South west tb farm advisory service project final report

2014
South West TB Farm
Advisory Service
FINAL PROJECT REPORT
SUMMER 2014
INDUSTRY REFERENCE GROUP
Report Author: Nick Cork CMgr MCMI MIC FRSPH
Contents

2
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................3
Project Rationale ....................................................................................................................................8
Context ...................................................................................................................................................9
Part 1: The Background ........................................................................................................................11
The National Picture.........................................................................................................................11
The Economic Impact of bTB in the South West ..............................................................................11
The Human Impact of Bovine TB on Farmers...................................................................................13
The South West Healthy Livestock Initiative ....................................................................................14
Part 2: The SWTBFAS – Development, Implementation and Achievements .......................................15
The Stakeholder Approach – Industry Reference Group..................................................................15
Structure and Hosting.......................................................................................................................15
The Service........................................................................................................................................17
Farm Based Business Solutions.........................................................................................................17
Environmental and Animal Health Implications...............................................................................18
Badger Surveys .................................................................................................................................18
CCTV Cameras...................................................................................................................................19
Disease Risk Management................................................................................................................21
Bicton College Biosecurity Project....................................................................................................21
Support, Liaison and Facilitation ......................................................................................................26
Working in Partnership.....................................................................................................................27
Communications and Liaison with AHVLA........................................................................................28
Engagement with vets ......................................................................................................................28
Part 3: Future Options..........................................................................................................................29
National Policy, Strategy and Disease Projections ...........................................................................29
Regional Disease Projections............................................................................................................30
Options Appraisal .............................................................................................................................30
SWOT Analysis ..................................................................................................................................31
Part 4 Recommendations.....................................................................................................................32
Part 5 Appendices.................................................................................................................................33
Appendix 1: Member Organisations of the Industry Reference Group ...........................................33
Appendix 2: The South West Healthy Livestock Initiative Interim Report – Executive Summary and
Recommendations............................................................................................................................34
Appendix 3: FCN Report on Impact of TB on Farming Families........................................................38
Appendix 4: Exeter University report on the Economic Impact of bTB in the South West..............42
Appendix 5: SWTBFAS IRG Response to Defra Strategy...................................................................45
Appendix 6: Example of Farm Survey recommendations ....................................................................48
Appendix 7: Messages of Support from IRG Members for the Service................................................52

3
Appendix 8: Farming Figures for the South West (NFU Publication) ...................................................59
Executive Summary
The South West of England hosts a fabulous landscape, moulded and underpinned by
predominantly pasture and livestock based farming systems. Yet it also harbours,
endemically, bovine TB in its cattle and badgers.

4
The disease incidence in cattle herds has continued to rise over recent decades. When this
project began, over 3870 herds were under restriction at any one time in the region. It was
recognised by many industry bodies that support, advice and training for farmers would be
critical to manage the disease, both in terms of animal health and business viability.
There was a huge recognition within and between industry partners that bTB posed a
massive ‘psychological’ barrier for farmers when under restriction – feeling very much that
they were unable to influence the outcomes of testing regimes and the inevitable
restrictions that followed and that this was a risk factor to farmers engaging in other
matters of animal health progress, such as in regards to Johnes or BVD/management
programmes.
By working closely with the SW Healthy Livestock Initiative and the SWTBFAS Industry
Reference Group (IRG), the two projects have ‘unlocked’ the potential for many farm
businesses to review their operations in regards to positive herd health planning and, in
respect to bTB (where practical and cost effective) manage their farms accordingly.
This approach involved a coordinated effort to educate farming and veterinary audiences,
including many established local groups. Gathering momentum was the hardest phase for
the project, particularly when so many felt that there was nothing they could do about bTB
and given the complexity of the disease. The project was ‘new’ in every way; the first of its
kind, with a new team and training regime from the outset.
The independent and confidential nature of the advisers’ approach established trust and
encouraged open dialogue which regularly resulted in a long-term relationship. A typical
‘farmer journey’ included answering queries regarding the rules and regulations around bTB
restrictions, assisting with farm casework in liaison with AHVLA and other agencies and
often leading to requests for a farm visit.
A key service is in helping farmers to understand where contact is or could take place
between their cattle and badgers and how this can lead to a positive change in business
approach – for example, where practical, making changes to reduce contact and possible
disease risk. This may be through simple measures for example, fencing off setts and
latrines, raising feed and drinking troughs or making buildings more secure.
In terms of trading, assistance in setting up handling and isolation facilities and building
communications with fellow traders has also formed an integral part to the nature of
support provided, assisting where possible to aid a more secure market for the farmer.
The project thus far has carried out over 1,150 farm visits with over 500 sett surveys; over
1400 individual farm enquiries, with the team attending over 300 farming meetings, and
holding over 70 bespoke events about the project.
It should be noted that farm visits frequently account for days of time if walking around the
farm engaged in badger surveying and establishing CCTV cameras.
The use of video footage combined with walking or showing farmers aspects of their farms
where setts, latrines, runs and camera images all form a picture of activity and has a
significant impact on enabling a positive response and business reaction to managing
biosecurity on the farm.

5
By seeking to improve and share knowledge and learning about disease risk, the Service has
assisted in protecting farm businesses – farmers’ livestock and incomes and in addition
more widely engaging in herd health planning, thereby providing a powerful tool for the
cattle industry in the South West.
SW Farming Facts:
• With an area of 23,829km2, the SW is the largest region in the UK
• Gross output from farming in the SW is £3.2 billion
• GVA is £1.1 billion
• 61,072 directly employed in farming in the SW
• 37.3% of the country’s dairy cattle are in the SW, producing 10.3 billion pints per year
• Over 1.7 million cattle in the SW – 33% of the UK total
• 74% of land in the SW is managed under a commercial farm holding – not taking into
account smaller niche farms not covered by Defra’s definition
The wider value of the advisory team’s work, including sharing and publishing case studies,
collaborating with land-based colleges and related research work has added significant
value. It has driven change on farms in the region, enabling the development of practical
items to address bTB. Word of mouth has been phenomenal, and contact/requests to the
Service from farmers across the region have never been higher at the point of publishing
this report.
The geographic spread of bTB combined with the benefits provided by the Service is leading
to a call for a roll out of a national service, potentially via the next programme of Rural
Development (RDP) from 2015. The RDP seeks to enable farming businesses to be resilient
and competitive, to be sustainable and to enhance animal health. Likewise in Defra’s TB
Eradication plan it is recognised that an element of farmer support and advice is required. It
is entirely probable that if combined, the two can assist in bringing further knowledge and
positive change in managing bTB in the future.
Private investment, via this project, has come by way of the industry bodies on the IRG, but
namely the NFU, in providing a significant in-kind contribution on behalf of its farming
members – although the Service has been open to and accessed by all manner of farming
enterprises. In addition, it is also worth noting that all cattle producers also pay a levy to the
Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board (AHDB) via Eblex and DairyCo, and it is
hoped that they will play a pivotal role in the legacy to this project from 2015.
Regretfully, whilst the Service has been in post for four years, the battle against bTB was
always going to be far longer than this but it has made positive steps to engage a significant
part of the cattle sector in the South West and continues to do so. The incidence of the
disease, whilst at a time of publishing this report, is slightly down (unofficial figures) the
trend is for a general increase in incidences.
All members of the IRG see the work of the Service, or something very similar with the key
operating principles at heart, as crucial in continuing and remain committed to seeking the
best opportunity to ensure that it does (please see testimonials and letters of support in
Appendix 7). The value of the cattle industry via its beef and dairy production (underpinned

6
by family farming) to the region’s economy, the landscape and to the food supply chain
beyond is critical and deserves continued support in the face of such a crippling disease. In
the same vein, increasingly significant areas in other parts of England face a very similar
challenge and it is hoped that any legacy programme can assist those farmers in need as
well.
Partners and beneficiaries agreed that a key characteristic of scheme success was the
removal of the ‘cost barrier’. From the outset, is was thought that charging for a service
would severely limit farmers’ interest. These factors include market pressures, the
compounding factor of bovine TB restrictions, reduced market outlets, additional operating
costs of TB testing/isolation, and the increased expense of animals remaining on farm and
requiring feeding for longer than would ideally be practicable.
In reviewing the success of the scheme to date, these barriers largely remain and it is
considered that a fee-charging system could again be a barrier for many that would limit the
reach and success of follow-on projects. That does not mean that farmers have not
invested. Evidence shows that this scheme has led to farmers investing in bio-security and in
reducing risk on farm.
It is recommended that participants in any future Service should similarly not be deterred by
potential participation costs, particularly at the outset. If future charging options are to be
explored, they need to be considered appropriately. Feedback from this project is that it
would be unfair for individuals to be asked to contribute additional funds over and above
those already invested in related trade associations and the AHDB (and particularly when
the key mechanism for addressing the spread of bTB is not available to them).
An incorrectly positioned and communicated fee structure could act as a barrier to
engagement that could potentially undermine the work achieved to date in engaging with
industry.
A key element of the success of the Service to date has been in the proactive seeking of
collaborative opportunities. It will continue to seek to collaborate and link in with both
existing and emerging complementary bTB work programmes via AHVLA and Defra. The
Service brings with it valuable existing expertise and direct farmer contact, which will help
to ensure significantly beneficial outputs for farm businesses, including any additional
delivery of such activity.
It is anticipated that there will be discussions with Defra, AHVLA and existing partners to
complement output and drive both efficiencies through delivery and also simplicity of the
conversation at farm level with a trusted and independent source, again enabling positive
engagement with farmers.

