Title: To what extent does Bovine Tuberculosis have a socio-economic impact

on British cattle farmers and what control measures are enforced?

Name: Lois Franklin

Centre name: CTC Kingshurst Academy (000568)

Candidate number: 0022

Exam session: 000568

Supervisor: Scott Williams

Exam Year: May 2016

Word count: 3,652

Page | 1

Contents

Abstract: 3

Introduction: 4

Main body: 5

Conclusion: 16

Bibliography: 17

Appendix: 19

Page | 2

Abstract

Bovine Tuberculosis (BTB) is a disease which is having a detrimental impact on British cattle farmers socially and economically. Farmers can independently choose how to reduce the risk of their farm becoming infected however in certain areas of Britain the government have taken some of the control away. The objective of the research was to investigate which control measures are taking place in different areas across Britain and how the disease has a socio-economic impact on farmers. A short survey was posted on a farming forum to which 39 farmers across Britain responded. Analysis of the results revealed that BTB is a disease that is causing a major loss of cash flow with some farmers and is inevitably impacting their social well-being. This data helps to give an overview on which control measures are working in an attempt to reduce the prevalence of BTB.

Page | 3

To what extent does Bovine Tuberculosis have a socio-economic impact on British cattle

farmers and what control measures are enforced?

Bovine tuberculosis (BTB) is a contagious infection which is currently having an impact on

British Cattle farmers, socially and economically (Scottish badgers, 2015). The government have

enforced guidelines or control measures which farmers are expected to follow in an attempt to

reduce the prevalence of this infection. BTB can take up to two years to treat, depending on the

severity of the infection. If a cow is suffering from BTB it will show the following symptoms; light

fever, weight loss and reduced appetite, weakness, chronic mastitis, swollen lymph nodes and a

moist cough which worsens in cold weather, in the morning, or after exercise.

A bacterium called Mycobacterium tuberculosis causes BTB and it is spread when a cow

inhales tiny infected droplets which an infected animal has coughed or sneezed into the air. This

means it is highly contagious. The prevalence of BTB is increasing. In January 2015 the number of

new herd incidents was 2,407 compared to 2,453 in June 2015. The number of tests on herds which

were clear in January to June 2015 was 42,834 compared to 43,107 in January to June 2014. If a cow

is the reactor (the cow which is infected) in a herd, or it has come in direct contact with the bacteria,

it would need to be slaughtered which, on average, costs around £900 per cow. Following these

guidelines, throughout January 2015 the number of cattle slaughtered was 16,958, at a cost of

approximately £15,262,200. In June 2015 this increased to 17,064 cattle slaughtered resulting in a

cost of £15,357,600. Because of these rising costs, some feel vaccination against BTB is now needed

but farmers and vets need to time this appropriately as a vaccination will not work for an animal

already infected with BTB. Also, a legal vaccine is currently not available (Can we vaccinate cattle and

badgers, 2015). “The need for inclusion of social science in vaccination studies is supported by

Chambers and others (2014), who stated that understanding the drivers for acceptance of BTB

vaccination by vets and farmers is crucial to a successful vaccination policy” (Dr Imogen Richens,

2015).

Page | 4

A herd can be classified as Officially TB Free (OTF) as long as the farmer is up to date with

BTB testing and there is no suspicion of the BTB infection. An OTF status will be suspended (OTFS) if

a farmer is overdue with testing and subsequent completion of such tests will allow the herd to

regain its OTF status, as long as the results are negative. A farm’s OTF status could also be suspended

if there is any suspicion of BTB and then the herd will be put under restrictions (Animal and Plant

Health Agency October 2014). A suspicion of BTB within a herd can occur for five reasons;

The farmer is overdue with BTB tests because some or all cattle are too wild

and aggressive, or there is a lack of adequate testing facilities for the herd to

be tested.

One or more reactors have been found within a herd or a farmer has had

any infected cattle in their holding within the last three years.

Clinical signs of BTB have been noticed.

