Defra sent all registered cattle farms a booklet on bovine Tb this week.
One such' cattle' farm has had no cattle since 1999, but we digress.
Inside the package was a shiny booklet 'Tb in cattle', and a glossy coloured map of Great Britain. Compare and contrast with the same map in 1986, 1996 and currently, and you will see why we have entitled this post 'A Minister for Doing Nothing'.
"New measures" (the booklet informs us) "were first outlined during public consultation meetings in February 2004 and regional Stakeholder meetings were held to discuss".
We've 'discussed' stakeholder meetings, forums and quangos several times on this blog, and the Tb excercise has proved to be no different. Defra tell us what they want to do, hold a few meetings to ensure we've been 'consulted', and then - do it.
At those meetings Defra were 'informed' (politely of course) that a one sided policy leaving infected wildlife was a gross waste of time and taxpayers money, and any tighter restrictions on cattle had to go hand in hand with wildlife reservoir control. Did they listen? No.
But Bradshaw employed our Dan, 'Mr. Hack-it', the Compensation Accountant to make sure that the taxpayer paid less for his pound of (cow) flesh. And now he's nailed the cattle more firmly to the floor, by a series of Tb testing changes.
But will it halt the spread of bovineTb? No.
The measures are:
* A 'zero tolerance' policy for overdue tests.
* National review of testing intervals country wide.
* Spacing of tests more evenly within testing intervals.
* A new approach(!!) in England and Wales to prevent the development of hotspots. (We love this one)
* Amended testing schedule for new / reformed herds.
And the wildlife maintenance reservoir?
Nothing. Not a sausage, in fact the only mention of it is in the forward to the booklet.
"Bovine Tb is a serious cattle disease which can also affect humans, pets and some wildlife".
With that we would agree, in fact we'd go much further.
We would say 'will affect, has affected and will continue to spread due to endemic reservoirs of disease unchecked by Defra in some wildlife. The most successful host of the disease in GB's wildlife is the badger".
So in practise what will these 'new' measures achieve?
Zero tolerance on overdue tests, we would not argue with, but farmers will still trade stock right up to the day that test is due, and those stock will travel. A further gem from the leaflet explains that Defra will test areas where disease is established more regularly, and those without disease ' less often'.
So is what they are saying here "If we don't test your cattle for Tb, you haven't got it " ??
We thought this non-strategy was to prevent cattle establishing Tb in Defra's (assumed) 'clean' areas. But if the monitoring (Testing) is to be less frequent in those areas, the potential for an explosion when it is discovered is much greater. Remember the Furness Peninsula?
A National review is historic.
No disease situation can be assessed correctly unless all areas are tested within a short space of time to confirm disease status.
We would not argue with more frequent testing on new, or reformed herds.
Prevention of hotspots.
This one we love. Excatly how a 'hotspot' can be prevented without action on the wildlife reservoir feeding it is not explained. We would agree with throwing a 'clean ring' cordon around surrounding farms and testing cattle to establish the cause of the breakdown. That is what used to happen.
But for those of us who have been nailed to floor by movement restrictions for several years, testing cattle every 60 days, and slaughtering reactors as they showed exposure to m.bovis, this booklet is a hollow sham. The exposure from badgers which our Minister for Doing Nothing, repeatedly warns us against touching or controlling, while his henchmen steadfastly refuse to collect dead ones for postmortem from farmland, is not even mentioned.
As readers will have read on this site, UK is now the pole position for incidence of Tb in cattle on the world stage. Top of the heap, the worst. And our trading status is once again at risk, with our EU 'partners' having given themselves the opportunity to protect Community trade with an OIE veterinary certificate which gives them the power to isolate any member state or region, that is causing problems.(see Russia - on this site)
Scotland has reproduced Defra's map in glorious technicolour, and advised farmers not to purchase stock from South West England or Wales. That map is a disgrace to everyone involved in Tb. It should be engraved on Bradshaw's heart - if he had one.
This non-strategy is classic spin of a Minister pretending to be 'pro-active' while doing - absolutely nothing.
At best it could be described as misleading - but we have heard the word 'lies'.
Sunday, October 31, 2004
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Dan's 'Hacking' it - Defra's Compulsory Purchase in practise..
In one of his many appearances before the EFRA committee, this spring Ben Bradshaw gave his assurance that farmer Compulsory Purchase compensation for cattle slaughtered after reacting to exposure to Tb, would be pegged for at least 2 years at the amount paid in 2003. This despite his own prediction of an increase in cattle slaughtered of 20 percent per year.
We described how the Minister planned to do this in an earlier post, (New Kid on Defra's Block) and the appropriately named Dan Hackett, Defra's new Compensation Acountant has been so successful that we hear he has requested an assistant.
Under the 1978 Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Compensation Act, the Tuberculosis (England and Wales) Order 1984 and any subsequent amendments, farmers received 75 per cent of 'market value' for an animal which Defra wished to kill, and they insured their herds for any top ups that the value of their stock warranted.
This later changed to 100 per cent of 'market value' (as defined by prices achieved in the local markets, but excluding dispersal and specialist breed sales) with valuers being appointed to assess pedigree animals.
This continued until early August 2004 when the old BT1A (revised1995) form, was replaced by a very different animal, the BT 1 (Revised July 2004)
Under the previous scheme the animal was valued and a price agreed by both the owner and the valuer, (acting on behalf of Defra) and only then was the form signed by both parties.
With the new form, a signature is required first.
So what is the owner of the animal actually signing ?
Defra's form indicates that it verifies the method of valuation. That is, the valuation will be carried out by a 'valuer appointed by the department'- who is not necessarily one which the owner would have chosen. We've mentioned before the cases of 'valuers' who auction chickens, sheep and granny's dresser, but never deep pedigree beef or dairy cattle. Nevertheless, the new form MUST be signed BEFORE any valuation commences, and to make sure that this is understood, Defra have printed the note in Black BLOCK Capitals.
Several farmers have contacted the editors about Dan's new Hack-it job on cattle values and many are uncomfortable with this 'signature required' part prior to a valuation not yet received. One asked what would happen if no signature was given and the stark answer was "no signature - no valuation" .
Some SVS staff are under the impression that the signature merely confirms the method of valuation, and that is all. But a further note on the new form we quote below:
Note :"Valuations arising from any of the above methods are final and not subject to appeal"
Trading Standards are constantly telling us not to sign anything, until we have the goods in hand.