8
Project Rationale
The South West TB Farm Advisory Service (SWTBFAS) is a service funded through the Rural
Development Programme for England (RDPE) and hosted by the National Farmers Union
(NFU). The Service was established in March 2010, with advisors starting on 1st June 2010.
The problems and scale of bovine TB (bTB) in the South West meant that most cattle
farmers in the region had been affected to some extent by the disease, either directly or
indirectly.
The South West is the most rural of all the English regions. The climate and geography of the
region means that agricultural production is characterised by grass-based production
systems, with much of the region farmed relatively extensively with modest stocking rates.
Nonetheless, the region is a powerhouse in the country’s livestock sector. Nearly one third
of the English herd is located in the region and some £1.8bn is generated from livestock
production (the second most important region for livestock is the North West, where the
value of output is some 39% lower than in the SW). It means that farming is twice as
important to the SW economy as it is at the national level.
Similarly, jobs in agriculture feature more prominently in the region; farm-based
employment rates are more than double the national average at 3%. Finally, the farming
structure in the region is characterised by traditional, family farms and the SW has a greater
proportion of small and very small farms (<20 Ha) and fewer large farms (>100 Ha) than the
national average.1
The landscape is also hugely important to the South West in terms of tourism with an
estimated £9.4 billion tourism spend in 2008, supporting almost 270,000 jobs across the
region.2
Whilst the various industry bodies continued to seek a policy solution to eradicating the
disease, it was widely reported and acknowledged that farmers in the South West urgently
required additional support to enable them to live and deal with the disease in their herds
on a daily basis.
The NFU, with the support of industry partners and organisations, developed the SWTBFAS
and managed to secure a grant from the RDPE initially for £1,308,100 to provide a free,
independent and (crucially) confidential service to all farmers across the region for an initial
period of four years.
The project period was then extended by a year and the budget revised down to £1,204,028
following the success of the project in its first 3 years.
1
This overview was taken from the 2009 Farm Business Survey, available to download at:
http://farmbusinesssurvey.co.uk/regional/commentary/2009/southwest.pdf 2
South West Tourism Alliance, ‘The Value of Tourism, 2008’:
file:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/ExecSummaryonly.pdf

9
This report summarises the key ingredients and successes of the SWTBFAS to date, placing
its work in the context of the continuingly evolving national situation and evaluating a range
of possible future options for the Service. There are 4 parts to this report.
1. Part 1 deals with the context and background to the service, placing the situation for
the SW into the national picture and outlining the emergence of the SWTBFAS from
the discussions held for the South West Healthy Livestock Initiative (SWHLI).
2. Part 2 deals with the SWTBFAS itself, from inception, through to achievements and
lessons learned.
3. Part 3 deals with the future options for continuing to provide farmer support for bTB
in the South West against a background of wide ranging ‘resourcing’ cuts, the
disease profile, market dynamics and changing policy landscapes.
4. Part 4 makes a series of recommendations for providing an ongoing resource for
farmers to help deal with bTB.
Context
The South West Sustainable Farming and Food (SFF) delivery plan ‘Changing Landscapes,
Changing Outlooks’2, had as a stated ambition
“to improve the health and welfare of the livestock sector leading to a reduction in the
economic impact of diseases for businesses and related supply chains”
The refreshed plan, published in 2008, recognised that bovine TB (bTB) in the South West
was a key priority. It was also a growing problem in the region and one which elicited a
rather fatalistic response from a farming community that found it difficult to envisage a time
when the situation would improve.
The SWTBFAS project’s aim was to provide knowledge and training to farmers through a
variety of delivery mechanisms, including: one-to-one training; small group training
sessions; larger scale meetings; a dedicated helpline; an up to date website4; and the
development of additional communication and advisory tools.
Training was designed to encourage best practice through three specific channels: Prevention;
Risk Management and Market Focus. This was achieved via the following linked strategies:
• the dissemination of information about bovine TB
• biosecurity and disease prevention measures
• licensing, testing and movements
• isolation, calf rearing or approved finishing units
• help for dairy and beef farmers in identifying supply chain solutions and trading
opportunities to retain and add value at the farm gate.
In addition to practical knowledge and training, support was also to be provided in recognition
of the severe impact the disease has on farmers and their families. From the outset, this
2
‘Changing Landscapes, Changing Outlooks’, 2008
http://www.southwestfoodanddrink.com/index.php?page=delivery-plan
4
The website can be found at: http://www.southwest-tbadvice.co.uk/

10
adviser-led project collaborated with existing organisations and initiatives in order to
contribute to the animal health and welfare objectives of the RDPE.
The principle objective of the project was to raise awareness of measures to mitigate the risks
of contracting bTB in the herd, together with measures to reduce the impact that bTB has on
farms already with the disease.
This knowledge transfer activity was designed to contribute significantly towards a future in
which the cattle industry in the South West would be better able to cope with the effects of
bTB.
The project demonstrated a willingness to support farmers and engender positive
engagement with other animal health and welfare initiatives - and the veterinary profession.
Many farmers in the region have had a fatalistic approach to bTB, believing that due to its
prevalence, contracting the disease was almost a certainty and deemed little that they could
do to stop it.
However, this project aimed to demonstrate that this was not always the case and measures
to reduce the risks are available, where practicable to implement. In addition, it would also
help those farmers already under restriction to lessen the impact of the disease on their
businesses and find positive solutions to the problems they encounter. This would lead to a
more positive industry mind-set and a more proactive approach to farm health planning and
the future development of farm businesses in a wider context.
One of the initial aims of the project was to help to change attitudes within the farming
community from a fatalistic, almost powerless approach to the disease to one of
empowerment and action – where measures could be taken to help reduce the risk of
contracting the disease and also to mitigate the effects on the farm business if a breakdown
occurred.
As the Service has seen year on year growth in the numbers of farmers using it and requesting
assistance, it is evident that this aim has been achieved. Farmers are now taking the initiative
and seeking to engage at an early stage with the Service.
The project was also designed to contribute significantly to the cross-cutting themes of the
RDPE, including sustainable development, climate change and resource management. Bovine
TB represents a huge financial burden on cattle producers in the region and the project
worked hard to lessen this impact and reduce costs, thereby assisting with the creation of a
more vibrant and sustainable industry.
Tackling bTB has significant positives in terms of farm efficiency and the environmental impact
of agricultural businesses. More replacements are required in an infected herd in order to
replace those cattle culled through infection, which places a huge burden on the farm’s
resources and can lead to an increased use of artificial inputs, the manufacture of which can
contribute to the production of greenhouse gases. The risk mitigation measures
recommended by this project could therefore contribute to a reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions through fewer replacements being required and less stock being kept
unnecessarily.

11
The project was also intended to have a positive impact on biodiversity, with a healthier
population of managed livestock resulting in a healthier population of wildlife. This
contribution to the cross-cutting themes of the RDPE, as well as the impact the project would
have on the health and welfare status of the region’s cattle, helped to provide justification
that this project was for the public good.
Part 1: The Background
In 2009 7,449 herds were subject to movement restrictions in Great Britain because of
bovine TB. Of these, 52% were in the South West of England and 20% were in Devon alone.
The National Picture
In Great Britain between 1996 and the beginning of 2010, the number of herds under
movement restrictions due to a bTB breakdown increased from 649 to a seasonal peak of
4,590 in April 2009. During this period, there was a fivefold increase in herds under
movement restrictions, dramatically increasing the burden of costs on farmers and the
taxpayer.
It is estimated that between 1999/00 and 2008/09 the costs of bTB to the British
Government was £458 million (Defra 2010a), of which an estimated £343.5 million could be
attributed to the South West region alone.
The Economic Impact of bTB in the South West
In 2010, the Centre for Rural Policy Research (CRPR) at the University of Exeter undertook
and evaluation of a number of case studies of farmers who had experienced bTB
breakdowns on their farms.
The CRPR team produced a detailed impact assessment report, which supported the
development of the SWTBFAS – the Economic Impact Assessment of Bovine Tuberculosis in
the South West of England.3
The report looked at 8 case study farms and produced a range of data to gauge the impact
that a Bovine TB breakdown had on each of the farms.
There was a wide range of costs, including large variations in the cost of the skin test,
additional associated costs such as through loss of milk production, silage making, fuel and
feed costs, extra staffing at testing time etc.
Costs associated with movement restrictions had an additional impact that was not
sufficiently taken into consideration for the compensation scheme.
The costs of keeping additional stock on the farm accrue in additional costs in extra
bedding, feed and labour to keep stock. The inability to move stock off-farm (or around a
farm for those businesses composed of more than one holding) create a significantly
3
‘Economic Impact Assessment of Bovine Tuberculosis in the South West of England’, Allan Butler, Matt Lobley
and Michael Winter, available as a download: www.centres.ex.ac.uk/crpr/publications/

