Back in early December, some English cattle farmers would have received a missive from Animal Health explaining that 'in Wales', things were changing. And?
As we are not in Wales at blogger HQ, we shredded it. Nothing has been sent to English farmers yet, but Farmers Guardian has details of the changes.
The main difference is not terminology at all, but the implications of a confirmed breakdown on future problems in a herd and more importantly on any breakdowns in the herds of 'contiguous' neighbours.
Herds not under TB restriction will be known as OTF or Officially TB free. If a breakdown occurs which cannot be confirmed by either lesions or culture, then that status is suspended (OTFS) but if TB is confirmed then status becomes withdrawn (OTFW).
In England and Wales, to regain OTF status herds designated as OTFS will require one clear short interval test and this was the testing situation prior to Jan 1st 2011.
But from now on things change:
However, if either of the following circumstances applies, two consecutive tests will generally be needed:
* The herd has had OTFW status in the three years prior to the current breakdown, or;
* The herd is contiguous to another which currently has OTFW status. This will not however be changed retrospectively if contiguous herds subsequently have their OTF status withdrawn
And it is those changes, but particularly the latter, which will have a far greater impact on testing regimes than has been realised. Like a ripple in a pond, any neighbour of a herd which has had TB confirmed and status withdrawn, will adopt that status (or the testing regime that accompanies it) if there is a breakdown in his herd - regardless of post mortem results. And that could involve several farms in a 'ripple' generated from a confirmed outbreak.
Meanwhile, Animal Health have just retrieved short interval TB testing from LVI vets, with herds between 100 and 250 animals having the benefit of a Defra vet to test cattle. Just how they are going to cope with Treasury budget cuts, extra paperwork and now extra short interval testing this will generate, is up for discussion.
Meanwhile we have a feeling of deja vu as this year begins.
In the 5 years since Defra's last 'consultation' on whether or not to remove badgers infected with tuberculosis, 250,000 cattle have been shot, not a single TB riddled badger apprehended but the industry face another raft of new cattle restrictions.
A very Happy New year.
Update:
We are hearing from LVI vets up and down the country, that many have been hauled back into short interval TB testing due to injuries sustained by AHO desk jockeys. Some of these people are good with cattle, but many may be more used to handling a computer mouse, than a ton of angry cow.
And this change in TB 'terminology' - which is not that at all - is still generating much discussion as to how it may be implemented in practise. Will it be 'contiguous' as in neighbouring holdings on a parish map? Or 'contiguous' areas where cattle have grazed, and when they grazed? We understand that this is still very much work in progress. And we think this could generate quite a discussion at the coal face, as to exactly what herd restrictions may follow a new breakdown.
And English farmers have still to receive formal notification from Defra, of any changes to its policy at all.
13 comments:
Happy New Year to you too - hang on.
Farmers are never happy, are they?
You wonder just how they are going to cope with the extra paperwork, but didn't seem too keen earlier in 2010 when we were discussing electronic ID systems - ie paperwork elimination.
But return to your theme.
"In the 5 years since Defra's last 'consultation' on whether or not to remove badgers infected with tuberculosis, 250,000 cattle have been shot, not a single TB riddled badger apprehended but the industry face another raft of new cattle restrictions."
Is it not your industry which has the TB problem? Along with numerous other livestock health issues which we are too polite to mention here?
If only you could convince us that by letting you pursue your fantasy of a selected cull of diseased badgers, farmers would be happy, perhaps the slaughter of native wildlife would be worth it
But do carry on your lust for revenge against a victim (of catching a disease from overstressed livestock)
Anon 6.10
Slow down and concentrate.
We said 'Animal Health' had retrieved testing etc... and posed the question as to how 'they' - as in AHO personel were going to cope. Not farmers. And it was AHOs who first alerted us to their concerns.
No problem with EID, provided that the chip is not in an eartag, which according to the industry, it will have to be. As they (eartags) fall like autumn leaves on a regular basis, then EID replacements are likely to be far more costly than the current £3.50 + VAT.
The current system is a bureaucratic paper chase and anything that streamlines it (for the better) is welcome.
No, it is not 'our industry' which has the TB problem. 'Tuberculosis' per se is the problem, wherever that may be. And bacteria in enough quantity to onwardly transmit active disease to any mammal. Tested (slaughtered) cattle are showing where that might be, but dead alpacas, cats, sheep, llamas, pigs dogs etc., and other mammals which are not subject to regular testing, are the increasingly common spillover victims. They are victims of the reservoir, you would rather not mention and certainly do not want to face.
A selected cull of 'diseased badgers' (as opposed to mass slaughter of native wildlife ?) based on the results and analysis of cattle tests is the only way forward, in our opinion.
Not rocket science, and perfectly workable.
What a shame that your opinion is not shared by many others!
Not even rocket scientists
"A selected cull of 'diseased badgers' (as opposed to mass slaughter of native wildlife ?) based on the results and analysis of cattle tests is the only way forward, in our opinion.
Not rocket science, and perfectly workable."
Anon 10.46
"What a shame that your opinion is not shared by many others!"
Many other - what?
Political scientists who want to achieve their pensions ?