Doorstep selling is equally loaded with 'consumer protection'. But with this new form, farmers are instructed to sign a form agreeing to a value they do not yet know, made by a person who may not have the experience to do the job in which he claims to be competant. If they refuse to sign, there can be no valuation, and if they do then there is 'no appeal' if it all goes pear shaped.
Meanwhile courtesy of our Ben, who is prepared to spend £2 billion of taxpayer's money in the next 10 years NOT eradicating Tb, farmers are unable to protect their stock with insurance for TB. Such is the haemorrhage of the farm insurance budget through Tb claims, that those lucky enough to still have insurance will find their cover has halved and the premium increased ten fold. If there has been a claim, re-insurance is 'unlikely'. And for those who thought Tb insurance would be a good idea, forget it. The companies are not taking on new customers. "Exposure to risk is too great".
So what has our Minister of Fisheries and Conservation achieved?
2003 farmer compensation for a heap of dead cattle pegged at £31 million.
20 percent increase in that heap in 2004 forecast by our Ben.
Another 20 percent increase in 2005 forecast by our Ben .
Compounded, that is a 44 per cent increase in 2 years for which Ben promised the EFRA committee, he would be paying the same money. And it's Dan Hackett's job to make sure the promise is carried out.
Hack - To slash. To chop. To cut. (Oxford English Dictionary)
We described how the Minister planned to do this in an earlier post, (New Kid on Defra's Block) and the appropriately named Dan Hackett, Defra's new Compensation Acountant has been so successful that we hear he has requested an assistant.
Under the 1978 Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Compensation Act, the Tuberculosis (England and Wales) Order 1984 and any subsequent amendments, farmers received 75 per cent of 'market value' for an animal which Defra wished to kill, and they insured their herds for any top ups that the value of their stock warranted.
This later changed to 100 per cent of 'market value' (as defined by prices achieved in the local markets, but excluding dispersal and specialist breed sales) with valuers being appointed to assess pedigree animals.
This continued until early August 2004 when the old BT1A (revised1995) form, was replaced by a very different animal, the BT 1 (Revised July 2004)
Under the previous scheme the animal was valued and a price agreed by both the owner and the valuer, (acting on behalf of Defra) and only then was the form signed by both parties.
With the new form, a signature is required first.
So what is the owner of the animal actually signing ?
Defra's form indicates that it verifies the method of valuation. That is, the valuation will be carried out by a 'valuer appointed by the department'- who is not necessarily one which the owner would have chosen. We've mentioned before the cases of 'valuers' who auction chickens, sheep and granny's dresser, but never deep pedigree beef or dairy cattle. Nevertheless, the new form MUST be signed BEFORE any valuation commences, and to make sure that this is understood, Defra have printed the note in Black BLOCK Capitals.
Several farmers have contacted the editors about Dan's new Hack-it job on cattle values and many are uncomfortable with this 'signature required' part prior to a valuation not yet received. One asked what would happen if no signature was given and the stark answer was "no signature - no valuation" .
Some SVS staff are under the impression that the signature merely confirms the method of valuation, and that is all. But a further note on the new form we quote below:
Note :"Valuations arising from any of the above methods are final and not subject to appeal"
Trading Standards are constantly telling us not to sign anything, until we have the goods in hand.
Doorstep selling is equally loaded with 'consumer protection'. But with this new form, farmers are instructed to sign a form agreeing to a value they do not yet know, made by a person who may not have the experience to do the job in which he claims to be competant. If they refuse to sign, there can be no valuation, and if they do then there is 'no appeal' if it all goes pear shaped.
Meanwhile courtesy of our Ben, who is prepared to spend £2 billion of taxpayer's money in the next 10 years NOT eradicating Tb, farmers are unable to protect their stock with insurance for TB. Such is the haemorrhage of the farm insurance budget through Tb claims, that those lucky enough to still have insurance will find their cover has halved and the premium increased ten fold. If there has been a claim, re-insurance is 'unlikely'. And for those who thought Tb insurance would be a good idea, forget it. The companies are not taking on new customers. "Exposure to risk is too great".
So what has our Minister of Fisheries and Conservation achieved?
2003 farmer compensation for a heap of dead cattle pegged at £31 million.
20 percent increase in that heap in 2004 forecast by our Ben.
Another 20 percent increase in 2005 forecast by our Ben .
Compounded, that is a 44 per cent increase in 2 years for which Ben promised the EFRA committee, he would be paying the same money. And it's Dan Hackett's job to make sure the promise is carried out.
Hack - To slash. To chop. To cut. (Oxford English Dictionary)
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Tb Spill Over - The Cat's out of the Bag
In an answer to a Parliamentary Question concerning bovine tb in deer, Mr. Bradshaw - or whoever answered those 538 questions - replied that "they were considered a spill over" and not a primary host. Now if badgers can 'spill' tb over into cattle and deer, what else is at risk?
Amongst other things, cats.
At first it was thought that only Siamese and Burmese were 'at risk', but then the penny dropped. The owners of anything less valuable would bury the evidence rather than pay VLA the considerable sums needed to postmortem one very dead moggy.
But cats are susceptible. Postmortems have been done and results logged, from which we quote below.
Breakdowns on farm cats were well documented in USA in 1972, and also in New Zealand, but our story is one which involves badgers as a primary host, several dead cats and no cattle.
In March 1998, a dead badger found on a smallholding was submitted to VLA for postmortem.
It was described as 'generally emaciated', and subsequent post mortem revealed both lung and kidney lesions which were submitted for culture. (We're repeatedly told that badgers don't suffer when they have Tb. This one did, to starve to death in a garden.)
Three months later the carcass of an adult cat from the same smallholding was also submitted for postmortem, and the owner was worried because over the past month 4 other cats on her holding had died.
VLA did an exhumation of the 4 buried cats, and postmortemed the lot.
We won't go into the gory details but, the report describes: " Respiratory distress, weight loss, swelling on the neck glands which proved to be necrotic and oedematous. The lungs were filling with 'grape like lesions' , and the kidneys were affected too. One of the exhumed cats had a cervical swelling which was discharging thick yellow pus, another had had respiratory difficulties prior to death. All showed lung and/or kidney damage".