12
increased work load and may be associated with problems of over-stocking and
unintentional breaches of organic certification and cross-compliance regulations.
The wider associated costs in breeding extra replacement breeding stock to insure against
being forced to bring in lower health status stock if there was a significant outbreak on farm
further adds to the financial pressures on farm. Provision of additional breeding stock
doesn’t necessarily translate into maintaining overall farm output, particularly in milking
herds. Replacement stock will not always match the output of cows lost to bTB.
This to some degree falls outside normal market led features and can lead to challenging
efficiency outputs and positive progression of businesses. Indeed it can delay the ability to
fulfil the appropriate business plan to allow for additional borrowing against investment –
leading to stagnation in the sector, whilst trying to retain and protect their existing
enterprise.
TB can also impact on farm succession planning and land tenure opportunities.
As with the costs of testing, the costs of movement restrictions reflect the individual
characteristics of each individual farm business, the spatial configuration of the land
holdings, the specific features of the farm enterprises, suggesting that average figures can
mask much of the complexity of cost assessment and routes to market.
Costs
•Extra livestock
•Increased labour
•Additional Feed (& fuel/fodder)
Environmental Impact
•Overstocking
•Cross compliance
Market Impact
•Lost output from high performance livestock
•Limitations on stock Limitations on stockmovement an d marketing
•Inability to replace without further compromising Limitations on stock movement and marketing
health status
•Quality not adequately accounted for in compensation scheme

13
The compensation scheme also failed to provide a fair, across the board compensation
package that was sensitive to the variations in business structure within the livestock
industry.
The bTB compensation scheme, introduced in February 2006, was derived from sale data
obtained from store markets, prime markets, rearing calf sales, breeding sales and dispersal
sales in Great Britain, rather than individual animal valuations. As such, farmers that breed
and manage high value stock (whether these are pedigree or not) are likely to be under
compensated, whereas farmers with cattle perceived in the market place to be lower than
average (as expressed in terms of price) are likely to be over compensated. No
consideration is given to cattle with Organic status and the cost of buying in organic
replacements is far greater than the rate of compensation.
The Human Impact of Bovine TB on Farmers
In May 2010, the Farm Crisis Network (FCN) published a report, ‘Stress and Loss’4, which
highlighted the human impact of bovine TB on farming families in the hotspot areas.
The report was produced in response to the significant number of calls received by the FCN
from families experiencing problems as a result of herd breakdowns from bTB. The
increasing number of cases that the FCN was dealing with was a key factor in producing the
report.
There were issues relating to financial difficulty, depression or family break-ups that often
had TB as an underlying cause. In some cases, living with TB had become so much a part of
everyday life that it was not even specified as a causal factor.
Many farmers and farming families found it very difficult to ask for help and so much of the
misery created by the impacts of TB can go unreported and unrecognised until it is too late.
The report summarised conclusions from interviews with farmers in three TB hot spot areas
- West Wales, the South West and Worcestershire, who had suffered breakdowns in the
previous two years prior to publication of the report. The interviews were all carried out by
FCN volunteers.
It was clear that the stress involved is acute and long-term. The emotional effect on farmers
and their families ranged between feeling the pressure (but coping), through to actual
physical illness caused by stress and, in some cases, feelings of not wanting to carry on. For
most farming businesses it was clear that the impacts impinged on the whole family. Many
were suffering financially as a result of breakdowns, mainly as a result of reductions in sales
of milk or beef caused by the loss of culled animals and the inability to market store cattle.
There were also many comments about the additional costs of having to buy extra feed and
bedding for stock which had to be finished instead of being sold as stores, putting up new
buildings for them and employing extra labour.
4
‘Stress and Loss’, Farm Crisis Network, summary document available to download here:
http://www.bovinetb.co.uk/article_print.php?article_id=45

14
In the case of farms with pedigree cattle there were losses as a result of being unable to
gain a premium for pedigree sales whilst the herd was under movement restrictions and the
cost of losing valued lines, which had been bred on the farm by generations of the farming
family.
These farmers were also unable to attend shows, which are a valuable tool for marketing
their cattle/bulls and often the only chance for socialising or having a break from work on
the farm that many farmers would take.
These losses were increased because the compensation given did not cover the premium
value of pedigree cattle. This was a problem for those on organic systems too and is
ultimately a huge barrier to farm planning and progression, as well as investment.
The South West Healthy Livestock Initiative
In recognition of the importance of livestock to the region, the South West Regional
Development Agency in 2008 committed £12.17m of funding from the Rural Development
Programme for England (RDPE) to the South West Healthy Livestock Initiative (SWHLI)
programme to be spent between 2009 and 2013.
The South West Healthy Livestock Initiative (SWHLI) aim was to ‘achieve an uplift in the
profitability of the South West livestock industry by improving health and welfare among
farmed animals’.
The terms of reference of the project were:-
• For the South West Healthy Livestock Initiative Regional Advisory Panel to act as a
cross-sectoral framework group; with members using their technical expertise and
knowledge to provide an initial assessment of the priorities for an effective healthy
livestock programme and how any budget on future SWHLI projects might provide
best value.
• To consider the views of the industry, the practicalities of what can be achieved and
make recommendations for future activity; acknowledging any issues raised by the
industry during consultation.
To support the development of sector specific projects and building in the success
criteria over the five year programme and ensuring longer term sustainability for the
industry
The first recommendation of the SWHLI project group was that a project be developed to
address the issue of Bovine TB in the SW. This was agreed by the Regional Advisory Panel of
the SWHLI in response to overwhelming requests for support during the consultation
process.
The National Farmers Union took the lead in developing the SWTBFAS, in partnership with a
broad range of stakeholder organisations, vets and famers.
A full list of stakeholders involved with the SWTBFAS through the Industry Reference Group
(IRG) is available as Appendix 1.

15
Part 2: The SWTBFAS – Development, Implementation and
Achievements
The National Farmers Union took on the mammoth task of developing and implementing
the SWTBFAS as a free, independent, confidential and impartial service to all farmers in the
region, regardless of whether they were NFU members.
Over the course of the project, a huge level of trust has been formed between the Service
personnel, and their clients – meaning many often return for further dialogue given many
farm businesses move in and out of restrictions over a period of time.
The SWTBFAS was a completely new initiative at the time, something that had not been
done or attempted before and as such there was a steep learning curve for the team. It was
a ground-breaking and pioneering project.
Part of the initial challenge was in overcoming the dogma of having to kill badgers to be
seen to be doing anything to help with bTB in the Region. The Service was offering
something new to farmers and it would take a lot of hard work and consistency of message
to gain and build trust.
After an understandably slow start (as trust was being established), the Service soon
became recognised as one that was able to provide practical, impartial and independent
advice and support to farmers. With each successive year, the Service has grown in its reach
and activities as it first built and then enhanced its credibility. A regular Newsletter that is
sent out to farmers now has over 1600 subscribers across the region.
This section will explore how that process developed, some of the challenges encountered
and the many achievements of the service over the period 2010-2014.
The Stakeholder Approach – Industry Reference Group
One of the key strategic elements of the SWTBFAS project was the formation of an industry
led stakeholder group to provide an overview function for the project, as well as ensuring
linkages and cohesion with other funding programmes in the region, the Sustainable
Farming and Food Strategy and related groups and agencies.
This approach ensured clear commitment and support from the industry at large for the
work of the SWTBFAS and enabled real collaborative working to take place across multiple
agencies and organisations from the outset.
More than a steering group, the Industry Reference Group (IRG), played a committed and
active role in disseminating information and engaging farmers about the work of the
SWTBFAS.
Structure and Hosting
The National Farmers Union led the development of the SWTBFAS project through
consultation with a wide range of industry bodies and stakeholder groups, all of which had
been involved with addressing one or more aspects of bTB in the region over a number of
years.

16
Much of the groundwork for the collaborative approach was laid during the Sustainable
Farming and Food Strategy development and implementation. This then continued through
the South West Healthy Livestock Initiative Regional Advisory Panel and was cemented with
the creation of the Industry Reference Group.
The IRG was chaired by Richard Stanbury, who was also the Chair of the SWHLI RAP. This
provided trust and continuity for the members of the IRG and for the industry at large. This
was important given the levels of disappointment and mistrust which surrounded actions to
help address bTB in the farming community after many years of perceived neglect by
successive Government administrations, and was established on this basis, managed as a
separate entity and promoted accordingly.
Although the NFU hosted the project and staff were employed by the NFU, it was widely
recognised as important that the SWTBFAS was seen as open to all farmers and not only
NFU members.
The service was also provided for free at the point of use for all farmers, a key measure
designed to gain maximum buy in from the farming community at large.
When our smallholding 'went down' with TB last year we contacted NFU who put us in contact
with the South West TB Advisory Service and in particular one advisor. Over the next few months
our advisor became a very important person in helping us, from explaining what was happening
or going to happen, helping move things along quickly when it was seeming to take forever and
generally being a friendly face and someone we could contact and talk to. Our advisor helped
make what was a very difficult time for us that little bit easier to cope with. Thank you for
everything.
Wiltshire Farmer
From the outset, the SWTBFAS employed 3 full time Advisors, a full time administrator and a
part time Lead Advisor. The staff underwent a vigorous and detailed initial training process,
involving extensive work with farms, Animal Health officers (AHVLA), Trading Standards
officers, a visit to an abattoir slaughtering TB reactors, and time with the Farm Crisis
Network to gain an understanding of the human impact of bTB on farmers.
Intensive training was also undertaken to understand badger ecology, the transmission of
bTB between cattle and badgers and the cycle of disease that occurs. As well as training
with specialists to undertake badger surveys, with some of the team undertaking a week
long badger trapping and vaccination course run by FERA.
In addition to the advisors and administrator, the project also created a dedicated website5,
which serves as a portal for information and advice to farmers suffering from a bTB
breakdown, as well as a means of disseminating best practice from the work undertaken by
the service.
The website has a Forum which offers the opportunity to ask questions and raise topics
which the advisors would respond to: regular news updates are also posted here.
5
http://www.southwest-tbadvice.co.uk/

