Sunday, July 19, 2015

Has the NFU had the wool pulled over its eyes?

The title of this post is a strap line for an excellent letter in this week's Farmers Guardian, written by Worcestershire vet, David Denny B.VET.MED.M.R.C.V.S    (Sorry, no link)

Replying to Alistair Driver's piece on farmer frustration - [link] over a TB eradication policy which appears to have stalled, Mr Denny says: "
The NFU themselves must take much of the responsibility for “the anger of farmers over lack of progress with TB strategy” (Alistair Driver 03 July 2015). Instead of being myopic and having tunnel vision they should have looked at the whole scene. Typically they are concerned over the delay in the consultation and not the consultation itself. It being yet another layer of bureaucracy and inconvenience to farmers will have minimal impact on the overall bTB status of the Country. It is fiddling with trivia while the bTB crisis is allowed to escalate."
Our own opinion is that EU rules to be implemented this year equal much cost and bring no benefit. Post movement testing does not allow for isolation units of differing status on the same farm.
Explain that one to a buyer - and his neighbours within 3km.

Mr. Denny continues with a parallel of the rules of engagement for any war:
One of the principles of war in my day was “the selection and maintenance of aim”. Since only healthy badgers result in healthy cattle, the aim must be healthy badgers.
And criticising the politically corrupt RBCT - [link] he continues:
The NFU have been both na├»ve and gullible. They have been mushroomed and had the ‘wool pulled over their eyes’, by flawed and biased pseudo-science, by corruption, by brainwashed civil servants and deliberate political interference.

They have accepted all the evidence ‘carte blanche’ without reading the small print. It was always obvious that Natural England’s proposals for a badger cull were flawed and could only have been designed to deliberately fail or by those ignorant of badgers.

Frustrated and desperate farmers were morally and financially blackmailed into participating into virtually signing a blank cheque. It was a public relations disaster. Instead of having a targeted cull of the infected badgers, the NFU, like the British Veterinary Association (BVA), only having a second rate policy on offer, rubber stamped it. Now that the BVA have withdrawn their support a further roll out will be even more difficult to defend."
And Mr. Denny's opinions for the future of the livestock industry of this country?
"The 25 year eradication programme is ‘living in cloud cuckoo land’. As a result of negligence, corruption and political cowardice the level of bTB in the environment is now so great, that it will never ever be eradicated. It must however be controlled, by a targeted cull of the infected badgers."
And describing our own experience over the last decades, Mr Denny concludes:
The whole debacle has been fuelled and influenced by the animal rights lobby with their own cynical agenda. They are not concerned with the welfare of the terminally ill badger slowly dying from starvation and parasites with multiple abscesses in multiple organs. What is their agenda? Frustrated and desperate farmers require and deserve leadership and not a supine, submissive organisation. "
That is a pretty hard hitting letter, but events over the last decades reinforce Mr. Denny's views.

The 1972 Protection of Badgers Act took population control of this animal away from farmers and landowners and gave it to the Ministry. Anyone requiring a badger culled or moved for either disease or damage had first to jump through MAFF's hoops. The State Veterinary Service held a general license to comply with culling 'to prevent the spread of disease'. It issued these only after presenting a case to the Badger Panel, who met quarterly.
Speedy wasn't in the vocabulary and any licensed Badger Removal could be months, several 60 day tests and many more dead cattle after the original breakdown.
Did this serve the farmers or the badgers? Doubtful. Bureaucracy never does.
Who agreed it?.

In 1992 the Act was further tightened, and by now land available for Badger Removals had been ratcheted down from 7 km to just 1km and then only on land cattle had grazed. The badger population at this time was expanding - [link] at a rate of knots and was reported to have increased by 77 per cent.
Did this serve either farmers or badgers?
Who agreed it?

In 1997, in receipt of a £1m bung from the Political Animal Lobby, a moratorium was put on the section of the Act which dealt with licensed culls 'to prevent the spread of disease'. This is still in place.
Did that serve either farmers or badgers?
Who agreed it.

 In 2005 a consultation took place to introduce pre movement testing and Tabular valuation. The wording offered to Defra by the consultees was quite explicit - [link] They would reluctantly accept this, on the condition that a cull of infectious badgers was introduced at the same time.
It was not.