(But they 'didn't suffer'. Remember that little gem.)
Pooled tissue from the badger and each of 4 cats (the 5th carcass was too badly decomposed to use) was collected separately and tested for mycobacterium bovis. It was also spoligotyped for identification of the strain responsible.
All samples proved to be the same strain - GB spoligotype 20.
The smallholding on which the dead badger was found, and on which the cats died had been home to only horses and ponies for 10 years. There were no cattle. But the area had seen a significant increase in m-bovis infected badgers over the past few years, and the holding is in the centre of a square where recently 22 out of 119 badgers were confirmed with tb. Of those, a third had extensive infection including two individuals who were considered to have died from tb - including the one on the smallholding.
The author of the report, which was published in the Veterinary Record (April 2000 ) concluded :
"M bovis infection in cats, may pose a real zoonotic threat to their keepers".
We agree. As the countryside is plastered with more and more bacteria from an maintenance host who has acquired 'cult status', everything that is susceptible is also at risk. Cattle are only found because we test them. Other species at risk from Bradshaw's quaintly described 'spill over' are deer, camelids, cats and of course, human beings.
So why is mycbacterium bovis being allowed to thrive in the badger? £1 million received (with thanks) from the Political Animal Lobby for a start.
Keep focussed readers.
Amongst other things, cats.
At first it was thought that only Siamese and Burmese were 'at risk', but then the penny dropped. The owners of anything less valuable would bury the evidence rather than pay VLA the considerable sums needed to postmortem one very dead moggy.
But cats are susceptible. Postmortems have been done and results logged, from which we quote below.
Breakdowns on farm cats were well documented in USA in 1972, and also in New Zealand, but our story is one which involves badgers as a primary host, several dead cats and no cattle.
In March 1998, a dead badger found on a smallholding was submitted to VLA for postmortem.
It was described as 'generally emaciated', and subsequent post mortem revealed both lung and kidney lesions which were submitted for culture. (We're repeatedly told that badgers don't suffer when they have Tb. This one did, to starve to death in a garden.)
Three months later the carcass of an adult cat from the same smallholding was also submitted for postmortem, and the owner was worried because over the past month 4 other cats on her holding had died.
VLA did an exhumation of the 4 buried cats, and postmortemed the lot.
We won't go into the gory details but, the report describes: " Respiratory distress, weight loss, swelling on the neck glands which proved to be necrotic and oedematous. The lungs were filling with 'grape like lesions' , and the kidneys were affected too. One of the exhumed cats had a cervical swelling which was discharging thick yellow pus, another had had respiratory difficulties prior to death. All showed lung and/or kidney damage".
(But they 'didn't suffer'. Remember that little gem.)
Pooled tissue from the badger and each of 4 cats (the 5th carcass was too badly decomposed to use) was collected separately and tested for mycobacterium bovis. It was also spoligotyped for identification of the strain responsible.
All samples proved to be the same strain - GB spoligotype 20.
The smallholding on which the dead badger was found, and on which the cats died had been home to only horses and ponies for 10 years. There were no cattle. But the area had seen a significant increase in m-bovis infected badgers over the past few years, and the holding is in the centre of a square where recently 22 out of 119 badgers were confirmed with tb. Of those, a third had extensive infection including two individuals who were considered to have died from tb - including the one on the smallholding.
The author of the report, which was published in the Veterinary Record (April 2000 ) concluded :
"M bovis infection in cats, may pose a real zoonotic threat to their keepers".
We agree. As the countryside is plastered with more and more bacteria from an maintenance host who has acquired 'cult status', everything that is susceptible is also at risk. Cattle are only found because we test them. Other species at risk from Bradshaw's quaintly described 'spill over' are deer, camelids, cats and of course, human beings.
So why is mycbacterium bovis being allowed to thrive in the badger? £1 million received (with thanks) from the Political Animal Lobby for a start.
Keep focussed readers.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Bio Security and the SFP
Farmers visiting this site have asked the editors to point out that by adhering to one set of advice from Mr. Bradshaw, our Minister for Conservation and Fisheries, on badger bio security, they may be in breach of an EU directive being rigorously enforced by another Defra department.
Fences, electric variety. Or to be more precise their maintenance.
Our Ben thinks that farmers should keep badgers out of cattle farms with electric fences. The editors are curious about this assertion, given a complete Ministerial failure in the gardens of Saltdean over a period of 3 months. The great and the good with the help of badger 'experts' tried to secure 4 back gardens (see Saltdean Badgers - on this site) but in a Colditz operation, the badgers in question dug, tunnelled, parachuted, jumped on each others' shoulders and got back in. But farmers are confidently expected to succeed (in starving their badgers?) where these 'experts' failed.
But back to electric fences.
Farmers could put fences around their fields and / or farms but to remain effective any vegetation growing underneath has to be kept clear of the live wire - constantly. This to prevent the wire earthing and losing power.
But in either spraying vegetation under the fence, or strimming the briers, grass and nettles for miles of his boundary, the farmer in question would be in breach of the 2m set aside rule for Single Farm Payment which says: "Thou shalt not spray, neither shall thou mow said 2m strip".
And if he moves his 'badger' fence to the edge of the original 2m strip, he may have created a 'new' boundary which would also need a 2m margin.
Oh dear Ben, what a muddle.
Fences, electric variety. Or to be more precise their maintenance.
Our Ben thinks that farmers should keep badgers out of cattle farms with electric fences. The editors are curious about this assertion, given a complete Ministerial failure in the gardens of Saltdean over a period of 3 months. The great and the good with the help of badger 'experts' tried to secure 4 back gardens (see Saltdean Badgers - on this site) but in a Colditz operation, the badgers in question dug, tunnelled, parachuted, jumped on each others' shoulders and got back in. But farmers are confidently expected to succeed (in starving their badgers?) where these 'experts' failed.
But back to electric fences.
Farmers could put fences around their fields and / or farms but to remain effective any vegetation growing underneath has to be kept clear of the live wire - constantly. This to prevent the wire earthing and losing power.
But in either spraying vegetation under the fence, or strimming the briers, grass and nettles for miles of his boundary, the farmer in question would be in breach of the 2m set aside rule for Single Farm Payment which says: "Thou shalt not spray, neither shall thou mow said 2m strip".
And if he moves his 'badger' fence to the edge of the original 2m strip, he may have created a 'new' boundary which would also need a 2m margin.