One or more cattle in a herd have failed the tuberculin skin test, or on two

consecutive occasions have been tested with inconclusive results and can be

classified as a reactor.

Cattle from the herd have been inspected in a slaughterhouse, at a knacker’s

yard, or hunt kennel, and have been found to have lesions which raise a

suspicion of BTB.

Encountering a positive case of BTB within a farmer’s herd triggers strong and upsetting

emotions for a farmer. It would greatly impact upon a farmer and their family in such a way which

has been compared to a death or even multiple deaths in the family. This infection socially impacts

upon a farmer and the people around them too, as farmers begin to feel like they have let down

both their family and their herd. Thirty nine farmers were surveyed on what their emotions would

be if they found a positive case of BTB within their herd and they had a choice of 10 answers, which

included; fear, anger, sadness, disgust, shame, confusion, helplessness, anxiousness, frustration and

Page | 5

stress. Of those farmers surveyed, 30.77% said that their main emotion would be frustration.

Farmers enforce various control measures to ensure their herd is protected from BTB so when a

positive case is found they would naturally feel that they have failed at their job, failed to protect

their cattle. Four of the thirty nine farmers who completed this survey said that they would feel all of

the emotions stated if they had a case of BTB.

A great deal of fear can be distinguished in the responses to this survey. It is apparent that

these farmers are very fearful of what will happen if a positive case is found within their herd. On

top of the costs of slaughtering infected cows, it would mean that selling a calf would become

practically impossible, due to government restrictions on movement of animals, and so their source

of income could be eradicated. This could make the farm financially unviable. Due to government

guidelines, unnecessary slaughtering is also taking place, which is also one of the factors leading to

devastating emotions for farmers.

Maps

Figure 1.1 (Nature 435, 491-496 (26

May 2005))

Page | 6

BTB is more prevalent in South West England and South Wales. Smaller numbers of cases of

BTB are scattered across the UK, with the exception of Scotland. East Scotland has a large number of

on movement, at about 200-300, which means a large amount of farms are buying new cattle in to

their farm. However, this area of Scotland has between 1-2 years with BTB reported. East Anglia has

a small number of on movements at 10-20 and has between 0 and 2 years with BTB reported. A

small area in South West Wales has more than 10 years with BTB reported and has around 300-400

on movements. These two graphs show that the movement of cattle has a direct correlation with

the prevalence of BTB. Areas where there is a small amount of on movements are the same areas

that have a smaller prevalence of BTB. However, in North West England there are many farms

moving cattle, 100-150 on movements, with 0-2 expected years of BTB.

Page | 7

Figure 1.2

This map shows that the majority of farms in Britain do not maintain a closed herd.

However, only one farmer in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland were surveyed, which is not an

accurate representation for these areas. A total of 6 farmers out of 7 surveyed in Wales do not

maintain a closed herd which has led to a high prevalence of BTB which can be seen in figure 1.1. In

North West England 4 out of 6 farmers surveyed maintain a closed herd and this area has a low

Page | 8

Farms that maintain a closed herd

Key:

Yes

No

prevalence of BTB. In South West England a total of 11 farmers were surveyed and a total of 5

maintain a closed herd, which is around half of them. However, this area of the UK has a high

prevalence, with over 10 years of reported BTB. This is an anomaly because just under half of the

respondents from this area maintain a closed herd and therefore a lower prevalence of BTB would

be expected. As there is only one respondent from Scotland this is not an accurate representation of

the main control measures farmers are using in this area. The response also contradicts figure 1.1

because there is a large amount of cattle movement whereas the respondent stated they maintain a

closed herd.

Control measures in 7 areas of the UK

Northern Ireland has a dense population of badgers yet does not have a high prevalence of

BTB. In 2007 at least one quarter 25,000 herds had had BTB and 1,600 herds were under restriction.