17
A dedicated phone support line provided a first point of contact for farmers wishing to
access the service and get advice or support.
The Service
The work undertaken by the SWTBFAS fell under a number of distinct areas:
• practical business solutions
• environmental and animal health implications
• badger surveys
• disease risk management
• closed circuit TV cameras
• support
• liaison and facilitation.
As an independent and confidential service, the SWTBFAS was able to gather a great deal of
information and use this to innovate during the life of the project to deliver new services in
a direct response to feedback.
“I phoned the Tb advisory service because they are independent and confidential, I have always
found them friendly, approachable, helpful and knowledgeable. On a farm visit they were able to
identify the main biosecurity risks and give me good practical advice on minimising them. ”
Anthony Rew – Beef Farmer (South Devon)
Examples of services that were not originally envisioned, but which developed organically as
the project progressed were:
• the undertaking of on farm badger surveys to provide a deeper picture of badger
activity
• the use of night vision CCTV cameras to provide assistance with identifying routes
into cattle housing areas and feed stores for badgers at night
• undertaking research with Bicton College and a number of private companies to test
a range of new badger proofing solutions.
Farm Based Business Solutions
One of the most stressful side effects of a bTB breakdown on farm is farmers feeling
powerless and lacking knowledge of the options open to them to continue to trade.
The SWTBFAS advisors visited farms directly affected by TB breakdowns and provided the
farmer with advice on a number of practical business solutions.
Whether identifying a range of potential marketing and trading options for restricted herds,
providing advice on setting up isolation groups and units or offering movement advice, the
advisors concentrated their efforts on providing specific tailored support to each farm on an
individual basis.

18
“I have had the pleasure of working with the SWTBFAS whilst at Meadow Quality and on the NBA
Beef Expo committee. I have found the organisation very willing and experienced in enhancing the
knowledge and understanding of TB within the industry in a very POSITIVE manner. Producers
that have engaged with the group certainly feel enlightened and empowered with their
experience.
From my own experience, I have found Sophie to be extremely positive and helpful. She has
helped us to further develop a bio-secure supply chain for blighted producers within the South
West, benefiting both beef and dairy producers alike”.
Simon Fryar – Meadow Quality
This was sometimes done in collaboration with the farmers’ local veterinary practice.
Additionally, advice was provided on setting up Approved Finishing Units and any other
supply chain issues, including TB restricted markets.
The website contains detailed information on these options8. It has proven to be an
invaluable source of information and statistics for farmers to access.
Project Output: between 16th July 2010 and 18th July 2014, the Service carried out a total of
1159 Farm Visits. It is important to note that each farm visit could involve one or more days
depending on scale and topography, and nature of TB breakdown and work undertaken.
Additionally, the visits provided case studies for other farmers to learn from.
Environmental and Animal Health Implications
The provision of advice was not restricted to farms that had experienced a breakdown, but
was rolled out to all cattle farmers in the form of consultancy on how to best to prepare
should the farm experience a breakdown and how to reduce the disease risks where
possible.
This included the implications to the farm business of carrying more stock on the farm, what
to do about a lack of (and excess of) fodder, as well as a range of additional practical advice
to help mitigate the worst impacts of a bTB breakdown. Including sign posting to other
sources of help?
Badger Surveys
As badgers are a natural reservoir for the disease, it was important that farmers were aware
of the activity of badgers on their farm.
“We had a difficult situation on our farm. A Tb outbreak occurred in our little calves and we didn't
know what to do. The advisory service came to help us. They were able to give us advice on
8 http://www.southwest-tbadvice.co.uk/tb-unitsbiosecurity and also survey our farm to help identify
badger sets, latrines and tracks. It has been very reassuring having them alongside us. They
have been on the end of the phone whenever I have needed them and they have followed every
develo17 pment on our holding. I am very grateful
for their input, their experience has been invaluable”.

19
Mark Oliver – Dairy Farmer (Cornwall)
The advisors received extensive training in tracking and identifying badger activity on farm,
which proved extremely useful in providing farmers with a clear plan of their farm and
where badger activity was most prevalent.
By marking out setts, latrines, runs and other areas of activity on a plan of the farm, the
advisors were able to demonstrate in a very visual way how farmers could minimise contact
between badgers and livestock, where practical.
The image below is an example of the survey format that was used for this project.
A sample of the kind of recommendations generated as a result of the survey mapping is
included as Appendix 6.
This proved to be a highly effective service that was provided by the SWTBFAS advisors.
Project Output: between 16th July 2010 and 18th July 2014 a total of 456 badger survey days
were carried out by the Service.
CCTV Cameras
A service that developed within the project life, was the provision of night vision HD CCTV
cameras for use on farm. The cameras were installed at strategic points on the farm to
capture any nocturnal activity around livestock, feed stores and other strategically
important areas on the farm.
The cameras were left for an average of four weeks, to give an adequate snapshot in time.
The advisor would then return to the farm, go through the footage with the farmer and
make recommendations.

20
This proved to be a highly effective way of showing farmers where and how the badgers
could enter the farm premises and gain access to feed stores and cattle living areas.
“Sophie and Edward both visited the farm primarily and after an initial discussion decided a
whole farm survey was required to establish the level of badger activity on the farm. The survey
was comprehensive and we learnt a lot about sett sizes, locations of setts, badger runs and how
active each sett was. The advice regarding fencing off latrines as new research is undertaken
has been useful too. This was recorded clearly on a farm map which we can now review to see
how things change over time.
Cameras were also set up in and around the yards and on a subsequent visit Edward found some
badger activity recorded. What surprised us was the frequency of visits by badgers to the yard
sometimes as soon as it got dark as early as 6pm. As a closed herd it was vital that we looked at
biosecurity measures to minimise badger contact with the cattle. We have completed sheeting
of all gates and gaps to make the yard and buildings inaccessible to badgers, it was a long and
complex task but makes us feel that we have made efforts to protect the cattle, In fact on one of
the main entrance gates we saw muddy badger prints almost at the top of the galvanised sheet
where a badger had tried to enter the yard next to the feed bin. The newsletters keep us updated
on new work and advice.
We would not hesitate to recommend the service to any farmer who is concerned about TB in
their herd either currently or in the future. We have made sure our vet practice knows how
pleased we are with the service, all the staff have been helpful and professional.” From North
Somerset dairy farmers.
Camera footage has been used in numerous articles and is a useful tool to highlight the
need for biosecurity to all farmers, not just those who have had visits.

21
Disease Risk Management
During a farm visit, advisors would initially gather information on the individual case and
then assess badger to cattle and cattle to cattle risks and advise on what measures could be
adopted to reduce or prevent disease incidence.
Measures considered included raising mineral licks and troughs, fencing cattle away from
areas of badger activity, securing farm buildings through the use of metal sheeting or other
materials, electric fencing and/or permanent fencing.
In order to ensure that advice and information provided to farmers was current and up to
date, the SWTBFAS engaged in a number of trials with educational and research
establishments (as well as private companies). Some of this work is detailed below.
This joined up approach was an important element of the emerging project, as it
demonstrated that collective learning and research on one site could have wider and
beneficial impacts for the industry in general.
Additionally, the involvement of private companies in these trials to test and develop
marketable solutions to a range of issues shows the potential for added value from the
private sector when engaging with publically funded projects.
Bicton College Biosecurity Project
In 2012, the Service launched a collaborative biosecurity project with Bicton College in Devon. The
project aimed to engage farmers in the area, alongside the next generation of farmers at the
College, with continued research into effective badger proof equipment.
As part of the project, trials were conducted on various pieces of equipment, including: feed troughs,
water troughs, wire fencing and mineral lick holders.
It was hoped that this work would inspire the students to come up with new ideas for future badger
proof equipment to reduce the risk of TB spread from badgers to cattle. As the project progressed, a
number of workshops were hosted at Bicton College to enable farmers to view the equipment in
situ.
McVeigh Parker Badger Economy X™ fence® Wire Fencing
The trial of the McVeigh Parker Badger Wire X™ fence®6
ran at Bicton College for several months.
The fencing was initially installed to offer protection to the two alpacas at Bicton College, as badgers
were regularly entering their enclosure (which is approximately an acre in size) to use a latrine. This
posed a significant disease threat.
The alpacas have since moved and the enclosure is currently occupied by goats, a species which is
also susceptible to bovine TB (although relatively few cases have been recorded).
6
McVeigh Parker X™ fence® - The SWTBFAS would like to thank McVeigh Parker for their generous donation of
the Badger X™ fence® and Stuart Mills of McVeigh Parker, together with the students of Bicton College for
their efforts in its installation.

22
A badger latrine in the alpaca enclosure prior to the installation of the X™ fence®.
The X™ fence® is approximately 1250mm high, buried a minimum 450mm into the ground and then
angled for 200mm in the direction a badger would approach.
Bicton College Students assisting with the installation of the fencing.
The enclosure was baited with peanuts prior to, during and after completion of the installation of
the fencing and three Bushnell camera traps were set up around the enclosure to monitor badger
activity.
The ability of the badgers to determine weak points that might allow access to the enclosure was
immediately apparent. As wire had not been dug into the ground under the gates, they immediately
targeted these areas and were able to gain access by digging underneath them.

