There are times when the predictable is so obvious that, like the ‘elephant in the room’, it is unseen by those closest to the beast. We saw it with the previous Industry Strategy on bTb, when a three pronged attack on the disease, worded to happen simultaneously, together and concurrently was whittled down to two parts acceptance by government - and the appallingly unnecessary, polemic ‘consultation’ which predictably and conveniently kicked any action on infected badgers into the long grass. Pre movement testing, and tabular valuation stay, and as we have said, Defra got its ‘quid’ but failed to deliver the ‘pro quo’.
Last week, industry ‘stakeholders’ – how we hate that word – met in London to thrash out yet another Industry Strategy. The core of the agreement is as follows:
* That a Strategy working group be set up, aligned with DVM areas involving vets, farmers, the SVS and other ‘stakeholders’, to advise on policy for the area and create local Tb management groups.
* Licences would be applied for to cover the area – by individual farmers or for a designated area is by no means clear at this stage – and culling would be carried out by contractors employed by landowners.
* First choice methods would be cage traps and shooting , with CO gassing and occasionally stop snaring , when these methods are approved.
* Initially culling to be focussed in hot spot areas, within a framework of larger control area of up to 300 sq km and using if possible, hard geographical boundaries.
Other points in the Strategy outline deal with vague reference to those words beloved of government;
* Partnerships, provision of resources, industry and Government working together, focus and public information. We are surprised they missed out 'holistic' . Has that one fallen off the radar?
Full story on this link:
http://www.farmersguardian.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=4178
So what happened to the last initiative and why should this one be any different ? Well, for a start, Defra have their pre movement testing, paid for by farmers. No sunset clause on it, and at a confirmed reactor rate of about 120 found out of 102,000 cattle tested, not a value for money exercise either – but then it is not Defra’s money.
They also have tabular valuation, the second tranche of the original three pronged attack, but with no action whatsoever on the maintenance reservoir of bTb in wildlife, and despite the alleged ‘drop’ in detection – we don’t buy ‘drop in incidence’ – farmers are still unable to obtain bTb insurance to cover higher value animals – at any price. Insurance cover should have been the pay off for returning to tabular valuation, but ‘exposure to risk is too great’ the man-from-the-Pru still says.
So what can be the lever this time? As our readers will have realised by now, we have a disturbingly cynical view of any weasel words from either Defra or the NFU that mention ‘partnership’. It usually means that Government want something, and need ‘industry’ support to sell what they want, to farmer members. – and the rest of us. The Minister says 'Jump', and the industry 's finest from the other side of their politically revolving door answer "How high?". In Parliamentary questions (archived on this site) our Ben, yup he’s still there bless him, (doesn’t want to be, but let that pass) spoke of ‘rationalisation’ of disease compensation; that was about 18 months before he achieved it via tabular valuations.
And on 31st March 2004, Column 1462W, Mr. Bradshaw, bruised from his FMD carnage and under not inconsiderable pressure from the Treasury with bTb costs spiralling at a 20 per cent growth rate per year, answered a question on disease levies, thus:
"The levy we have in mind would be raised on a per head basis, on all animals susceptible to any disease covered by the levy fund. Different rates of levy would be set for different categories of animals, in line with the categories which are set for the compensation regime".
You see where we’re coming from? The authors of this site have no problem in principle with levies – providing, and it is a big proviso – that government take their part of this much vaunted ‘partnership’ seriously. Prevention and insurance should be first choice, and would be if this disease - bTB - was under control. But we understand that even a proposal of a shared ‘responsibility’ between the Insurance companies and such industry levies, overseen by Defra, was laughed out of court a couple of years ago. That was a ‘No’ then.
So what have we got this time? Another Industry strategy working as a Trojan horse for unpopular measures, while Government have no intention whatsoever in delivering their half of the bargain? And what a bargain! Examined carefully, we see ‘farmer’ licenses and ‘farmer’ employed contractors using cage traps. And over an area of 300 sq km, when the diminutive John Bourne achieved his wonderful exercise in badger dispersal in just 100 ?? And ‘farmers’ will be paying for the privilege, when control of bTb ( a Grade 3 pathogen) is totally and completely Defra’s responsibility. Absolutely brilliant.
