Sunday, February 28, 2010

Moving the line?


As our readers will know, we have long been critical of Defra's 'maginot' zoning lines on a map. Badgers can't read, and cattle on 3 or 4 year testing regimes may have already been infected. As no testing is required prior to any sale, let alone dispersal sales, prospective purchasers may inadvertently import trouble.

The parish testing map on the right of the pic, is the new improved 'red' zone requiring annual testing and all the paraphernalia that goes with it. A buffer of two year testing edges it to the east, and further east, but only a couple of miles from acknowledged hot spots, trade continues as normal.

Last October, several dairy farmers purchasing high quality and high priced animals from a big dispersal sale from beyond Defra's 'maginot' line, bought trouble. We heard of this quite early on with the Holstein jungle drums beating loudly as cattle purchased days before, became reactors or inconclusives during routine tests in their new herds from Glos. to Cornwall and as far away as Norfolk. One particular cow that we know of was condemned on slaughter, with generalised TB. Thus a purchase of several £thousand only days before, was 'worth' peanuts on Defra's tabular valuation, and nothing at all as salvage clawback.

But although the sale was mid October, Defra's cattle tracing mechanism has moved about as fast as a sloth on Valium in following up purchases from this sale - as the Eastern Daily Press reports.
Ken Procter, who is the former president of the Holstein Cattle Society explains:
We bought three cows on October 14. We had them tested. One failed and the others were inconclusive. They were only with us for four days," said Mr Proctor, who as a precaution put the cows into isolation on another holding, which does not have cattle.

When re-tested on December 19, two cows were both positive for bovine TB and have since been slaughtered in early January. Although he will receive some compensation, the loss on the breeding cattle will be more than £1,000 per head.

But Mr Proctor, who said that the disease had to be kept out of Norfolk, was concerned about the whole approach to testing: "The speed at which cases are tackled is horrendous. What really irritates me is that they still hadn't followed up the farm where the cows had been, and we didn't get a letter until about three weeks ago. They had waited four months before sending out tracing letters."


This farm was outside Defra's red area, and outside its buffer zone - which one presumes will now have migrated a tad further east?

36 comments:

Anonymous said...

Full marks to Mr Proctor for having the sense to get his purchases tested, but shouldn't he be pursuing the seller for a full refund?

Matthew said...

Anon 4.01
We favour post movement testing of breeding stock, regardless of origin and put that suggestion to Defra in 1996.
As to refunds, it really depends on the wording of the Terms of Sale. If the cattle were sold as 'TB free', but that relying on a routine test carried out in 2006 then possibly there would be a case. (And we say possibly because we really are not lawyers !) If the date of the last test wasn't given either in the catalogue or From the rostrum at the sale, and prospective purchasers assumed, quite wrongly that preMT tests had been done, then possibly.

It seems very wrong that having a bill of sale giving a genuine 'market value' for these animals, that within days or weeks of the purchase, the new owner then has to accept Defra's substantially lower tabular figure.
Purchasers from other areas than west, should have had TB insurance cover. Purchasers in hotspots are unlikely to be able to get any such cover, or if they have then premiums have gone up ten-fold, and cover halved. All down to individual 'risk'.

Anonymous said...

'Farmers' could refuse to purchase cattle that did not have proof of a recent TB test (albeit only a guide, not proof of health status.

The 'genuine market value' to which you refer is presumably the price paid by the purchaser - Unfortunately the real value of these diseased animals is very little. Perhaps Mr Proctor could be considered lucky to get DEFRA's compensation, and perhaps may like to consider his future purchases more carefully.

Matthew said...

Anon. 4.59.
Being in a 4 year testing area himself, Mr. Proctor may have the belt and braces of insurance cover.

In an ideal world, Defra should not have to pay 'compulsory purchase' at all, as farmers should be able to insure against such losses.

But in the present climate of 'risk' from wildlife, insurance is practically unobtainable for most of us. A few years ago, underwriters were laughed out of court, after a suggestion by Defra that they match fund levies for TB payouts.
"Exposure to risk is too great" was the reply - and they weren't talking about cattle.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry Matthew but I can't understand why anyone purchasing high risk items that by their own claims could cripple their business should not be expected to exercise 'due diligence'.

I am not in the least surprised that insurers are unwilling to compensate such reckless behaviour.

With farmers' claims of the forthcoming death of the dairy industry, etc, etc a decent livestock recording system would surely be a worthwhile investment.

A decent modern system would start with electronic tagging linked in to a national database. It would be a simple matter to include such data as TB testing and to scan all livestock arriving at market/farm/slaughter/export. The national database could be updated simply and quickly.

OK there would be some costs involved, and also savings. The downside for some would be that policing animal movements could become much easier, particularly if an RF ID system with embedded chips (along the lines of that used on domestic pets) was used.

Matthew said...

Anon 8.57.
Said : " ...I can't understand why anyone purchasing high risk items that by their own claims could cripple their business should not be expected to exercise 'due diligence'."

By Defra's definition - i.e the herd was outside their red 'high risk' annual testing area, and thus on 4 year testing - this herd was not high risk. It was no risk -or very little, according to Defra's maps.