23
One of the gates the morning after a badger had dug underneath it to gain access to the enclosure.
The ground beneath the gates was then concreted, preventing access. The badgers continued to
target the gates as weak points and began to enter the enclosure through a gap of 10.5cm between
a gate and post. Since this small gap was blocked off on 20th May 2013, the badgers have been
unable to access the enclosure.
A badger squeezing through the 10.5 cm gap between gate and post.
Although the gates were primarily targeted, there were areas in which the badgers attempted to dig
under the fence (these tended to be near to peanut bait points). Despite having had three months to
dig under the fence in these areas, however, the badgers failed to gain access.
One theory as to why they failed to gain access over this significant period is that once the badgers
hit the fencing that is dug into the ground they decided that the area was impossible to dig and gave
up.
Although badgers are very good climbers, no attempt was made during the 3 months of the trial to
climb the fence.
The gap between the concrete and gate was 8 cm and the badgers were unable to squeeze through
it, despite previously entering through a 10.5 cm upright gap. After assessing all the CCTV footage
from the trials, it was recommended that gaps be kept to 8 cm or under to prevent badger access7
.
7
The full video of badgers attempting to breach the fencing is available on YouTube:

24
This was communicated to farmers via articles, newsletters, the website and other outlets following
the trial.
Badger attempting to get through 8 cm gap under the gate to access the enclosure.
Rumenco 'Badger Beater' Mineral Lick Holder.
Another successful trial undertaken at Bicton College was with the Rumenco 'Badger Beater' Mineral
Lick Holder11
.
The Badger Beater is designed to hold Rumevite feed blocks, Supalyx and Lifeline buckets above
ground by 1 metre (Defra recommended minimum height) and out of reach of badgers. Rumenco
recommend the base unit is filled with water or earth for stability.
One feeder is required for every 20-30 head of cattle during the summer months in order to keep
the licks fresh by frequent use and prevent drying out.
The trial commenced on the 26th February 2013. The Badger Beater was placed near an active sett
in the same location that the TB Busters Mineral Bucket Stand had been trialled and was baited with
high quality peanuts.
Over the next 3 weeks the badgers attempted to access the peanuts without success. The first night
was by far the busiest with the camera recording at least 30 attempts by badgers to reach the top of
the Badger Beater. Activity trailed off as the weeks wore on with an average of one attempt per
night during the last week of the trial. The trial was concluded on the 18th March 2013 as a success.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q7Cp5acPBA
11
http://www.rumenco.co.uk/story.html?news=15

25
TB Busters Mineral Bucket Stand
Another successful trial completed at Bicton College was of the TB Busters Mineral Bucket Stand,
designed by Alan Hughes. The base and cradle of the stand, which screws into the ground, are able
to be made to different shapes and sizes and fit any size lick buckets on the market, which is
extremely useful. The height of the stand is 34 inches from the base to the top of the cradle, and 36
inches with the mineral bucket in place.
The trial commenced on 12th November 2012. The stand was positioned near an active badger sett
and the mineral bucket was baited with high quality peanuts. Over the next two weeks numerous
badgers attempted to gain access to the peanuts, without success. As the trial progressed badger
visits to the mineral bucket stand became less frequent as, we believe, the badgers realised that the
food source was inaccessible. The trial was brought to an end on the 27th November as a success.

Cattle Water Trough
The first trial conducted by the Service at Bicton College was with a standard water trough, as used
by many farmers across the region.
The trough is 72 cm in height and has a curved lip, which it was hoped might act as a preventative
measure to limit badger access.
The trial commenced in mid-September 2012. The trough was placed near an active badger sett and
baited with peanuts. The initial footage demonstrated that badgers could easily access the water
trough, and would have no difficulty drinking out of troughs of a similar specification and height.
The trial continued for another three weeks and the trough was accessed countless times during that
period.
Support, Liaison and Facilitation
The stresses and worry associated with an on farm TB breakdown can often lead to illness or
associated stresses within the farming family. A crucial element of the SWTBFAS is to provide
a friendly, informed support structure for those affected by the disease.
Some farmers are not aware of all the options open to them or can feel intimidated by
having to deal with official forms and agencies. The advisors helped liaise with other agencies
and were able to signpost the farmer and his family to other agencies that could provide
additional support.

27
I am writing on behalf of Launceston Young Farmers Club to say thank you very much for such an
interesting and informative talk about the work you do as part of the South West TB Advisory
Service. We found the PowerPoint presentation a good visual aid and it was clear that you are a
very knowledgeable, confident and approachable speaker. The farm walk in search of badger
activity was equally useful, as it gave our members a greater insight as to what to look for on
their own farms, along with lots of helpful, practical advice for dealing with bTB. Thank you once
again. I can confidently say that our club took a lot away from the meeting and we will certainly
pass your details onto other Young Farmer Clubs.
25
Launceston YFC
Project Outputs: between 7th June 2010 and 18th July 2014, 1431 individual enquiries were
received by the Service. Over the same period, advisors attended 314 meetings across the
region, 53 regional farming shows and held 75 dedicated events with presentations about
bTB issues and the SWTBFAS.
Working in Partnership
In addition to the direct involvement of industry related bodies on the Industry Reference Group, the
SWTBFAS worked in partnership with a number of other agencies and organisations to ensure a
joined up approach to accessing farmers.
“In September 2013, my herd of 48 beef suckler cows underwent an annual TB skin test with AHVLA. There
was one reactor and one IR. Our next short interval test was in December 2013 where a further 4 cows
were found to be reactors. I was informed by Gloucester AHVLA that the TB Advisory service may be able to
offer assistance. I made a call and within a short period a representative returned my call and arranged a
site visit. Ed and I walked the farm and discussed the problem. He suggested the problem could have
initiated from badgers so he mapped the estate for badger activity and immediately concluded there was a
large amount of sets, footprints, runs and latrines on the estate and close to the cow barns. We set up night
cameras to monitor the activity during darkness and erected a secure electric barrier around the cow barn
and yard. We moved the animal feed to a more secure location and cleaned up the area by the water points.
A further SI test in February 2014 produced 9 more reactors and it was only in April 2014 that the herd
went clear. A final SI test in June was also clear.
It is without doubt that the advice, support and knowledge that the service brought to me, was integral in
spurring on the action to decrease the contact with badger activity and provide me with the confidence to
make clear and concise decisions regarding the TB outbreak. Ed was professional in his approach and gave
sound and helpful advice. Were worked together to reduce the source of likely infection as well as address
the outbreak within the herd. It was a difficult time for the farm in losing so many fine cows and the
support from the TB Advisory Service went a long way to prevent the situation getting worse and assist
with the control and spread of the outbreak. Thank you”.
Dominic Gorton – Farm Manager – Beef Suckler herd (Gloucestershire)
Good communications channels were established early on with the AHVLA, local Defra officers
and local veterinary groups.

28
A feature of the Service was the methods used for engaging with farmers and farm business owners
at a range of local and regional events.
From the beginning the Service looked at capitalising on existing groups of farmers, working
with other RDPE projects as a priority, including meetings with the South West Uplands in June
2010, the Exmoor Hill Farm project in July 2010 and the Bodmin Livestock Initiative in July
2010.
Communications and Liaison with AHVLA
SWTBFAS has developed an excellent relationship with AHVLA and many of the staff are familiar
with the SWTBFAS team. Telephone calls are made on a regular, often daily basis during the
week to AHVLA on behalf of farmers, with specific and general enquiries.
In order to comply with data protection, the Service has a password system set up with
AHVLA, were the farmer must give AHVLA permission to discuss their case with an advisor.
The advisor can then help the farmer through a complicated case far more effectively with accurate
information to hand, that a tired and often stressed farmer may have on occasion misunderstood
or misheard.
Since starting their enhanced management visits, for herds with persistent breakdowns,
advisors are often asked by AHVLA to attend these meetings and to provide input in terms of
giving more detailed biosecurity advice, setting up CCTV cameras and carrying out badger
surveys.
AHVLA also distribute SWTBFAS leaflets with all of their new herd breakdown packs.
Engagement with vets
At the beginning of the service, an enormous effort was made to visit and speak to all large
animal veterinary practices in the South West. Advisors have continued to engage with these
vets by hand delivering or emailing the quarterly newsletters and leaflets, setting up
meetings, visiting stands at shows and talking on farm.
Some veterinary practices have welcomed the chance to hold joint client evenings with the Service
to give presentations and farm walks.
However, maintaining consistent relations with vets over a course of time has been challenging
on occasions, particularly as there tends to be regular staffing changes within a practice (with
both vets and practice managers) and, despite best efforts at providing information, advisors
sometimes meet young vets who appear not to be very aware of what SWTBFAS offers.
Just thought that I would drop you both a line to say thanks for coming to talk to us last week. It was
a really useful exercise to do and although the attendance was not that great, all of the comments
have been really positive since. If you need any help from us in the future please don’t hesitate to
get in touch with me. Many thanks.