And the pay off this time? We think levies. Sold to a gullible and politically lightweight industry as a ‘joint initiative’ against a promise vaguely and certainly no time soon, of badger control by farmers. Been there, done that. Got the pre movement testing, and tabular valuation. But no insurance offers and no sick badgers sorted. And we see no reason to suppose this will be any different. The farming 'industry', aka the NFU, has a history of taking hard talk to the wire. But no further. And government know that, and use it. Unfortunately we now have a complete lack of HM's Opposition, since Owen Paterson's foray into battle with his questions, visits to see other country's solutions and enquiries into PCR technology. In Parliamentary Questions, he asked about the influence of these populous 'stakeholder' focus groups. Ben's enlightening answer should be "engraved on the hearts of all who take part - preferably without anaesthetic", a highly descriptive phrase plagiarised from our partner Richard, on www.eu.referendum.blogspot
27th January 2004: Col 246W
"Ministers consider carefully the advice of these bodies in formulating policy. However, there is no requirement for Ministers or the Department to abide by their advice, nor do these bodies have any formal power to veto departmental proposals".
That would seem pretty clear. You do as you're told, and we do as we like - and we do not like culling badgers. Ever. But we are quite happy to let 'farmers' do it for us. And pay for it. And they'll also pay a levy for the privilege.
Game, set and match to Defra.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Friday, August 18, 2006
More on 'Going Dutch'.
A surf around the website of the makers of ID Lelystad tuberculin, imported since June 2005 as a 'stopgap' measure when VLA's production facility at Weybridge encountered problems, turned up some interesting kinks in the does-it-work v. doesn't-it-work conundrum.
As you will see from our posts below, the CVO is blaming her vets, both LVI's and SVS for 'testing procedures' which she says are not to the book. That these 'procedures' include such offences as not measuring the skin on jab day or measuring only one site, is included in the critism. I don't think that the basal skin measurement is going to alter too much in 72 hours, and most vets check it again when measuring anyway, so how that invalidates the test, I fail to see, but let that pass. Positioning the needle to deliver the antigen sub cutaneously instead of intradermally may also skew results - but that has not just happened in the last few months.
She has also studiously ignored the 2mm 'tightening' up to the test interpretation chart on oedemous reactions, introduced by her Department in February and certainly she has completely buried the comment in her report, relating to that 2mm difference; that it will "mean 24 per cent of incidents are missed, or detected later".
But on the CIDC Lelystad website, a comment on antigen sensitivety caught our eye - or the eagle eye of our Cornish contributer Matthew 1, to be precise. See Tuberculin Principle
The potency /level of both avian and bovine antigen in the Weybridge produced product was 2,500 iu/dose. And although both bovine antigens originate from UK supplied AN5 strain, the product which VLA imported from CIDC Lelystad was 2500 iu/dose on the avian antigen, but 3000 iu/dose on the bovine. But that isn't the whole story.
According to the Dutch website;
" In eradication programmes (when the prevalence of TBC infected cattle is significant) the use of Bovine Tuberculin PPD 2000 is recommended. In herds free of TBC, the use of Bovine Tuberculin 5000 is recommended, to increase the sensitivity of the test."
So ID Lelystad advise increasing the potency of bovine antigen for more sensitivity. But has that sensitivity at whatever level, been developed to find Dutch bTb strains, or the UK's?
More on the Dutch product at their : page: Tuberculin
On another part of the Dutch Animal Health site is a comment that using just the intradermal skin test and slaughter of reacters, the Netherlands achieved 'official bTb free status' some years ago, and as such, can now just undertake slaughterhouse surveillance only. The report was 2000, but said that Holland now did no routine testing unless a reactor is found at slaughter, and then skin tests are done on the host herd and any contiguous herds, backed up with PCR for speedy results. Well, well, well.
Amazing what the intradermal skin test can achieve, "in the absence of a wildlife reservoir". And not too much sympathy or patience with our troubles I suspect.
As you will see from our posts below, the CVO is blaming her vets, both LVI's and SVS for 'testing procedures' which she says are not to the book. That these 'procedures' include such offences as not measuring the skin on jab day or measuring only one site, is included in the critism. I don't think that the basal skin measurement is going to alter too much in 72 hours, and most vets check it again when measuring anyway, so how that invalidates the test, I fail to see, but let that pass. Positioning the needle to deliver the antigen sub cutaneously instead of intradermally may also skew results - but that has not just happened in the last few months.
