TB reactor cows subjected to unnecessary journey by AHVLA

[Jane Gillett]

"Off topic"? Maybe but they're part of the milk industry which makes them
"food" in my book but I'm sticking my head above the parapet because I'm
angry.

TB reactor cows have to be slaughtered; yes. We can argue about how
accurate the test is but that's not what I'm talking about here. Those of
you who watch tv in the south West will have heard of the TB reactor cows
which are to be lorried from their farm in Dorset to Wales for slaughter**.
Others may have heard mention. The reason? AHVLA have done a deal (sorry,
perhaps I should have said "have come to an agreement") with the slaughter
house in question to make the transaction £200 better for the tax-payer.
Never mind the cows.

The cows are pregnant (not unusual), some near calving. They will need
milking before the end of the journey and in a modern dairy cow that means
they will be holding a heavy load of milk. They will not be able to lie
down but will have to stand in one place for the whole of the journey.

AHVLA's response is that they have met every requirement set out by the EU
for animal transport. They have refused to change their arrangements. If
that is so it's time the EU reviewed their animal travel requirements.

For a measley £200 the govt's Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratory
Authority are subjecting these cows, heavy with pregnancy and milk, to a
totally unnecessarily long journey. The farmer offered to pay the £200 if
the cows could go to a local abattoir but the AVHLA refused even this.

And what is the RSPCA doing about this? Nothing if the lack of mention of
their name is to be believed. About as much as they did in circumstances of
unnecessary animal welfare problems in the FMD outbreak. I'm not blaming
the people on the ground but their top people should be leaping up and down
loudly about this; that's their job.

That's all. By the time this hits your screens I expect the journey will be
over (today - Tues - is the dealine), unless Mr Paterson or anybody else
with the necessary authority has had the will to stop it, and the cows will
have reached their destination. I wonder how many will be able to walk off
the lorry.

Jane

**You can find more detail in:
www.warmwell.com

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett
AHVLA's response is that they have met every requirement set out by the EU
for animal transport. They have refused to change their arrangements. If
that is so it's time the EU reviewed their animal travel requirements.

theres no law saying you cannot be better than a limit

[Jane Gillett]

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett
AHVLA's response is that they have met every requirement set out by the EU
for animal transport. They have refused to change their arrangements. If
that is so it's time the EU reviewed their animal travel requirements.

theres no law saying you cannot be better than a limit

Unfortunately the AHVLA seem to be sitting back on the minimum legal
requirements - that and "kudos" of saving £200 for the taxpayer. Now that's
how much of a penny I'm going to get?
Jane

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett
Unfortunately the AHVLA seem to be sitting back on the minimum legal
requirements - that and "kudos" of saving £200 for the taxpayer. Now that's
how much of a penny I'm going to get?

I see RSPCA AU are fighting journeys of 1000s of Ks

[Janet]

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett
AHVLA's response is that they have met every requirement set out by the EU
for animal transport. They have refused to change their arrangements. If
that is so it's time the EU reviewed their animal travel requirements.

theres no law saying you cannot be better than a limit

Unfortunately the AHVLA seem to be sitting back on the minimum legal
requirements - that and "kudos" of saving £200 for the taxpayer. Now that's
how much of a penny I'm going to get?

Jane if you bothered to CHECK the story you'd find links showing
the full facts.

http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Farmer-says-TB-slaughter-trip-
far/story-21106786-detail/story.html

the AHVLA explaining

""Owners are compensated for TB infected cattle slaughtered as a disease
control measure . This cost to the taxpayer is partly offset by the
value of the carcass, a sum paid by the abattoir, and as AHVLA is
required to achieve best value-for-money for the taxpayer, it selects
the abattoir which is likely to provide the best financial return"

The farmer says the AVHLA offered him the alternative of slaughter
closer at Taunton which "he was fine with".

Here's the bottom line. The cattle were not slaughtered in Taunton, he
sent them to Wales as planned

http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/28/05/2014/144738/farmer-slams-defra-
over-150-mile-trip-for-tb-cows.htm

quote

"I don?t think it?s right that the cattle went to Wales, but despite
what my conscience says I can?t afford to lose £10,000 in compensation,?
Mr Wallbridge said.



Janet

[Jane Gillett]

Post by Janet

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett
AHVLA's response is that they have met every requirement set out by the EU
for animal transport. They have refused to change their arrangements. If
that is so it's time the EU reviewed their animal travel requirements.

theres no law saying you cannot be better than a limit

Unfortunately the AHVLA seem to be sitting back on the minimum legal
requirements - that and "kudos" of saving £200 for the taxpayer. Now that's
how much of a penny I'm going to get?

Jane if you bothered to CHECK the story you'd find links showing
the full facts.
http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Farmer-says-TB-slaughter-trip-
far/story-21106786-detail/story.html

The press is not usually the place I go for facts.
Where warmwell.com covers an issue I take information from there; the
contributors are generally experts in the relevant fields and I believe the
information they give.