Oh dear Ben, what a muddle.
Curious Cows
The method of transmission of tuberculosis bacteria between badgers and cattle seems to be giving many 'scientists' indigestion. How does it happen?
Farmers have contacted the editors of this site with their experiences and we are again able to quote from the book written in 1981, by Robert W. Howard of the Avon Wildlife Trust, "Badgers Without Bias", who observed:
"The suggestion is that cattle at grass react to the presence of a badger in the same way as they commonly react to a dog, or people who enter pasture fields. They group around the intruder in an enquiring and excited manner to which the badger reacts by voiding urine in an uncontrolled spray, forming an aerosol. A badger cub has been seen to spit, rather like a cat, when confronted by cattle."
Mr. Howard described this as a "fright reaction".
There are up to 300,000 units of m.bovis in just 1ml of urine from a badger with kidney lesions in that aerosol spray, a point we are most grateful to Mr. Bradshaw for confirming.
This behaviour was witnessed by a Devon farmer, very early in the morning while checking cattle. He saw several badgers trundling about as his cows began to graze at dawn. As a mouthful of grass was torn up by the cow, the badger dived into the void she'd left to grab beetles and worms near the surface of the newly shorn pasture. And for a few seconds the two shared the same airspace.
The farmer stood very still, trying to photograph the encounter and a badger came right up to his boots.
He moved his foot and it jumped backwards about a yard, making just such a 'fright reaction' .
He describes this as a coughing, barking grunt of exhaled air - and spit.
His wellies were covered in an aerosol of badger spit.
A case of curiosity killing the cow?
Farmers have contacted the editors of this site with their experiences and we are again able to quote from the book written in 1981, by Robert W. Howard of the Avon Wildlife Trust, "Badgers Without Bias", who observed:
"The suggestion is that cattle at grass react to the presence of a badger in the same way as they commonly react to a dog, or people who enter pasture fields. They group around the intruder in an enquiring and excited manner to which the badger reacts by voiding urine in an uncontrolled spray, forming an aerosol. A badger cub has been seen to spit, rather like a cat, when confronted by cattle."
Mr. Howard described this as a "fright reaction".
There are up to 300,000 units of m.bovis in just 1ml of urine from a badger with kidney lesions in that aerosol spray, a point we are most grateful to Mr. Bradshaw for confirming.
This behaviour was witnessed by a Devon farmer, very early in the morning while checking cattle. He saw several badgers trundling about as his cows began to graze at dawn. As a mouthful of grass was torn up by the cow, the badger dived into the void she'd left to grab beetles and worms near the surface of the newly shorn pasture. And for a few seconds the two shared the same airspace.
The farmer stood very still, trying to photograph the encounter and a badger came right up to his boots.
He moved his foot and it jumped backwards about a yard, making just such a 'fright reaction' .
He describes this as a coughing, barking grunt of exhaled air - and spit.
His wellies were covered in an aerosol of badger spit.
A case of curiosity killing the cow?
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Herding Cats
Forgive the exasperation in this post.
Herding cats would be easy compared with trying to get politicians to work together - even those (supposedly) of the same political persuasion.
Last November, Owen Paterson MP, a member of the Conservative Shadow Agriculture team, in the face of an exponential rise in cattle tb, set himself a fact finding mission concerning all aspects of bovine tb, the results of which are archived on this site. He has asked 538 Parliamentary questions which delve into cattle, badgers and other hosts: vaccination, skin tests and gamma interferon: Krebs and other trials and the effect of tb on badgers' health and welfare. Mr. Bradshaw's answers, for which we are most grateful, are archived as well.
But now is the run up to general election, and MP's - particularly heavyweights - are being wheeled out to constituencies for a vote catching exercise. Anywhere from Cumbria to Cornwall, they will encounter rural concern about bovine tb, and on this site which has s its base the 538 PQs and answers, they have the opportunity to research and obtain solid information about the problem.
Do they look? No.
Have they consulted the author of the 538 PQ's? No.
Will they jump in with wild statements and make a bad situatiuon worse? Absolutely.
Shadow Minister Jim Paice was reported in the Western Morning News last week, with banner headlines;
"Shadow Minister's Call for Badger Cull".
Well done Jim. This site is calling for 'wildlife management' on all bovine tb vectors, because by now the problem has spilled from the endemically infected badgers (Ben's words in PQ's - not mine) to deer, foxes, domestic cats and even to human beings.(see comment archived on this site). Our aim is a sustainable, balanced ecology with healthy badgers and healthy cattle. It's Tb we want to 'eradicate' not any particular species. (Politicians? - now there's a thought.)
That headline was a cheap soundbite - but it gets worse.
"We need" says Jim, " to bring forward the use of the Gamma Interferon test for Tb in cattle. It is more accurate than the current (skin) test and would reduce the number of cattle slaughtered".
The hell it would.
Cattle in Wales and the West have had so much exposure to m.bovis in their environment from badgers, that almost 70 percent would show positive antibodies say VLA - and that's without the avian and skin tb that the test will also flag up.
But Jim Paice MP, the new Shadow Minister is questioning the intradermal skin test, and proposing to kill less cattle with gamma interferon? In your dreams Jim.
Your 'soundbite solution' has already been covered in PQ's from your colleague Mr. Paterson, answers to which are confirmed by Mr. Bradshaw, and which we quote in full below;
8 Dec 2003 Col 218W (141968)
Mr. Paterson. To ask how long the current Tb skin test has been in use?
Mr. Bradshaw. The tuberculin skin test has been compulsory since 1950. This is the test prescribed by the OIE (Office of International Epizootics) for international trade, as well as under EU directive 64/432/EEC.
30th Jan 2004 Col 540W (150492)
Mr. Paterson. How many countries use the current skin test and how many have reported problems with it?
Mr. Bradshaw. All countries that have either eradicated or have programmes to control bovine tb use one or more forms of the current skin test.
8th December 2003 Col 218W (141969)
Mr. Paterson. Has the Secretary of State any plans to replace the current Tb skin test with a more accurate and sensitive test?
Mr. Bradshaw. The gamma interferon test was officially recognised by the EU in July 2002, but only as a supplement to the SICCT (skin test). The (gamma interferon) test is considered more sensitive but is less specific, meaning that it results in a higher probability of FALSE POSITIVES.