Herd prevalence has been controlled primarily as a result of strict movement control and animal

testing (BTB skin test to detect infected animals). From 1996-2006 the Department of Agriculture

and Rural Development managed to control the prevalence of BTB during a rise from 5% of herds

with positive cases in 1997 to 13% in 2002. Due to the Department’s control methods, this

percentage decreased to almost 7% in 2007. Over 10 years (1996-March 2006) the Department had

spent a total of £199 million on control measures. £86 million of this total was spent on

compensation payments to farmers and £54 million was spent on payments to private veterinary

practices that were contracted to test herds. It has been a costly process but it has been proven

effective without the need for a badger cull.

“Wales has an enviable record of declining BTB in cattle – without having to kill a single

badger.” (Jan Bayley, April 2014). Between 2009 and 2014 48% less cattle have been slaughtered per

year in Wales. It is hugely costly to slaughter cattle and these control methods have prevented just

over 5,000 cattle being sent to slaughter, which would have costed approximately £4,500,000.

These savings have been as a result of solely cattle-based measures. These measures include;

Page | 9

Annual testing of all cattle (introduced and maintained since 2008).

Strict movement restrictions.

Consequences as a result of overdue tests.

DNA tagging of infected cattle ensuring the correct cattle is slaughtered.

Intensive Action Areas advising farmers on bio-security - which procedures are best

to reduce the spread of the disease and to keep disease out of the herd.

(Jan Bayley, April 2014)

“Scotland has been officially BTB free since 2009 and we want to stay that way” (Richard

Lochhead, 2015). Scotland’s new control measures have been enforced to ensure that their officially

BTB free status remains. The control measures in Scotland are also specified to non-bovine animals,

meaning it impacts a wider range of farming in comparison to other areas of the UK. This includes;

compulsory slaughter of identified TB reactors in non-bovine and bovine animals (Rod Addy, October

2015). In 2013 very few cases had been identified in Scotland as a result of importing cattle from

Wales or England. Scottish government originally proposed a badger cull, later it was revoked as a

result of 70% of the population being against this proposal. Being opposed to this cull, scientists

have introduced a vaccination programme for badgers where, in 2013, 60% of the badger population

had been vaccinated against the disease. This programme, in particular, may have been effective in

resulting in a BTB free status. BCG is a vaccination used for protection against TB in many animals,

including humans. Following a four year field study in Scotland, the results show that the vaccination

reduces the risk of BTB in unvaccinated badger groups as well as vaccinated groups. However, many

people think Scotland’s BTB free status is as a result of cattle-based measures, which include;

TB breakdown locations published.

Wild and untestable cattle are compulsory slaughtered under a suspicion.

TB isolation units are not allowed

Page | 10

Pre-movement testing (PrMT) removed – movements of cattle to and from common

land. (DEFRA, June 2014)

North West England government are pushing for the control of BTB in badgers to tackle the

problem of the outbreak within cattle. An initial proposal from DEFRA proposed to issue a licence for

farmers or landowners to cull or vaccinate badgers at their own expense. This licence will take into

account the welfare of the badger to ensure the control is effective and humane. However, many

farmers are taking control of their herd themselves rather than relying upon the government. Out of

6 farmers surveyed within the North West region of England, the most common control measures

are controlled herds and 6 month testing. A closed herd is when a farmer does not buy in any new

cattle as they may have a risk of previously coming into contact with BTB. This will help to prevent a

new infection within their herd. In order to ensure a closed herd is maintained a farm must have

double fencing. This is to ensure that no contact takes place between animals from neighbouring

farms or fields. This also helps to prevent any wildlife, such as badgers, from entering the farm and

risking infecting the herd. If a closed herd becomes infected with BTB the farmer may have to buy in

more cattle to make up for the loss from the slaughter of the reactor. One farmer in this area is

carrying out a badger vaccination programme which has cost them, so far this year, £2500 for 19

badgers.