She has also studiously ignored the 2mm 'tightening' up to the test interpretation chart on oedemous reactions, introduced by her Department in February and certainly she has completely buried the comment in her report, relating to that 2mm difference; that it will "mean 24 per cent of incidents are missed, or detected later".
But on the CIDC Lelystad website, a comment on antigen sensitivety caught our eye - or the eagle eye of our Cornish contributer Matthew 1, to be precise. See Tuberculin Principle
The potency /level of both avian and bovine antigen in the Weybridge produced product was 2,500 iu/dose. And although both bovine antigens originate from UK supplied AN5 strain, the product which VLA imported from CIDC Lelystad was 2500 iu/dose on the avian antigen, but 3000 iu/dose on the bovine. But that isn't the whole story.
According to the Dutch website;
" In eradication programmes (when the prevalence of TBC infected cattle is significant) the use of Bovine Tuberculin PPD 2000 is recommended. In herds free of TBC, the use of Bovine Tuberculin 5000 is recommended, to increase the sensitivity of the test."
So ID Lelystad advise increasing the potency of bovine antigen for more sensitivity. But has that sensitivity at whatever level, been developed to find Dutch bTb strains, or the UK's?
More on the Dutch product at their : page: Tuberculin
On another part of the Dutch Animal Health site is a comment that using just the intradermal skin test and slaughter of reacters, the Netherlands achieved 'official bTb free status' some years ago, and as such, can now just undertake slaughterhouse surveillance only. The report was 2000, but said that Holland now did no routine testing unless a reactor is found at slaughter, and then skin tests are done on the host herd and any contiguous herds, backed up with PCR for speedy results. Well, well, well.
Amazing what the intradermal skin test can achieve, "in the absence of a wildlife reservoir". And not too much sympathy or patience with our troubles I suspect.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Tb Policy and the badger culling trials.
In a letter to the Veterinary Record, August 12th., eight leading bTb veterinary experts continue to pile the pressue on the RBCT, or to be more precise, the Krebs’ exercise in badger dispersal.
Responding to a letter from the Chairman, Lord High Executioner, Judge and Jury of the ISG and the trial, Professor John Bourne, Messrs. McDiamid, Daykin, Smith, Ashton, Davies, Turnbull, Muirhead and Gallagher write that:
"…the use of ‘robust statistical methods’ will not derive the correct assumptions from flawed basic data."
They point out that:
"A high trapping efficiency was fundamental to the proper conduct of the trial, yet Defra, whose staff carried out the actual trapping at the direction of the ISG, conceded a very low efficiency of 20 – 60 per cent". And they remind Professor Bourne of the evidence given to the EFRA committee by one of his own Wildlife Team, in which he describes the poor conduct of the trials.
Using answers to Parliamentary Questions archived on this site, they remind the good Professor that during his badger ‘culling’ trial, "…of 15, 666 traps set, 8981 had been interfered with (57 percent) and a further 1827 (12 percent ) were stolen up to October 2003. And in April 2004, the Minister revealed that the trapping efficiency had been as low as 30 percent" .
They point out that, in their opinion, "that the trials had been compromised as well as the trapping approach, seems difficult to refute, despite the ISG’s protestations".
"While the ISG claims its trials were ‘robust’, the grossly inefficient culling methodology caused social disruption and dispersal of infected badgers on a vast scale, unseen in previous trials" (This was our contributer’s experience too - from Staffordshire to Cornwall.)
The letter concludes by reminding readers of previous work all of which officially recognises the badger as a maintenance host of bTb in the UK, a fact which Bourne and his colleagues tend to skate over with a euphemistic note that "badgers contribute to Tb in cattle", while applying their collective concentration to more cattle based measures.
"It (the ISG) confines its recommendations to ‘more vigorously adopted and applied cattle based measures’. Yet we know from earlier work, not always appreciated by the ISG, that cattle have been acting as sentinels of localised disease in badger communities.