 In 2006 the licensing of badger removals and their house moves was passed to Natural England, under a 20 year lease. - [link] Did that move away from Animal Health to a quango intent on protection at any cost, serve badgers or this country's livestock farmers? Did anyone voice concerns on behalf of either group? Or ask for a rethink on the first available 5 year break in 2011? [ The next opportunity will be in 2016.]
They did not.

And during this last decade, after a raft of cattle measures designed to placate the ignorant and the badgerists, while doing absolutely nothing for the health and welfare of either cattle or badgers, this month Defra have surpassed themselves with the introduction of that Map - [link]

After a TB breakdown, a risk assessment form is filled out and shed load of paperwork arrives with instructions that Defra have 'purchased' the reactor animal (debatable - stolen would often be a better word, but let that pass) and that the breakdown information may be shared with your 'veterinary practitioner'. Nowhere does it say that my farm, and my location will be posted on the World Wide Web for all to see and possibly target.

Yes readers, dear old Camel Ebola, aka Gamal Eboe, described by the Daily Wail as a "convicted fraudster, the son of a wealthy Lebanese property developer who was born in the distinctly urban environs of Hammersmith in West London" and now calls himself 'Jay Tiernan' - [link] and who in later life has developed a love of all things badgery, may be poring over your farm details as we speak. And Defra have offered him a road map in high resolution of your farm.

Excellent. Thanks a bunch Defra ..... and your tame henchmen.

Leaving aside the inaccuracies and omissions in the map itself,  the 2014 Tuberculosis Order had to be changed to incorporate this little gem (Point 4): .
10 —(1) Where a skin test has been applied to a bovine animal, as soon as practicable after the results of the test have been read by an inspector or approved veterinary surgeon, the Secretary of State must give the keeper of that animal a written record of the results.

(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to animals in respect of which movement is, or remains, prohibited under this Order following the test.

{3) The keeper of any animal to which paragraph (1) applies must— (a) retain the record of the results of the test for a period of three years and 60 days following the date bovine and avian tuberculin is injected; and (b) produce such record when requested to do so by an inspector.

(4) Where a bovine herd loses its tuberculosis-free status the Secretary of State may publish information regarding that herd in any form that the Secretary of State sees fit for the purpose of helping other persons to protect against the further spread of tuberculosis.
"Helping other persons to protect against the further spread of Tuberculosis" How so, when up to 80 per cent of TB breakdowns in endemic areas are caused by infectious wildlife?
When cattle in the increasing Red zone of a Defra map are nailed to floor with testing?
When Defra know that the problem is not in cattle?
And when this damn map doesn't even include 1500 farms shown on other Defra stats whose breakdowns precede the 5 year window?

Is this futile exercise to be like points on your driving license? A penalty for trying to farm cattle next to infectious wildlife which, having taken away farmer's rights to control, Defra now refuse to do?
Will records disappear after 5 years on the WWW?

Who exactly dared to breach my Data Protection and agree that little lot on my behalf?

Back to Mr. Denny's letter and the influence of our National Farming Union, credit for the map is described thus:
"Defra said the Bovine TB Eradication Advisory Group for England (TBEAG), the NFU and others ‘all provided positive input into the development of ibTB".
No consultation then? Keep it in the family?

NFU Deputy President Minette Batters said the new website would ‘help farmers find out about any ongoing bTB breakdowns near their farms which will help them make informed business decisions’.

No it won't. It is inaccurate and doesn't include TB breakdowns in alpacas, sheep, pigs, goats, bison or any other grazing animal. It ignores up to 1500 farms whose TB restrictions occurred prior to SAM data being lobbed to Oxford University to play with.
All that was necessary was the provision on a TB99 to inform immediate neighbours of a TB breakdown.

This high resolution map is dangerous and divisive and serves no useful purpose at all, except to advertise to the world what a weak and supine administration we have in this country when it comes to dealing with badgers infected with tuberculosis. Minette Batters added:
"However, there are genuine concerns over the fact that this information will be readily available to anyone, particularly given the problems farmers in Gloucestershire and Somerset have faced, and we will continue to work with Defra on this project.”
Concerns? Concerns?? Publishing this personal and in some cases 'delicate' data on the World Wide Web? Available for anyone - [link] to read, identify and worse?
Didn't anyone put their half brain into gear and realise how this thing could be used?