In England, in the Midlands, many farms also have closed herds. However, one farmer

surveyed from the East Midlands said they had a closed herd yet had had a horrendous outbreak of

BTB earlier this year. This farm has secure boundaries with no cattle within half a mile of the herd

but they could not control the badgers which are believed to be infected with the disease. This farm

no longer possesses a closed herd, as a result of needing to buy in cattle following the loss of over a

Page | 11

quarter of their herd. Consequently, this farm is carrying out extra control measures to ensure this

outbreak does not happen again. These extra control measures include;

Where young livestock are fed outside, the troughs are raised 1.2 metres above the

ground, including high sided water troughs.

Fields alongside badger sets are avoided for cattle grazing.

More frequent testing.

Disinfecting.

Ensuring management groups of cattle are kept separate.

The majority of survey respondents were from South West England. South West England is

an area where badger culls take place. Some farmers in this area take part in the badger cull in an

attempt to prevent the spread of this disease into their own herd. The majority of farms in this area

maintain a closed herd, to an extent. Some farmers bring in replacement bulls or calves post BTB

checks to help make sure the disease is not introduced into their herd. Most farmers ensure

equipment and fences are badger proof. For example; water and feeding troughs are high off the

ground, no shared equipment for the slurry pit and mucking out the yard with housing areas for the

cows. After a neighbouring farm became infected vets advised the farmer to take extra precautions

as they would be at a higher risk.

On January 1st 2013 tighter control measure were enforced in South East England. DEFRA

believes that this area of England is at greatest risk from the spread of BTB. Tighter control measures

include;

Phasing out of Approver Quarantine Units (AQU) as they are considered to be too

risky.

Rather than 60 days, farmers have 30 days to move cattle that have been tested

negative for BTB.

Page | 12

BTB cattle are sent to Approved Finishing Units (AFU) from infected farms. Here they

will be fattened before they are then slaughtered.

Farms with a case of BTB are not to bring new cattle on to their farm until the

remaining cattle within the herd have been tested for BTB and an assessment has

been carried out by a vet. (BBC, January 2013)

Social and economic impacts on the farmer when a positive case of Bovine TB is found

with their herd

Earlier this year, a farmer from the East Midlands suffered from an outbreak causing the loss

of over a quarter of their herd. In the survey they went on to describe the guilt they had for letting

their herd down despite carrying out the recommended control measures to ensure an outbreak

would not happen. During their outbreak 18 out of 21 home bred heifers were sent to slaughter

when they were 6 months pregnant. As the farmer used sexed semen, these heifers were more than

likely to be carrying heifer calves. During mid-October 2 of their young animals, not even one year

old, and a cow who was 7 months pregnant, were sent to slaughter. The majority of their quiet, well-

mannered heifers, who were tame, were sent to slaughter as a result of their outbreak. In addition,

11 of their young, fertile cows, who were at least 5 months in calf, were also sent to slaughter.

Maintaining extensive control measures was exhausting for this famer, whilst all along knowing that

their herd could still suffer from another outbreak. When this farmer first found a positive case they

felt anger because they felt that their cattle were valued less than badgers. They reported that they

felt fearful about whether they’d be able to financially and generally live normally again, and felt

tearful because heifer’s lives would be wasted before they had had a chance to fulfil their potential.

Page | 13

A respondent from North West England compared a positive case of BTB to multiple deaths

in the family. As nearly everyone would understand the emotional devastation that comes with the

loss of one family member, it is difficult for some people to imagine what the social impacts are of

multiple deaths in the family. Therefore, some people would not be able to comprehend the depth

of the social impact of finding a positive case of BTB within their herd. The emotions that come

alongside a bereavement or loss would be similar to feeling guilty for letting a herd and their own

family down, and feeling the loss of individual cattle from the herd. Many farmers may feel similar

social impacts if a neighbouring farm has a positive case of BTB. In this case, the worst emotion they

would feel would be the fear of what may occur to their own farm in the near future. It would not

just impact the farmer but their family too as their future is at risk.

