Herd status comes at a cost

Since last summer, we have lost 19 cattle that have been TB reactors. On one traumatic autumn day, we lost 14 in one go. Our last 60-day test was at the end of January and we had a clear test. So that’s okay then – but is it?

By the time you read this, we will have probably had our next 60-day test. Just because we went clear in January, I have no confidence at all we will go clear in the next test. Like it or not, recent experiences with TB have left me with an outlook on keeping cattle that is blighted and a perspective that is short term.

Let us look at that a little further. Hardest hit by TB were 9 of a young group of 23 heifers that would have been big enough to be served about now. I know the rest were clear last time, but I fully expect them all to go eventually. Just how many 60-day tests it will take to root them out, and how long it will all take before the herd goes clear, remains to be seen. It could easily take 12 months, it could take longer.

Then there’s our (almost) closed herd status. We have only brought one animal on to the farm – a bull – in the past several years. Having a closed herd has been very precious to us. At times over those years we have been short of replacement heifers, but we have allowed numbers in the milking herd to drop below what we require, rather than lose the closed herd status and top up numbers by buying in.

As part of the “greening” we have to do, we have established margins that effectively keep our cattle away from neighbours’ cattle. But milk prices have improved of late and we have no choice but to take advantage – to try to address the losses of the past two years. We can’t afford to operate at less than capacity and so we have to go out to buy cattle to replace those lost with TB. It’s a backward step, I know, but we have no choice (the bank manager sees it as a no-brainer). If you consider closed herd or flock status, it is probably the best thing you can do from a biosecurity point of view. The less movement of livestock, the less movement of disease – it is so obvious.

Disease-free

As a nation, we are encouraged to go, for example, BVD-free – an achievable aim. After all, we all went largely brucellosis-free and that wasn’t an easy fix. So an ambition to eradicate disease is a laudable aim, but if I list the diseases we should address, I come up with TB, Johne’s disease, bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD) and infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) – and that is the order of importance I would put them in. BVD and IBR I can control with a vaccination programme; better if they weren’t there, I know, but I can cope with them.

I can vaccinate for Johne’s disease as well, but this is a last resort vaccination – not least because of its effect on the TB test. Milk buyers are starting to show an interest in Johne’s disease status. Some are demanding their suppliers have a knowledge of the scale of the problem within their herds, and need to be able to demonstrate they’re taking steps to address it. It is a bit like a milk price reduction; if one does it, they all soon follow suit. Inevitably, it will become sort of compulsory – if you don’t comply, you will soon be looking for a new milk buyer.

Then on my list of disease is TB, which is ironic because it’s far and away the most serious issue. As we see in my own example, and as I have explained, TB increases the movement of cattle. I have no choice but to go out to buy cattle. After the financial difficulties of the past two years, it’s a matter of survival. I can’t risk buying the very best high health status expensive cattle because, if they fail a TB test after they arrive, I will lose money on every animal as the compensation money will not go anywhere near covering what they cost. I will try to buy from one source and I will try to buy sensibly. I will ask sensible questions about herd health and I know what questions to ask.

The fact remains, however, I could be buying Johne’s disease, IBR or BVD, or I could be buying a cocktail of all three – and I lay the blame for that at TB’s door. It is TB that is sending me out to buy cattle and I may buy other problems at the same time. If I do, a cost will be involved that is never quantified, but it is a cost that comes as a direct result of TB – and you can multiply that by all the other farmers who find themselves in the same predicament as me. I was talking to a farmer who lived in a four-year testing area. TB rarely crosses his mind, other than a test every four years, which is seen as a bit of a nuisance. Contrast that with farming around here, where TB is a constant threat in your life and drives what you can and can’t do. Sixty-odd years ago we could clear it up; today, we apparently can’t. There’s progress for you.

After a few years, when it had dipped below the radar, I see the Schmallenberg virus is back on the scene. When life on the farm is so full of challenges, and just when you think things can’t get any worse, you have the prospect of putting your hand into a ewe or a cow and finding that. It remains to be seen just how many spring-calving cows will be affected. If the vaccine is available, it is likely there will be one more expense to add to the growing list – and one more task to perform.

The way things are going, our cows, and everyone else’s cows, will spend as much time going through the crush as they will the
milking parlour.