A comment has come into the site today which we quote below:
"No one debates that badgers carry TB. However, there is no CONCLUSIVE PROOF that they are responsible for passing it to cattle and as such until this is found a cull of badgers in britain for this purpose is MORALLY and ECONOMICALLY wrong. Because it does not necessarily eliminate the problem, it is a myth it is also going to benefit the farming community. "
This from 'Emily' as a comment below our posting (see archive Nov. 2005. Dear Ben) describing the problems on the Miles' farm in the South of Cornwall. Mr. & Mrs Miles had lost half their herd to bTb, and had found several dead badgers the previous year on pasture land which the cattle grazed. Apart from one beef bull who had been on the farm and undergone regular routine tests, the herd was home bred.
Three contributers to this site are or were in the same postion. No bought in cattle for several years then a pernicious drip feed of infection into their cattle. It doesn't come with the man in the moon.
"Nobody debates that badgers carry Tb. " says 'Emily'.
And when they have been allowed to become infected with this Grade 3 pathogen (that's on a scale of 1-4, with 4 being the most virulent) what then? You think they keep it to themselves?
They spread it amongst themselves and into many other species. That is the nature of an 'infectious' disease - it infects. And tuberculosis is fatal. To anything that gets infected. Not straight away, but often many years hence. Just because the badger is such a successful host of this disease, and can survive, rear cubs and shed Tb for many years is no excuse whatsover to leave exposed to more infection, and to die a dreadful death from it, having spread it around the environment in the meantime. and if you're comfortable with 30,000 cattle slaughtered annually as Reactors to their Tb test, wait until the cat owners get fired up. Tb is now notifiable in all mammalian species.
You claim there is NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF (in capital letters so that we cannot miss your point). Well 'Emily' how much more CONCLUSIVE do you want than 100 percent?
At Thornbury, records show that after a sustained clearance of infected badgers there was 100 percent clearance of cattle tb. This was maintained over twelve years, and badger numbers by then had recovered to previous levels.
Parliamentary Questions asked the Minister what else could have affected this stunning result. They are all archived on this site by the way. They form its base in fact. And the answer from the Secretary of State to the Thornbury question was :
"no other contemporous change was identified that could have accounted for the reduction in Tb incidence within the area" . PQ’s (Hansard) 24th March 2004 Column 824W [157949]
Is that clear enough? Other PQ's told us that an infected badger could void 300,000 units of Tb bacteria in each 1 ml urine, if its kidneys were infected. It dribbled 30 ml in each squirt, and that only 70 units were needed to infect a cow. Also that although faeces were usually dropped in latrines, urinations took place at at pasture, in fact 30 percent of this highly infectious material was dribbled indiscriminately over grassland and cattle found that more difficult to avoid. In damp areas not exposed to the sun, this level of infection could survive for 'up to eleven months'. That last gem we believe was attributed to work done by Dr. Elaine King for her PhD at Bristol. In case you missed this, the title of the work was:
"Factors influencing the risk to cattle of infection with bovine tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis) from badgers (meles meles)"
You say that 'a cull of badgers is MORALLY and ECONOMICALLY wrong'
Why? Are you happy with the state of the ones we see dying of TB? If you are unfamiliar with the sight of a badger with tuberculosis, check out the posts below for some photos. They are an affront to anyone who dares to call themself an 'animal lover'. But economically, as we have said this disease has created its own momentum. A beneficial crisis, from which the main beneficiaries - and no, that is not farmers - check out the distribution of the budget - will take much levering.
The responsibilty for the clearance of any notifiable zoonosis is certainly not farmers. It is Defra's. That they have been less than enthusiastic about tackling this one - wherever it is found - is a question for them.
The losers 'Emily' are the badgers - a victim of their support group's 'success'. See below one which the RSPCA would describe as having 'a slight wheeziness'. :
http://www.warmwell.com/tbbadger.html
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Mistake, Mischievious or Misleading?
We have pointed out before on this blog, that the oft quoted 14 million animal movements alleged to be fuelling bovine Tb, is a huge exaggeration. What is 'moving' is paperwork.
When an animal leaves a holding, the owner has to lodge an 'Off' movement notification with the British Cattle movement Service (BCMS) and when the same animal arrives at its destination, the new owner fills in similar paperwork as an 'On' movement. So 2 paper movements = a single animal movement. If the animal is traded via a market then 4 'movements' are generated . One 'Off' farm, one 'On' market, then 'Off' market and 'On' to new premises.
All these paper 'movements' including those to abattoirs, either directly or via a market generate the same data, but as far as the spread of disease is concerned the numbers to slaughter can be discarded. It is the movement of bovines onto another farm, which are of interest in controlling any infectious disease. And the numbers generated by the BCMS show not 14 million of those (as stated in public most recently as the ISG meeting in January by Professor Bourne). Not even 4 million.
The figure of 14 .6 million BCMS attribute to the total 'paper' data generated by all movements, 'On' and 'Off' and including markets and slaughterhouses and showgrounds.
The actual single 'On' movement that matters is of a bovine to another farm, and that figure is somewhat more realistic. 2,718,599.
So the correct figure as far as disease control is concerned for England, Scotland and Wales is 2.7 million. Or a substantially different figure from that expounded by many 'experts' led by the diminutive John Bourne. So a mischievious mistake or a misleading statement? In any event, an unchallenged one which was made to several groups of scientific and political audiences.
When an animal leaves a holding, the owner has to lodge an 'Off' movement notification with the British Cattle movement Service (BCMS) and when the same animal arrives at its destination, the new owner fills in similar paperwork as an 'On' movement. So 2 paper movements = a single animal movement. If the animal is traded via a market then 4 'movements' are generated . One 'Off' farm, one 'On' market, then 'Off' market and 'On' to new premises.
All these paper 'movements' including those to abattoirs, either directly or via a market generate the same data, but as far as the spread of disease is concerned the numbers to slaughter can be discarded. It is the movement of bovines onto another farm, which are of interest in controlling any infectious disease. And the numbers generated by the BCMS show not 14 million of those (as stated in public most recently as the ISG meeting in January by Professor Bourne). Not even 4 million.
The figure of 14 .6 million BCMS attribute to the total 'paper' data generated by all movements, 'On' and 'Off' and including markets and slaughterhouses and showgrounds.
The actual single 'On' movement that matters is of a bovine to another farm, and that figure is somewhat more realistic. 2,718,599.
So the correct figure as far as disease control is concerned for England, Scotland and Wales is 2.7 million. Or a substantially different figure from that expounded by many 'experts' led by the diminutive John Bourne. So a mischievious mistake or a misleading statement? In any event, an unchallenged one which was made to several groups of scientific and political audiences.
Monday, February 13, 2006
An alternative offensive cartoon.
The RSPCA is spearheading its 'Back off Badgers!' campaign with a Kitchener type cartoon.
A plump black and white lookalike badger points his finger.
http://www.farmersguardian.com/search.asp?navcode=6
They have to use a cartoon? Yup. For a badger with tuberculosis at the end of its miserable infectious life, the real picture is unlikely to provoke any other reaction than absolute horror.
View on this site;
Badgers don't suffer from TB!
and
'A slight wheeziness'
A plump black and white lookalike badger points his finger.
http://www.farmersguardian.com/search.asp?navcode=6
They have to use a cartoon? Yup. For a badger with tuberculosis at the end of its miserable infectious life, the real picture is unlikely to provoke any other reaction than absolute horror.
View on this site;
Badgers don't suffer from TB!
and
'A slight wheeziness'
Friday, February 10, 2006
We are puzzled.
The ISG reported to the Standing committee of the Bern convention in 2004 (based on earlier pooled data) that up to 76 per cent of badger postmortemed in the Krebs trial had proved positive for bTb. And yet John Bourne has consistently pointed his accusatory finger at cattle. Should a herd be flagged up which has taken the responsible and bio secure steps of attempting to keep itself 'closed', that is to buy in no cattle but remain self contained, a derisory snort indicates the good Professor believes not one word, either from the Bristish Cattle Movement Service or the farmer.
He is on record as saying, (with neither Trading Standards evidence nor prosecutions to confirm), that farmers are illegally moving cattle around the country.
When a veterinary practioner arrives every 60 days to Tb test cattle, he has a print out from BCMS of animals registered to the farm which are due to be tested, and if the farm is under Tb restriction, no 'new' animals may be present without a Ministry license, equally any animals not present have their whereabouts enquired into.
We find Professor Bourne's statement extraordinary, and insulting - but let that pass.
The purpose of this post is a statement made by Bourne to the Select committee this week and reported in the Western Morning News;
"Ministers were under renewed pressure to order a cull of badgers in the Westcountry last night after it emerged that as many as eight out of ten of the creatures are infected with bovine TB in some parts of the region.
The shock figures were revealed by Professor John Bourne, head of the Government's badger culling trials, who described the spread of bovine TB as being "like foot and mouth in slow motion - and not so slow in some cases either".
Giving evidence to MPs on the Commons Rural Affairs Committee, Prof Bourne said there had been a "wide variation" in the degree of badger infection in the ten trial areas, half of which were in the Westcountry.He said the proportion of badgers infected with bovine TB varied from just four per cent in some areas to as much as forty per cent in others. But he said that the "inadequacy of diagnosis" meant that both these figures should probably be doubled - with badger infection in the worst areas reaching 80 per cent.
The figures were seized on last night by the Westcountry farming community, where there is widespread support for a badger cull to help bring bovine TB under control.Ian Johnson, spokesman for the South West National Farmers' Union, described the figures as "appalling".He said: "It is incredible that ministers are even considering not having a cull when the level of infection in the wildlife is as high as this.
This is a serious disease, which causes serious welfare problems, not just for cattle and badgers, but also for other animals and potentially for humans. It is hard to believe that a responsible Government adopting a precautionary approach would be content to simply ignore a wildlife reservoir of this magnitude. This is exactly why farmers are so frustrated.
"Dan Rogerson, Lib-Dem MP for North Cornwall and a member of the Commons Rural Affairs Committee, said it was clear that the Government could no longer afford to ignore the problem of Tb in badgers."
As we said - we are puzzled.
He is on record as saying, (with neither Trading Standards evidence nor prosecutions to confirm), that farmers are illegally moving cattle around the country.