The best thing the NFU could do now would be to invoke Data Protection, consider the Human Rights of its livestock members caught between Brock and a hard place, and lobby Defra to take the damn thing down.

But on past experience, Defra has spoken and we are not holding our collective breath.

Thursday, July 09, 2015

Reverse gear?

After the announcement that the second and subsequent years of  Northern Ireland's  Test Vaccinate Remove (TVR) project would begin the 'R' bit - the Removal of badgers found to have tuberculosis, and the NI Badger Groups reported approval of the project, we were on the point of constructing a 'Dear Dominic' letter to our lot.

This may have been somewhat premature.

The BBC - [link] are now being accused of bias and the 'C' word is firmly out of bounds to the NI badgerists, who appear to insist that all the bacteria associated with 'bovine' TB is, er 'bovine'. And thus only in cattle. The project is primarily a 'Vaccination' exercise, they say.

But a BBC report, 'biased' ??  Surely not.

So what is the spokesman for the NI badgerists reported to have said, which has led to this about turn and his head on the proverbial?

 In the BBC report, NI's chief vet, Robert Huey explained the TVR policy thus:
"It's consistent with what we're doing in cattle," he said. "What we do with cattle is that we test and, if animals test positive, we remove. It's the exactly the same thing we're doing for the badgers. What I like is the consistency of the approach."
And in the original BBC report, Peter Clarke of the NI Badger Group was said to have backed it [the TVR project] because it is based on science rather than the "Gatling gun" approach that was taken in England.

Also mentioned was the same point made by the Chief Vet, (above), that a parallel action on tested badgers, to that of test and slaughter of reactor cattle appeared the 'proportionate approach'. But having received complaints from the NI badgerists, the BBC censored their strapline for Mr. Clarke to:


He said the scheme is "proportionate, has buy-in from everyone and at the end of the day, what we all want is healthy cattle and healthy badgers".







So what was wrong with that? According to social media - [link] and repeated on the NI Badgerist's web site, quite a lot. Primarily because originally it mentioned the 'C' word rather than the 'V'. They say:
To clarify, in light of a number of critical comments issued in the past few days, firstly the BBC has changed the caption that accompanied Pete Clarke's photo to indicate its actual context, "the TVR project was proportionate and had buy in from everyone". However, the video footage is still very much out of context. Peter Clarke talked extensively about the TVR project in terms of it primarily being a vaccination study but this footage was not included. We are very open to a debate and discussion on the right way forward in Northern Ireland, and elsewhere, in terms of protecting badgers and tackling the issue of bovineTB in general. In order to do so, we would invite individuals to consider the following detailed analysis and statements contained on our website, whilst guarding against poor journalistic tactics that are fuelled by hidden agendas and/or simply sensationalistic in motive: http://www.badgersni.org.uk/news.html and http://www.badgersni.org.uk/btb.html
We'll leave you to trawl their website, adorned with pictures of shiny individuals, all apparently free of Tuberculosis and waiting to be indiscriminately vaccinated, regardless of their health status.



Their supporters would rather not see the results of this ultimate protection so we will balance that up a bit.

This individual was grossly underweight and had open throat abscesses.










This one was one of a large group, culled in Devon.

All were described as 'grossly emaciated' and their post mortems showed advanced tuberculosis and pleurisy.





 



The RSPCA - [link] describes tuberculosis in badgers, as a 'slight wheeziness'.

Rather more than that, we would suggest.






So do badgers suffer? Veterinary pathologists say "It would be extremely naive to assume that with this level of disease, they did not." Sadly they remain unseen by their protectors. Victims of a flawed policy..

One can only hope that the 'proportionate response' of a targeted cull, where as well as slaughtering reactor cattle, diseased wildlife is also euthanased, put to sleep or whatever description is used, does not founder because of the anthropomorphic antics of a few.

After reading this reported response from NI's badgerists,  we were hopeful of some common ground in the eradication of this disease.  England's Live Test trial in the early 1990s, was said to be well supported and had no interference, and Secret World's Pauline Kidner makes no secret [pun] of the euthanasia of rescue badgers testing positive to tuberculosis.

But it seems that where tuberculous badgers are concerned, their most vocal supporters are not only in denial, they are firmly in reverse gear on any point of agreement. 

Sunday, July 05, 2015

We've been here before.

