tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885842.post8775844699709211879..comments2023-07-15T10:28:46.810+01:00Comments on Bovine TB: Cattle 28 : Badgers 0?Richardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02561483930556493363noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885842.post-80269694163987580222007-05-04T21:59:00.000+01:002007-05-04T21:59:00.000+01:00You sound like Father Christmas Trevor. "ho ho"Now...You sound like Father Christmas Trevor. "ho ho"<BR/><BR/>Now , Methodology.<BR/>1."A cohort study of 148 herds in the south West of England" ...using "data both prospective (??!) and retrospective and incorporated the RBCT groupings into the results"<BR/><BR/>2."A retrospective cohort study of restocked herds across Great Britain". using data from the FMD, Vetnet and BCMS.<BR/><BR/>Seems fairly clear to us.<BR/><BR/>We covered spoligotypes in our posting of that title. See archive November 2006. A map is easy. Outline of GB, counties outlined and 12 coloured pencils. Very effective it is too. Been the same for 30 years, VLA say. So although your point of who gives what to whom is valid, what it does show is that cattle don't traipse different strains all over the country. <BR/><BR/>And you are correct in saying that our focus comes from 'our individual farms', rather than a wide picture. When those farms have had no bought in cattle and no cattle contact, then good grief man, where the blazes did this bacteria come from? Sometimes the trees of that 'bigger picture' obscure the wood under one's nose.Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09293505337441558637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885842.post-17344437370443626702007-05-04T09:55:00.000+01:002007-05-04T09:55:00.000+01:00From Trevor Lawson, Badger TrustHo ho. Wrong agai...From Trevor Lawson, Badger Trust<BR/><BR/>Ho ho. Wrong again Matt. You say: "The cohort studies in this work were not random." Wrong. Again. The cohorts are actually detailed in a separate paper (An analysis of single intradermal comparative cervical test (SICCT) coverage in the GB cattle population, Mitchell et al, SEPVM, March 2006). They consist of three cohorts drawn at random from the CTS. The authors consider issues such as cattle age, sex and whether the samples are representative of the population as a whole in detail. They also examine the implications of FMD. The paper clearly illustrates that testing is highly skewed towards a minority of cattle which are tested many times.<BR/><BR/>I can't comment to any great extent on your claim that the Type 25 strain of bovine TB is indigenous to Staffs, since you don't offer any evidence for that. Let's see a detailed map illustrating the distribution of Type 25 in GB. Presumably, you do have one?<BR/><BR/>However, the presence of a given strain in cattle and badgers is not, as several papers have pointed out, evidence of the direction or force of transmission. As the work published in PNAS illustrated, cattle rapidly transmit TB to badgers, so it is just as likely that cattle are the source for the infection in badgers.<BR/><BR/>For understandable reasons, you (and Animal Health) tend to focus on the individual farm in seeking to understand the dynamics of bovine TB and in trying to find a solution to it. But the evidence shows that this disease operates over long periods of time and wide spaces that are, at the very least, regional. As we showed, what happened to Bill Madders' herd was part of a wider pattern triggered by cattle movements. The pattern is repeated all over the country and is independent of badgers. <BR/><BR/>The Badger Trust is in regular contact with TB experts in a wide variety of countries and I can assure you that other nations are utterly amazed at the decision to allow untested livestock movements in the wake of FMD. The NFU drove that profoundly stupid decision and state vets failed to stop it. But you keep on blaming badgers: nothing's ever the fault of farmers, is it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885842.post-56920258431290977132007-05-01T09:12:00.000+01:002007-05-01T09:12:00.000+01:00Thank you for your good wishes, Trevor.You comment...Thank you for your good wishes, Trevor.<BR/><BR/>You comment: "... that the cattle in the study were two year beef cattle, er, where's the beef (evidence)? The data involve three randomly selected cohorts covering different periods."<BR/><BR/>"The data indicate that the majority (>70%) of cattle are nver in a herd when it is tested, and therefore are untested during their lifetime.[ ] ..on a 4 year cycle, meaning that many animals can be born and slaughtered in between scheduled tests." <BR/><BR/>BORN and SLAUGHTERED in between scheduled tests? Only animals for the beef market fit this description, with MHS slaughterhouse sutveillance kicking in post mortem.<BR/><BR/>The cohort studies in this work were not random. They were specifically targetted at herds restocked after FMD, and compared with herds within the reactive and proactive areas of the RBCT. 33 of the 148 study farms had no adult breeding cattle, indicating they were store buyers / beef finishers. (see above)<BR/><BR/>The testing regime post FMD was highly skewed, indeed Defra warned that it not be used for statistical purposes, as it was targeted at 'high risk herds' and not 'typical'. It caught up early 2004. This study used first test data from 30th Sept. 2001 - 17th August 2005. Data which Defra had warned was a-typical due to testing delays post FMD. <BR/><BR/>What we do not see factored into the computer models is the effect of both FMD and Bourne's badger dispersal trial on the badgers. A point we have repeatedly made is that in the former, when huge swathes of countryside were depopluated, the badgers moved. They are dependent on cattle 'habitat, they moved, found other groups already there, fought and regrouped. And in the 'trial' much the same problems were caused, particularly in the Reactive areas, by the shattering of the social groups and then abandonment of the area sometimes for several years.