Finding a positive case of BTB would also lead to a major loss of cash flow as reactors in the

herd would need to be sent to slaughter. The farmer would then receive compensation for the loss

of cattle but do not receive compensation for the loss of milk or beef produced. If a large proportion

of a herd is infected with BTB it would cause a major decrease in production and the farmer would

need to spend more to import new cattle onto their farm. If it had previously been a closed herd

there would then be a greater risk of contracting BTB. Having an OTFS herd could cause catastrophic

effects on selling products. If a company uses raw milk to produce their products the buying

company would no longer buy milk products from that farm. Not being able to sell their produce

means their main source of income is terminated. Dairy farmers already struggle for financial

stability as currently the price of milk is lower than the costs to produce it. A positive case of BTB

could make it impossible to make a living and support a family.

Extra precautions and control measures would need to be enforced if a positive case of BTB

is found within a herd to ensure it does not contaminate neighbouring farms. At least three extra

tests per year would need to be carried out. This would be the equivalent of 3-4 days work for at

least 3 people – costing around £10,000 to £12,000 per year. Also, the stress for the animal could

Page | 14

impact on their health, for example; slipped calving and injured animals as they do not like to be

injected. Extra work would need to be put into ensuring calves are protected from the disease as

they are more susceptible to contracting it. As farmers are unable to sell heifer calves, male calves

would need to be fattened and sent straight to slaughter. It costs more money to do this and it’s

uncertain what payment the farmer would get. The value of calves would decrease if they have been

at risk of contracting the disease from reactors within their herd. If a company is buying cattle from

an infected farm then the value would decrease by around £200 per cattle. In an attempt to prevent

the herd from becoming infected, some farmers keep a large number of cattle (more than they

should) in winter housing. If BTB has been suspected within a farmer’s herd they must immediately

inform their nearest APHA office, suspected animals are to be isolated, and equipment, milk,

carcasses and animals must not leave the farm. Once APHA has been informed a vet will inspect the

herd until BTB can be ruled out or until a positive case has been found (DEFRA).

Page | 15

From a recent survey it is clear to see the negative impacts this disease has on a farmer and

those around them. This survey was conducted over Britain with a total of 39 respondents answering

questions related to the socio-economic impacts of the disease and the control measures that are

enforced. With only 1 respondent from Northern Ireland and 1 from Scotland, this is not an accurate

representation of the socio-economic impacts in these particular areas. With 7 respondents from

Wales, 8 from the Midlands and 11 from South West England, this has helped to form a more

accurate representation of the impacts and which control measures are enforced and whether or

not they are working. The middle to late 19th century was the peak for cases of BTB in the UK. Cases

of BTB are now on the decline. However, it’s still proving to be a large problem for cattle farmers.

Between 2001 and 2012 the percentage of cattle slaughtered and tested remained between 0.4-0.6

per cent. Between April 2012 and April 2014 the incidence rate of BTB had declined from 4.4% to

3.7%. One of the largest causes for the large prevalence is the amount of farms not maintaining

closed herds. This allows unknown infected cattle to be introduced in to new farms and infecting

more cattle in the new herd. If every cattle farmer maintained a closed herd then the prevalence of

BTB would rapidly decrease and become an easier disease for cattle farmers to deal with.

Page | 16

Bibliography

Scottish Badgers. (2015). Bovine TB is not an issue in cattle or badgers in Scotland. Available:

http://scottishbadgers.org.uk/userfiles/file/Main_folder1/Dec-2015-BOVINE-TB-INFECTION-IS-NOT-

AN-ISSUE-IN-CATTLE-OR-BADGERS-IN-SCOTLAND.pdf. Last accessed 21st January 2016.

Jan Bayley. (2014). How Wales is defeating bovine TB without killing badgers. Available:

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2359151/how_wales_is_defeating_bovine_tb_wi

thout_killing_badgers.html. Last accessed 21st January 2016.

BBC UK. (2013). New bovine TB measures introduced in England. Available:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20881335. Last accessed 21st January 2016.