This week, Farmers Guardian - [link] has an article on the frustration felt by many cattle farmers 'from the tip of Cornwall to Durham' over the grinding inertia they are experiencing; always promised 'jam tomorrow', if......

And thus far, those 'ifs' have been increasingly brutal cattle measures which have have little or no effect on the wildlife source of the majority of their zTB breakdowns.

The 'ifs' have been accepted with open arms by our industry representatives, who have shoveled the dirt in spades, on anyone disagreeing with this 'quid pro quo' approach - [link]
Meanwhile, as we have experienced over the last ten long years, Defra have a nasty habit of grabbing the 'quid' which is offered, while keeping the 'pro quo' firmly in their pockets.

 The fragrant Liz Truss,  Secretary of State now in charge of this unholy mess, has thus far unveiled no new cull areas, but has revealed an open access database for her department, chirping that this will 'transform farming' - [link] (Credit: This speech is linked to The Farmers Forum posting.)

One of the first pieces of data to be shared on line, is APHA's map of TB breakdowns - [link] in England.

Governmental reliance of computers is legendary, as is their steadfast belief in the data which is emitted from them. But apart from publicising to the world, the appalling level of TB breakdowns enjoyed by England, which one wouldn't have thought was a particularly good idea, are these pretty raindrops accurate?

A quick check of the total outbreaks which this site logs in 2015 (2,525 ongoing + 131 cleared)against other Defra TB databases - [link]  shows a substantial discrepancy. Official Defra figures indicate farms with a TB2 restriction order in place January - March 2015 in England, range from 3,451 to 4,037. Which is some degree of magnitude adrift from the new map data. This may be explained in part by farms with longstanding, ongoing, uncleared outbreaks not recorded at all. And that is more than opaque. It is the obfuscation we have come to expect from this department.

So as we head into the second half of 2015, with lorry loads of cattle still heading for Defra's mincer, will anything change? We've been here before, and apart from nailing first cattle farmers, then their vets -[link] to the floor on cost, nothing, absolutely nothing appears to be moving on dealing with zTuberculosis in wildlife.

This situation has led the NFU's Minette Batters to remark:
“The NFU and the farmers on the ground (in potential new cull areas) have gone above and beyond. Prices are crashing and people have put their hand up and paid big sums of money because they know if we don’t take out this disease in badgers we are not going to get rid of it on farms,” she told Farmers Guardian.



But as England's cattle play football with a lethal type of ball, (left)and pay the ultimate price at their next TB test, Northern Ireland roll out their 5 year TVR - Test, Vaccinate, Remove (TVR) plan.

In areas of endemic TB, this may  include the 'R' bit - eventually. Currently in the name of 'research', all badgers are tested, vaccinated and released.




 
This BBC Report - [link] report quotes the government Chief vet, farmers and the N.I badgerists broadly in favour of a targeted approach. And much more detail on the project is in the Northern Ireland Assembly's presentation - [link]
This confirms that in year one (2014) all badgers trapped were tested, vaccinated and released.
This year (2015) after parallel tests on blood assays to validate set side tests (PCR?, any badger found to be infected will be removed by lethal injection.
Some 40 badgers are fitted with collars to check movement and ascertain any perturbation issues.

The cost is £7.5m over 5 years on a 100 sq km area and funded by Government.

Meanwhile, in England, a 25 year badger control, funded by farmers appears stalled and our representatives argue about 'further cattle measures'.

Shaft me once, shame on you. Shaft me twice, shame on me.  We've been here before. Twice.

Thursday, June 11, 2015

The EU will be impressed.

As a contributor to the cost of GB's pile of dead reactor cattle, government has to submit an Annual Report - [link] on the eradication process to which they are signatories.

We note from the content that Defra are still using New Herd breakdowns as a benchmark in this paper, while conveniently airbrushing those herds still remaining under restriction firmly under the proverbial carpet.
 The incidence of herd restriction due to zTuberculosis in GB cattle herds in 2014 - [link] was 11.15 per cent of registered herds. In 2013, it was slightly higher at 11.4 per cent and significantly more than the figures submitted to the EU. But does it matter?

On 20th Nov 2003, Ben Bradshaw answered a Parliamentary Question - one of 538 posed by the then Shadow minister, Owen Paterson, MP - on this subject:
Column 1205W

Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the OIE limit of the incidence of TB in cattle necessary to maintain TB-free status trading for the UK, expressed as a percentage of the national herd. [140308]

Mr. Bradshaw: The Office of International des Epizooties (OIE) provides expertise for the control of animal diseases.