"I am not in the least surprised that insurers are unwilling to compensate such reckless behaviour."

You misunderstand. Most cattle farmers were offered or could obtain TB insurance a decade ago. We had it, and similarly several contributers to the site had it too. But with the increase in TB incidence from a source outside farmers control, and which Defra refuse to control, TB insurance is now unavaialbale to most of us at any price.
After a substantial claim on a 'closed herd' breakdown, even though we are now in the position once again of not buying in cattle, we are unable to obtain cover at all.

"... a decent livestock recording system would surely be a worthwhile investment."

BCMS? CTS? and Vetnet? - now all linked, and with Trading Standards having access? Once a calf is born and entered on the database, within 27 days of its birth, all movement history is computerised.
They have to be logged into BCMS within 3 days of the movement.

"A decent modern system would start with electronic tagging linked in to a national database."
And these electronic tags would be part of an eartag? (It is our understanding they would form the centre part. That is what is proposed, not microchips)
The loss rate on most eartags, and certainly ours, is up to 50%. At the moment the replacement cost is £3.50 each. How much more for lost 'chips'. (We do about 8 / month)


"It would be a simple matter to include such data as TB testing and to scan all livestock arriving at market/farm/slaughter/export."
This is already done, but manually. A declaration and copy of test sheet which Trading Standards check, accompanies every movement from annual and two year testing areas. And for export, whole farm screens are done by Defra Carlisle before paperwork is issued for individual animals. Vets inspect and sign off animals 24 hours prior to travel. The pile of paperwork is 2 inches high, with an 18 page instruction book for the vet.

"The national database could be updated simply and quickly."
Not sure how much more 'quickly' than it is now. It's all computerised with relevant overseers having access..

"...particularly if an RF ID system with embedded chips (along the lines of that used on domestic pets) was used."
Having so much trouble with tags, with that we would agree - but the abattoirs would not. Apparently they have issued a big 'no' against microchips as they are said to migrate from for example, ears, to part of the carcase needed for human consumption. We do not know if that is correct, but that is their reason for arguing against them. (We're told)

The tracibility we have now for cattle is actually pretty good, once local AHO get their bums into gear. Faced with a bought in reactor cow, they are often reluctant to set wheels in motion ahead of samples and a spoligotype suggesting 'bought in' as opposed to home grown problems. That is the point Mr. Proctor made.

We were aware of problems in many counties from this sale, as early as late October, early November. But with different AHOs dealing with individual farms on their respective patches, things didn't move as fast as they should.

Nevertheless, don't lose sight of the fact that this farm was OUTSIDE Defra's 'risk' area. And still on 4 year testing. Which also supports our point that Defra will not get ahead of TB, until they know where it is.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to make it clear that I am not anti-farmer, but like many many people I get the feeling that farmers are always complaining about something or other. (OK I know you'll say that you have reason to!)

It seems almost unheard of to hear a farming good news story, or to get some positive proposals from your industry.

Before you get shouting, the foregoing is just my impression - I expect you'll write reams to prove me wrong, but it's my impression.
I also know that not all farmers are the same, and that your particular situation of running an 'isolated heard' (not to be confused with a 'closed herd' that seems to mean very little in some cases) is not industry norm.

Just because you can do something (ie DEFRA allows it)doesn't mean it is a sensible thing to do.

For instance this from: http://preview.tinyurl.com/y8g6jnk "It is picking up pace in the eastern region, and we're still a four-year (TB testing) parish. I can go into the biggest hot-spot in the west country and buy 40 baby Hereford heifers, bring them home and rear them. They never need to be tested until they're four years old."

I just cannot fathom why 'farmers' are not crying out for proper modern traceability.

I'm sorry Matthew, but if you really think that in the year 2010 we cannot improve on a system that to quote yourself involves a "pile of paperwork is 2 inches high, with an 18 page instruction book for the vet" I don't know if it's worth continuing this dialogue.

Perhaps it would be better for your little group who seem to think that killing badgers is the only way forward to continue talking amongst yourselves.

Oh, and by the way, apparently 'down under' in Australia they now have electricity! They've embraced modern technology with a system dubbed NLIS. Apparently "the NLIS was created to replace traditional tail tags with radio frequency identification RFID tags. This whole-of-life identification system permits individual animals to be tracked from birth to slaughter for food safety and product integrity.

With 70 per cent of Australia's beef product exported, the system will also help uphold overseas confidence in Australian beef and diary products. Australia exports beef to Japan and many other countries and the Japanese have been experimenting with RFID to track incoming beef for safety reasons."

Rather than several linked paper trails running at the speed of DEFRA, etc, electronic systems run at the speed of light (286,000 mile per second I think), and the data is easily shared so that an animals full history could be available pre-sale.

And, if ear tags are a problem in Australia NLIS devices for cattle may either be an ear tag, or a rumen bolus/visual ear tag combination.
You can get RFID tags for as little as 76 US cents http://preview.tinyurl.com/yjnczkx so I presume that £3.50 replacement cost you mention does not represent the actual cost of the tag but includes an allowance for civil service lunches.

Matthew said...