Post by Janet
the AHVLA explaining
""Owners are compensated for TB infected cattle slaughtered as a disease
control measure . This cost to the taxpayer is partly offset by the
value of the carcass, a sum paid by the abattoir, and as AHVLA is
required to achieve best value-for-money for the taxpayer, it selects
the abattoir which is likely to provide the best financial return"

Thankyou for this. I was not familiar with the financial system for cattle
TB slaughter and misunderstood that the abattoir paid for the cattle
rather than charging for the slaughter (I presume that the press were
quoting in full an actual AHVLA statement there). I was planning on posting
to make this clear but you have done so so I don't have to now.

Post by Janet
The farmer says the AVHLA offered him the alternative of slaughter
closer at Taunton which "he was fine with".

Not what I understood (warmwell) but there was a link there which I missed
when I first posted. From that, I gather that the farmer could have refused
the trip to Wales but in that case would have lost all compensation -
thousands - for the cattle removed from his business. Also, to repeat
myself, he did offer to pay the £200 difference but AHVLA refused. If, as
western daily press quote says, the AHVLA <are> required to get the best
value for the taxpayer then surely this could have been achieved by
accepting the £200 in question from the farmer.

Post by Janet
Here's the bottom line. The cattle were not slaughtered in Taunton, he
sent them to Wales as planned
http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/28/05/2014/144738/farmer-slams-defra-
over-150-mile-trip-for-tb-cows.htm

The AHVLA sent them - or the farmer sent them under what to my mind amounts
to blackmail level pressure from the govt organisation. Take your pick.

Post by Janet
quote
"I don?t think it?s right that the cattle went to Wales, but despite
what my conscience says I can?t afford to lose £10,000 in compensation,?
Mr Wallbridge said.

Understandable. £10,000 is quite a level of loss.

And that still doesn't explain the RSPCA's apparent lack of action.

Jane

Post by Janet
Janet

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett
. From that, I gather that the farmer could have refused
the trip to Wales but in that case would have lost all compensation -
thousands - for the cattle removed from his business. Also, to repeat
myself, he did offer to pay the £200 difference but AHVLA refused. If, as
western daily press quote says, the AHVLA <are> required to get the best
value for the taxpayer then surely this could have been achieved by
accepting the £200 in question from the farmer.

I dont think its a reasonable argument that the farmer could have
forgone the compensation. I cannot see that in practice there is going
to be a poosiblity of accepting the £200 at the last minute. What
should have happened is welfare being factored in more in the first
place. Best value is not the same as cheapest.

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett
And what is the RSPCA doing about this? Nothing if the lack of mention of
their name is to be believed. About as much as they did in circumstances of
unnecessary animal welfare problems in the FMD outbreak.

I didn't find anything with a quick google. Contact them?

[Tim C.]

Post by Jane Gillett
"Off topic"? Maybe but they're part of the milk industry which makes them
"food" in my book but I'm sticking my head above the parapet because I'm
angry.
TB reactor cows have to be slaughtered; yes. We can argue about how
accurate the test is but that's not what I'm talking about here. Those of
you who watch tv in the south West will have heard of the TB reactor cows
which are to be lorried from their farm in Dorset to Wales for slaughter**.
Others may have heard mention. The reason? AHVLA have done a deal (sorry,
perhaps I should have said "have come to an agreement") with the slaughter
house in question to make the transaction £200 better for the tax-payer.
Never mind the cows.
The cows are pregnant (not unusual), some near calving. They will need
milking before the end of the journey and in a modern dairy cow that means
they will be holding a heavy load of milk. They will not be able to lie
down but will have to stand in one place for the whole of the journey.
AHVLA's response is that they have met every requirement set out by the EU
for animal transport. They have refused to change their arrangements. If
that is so it's time the EU reviewed their animal travel requirements.
For a measley £200 the govt's Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratory
Authority are subjecting these cows, heavy with pregnancy and milk, to a
totally unnecessarily long journey. The farmer offered to pay the £200 if
the cows could go to a local abattoir but the AVHLA refused even this.
And what is the RSPCA doing about this? Nothing if the lack of mention of
their name is to be believed. About as much as they did in circumstances of
unnecessary animal welfare problems in the FMD outbreak. I'm not blaming
the people on the ground but their top people should be leaping up and down
loudly about this; that's their job.
That's all. By the time this hits your screens I expect the journey will be
over (today - Tues - is the dealine), unless Mr Paterson or anybody else
with the necessary authority has had the will to stop it, and the cows will
have reached their destination. I wonder how many will be able to walk off
the lorry.
Jane
www.warmwell.com

I'm way away from all this, but if what you say is true, it's a disgrace.
So much for animal welfare. I think the problem lies in trying to keep
costs down? Any effort to ease the animals' suffering will cost money/time.
Negating a lot of the 200 quid saved. :-(

That and the fact most people who deal with animals couldn't give a
monkey's about them.

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Jane Gillett

I imagine that there is a contract with the abattoir in question which
guarantees that at least a certain %age of slaughters goes to them in
exchange for a reduced fee. That does not justify disregard for animal
welfare in my book but the AHVLA or whoever would probably be fined for not
complying

I doubt it, I think the number of decisions tied by "red tape" are
vastly exaggerated. Who is going to fine who? If there's a contract,
change it, it just requires the will.

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
I doubt it, I think the number of decisions tied by "red tape" are
vastly exaggerated. Who is going to fine who? If there's a contract,
change it, it just requires the will.

And the knowledge that it NEEDS changing BEFORE the problems arise.

indeed, its too late when the slaughter is needed.