23rd March 2004. col 697 W (158363)
Mr. Paterson. What assessment has been made of why the gamma interferon test achieves sensitivity of 60 -65 percent in UK trials, compared with Australia?
Mr.Bradshaw. The gamma interferon pilot currently running, has not been designed to assess the sensitivity of the test, and no comparisons can be be drawn with trials run in other countries.
25th March 2004 col 989W ( 159061)
Mr. Paterson. What assessment has been made of the need for a) vaccination of i) cattle and ii) badgers and b) other measures to control the incidence of Tb in cattle herds?
Mr. Bradshaw. Evidence from other countries shows that in the absence of a significant wildlife reservoir, cattle controls based on regular testing and slaughter, inspection at slaughterhouses and movement restrictions can be effective at controlling bovine tb without vaccination (or gamma interferon? )
Owen Paterson has teased all these points out of reluctant Minister, only to have his colleague in the Shadow Agriculture team stumble through the lot, on a vote catching excercise for a new Tory-Boy in North Cornwall.
Did I say herding cats? That's simple compared with getting politicians to talk to each other.
Cheap sound bites are so much easier than solid research. But long term they are destructive, demoralising and of little value to those of us trying to block the rat holes down which our current Minister of Conservation and Fisheries would like to keep scuttling. Well done Jim - and welcome to the team.
Herding cats would be easy compared with trying to get politicians to work together - even those (supposedly) of the same political persuasion.
Last November, Owen Paterson MP, a member of the Conservative Shadow Agriculture team, in the face of an exponential rise in cattle tb, set himself a fact finding mission concerning all aspects of bovine tb, the results of which are archived on this site. He has asked 538 Parliamentary questions which delve into cattle, badgers and other hosts: vaccination, skin tests and gamma interferon: Krebs and other trials and the effect of tb on badgers' health and welfare. Mr. Bradshaw's answers, for which we are most grateful, are archived as well.
But now is the run up to general election, and MP's - particularly heavyweights - are being wheeled out to constituencies for a vote catching exercise. Anywhere from Cumbria to Cornwall, they will encounter rural concern about bovine tb, and on this site which has s its base the 538 PQs and answers, they have the opportunity to research and obtain solid information about the problem.
Do they look? No.
Have they consulted the author of the 538 PQ's? No.
Will they jump in with wild statements and make a bad situatiuon worse? Absolutely.
Shadow Minister Jim Paice was reported in the Western Morning News last week, with banner headlines;
"Shadow Minister's Call for Badger Cull".
Well done Jim. This site is calling for 'wildlife management' on all bovine tb vectors, because by now the problem has spilled from the endemically infected badgers (Ben's words in PQ's - not mine) to deer, foxes, domestic cats and even to human beings.(see comment archived on this site). Our aim is a sustainable, balanced ecology with healthy badgers and healthy cattle. It's Tb we want to 'eradicate' not any particular species. (Politicians? - now there's a thought.)
That headline was a cheap soundbite - but it gets worse.
"We need" says Jim, " to bring forward the use of the Gamma Interferon test for Tb in cattle. It is more accurate than the current (skin) test and would reduce the number of cattle slaughtered".
The hell it would.
Cattle in Wales and the West have had so much exposure to m.bovis in their environment from badgers, that almost 70 percent would show positive antibodies say VLA - and that's without the avian and skin tb that the test will also flag up.
But Jim Paice MP, the new Shadow Minister is questioning the intradermal skin test, and proposing to kill less cattle with gamma interferon? In your dreams Jim.
Your 'soundbite solution' has already been covered in PQ's from your colleague Mr. Paterson, answers to which are confirmed by Mr. Bradshaw, and which we quote in full below;
8 Dec 2003 Col 218W (141968)
Mr. Paterson. To ask how long the current Tb skin test has been in use?
Mr. Bradshaw. The tuberculin skin test has been compulsory since 1950. This is the test prescribed by the OIE (Office of International Epizootics) for international trade, as well as under EU directive 64/432/EEC.
30th Jan 2004 Col 540W (150492)
Mr. Paterson. How many countries use the current skin test and how many have reported problems with it?
Mr. Bradshaw. All countries that have either eradicated or have programmes to control bovine tb use one or more forms of the current skin test.
8th December 2003 Col 218W (141969)
Mr. Paterson. Has the Secretary of State any plans to replace the current Tb skin test with a more accurate and sensitive test?
Mr. Bradshaw. The gamma interferon test was officially recognised by the EU in July 2002, but only as a supplement to the SICCT (skin test). The (gamma interferon) test is considered more sensitive but is less specific, meaning that it results in a higher probability of FALSE POSITIVES.
23rd March 2004. col 697 W (158363)
Mr. Paterson. What assessment has been made of why the gamma interferon test achieves sensitivity of 60 -65 percent in UK trials, compared with Australia?
Mr.Bradshaw. The gamma interferon pilot currently running, has not been designed to assess the sensitivity of the test, and no comparisons can be be drawn with trials run in other countries.
25th March 2004 col 989W ( 159061)
Mr. Paterson. What assessment has been made of the need for a) vaccination of i) cattle and ii) badgers and b) other measures to control the incidence of Tb in cattle herds?
Mr. Bradshaw. Evidence from other countries shows that in the absence of a significant wildlife reservoir, cattle controls based on regular testing and slaughter, inspection at slaughterhouses and movement restrictions can be effective at controlling bovine tb without vaccination (or gamma interferon? )
Owen Paterson has teased all these points out of reluctant Minister, only to have his colleague in the Shadow Agriculture team stumble through the lot, on a vote catching excercise for a new Tory-Boy in North Cornwall.
Did I say herding cats? That's simple compared with getting politicians to talk to each other.
Cheap sound bites are so much easier than solid research. But long term they are destructive, demoralising and of little value to those of us trying to block the rat holes down which our current Minister of Conservation and Fisheries would like to keep scuttling. Well done Jim - and welcome to the team.
Missing the point
The Russian saga continues to baffle most of the trade and civil servants charged with the operation of the new bi-lateral veterinary certificate.
The editors of this site have received conflicting accounts of its impact.