Detection and slaughter of sentinels with even greater vigour, yet not addressing the source they are signalling, must be one of the most irrational epidemiological concept yet. We reiterate our warning that the ISG’s advice based these flawed ‘trials’ must be treated with extreme caution. It is also noteworthy that since 1998, the bTb problem has deteriorated so seriously that herd breakdowns have returned to a level not seen since the 1950’s."
Responding to a letter from the Chairman, Lord High Executioner, Judge and Jury of the ISG and the trial, Professor John Bourne, Messrs. McDiamid, Daykin, Smith, Ashton, Davies, Turnbull, Muirhead and Gallagher write that:
"…the use of ‘robust statistical methods’ will not derive the correct assumptions from flawed basic data."
They point out that:
"A high trapping efficiency was fundamental to the proper conduct of the trial, yet Defra, whose staff carried out the actual trapping at the direction of the ISG, conceded a very low efficiency of 20 – 60 per cent". And they remind Professor Bourne of the evidence given to the EFRA committee by one of his own Wildlife Team, in which he describes the poor conduct of the trials.
Using answers to Parliamentary Questions archived on this site, they remind the good Professor that during his badger ‘culling’ trial, "…of 15, 666 traps set, 8981 had been interfered with (57 percent) and a further 1827 (12 percent ) were stolen up to October 2003. And in April 2004, the Minister revealed that the trapping efficiency had been as low as 30 percent" .
They point out that, in their opinion, "that the trials had been compromised as well as the trapping approach, seems difficult to refute, despite the ISG’s protestations".
"While the ISG claims its trials were ‘robust’, the grossly inefficient culling methodology caused social disruption and dispersal of infected badgers on a vast scale, unseen in previous trials" (This was our contributer’s experience too - from Staffordshire to Cornwall.)
The letter concludes by reminding readers of previous work all of which officially recognises the badger as a maintenance host of bTb in the UK, a fact which Bourne and his colleagues tend to skate over with a euphemistic note that "badgers contribute to Tb in cattle", while applying their collective concentration to more cattle based measures.
"It (the ISG) confines its recommendations to ‘more vigorously adopted and applied cattle based measures’. Yet we know from earlier work, not always appreciated by the ISG, that cattle have been acting as sentinels of localised disease in badger communities.
Detection and slaughter of sentinels with even greater vigour, yet not addressing the source they are signalling, must be one of the most irrational epidemiological concept yet. We reiterate our warning that the ISG’s advice based these flawed ‘trials’ must be treated with extreme caution. It is also noteworthy that since 1998, the bTb problem has deteriorated so seriously that herd breakdowns have returned to a level not seen since the 1950’s."
...and still we kill the 'canaries in the coalmine', without listening to the song they sing.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Going Dutch. "A 2mm difference..."
A 2 mm difference in swelling, will mean 24 percent of incidents are missed or detected later"
We remarked on this 2mm in our post below 'It Ain't what you do ...", but have now had time to read the whole file. A "small difference in performance", the lady said. Define 'small' in the context of the above passage from the full statement, and redefine 'small' after reading the description of the reactions described in more precise epidemiological terms by her staff at VLA as a "statistically significant difference". And remember - just 2mm.
The Chief Veterinary Officer has issued a report (317 KB) on the recent reduction in the number of new TB incidents in Great Britain. See in particular p. 12 and 14 of the 23 page pdf.
Note: The slaughterhouse cases referred to in the paper are 'Confirmed', and have been added to CNI found at herd tests. The samples submitted by MHS for culture from slaughterhouse examinations of carcasses are up by a not insignificant 35 - 75 percent on last year. (Defra figures Jan - March +75%, Jan -May +50% and Jan - June +35%)
Also, we make the 'herds under restriction from a TB incident to total 4.55 percent, (up slightly on last year) and not 3.5 per cent quoted. Defra are probably using the lower Confirmed Incident figure.
That 2mm figure is also of significance in the new TB 64 Interpretation Chart revised by Defra in February (TB64 & TB64a Revised 02/06) and issued to LVI's conducting bTb intradermal testing, which we also mentioned in the posting below.
The interpretation sheet instructs:
"All skin swellings with an increase of more than 2mm in the thickness of the skin fold must be recorded as positive reactions, as should any swelling irrespective of size, showing oedema .
+ Positive - an increase of more than 2mm in skin thickness or any reaction with oedema.