Article 2.3.3.2 of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code states that for a Country or zone to qualify as officially free from bovine tuberculosis, shall satisfy the following requirements:

Bovine tuberculosis is notifiable in the country;

99.8 per cent. of the herds in the considered geographical area have been officially free from bovine tuberculosis for at least the past three years as disclosed by periodic testing of all cattle in the area to determine the absence of bovine tuberculosis.

Periodic testing of all cattle is not required in an area where a surveillance programme reveals that 99.9 percent of the cattle have been in herds officially free from tuberculosis for at least six years.
So, 0.2 per cent of herds to be TB free, and 0.1 percent of cattle tested.

And we dare to send this bilge Annual Report into the EU, begging for more money, when our level of disease is rumbling along at over 11 per cent of our herds?

When direct contacts are counted as well as reactors, the figure for cattle slaughtered in 2014 is 32,851 - 239 more animals than in 2013.





So when Defra illustrate the final page of this quaint package with a picture of a Hereford cow, quietly grazing the green grass of GB's pastures, and  mark it  'Thankyou',  she has nothing to thank our Ministry for.

  









They have it perfectly clear that they prefer one of these, (right) grossly infected and roaming her pastures, to keeping our cattle safe, and our ability to trade intact.

So it must be a 'Thankyou' to the European Union for sending more of our cash back to us, so that that we can kill more cattle - just like the one in the picture above.






The EU will be impressed  with GB's progress on badger vaccination and other prevarications, so 'Thankyou' just about sums it up.

Sunday, May 31, 2015

More on PCR

In the posting below - [link] we gave an overview of the recent Warwick University paper, SE3280, commissioned by Defra in 2012 at a cost of £467,353. We note that sadly, no mention of it or its stunning results have made it into the press.
And considering the indecent haste with which the badger vaccination mischief - [link] of 74 per cent efficacy, bounced around the airwaves, only to be retracted quietly in subsequent months, that is a damned disgrace shame.

 So we will cut and paste from the paper - link] which can be accessed by clicking on Final Report on the previous link. The study set out to explore a non invasive method of identifying diseased badger groups:
. "Controlling disease spread through UK cattle herds is a significant challenge as the European badger (Meles meles) has been highlighted as a wildlife reservoir that may be a significant source of continued re-infection. Determining the disease prevalence and TB status of badger populations is a demanding challenge and currently requires direct interaction with individual animals through expensive and labour intensive trapping and testing regimes. This report describes a robust and reliable non-invasive quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assay designed to detect the presence of M. bovis DNA in badger faecal samples."
Those samples were collected from Woodchester Park and matched with cultures and blood assays from cage trapped animals, over a long period of time.
" .. badger faecal samples were obtained from 12 social groups of badgers at Woodchester Park in Gloucestershire (the site of a long-term study on TB in badgers), with a recent history of trapped badgers having positive TB test results. Samples were taken throughout the year in a cross sectional style, contemporary with trapping efforts, while two additional intensive sampling periods were undertaken during spring and autumn. In addition, samples obtained directly from trapped badgers, were directly analysed by qPCR to compare against the culture status as a benchmark. "

The results were given in the paper as follows:
When comparing qPCR on faeces taken from trapped badgers with culture, the qPCR assay exhibited a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 30.8-100%) and a specificity of 95.7% (95% CI: 90.3-98.6).
and
"qPCR results varied by season, with spring and autumn exhibiting 100% and 80% sensitivity respectively against the combined trapped badger diagnostics for the same season. The degree of infection within a social group (trapped badger diagnostics) was strongly correlated with the degree of shedding as determined by faecal qPCR"
By taking samples over a long period of time, the Warwick team ascertained that the best results came from the most highly infected groups and that samples taken in spring gave the most robust results. They explain:
"We determined the optimum sampling strategy to be 20 samples taken over a 2 day period with a few days interval in the spring or early summer. With up to 20 samples from social groups taken across May and June, we had 100% agreement with the suite of other diagnostic tests in terms of identifying positive groups"
The paper explains that this study builds on the rigorous exploration of the contents of badger latrines in Defra project SE 3231 as a non invasive method of ascertaining infective status:
"It is a direct follow on from the rigorous ring trial (Defra project SE3231), during which Warwick University, the AHVLA and VISAVET processed faecal samples from 15 latrines from putative bTB negative badger social groups (Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire) and 15 latrines from putative positive social groups using real-time PCR (qPCR). All putative negative samples were found to be negative by all labs, two putative positive latrines were positive in all labs and one putative positive latrine was positive in one lab.

