tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885842.post9103761545554836818..comments2023-07-15T10:28:46.810+01:00Comments on Bovine TB: Transmission - alpacasRichardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02561483930556493363noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885842.post-49381995809350507022009-08-02T07:43:41.327+01:002009-08-02T07:43:41.327+01:00Agree with you Andrew, but the difference is the v...Agree with you Andrew, but the difference is the volume of protests. Cattle farmers have been alternately offered carrots (enhanced compulsory purchase monies) or sticks (bio security deductions) while dedicated and hugely knowledgeable government vets have been gagged by their final salary pension commitment and government contracts.<br /> <br />Defra have conveniently thrown the infectivety of the environment with badgerTB, and its inevitable spill back into other species into the long grass.<br />But camelid owners have deep pockets. These furry little lawnmowers are several £K each and several owners are facing ruin after TB from 'environmental' sources has ripped through their herds and after negative skin tets, as the primary test, continues to do so.<br />There is no compensation structure in place for alpacas or llamas, merely an ex gratia offering from Defra for reporting problems. In many cases this is several £K short of true value, with (as in cattle insurance) the loss adjusters way ahead of the game balancing 'disease risk' with premiums or even the possibility of insurance at all. Likewise the 'stick' of SFP deductions and/or biosecurity losses have no effect if it is not claimed in the first place.<br />With the apparent infectivety of camelids within a herd, the spread within an (undiagnosed)herd is fast and furious. And this is compounded by unregulated or reported movements. <br />Under those circumstances the potential for spread cannot be undersestimated, we think. Neither the effect of onward transmission to wildlfe in other areas.<br />But as with the cat owners, the owners of alpacas will not lie down and accept this situation quietly.<br />And as the man says, 'every little helps'.Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09293505337441558637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885842.post-60699811097624920012009-08-01T13:59:15.875+01:002009-08-01T13:59:15.875+01:00I hate to say it, Matthew, but Government thinking...I hate to say it, Matthew, but Government thinking on this issue is entirely "joined up." If the needs of people involved in the large, traditional and already highly regulated cattle industry can be ignored in favour of that section of the electorate who cannot bear the thought of any badger control, what chance is there of spending taxpayers money on inventing new tests and imposing them on the tiny minority who choose to keep camelids? If the right thing had been done to protect cattle there would not have been a problem with camelids.Andrew Proudnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885842.post-15641005824159766532009-07-29T11:37:08.054+01:002009-07-29T11:37:08.054+01:00We agree docsheep. The stumbling block is not the ...We agree docsheep. The stumbling block is not the creating of a statutory instrument to include such species into England's TB regulatory process, but the collective dragging of heels within Defra to apply it. That together with a serious gap in ante mortem diagnostics, the skin test being described (Vet.Rec. 2007) as "so poor as to be meaningless."<br /><br />None of this is insummountable, given a bit of joined up thinking.<br /><br />Other diagnostic tests are available and may be used in tandem, provided camelids are within the TB regulatory system to begin with. But with stud farms offering female alpaca B&B, rent-a-male or the quaintly described 'drive-by-matings' where females visit on a daily basis, the potential for spread of disease is huge. <br />And yes, at the moment, there is one rule (including a 6 day standstill after 'on' movements) for cattle, and very little at all for many other species, some of whom are quite capable of contracting and transmitting TB, as this report shows.<br /><br />The only time Defra can get involved is if the owner voluntarily reports problems, either deaths or illness, which subsequently turn out to be TB, or if the holding is shared with cattle which may act as sentinels.Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09293505337441558637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885842.post-32603296640511294972009-07-29T08:33:36.387+01:002009-07-29T08:33:36.387+01:00I cannot believe how naive DEFRA are being about T...I cannot believe how naive DEFRA are being about TB in camelids.What on earth is the point of attempting to introduce farmer responsibility for animal disease when there is potentially a pool of infected alpacas,which do not have compulsory testing,moving around the country apparently with impunity?<br /> I appreciate that there are some responsible camelid owners out there who undergo voluntary testing on their stock,but with a disease like TB,there cannot be one rule for cattle and another for other susceptible species.docsheepnoreply@blogger.com