Tuesday, November 04, 2008

T-BAG - the successor?

The NFU has announced an industry successor to the late un-lamented T-Bag, (TB Advisory Group') whose main claim to fame was the delivery of Defra's zoning lines. As we said in that post, Defra's creation of such 'groups' to rubber stamp their proposals is well documented. And it usually works. But we digress.... In a press release issued yesterday, the NFU announces;
Following detailed discussions with Defra and the European Commission the English Cattle Industry (NFU, NBA, CLA, TFA, RABDF, LAA, AIMS) has agreed with Defra that a new Bovine TB Eradication Group should be formed. The group will be a joint Defra/industry group and its remit is set out below.

Although the exact make up of the group has still to be finalised, the group title has strung the words 'TB and eradication' into one sentence, which is one samll step towards complying with EU legislation.

We explored this in a posting here in which the European Union, which creates the majority of agricultural legislation in the UK, set out the responsibities of state governments to control, and eradicate bTB.

During the summer, a group of industry representatives visited Brussels to update the Commission on their concerns about Defra's non-policies, which have resulted in the decimation of the cattle industry and culling of cattle on 'an industrial scale' in some counties. The cost is unsustainable, the outcome totally predictable. The new group for England, has the following remit:
“A new England group on eradication of TB in cattle will be set up to make recommendations to the Secretary of State on bovine TB and its eradication. The membership of the group will include representatives from Defra’s Food and Farming Group, Animal Health, the farming industry and the veterinary profession, and it will be convened and facilitated by Defra. The group may invite other experts to contribute to its work as necessary, including other industry bodies and wider interest groups. It will also draw on the advice of the Commission’s TB Task Force, which will be invited to visit GB in early 2009."

Defra have to formulate a 'plan' of eradication for bovine badger TB and submit this to the European veterinary officials by April 2009. If you remember, Lord Rooker told EFRAcom 'Defra have no policy' in his evidence last year. But Defra must have a policy, and such a strategy must involve wildlife reservoirs, if such exist. The group statement continues:
The group will review the current TB strategy and control measures and develop a plan for reducing the incidence of bovine TB from cattle in England and moving towards eventual eradication. It will also assess options to help farmers in high incidence areas maintain viable businesses when under disease restrictions. A priority output from the work of this group will be a series of measures which can be submitted to the European Commission for approval as part of a formal eradication plan. The group may wish to make recommendations on other issues as they arise, and Defra may also choose to refer specific issues to the group.

This sounds suspiciously like more farm to farm trading, and beef finishing units, all of which cope with the fall out, while doing absolutely nothing about the source of the problem. And welcome though such measures are at the time of restrictions on a herd to trade, make no mistake, any such trade is at a substantial reduction on 'market prices'. The statement concludes:
“The group will look at the options available to address infection in cattle and to reduce the risk of transmission between cattle and between cattle and wildlife, and consider costs and benefits in making recommendations for action. It will consider options for using vaccination in cattle and badgers. It will also consider any exceptional circumstances or new scientific evidence that might arise relating to the established policy on badger culling for control of TB, recognising that the terms of this policy are currently subject to judicial review.
In carrying out this work the group will have full access to information on Defra’s TB budget and be able to make recommendations on its use within Defra’s funding ceilings. It will also be able to make recommendations for additional expenditure where these can be supported by a robust business case.


For further information contact:
Peter Kendall (NFU) – 02476 85 8678
Richard Macdonald (NFU) – 02476 85 8678
Christopher Thomas-Everard (NBA) – 07970 229526
Bill Harper (NBA) – 07831 099182
Ollie Wilson (CLA Communications Director) – 020 7460 7936
Greg Bliss (TFA National Chairman) – 0118 930 6130
Lyndon Edwards (RABDF Chairman) – 0845 4582711
Chris Dodds (LAA) – 07885731502
Alistair Sneddon (LAA) - 07973982441
Norman Bagley (AIMS) - 01609 761 547

UPDATE: There was a comment posted today which alerted us to a simple word realignment between the press release which we posted above, and the notes to editors of the parallel Defra press release. Above, the industry group frames its intentions thus:
“The group will look at the options available to address infection in cattle and to reduce the risk of transmission between cattle and between cattle and wildlife....."

