this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2024
32 points (97.1% liked)
UK Nature and Environment
408 readers
89 users here now
General Instance Rules:
- No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or xenophobia.
- No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.
- No harassment, dogpiling or doxxing of other users.
- Do not share intentionally false or misleading information.
- Do not spam or abuse network features.
Community Specific Rules:
- Keep posts UK-specific. There are other places on Lemmy to post articles which relate to global environmental issues (e.g. slrpnk.net).
- Keep comments in English so that they can be appropriately moderated.
Note: Our temporary logo is from The Wildlife Trusts. We are not officially associated with them.
Our autumn banner is a shot of maple leaves by Hossenfeffer.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If cows are used for conservation grazing, isn't the problem of them getting TB non existent? The problem is people catching TB from cows through milk and close contact, not cows catching TB from badgers.
Theoretically. And if we abolished farming of cows. Sure that might be possible.
But logically 2 issues.
1 ) current laws require cow herd owners to test for TB if it is discovered in the area. And destroy the whole herd if one is found.
Cows still represent a cost to keep. So all those farmers will also tend to sell dairy to help fund the conservation land.
This also leads to the question that in some future where vegan laws or will prevents farming cows. How will motivation to fund keeping healthy cows be handled.
It's probably not too great for the cows themselves, but yes, it wouldn't be an issue for people.
However, the original point was the suggestion that cattle could be kept separate from badgers, and my response was just concerning the difficulty with that - no matter what the circumstances.