Anon 4.48.
You say:
"I'd like to make it clear that I am not anti-farmer, but like many many people I get the feeling that farmers are always complaining about something or other. (OK I know you'll say that you have reason to!)

It seems almost unheard of to hear a farming good news story, or to get some positive proposals from your industry."

We (as in Matt 3, and Matt 5 who are able to trade cattle, for once) are very happy bunnies at the moment. A couple more of our contributers are in the same position, having just had clear tests. While others are in snarl mode, having been hoovered into the rigmarole which surrounds annual testing. The cost and organisation which surrounds preMT is a shock.

"Before you get shouting, the foregoing is just my impression - I expect you'll write reams to prove me wrong, but it's my impression."

We don't shout. And you're right: farmers do moan. Goes with the territory. We also have a sense of humour.

"....not all farmers are the same, and that your particular situation of running an 'isolated heard' (not to be confused with a 'closed herd' that seems to mean very little in some cases) is not industry norm."

John Bourne is on record as saying there is no such thing as a 'closed herd'. "They do not exist" he said - with absolute confidence. He's wrong, and two of us have that in writing to prove him wrong.

"Just because you can do something (ie DEFRA allows it)doesn't mean it is a sensible thing to do."

Agree. In fact if Defra support something, it invariably means problems for us, extra cost for us and no long term solution whatsoever..
We favour annual TB testing. Defra will always be running behind TB until they know where it is.

My example of Defra's gold plating of export documents, is unfortunately mirrored by their gift wrapping practically everything they touch. Compared with other EU member states, the bureaucracy is colossal. And I doubt that would change, whether we have EID for cattle (and I think it will come - sheep are a trial run this year) or not.
I would welcome a reduction in the myriad of records which trading cattle involves - by whichever process. It all ends up the same place, as I explained.

For instance, for cattle we sold Friday, the actions needed included:
Clear TB test within the last 60 days (from jab day, so in effect about 50 by the time paperwork from vet to AH, and AH to farm is done)
Sign off animals in on-farm cattle register.
Sign off and date passports.
Sign and fill in market entry form with eartags, Dof B, and TB test, BTV vax and Food Chain declarations info for each animal.
Load and travel. (that's the easy bit)
When cattle have left, log off the individual cattle on BCMS website (or post cards from passports within 3 days)

Cattle moving to direct slaughter from a farm under TB restriction, need most of that + AH license to move.

"Perhaps it would be better for your little group who seem to think that killing badgers is the only way forward to continue talking amongst yourselves."

Mmm. We've never said that. There are things that farmers should be doing to proptect themselves, including post movement testing of breeding cattle. As your link said, cattle for fattening and slaughter are not so vulnerable to an extended testing regime.
However. And this is the big one. When you've done ALL that you can on the cattle side of the fence, and still have problems, there is no alternative but to sort out the wildlife, which in the majority of cases, is the cause.

Note in your link to EDP, that Ms. Henson mentions alpacas. A huge spillover problem in that species and much interherd spread. Many more pets and companion ruminants too. It was ever going to happen with Defra concentrating on killing sentinel tested cattle, and leaving infected badgers to roam free.
That's not a witch hunt, that's the reality of farming in the West.

Anonymous said...

Matthew, when you say:"When you've done ALL that you can on the cattle side of the fence, and still have problems, there is no alternative but to sort out the wildlife, which in the majority of cases, is the cause", could I clarify what you are saying? "in the majority of cases, is the cause" - inthe cases on your farm, England? world?

Anonymous said...

"John Bourne is on record as saying there is no such thing as a 'closed herd'. "They do not exist" he said - with absolute confidence. He's wrong, and two of us have that in writing to prove him wrong."

Interesting - written by whom - would be interesting to see this. Can others of us with closed herds get similar proof?

Matthew said...

Anon 8.34
said " Interesting - written by whom - would be interesting to see this. Can others of us with closed herds get similar proof?"

Written by the agency which holds the data - BCMS. Very helpful.
I asked them to confirm that our herd had had no 'ON' movements of bought in cattle.
The answer came straight back:

"From: British Cattle Movement Service
Thank you for your recent E-mail.
I have checked on the Cattle Tracing System (CTS) and can confirm that no ‘bought in’ cattle moved ON to your holding between 1 July 1996 and 18 January 2005."

At that time (Jan 2005) we had been under TB restriction for 4 years, undergone over 20 back to back 60 day tests, and lost almost 50 home bred cattle. Only 3 were confirmed with early lesions in the autumn of 2003.

Matthew said...

Anon 8.30
said:
"...When you've done ALL that you can on the cattle side of the fence, and still have problems, there is no alternative but to sort out the wildlife, which in the majority of cases, is the cause", could I clarify what you are saying? "in the majority of cases, is the cause" - in the cases on your farm, England? world?"

When a TB breakdown occurs, it is our understanding that detailed investigative work is done as to origin. (Anywhere in the world, where TB is taken seriously) Movement books and CTS data are checked for purchases, and if the reactor(s) are incoming, and if the spoligotype proves to be indigenous to the consigning herd (as with Mr. Proctor ?) then it's a fair assumption, that the receiving herd and wildlife were not involved.