Veterinary practitioners who have had the oportunity to study the new test interpretation chart, have remarked on a 'marked tightening up' of reactions which may be described as 'oedemous', with the result that even a 0 (zero measurable) rise on the bovine lump, but if showing oedema will classed as an Inconclusive on a standard interpretation, and a Reactor on severe interpretation of the test.
So what have we got here? An annex and graph towards the end of a long pdf file - which bears little relation to the CVO's press statement at the beginning. A new, improved 'Revised Interpretation Chart' issued at the peak of the 'drop' in cases, and coincidentally at the peak of the use of ID Lelystad tuberculin - which is not mentioned at all. And of course the continued mention of that 'small difference in performance' by the lady, which is a rather glib translation of the report's actual description of a "statistically significant difference" between ID Lelystad bovine antigen and the UK product. Of 2mm perhaps? Which when number crunched through Defra's computers arrives at the staggering conclusion, that "a 2mm difference in swelling will mean (not might, or maybe - WILL) 24 per cent of incidents are missed or detected at a later stage". And if the test is a routine one, that 'later stage' will be a year or more.
And as we said in our post below, it may be small to the CVO but that 2mm in a scale of 0-5mm for a Reactor on standard and 0-3mm on severe interpretation, with the extra proviso of 'any oedemous reaction' to be classed as positive even if not measurable, is life or death to some poor cow, and a pass or a fail for the herd - and yet another inconsistant in the convoluted life of the RBCT, the data for which, prior to its ritual torture in the hands of the statisticians, is gleaned from the numbers of herd breakdowns, as determined by the intradermal skin test...
And if we have joined the dots correctly, and we have no reason after reading this report, to think that we have not, the Lelystad bovine tuberculin antigen has missed almost a quarter of bTb cases. This up until February 2006, when the new 'TB64 / revised 02/06' interpretation chart made a belated attempt to tighten up the readings to cope with a 'statistically significant difference" in reaction. In which case, the drop in cases is not a drop in incidence of bTb at all, it is a drop in detection, and that is quite different.
Interesting.
We remarked on this 2mm in our post below 'It Ain't what you do ...", but have now had time to read the whole file. A "small difference in performance", the lady said. Define 'small' in the context of the above passage from the full statement, and redefine 'small' after reading the description of the reactions described in more precise epidemiological terms by her staff at VLA as a "statistically significant difference". And remember - just 2mm.
The Chief Veterinary Officer has issued a report (317 KB) on the recent reduction in the number of new TB incidents in Great Britain. See in particular p. 12 and 14 of the 23 page pdf.
Note: The slaughterhouse cases referred to in the paper are 'Confirmed', and have been added to CNI found at herd tests. The samples submitted by MHS for culture from slaughterhouse examinations of carcasses are up by a not insignificant 35 - 75 percent on last year. (Defra figures Jan - March +75%, Jan -May +50% and Jan - June +35%)
Also, we make the 'herds under restriction from a TB incident to total 4.55 percent, (up slightly on last year) and not 3.5 per cent quoted. Defra are probably using the lower Confirmed Incident figure.
That 2mm figure is also of significance in the new TB 64 Interpretation Chart revised by Defra in February (TB64 & TB64a Revised 02/06) and issued to LVI's conducting bTb intradermal testing, which we also mentioned in the posting below.
The interpretation sheet instructs:
"All skin swellings with an increase of more than 2mm in the thickness of the skin fold must be recorded as positive reactions, as should any swelling irrespective of size, showing oedema .
+ Positive - an increase of more than 2mm in skin thickness or any reaction with oedema.
Veterinary practitioners who have had the oportunity to study the new test interpretation chart, have remarked on a 'marked tightening up' of reactions which may be described as 'oedemous', with the result that even a 0 (zero measurable) rise on the bovine lump, but if showing oedema will classed as an Inconclusive on a standard interpretation, and a Reactor on severe interpretation of the test.