Researchers in need of more wheels ?
Mathematical modelers who believe their own guff, even if it starts out as 'assumed' guff?
Animal charities who need a mascot?
The benficiaries of a TB riddled badger are endless. And they aren't going to let go any time soon.
As for farmers (or 'bloodthirsty dolts' as Moonbat calls them) everyone we have talked to and veterinary professionals who have spoken at various open meetings discussing this problem, have no desire to achieve a badger free zone. A targeted cull, based on cattle screening is what they are all asking for.
By insisting that that is moonshine, you are at best delaying the inevitable and at worst, encouraging a Thornbury type wipe out.
And it is those changes, but particularly the latter, which will have a far greater impact on testing regimes than has been realised. Like a ripple in a pond, any neighbour of a herd which has had TB confirmed and status withdrawn, will adopt that status if there is a breakdown in his herd - regardless of post mortem results. And that could involve several farms in a 'ripple' generated from a confirmed outbreak.
- No they wont, they will retain suspended status and have to have two tests, they will not adopt a different status? Surely this is to halt the number of herds that go clear in endemic areas only to have a breakdown at their next test.
Regardless of the way in which culling is carried out (en mass or selective) if there is to be one there must be give and take.
Anon. 6.06
It's the two test requirement which is the ratchet up even if TB is not confirmed, on a breakdown which happens to be next to OTFW herd.
Many farmers have been under restriction for years, and testing every 60 days in 'endemic' areas. That includes our herd, with no cattle immediately next door, but three 'holding' boundaries with cattle owing neighbours, should maps be used. The fact that rivers, woods and roads bisect and the nearest cattle may be a mile away is not fully explained and AHO are concerned with how they are expected to interpret this.
You say re a cull: "if there is to be one, there must be give and take".
The point of this posting, is to point out that cattle farmers have been in this position before. Five years ago. The industry 'gave' pre MT and tabular valuation. That was part of a package, as offered. We got back - nothing.
But in the interim, as we pointed out, a quarter of a million cattle have died. Several million (I really can't be bothered to look it up, but 5 years x 6/7 million cattle annually - say 30,000,000) cattle tests have been carried out.
Meanwhile:
Woodchester/ CSL/VLA have snunk out some very mischievious and misleading papers on BCG vaccination - (in the hope of getting more cash?) Defra have now issued a sort of retraction, hedged as an explanation of what they should have said, but it's a bit late now.
Warwick want to throw contraceptive pills and antibiotics in equal measure around badger setts, while leaving PCR to grow dusty on their shelves. But previous research into the potential for contraception for badgers, which forecast 20 years to work (Harris 1999) ... and dismissed it without a cull first, and the Bern Convention which obstructs such measures, the implication of more drug resistant m.bovis around is frankly, mind blowing. And this from 'scientists' ??
Have you read the posts we've done on previous fierce cattle measures carried out both in England and Ireland? They had absoultely no effect whatsoever.
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2005/04/anything-you-can-do.html
.. for Dr. Liam Downie's efforts in Ireland, and
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2007/07/condemned-to-repeat-past-mistakes.html
All the information is taken directly from Dr. Downie's papers, or for William Tait, the CVO reports of 1970 - 76.
And we do get the picture. It isn't TB infected / infectious badgers that are the problem, it's any badger at all.
Quote from David Williams and Owen Hydes of Badger Trust fame -
'There have been no studies on the effect of badger vaccination on transmission of TB to cattle and although it is unlikely to have any detrimental effects on cattle, any assumption about its potential benefits to cattle, including when applied to attempt to reduce perturbation effects, are entirely speculative.'
Anon 11.12
Thanks for that. Forgive us for having a chuckle, but we thought the mantra was that cattle (those intensively farmed, in filthy conditions, highly infectious and stressed out creatures) gave TB to innocent badgers.
From the end of the first comment ... "But do carry on your lust for revenge against a victim (of catching a disease from overstressed livestock) "
Matthew said: "Many farmers have been under restriction for years, and testing every 60 days in 'endemic' areas. That includes our herd, with no cattle immediately next door, but three 'holding' boundaries with cattle owing neighbours, should maps be used. The fact that rivers, woods and roads bisect and the nearest cattle may be a mile away is not fully explained and AHO are concerned with how they are expected to interpret this."
Are you serious?
Perhaps they should employ better people
Anon 12.42
Perfectly serious. And this has nothing to do with the calibre of people attempting to interpret this new 'terminology'.
27,000,000 euros means that the EU take control. He who pays the piper, and all that ? This (as our update pointed out) is a work in progress, particularly on exactly how 'contiguous' may be interpreted in a field situation. If maps are used, it implies that the Defra mapping system, co-ordinates with GSI imaging across parish / county boundaries - a point which should not be taken foregranted. If it relies on the proximity of OFTW cattle, then that will involve visits and cattle grazing areas slotted onto localised maps for contiguous herds.
All will involve a great deal more work, discussions and testing on the part of AHOs.
"All will involve a great deal more work, discussions and testing on the part of AHOs."
What a shame - civil servants having to work for their money
Previous comment , Spam - deleted.
Post a Comment