We have shown on previous posts, some charts drawn up from Devon / cornwall with the results of these epidemiological 'risk assessments' done after breakdowns by AHOs, which show excatly what we said, that the huge majority of TB breakdowns do not involve cattle purchases at all, but are caused by wildlife, and particularly badgers.
So on our farm 100 percent down to badgers, see comment above.
SW (Devon / Cornwall) up to 90 percent down to badgers from AHO epidemiological screening.
In other areas of the UK, some breakdowns are down to their own 'hotspot' interface with wildlife. (Including Scotland)
The world; some countries have their own wildlife reservoirs which feed TB back to tested cattle. With US / Canada it is white tailed deer and farm park bison. In Spain it is badgers / lynx/ wild boar. New Zealand has the brush tailed possum.
If cattle to cattle transmmission can be excluded, it is not unreasonable to look elsewhere.
Uniquely amongst countries which still have a problem with TB in tested cattle, GB is doing nothing to eradicate the disease from its wildlife population.
The inevitable spillover has now occurred into many other mammals, with alpacas and llamas being the most high profile victims, and possibly the most infectious both to their herd mates and with the ongoing risk to their owners.

Anonymous said...

"I asked them to confirm that our herd had had no 'ON' movements of bought in cattle."

Very disappointing, but not altogether unexpected response from you Matthew.

Unfortunately this does not disprove John Bourne's statement that 'closed herds' do not exist. There's more to it than no on-movements - as I expect you know full well.

Anonymous said...

"we said, that the huge majority of TB breakdowns do not involve cattle purchases at all, but are caused by wildlife, and particularly badgers"

That is only your opinion of course, and there's more to the cattle scenario than purchases.


"If cattle to cattle transmmission can be excluded, it is not unreasonable to look elsewhere.
Uniquely amongst countries which still have a problem with TB in tested cattle, GB is doing nothing to eradicate the disease from its wildlife population.
The inevitable spillover has now occurred into many other mammals,"

That's a bloody big if! IF cattle to cattle transmission can be excluded. Perhaps this is so on your farm (yet to be independently proven despite your assurances from BCMS, but for the majority - dream on!

Yes! The inevitable spillover has now occurred into many other mammals, from the primary host - CATTLE.

I joined this dialogue because I felt that farmers really ought to get together and make some constructive proposals that didn't churn out the same old arguments (sorry Matthew, but you do). The suggestion of farmers pushing for a modern data system for the cattle industry has gone the way I expected it to, and returned (did it ever leave) to the 'wildlife control' argument.

I'm getting bored with this blog, I must admit, so had a little read about the Australian system - NLIS. In an NLIS traceability exercise,
‘CowCatcher 2’ conducted in May 2007, one state which was
allocated 57 cattle to trace found that
they had had potential contact with
460,000 cattle over their lifetime.


Ok that's down under, and things are obviously different there.

For a start they have a system that makes getting that kind of information practically possible - in the UK I suggest it would be practically impossible.

Of course the major problem for you guys would be that they don't track the badgers (sorry - that's a sort of joke)

Matthew said...

Anon 5.42
You're "disappointed?" And there's "more to it than no 'On' movments"? How so? If it's cattle that are spreading TB, they have to meet to share?
M.bovis is tenacious little bug, but it also heavy and unlike some bacteria is not airborne. No over-the-fence contact is possible here - roads, woods and a river.

OK, I'll put it another way. Every animal on this farm except one - a heifer purchased prior to the setting up of the BCMS database in 1996,(and sold in 2005) - had our herd number, our parish in its ear and was born on this farm.
No 'ON' movements of bought in cattle means exactly what it says on the tin. Thus from the day this heifer walked in, the herd was 'closed' to new entrants of cattle. That seemed sensible.

By your reply I expect you mean no 'ON' movements onto the farm of any sort. No shows, exhibitions etc. with returns? Correct, there were none of these at all.
In the time span BCMS replied to, 1996 - 2005 there was a single 'On' movement to this farm.

A beef cross calf which was marketed in 1998, failed to reach reserve, was brought back and kept isolated. She was delivered to our herdsman three weeks later.

TB did not come onto this farm in a truck.

Anon 6.10.
If you're bored, feel free...
Have you seen the pics we've posted of badgers with TB?
How on earth would you think they do not share it?

Australia, from which you quote frequently cleared its wildlife reservoir in a particularly novel way. They neck banded 'judas' cows with radio transmitters and sent them off into the bush to gather wild feral cattle and their wildlife TB problem, bison.
Helicopters rounded up thousands. Into the canning factory they went. End of.
Posting, with pics is 'BTEC in Australia - Feb 2008.

Jim said...

Anon 6.10: I don't know why you think excluding cattle-to-cattle transmission is such a "big IF". Defra studies (such as SE3013 and 3015 - covered a while ago on this site) show very clearly that cattle do not give each other TB very easily, at least not in today's testing environment (i.e. where infected animals are generally identified and taken out of the picture at an early stage).

And, by the way, the various studies which get cited as authority for the idea that cattle movements are mainly to blame for the spread of TB demonstrate no such thing. In fact a 2007 paper concluded that breakdowns were best explained by a model which attributed only 16% of herd infections directly to cattle movements.