So what have we got here? An annex and graph towards the end of a long pdf file - which bears little relation to the CVO's press statement at the beginning. A new, improved 'Revised Interpretation Chart' issued at the peak of the 'drop' in cases, and coincidentally at the peak of the use of ID Lelystad tuberculin - which is not mentioned at all. And of course the continued mention of that 'small difference in performance' by the lady, which is a rather glib translation of the report's actual description of a "statistically significant difference" between ID Lelystad bovine antigen and the UK product. Of 2mm perhaps? Which when number crunched through Defra's computers arrives at the staggering conclusion, that "a 2mm difference in swelling will mean (not might, or maybe - WILL) 24 per cent of incidents are missed or detected at a later stage". And if the test is a routine one, that 'later stage' will be a year or more.
And as we said in our post below, it may be small to the CVO but that 2mm in a scale of 0-5mm for a Reactor on standard and 0-3mm on severe interpretation, with the extra proviso of 'any oedemous reaction' to be classed as positive even if not measurable, is life or death to some poor cow, and a pass or a fail for the herd - and yet another inconsistant in the convoluted life of the RBCT, the data for which, prior to its ritual torture in the hands of the statisticians, is gleaned from the numbers of herd breakdowns, as determined by the intradermal skin test...
And if we have joined the dots correctly, and we have no reason after reading this report, to think that we have not, the Lelystad bovine tuberculin antigen has missed almost a quarter of bTb cases. This up until February 2006, when the new 'TB64 / revised 02/06' interpretation chart made a belated attempt to tighten up the readings to cope with a 'statistically significant difference" in reaction. In which case, the drop in cases is not a drop in incidence of bTb at all, it is a drop in detection, and that is quite different.
Interesting.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
New Gamma Interferon trial announced.
Defra today announced a new trial using gamma interferon as a back up to the Intradermal skin test from October 2006. Emphasising that the skin test - an internationally recognised diagnostic tool - will still remain the primary test, (even though his CVO implies retraining is necessary to make sure they all do it properly) Ben Bradshaw announced further specific and limited use of gamma interferon as back up.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/control/gamma.htm
The announcement describes the proposed use of gamma interferon in England and Wales, as follows;
"Under this new policy the g-IFN test will be applied mainly in 3 and 4 yearly testing parishes in an attempt to ensure that infection in such areas does not become established in cattle or wildlife. The test will also continue to be available to use as a disease control tool in TB hotspot areas.
From October 2006 the use of g-IFN test will be mandatory, to enhance sensitivity and detection of infected cases, in the following prescribed circumstances:
*All confirmed new incidents (CNI) in 3 or 4 year parish testing intervals (PTIs), including those that fail to resolve through repeated skin tests or where complete or partial de-population is contemplated .
*Confirmed incidents failing to resolve (with Visible Lesions), despite taking bio-security precautions in 1 and 2 year PTIs, including those herds where a complete or partial de-population is contemplated
*Used at the first Inconclusive Reactor (IR) retest in unresolved IRs in herds in 1 and 2 year PTIs.
Additionally, the test will be used occasionally to enhance specificity in the following limited circumstances:
*Non-specific reactor procedure for unconfirmed breakdowns in 2, 3, or 4 year PTIs
*Suspected fraudulent reactors
More information on these prescribed circumstances is detailed below.
Background
As set out in the Government strategic framework for the sustainable control of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in Great Britain, the Government will continue to develop a sound scientific evidence base by supporting research to improve our understanding of the disease and generate new tools, particularly in relation to diagnostics and vaccines."
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/control/gamma.htm
The announcement describes the proposed use of gamma interferon in England and Wales, as follows;
"Under this new policy the g-IFN test will be applied mainly in 3 and 4 yearly testing parishes in an attempt to ensure that infection in such areas does not become established in cattle or wildlife. The test will also continue to be available to use as a disease control tool in TB hotspot areas.
From October 2006 the use of g-IFN test will be mandatory, to enhance sensitivity and detection of infected cases, in the following prescribed circumstances:
*All confirmed new incidents (CNI) in 3 or 4 year parish testing intervals (PTIs), including those that fail to resolve through repeated skin tests or where complete or partial de-population is contemplated .
*Confirmed incidents failing to resolve (with Visible Lesions), despite taking bio-security precautions in 1 and 2 year PTIs, including those herds where a complete or partial de-population is contemplated
*Used at the first Inconclusive Reactor (IR) retest in unresolved IRs in herds in 1 and 2 year PTIs.