29
George Giles BVM BVS MRCVS – Farm Vet
It is key to recognise the importance of a strong working relationship between SWTBFAS and
the farmer’s private vet in order to offer tailored advice to support good heard health and
disease control.
For this reason, the following recommendations are offered to help foster more consistent relations
with veterinary practices in the future:
• Maintain a 6 monthly call round key vet practices to identify new starters
• Run bespoke courses (or invite along to planned events) to educate new vets in the
region as a priority
• Liaison with key vet schools in the final 2 years of veterinary courses to provide overview
and insight of the course
• Develop a key contact point in each practice, who has the responsibility for cascading
information to colleagues.
Part 3: Future Options
This section of the report attempts to offer a range of options for the future of support for farmers
suffering the effects of a bTB breakdown – and those who are living in fear of one.
The IRG remains strongly concerned for the future of the dairy and beef sectors in the region,
where the disease is far from going away - and, indeed, nationally where disease incidence is
taking hold and growing that farmers continue to need massive amounts of support and
advice on this issue.
The IRG sincerely hopes that Defra will give due consideration to the following
recommendations, that there will be a long-lasting legacy to the project that continues to
deliver such assistance to farmers in a confidential and independent fashion, in line with its
commitments both via the priorities of the next RDPE programme (under animal health) and its
own TB eradication strategy.
The partners within the IRG all remain committed to playing a similar role in supporting such activity
any legacy may deliver.
National Policy, Strategy and Disease Projections
The strategy for achieving ‘Officially Bovine Tuberculosis Free (OTF) Status for England’8 by 2038
was published in April 2014.
This sets out the UK Government’s strategy to eradicate Bovine TB in England, through the adoption
of a range of specific measures and taking a risk based and staged approach.
One of the key elements of the strategy is in working closely with stakeholders. This project
has produced some valuable lessons for all stakeholders in the region. With the continued spread of
bTB in other regions, this project offers a strong template of what could be applied elsewhere and
8
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/300447/pb14088-bovinetb-strategy-
140328.pdf

30
how farmers could be encouraged to deploy tools and actions to manage risk, improve biosecurity
and facilitate stock marketing at a much earlier stage.
Regional Disease Projections
Bovine TB continues to be a major issue in the South West of England, both in terms of animal
health/welfare and the long term viability and resilience of farm businesses engaged in livestock
farming.
The region has borne the brunt of the disease for many years and has seen successive
administrations fail to grasp the problem and offer a lasting solution. The SWTBFAS has shown that it
is possible for farmers to make some changes to their practices and reduce the risk of contact with
wildlife, but without a joined up policy across the board, this will be a thankless task.
In England, since 2009 there has been a gradual (if slight) reduction in the region’s share of new herd
TB instances – down from 76% in 2008 to 65% (latest figures released for first 6 months) in 20149
.
Similarly, the region’s share of non-TB free herds has also dropped from 78% to 71% in the same
period.
These figures correspond to the launch of the SWTBFAS and, whilst it would be difficult to claim that
the Service is responsible for the figures, it would also be foolish to dismiss the impact of the Service
on the ability of farmers in the region to prepare for, and respond to, the threat of bTB.
Options Appraisal
Option Advantages Disadvantages Assessment
Business as usual – SWTBFAS
to continue with 100% RDPE
funding for a further cycle
• •
•
•
Continuity of Service
Free at point of
delivery
Knowledge and skills
of advisors retained
Independent
•
•
•
•
Cost
Fit with RDPE
outputs (project
driven, rather than
a Service) Not a
long term solution
Funding ‘gap’
2014/15
Whilst this would possibly
be the least risky option,
it would also be the most
expensive one and is
therefore unlikely to offer
sufficient flexibility for
decision makers at the
moment.
Also, the constraints of
EU project rules would
limit the scope of the
Service
9
These statistics are obtained from the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA) work management
IT support system (Sam), used for the administration of TB testing in GB.

31
Evolution – SWTBFAS to
continue with partial RDPE
funding and a mix of private
match and direct charging
•
•
•
•
Reduced reliance on
public funding
Potential for long
term sustainability of
Service, free from
funding
Ability to develop
added value services
to raise income
Knowledge and skills
of advisors retained
•
•
•
Possible confusion
in market place,
depending on
added value
services developed
Possible market
distortions Major
advantage was
seen as being free
at point of delivery
Revolution – fully private
service, possibly over a period
of time (18 month transition,
eg). Supported by transition
funding from existing industry
contributions
•
•
•
Industry will see
immediate return for
money taken out
Not reliant on new
public funds being
secured Not reliant
on cyclical funding –
ongoing support
possible without
•
•
Challenge to
convince existing
guardians of
industry
contributions to
share budget
Mission creep –
need to raise
revenue may dilute
original intent of
break Service
• Farmers will not pay
unless real policy
development to
challenge other
vectors for disease
e.g. wildlife controls
Do nothing – allow Service to
end at end of current project
and do not replace
• No funding needed • • Loss of valuable
Service to industry
bTB not going away,
so could leave
activity gap
• perception that not
enough being done
to support all of
industry
SWOT Analysis
As part of its ongoing strategic development, the SWTBFAS team commissioned a piece of work in
2012 to review the Service’s performance to date and look to possible future scenarios.
A SWOT analysis was compiled by the project team and stakeholders, assisted by the consultants
undertaking the strategic planning exercise.

32
• •
• •
• •
•
STRENGTHS
Good reputation of SWTBFAS
Strong, knowledgeable team
Recognised expertise and range of
services Independent, empathetic and
free at point of delivery Open to all
No real alternatives
Collaboration strong via IRG partners
•
• •
•
•
WEAKNESSES
Geographical limits – confined to SW with
TB no respecter of administrative
boundaries
Dependent on public funding entirely
Farmers reluctant to pay for service
Fighting a losing battle against TB
without other strategies working
alongside Reliant on free hosting by NFU,
including management costs (in kind,
industry contributions)
•
• •
• •
•
•
OPPORTUNITIES
Continue as is, fully supported with public
funding
Move beyond the SW as well – go national
Add to, or reconfigure, existing team and
infrastructure
Diversify funding streams
Introduce charges for some services, for
example Badger surveys
Introduce further services, such as
vaccination training and delivery, focus
more help and advice to ‘edge’ and new
breakdown areas?
Engage new industry partners to enable
wider expertise, possible farmer financial
• •
•
•
•
•
•
THREATS
Funding cuts across the board
No support or funding from
other stakeholders
Transition period between end of project
and possible replacement could affect team
morale
Loss of knowledge, relationships and
expertise
Adverse reaction from farmers to any
changes to service
TB continues to be a massive problem in
the region
Reduced take up by farmers without
facilitation to voluntarily take up new ways
• contributions or in kind- via the likes of
AHDB, the Deer Initiative, veterinary
profession
Seek other sources of funding, if possible?
E.g. via LEPs and LAGS but could be very
dispersed.
to help themselves and their businesses to
tackle disease risk management, could
threaten wider ability to engage in animal
health programmes as a consequence.
Part 4 Recommendations
At a meeting of the Industry Reference Group on Tuesday 22nd
July, 2014, it was agreed that the
SWTBFAS had been a worthwhile and valuable addition to the range of tools available to help
combat bTB in the Region and that efforts should be made to seek a continuation of the Service.
The NFU has been charged with seeking meetings with both the Defra TB and RDPE teams as soon as
possible, in conjunction with Animal Health and Welfare board and AHDB to discuss and explore
strategically a national programme of funded TB advisory support – by taking the strengths and
successes of the Service, whilst recognising the TB eradication strategy.

33
Messages of support from members of the IRG were received and are available to view as Appendix
9 to this report
Part 5 Appendices
Appendix 1: Member Organisations of the Industry Reference Group
National Farmers Union (NFU)
Country Land and Business Association (CLA)
British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA)
Animal Health Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA)
Devon & Somerset Trading Standards Service
English Beef & Lamb Executive (Eblex)
DairyCo
Tenant Farmers Association (TFA)
National Beef Association (NBA)
Rural Business School, Duchy College (RBS)
Farming Community Network (FCN)
South West Food and Drink

34
Appendix 2: The South West Healthy Livestock Initiative Interim Report – Executive
Summary and Recommendations10
1 Background to this report
This interim report was commissioned by the South West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) with
the use of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.
The terms of reference of the report were to consider the views of the industry, the practicalities of
what can be achieved, making recommendations for future activity and acknowledging any issues raised
by the industry during consultation.
2 Evidence base and methodology (see context section)
The evidence base for this report is based on the results of sector focus groups; structured in a
consistent format and facilitated by Dr Nick Bell at the University of Bristol. Information has also been
gathered from the cross-sectoral workshop held on 11th
March 2009, attended by over one hundred
participants, who broke out into small working groups to consider the three themes: Information,
Assessment and Taking Action. The final pieces of work which add to this evidence base are the farmer
and veterinary questionnaires conducted by ADAS and the sector specific workshops. The bulk of the
information contained in this report stems from the March 11th
consultation event. The notes from the
sector specific workshops are included as Annex 2 and the ADAS market research report as Annex 3.
3 Information
There was little farmer support for a Knowledge Network at the March 11th
event, the perception being
that there is already plenty of information in the market place, for those who wish to access it.
There are numerous sources of data relating to health, welfare and productivity available for all major
livestock sectors. The quality can be variable, however, with cross-sectoral data sources offering the
most comprehensive assessments of livestock health, while the sector specific data sources offer the
best measures of productivity. There is scope for the SWHLI programme to add considerable value to
what is already there through the development of a Knowledge Hub.
4 Assessment (See 2.6)
The Assessment theme requires the adoption of a holistic approach and the key is that it is an active
process i.e. farm health planning. Existing farm systems such as the health charts developed by the
Farm Health Planning cattle subgroup were highlighted as a good example, as were the ‘my healthy
herd’ or ‘how’s my herd’ initiatives. Promoting the uptake of existing testing services e.g. milk samples
for BVD, IBR, Johnes, and Lepto through NML blood tests was supported.
A subsidy for veterinary consultancy to discuss herd/flock health status and risk assessment was thought
to be a good idea and once again the key issue raised was supporting the farmer relationship with their
vet.
It was felt that diseases which are the most economically significant for farmers should be targeted,
and the project linked not only to health, but to improved returns.
10
Full version of SWHLI Interim Report available to download at:
http://www.swhli.co.uk/documents/pdf/Reports/Interim%20Report%20June%2009.pdf SWHLI Final Report
available to download at: http://www.swhli.co.uk/documents/pdf/Reports/Final_Report_Nov09.pdf