When a veterinary practioner arrives every 60 days to Tb test cattle, he has a print out from BCMS of animals registered to the farm which are due to be tested, and if the farm is under Tb restriction, no 'new' animals may be present without a Ministry license, equally any animals not present have their whereabouts enquired into.
We find Professor Bourne's statement extraordinary, and insulting - but let that pass.
The purpose of this post is a statement made by Bourne to the Select committee this week and reported in the Western Morning News;
"Ministers were under renewed pressure to order a cull of badgers in the Westcountry last night after it emerged that as many as eight out of ten of the creatures are infected with bovine TB in some parts of the region.
The shock figures were revealed by Professor John Bourne, head of the Government's badger culling trials, who described the spread of bovine TB as being "like foot and mouth in slow motion - and not so slow in some cases either".
Giving evidence to MPs on the Commons Rural Affairs Committee, Prof Bourne said there had been a "wide variation" in the degree of badger infection in the ten trial areas, half of which were in the Westcountry.He said the proportion of badgers infected with bovine TB varied from just four per cent in some areas to as much as forty per cent in others. But he said that the "inadequacy of diagnosis" meant that both these figures should probably be doubled - with badger infection in the worst areas reaching 80 per cent.
The figures were seized on last night by the Westcountry farming community, where there is widespread support for a badger cull to help bring bovine TB under control.Ian Johnson, spokesman for the South West National Farmers' Union, described the figures as "appalling".He said: "It is incredible that ministers are even considering not having a cull when the level of infection in the wildlife is as high as this.
This is a serious disease, which causes serious welfare problems, not just for cattle and badgers, but also for other animals and potentially for humans. It is hard to believe that a responsible Government adopting a precautionary approach would be content to simply ignore a wildlife reservoir of this magnitude. This is exactly why farmers are so frustrated.
"Dan Rogerson, Lib-Dem MP for North Cornwall and a member of the Commons Rural Affairs Committee, said it was clear that the Government could no longer afford to ignore the problem of Tb in badgers."
As we said - we are puzzled.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
A Blind Alley?
We have referred to the constraints on badger culling under the terms of the Bern convention in previous posts. Badgers are protected under Annex 111 of Bern, which does allow for population management, or disease control but in very prescribed way.
At the moment it is reported that 'farmers' ( or rather the NFU led by government) are calling for badger culling on a massive scale, to be undertaken by farmers and using ... snares.
(Not in my name they aren't. )
But our reading of the message below received today from the European Commission, Strasberg is that under the Bern Convention (even if we wanted to, and 'we' do not) we cannot use snares. We can use "regulated exploitation" (that's culling in English) but only when it is not detrimental to the survival of populations concerned, including causing local disappearance of or serious disturbance to populations of species under Appendix III- and there is no other satisfactory solution.
To us that seems to mean, only a very targeted cull is available - if and it is a big "if" we have no other satisfactory solution available hence the big push for more cattle testing.
Have government and their 'experts' cocked this up big time? They didn't realise we couldn't do it, have done so now and are now busy promoting "other" options to escape from the problem with out admitting the cock up? It wouldn't be the first time. It's called covering your back.
The only other explanation is the contrived vilification of cattle farmers on the altar of political expediency, and major inputs into several universities to take pressure off the education budget.
Anyway, from the horse's mouth, an explanation of Bern and badger control:
"As you know, the Meles meles is listed in Appendix III of the Bern Convention and therefore do not benefit from the highest level of protection provided by the Convention (Appendix II species). Article 7 allows the 'regulated exploitation' of Appendix III species, such as Meles meles, while Article 8 of the Convention indeed bans the use of indiscriminate means of killing for Appendix III species, including those listed in Appendix IV such as snares.
These provisions must be read together with Article 9, which allows for exceptions from Articles 7 and 8 which are "not detrimental to the survival of the populations concerned" and given that "there is no other satisfactory solution".
Together with this erudite piece of information, which specifically says that 'indiscriminate means of killing such as snares' is banned, Article 9 has an absolute gem in part 2 which requires 'the Contracting Parties' to report to the Standing committee every two years. Information required must specify:
* the populations involved and when practical, numbers involved.
*the means authorised for killing or capture.
*the conditions of risk, circumstances of time and place under which exceptions were granted.
*the authority empowered to declare these conditions have been fulfilled, ... their limits and the persons instructed to carry them out.
*the controls involved.
Are you getting the picture here? 'Farmers' will cull badgers using snares? We don't think so.
Our contact in Strasberg finished by saying he hoped we found the information useful.
Perhaps Defra may find it even more useful.
At the moment it is reported that 'farmers' ( or rather the NFU led by government) are calling for badger culling on a massive scale, to be undertaken by farmers and using ... snares.
(Not in my name they aren't. )
But our reading of the message below received today from the European Commission, Strasberg is that under the Bern Convention (even if we wanted to, and 'we' do not) we cannot use snares. We can use "regulated exploitation" (that's culling in English) but only when it is not detrimental to the survival of populations concerned, including causing local disappearance of or serious disturbance to populations of species under Appendix III- and there is no other satisfactory solution.
To us that seems to mean, only a very targeted cull is available - if and it is a big "if" we have no other satisfactory solution available hence the big push for more cattle testing.
Have government and their 'experts' cocked this up big time? They didn't realise we couldn't do it, have done so now and are now busy promoting "other" options to escape from the problem with out admitting the cock up? It wouldn't be the first time. It's called covering your back.
The only other explanation is the contrived vilification of cattle farmers on the altar of political expediency, and major inputs into several universities to take pressure off the education budget.
Anyway, from the horse's mouth, an explanation of Bern and badger control:
"As you know, the Meles meles is listed in Appendix III of the Bern Convention and therefore do not benefit from the highest level of protection provided by the Convention (Appendix II species). Article 7 allows the 'regulated exploitation' of Appendix III species, such as Meles meles, while Article 8 of the Convention indeed bans the use of indiscriminate means of killing for Appendix III species, including those listed in Appendix IV such as snares.
These provisions must be read together with Article 9, which allows for exceptions from Articles 7 and 8 which are "not detrimental to the survival of the populations concerned" and given that "there is no other satisfactory solution".
Together with this erudite piece of information, which specifically says that 'indiscriminate means of killing such as snares' is banned, Article 9 has an absolute gem in part 2 which requires 'the Contracting Parties' to report to the Standing committee every two years. Information required must specify:
* the populations involved and when practical, numbers involved.
*the means authorised for killing or capture.
*the conditions of risk, circumstances of time and place under which exceptions were granted.
*the authority empowered to declare these conditions have been fulfilled, ... their limits and the persons instructed to carry them out.
*the controls involved.
Are you getting the picture here? 'Farmers' will cull badgers using snares? We don't think so.
Our contact in Strasberg finished by saying he hoped we found the information useful.
Perhaps Defra may find it even more useful.
From a Wildlife team operative...
We are most grateful to receive practical comments and proposals from people actually involved in the field of wildlife management, rather than 'intructions from on high', from those involved in skewed desk work, and a comment posted to the site today, we are raising in profile to a posting.
"As somebody who has worked on various culling methods/strategies over the past 13 years or so, including the Krebs Trial,I feel qualified to add to this debate. Krebs has proven one thing, and one thing only- that there is a proven link between the spread of TB in cattle and that in badgers.
If you accept the theory that the Reactive culling operations caused the perturbation(dispersal) of badgers, which made the TB situation even worse elsewhere, you have to accept that the link does indeed exist. We have over 100 staff with literally a thousand years of hands on experience between them, who have a clear view on what must happen to reduce/eradicate the disease- that is, break the cycle by slaughtering the infected cattle and do the same in the wildlife population. It might be unacceptable for the general public to accept that 1000s of badgers might die in the process, but that will have to be the bitter pill to swallow !
All of the fieldstaff working on Krebs have felt the frustrations of having to carry out their operations to a very prescriptive method. It does not allow for any common sense approach to what is often a practical problem that could be easily solved if only.......common sense could be used !!
The way forward now, is to try to get ahead of the disease. Playing catch up has never worked, due mainly to the red tape and bureaucracy attached to the policies that were in force at the time. There were/are some utterly ridiculous restrictions/limitations on what is allowed or not allowed when catching infected badgers.This has frustrated the hell out of who are/were( they are now being made redundant) very willing and able field staff.
PCR machines, on the face of it, could prove to be very usefull. Testing setts, determining the TB status of it, as a precursor to a removal licence being issued is surely an acceptable way to move forward ?
If common sense is allowed to rule, we have a chance to move ahead with the battle against this disease. If we leave it to those who think they know the best way forward, we had just as well give up on the whole thing right now and allow nature to ruin the cattle industry totally. Financing trial after trial, review after ereview, is wasting valuable time. Cull infected badgers, close down their infected setts, slaughter infected cattle, use pre/post-movement testing and the answer is theer for all to see- a clear way forward that will soon produce acceptable results. Why are we waiting ?? "
There is nothing we could add to that, except to remind readers that our Minister for Conservation and Fisheries has introduced one very good measure this month.
He has made mycobacterium bovis - bTb notifiable in all mammalian species. Up to now any cat, dog or pet pig which has succombed has cost its owner something over £100 for a SVS postmortem. And still we have in excess of 25 (non - farm) cats positive for bTb in the last couple of years - and no doubt some very distressed owners.
Thankyou again for the post.
"As somebody who has worked on various culling methods/strategies over the past 13 years or so, including the Krebs Trial,I feel qualified to add to this debate. Krebs has proven one thing, and one thing only- that there is a proven link between the spread of TB in cattle and that in badgers.
If you accept the theory that the Reactive culling operations caused the perturbation(dispersal) of badgers, which made the TB situation even worse elsewhere, you have to accept that the link does indeed exist. We have over 100 staff with literally a thousand years of hands on experience between them, who have a clear view on what must happen to reduce/eradicate the disease- that is, break the cycle by slaughtering the infected cattle and do the same in the wildlife population. It might be unacceptable for the general public to accept that 1000s of badgers might die in the process, but that will have to be the bitter pill to swallow !