The probability of a false positive result for the two latrines detected in common is less than 3��10-9. The methodology has been further optimised such that samples containing a ten-fold lower bacterial cell count can be detected as positive, resulting in considerably increased sensitivity (see Final report SE3231 Fig 11). The test that has been developed is implemented at the social group level, rather than the individual sample."
Also involved in this work, are the Republic of Ireland, which is providing post mortem samples to further quantify qPCR results. This work has found that respiratory shedding can also be identified using faecal samples.
"Other research at Warwick University, with qPCR of faeces and culture performed in parallel on samples taken from badgers in areas in the Republic of Ireland with high levels of TB breakdown in cattle, indicates that faecal shedding is a good proxy for respiratory shedding.

The qPCR test for faeces detected all badgers shown to be also shedding via the tracheal route (n=7). The qPCR and detection of M. bovis in tissue by culture were not significantly different, with a high level of correlation in detection by both methodologies in animals with severe disease progression (Travis et al. manuscript in preparation)."
The aim of the project was to enhance the detection capabilities of qPCR in the field.
"The main aim of this project was to maximise the sensitivity of the qPCR test for applied field detection of M. bovis in badger faeces through optimisation of latrine sampling strategies. A ten-fold increase in the limit of detection has been applied compared with the previous DEFRA project."
Sampling over a long period gave the following results:
The qPCR bacterial load data [] shows that particular social groups are disproportionately responsible for shedding large numbers of M. bovis bacilli into the environment.

The genome equivalents ranged from 1x103 to 4x105 per gram (N.B. 10-100s of genome equivalents are considered to represent 1 cfu)[22]. There is a variation in the cumulative load between social groups, as shown in the bubble plot; a small number of social groups appear to be responsible for most of bacteria shed and therefore potentially represent the greatest risk for onward transmission."
That mention of '1 cfu' reminded us of previous research - [link] which found just how little bacteria is needed to infect a calf.

So, the sampling:
"The state of infection in the social group affects the likelihood of detection: as expected, heavily infected social groups were identified positive with less intensive sampling regimes. The data clearly shows that by sampling in periods of peak badger activity, the chance of detecting a social group as positive with a fixed number of samples increases.

Spring is again clearly shown as the optimal sampling season, with the seven social groups with the highest prevalence of infection detected with 95% probability in 17 or less samples. In autumn 23 or less samples would detect the seven most infected social groups with 95% probability. In spring or autumn, all social groups could be detected positive with 95% certainty within 40 samples"
And the results:
"We have determined an optimal sampling strategy for latrine faecal qPCR testing, which when applied in the field demonstrated a 100% sensitivity, 100% specificity"
"Sampling should occur in the spring or early summer with up to 20 samples taken from each social group across two days with a few days interval."
"The faecal qPCR test has been shown to be robust and reliable with no significant difference observed between results obtained from two centres at the social group level."
And cost?
We would envisage the processing of the initial samples occurring in batches of five samples until either at least one sample was positive or all 20 samples were returned as negative

. To determine a sample as positive, a second and third replicate of that sample must be extracted. A social group will be considered positive if at least one sample is positive on at least one of the confirmatory re- extraction.

This gives a false positive rate of 1%.  The cost for a social group per season would range between £81.30 and £208.20 depending on when a positive sample was detected.

So, in a nutshell, Owen Paterson's qPCR project appears to be able to identify groups of infectious badgers, upspilling zTuberculosis  into the environment. Sensitivity and specificity is 100 per cent and the cost of this non-invasive technology is around £200 per group sampled.

So why no publicity?
Why were Defra giving false information to the secretary of State, about its capabilities?
And why are Defra and assorted fellow travelers so against identifying these highly infected time bombs?

The reason we think is that if a social group of badgers was so identified and APHA failed to act on that information, then as we have said many times, litigation for victims would not be a possibility but a certainty.


Far better to bury this work, and hope it stays buried. Keep killing sentinel tested cattle and ignore the message this canary is offering.