And while the Defra press release has parallel wording in the body of the text, the notes to editors contain a slightly different, and rather delicious difference. We do see a difference in the interpretation, and welcome Defras' clarification. The notes of which editors should take heed state:
The work of the group will include:

* Developing a plan for reducing the incidence of bovine TB from cattle in England and moving towards eventual eradication.
* Assessing options to help farmers in high incidence areas maintain viable businesses when under disease restrictions.

** Looking at the options available to address infection in cattle and to reduce the risk of transmission between cattle and between wildlife and cattle, and consider costs and benefits in making recommendations for action.

* Considering options for using vaccination in cattle and badgers.
* Considering any exceptional circumstances or new scientific evidence that might arise relating to the established policy on badger culling for control of TB.

Our commentator ask "Pedantic, or an important slip of the pen difference?"

Time will tell.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

“BETWEEN WILDLIFE AND CATTLE” OR “CATTLE AND WILDLIFE” ?

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2008/081103a.htm

DEFRA website states

“The group will look at the options available to address infection in cattle and to reduce the risk of transmission between cattle and between cattle and wildlife”
Whilst in the Notes to Editors section below it says:
The work of the group will include:-
“looking at the options available to address infection in cattle and to reduce the risk of transmission between cattle and between wildlife and cattle, and consider costs and benefits in making recommendations for action”
The government is naturally very careful with its wording – to me this is not quite the same! Or is it?

Pedantically yours

Peter Brady

SETT

Matthew said...

Well spotted Peter. And be as pedantic as you feel is necessary.

It is encouraging that the 'E' words, both Eradication and Europe are being spoken of in the same breath. In this case, Defra may just have to do as they are told.,
We have posted an alert to this subtle juxtaposition in the posting. Thanks.
Matt

Anonymous said...

CATTLE SLAUGHTERED DUE TO BOVINE TB

Again - call me pedantic – call me picky – call me – even – old-fashioned - but on 10th Dec 2003 Ben Bradshaw reported the figures below in the first column to Parliament whilst on 21st October 2008 Jane Kennedy reported those in the second column


2002 22889 18443
2001 6256 4438
2000 8353 7190
1999 6890 5580
1998 6083 5027
1997 3760 3123

A difference of some 20% in most cases!

Have I missed something? Or has DEFRA?

Peter Brady

SETT

Matthew said...

Peter,
There are 3 columns for Defra's slaughtered cattle. The lower figure (we suspect) refers to Reactors only, while the next two columns total IRs, and DCs (Inconclusives and Dangerous contacts)
For example the figure of reactors slaughtered for Jan - June this year is 21,792, but the total number of dead cattle is 23,444. And dead's dead.

Similarly, Defra will report the figure of 'Confirmed herd breakdowns', which is always lower than a restriction where TB is not confirmed either by PM or culture. But again, a herd restriction is no less onerous for not being included in Defra's bean counting exercise.

Anonymous said...

Hi Matthew

Precisely

The actual wording of JKs reply was:-

The number of cattle slaughtered as a result of bovine TB control measures in each year in England since 1997 are shown in the following table:

Number of cattle slaughtered under bovine TB control measures
1997 3,123
1998 5,027
1999 5,580
2000 7,190
2001 4,438
2002 18,443
2003 17,551
2004 17,306
2005 23,135
2006 16,007
2007 19,794


As you say - dead's dead!

JK's reply is wrong!

Cheers

Peter
SETT

I'll ask them and see what they say

Matthew said...

We have the whole miserable lot from 1978, when 921 cattle were slaughtered. The low point was 1986with just 638 cattle recorded.

For the years Jane Kennedy has (mis)quoted, the relevant totals for cattle slaughtered in GB are:

1997 (3,123) 3760
1998 (5,027) 6083
1999 (5,580) 6890 prov.
2000 (7,190) 8353
2001 (4,438) 6000 FMD prov.
2002 (18,443) 22,889
2003 (17,551) 23,803
2004 (17,306) 23,064
2005 (23,135) 29,585
2006 (16,007) 22,094 [Change to Lelystadt tuberculin antigen)
2007 (19,794) 28,175

2008 [to July] 23,444

Matt