordinary, everyday people who are just concerned about their civil and democratic rights. There is a mob handed approach and, very disturbingly, people are being treated as if they were terrorists.

We have kept various livestock all our lives and they have rarely needed medical attention because they are healthy. They all have contented lives as we ensure they are kept in ideal conditions with good diets and minimal interference. Sadly the existing system is taking responsibility of animal health away from the people with the real experience (the owners) and putting it instead into the hands of faceless bureaucrats, vets and the pharmaceutical industries; many of those involved have no real knowledge or genuine interest, only vested financial interests. The bovine TB situation is an excellent example of this.