Nor do I understand why you regard cattle as the "primary host". Whatever may have been the case before WWII, the test and slaughter regime introduced after the war "had reduced the number of cases of TB in cattle to a very low level" by 1960 (CVO's 2002 Report). Even after the enormous increase of recent years, the number of reactors per 1,000 cattle tests in 2007 was only a little over 4, that's 0.4%. You can contrast that with what David King reported about the prevalence of TB in badger populations, viz. average 16.6% in the RBCT proactive areas "by routine post-mortem examination and culture of tissues." But, "when more detailed examination was carried out, the prevalence was almost double" - say, 30%.

Anonymous said...

OK guys you clearly are not interested in the idea of 'farmers' coming up with something new and pushing for a decent data system (for instance) but would rather continue the kill/not kill wildlife debate.

It's your blog - so feel free.

Isn't it a shame that 'the good old days' when farmers could 'remove' badgers by any means didn't solve the problem of TB in cattle?


I'll end with another John Bourne quote that you can have fun discrediting.

"On most farms biosecurity is an absolute joke"

Jim said...

Anon 8.34: I don't believe I commented on the idea of an enhanced data system. I'd be willing to look at anything that was practical, achievable at reasonable cost and produced demonstrable benefits over what we have at present. But bear in mind that, right now, the BCMS can tell where any animal has been and when - and they do check up (I had an inspection a few weeks ago) and they fine people if they find any discrepancies. I can't see that happening in Australia, where a farm can be 1,000 square miles and the livestock may not see a human more than once a year.

Matthew said...

Anon 8.43 said:
"OK guys you clearly are not interested in the idea of 'farmers' coming up with something new and pushing for a decent data system (for instance) but would rather continue the kill/not kill wildlife debate."

As Jim said, and we have pointed out, BCMS and from them, CTS and VetNet have the information you are so keen on. Electronic tags would speed that transfer up by a few hours at best, no more as most of us log movements on line.

Can bacteria read?

This isn't about 'killing wildlife'. It is about tackling tuberculosis wherever it may be.
Killing our cattle ain't working. It didn't in the past when two brutal regimes tried and failed to remove a problem from the wrong place. (Tait and Downie)

We're killing alpacas and llamas now, and cats, dogs and other less high profile mammals are dying from tuberculosis. The level of this disease in the environment is something most of us have never encountered before.

"Isn't it a shame that 'the good old days' when farmers could 'remove' badgers by any means didn't solve the problem of TB in cattle?"

Thornbury?

Badgers have been protected for as long as most of us can remember. During the concentrated test / slaughter sweep of cattle herds in the 50s and 60s TB was so nearly eradicated in this country. A couple of stubborn hot spots remained, but Clean Ring (1981 - 86) with its very tightly targetted badger control brought the level down to very nearly TB free trading status.
Under 100 herds under restriction, and 684 cattle slaughtered.
So it did work, and worked well, leaving healthy badgers alone to recolonise..

You are quite wrong to assume MAFF / Defra having been killing badgers for 40 years and achieved nothing.
They have been progressively sanitised in the way they were allowed to identify, and dispose of tuberculous badgers, from 1972 onwards.

Firstly in 1986, gassing a whole group was stopped and replaced by indiscriminate, costly and long winded cage traps. But probably more importantly, the land available to the WLU was reduced from 7km down to 1km, and then only on land cattle had grazed. So setts in forestry, or arable land were not touched, even if they were infected. (As shown by coloured bait marked territories)
All this was overseen by a Badger Panel, and also a mini panel who only met quartlerly.
Very bureaucratic and longwinded.

Inevitably and as predicted by veterinary policy makers, disease incidence in sentinel tested cattle rose.
But in 1996, there were still only 7 or 8 hotspots with an identified spoligotype circulating in each.

Then came the £1 million bung and moratorium on all badger culling. The rest is history.

Logically for your argument (cattle are the reservoir of TB ?)to hold water, then no other country would have managed to clear TB from their herds with a test / slaughter policy. And in the absence of a wildlife reservoir, many have.
GB was so close....

Also, cattle turning up in abattoirs would show a much higher rate of cases undetected by the skin test - and they do not. The latest figure is 458 (confirmed) to November 2009, out a kill of several million. At the time of the £1 million the figure was under 50.

When 'scientists' work backwards from an answer politicians have demanded and paid for, they debase the word 'science'.
Trust has gone.

That is precisely what Bourne told EFRAcom,the Welsh Assembly and his own WLU teams he had done.

We note there are no comments on the fate of those poor old badgers, emaciated and riddled with tuberculous abscesses.

Jo said...

Anon 8.43 should know of Peter Hardy (later Lord Hardy of Wath), the MP who was largely responsible for the passage of the Protection of Badgers Act through the House of Commons. He studied badgers all his life, and wrote a book published in 1975 called ‘A lifetime of badgers’.

In spite of his love of badgers and his wish to protect them, he writes in his chapter on Subsistence and Health, referring to Bovine TB ‘In certain circumstances it may be essential that badgers, like other animals, should be destroyed or removed from a particular territory…….If it is proved that a badger is diseased and that the disease is harmful to its own or to other species then destruction cannot be condemned……Near West Penwith in Cornwall…… tubercle bacilli were identified in 3 ..samples each from fairly closely adjacent setts …. In the interest of the species as a whole eradication at the actual setts involved could not be condemned. In those localities affected the hard and stern action which has been taken seems quite unavoidable.’