All of the fieldstaff working on Krebs have felt the frustrations of having to carry out their operations to a very prescriptive method. It does not allow for any common sense approach to what is often a practical problem that could be easily solved if only.......common sense could be used !!
The way forward now, is to try to get ahead of the disease. Playing catch up has never worked, due mainly to the red tape and bureaucracy attached to the policies that were in force at the time. There were/are some utterly ridiculous restrictions/limitations on what is allowed or not allowed when catching infected badgers.This has frustrated the hell out of who are/were( they are now being made redundant) very willing and able field staff.
PCR machines, on the face of it, could prove to be very usefull. Testing setts, determining the TB status of it, as a precursor to a removal licence being issued is surely an acceptable way to move forward ?
If common sense is allowed to rule, we have a chance to move ahead with the battle against this disease. If we leave it to those who think they know the best way forward, we had just as well give up on the whole thing right now and allow nature to ruin the cattle industry totally. Financing trial after trial, review after ereview, is wasting valuable time. Cull infected badgers, close down their infected setts, slaughter infected cattle, use pre/post-movement testing and the answer is theer for all to see- a clear way forward that will soon produce acceptable results. Why are we waiting ?? "
There is nothing we could add to that, except to remind readers that our Minister for Conservation and Fisheries has introduced one very good measure this month.
He has made mycobacterium bovis - bTb notifiable in all mammalian species. Up to now any cat, dog or pet pig which has succombed has cost its owner something over £100 for a SVS postmortem. And still we have in excess of 25 (non - farm) cats positive for bTb in the last couple of years - and no doubt some very distressed owners.
Thankyou again for the post.
Monday, February 06, 2006
'A slight wheeziness'.
Hard on the heels of its 'Back off Badgers' campaign, where instead of putting its not inconsiderable weight behind persuading government to use the technology already existing to effectively diagnose and eradicate Tb in both cattle and badgers (and anything else into which it has now spilled) the RSPCA has produced its own Enid Blyton 'factfile' on bTB. Their fact sheet (Know Your Facts! pdf) includes statements such as:
"In the few badgers that do have symptoms, they are wheeziness and loss of weight and condition. There may be some skin ulceration."
When postmortemed badgers reveal lungs and vital organs a mass of abscesses and lesions, one could be forgiven for pointing out that that the terms 'wheeziness' and 'loss of weight' may be a tad understated. The pictures provided to this site show these animals have died in agony. Emaciated, battle scarred, abscessed and starving. One would presume that the RSPCA would not hesitate to prosecute should a dog, cat or any other domesticated animal be allowed to deteriorate into such condition, so what's so special about badgers? What sort of animal welfare is it that ignores or denies a highly infectious zoonosis, endemic in some badger populations and leaves them to die like this?
As for 'wheeziness', we would (with respect of course) point out that lungs affected by tuberculosis - it used to be called consumption- mean that the host sufferer eventually drowns in a haemorrhage of blood and pus as lesions burst. (see horrendous photo on link)
In the light of our photographs, the society may like to reconsider its title.
Royal Society for Promotion of Cruelty to Animals may be more apt. Or are some animals more equal than others?
Pictorial and horrific evidence that badgers do indeed suffer when TB is left within the wildlife reservoir - as it is in parts of the UK. The RSPCA - for reasons one finds hard to understand - play down the effects of TB in badgers. This postmortem was carried out by veterinary personnel; the lesions were ripe and the liquid is pus, which gushed out as they cut. This is what happens to a tuberculous lesion.
Warning: The following photo should offend.
http://www.warmwell.com/tbbadger.html
"In the few badgers that do have symptoms, they are wheeziness and loss of weight and condition. There may be some skin ulceration."
When postmortemed badgers reveal lungs and vital organs a mass of abscesses and lesions, one could be forgiven for pointing out that that the terms 'wheeziness' and 'loss of weight' may be a tad understated. The pictures provided to this site show these animals have died in agony. Emaciated, battle scarred, abscessed and starving. One would presume that the RSPCA would not hesitate to prosecute should a dog, cat or any other domesticated animal be allowed to deteriorate into such condition, so what's so special about badgers? What sort of animal welfare is it that ignores or denies a highly infectious zoonosis, endemic in some badger populations and leaves them to die like this?
As for 'wheeziness', we would (with respect of course) point out that lungs affected by tuberculosis - it used to be called consumption- mean that the host sufferer eventually drowns in a haemorrhage of blood and pus as lesions burst. (see horrendous photo on link)
In the light of our photographs, the society may like to reconsider its title.
Royal Society for Promotion of Cruelty to Animals may be more apt. Or are some animals more equal than others?
Pictorial and horrific evidence that badgers do indeed suffer when TB is left within the wildlife reservoir - as it is in parts of the UK. The RSPCA - for reasons one finds hard to understand - play down the effects of TB in badgers. This postmortem was carried out by veterinary personnel; the lesions were ripe and the liquid is pus, which gushed out as they cut. This is what happens to a tuberculous lesion.
Warning: The following photo should offend.
http://www.warmwell.com/tbbadger.html
Sunday, February 05, 2006
New Technology
We are grateful for the following post from www.warmwell.com
"With the urgent need to develop more sensitive, rapid, and cost-effective means of diagnosing M. bovis infection in cattle and badgers, the EN approach described here offers considerable potential
The method is not only easy to perform, and therefore does not require a specifically trained technician, but is also cost- and time-effective, since, once validated, it would dispense with the need for the isolation of M. bovis by culture (which is protracted and costly) or repeated visits to the farm (in the case of the cattle skin test). Furthermore, the technology is amenable to automation and/or condensation into a portable device that could eventually permit the rapid testing of large numbers of animals in situ." From Use of an Electronic Nose To Diagnose Mycobacterium bovis Infection in Badgers and Cattle Journal of Clinical Microbiology, April 2005, p. 1745-1751, Vol. 43, No. 4 This was work funded partly by DEFRA. Any information about what happened to it would be gratefully received.
"With the urgent need to develop more sensitive, rapid, and cost-effective means of diagnosing M. bovis infection in cattle and badgers, the EN approach described here offers considerable potential
The method is not only easy to perform, and therefore does not require a specifically trained technician, but is also cost- and time-effective, since, once validated, it would dispense with the need for the isolation of M. bovis by culture (which is protracted and costly) or repeated visits to the farm (in the case of the cattle skin test). Furthermore, the technology is amenable to automation and/or condensation into a portable device that could eventually permit the rapid testing of large numbers of animals in situ." From Use of an Electronic Nose To Diagnose Mycobacterium bovis Infection in Badgers and Cattle Journal of Clinical Microbiology, April 2005, p. 1745-1751, Vol. 43, No. 4 This was work funded partly by DEFRA. Any information about what happened to it would be gratefully received.
Solutions?
A comment on the posting below asked how the farmers hosting this site would deal with the problem of bTb.
We answered that for cattle, the intradermal skin test + slaughter of reactors was the preferred control of bTb world wide, and satisfied global trading conditions. However action had to be taken on any other source of tb, and for that we favoured RT-PCR technology combined with management of any populations which haboured it. That for their own sakes as well as the inevitable spillover. Our commentator posted thus:
"Thank you - your summary of how you would tackle TB is very informative. Who do you propose should pay for all these measures, they sound very expensive. Surely not us tax payers? We already contribute £100m plus per year. All the messages I see coming out of DEFRA is that they have less money to spend, not more, so it looks like if you want to clear up this disease it will have to be financed by farmers. My prediction, which you might want to archive along with all your parliamentary questions, is that government will impose a TB levy on the whole cattle industry, with farmers contributing on a sliding scale depending on their parish testing frequency. "
We would agree in principle that the taxpayer should not have fund this, and if the level of tb achieved 20 years ago ( less than 100 herds affected and 686 cattle slaughtered) I suspect we would not be having this discussion at all. Nor in the 21st century, should we be.
The £100 million ' year is weighted heavily in favour of the beneficiaries' of the crisis as we have explained many times. Farmer compulsory purchase monies form under one third and with the tabular valuation, will drop even more - for a while. Testing costs attract another third of the budget with samples, haulage, slaughter, postmortems and endless 'experimental' work taking the rest. A compound had been built at Weybridge to test badgers. Its walls extend 15 feet into the Surrey soil. How does that square with Bradshaw's 'bio security is farmers' responsibility'? If Weybridge needs £500,000 worth of concrete, 15 feet deep to keep them inside, surely the same must apply to exclude them from grassland? This facility remains unused by the way. Another Defra playground.
Bradshaw is ahead of you on a levy. We understand that he's also approached the insurance loss adjusters to underwrite a 50:50 scheme. Their reply was 'exposure to risk is too high', that was when they'd finished laughing. In many areas, farmers are no longer able to obtain new cover Tb insurance. And if they are still insured, the premium has increased 10 fold and cover halved.
If such a levy were introduced then it would be for all animal diseases, not just Tb and I suspect farmers would then cancel their individual cover with their insurers for brucellosis, Fmd, swine fever etc.
Defra is a hole of their own making with this one, and they are not concerned as to who digs them out - or how. As long as they are not involved.
You make an interesting point on a 'sliding scale for parish testing frequencies'.
I feel that tabular valuations will squeeze farmers into a financial corner with this disease, and should your suggestion be implemented, then the 221 day latency of exposure from the UK strains of Tb to its provoking a skin reaction, (PQ's) could (in theory) mean that the whole country is on 4 year testing inside 7 months.
We answered that for cattle, the intradermal skin test + slaughter of reactors was the preferred control of bTb world wide, and satisfied global trading conditions. However action had to be taken on any other source of tb, and for that we favoured RT-PCR technology combined with management of any populations which haboured it. That for their own sakes as well as the inevitable spillover. Our commentator posted thus:
"Thank you - your summary of how you would tackle TB is very informative. Who do you propose should pay for all these measures, they sound very expensive. Surely not us tax payers? We already contribute £100m plus per year. All the messages I see coming out of DEFRA is that they have less money to spend, not more, so it looks like if you want to clear up this disease it will have to be financed by farmers. My prediction, which you might want to archive along with all your parliamentary questions, is that government will impose a TB levy on the whole cattle industry, with farmers contributing on a sliding scale depending on their parish testing frequency. "
We would agree in principle that the taxpayer should not have fund this, and if the level of tb achieved 20 years ago ( less than 100 herds affected and 686 cattle slaughtered) I suspect we would not be having this discussion at all. Nor in the 21st century, should we be.