From a senior civil servant. "Your fears are unfounded"
From a representative of the dairy trade. " All ingredients used in products destined for the Russian market would be certified in the processing country, and I see no reason why this would prevent our products being exported to the EU for onward processing"
From an investigative journalist, when he'd talked to the EU Commission. "You're absolutely right"
This new veterinary certificate as described in the Europa press release (on this site) breaks the principle of EU community trade in a very important respect. It allows the Commission to 'isolate any Member State or region within a Member State", whose products - (in this instance Animals and Animal Products) - put at risk Community trade as a whole. We cannot hide behind onward processing, because this veterinary certificate will follow products from source, and they will only be taken if exporters can certify that the product in question has come from herds free of tuberculosis, para-tuberculosis (Johnnes disease) and brucellosis for a minimum of 12 months.
This certificate has nothing at all to do with bovine Tb or pasteurisation. It has everything to do with market management by Russia of its own industries - and good luck to them, at least they are still able to do that.
It is all about the protection by the EU Commission of a 1 billion euro community export market with Russia, which the Commission is not going to jeopardise because we will not control the wildlife maintenance vector of bovine tb.
We are unlikely to hear much more for a week or two, as the UK is hosting a Russian trade fair and woe betide anyone who rocks that particular boat.
The editors of this site have received conflicting accounts of its impact.
From a senior civil servant. "Your fears are unfounded"
From a representative of the dairy trade. " All ingredients used in products destined for the Russian market would be certified in the processing country, and I see no reason why this would prevent our products being exported to the EU for onward processing"
From an investigative journalist, when he'd talked to the EU Commission. "You're absolutely right"
This new veterinary certificate as described in the Europa press release (on this site) breaks the principle of EU community trade in a very important respect. It allows the Commission to 'isolate any Member State or region within a Member State", whose products - (in this instance Animals and Animal Products) - put at risk Community trade as a whole. We cannot hide behind onward processing, because this veterinary certificate will follow products from source, and they will only be taken if exporters can certify that the product in question has come from herds free of tuberculosis, para-tuberculosis (Johnnes disease) and brucellosis for a minimum of 12 months.
This certificate has nothing at all to do with bovine Tb or pasteurisation. It has everything to do with market management by Russia of its own industries - and good luck to them, at least they are still able to do that.
It is all about the protection by the EU Commission of a 1 billion euro community export market with Russia, which the Commission is not going to jeopardise because we will not control the wildlife maintenance vector of bovine tb.
We are unlikely to hear much more for a week or two, as the UK is hosting a Russian trade fair and woe betide anyone who rocks that particular boat.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Don't Forget your Toothbrush.
An update on the EU / Russian trade agreement.
The chap manning the telephone advice hotline in the cyberspace between Defra and the DTI, appeared unaware of the potential 'cascade' implications that any trade ban instituted by the EU, to protect their 1 billion euro export trade with Russia, may have on UK exports covered by the our (predictable, appalling and avoidable) bovine Tb status.
For almost 2 years the Russians have been rumbling, but we've imported their shaving brushes (are they Tb free?) , ratted on about pasteurisation and ignored their concerns.
When asked to give details of the range of 'animal products' covered by the new (as yet unavailable) veterinary certificates which came into being Oct 1st., and were described by the EU press release as an 'export opportunity', our man went to get advice from his superior.
Would any ban (if implemented) apply just to cheese, butter, skim etc.?
As we only exported 50 tonnes of butter to Russia in 2003, no big deal he said.
But the new agreement follows the chain of goods through other Member States, so what effect would that have ?
He didn't know.
Like the Beef Ban, (from which we are still suffering) which ended up banning not just a sirloin of beef, but wine gums and soap, blood products and cosmetics, would this vague term 'animal products' cascade downwards through caseine, lactose and whey powder, involving food manufacturers and medicines?
He didn't know, but was beginning to get the picture......
It is our understanding that our man went and had a talk with the Tb strategy team at Defra.
And a telephone call was made to the Commission, who declined to give specific answers to these points - over the telephone!
A representative 'spokes-person' was invited to discuss the implications of this 'EU export opportunity' where "there will be winners" (and by definition therefore, losers?) - face to face.
Immediately.
Today.
Now.
We hope he had time to pack his toothbrush.
Please note below in Comments some questions he took with him to (belatedly) ask the Commission.
To be continued........
(When we have the answers!)
The chap manning the telephone advice hotline in the cyberspace between Defra and the DTI, appeared unaware of the potential 'cascade' implications that any trade ban instituted by the EU, to protect their 1 billion euro export trade with Russia, may have on UK exports covered by the our (predictable, appalling and avoidable) bovine Tb status.
For almost 2 years the Russians have been rumbling, but we've imported their shaving brushes (are they Tb free?) , ratted on about pasteurisation and ignored their concerns.
When asked to give details of the range of 'animal products' covered by the new (as yet unavailable) veterinary certificates which came into being Oct 1st., and were described by the EU press release as an 'export opportunity', our man went to get advice from his superior.
Would any ban (if implemented) apply just to cheese, butter, skim etc.?
As we only exported 50 tonnes of butter to Russia in 2003, no big deal he said.
But the new agreement follows the chain of goods through other Member States, so what effect would that have ?
He didn't know.
Like the Beef Ban, (from which we are still suffering) which ended up banning not just a sirloin of beef, but wine gums and soap, blood products and cosmetics, would this vague term 'animal products' cascade downwards through caseine, lactose and whey powder, involving food manufacturers and medicines?
He didn't know, but was beginning to get the picture......
It is our understanding that our man went and had a talk with the Tb strategy team at Defra.
And a telephone call was made to the Commission, who declined to give specific answers to these points - over the telephone!
A representative 'spokes-person' was invited to discuss the implications of this 'EU export opportunity' where "there will be winners" (and by definition therefore, losers?) - face to face.
Immediately.
Today.
Now.
We hope he had time to pack his toothbrush.
Please note below in Comments some questions he took with him to (belatedly) ask the Commission.
To be continued........
(When we have the answers!)
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
From Russia - 3 new Milkshakes
Europa - press release 22 September 2004.
EU clears the way for Russian Dairy Exports to EU.
The Standing Committee on food chain and animal health approved a European Commission proposal to add 3 Russian dairies to the list of establishments authorised to export milk and milk products into the EU.
This is the first time Russian dairy producers have been authorised to export to the EU.