Department for environment food and rural affairs.

http://www.gov.uk/defra

“Bovine TB: how to spot and report the disease” Department for Environment, Food & Rural

Affairs and Animal and Plant Health Agency. First published 26th August 2014, last updated

1st October 2014.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/bovine-tb

“Latest statistics on tuberculosis (TB) in cattle in Great Britain” Department for Environment

Food and Rural Affairs and Animal and Plant Health Agency. First published 11 th September 2013, last

update 21st December 2015.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/incidence-of-tuberculosis-tb-in-cattle-in-great-

britain

Page | 17

M. Gilbert1, A. Mitchell2, D. Bourn3, J. Mawdsley2, R. Clifton-Hadley2 & W. Wint3. (2005).

Cattle movements and bovine tuberculosis in Great Britain. Available:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7041/abs/nature03548.html. Last accessed 21st

January 2016.

Justin Kerswell, Campaigns Manager. (2014). Badgers and Bovine TB. Available:

http://www.viva.org.uk/resources/campaign-materials/fact-sheets/badgers-and-bovine-tb-btb. Last

accessed 21st January 2016

Dr Imogen Richens, I. 2015. Farmers’ perception of the role of veterinary surgeons in vaccination strategies on British dairy farms. Vet Record. 177(18), pp. 2.

In-text citation: (Dr imogen richens, 2015)

Scottish Government. (2015). Diseases - Bovine Tuberculosis. Available:

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/farmingrural/Agriculture/animal-welfare/Diseases/disease/

tuberculosis. Last accessed 21st January 2016.

TB Free England. (2015). Can we vaccinate cattle and badgers?. Available:

http://www.tbfreeengland.co.uk/vaccination/. Last accessed 21st January 2016.

Page | 18

Appendix

Not all survey questions were answered by every respondent.

Survey questions and responses:

1. What region of the UK are you based in?South East England: 2South West England: 11Midlands: 8North West England: 6Wales: 7Northern Ireland: 1Scotland: 1

2. What does your farm primarily supply?Beef: 57.89%Dairy: 31.58%Both: 10.53

3. Have you ever encountered Bovine TB within your herd?Yes: 61.22%No: 38.89%

4. Do you think the current control measures against Bovine TB are working? Yes: 2.86%No: 97.14%

5. What control measures are you taking against Bovine TB?Double fencing: 4Closed herd: 15Feed off ground: 4Badger cull: 6Biosecurity: 3Regular testing: 8No shared equipment: 1No measures: 1

6. How large is your herd?0-50: 12.50%51-100: 15.63%101-200: 28.13%201-300: 12.50%301-400: 12.50%401-500: 6.25%500+: 12.50%

7. When there is a positive case of Bovine TB within your herd how would it impact you and your family?

Emotionally distressing short term, financial implications long term.Cash Flow.Economically devastating, and depressing for all of usWorry, stress, extra work (lots). Change in business, selling calves not possible.

Page | 19

GreatlyStress, depression, devastation.Would probably make the farm unviable financially. Selling the herd and possibly the

farm (our home) would be emotionally and financially traumatic.How long have you got... Just Imagine a death (or multiple deaths even) in your family

and you'll know EXACTLY how a case of TB potentially impacts...and all the emotions that go with bereavement and loss.

Financially emotionally stress.Massively, both financially and emotionally. Business already carries additional costs

(labour, vet fees, admin etc.) but a BTB breakdown would have huge additional consequences.Stress, loss, worry, financial restrictions. To sum it all up it is a needless loss.Major loss of cash flow creating stress for family members.Horrendous I would imagine both mentally and financially.Distress/hassle/unhappiness.Stress and worry Extra work testing. At least 3 extra tests 3-4 days work for 3 people

cost? Extra work and cost calf rearing, reduced calf value Uncertainty makes planning difficult.I’m really annoyed and grumpy.Anger. Frustration. Depression. We've failed to protect our cattle. Basically the life of a

sick badger is put higher, much higher than that of my home bred cattle. Impact on selling stock as and when we want to. Thus overstocking, crowding more cattle into winter housing than there should be. Extra feed and bedding and limited cash flow. We sell store cattle for others to finish - so a limited market (AFU only) and up to £200/head drop from the open market. Little demand for our pedigree breeding bulls.