He goes on to talk about an area in Gloucestershire where ‘several herds of cattle had had to be destroyed…. And in every case…(it is)…entirely clear that the badgers there must be destroyed.’ He urges the Minister to allow the use of gas as being the best means of control, then says ‘ the situation there was not typical of the rest of Britain as the badger population was obviously unusually dense……This disease appears to be restricted to animals where unique conditions exist. Of course the longevity of the bacilli contributes to the problem……There is no evidence so far to suggest that this phenomenon is other than very localised. It cannot be denied that the badger has transmitted the disease……..’

Unfortunately now the disease is anything but very localised in the badger population. Surely. ‘in the interest of the species as a whole’ something should have been done many years back to stamp it out in the badger population.

Anonymous said...

OK guys keep to your subject - badgers.

It it obviously pointless trying to have a meaningful discussion here about anything else.

So one last point from me.

If we had a modern cattle data system, it would have been a simple matter for Mr Proctor to check the history of the stock he bought before purchase.


The Australian NLIS system is years old and technology has advanced even further, but we still have an paper trail that is costly to operate and inefficient. Its only merit is keeping countless paper pushers employed. Still 'farmers' are happy with it apparntly, and I'm sure some rogues delight in its shortcomings.

How long would it take and at what cost could we do the following?

NLIS, traceability exercise,
‘CowCatcher 2’ conducted in May 2007, one state which was
allocated 57 cattle to trace found that
they had had potential contact with
460,000 cattle over their lifetime.


Over to you - back to the badgers

Jo said...

I don't think Anon 8.45 understands our existing system. Mr Proctor's cows all had passports and eartags. They would have shown which farm they came from and if they had originated on another farm or farms. What else could another electronic system have told him? Traceability is not the problem, all cows are traceable. The problem seems to have been that they were not pre- movement tested, as they would have had to be if they were coming from a bTB area.

The first point of Matthew's original post, surely, was that to have a line drawn on a map was dangerous - however you think bTB is spread, it is moving inexorably Eastwards. The most important point was that DEFRA were not following up on the information they had. Any system only works as well as the people running it. DEFRA is informed immediately of all cattle movements and of all failed bTB tests . It is inexcusable that they should have left it four months to begin to contact the farms involved. How would an electronic system have made any difference? The information was all already there.

Anonymous said...

Jo I don't know why you are so frightened by the prospect of a better system.

You said "Traceability is not the problem, all cows are traceable. The problem seems to have been that they were not pre- movement tested"

A modern system would include testing information. This information would be available at the touch of a few (scary) buttons.


Also Jo reckons: "DEFRA is informed immediately of all cattle movements and of all failed bTB tests"

Mmmn,

A FARMER from near Warwick has been fined £500 for moving his cattle
without clearance under rules designed to halt the spread of bovine
tuberculosis.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ye33oo5

Farmer convicted of falsifying TB test

http://preview.tinyurl.com/yayb87r


Now then, some of us are aware of how difficult it is to secure a court conviction these days - so how many others are slipping through the net?

Perhaps a modern data system would help weed out some more rogues?

Jo said...

Anon,, I did not say I was scared of the Ausralian system, I was asking you to tell me in what way it is better than ours? Your report of a farmer getting caught shows how well our present system is working. If you look at the report in Ausralia on Cowcatcher 2, they say
"It must be noted that the NLIS-C database is a list of tags allocated to a defined location (a PIC) and the transfer of these tags between various locations. It is not an inventory of the Australian cattle population. There is no way of knowing whether the tag is in the ear of an animal or in storage on the property or how many live animals are resident at a defined location. "

Our system of passports and movement documents and BCMS database will show you exactly what animals are where (which is how the farmer you mentioned got caught).

and

"Property-to-property (P2P) transfers of NLIS device numbers are required to be maintained in order to ensure traceability. These movements are by the most susceptible transfer to be overlooked. There needs to be a system put in place that ensures P2P transfers are undertaken as a priority. "

We already have that system in place in this country. Every movement has to be logged and a copy either sent to DEFRA or (what the majority if farmers do) immediately put on the BCMS data base. It is also recorded on the cows passport which she cannot travel anywhere without. Do you understand?

I ask you again, how is this electronic system going to improve on our present one? The tag can be read only by someone near the cow, both for electronic and conventional eartags. The information then goes into the BCMS data base,whether directly from the electronic reader connected to a computer (in the farmhouse)or by hand through the computer keyboard. It doesn't take long if you are dealing with small numbers. I can see the value in record keeping for large herds, but that is all.

Matthew said...

From the Wansdyke herd sale catalogue:

Health status - "Herd is in a 4-year testing parish. Latest test 23.10.06".

The sale was the second week of October 2009, held over two days, so purchasers were advised of the testing frequency, if not the nearest location of hotspots, which was a few miles.