<BR/><BR/>More later when we've really read this.<BR/>Bill Madders' outbreak. Spoligotypes? No mention of the type source in the Warwick paper. And no comment from you re. Bill's No bought in Cattle, and an indigenous Tb strain (Type 25) to that part of Staffs.Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09293505337441558637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885842.post-43164328686180977512007-04-30T09:58:00.000+01:002007-04-30T09:58:00.000+01:00From Trevor Lawson, Badger TrustHo ho. Good luck ...From Trevor Lawson, Badger Trust<BR/><BR/>Ho ho. Good luck with the number crunching using the data gathered by the University of Warwick. When you've finished, make sure that you - as they did - get the papers presented at the Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, followed by publication in a peer reviewed journal. As for your claim that the cattle in the study were two year beef cattle, er, where's the beef (evidence)? The data involve three randomly selected cohorts covering different periods.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, given the rather partial presentation of our press release, here it is in full:<BR/><BR/>Cattle movements blamed for Government advisor's TB outbreak<BR/><BR/>For immediate release 25 April 2007<BR/><BR/>The Badger Trust today publishes evidence that a TB outbreak on the farm of Defra TB Advisory Group member[1] and dairy farmer, Bill Madders, was triggered by the movement of untested, TB-infected cattle to South Staffordshire. Badgers cannot be blamed and there is no evidence to support the accusation.<BR/><BR/>In February 2007, Mr Madders advised Farmers Guardian that officers of the State Veterinary Service (now Animal Health) had blamed badgers for an outbreak of bovine TB on his farm in the parish of Coppenhall, Staffordshire [2]. The pyramid-shaped parish is bounded to the east and to the west by Castlechurch and Bradley respectively, and by the parish of Dunston to the south. Bradley and Dunston hold the majority of herds. Mr Madders reported that his herd is 'self- contained' and that 'the only way in is through wildlife'.<BR/><BR/>Using the Freedom of Information Act, the Badger Trust has secured details of herds and bovine TB outbreaks in all four parishes, from<BR/>1995 to 2006. The total number of herds registered on VetNet in all four parishes declined from 67 to 49 over that time. The bulk of the decline occurred in the wake of foot and mouth disease (FMD). The Stafford disease control centre dealt with 72 FMD incidents during the outbreak and for some farmers it prompted retirement from the industry.<BR/><BR/>The data obtained by the Badger Trust reveal that TB was virtually unknown in the four parishes between 1995 and 2002. Only a single herd, in the parish of Bradley, went under TB restriction, and then only from 1998 to 1999. Thereafter, there was no evidence of bovine TB until 2003.<BR/><BR/>In 2003, in the wake of FMD, three herds went under restriction, one in each of the three parishes surrounding Coppenhall, followed by a fourth in 2004 in Bradley. The number under restriction dropped to three again in 2005 and the outbreak on Mr Madders' farm took the number back up to four in 2006.<BR/><BR/>This sudden upsurge in 2003 mirrors that which occurred all over the country in the wake of FMD. This followed Defra's stupendously foolish decision to allow the movement of untested livestock for restocking, which the NFU claimed as a "victory". The buying-in of TB infected cattle led to a huge rise in the distribution of TB infection right across Britain and an explosion of new cases. For thousands of farmers, it proved to be a pyrrhic victory.<BR/><BR/>"The unavoidable fact is that Mr Madders' TB outbreak would never have occurred were it not for the movement of untested, TB-infected cattle to South Staffordshire," commented Trevor Lawson. "The disease was virtually unknown in the four parishes for at least eight years. There is no evidence explaining the final route of the disease to Mr Madders' farm. Officers of Animal Health cannot claim, with any shred of certainty, to know the cause.<BR/><BR/>"If free-roaming badgers were the TB vector for Mr Madders' farm, it does not explain why the three other herds in his parish have escaped the disease. Indeed, 92 per cent of the herds in the four parishes are currently TB-free. Infected badgers, surely, would cause a "clumping" of infection and cannot explain this scattered distribution. Officers of Animal Health cannot possibly claim that badgers are the index source of this infection. Clearly, cattle are the index source of this disease. Animal Health should publicly apologise to Mr Madders for misleading him in this way."<BR/><BR/>ENDS<BR/><BR/>1. Bill Madders was appointed to Defra's TB Advisory Group by the chief vet, Debby Reynolds, in 2006.<BR/>2. Levitt, T. (2007) TB outbreak at farm of Defra adviser, Farmers Guardian, 16 February 2007. Mr Madders was reported as saying: "The local SVS view is that it is almost certainly badger contamination of the pasture last spring ... The consistent view coming out of the State Veterinary Service is that until we do something about the disease in the wildlife it will get worse. It is the politicians that we're up against."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com