Only had inconclusives but they are a worry. Tend to get them killed if possible and take the loss.

Nightmare, not able to sell cattle so no income & added costs.It is emotionally devastating. We have had to send 18 out of our 21 home bred heifers

for slaughter when they are 6 months in calf (and probably carrying a heifer calf as we use sexed semen. Last week we sent 2 animals not even a year old as well as another cow 7 months pregnant. I had sleepless nights and tearful outbursts around the time we had to load all our quiet, well-mannered heifers that were as tame as ponies. We have sent 11 cows - all young, fertile cows at least 5 months in calf. You feel so guilty at letting them down but we have done everything right. The stress and the extra work - testing days, catching up for slaughter, disinfecting, trying to keep management groups separate is exhausting.

Disastrous.Testing every 60-70 days costs us around £10,000-12,000 per year. Added to this is the

lost animal growth, the stress it puts on the animals, which often leads to slipped calvings, injured animals, as they don't like being injected. Plus the stress of not being in control of your business, but at the whim of politicians.

Terribly, we currently sell as stores so would have to fatten all stock which is a complete change of system and no income for a year. Would sell up at the earliest opportunity.Less income, stress caused by testing every 60 days. Loss of breeding stock is depressing.

It was stressful just watching it get ever closer, Cotswold escarpment - Badger heaven.Very badly.Very low compensation levels for my type of dairy herd. Movement controls would

change our business model detrimentally.Massive impact from loss of earnings by not being able to sell calves. Would have to

fatten all the calves and send straight to slaughter. This would cost more money for an unknown return.

Bit upsetting.

Page | 20

8. If a neighboring farm has a positive case of Bovine TB how would it impact you and your farm?

Through contiguous testing on regular intervals i.e. every 2-6 months as is the present case here. Disrupts day to day farming and financial implications

Worry.... Worry, need for contiguous test (have one in couple of weeks). Extra work and stress

sorting out. To some extent Worry Extreme stress from extra work and worry. The same emotions and feeling pretty much described in Q7,...but the fear must be the

worst one,...just not knowing what may or may not be round the corner. Extra vigilance extra testing See above. Also for both scenarios would probably have to shut down self-catering

accommodation with resultant loss of income and compensation to booked guests. As the previous answer. Would not affect my business but would be a worry if wildlife could bring it to my stock. Yes. Worry Probably mean an extra TB test. Cost Worry as to source bought in or wildlife (Badgers) No difference No neighbors which actually share a boundary, but we share 'wildlife' who can't read

that this farm is Mr. X and across the stream is Mr.Z. On the whole we communicate, to share test results and see where any problems are coming from.

More testing!Our cattle have no contact with neighbors but the badgers can become infected and

spread it to us. It is very worrying and stressful, Extra testing As 7 No, because every farmer with cattle within 5-6 miles is like ourselves: nearly constantly

under restrictions, with a few brief (1-2 months) breaks, until you go down yet again. Massive expensive of more regular testing and worry Apart from increased biosecurity nothing We sold up while we could Quite badlyWe have had them we alter our grazing management. Management changes would have to be taken to prevent contact with neighboring

cattle. Could prevent us grazing parts of the farm. Less area and grass for cattle to graze Be more cautious

9. If you have a positive case of Bovine TB within your herd how would it make you feel? Fear: 7.69%Anger: 11.54%Sadness: 0%Disgust: 0%Shame: 0%Confusion: 0%Helplessness: 23.08%Anxiousness: 3.85%Frustration: 30.77%Stress: 23.08%

Page | 21