Approval 1PM - 77/2 PJSC Llanozovo Dairy - Moscow
Approval 1PM - 22/1 Altayholod Ltd. - Altayskiy Territory
Approval 1PM - 48/3 PJSC Lipetskiy - Lipetskiy Territory
Ends.
RUSSIA / Bovine tuberculosis status. (OIE website)
1996 :712 outbreaks 53,800 slaughtered
2000 : 145 0utbreaks 25,500 slaughtered
2002 : 71 outbreaks 10,000 slaughtered
2003 : 87 outbreaks - - - none slaughtered /14,900 VACCINATED
Ends.
So the Russians vaccinate for TB instead of slaughter, AND export into the EU?
Tell us more.
EU clears the way for Russian Dairy Exports to EU.
The Standing Committee on food chain and animal health approved a European Commission proposal to add 3 Russian dairies to the list of establishments authorised to export milk and milk products into the EU.
This is the first time Russian dairy producers have been authorised to export to the EU.
Approval 1PM - 77/2 PJSC Llanozovo Dairy - Moscow
Approval 1PM - 22/1 Altayholod Ltd. - Altayskiy Territory
Approval 1PM - 48/3 PJSC Lipetskiy - Lipetskiy Territory
Ends.
RUSSIA / Bovine tuberculosis status. (OIE website)
1996 :712 outbreaks 53,800 slaughtered
2000 : 145 0utbreaks 25,500 slaughtered
2002 : 71 outbreaks 10,000 slaughtered
2003 : 87 outbreaks - - - none slaughtered /14,900 VACCINATED
Ends.
So the Russians vaccinate for TB instead of slaughter, AND export into the EU?
Tell us more.
Russia - EU trade
A Press Release from Europa re Russia - EU trade relations:
A major loss of trade in animal products to Russia has been avoided by the introduction of uniform veterinary trade certificates, allowing EU exports of live animals and animal products to continue from October 1st 2004 without disruption.
The new certificates will be applicable from October 1st, whilst existing ones will phase out until the end of the year.
Particular attention has been paid to certifying products originating in one Member state and processed in another. The certificates will be reviewed annually, taking into account the development of animal disease situation in the EU.
In addition Russia has accepted the principle of 'regionalisation' so that an animal disease outbreak in a part of a Member State will not block exports from the whole of that country, nor from the rest of the EU. Trade 'blockages' can be limited to the affected regions within the EU. This acceptance is on the basis that the EU has also agreed to set up a system involving a chain of official pre-export certification for products which pass through more than one Member State.
There will be winners, where markets have been opened or certification requirements have been made less onerous. There will also be cases where national authorities have to institute systems to meet the access requirements of the Russian market.
Ends.
The editors are unsure as to how this will impact on UK trade.
Russia originally blocked EU trade on the back of our Tb status.
The EU has protected Community trade by negotiating a 'regionalisation' of the problem.
Major UK dairy exporters appear unaware of any of these agreements and negotiations.
A major loss of trade in animal products to Russia has been avoided by the introduction of uniform veterinary trade certificates, allowing EU exports of live animals and animal products to continue from October 1st 2004 without disruption.
The new certificates will be applicable from October 1st, whilst existing ones will phase out until the end of the year.
Particular attention has been paid to certifying products originating in one Member state and processed in another. The certificates will be reviewed annually, taking into account the development of animal disease situation in the EU.
In addition Russia has accepted the principle of 'regionalisation' so that an animal disease outbreak in a part of a Member State will not block exports from the whole of that country, nor from the rest of the EU. Trade 'blockages' can be limited to the affected regions within the EU. This acceptance is on the basis that the EU has also agreed to set up a system involving a chain of official pre-export certification for products which pass through more than one Member State.
There will be winners, where markets have been opened or certification requirements have been made less onerous. There will also be cases where national authorities have to institute systems to meet the access requirements of the Russian market.
Ends.
The editors are unsure as to how this will impact on UK trade.
Russia originally blocked EU trade on the back of our Tb status.
The EU has protected Community trade by negotiating a 'regionalisation' of the problem.
Major UK dairy exporters appear unaware of any of these agreements and negotiations.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
Tb testing - Kiwi style
Following "UK way behind NZ on tb control, and "Tuberculosis and the ......" (archived on this site), our correspondent in NZ has sent us a his work sheet for last week.
John is a lay tester, an idea Defra have been floating here. This task is vehemently defended by some vets - Mr. Sibley for example. But is there much job satisfaction in sticking needles in a cow's neck, then following it up with a 007 license to a devastated farmer?
Last week, John tells us, he and 10 other testers moved into an infected herd which wanted to move 700 (yes - you did read that right! Seven Hundred) cattle to 'kinder' pastures for fattening. The cattle had been skin tested with just one jab in the caudal fold (no avian tb in NZ, so no comparison avian jab is needed) and the lay testers were taking bloods to make sure there were no 'sleepers'. These are cattle which have had exposure to tb infection in the 30 -50 days prior to their skin test, and which that current skin test may not show. If the bloods are clear then the cattle will be tagged with AHB ( Animal Health Board) tags to show they had come from an infected herd and moved.
It took the 11 lay testers just 4 hours to take bloods from the 700 cattle, using 3 races.
Two of the races took 10 animals at a time, and the third 16, with three groups of 3 testers working on each and 2 people recording ear numbers.
At the end of October, John is testing cattle on a dairy farm, which under OIE trading rules needs 2 clear skin tests to be released from movement restriction. He has told us that he can test up to 2000 cattle per day.
That's a lot of cattle folks.
John is a lay tester, an idea Defra have been floating here. This task is vehemently defended by some vets - Mr. Sibley for example. But is there much job satisfaction in sticking needles in a cow's neck, then following it up with a 007 license to a devastated farmer?
Last week, John tells us, he and 10 other testers moved into an infected herd which wanted to move 700 (yes - you did read that right! Seven Hundred) cattle to 'kinder' pastures for fattening. The cattle had been skin tested with just one jab in the caudal fold (no avian tb in NZ, so no comparison avian jab is needed) and the lay testers were taking bloods to make sure there were no 'sleepers'. These are cattle which have had exposure to tb infection in the 30 -50 days prior to their skin test, and which that current skin test may not show. If the bloods are clear then the cattle will be tagged with AHB ( Animal Health Board) tags to show they had come from an infected herd and moved.