The £100 million ' year is weighted heavily in favour of the beneficiaries' of the crisis as we have explained many times. Farmer compulsory purchase monies form under one third and with the tabular valuation, will drop even more - for a while. Testing costs attract another third of the budget with samples, haulage, slaughter, postmortems and endless 'experimental' work taking the rest. A compound had been built at Weybridge to test badgers. Its walls extend 15 feet into the Surrey soil. How does that square with Bradshaw's 'bio security is farmers' responsibility'? If Weybridge needs £500,000 worth of concrete, 15 feet deep to keep them inside, surely the same must apply to exclude them from grassland? This facility remains unused by the way. Another Defra playground.
Bradshaw is ahead of you on a levy. We understand that he's also approached the insurance loss adjusters to underwrite a 50:50 scheme. Their reply was 'exposure to risk is too high', that was when they'd finished laughing. In many areas, farmers are no longer able to obtain new cover Tb insurance. And if they are still insured, the premium has increased 10 fold and cover halved.
If such a levy were introduced then it would be for all animal diseases, not just Tb and I suspect farmers would then cancel their individual cover with their insurers for brucellosis, Fmd, swine fever etc.
Defra is a hole of their own making with this one, and they are not concerned as to who digs them out - or how. As long as they are not involved.
You make an interesting point on a 'sliding scale for parish testing frequencies'.
I feel that tabular valuations will squeeze farmers into a financial corner with this disease, and should your suggestion be implemented, then the 221 day latency of exposure from the UK strains of Tb to its provoking a skin reaction, (PQ's) could (in theory) mean that the whole country is on 4 year testing inside 7 months.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Badgers don't suffer from TB!
A nice healthy Mr Brock... Ah! Isn't he just lovely... Or is he?Look a little bit closer and you might see that he's not that steady on his pins. Not quite that sleek furry animal. Possibly a bit on the thin side. But, of course, you can't tell a diseased badger, just by looking at it, can you? And, in any case, badgers don't suffer from TB, do they...? We all know that.
Mind you, this one don't look so hot. Might have something to do with the fact that he's dead.But what did he die of? Couldn't have anything to do with TB could it? Badgers don't suffer from TB... we all know that. And, as we all know, you couldn't possibly tell from just looking at it, could we. How do you spell that? Emaciation? And what does that mean, I wonder. Put the little darling off its food did it? Never mind, they say dieting is good for you.
So what about this little darling? Shrunken eyes... dear, dear! And that word again, emaciation...! Nothing a few square meals wouldn't put right... unless he's got TB of course. But then, badgers don't suffer from TB do they? Everybody knows that!Can't be much wrong with him... look, he's smiling!
How's this for a "claws 4" moment, then - just what Mr Cameron needs. But not what this little poppet needs. Weakened by TB, he can't dig, so he doesn't wear down his claws.Surely that cannot be right? Badgers don't suffer from TB. Everybody knows that. And you can't possibly tell a badger has TB just by looking at it... can you? Everybody knows that.
And here's another handsome specimen. How could you possibly have killed such a fine animal like that? That's really shocking, even thinking of killing.Oh! You didn't kill it? It died of bite wounds, after it was driven out by other badgers because it had TB? Don't be silly! Everybody knows that badgers don't suffer from TB. How would other badgers know? Are they vets? (Is there a difference?)
Urgh! How dare you show me that! That's not a badger. Badgers are nice, cuddly creatures with sleek fur. Don't they look lovely!. That can't be a badger. It looks horrid.Bite wound and ulcerations? Who would be so nasty. Aren't people cruel! Badgers? Other badgers did it? There should be a law against it. The poor thing should be put down. There's a law against that? How silly!! That's barbaric!
Ohh.. the poor thing! I can hardly bear to look. Those are TB infected absesses? Yuk!!! You mean that poor thing was wandering around with all that inside it? Didn't it suffer?Oh! I forgot. Badgers don't suffer from TB! Everbody knows that! Who's this "everybody", you ask? National Federation of Badger Groups, I think. They know everything ther is to know about badgers, and they say badgers don't suffer from TB. So it must be right. And then there's the RSPCA. They could't possibly get something like that wrong, could they! Could they?
What did you say they were again? Abcesses? Mmmm.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Gordon Brown attacks Tuberculosis.
"Tuberculosis is now the biggest killer [... ] worldwide, with one person becoming infected every second."
That was just for openers and we hoped that our illustrious Chancellor would have a little more to say about his problems back home.
But no. The finger wagged in true 'teacher knows best' fashion as our Gorrrdon promised action to stop the scourge. But his target was ... the rest of the world.
No mention then of the armies of 'Tb liason' officers rampant in areas of rural Britain, descending on farms under restriction with soothing words but little else. No mention of his Government's commitment to spending £2 billion of taxpayers' money over the next 10 years, NOT sorting the unholy mess politicians of varying hues have created in the countryside of the UK. Not a word about the Tb budget delivering sustainance to academics while condemning both cattle and badgers to an unecessary death. And of course no mention at all of the fact that the UK's appalling Tb status (now the worst in the world) is increasingly coming to the notice of the OIE (Office of International Epizootics) and others, who point out that while a significant reservoir of tuberculosis is allowed to flourish in wildlife, the long term health of the human population is at risk.
As our Chancellor lectures, pots and kettles come to mind.
Tuberculosis worldwide can be seen at this link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/100618.stm
That was just for openers and we hoped that our illustrious Chancellor would have a little more to say about his problems back home.
But no. The finger wagged in true 'teacher knows best' fashion as our Gorrrdon promised action to stop the scourge. But his target was ... the rest of the world.
No mention then of the armies of 'Tb liason' officers rampant in areas of rural Britain, descending on farms under restriction with soothing words but little else. No mention of his Government's commitment to spending £2 billion of taxpayers' money over the next 10 years, NOT sorting the unholy mess politicians of varying hues have created in the countryside of the UK. Not a word about the Tb budget delivering sustainance to academics while condemning both cattle and badgers to an unecessary death. And of course no mention at all of the fact that the UK's appalling Tb status (now the worst in the world) is increasingly coming to the notice of the OIE (Office of International Epizootics) and others, who point out that while a significant reservoir of tuberculosis is allowed to flourish in wildlife, the long term health of the human population is at risk.
As our Chancellor lectures, pots and kettles come to mind.
Tuberculosis worldwide can be seen at this link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/100618.stm
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Victims and Villains
This week's Farmers Guardian carries a letter from Worcester veterinary practitioner, David Denny, MRCVS which goes a long way to explaining why badgers are both the villains and the victims of the tuberculosis epidemic. His letter begins:
"It is ironic that those who attempt to exonerate badgers of being the reservoir of infection for cattle, show such little concern for the suffering those badgers undergo."
Mr. Denny then explains the epidemiology of tuberculosis in both species and explains why cattle rarely transmit the bacteria even to each other, let alone other species. He concludes:
"..... Is it hypocritical of Martin Hancox and his ilk to allow the suffering of the infected badgers, never mind the mass slaughter of cattle and the despair of the farmers concerned, to be further prolonged? ." read in full
"It is ironic that those who attempt to exonerate badgers of being the reservoir of infection for cattle, show such little concern for the suffering those badgers undergo."
Mr. Denny then explains the epidemiology of tuberculosis in both species and explains why cattle rarely transmit the bacteria even to each other, let alone other species. He concludes:
"..... Is it hypocritical of Martin Hancox and his ilk to allow the suffering of the infected badgers, never mind the mass slaughter of cattle and the despair of the farmers concerned, to be further prolonged? ." read in full
Thursday, January 26, 2006
A Voice of Sanity in a Mad World..
Yesterday the ISG (Independent (but they are not) Scientific (debatable) Group (no conflict there) gathered in London to present the latest update on the RBCT 'Krebs' trial. A voice of sanity they are not. For that please see later in this post.
At the ISG jolly, Professor John Bourne outlined his victims (badgers) and villains (cattle) and ensured his survival and place at the public trough Defra call the TB budget for .... as long as it takes the statisticians to numbercrunch his 'trial'. He dismissed PCR technology, (well there's a surprise) and outlined improvements to the Gamma Interferon blood test which allegedly has been 'refined' to exclude at least some of the false positives. However under OIE and EU inter trade disease monitoring the skin test is supreme. Anything else is supplementary to it.
It was only 3 years ago, when a leading light at VLA (Veterinary Laboratories Agency) told a contributer to this site, 'Don't go there, you'll lose half your herd!'. the Gamma Interferon blood test measures antibodies to a challenge from m.bovis in the bloodstream of the candidate animal. So if a cow has had exposure - and her immune system has fought it off, the gamma interferon bloods would identify her as a positive when in fact, in another world, she may be classed as 'vaccinated'.
Dr. Rosie Woodruffe described how she assessed the numbers of badgers around to be captured in the RBCT. She went out at night with a lamp - and counted them.
Bourne blamed the badger activists for the peturbation effect experienced in the RBCT. "They released my badgers" he explained. Well they said they would, what did he expect? And the meeting was told that a free running badger (one excluded from the social group?) at about 4/5 years old but not yet in the emaciation stage of advanced tuberculosis, was the most dangerous for onward transmission of Tb. As a 'disperser' with no social group, his range was immense and although outwardly he appeared 'healthy' in that his body weight was normal, horrendously infectious he most certainly was.
The meeting could have been described as more entertainment value than 'science', with Thornbury's 100 percent clearance of tb in cattle dismissed out of hand by Professor Bourne.
That was depressing. Predictable but still depressing. More on this can be seen at:
http://www.farmersguardian.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1378
This site receives several comments but one received today we felt deserved a more prominent posting and we show it below in full entitled 'A Voice of Sanity':
Sorry I have to remain anonymous, as I'm a civil servant, an officer with State Veterinary Service - MAFF/Defra/Ministry, whichever you prefer.Yes a vaccine against bTB is the ideal, but before a vaccine can be used on animals, it has to be guaranteed 100% effective. Once an animal has been vaccinated it will show as a Reactor if tested, due to the antibodies generated, the whole point of a vaccine. The BCG vaccine used in humans is less than 90% efficient. If humans get TB they will react to the Heaf test, and if a clinical case, will be treated, and usually cured, with antibiotics. Cattle aren't, why not? The extortionate cost of the drugs, plus the animal would test as a Reactor at any future tests.