As Jo said, our point is that lines on maps are of little use when a maintenence reservoir of disease moves freely over them, and in the case of this herd, disease was already established.

Defra/AHO usually wait until they have a culture sample of a purchased animal, before beginning tracings. In this instance, the dots were not joined between various AHOs who had had herds in their patch with problems with these cattle last autumn - some (as Mr. Proctor) within days of the sale.. It's far easier to blame 'home grown' bacteria and not set about tracing almost 800 cattle.

Anon. The whereabouts of these cattle are known, and would have been known immediately post sale from the auctioneers, as Jo says. But the job of seeing if their receiving herd has tested, or is due a test or will need a SI check test, is done at local AHO level. This part of the system, via State vets, is still operated on a 'risk' basis. It our understanding that preMT has not reduced TB tracings at all.

The BCMS system allows only about 10 days for an 'Off' movement to be matched with a receiving 'ON' movement, before an enquiry is instigated. This flags up as a red traffic light on the home page of the holding (if movements are done online) and a telephone call if not, or if they consider the information given is incomplete.

If EID of any sort would speed up any cattle tracings, it would be worth exploring, but our system is now computer linked to the State veterinary system, and is pretty good. Our vet, (for instance) has for several years, arrived with his CTS print out for the farm, and expects to find each and every one of those cattle there to TB test.

He has access to the database, trading standards (who oversee the markets)have access and local AHO has access.

EID will not speed that up very much, if at all, but will cost the industry much more in replacement chipped tags.

This is also a bit of a red herring, as decades of research has concluded that even cattle with TB lesions are very poor at establishing disease. Numbers of bacteria are small, and onwards transmission, rare.

Anonymous said...

I was not proposing that we exactly replicate the Australian system.

Merely that it would be good for the public to see farmers take a pro-active stance on something positive. For instance a better cattle data system.

So you clearly believe that the current systems, laden with paperwork and loads of people employed to shuffle it, are just fine.

So why did Mr Proctor not have the testing status to hand when he made his purchase?

The BCMS system allows only about 10 days for an 'Off' movement to be matched with a receiving 'ON' movement,

ONLY TEN DAYS

TEN DAYS

TEN DAYS!!


OK I suppose you've got to allow the time for cattle to walk from Cornwall to Staffordshire (for instance).

With a modern system, animals could be scanned as they leave premises with the method of the transport method/ vehicle ID being recorded also.

Location data would be virtually real- time.

Even actual real time location would be technically possible, but more costly, if gps enabled chips were used. On large holdings this might even be useful for locating stock.


"but will cost the industry much more in replacement chipped tags."
See earlier post:
And, if ear tags are a problem in Australia NLIS devices for cattle may either be an ear tag, or a rumen bolus/visual ear tag combination.
You can get RFID tags for as little as 76 US cents http://preview.tinyurl.com/yjnczkx so I presume that £3.50 replacement cost you mention does not represent the actual cost of the tag but includes an allowance for civil service lunches.



"This is also a bit of a red herring, as decades of research has concluded that even cattle with TB lesions are very poor at establishing disease."

There are other species of fish involved.
We all know that bovine TB is but one of a number of livestock health issues.

That's why some major importers are so interested in traceability isn't it?
And hence part of Australia's reason for investing in a modern system.

Anonymous said...

This may be of interest:

If a Combi 2000® cattle flag tag, purchased from Shearwell has been lost please ring 01643 841611 to order your free replacement.

Any Combi 2000® cattle flag tag that falls out and was purchased from Shearwell Data Ltd since 10/09/99 will be replaced for free, as long as it was inserted with one of Shearwell's Combi 2000® applicators.

Shearwell will replace all other cattle tags from ONLY £2.50, please ring 01643 841611 for details.

www.shearwell.co.uk/

Matthew said...

Anon.4.15
You paraphrased what I said about BCMS cattle data - "The BCMS system allows only about 10 days for an 'Off' movement to be matched with a receiving 'ON' movement" .... did many lines of capital letters, and missed the crucial bit :
" before an enquiry is instigated."

The rules state that movement data must be logged within 3 days maximum. Our cattle get logged online, the day they move off, but we recently had a query in the time span I mentioned (10 days) because a correspondending 'On' movement hadn't been matched to this animal. It was an export, with bar coded tags scanned at the port of exit and details were held by Defra, Carlisle.

Now that was GB's EID in action, a hand held scanner which should have linked directly to BCMS. But it was slower than my online log. And why that should be, I don't know. Perhaps we should all ask Defra.

Vehicle ID is part of market entry forms and thus is under Trading Standards banner. Private hauliers (farm to farm) also have animal detail logs to complete.

Mr. Proctor obviously did have the relevant testing span to hand, as we quoted from the catalogue. And as he had recently had his own test, undertook post movement testing of his purchases as soon as he got them home.
Very responsible , we think.

I wouldn't say we were 'happy' with the over bureaucratic system we have evolved in the UK, but as Jo pointed out, the Australian system tracks eartags, which may or may not be attached, and are not linked to any particular farm. There is a difference. Our tags have to be in the ear of the recipient within 28 days of birth. And any replacements ordered and inserted ASAP after their abscence is noted. The tag / animal is then linked to a registered holding from birth to death. (Such uniquely identified holdings (and tags) have been in existence in the UK since the TB accredited cattle scheme of the 1950s. The veterinary records held by AHO for our herd go back that far.)