Wednesday, May 27, 2015

PCR - Prof. Wellington and SE3280

As farmers, we want eventually to target tuberculosis where it found, rather than a bureaucratic, high profile sweep of wildlife. But circumstances (and dead cattle, sheep, pigs, alpacas and cats) dictate that while levels of zoonotic tuberculosis in its wild life hosts - badgers - are so high, then an interim population reduction is working well. And we would encourage farmers to take the opportunity this new government has offered, without the Viva supported drag anchor of the LibDims - [link] and get on with it.

But what then? We can't keep having bureaucratic area culls, and many would prefer to aim their fire at diseased badgers, rather than all badgers. And so we come full circle to the PCR study, SE3280 which last year was said not to be delivering expected results - [link]

On May 14th, Professor Wellington gave a lecture at Liverpool University, discussing the work, which can be viewed on this link

There are some fairly sweeping and totally contradictory statements concerning cattle and zTB in that clip, but she did mention sheep and cats. Nevertheless the core issues of identifying diseased groups of badgers, as opposed to healthy ones is addressed. And appears to have been successful. Professor Wellington indicated that 20 samples over 2 days in spring or autumn is the optimum for the qPCR screen, and at around £10 each, the cost is not astronomical.

 It would appear that infection levels in spring and autumn are very high as social groups shake out their old and young, and re group. This presents a danger period for cattle, if one assumes that badgers can be kept out of cattle yards in the winter.

The complete paper is "The Diagnostic Potential of Real Time PCR: Proportion of badgers clinical - Travis et al" 2014  Click the link for Final Report on this LINK
Key points we noted are:
 * The degree of infection [identified by culture, gamma IFN and StakPac bloods] strongly correlated with the degree of shedding as determined by faecal qPCR.
 * Sensitivety was 100 per cent
 * Specificity 95.7 per cent

And finally:

"We suggest that a small number of social groups may be responsible for the majority of m.bovis shed in the environment and therefore present the highest risk of inward transmission".
Above is a screen grab from Prof. Wellington's film clip, during her excursions to sample faeces from the inhabitants of Woodchester Park, and the level of infectivity in the various badger groups.

Saturday, May 16, 2015

HRH Prince Charles and the need for a badger cull.

This week, the letters - [link] which HRH Prince Charles wrote to ministers a decade ago have been made public, and on agriculture in general and bTB in particular, they make for interesting reading.

 In March 2005, the Prince wrote to the then Prime Minister, Tony Bliar to express his concern over the increasing pile of dead cattle and lack of any control on eradicating zoonotic tuberculosis from its wildlife reservoir, badgers.

Political Editor,  of the   Farmers Guardian - [link] , Alistair Driver has the overview, and Bliar's reply.






HRH Prince Charles,  pictured here with Ayrshire dairy cattle,  confirming a recent meeting, pointed out  to Bliar : 




"You said that you were aware of the recent study in the republic of Ireland which proved that badger culling was effective in ridding cattle of TB - in Donegal for instance, by the fifth year of the trial there was a 96 per cent reduction in cattle infections in the 'badger removal' area."
And he emphasises the need for urgent action:
"I do urge you to look again at introducing a proper cull of badgers where it is necessary. I for one, cannot understand how the "Badger lobby" seem to mind not at all about the slaughter of thousands of expensive cattle, and yet object to a managed cull of an over-population of badgers - to me, this is intellectually dishonest."
We couldn't agree more Sir. And a week later, on March 30th 2005, Prime Minister Bliar replied thus:
"You raised the issue of bovine TB and the link to badgers. The Irish trials have indeed changed everything here, and I know Ben Bradshaw acknowledges this."
Acknowledge it he most certainly did, with answers to the carefully crafted 538 Parliamentary Questions, tabled to the Ministry of Agriculture's office in 2004 and which form the basis of this site.

And then the fragrant Ben, waved a couple of fingers at Owen Paterson who had tabled the questions, and said words to the effect "OK, we know it's badgers ..... but whaddya going to do about it?"





Ten years later,  the answer, as we have found out to our cost,  was over 300,000 dead cattle, thousands of dead alpacas, goats, sheep, pigs and domestic pets, and on badgers? Absolutely nothing at all.

Which gives support to the comment that if some politician's lips are moving, they're lying.