The Tuberculin test is in fact, a very good test, and certainly the best we've got at present. We actually get an extremely small number of false negatives (animals that are infected with TB that don't show as Reactors) and they're usually found to have developed TB extremely badly, affected by BVD, or other conditions which damage or destroy the immune response of the animals. The fact that an animal reacts to the test, does not necessarily mean the animal is clinically infected - it has the antibodies to the disease, hence the reaction.
The fact that we don't find Visible Lesions does not mean the animal isn't infected. A bovine is a large animal to PM, and we're only allowed around 5-8 minutes for performing a PM, so the most common sites are targetted, using (palpation) manual feeling of the lungs, and knife to cut organs and lymph nodes open for examination by eye. A TB lesion in a cow can be the size of a grain of sand - using the Mark 1 eyeball - not easy to spot and easily missed. Culturing TB by VLA is to say the least rather hit and miss. An animal will react to the test if it has been exposed to TB and developed the antibodies.
By far the majority of VLs that are found are what we refer to as "closed" cases - not getting to the outside world, less than 5% (probably nearer 2%) of PM'd cattle are "open" cases, in Lungs, Kidney, Liver or Udder, where the infection can spread to the outside world and cattle to cattle, or cattle to wildlife (ie the Holstein/Friesian foxes). Cattle moving from the west country were blamed for introducing TB to Cumbria and other places post FMD, but spoligotyping (strain) of the TB showed to be different to the west country type - therefore home-grown more locally. Look at the number of closed herd animals that become Reactors. Cattle are tested so frequently that very few are badly infected with TB. Unfortunately B&W foxes are not tested...........Badgers are extremely susceptible to bTB, but don't die of it very quickly, once infected they produce huge amounts of the organism, which they spread as they move along, constantly dribbling urine as they go, and in their faeces and saliva. They gradually get sicker and sicker, eventually being forced out of their sett and have to go elsewhere.
Farmers are criticised for their lack of bio-security, yes you can keep cattle away from known badger dung pits; but you can't tell where they've been dribbling, and you certainly can't keep badgers away from cattle, and out of their housing in any practicable/affordable way. Feed and drinking troughs are an absolute Mecca for B&W foxes - who's going to refuse a free meal! Maize clamps are a huge attraction to badgers, which get driddled on and infected.
Cheeseman and Bourne have lost all credibility in my eyes. The Krebs trials - what a farce, and a misinterpretation of the scientific facts. Wildlife Unit staff in Reactive trapping areas, only allowed to put traps out for 8 days - the badgers don't get the chance to get used to the traps, so yes there's bound to be disturbance - a sett with 6 accesses would have 12 traps - badgers aren't that thick they know something's different! Many setts have many more entrances. It is not possible to trap out 100% (apart from being illegal under the Berne Convention), 50 -75% at most. Unless a sett is cleaned right out and kept completely empty for at least 3 months - probably nearer 12, the TB organism will still be present and waiting to infect any clean badgers. This is why the ring culling by gassing in the 60s/70s actually caused a decrease in TB incidence.
Where do you find TB in the human population? In heavily or over-populated housing, especially in warm damp conditions - any similarities with a badger sett are purely coincidental!SVS staff on the ground are as frustrated as the farming community - NO-ONE wants to see the badger exterminated - just a HEALTHY and CONTROLLED population, so they can exist in harmony with cattle. There is no natural predator of the badger - they top of the line - where there's a high badger population, there's very, very few hedgehogs, ground-nesting birds or hares - they live and breed above ground, and hence, are easy Take Away mobile food for badgers! Any mammal can become infected with bTB, and there's no doubt that deer population is becoming seriously infected and another reservoir of infection. Where do deer pick up the infection? The same way most cattle become infected - grazing or eating infected feed.
It is no good just taking and killing cattle, the wildlife reservoir has to be tackled. Some farmers have lost more than 50% of their stock, and in some cases the last of blood-lines that have been bred by their forefathers. Come on Bradshaw, bite the bullet (not much chance of that though) and order a proper, efficient cull of the wildlife reservoir as well as cattle - oh, but I forgot, that's not politically acceptable.
To quote the proverb, "Don't shoot the messenger".
As we have said, 'the messengers' of tuberculosis are cattle that react to the skin test, like the canary in the coal mine. But Defra appear quite happy to pile up dead cattle without listening to the song they're singing. And when herds like those belonging to 3 of our contributers to this site go down, with a confirmation from the Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) that ' No bought in cattle have entered the holding', contamination of the environment has reached a point where overspill into other species is inevitable.
At the ISG jolly, Professor John Bourne outlined his victims (badgers) and villains (cattle) and ensured his survival and place at the public trough Defra call the TB budget for .... as long as it takes the statisticians to numbercrunch his 'trial'. He dismissed PCR technology, (well there's a surprise) and outlined improvements to the Gamma Interferon blood test which allegedly has been 'refined' to exclude at least some of the false positives. However under OIE and EU inter trade disease monitoring the skin test is supreme. Anything else is supplementary to it.
It was only 3 years ago, when a leading light at VLA (Veterinary Laboratories Agency) told a contributer to this site, 'Don't go there, you'll lose half your herd!'. the Gamma Interferon blood test measures antibodies to a challenge from m.bovis in the bloodstream of the candidate animal. So if a cow has had exposure - and her immune system has fought it off, the gamma interferon bloods would identify her as a positive when in fact, in another world, she may be classed as 'vaccinated'.
Dr. Rosie Woodruffe described how she assessed the numbers of badgers around to be captured in the RBCT. She went out at night with a lamp - and counted them.
Bourne blamed the badger activists for the peturbation effect experienced in the RBCT. "They released my badgers" he explained. Well they said they would, what did he expect? And the meeting was told that a free running badger (one excluded from the social group?) at about 4/5 years old but not yet in the emaciation stage of advanced tuberculosis, was the most dangerous for onward transmission of Tb. As a 'disperser' with no social group, his range was immense and although outwardly he appeared 'healthy' in that his body weight was normal, horrendously infectious he most certainly was.
The meeting could have been described as more entertainment value than 'science', with Thornbury's 100 percent clearance of tb in cattle dismissed out of hand by Professor Bourne.
That was depressing. Predictable but still depressing. More on this can be seen at:
http://www.farmersguardian.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1378
This site receives several comments but one received today we felt deserved a more prominent posting and we show it below in full entitled 'A Voice of Sanity':
Sorry I have to remain anonymous, as I'm a civil servant, an officer with State Veterinary Service - MAFF/Defra/Ministry, whichever you prefer.Yes a vaccine against bTB is the ideal, but before a vaccine can be used on animals, it has to be guaranteed 100% effective. Once an animal has been vaccinated it will show as a Reactor if tested, due to the antibodies generated, the whole point of a vaccine. The BCG vaccine used in humans is less than 90% efficient. If humans get TB they will react to the Heaf test, and if a clinical case, will be treated, and usually cured, with antibiotics. Cattle aren't, why not? The extortionate cost of the drugs, plus the animal would test as a Reactor at any future tests.
The Tuberculin test is in fact, a very good test, and certainly the best we've got at present. We actually get an extremely small number of false negatives (animals that are infected with TB that don't show as Reactors) and they're usually found to have developed TB extremely badly, affected by BVD, or other conditions which damage or destroy the immune response of the animals. The fact that an animal reacts to the test, does not necessarily mean the animal is clinically infected - it has the antibodies to the disease, hence the reaction.
The fact that we don't find Visible Lesions does not mean the animal isn't infected. A bovine is a large animal to PM, and we're only allowed around 5-8 minutes for performing a PM, so the most common sites are targetted, using (palpation) manual feeling of the lungs, and knife to cut organs and lymph nodes open for examination by eye. A TB lesion in a cow can be the size of a grain of sand - using the Mark 1 eyeball - not easy to spot and easily missed. Culturing TB by VLA is to say the least rather hit and miss. An animal will react to the test if it has been exposed to TB and developed the antibodies.
By far the majority of VLs that are found are what we refer to as "closed" cases - not getting to the outside world, less than 5% (probably nearer 2%) of PM'd cattle are "open" cases, in Lungs, Kidney, Liver or Udder, where the infection can spread to the outside world and cattle to cattle, or cattle to wildlife (ie the Holstein/Friesian foxes). Cattle moving from the west country were blamed for introducing TB to Cumbria and other places post FMD, but spoligotyping (strain) of the TB showed to be different to the west country type - therefore home-grown more locally. Look at the number of closed herd animals that become Reactors. Cattle are tested so frequently that very few are badly infected with TB. Unfortunately B&W foxes are not tested...........Badgers are extremely susceptible to bTB, but don't die of it very quickly, once infected they produce huge amounts of the organism, which they spread as they move along, constantly dribbling urine as they go, and in their faeces and saliva. They gradually get sicker and sicker, eventually being forced out of their sett and have to go elsewhere.
Farmers are criticised for their lack of bio-security, yes you can keep cattle away from known badger dung pits; but you can't tell where they've been dribbling, and you certainly can't keep badgers away from cattle, and out of their housing in any practicable/affordable way. Feed and drinking troughs are an absolute Mecca for B&W foxes - who's going to refuse a free meal! Maize clamps are a huge attraction to badgers, which get driddled on and infected.
Cheeseman and Bourne have lost all credibility in my eyes. The Krebs trials - what a farce, and a misinterpretation of the scientific facts. Wildlife Unit staff in Reactive trapping areas, only allowed to put traps out for 8 days - the badgers don't get the chance to get used to the traps, so yes there's bound to be disturbance - a sett with 6 accesses would have 12 traps - badgers aren't that thick they know something's different! Many setts have many more entrances. It is not possible to trap out 100% (apart from being illegal under the Berne Convention), 50 -75% at most. Unless a sett is cleaned right out and kept completely empty for at least 3 months - probably nearer 12, the TB organism will still be present and waiting to infect any clean badgers. This is why the ring culling by gassing in the 60s/70s actually caused a decrease in TB incidence.