35
Farm building audits were thought to be a good preventative approach, particularly if the farmers had
previously been involved in an animal health audit. However, there was a difference in opinion as to
whether this should be subsidised under the SWHLI project.
The concept of farm walks and farm level investigation is supported.
In line with the demand-led principle, it was suggested that farmers should get a voucher to spend on
the available service/tests/audits.
A voucher system combined with the idea of collaborative groups, is
similar to the service that the Rural Enterprise Gateway currently offers, and consideration could be
given to that as a potential delivery model.
5 Taking Action
It is acknowledged that each sector may establish different approaches tackling its own disease
priorities. However, supporting all livestock sectors through an integrated cross-sectoral Knowledge
Hub, giving access to other elements, such as technical notes, disease surveillance and animal health
audits etc. could ensure cost-sharing benefits. Better and more consistent quality assurance, and the
ability to implement an effective monitoring and evaluation programme. It should be noted, however,
that support among farmers for such a Network was limited, it being viewed as potential duplication.
Although some training provision is already available, there was support for a more structured approach
to animal health training linked to specific health issues, as well as the overall aim of improving
profitability of the South West livestock sector.
Working through vet led farmer groups and varying timings to take account of the demands of the job
were supported.
The inclusion of a vet/animal health professional in co-ordinating group activity has merit, although it
would be important to ensure that training was competent, high quality and targeted. Training of a
group could prove more cost effective, potentially giving several farmers access to specialist vets at a
reduced price
Farmers themselves were supportive of capital grants for individual businesses.
‘Beacon’ farms, using existing farmers who demonstrate best practice in certain fields e.g. disease,
building design etc. were supported.
Overall, the development and promotion of an animal health qualification was considered a low funding
priority. However, simple vocational courses, or specific modules linked to a certificate of attendance
and endorsed by a delivery body, would be welcomed.
6 SWHLI: Delivering change
An inclusive supportive approach to achieve improvements in animal health, rather than routes of
enforcement, would be most effective.
Whilst the comments from farmers about their vets were wide-ranging, vets offer a very accessible
route for reaching farmers and bringing about sustainable change. Where farmers have participated in
group discussions and engaged with their vets in preventative proactive disease risk management
programmes, the relationship has improved as a result.
Farmer and vet awareness will be crucial to the success of the project, as is the importance of effective
communication and knowledge transfer.

36
7 Sector Workshops
The individual sector specific workshops were generally well attended and provided a unique opportunity
for farmers and veterinarians to consult with each sector lead and produce a list of priorities for each
sector.
Discussions were lively, positive and inclusive and resulted in clear recommendations for each sector
on the disease priorities for building projects around.
8 ADAS Farmer/Vet Survey
The quantitative survey of individual farmers, groups of farmers and large animal veterinarian practices
in the region was undertaken by ADAS from May to June and provided supporting evidence for many
of the priorities identified during previous consultation, including a strongly identified need for an
overarching framework (Knowledge Hub) to add value to investments.
9 Recommendations
At their meeting on the 8th
June 2009, the SWHLI RAP provided a clear steer on the individual sector
priorities, which should form the focus of projects under the Programme.
Consideration will need to be given to an overarching framework to prevent duplication and
fragmentation of projects and funding and add value to the data collected throughout the life of the
programme and beyond.
The SWHLI RAP will meet again in September to evaluate progress so far and agree further options to
help ensure the long term success of the programme.
7.1 Sector Priorities
The SWHLI Regional Advisory Panel met on the 8th June at the NFU Offices in Taunton to consider the
outcomes from the Sector Specific Workshops and agreed the following sector priorities:
Dairy
• Lameness
• BVD
• Jöhne’s
• Mastitis
Beef
• BVD
• Jöhne’s
• Pneumonia control
Sheep
• Anthelmintic
Resistance

37
• Lameness
• Abortion
• Scab
Poultry
• CPD/Training
• Biosecurity
• Benchmarking/Data
sharing
Pigs
Priorities will be considered that can be tackled through farm health planning.
The Panel recommended that concept notes are submitted from each sector to address the identified
priorities.
For priorities that span sectors, a collaborative approach would be encouraged, wherever possible.
7.2 Overarching Framework
Whilst recognising the importance of avoiding duplication by working with existing programmes, SWHLI
must seek to add considerable value to existing projects and establish sustainable initiatives that will
have a lasting legacy.
The Panel agreed to meet again in September to monitor the progress of project concept proposals and
to look at an overarching strategic framework for the development of future projects within the SHWLI
programme.
A Knowledge Hub has been suggested as a means of gathering and sharing information collected under
the programme and further investigation is needed to look at practical ways in which this could work,
using established mechanisms wherever appropriate.
7.3 Bovine TB
A project to tackle the impact of Bovine TB in the region (working with the disease) is being scoped by
the NFU and the panel recommended approval of the concept note and working up of the ideas into a
full project.
7.4 Conclusion to Chapter 7: Recommendations
The SWHLI RAP has provided a clear steer on the individual sector priorities, which should form the
focus of projects under the Programme.
Consideration will need to be given to an overarching framework to prevent duplication and
fragmentation of projects and funding and add value to the data collected throughout the life of the
programme and beyond.

38
Appendix 3: FCN Report on Impact of TB on Farming Families11
Summary of findings
Farm Crisis Network (FCN) is concerned about the stress on farming families caused by dealing with
bovine TB and the impact of the approach taken by the authorities. This report summarises
conclusions from interviews with farmers who had suffered breakdowns in the last two years. The
interviews were carried out by FCN volunteers in three areas - West Wales, the South West and
Worcestershire - all bovine TB hotspots.The emotional affect on farmers and their families
“Because of the stress I am under, my family bear the brunt and I can see the fear and insecurity I am
passing on to them; who knows what long term damage is being caused.”
The results show that dealing with TB causes considerable stress on farmers and their families. 20%
of those interviewed admitted that they were either panicked or devastated by the news of their
latest outbreak and a further 50% were upset or worried by the news.
Farmers’ reactions ranged between feeling the pressure but coping, through to actual physical illness
caused by stress and in some cases feelings of not wanting to carry on.
Some farmers’ families were said to be relatively unaffected by the outbreak but this was usually in
situations where the family was not closely engaged in farming activities or where the number of
reactors after a test was low. Families were often described as supportive - they tackled the
emotional strain together. But sharing the strain meant more pressure, often on the farmer’s
partner.
Farmers’ comments underlined how everybody in the family is emotionally involved – they were
often upset by the loss of their cattle many of which they would know individually, worried by the
financial strain resulting from cattle being culled, by the consequent restrictions and by the extra
work which this caused. Sometimes the strain is very graphically shown in the wording of the
comments. One farmer reported “Pressure on the marriage, children picking up tension and friction,
upsetting for children when pet cow was put down, psychological stress when young calves are
shot.”
The financial impact on farm business and family life
“Financially devastating“
Impact on the finances of the farm was the most frequently mentioned factor when farmers were
asked about how the outbreak had affected the running of their farm business. Reductions in sales
of milk or beef caused by the loss of culled animals and the inability to market store cattle were
frequently cited. There were many comments about extra costs including having to buy extra feed
and bedding for stock which had to be finished instead of being sold as stores, putting up new
11
‘Stress and Loss: A report on the impact of Bovine TB on farming families’ – FCN Report, full version available
to download: http://fcn.ehclients.com/assets/TB_Stress__Loss_Report_Aug_09.pdf