It took the 11 lay testers just 4 hours to take bloods from the 700 cattle, using 3 races.
Two of the races took 10 animals at a time, and the third 16, with three groups of 3 testers working on each and 2 people recording ear numbers.
At the end of October, John is testing cattle on a dairy farm, which under OIE trading rules needs 2 clear skin tests to be released from movement restriction. He has told us that he can test up to 2000 cattle per day.
That's a lot of cattle folks.
New tb Strategy - Defra's Missing Link
The editors of this site are most grateful to our man in NZ for the following link:
www.ahb.org.nz
John has described to us the 'New strategy' that NZ is following with regard to attaining OIE tb free status, and this web link povides their aims, and how they plan to go about it.
The majority of proposals are mirrored in the GB 'New strategy' document, so rather than clocking up 'airmiles' going to have a look, perhaps Defra top brass could have saved a bit of taxpayers' money and downloaded the NZ version. When we say 'majority' of proposals, we mean the bits of strategy applicable to cattle of course. And on some of these we are ahead of NZ, for example cattle identification and tracing. But a glaring ommission from the GB 'strategy' is what the Kiwi's refer to as 'Vector control', and what Defra barely mention. Defra's missing link.
The title page states:
'Our mission to eradicate Tb from New Zealand.'
Good - they have an aim.
At the GB Tb strategy meetings in the spring, farmers and vets said much the same, but we have a minister who is alleged to have told a leading cattle vet that "he didn't intend to be in the hot seat when that decision had to made".
NZ has a target time scale ranging from 2 - 5 years in which it aims to bring the bulk of the country into the designated OIE tb free trading status - 0.2% of cattle tested.
This is acheived by intradermal skin testing, with blood tests as back up.
(see Gamma Interferon on this site - NZ has no m.avium (avian tb) and no skin tb so the gamma interferon test is much more specific to m.bovis)
In answers to PQ's (archived) our Ben SAID that he would like tb free trading staus, and that he saw no advantage in NOT having it, but that under present 'strategies' we would not achieve it. Our level in GB is 4.33 percent of the herds registered on VetNet, higher if BCMS registered holdings are used. Under current strategies which are specific to cattle, while ignoring wildlife vectors, Ben forecast a 20 percent annual increase in cattle slaughterings. That was an underestimate, he actually achieved 25 percent 2000 - 2004.
The words 'Vector Control' appear in every section of the NZ document.
It's technology, monitoring and a list of its targets. Possums are the main wildlife reservoir, but from them the spill is into wild and farmed deer, which although not particularly infectious in themselves could provide carcass transmission to other species if tb is allowed to flourish. Wild and free range pigs are other species particularly at risk, as are feral ferrets. In NZ, all are subject to 'vector control' measures, including a a new rule 'prohibiting the release into the wild' of any of these species.
Ben's answers to PQ's on our 'wildlife vectors', concerning release and translocation is that he has no idea where wildlife 'sanctuaries' are, they are unlicensed (and will remain so?) and there are no restrictions on the translocation of wildlife from them, or from anywhere else.
Some badgers are translocated under a 'code of practise, neither drawn up nor approved by Defra', he said.
(see Translocation, Translocation archived on this site)
And that's it. Half a story isn't it?
Ben said that he could see 'no trading advantages' in our (disgraceful) level of bTb. Well the Russians have - and they're the first to use them against us. (see From Russia with Love).
This 'non-strategy' is walking the UK livestock industry blindfolded into oblivion.
www.ahb.org.nz
John has described to us the 'New strategy' that NZ is following with regard to attaining OIE tb free status, and this web link povides their aims, and how they plan to go about it.
The majority of proposals are mirrored in the GB 'New strategy' document, so rather than clocking up 'airmiles' going to have a look, perhaps Defra top brass could have saved a bit of taxpayers' money and downloaded the NZ version. When we say 'majority' of proposals, we mean the bits of strategy applicable to cattle of course. And on some of these we are ahead of NZ, for example cattle identification and tracing. But a glaring ommission from the GB 'strategy' is what the Kiwi's refer to as 'Vector control', and what Defra barely mention. Defra's missing link.
The title page states:
'Our mission to eradicate Tb from New Zealand.'
Good - they have an aim.
At the GB Tb strategy meetings in the spring, farmers and vets said much the same, but we have a minister who is alleged to have told a leading cattle vet that "he didn't intend to be in the hot seat when that decision had to made".
NZ has a target time scale ranging from 2 - 5 years in which it aims to bring the bulk of the country into the designated OIE tb free trading status - 0.2% of cattle tested.
This is acheived by intradermal skin testing, with blood tests as back up.
(see Gamma Interferon on this site - NZ has no m.avium (avian tb) and no skin tb so the gamma interferon test is much more specific to m.bovis)
In answers to PQ's (archived) our Ben SAID that he would like tb free trading staus, and that he saw no advantage in NOT having it, but that under present 'strategies' we would not achieve it. Our level in GB is 4.33 percent of the herds registered on VetNet, higher if BCMS registered holdings are used. Under current strategies which are specific to cattle, while ignoring wildlife vectors, Ben forecast a 20 percent annual increase in cattle slaughterings. That was an underestimate, he actually achieved 25 percent 2000 - 2004.
The words 'Vector Control' appear in every section of the NZ document.
It's technology, monitoring and a list of its targets. Possums are the main wildlife reservoir, but from them the spill is into wild and farmed deer, which although not particularly infectious in themselves could provide carcass transmission to other species if tb is allowed to flourish. Wild and free range pigs are other species particularly at risk, as are feral ferrets. In NZ, all are subject to 'vector control' measures, including a a new rule 'prohibiting the release into the wild' of any of these species.
Ben's answers to PQ's on our 'wildlife vectors', concerning release and translocation is that he has no idea where wildlife 'sanctuaries' are, they are unlicensed (and will remain so?) and there are no restrictions on the translocation of wildlife from them, or from anywhere else.
Some badgers are translocated under a 'code of practise, neither drawn up nor approved by Defra', he said.
(see Translocation, Translocation archived on this site)
And that's it. Half a story isn't it?
Ben said that he could see 'no trading advantages' in our (disgraceful) level of bTb. Well the Russians have - and they're the first to use them against us. (see From Russia with Love).
This 'non-strategy' is walking the UK livestock industry blindfolded into oblivion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)