Where do you find TB in the human population? In heavily or over-populated housing, especially in warm damp conditions - any similarities with a badger sett are purely coincidental!SVS staff on the ground are as frustrated as the farming community - NO-ONE wants to see the badger exterminated - just a HEALTHY and CONTROLLED population, so they can exist in harmony with cattle. There is no natural predator of the badger - they top of the line - where there's a high badger population, there's very, very few hedgehogs, ground-nesting birds or hares - they live and breed above ground, and hence, are easy Take Away mobile food for badgers! Any mammal can become infected with bTB, and there's no doubt that deer population is becoming seriously infected and another reservoir of infection. Where do deer pick up the infection? The same way most cattle become infected - grazing or eating infected feed.
It is no good just taking and killing cattle, the wildlife reservoir has to be tackled. Some farmers have lost more than 50% of their stock, and in some cases the last of blood-lines that have been bred by their forefathers. Come on Bradshaw, bite the bullet (not much chance of that though) and order a proper, efficient cull of the wildlife reservoir as well as cattle - oh, but I forgot, that's not politically acceptable.
To quote the proverb, "Don't shoot the messenger".
As we have said, 'the messengers' of tuberculosis are cattle that react to the skin test, like the canary in the coal mine. But Defra appear quite happy to pile up dead cattle without listening to the song they're singing. And when herds like those belonging to 3 of our contributers to this site go down, with a confirmation from the Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) that ' No bought in cattle have entered the holding', contamination of the environment has reached a point where overspill into other species is inevitable.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
PCR diagnostics.
Former Shadow minister, Owen Paterson MP recently visited the USA, and in particular the state of Michigan to see for himself the response of other countries to a tuberculosis reservoir in wildlife, and in particular the strides made with Polymerase Chain Reaction on-farm diagnostic testing.
In an article (in FWi) written by Owen Paterson, he describes his visit:
"....The USA shows clearly that Bovine TB can be eradicated in cattle and wildlife by a combination of the following:
* Fast, accurate and modern diagnosis.
* Rigidly enforced but workable pre-movement testing and movement restrictions.
* Vigorous, if unpopular, campaign to bear down on disease in wildlife.
It must be emphasised that only a combination of all of these will work. Picking only one or two of them will not eliminate the disease. ..."
"...... new PCR kits, developed for the army in Iraq, are as small as a briefcase and there is absolutely no practical reason why tests could not be done on the environment in the environment from the back of a truck in less than two hours. A well equipped laboratory could do over 1000 a day. They believe that PCR would work on material around setts. It was felt that Ben Bradshaw’s letter to me was quibbling....(US vets were) ... utterly astounded by the grotesque dimensions of the TB epidemic in the UK. .... there was clearly no doubt that we should be pressing the Government to trial PCR technology as we have already proposed. "Read in full
The great and the good gather this week to defend their budgets. Dr. Cheeseman from 'Badger Heaven' other wise known as Woodchester Park, a four year 'trial' into badger BCG (already undertaken in Ireland) and John Bourne to defend - the indefensible Krebs trial. Interestingly Krebs was described by Cheeseman this week as 'rigourous and robust'. As 57 % of the traps were 'interfered with' and 12% went AWOL, and trapping only accounted for between 30 - 60 % of the target group anyway, one may wonder just how bad it would have to get, for the good doctor to consider a 'trial' weak and flawed? But such is Defra's beneficial largesse, that it seems nobody is prepared to forge ahead with tomorrow's technology to identify infected animals and their environment. Australia used PCR in 1997, Michigan in 2001 - but the UK? Forget it, we'd rather kill 30,000 cattle a year, allow a notifiable zoonosis to devastate Britain's badgers and then spill over into - well anything that crosses its path actually.
This country will not wake up, until tuberculosis is reported in domestic pets.
But from February 20th, that will happen. Tuberculosis becomes notifiable in all mammalian species. Bring on the cats.
In an article (in FWi) written by Owen Paterson, he describes his visit:
"....The USA shows clearly that Bovine TB can be eradicated in cattle and wildlife by a combination of the following:
* Fast, accurate and modern diagnosis.
* Rigidly enforced but workable pre-movement testing and movement restrictions.
* Vigorous, if unpopular, campaign to bear down on disease in wildlife.
It must be emphasised that only a combination of all of these will work. Picking only one or two of them will not eliminate the disease. ..."
"...... new PCR kits, developed for the army in Iraq, are as small as a briefcase and there is absolutely no practical reason why tests could not be done on the environment in the environment from the back of a truck in less than two hours. A well equipped laboratory could do over 1000 a day. They believe that PCR would work on material around setts. It was felt that Ben Bradshaw’s letter to me was quibbling....(US vets were) ... utterly astounded by the grotesque dimensions of the TB epidemic in the UK. .... there was clearly no doubt that we should be pressing the Government to trial PCR technology as we have already proposed. "Read in full
The great and the good gather this week to defend their budgets. Dr. Cheeseman from 'Badger Heaven' other wise known as Woodchester Park, a four year 'trial' into badger BCG (already undertaken in Ireland) and John Bourne to defend - the indefensible Krebs trial. Interestingly Krebs was described by Cheeseman this week as 'rigourous and robust'. As 57 % of the traps were 'interfered with' and 12% went AWOL, and trapping only accounted for between 30 - 60 % of the target group anyway, one may wonder just how bad it would have to get, for the good doctor to consider a 'trial' weak and flawed? But such is Defra's beneficial largesse, that it seems nobody is prepared to forge ahead with tomorrow's technology to identify infected animals and their environment. Australia used PCR in 1997, Michigan in 2001 - but the UK? Forget it, we'd rather kill 30,000 cattle a year, allow a notifiable zoonosis to devastate Britain's badgers and then spill over into - well anything that crosses its path actually.
This country will not wake up, until tuberculosis is reported in domestic pets.
But from February 20th, that will happen. Tuberculosis becomes notifiable in all mammalian species. Bring on the cats.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Devon Farmer Petitions against cull of cattle ....
Sheilagh Kremers is a Devon smallholder with a small herd of rare breed Dexter cattle which had their routine Tb test before Christmas. One 6 month old calf was a Reactor.
Mous'l Fern had shown by his skin's reaction to the test that he had had contact with m bovis, and under international animal health rules, he has to go for slaughter.
While we have every sympathy Mrs. Kremers, and can empathise with her shock, disbelief and horror at the proposed slaughter of her calf, particularly while Defra allows the likely cause of the problem to remain at liberty to infect the rest of her small herd, the 'muddying of waters' concerning diagnostic tools is disappointing.
As we have said many times on this site, the intradermal skin test is OIE / EU approved and is used by competent vets and lay testers throughout the world, with no problems at all - in the abscence of a wildlife reservoir. In Australia, New Zealand and America it is used singularly in the caudal fold, and in the UK and Ireland in tandem with a m.avium as a comparison, in the neck of the animal.
A calibrated 'gun' discharges into the skin only, the test sites being clipped to measure pre jab thickness, and also define the exact area of the test. Any reaction, that is extra thickening of the skin or actual lumps and bumps, measured 72 hours later shows the candidate animal has been in contact with m.bovis bacteria. Depending on this reaction, and comparing it with the pre jab skin thickness and any avian thickening gives a result varying from 'Clear', 'Inconclusive reaction' (which will require a retest) or 'Fail' and as the animal is now classed as a Reactor , isolation and slaughter. Measured on calipers which pinch the skin at the jab site, a rise of +5ml and above will be classed as a Reactor, but if previous postmortems and/or culture samples have shown the presence of m.bovis, this level is rolled back to +3ml on a 'severe interpretation' of the test and animals showing above that level slaughtered too.
The test does not diagnose clinical tuberculosis, and many animals will have had contact and show up as reactors, but when slaughtered (as the law demands) show no sign of disease. The point is they have had contact with a serious notifiable zoonosis, that may or may not develop into full blown tb and which has no place in the environment at all. Highly infectious it certainly is, debilitating and fatal to its hosts and a serious threat to any mammal including human beings, domestic pets, free range pigs and other wildlife that have the misfortune to fall over it.
We agree with Mrs. Kremers in that slaughter of sentinel tested cattle is obscene, while absolutely no action is taken to protect and improve the health of the maintenance reservoir badgers and prevent onward transmission of Tb to other species. In the days of the National Coal Board it would be akin to strangling the sentinel canary while exposing the coal miners to lethal fire damp.
It has not gone unnoticed by our authors that in Defra's consultation documents (Badger Management as Part of a Balanced Approach to the Control of Tb) doing the rounds at present, "cherished and valued" are terms used to describe badgers, while cattle - 27,773 slaughtered to November - are referred to in £££ terms. Monetry value only then, even for this young calf. We do not expect Mrs. Kremers would agree. In fact her stance on behalf of this animal shows that farmers can 'cherish and value' their animals too - even if Defra do not.
Mrs. Kremers the Devon farmer has sent www.warmwell.com a copy of her petition. It asks "How many more healthy animals have to be slaughtered?"
To Margaret Beckett MP. We, the undersigned, want the government to cease this senseless slaughter of British cattle until:
An accurate test is in use
New measures are introduced to combat the disease at source (e.g. wildlife)
Vaccination of domestic and farm animals is allowed. It would undoubtedly mean a lot to Sheilagh and Mark Kremers at this difficult time, if printed petition forms, duly signed, could be sent to her at New Park Farm, Rectory Road, Ogwell, Newton Abbot, TQ12 6AH
Mous'l Fern had shown by his skin's reaction to the test that he had had contact with m bovis, and under international animal health rules, he has to go for slaughter.
While we have every sympathy Mrs. Kremers, and can empathise with her shock, disbelief and horror at the proposed slaughter of her calf, particularly while Defra allows the likely cause of the problem to remain at liberty to infect the rest of her small herd, the 'muddying of waters' concerning diagnostic tools is disappointing.
As we have said many times on this site, the intradermal skin test is OIE / EU approved and is used by competent vets and lay testers throughout the world, with no problems at all - in the abscence of a wildlife reservoir. In Australia, New Zealand and America it is used singularly in the caudal fold, and in the UK and Ireland in tandem with a m.avium as a comparison, in the neck of the animal.