39
buildings for them and employing extra labour. In the case of farms with pedigree cattle there were
losses by being unable to gain a premium for pedigree sales whilst the herd was under movement
restrictions and the cost of losing valued lines which had been bred on the farm by generations of
the farming family. These losses were increased because the compensation given did not cover the
premium value of pedigree cattle. This was a problem for those on organic systems too.
“We are all upset not knowing what to do until we are clear. We are unable to sell any breeding
stock which is our main income. My father who took on our pedigree herd from his father is
devastated, unable to sleep and causing my mother sleepless nights as well.”6
When asked what was the biggest difficulty caused by the herd breakdown the impact of marketing
restrictions was identified by the highest number of farmers interviewed, followed by stress, the
government attitude to a badger cull, dealing with the bureaucracy and perceived inaccuracies in
testing.
When interviewers were asked for their perceptions of the state of mind of the farmers they
interviewed, most were classified as ‘resigned’, ‘frustrated’, ‘angry’ or ‘stressed’ and the interviewers
comments showed that even those who seemed calm usually had more negative feelings below the
surface.
The thorny question of badgers
“We are frustrated because we do not feel the test is accurate, and also that the wildlife reservoir of
TB is not being addressed.”
95% of farmers interviewed thought that what they were required to do by the TB regime would not
contribute to the eradication of TB. Asked to comment why this was the case 81% spontaneously
said that the disease should be tackled in badgers and other wildlife – cattle are only half of the
problem. One farmer put this general view succinctly as “the test does not contribute to eradication
of TB, just to eradication of some cattle!” These results indicate that government has failed to
persuade these farmers that the measures being practised can control bovine TB. Farmers think a
badger cull is necessary.
Official communications with farmers
“Authorities appear only to be concerned with the practicalities of testing and imposition of
restrictions, with no real effort to discuss the causes and prevention of TB.”
Official communication with farmers leaves much to be desired. Farmers were asked about the
helpfulness of communication about testing, about causes of TB and about prevention. There was a
mixed response about the helpfulness of communication about testing but average scores were
worse for communication about causes of the disease and worse again for prevention. There were
hints that officials started off enthusiastic about being helpful but lost interest as time went on and
their advice was not working or was not taken. The comments are so dominated by the need to
tackle TB in badgers and other wildlife that it seems likely that other advice was considered to be
ineffectual or impractical and so was ignored. There were also comments that vets were not allowed
to advise freely because government doesn’t allow them to say what they think.
Criticism of government measures
“Confused about why many cattle have no lesions - need more evidence.”
There was also concern about the accuracy of the test – sometimes this focused on the skills of vets
reading the results at the second test but mainly it was centred on a perception that the report of no

40
visible TB lesions in slaughtered cattle meant that the animals concerned were free of the disease. It
would seem that government has failed to get across to farmers that the rate of false positives for
the skin test is extremely low and that only one in a thousand cattle reacting to the test would be
free of TB.
Other factors
Only 29% of those interviewed could manage their farms so that TB free cattle could be kept away
from infected cattle. So for most farmers having any cattle reacting to the TB test effectively
produces a risk of the disease spreading throughout the herd. It also disrupts management of the
farm by effectively ending marketing of cattle except for slaughter.
The impact of tests and restrictions
“I get very upset being taken from other work that should be done. The work on the farm never
catches up. Each test costs £600 in labour.”
More than half the restrictions lasted less than a year but there was a small rump of farms where
restrictions had gone on for five years or more. 59% of the farms were being tested for TB every two
months. Two monthly testing comes to dominate farm life disrupting routines and meaning, as one
farmer put it, “we are always playing catch up”.
The testing process itself disturbs and upsets cattle, reducing milk production and weight gain in
young stock – the cost of this is impossible to evaluate and will vary from farm to farm. But time is
probably the main cost. Overall each test took an average of 48 hours of farm labour with 23 more
hours extra labour brought in to help.
The results also show that testing is very stressful to the farmers. The second test, where the
reactors are diagnosed, stresses farmers even more than the first – 65% of farmers interviewed
scored the second test either 4 or 5 on a 5 point scale of increasing stress.
The impact on the herd
“My son gets very upset by TB. It really hits him hard because his commitment to a closed herd is
being thwarted.”
Less than a third of the farmers interviewed bought replacement cattle after they had culled
reactors. This was often because they wanted to breed their own replacements and did not want to
break their system of closed herds. Some took the opportunity to reduce herd size and take some of
the pressure off management, others felt that they had been forced to reduce herd size because
suitable replacements were not available and were losing income as a result. Still others, unable to
follow their normal practice of selling stores, were pushed into finishing them at great expense for
extra feed, and in some cases they also had to invest in new buildings to house them.
The compensation system
“The compensation paid was about £400 less than the market value of £1100. The animal taken
happened to be a first calver or about 36 months old.”
There was a great deal of unhappiness about the system of compensation, particularly on the farms
in England where standard values are used. (In Wales reactors are valued on an individual basis on
farms.) The farmers found that the English tables undervalued pedigree and organic stock and the
stock of those using ‘higher quality’ animals. There was also discontent that compensation did not
cover associated losses like production lost whilst finding suitable replacements.

41
Thanks
Thanks are due to the 68 farmers who allowed the FCN interviewers to ask the survey questions
some of which they would have found deeply personal. Also to the volunteers who did the
interviews, fitting them into what was often a very heavy case load. No names because we want to
do everything we can to protect the names of the farmers who took part - but they know who they
are!

42
Appendix 4: Exeter University report on the Economic Impact of bTB in the South
West12
Economic Impact Assessment of Bovine Tuberculosis in the South West of England
Summary
1. Introduction
Bovine TB (bTB) presents a significant challenge to beef and dairy farmers. In 2009 7,449 herds were
subject to movement restrictions in Great Britain because of bTB. Of these, 52% were in South West
England and 20% were in Devon alone. With over 25% of holdings with cattle in the South West
likely to suffer a bTB breakdown within the course of a year, understanding the cost implications on
farm businesses is vital in order to demonstrate the impact that this disease is having on agricultural
communities and the agricultural economy.
This report describes the burden of these costs based on case study interviews with South West
farmers and telephone interviews with key individuals in the agricultural industry in the region.
The overall aims of this research were:
1. To illustrate through detailed farm case studies the economic impact of Bovine Tuberculosis
(bTB) on agricultural businesses in the South West.
2. To consider the economic impact of Bovine Tuberculosis to the wider rural industry and
community – such as vets, livestock markets and others.
The specific objectives of the research were:
To examine the economic impact on agricultural businesses in terms of identifying
(i) costs associated with bTB testing and
(ii)production costs associated with the breakdown itself, including the role that compensation and
insurance payments have in mitigating these.
To consider the economic impact of bTB on the wider community and industry. A case study
methodology was employed to enable an in-depth examination of the economic impact of bTB on
dairy and beef farms. In late March and early April 2010, eight in-depth interviews were conducted
with farmers that had recently endured or were still enduring a bTB breakdown and these form the
basis of the case study analysis. The case study farms were selected to represent a range of different
farming attributes (see main report). In addition, the extent of the breakdowns between the case
studies illustrates how some farms spend many years under bTB restrictions, while for others the
breakdown lasted less than a year.
The case study approach provides detailed evidence of the economic impact of bTB on SW farms.
The analysis however, does have its limitations. Given the restricted number of observations, it is not
possible to make statements or predictions about the role of bTB in the whole of the SW farming
economy. This study has been informed by the earlier study of the economic impact of bTB by
12
CRPR Research Paper: ‘Economic Impact Assessment of Bovine TB in the South West of England’. Full report
available to download from:
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/94718/2/CRPR%20bTB%20final%20report.pdf

43
Sheppard and Turner. However, differences in methodological approach between the two studies
and changes in the compensation system mean that it is not possible to make comparisons between
the two sets of results.
2. The total cost of bTB on case study farms
The monthly loss of a bTB breakdown varies considerably from just under £505 to nearly £3,184.
Clearly, there are many factors that account for the range of losses including the type of farm, the
scale of operation, restocking policy, area farmed, number of holdings away from the farmstead, the
marketing of livestock and livestock produce and by how much this is restricted. In general, but not
exclusively, dairy farms tend to accrue the greatest losses during a bTB breakdown.
It is important to recognise that the costs of bTB ripple out across the businesses impacting on
labour, feed and bedding costs, creating animal welfare issues and causing unintended
contraventions of regulations such as organic certification requirements and cross-compliance.
Furthermore, bTB also has implications for the well-being of farmers and their families as well as for
the wider economy and community.
3. The cost of bTB testing
The approximate cost of administering and reading the intradermal tuberculin (skin) test per animal
over each test and the breakdown period varied considerably. For example, the lowest was £1.36
and the highest was £6.10, although most were between £1.95 and £2.97 per animal. There were no
discernible differences between beef and dairy farms. However, there are also a range of indirect
and often hidden costs associated with testing such as the knock-on impacts on other activities (e.g.
delays to silage making), impacts on milk production (although not all farmers experience this),
behavioural difficulties in cattle and additional fuel and (human) feed costs.
4. The cost of movement restrictions
The costs of keeping additional stock accrue in costs for extra bedding, feed and labour to keep stock
on the farm. The inability to move stock off-farm (or around a farm for those businesses composed
of more than one holding) creates a significantly increased workload and may also be associated
with problems of overstocking and unintentional breaches of organic certification and
crosscompliance regulations.
The costs of movement restrictions reflect the individual characteristics of particular farm
businesses, the spatial configuration of the land holdings, the specific features of the farm
enterprises, etc, suggesting that average figures can mask much of the complexity of cost
assessment. The estimated costs of movement restrictions ranged from £3,198 to over £55,000 per
farm.
5. The cost of replacement livestock
The costs associated with replacing stock vary considerably, and the practicalities of replacing stock
can have wider impacts on herd management and the farm business.
In addition to the direct cost of the livestock itself, the costs of sourcing replacement stock include
labour time taken to source cattle, the cost of travelling to see stock, and the costs of haulage once
the cattle are purchased. These additional costs varied from just £43 for one farm to £985 for
another.
The ability to replace livestock may in part depend on the amount of compensation received. Due to
the variability of compensation payments and the mismatch between compensation payments and

South west tb farm advisory service project final report

South west tb farm advisory service project final report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to South west tb farm advisory service project final report

Similar to South west tb farm advisory service project final report (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

South west tb farm advisory service project final report