A delegation from the US inspecting this system a few years ago, far from being impressed at GB tracebility in action, burst out laughing. "That ain't farming' - that's gardening." was the comment.

Thanks to Anon. 5.08 and the link to Shearwell data.
Our tag manufacturer also offers 'free replacements', but there is a caveat. To qualify, both halves of the tag must be presented, which is rarely possible. We are having problems now with 'plastic fatigue' on tags in cattle 4-6 years old. This is where the readable section of the tag breaks off, leaving the joining piece loose in the ear - for a time. That would not qualify, and we have recently changed manufacturers for this reason.

Anonymous said...

Matthew I will repeat what I said before giving up this dialogue:

I was not proposing that we exactly replicate the Australian system.

Merely that it would be good for the public to see farmers take a pro-active stance on something positive. For instance a better cattle data system.


Time will tell, but I'm pretty sure that the 'powers that be' will introduce EID to the wails of 'farmers' who will have mised the opportunity to take a pro-active role in developing a better system.

Thats what 'farmers' do - react

Jo said...

So we should introduce an EID scheme merely for PR? You still haven't told us how it would improve on the present system.

Matthew said...

Anon 8.40
said:
"... it would be good for the public to see farmers take a pro-active stance on something positive."

Pre movement testing?
Tabular valuation?
Both part of an 'industry' package, offered to Defra in 2005. Defra's part - the delivery of the third part of the cocktail, escaped. Farmers were shafted.

"For instance a better cattle data system."
As Jo says, you have yet to explain how (for example) the Australian system, to which you refer quite a lot, is an improvement over the birth to death record of all cattle in UK, and where they are at any one time. Not the eartag, electronic or otherwise, but the animal wearing it.


"Thats what 'farmers' do - react"

The contributers to this site have proposed, amongst other things:

Post movement testing of breeding stock moving to extended testing areas.
An annual testing screen for the whole country, to see if any problems are lurking.
The use of PCR technology to identify the location of any wildlife reservoirs with less nervousness than WLU 'fieldcraft' appears to generate.
A 'clean ring' type, highly targetted cull of other species found to harbour tuberculosis, based on their territories. (Note: not 'extermination' or random area 'wipe out'.)

As Defra are supposedly in charge of all this, perhaps your comment of 'react' (as opposed to being 'proactive?') would better be addressed to the Minister of State who oversees this debacle which masquerades as a 'tuberculosis eradication policy'.

Jim said...

Anon: I wouldn't want you to feel unappreciated over your suggestions about how farmers can handle PR. But, as farmers, we've got plenty on our plates as it is, so we have to prioritise. If I thought that upgrading our present (pretty good) cattle tracing system to EID would help to eradicate TB, I'd be pushing it like mad. But alas it wouldn't, and there are things, such as Matthew has listed, much further up the agenda on that front. Fair enough to mention other possible diseases (FMD springs to mind - highly contagious, short incubation), but in that sort of event, we'd all be faced with instant total lock-down anyway. Incidentally, I understand that the Australian cattle tracing system costs about £1.6m per year to run and employs 15 people. Either they're so fantastically efficient that the BCMS should be looking to poach them all immediately, or the system doesn't actually have that much to do.

Anonymous said...

"I understand that the Australian cattle tracing system costs about £1.6m per year to run and employs 15 people. Either they're so fantastically efficient that the BCMS should be looking to poach them all immediately, or the system doesn't actually have that much to do."

So there's an advantage perhaps.

How much do our systems cost?

It's not that the ozzie system doesn't have much to do - it's simply better at doing it.



You guys are to be applauded for you efforts - the problem is perhaps that other 'farmers' are not represented well.

If only the industry could get together you might get somewhere.

Jim said...

Anon, you say: "If only the industry could get together...." We do. It's called the NFU, NBA, NSA, etc, etc.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Jim said...

Anon, you say: "If only the industry could get together...." We do. It's called the NFU, NBA, NSA, etc, etc.


Yes Jim, those organisations represent some farmers , and many would argue not very effectively.

I don't think that it is possible for farmers to have one voice. If you did, who would control the price of fresh milk for example? The supermarkets would have a simple choice - pay the price set by UK Milk Producers plc or import. Of course if there was no public demand for UK milk the industry would collapse.

Matthew said...

Anon 10.09
Said;
"..those organisations represent some farmers , and many would argue not very effectively."

Some are very effective, some obey their master's voice. (Defra, who in turn has its strings pulled by £ million donations which come with caveats) But on TB they appear united, on outcome if not the logistics - yet.

"I don't think that it is possible for farmers to have one voice. If you did, who would control the price of fresh milk for example?"

The Competition Commission?
It is illegal to control prices to the consumer - except if you're a member of OPEC of course.
We used have the Milk Marketing Board, which was abolished in the early 1980s.
Now, a small handful of main buyers control 20 something fairly large processors, who in turn are supplied by thousands of individual farms. So you tell me you controls whom - and thus the price.

(Back on topic now, please.)