A calibrated 'gun' discharges into the skin only, the test sites being clipped to measure pre jab thickness, and also define the exact area of the test. Any reaction, that is extra thickening of the skin or actual lumps and bumps, measured 72 hours later shows the candidate animal has been in contact with m.bovis bacteria. Depending on this reaction, and comparing it with the pre jab skin thickness and any avian thickening gives a result varying from 'Clear', 'Inconclusive reaction' (which will require a retest) or 'Fail' and as the animal is now classed as a Reactor , isolation and slaughter. Measured on calipers which pinch the skin at the jab site, a rise of +5ml and above will be classed as a Reactor, but if previous postmortems and/or culture samples have shown the presence of m.bovis, this level is rolled back to +3ml on a 'severe interpretation' of the test and animals showing above that level slaughtered too.
The test does not diagnose clinical tuberculosis, and many animals will have had contact and show up as reactors, but when slaughtered (as the law demands) show no sign of disease. The point is they have had contact with a serious notifiable zoonosis, that may or may not develop into full blown tb and which has no place in the environment at all. Highly infectious it certainly is, debilitating and fatal to its hosts and a serious threat to any mammal including human beings, domestic pets, free range pigs and other wildlife that have the misfortune to fall over it.
We agree with Mrs. Kremers in that slaughter of sentinel tested cattle is obscene, while absolutely no action is taken to protect and improve the health of the maintenance reservoir badgers and prevent onward transmission of Tb to other species. In the days of the National Coal Board it would be akin to strangling the sentinel canary while exposing the coal miners to lethal fire damp.
It has not gone unnoticed by our authors that in Defra's consultation documents (Badger Management as Part of a Balanced Approach to the Control of Tb) doing the rounds at present, "cherished and valued" are terms used to describe badgers, while cattle - 27,773 slaughtered to November - are referred to in £££ terms. Monetry value only then, even for this young calf. We do not expect Mrs. Kremers would agree. In fact her stance on behalf of this animal shows that farmers can 'cherish and value' their animals too - even if Defra do not.
Mrs. Kremers the Devon farmer has sent www.warmwell.com a copy of her petition. It asks "How many more healthy animals have to be slaughtered?"
To Margaret Beckett MP. We, the undersigned, want the government to cease this senseless slaughter of British cattle until:
An accurate test is in use
New measures are introduced to combat the disease at source (e.g. wildlife)
Vaccination of domestic and farm animals is allowed. It would undoubtedly mean a lot to Sheilagh and Mark Kremers at this difficult time, if printed petition forms, duly signed, could be sent to her at New Park Farm, Rectory Road, Ogwell, Newton Abbot, TQ12 6AH
Monday, January 09, 2006
Muckspreader and HRH
Private Eye's Muckspreader points out the dottiness of a Times article by Lord Hattersley suggesting that it was solely owing to Prince Charles that DEFRA now contemplates allowing the culling of diseased badgers as a means to ending the epidemic of TB in Britain’s cattle.
"....What seems to have escaped the attention of the noble lord is, first, as the Treasury is keenly aware, that the cost to taxpayers of the TB epidemic is now rapidly heading for £2 billion..... Second, the evidence quoted to Lord Hattersley by his ‘dissidents’ was only that derived from the ministry’s own notoriously inefficient ‘Krebs trials’. Much more reliable is the Irish evidence that a properly designed cull can cut TB in cattle by as much as 96 percent. What Hatters further omitted to mention was the force of that letter signed by more than 420 vets and scientists.... Not only, they argued, was this the only way to save thousands of farmers and their cattle from disaster. It would also serve the welfare of the diseased badgers themselves, condemned otherwise to a lingering, unpleasant death...." Read in full
(Piece taken from www.warmwell.com)
Muckspreader is quite correct. Defra is under increasing pressure from a Chancellor who has more black holes in his budget than 'The Sky at Night'. But his immediate February target, farmer ' compulsory purchase' monies for the 36 percent increase in cattle slaughtered to October 2005, will only stave off the inevitable for a couple of years. That is because the farmer's share of Defra's beneficial largesse is now less than one third. Testing is another third, and that will continue apace, with the remainder taken up by other totally unecessary Tb costs. Unecessary if the disease was under control, that is. We have asked before whether 600 dead cattle, less than 100 herds under restriction and our country safely able to trade as 'TB free' within OIE rules would have spawned the myriad of job opportunities that 27,700 dead cattle, and 5,300 herds under restriction have.
5.8 per cent of GB herds were under Tb restriction up to January - November 2005. The OIE and EU level for Tb free trading is 0.2 per cent, requiring 99.8 percent of registered herds and 99.9 percent of cattle to have been clear of bTb for 3 consecutive years.
OIE requirements are quoted below.
"To qualify as free from bovine tuberculosis, a country, zone or compartment should satisfy the following requirements:
bovine tuberculosis is a notifiable disease in the country;
regular and periodic testing of all cattle and buffalo herds has shown that at least 99.8% of the herds and 99.9% of the animals in the country, zone or compartment have been found free from bovine tuberculosis for 3 consecutive years;
Their jobs depend upon it.
"....What seems to have escaped the attention of the noble lord is, first, as the Treasury is keenly aware, that the cost to taxpayers of the TB epidemic is now rapidly heading for £2 billion..... Second, the evidence quoted to Lord Hattersley by his ‘dissidents’ was only that derived from the ministry’s own notoriously inefficient ‘Krebs trials’. Much more reliable is the Irish evidence that a properly designed cull can cut TB in cattle by as much as 96 percent. What Hatters further omitted to mention was the force of that letter signed by more than 420 vets and scientists.... Not only, they argued, was this the only way to save thousands of farmers and their cattle from disaster. It would also serve the welfare of the diseased badgers themselves, condemned otherwise to a lingering, unpleasant death...." Read in full
(Piece taken from www.warmwell.com)
Muckspreader is quite correct. Defra is under increasing pressure from a Chancellor who has more black holes in his budget than 'The Sky at Night'. But his immediate February target, farmer ' compulsory purchase' monies for the 36 percent increase in cattle slaughtered to October 2005, will only stave off the inevitable for a couple of years. That is because the farmer's share of Defra's beneficial largesse is now less than one third. Testing is another third, and that will continue apace, with the remainder taken up by other totally unecessary Tb costs. Unecessary if the disease was under control, that is. We have asked before whether 600 dead cattle, less than 100 herds under restriction and our country safely able to trade as 'TB free' within OIE rules would have spawned the myriad of job opportunities that 27,700 dead cattle, and 5,300 herds under restriction have.
5.8 per cent of GB herds were under Tb restriction up to January - November 2005. The OIE and EU level for Tb free trading is 0.2 per cent, requiring 99.8 percent of registered herds and 99.9 percent of cattle to have been clear of bTb for 3 consecutive years.
OIE requirements are quoted below.
"To qualify as free from bovine tuberculosis, a country, zone or compartment should satisfy the following requirements:
bovine tuberculosis is a notifiable disease in the country;
regular and periodic testing of all cattle and buffalo herds has shown that at least 99.8% of the herds and 99.9% of the animals in the country, zone or compartment have been found free from bovine tuberculosis for 3 consecutive years;
Defra's November 2005 figures show that of 90,933 herds registered on their Vetnet site, 5,296 were under restriction at some during the reporting period January - November because of a TB incident. As the UK's incidence is over 5.8 percent, and the OIE TB free trading level is 0.2 percent, I think one could confidently say, we do not qualify. In fact on the OIE statistics for TB incidence, we have the dubious honour of being top of the heap. The worst in the world. Just ripe for another Trade ban in fact.
And the beneficiaries of that burgeoning crisis will not be in any hurry to improve the situation.Their jobs depend upon it.
Friday, December 23, 2005
Defra's Christmas Recipes
Written in October, published on the Defra website to be consumed over Christmas, can be viewed here
Editor's warning: Some descriptions in this file may be found offensive.
Editor's warning: Some descriptions in this file may be found offensive.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Bradshaw and the Berne Convention
Described in our post below - or linked courtesy of the Link Fairy - are 3 options for the control of badgers by Defra, or farmers, or farmers and Defra. All are subject to a high profile 'consultation' excercise taking 3 months. But how legal would it be?
Our mole Matthew has been digging into the can do's and cannot do's of Bern, and as far as we can see, the Minister's options are not possible under this convention.
However as always, we stand corrected if wrong. Hey, we're only farmers for goodness sake!
Britain signed up to the convention in 1982. It was amended in 2002.
Appendix 111 / Annex 111 gives a listing of Protected status species, updated 2002, in which meles meles - our friendly neighbourhood stripey badger- is listed, in the section Carnivora.
But since 1st March 2002, in 'Prohibited means and methods of killing, capture and other forms of exploitation', Bern lists an extensive - if not inventive - array which cannot be applied to said protected species, listed in Annex 111.
Appendix IV / Annexe IV :
Snares,
Live animal decoys,
Tape recorders (do they think we would strangle the target with the tape?)
Electrical devices, Artificial light souces (night sights?)
Mirrors and other dazzling devices (Bradshaw?)
Devices for illuminating targets (If you mean a torch, why not say so?)
Sighting devices for night shooting
Explosives (except for whales)
Nets and Traps (if applied to large scale or non selective capture or killing)
Poisoned or anaesthetic bait
Gassing or smoking out
Semi automatic or automatic weapons capable of holding more than two rounds of ammunition, Aircraft (???!!)
Motor vehicles - in motion.
So what options does that leave?
We cannot use aircraft, so that leaves motor vehicles but only if they're stationary. Lamping with night sights is a no no, particularly if the shotgun or rifle has more than 2 rounds in the chamber, so no machine guns. No snares (did Ireland sign up to this?) No gassing or even trapping as part of a non selctive cull.
Well I guess we could ask them (politely) to leave, or creep up behind them and garotte, with the tape recorder's tape. Or we could just say 'boo' and pretend they've gone.......
So exactly what is our Minister of Fisheries' " Consultation" all about?
As we said, he intends to take the quid, but under Bern could he even think about delivering the pro quo ?
Our mole Matthew has been digging into the can do's and cannot do's of Bern, and as far as we can see, the Minister's options are not possible under this convention.
However as always, we stand corrected if wrong. Hey, we're only farmers for goodness sake!
Britain signed up to the convention in 1982. It was amended in 2002.
Appendix 111 / Annex 111 gives a listing of Protected status species, updated 2002, in which meles meles - our friendly neighbourhood stripey badger- is listed, in the section Carnivora.
But since 1st March 2002, in 'Prohibited means and methods of killing, capture and other forms of exploitation', Bern lists an extensive - if not inventive - array which cannot be applied to said protected species, listed in Annex 111.
Appendix IV / Annexe IV :
Snares,
Live animal decoys,
Tape recorders (do they think we would strangle the target with the tape?)
Electrical devices, Artificial light souces (night sights?)
Mirrors and other dazzling devices (Bradshaw?)
Devices for illuminating targets (If you mean a torch, why not say so?)
Sighting devices for night shooting
Explosives (except for whales)
Nets and Traps (if applied to large scale or non selective capture or killing)
Poisoned or anaesthetic bait
Gassing or smoking out
Semi automatic or automatic weapons capable of holding more than two rounds of ammunition, Aircraft (???!!)
Motor vehicles - in motion.
So what options does that leave?
We cannot use aircraft, so that leaves motor vehicles but only if they're stationary. Lamping with night sights is a no no, particularly if the shotgun or rifle has more than 2 rounds in the chamber, so no machine guns. No snares (did Ireland sign up to this?) No gassing or even trapping as part of a non selctive cull.
Well I guess we could ask them (politely) to leave, or creep up behind them and garotte, with the tape recorder's tape. Or we could just say 'boo' and pretend they've gone.......
So exactly what is our Minister of Fisheries' " Consultation" all about?
As we said, he intends to take the quid, but under Bern could he even think about delivering the pro quo ?
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Defra takes the 'Quid'...
... but shows no sign of delivering the 'pro quo'.
'Quid pro quo' : something given or taken as equivalent to another.
In the Industry Strategy on bTb worked out representatives of veterinary groups, SVS and cattle farmers, the proposals came as a package of measures, all of which were to be instigated concurrently and parallel. The cattle industry reluctantly accepting the high profile (but of little disease control) pre movement testing - which even our Ben accepts would miss 60 percent of cases of bTb. And believing that providing the wildlife source was tackled in a meaningful way and numbers of cattle slaughtered fell dramatically, then the proposed flat rate valuation could and should be enhanced once again by farmer's own insurance in quite a short space of time. That to go hand in hand, or quid pro quo with decisive actions on wildlife sources of the disease - and all at the same time. Concurrent.
So what has our Minister of Fisheries and Conservation announced?
February sees both cattle measures introduced. Pre-movement testing on the 20th. and tabular valuation on the 1st. And the wildlife? A consultation with options designed to scare the badger groups witless and further polarise opinions - and options.
One may say the Minister proposes to take the quid, and has not delivered the pro quo. Neither we suspect has he any intention of so doing.
Granted his appearance on the media was designed to appease the farmers. He was pressing - as they say - all the right buttons. But the bottom line is that the cattle industry faces costly and restrictive practices while the reservoir in wildlife flourishes unchecked.
We have pointed out before on this site that cattle farmers in areas of high tb incidence are unable to get insurance cover for the disease. The proposed tabular valuation is based only on 'market value', which means exactly that. Draft sales, specialist sales, breed sales and private pedigree sales are not included. So is just £500 / head a good enough incentive for farmers to do Defra's work for them? We hear that the wildlife teams are being stood down, and this week CSL (Central Science Laboratory) are advertising for applicants 'with 5 GCSE's' (sociology, media studies and IT?) to count badger setts. Oh and just to really stuff the job, Defra have no intention of using PCR technology to identify infected badger setts - even though they could - if they wanted to.
John Bourne has scrambled an interim report together, which delivers exactly as predicted - not a lot. Well what did you expect using cage traps, 57 percent of which were 'interfered with' and 12 percent 'disappeared'? That combined with an arbitary line as an 'edge' to the RBCT zone which moved in the duration, including different farms halfway through the 'trial', and thus excluding others, and encouraged the chaos of perturbation at its 'soft' and fluid perimeter. All this they knew at the start - and were reminded in spades. You really couldn't make it up. And they call this 'science'?
More on:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/latest/2005/animal-1215.htm
'Quid pro quo' : something given or taken as equivalent to another.
In the Industry Strategy on bTb worked out representatives of veterinary groups, SVS and cattle farmers, the proposals came as a package of measures, all of which were to be instigated concurrently and parallel. The cattle industry reluctantly accepting the high profile (but of little disease control) pre movement testing - which even our Ben accepts would miss 60 percent of cases of bTb. And believing that providing the wildlife source was tackled in a meaningful way and numbers of cattle slaughtered fell dramatically, then the proposed flat rate valuation could and should be enhanced once again by farmer's own insurance in quite a short space of time. That to go hand in hand, or quid pro quo with decisive actions on wildlife sources of the disease - and all at the same time. Concurrent.
So what has our Minister of Fisheries and Conservation announced?
February sees both cattle measures introduced. Pre-movement testing on the 20th. and tabular valuation on the 1st. And the wildlife? A consultation with options designed to scare the badger groups witless and further polarise opinions - and options.
One may say the Minister proposes to take the quid, and has not delivered the pro quo. Neither we suspect has he any intention of so doing.
Granted his appearance on the media was designed to appease the farmers. He was pressing - as they say - all the right buttons. But the bottom line is that the cattle industry faces costly and restrictive practices while the reservoir in wildlife flourishes unchecked.
We have pointed out before on this site that cattle farmers in areas of high tb incidence are unable to get insurance cover for the disease. The proposed tabular valuation is based only on 'market value', which means exactly that. Draft sales, specialist sales, breed sales and private pedigree sales are not included. So is just £500 / head a good enough incentive for farmers to do Defra's work for them? We hear that the wildlife teams are being stood down, and this week CSL (Central Science Laboratory) are advertising for applicants 'with 5 GCSE's' (sociology, media studies and IT?) to count badger setts. Oh and just to really stuff the job, Defra have no intention of using PCR technology to identify infected badger setts - even though they could - if they wanted to.
John Bourne has scrambled an interim report together, which delivers exactly as predicted - not a lot. Well what did you expect using cage traps, 57 percent of which were 'interfered with' and 12 percent 'disappeared'? That combined with an arbitary line as an 'edge' to the RBCT zone which moved in the duration, including different farms halfway through the 'trial', and thus excluding others, and encouraged the chaos of perturbation at its 'soft' and fluid perimeter. All this they knew at the start - and were reminded in spades. You really couldn't make it up. And they call this 'science'?
More on:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/latest/2005/animal-1215.htm
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Talking the Talk
Yesterday in Parliament, Geoffrey Cox MP secured a debate on bovine tb.
MP's of all persuasions questioned Ben Bradshaw on 'policy', and pointed out that his promised 'Autumn' statement was - well, a bit late for this year anyway. But then we've been used to prevarication for several years now. Do leopards change their spots? The Minister indicated that once again he was going to delay any announcement until John Bourne's interim report on the RBCT was published. He told the House that it was at present being peer reviewed, and that when the results were made public "the reason for his delaying would be made clear".
While not wishing to prejudge any momentous ministerial announcement, likely to be made on the last minute of this parliamentary session before Mr. Bradshaw goes off on his Christmas jollies, we can sense a problem here.
As Shadow minister, Owen Paterson MP pointed out, previous parliamentary questions (archived on this site) have extracted from the minister the efficiency - or not of Krebbs attempts to cull badgers.
Despite John Bourne's explanations to participating farmers that in both Reactive and Proactive areas the RBCT would: "Cull all badgers", the reality was that 57 percent of the traps were 'interfered with' and 12 percent disappeared. We have explored the maths of this before. But briefly from a target of 100 percent of badgers, in some cases the RBCT managed as little as 31 percent, which is confirmed by PQ's. At best cage trapping without badger activist intefernce only accounts for 80 percent of target.
However dear reader, it is for this (peer reviewed) 'work' that the minister is delaying his announcement. And it is on the basis of the RBCT 'results' that any decision to cull tb infected badgers will be made.
'Work' it has created for some. But the cost to the taxpayer, wildlife in general and badgers in particular, cattle and our country's reputation and disease status is - incalculable.
And 'science' it is not.
The minister has for long enough 'talked the talk', will he now 'walk the walk'? Not if his decision is based on the RBCT he won't.
The debate can be seen here.
MP's of all persuasions questioned Ben Bradshaw on 'policy', and pointed out that his promised 'Autumn' statement was - well, a bit late for this year anyway. But then we've been used to prevarication for several years now. Do leopards change their spots? The Minister indicated that once again he was going to delay any announcement until John Bourne's interim report on the RBCT was published. He told the House that it was at present being peer reviewed, and that when the results were made public "the reason for his delaying would be made clear".
While not wishing to prejudge any momentous ministerial announcement, likely to be made on the last minute of this parliamentary session before Mr. Bradshaw goes off on his Christmas jollies, we can sense a problem here.
As Shadow minister, Owen Paterson MP pointed out, previous parliamentary questions (archived on this site) have extracted from the minister the efficiency - or not of Krebbs attempts to cull badgers.
Despite John Bourne's explanations to participating farmers that in both Reactive and Proactive areas the RBCT would: "Cull all badgers", the reality was that 57 percent of the traps were 'interfered with' and 12 percent disappeared. We have explored the maths of this before. But briefly from a target of 100 percent of badgers, in some cases the RBCT managed as little as 31 percent, which is confirmed by PQ's. At best cage trapping without badger activist intefernce only accounts for 80 percent of target.
However dear reader, it is for this (peer reviewed) 'work' that the minister is delaying his announcement. And it is on the basis of the RBCT 'results' that any decision to cull tb infected badgers will be made.
'Work' it has created for some. But the cost to the taxpayer, wildlife in general and badgers in particular, cattle and our country's reputation and disease status is - incalculable.
And 'science' it is not.
The minister has for long enough 'talked the talk', will he now 'walk the walk'? Not if his decision is based on the RBCT he won't.
The debate can be seen here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)