Additionally, the test will be used occasionally to enhance specificity in the following limited circumstances:
*Non-specific reactor procedure for unconfirmed breakdowns in 2, 3, or 4 year PTIs
*Suspected fraudulent reactors
More information on these prescribed circumstances is detailed below.
Background
As set out in the Government strategic framework for the sustainable control of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in Great Britain, the Government will continue to develop a sound scientific evidence base by supporting research to improve our understanding of the disease and generate new tools, particularly in relation to diagnostics and vaccines."
It ain't what you do.....
... it's the way that you - or in this case vets doing Tb testing - do it.
So concludes Debbie Reynolds, the Chief Veterinary Officer in a news release today, which targetted veterinary practitioner's 'application' methods of the intradermal tuberculin skin tests as a factor in the drop in cases, rather than the Lelystad tuberculin used in their guns. Well that will make friends and influence people won't it?
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2006/060810b.htm
A quote from the report:
"Debby Reynolds, the Chief Veterinary Officer, who was asked by Ben Bradshaw in June to undertake a review of the apparent fall in the number of new TB incidents, has concluded that there has been a real reduction in the number of new TB incidents, but that it is too early to determine whether this is a temporary phenomenon or likely to become a sustained trend. Dr Reynolds has considered whether the switch in tuberculin supply from that manufactured by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency to that purchased from Holland could have caused this reduction. She has concluded that the small difference in performance between the two tuberculins is not significant enough on its own to have had such a significant impact, particularly against the background of the evidence in the DNV Consulting report about the variation in the way the test is carried out. Further analysis will be carried out to try to reduce the level of uncertainty around these conclusions."
Whaaaat? Would that be the ' small difference' which provoked Defra's Feb 2006 re-interpretation chart? The loss of about 2mm of sensitivety / specificity which made a Pass on the old interpretation chart into either an Inconclusive or a Reactor - from February? No mention then of the batch (s) which provoked not a single reaction at all, or was that down to 'testing procedure' as well? And did all those veterinary practioners who now face retraining, have a mental block together, all of them forgetting how to test cattle just after Christmas en masse . Must have been a good party.
And how delicious that the Lelystad tuberculin has been in the country from June 2005, and in use in the RBCT areas during the Krebs' trial, but without the benefit of Defra's new update and 'markedly tighter' (veterinary opinion, not ours) interpretation chart. What will that do to the already tortured data of the Krebs results - all of which rest on the number of cattle breakdowns, as tested and recorded by SVS and LVI personnel, who are now to undergo 'retraining' - and using serum which the CVO herself says 'has a small difference in performance"?
Madame, with the greatest of respect, a 2mm difference in performance is not 'small'. With only 5mm to play with, or under severe interpretation 3mm, as the late Tony Hancock pointed out, "It might only be a small amount to you, but it is the difference between life and death for someone". Or in this case some cattle, and certainly the difference between pass or fail, and a herd breakdown and a clear test.
So concludes Debbie Reynolds, the Chief Veterinary Officer in a news release today, which targetted veterinary practitioner's 'application' methods of the intradermal tuberculin skin tests as a factor in the drop in cases, rather than the Lelystad tuberculin used in their guns. Well that will make friends and influence people won't it?
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2006/060810b.htm
A quote from the report:
"Debby Reynolds, the Chief Veterinary Officer, who was asked by Ben Bradshaw in June to undertake a review of the apparent fall in the number of new TB incidents, has concluded that there has been a real reduction in the number of new TB incidents, but that it is too early to determine whether this is a temporary phenomenon or likely to become a sustained trend. Dr Reynolds has considered whether the switch in tuberculin supply from that manufactured by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency to that purchased from Holland could have caused this reduction. She has concluded that the small difference in performance between the two tuberculins is not significant enough on its own to have had such a significant impact, particularly against the background of the evidence in the DNV Consulting report about the variation in the way the test is carried out. Further analysis will be carried out to try to reduce the level of uncertainty around these conclusions."
Whaaaat? Would that be the ' small difference' which provoked Defra's Feb 2006 re-interpretation chart? The loss of about 2mm of sensitivety / specificity which made a Pass on the old interpretation chart into either an Inconclusive or a Reactor - from February? No mention then of the batch (s) which provoked not a single reaction at all, or was that down to 'testing procedure' as well? And did all those veterinary practioners who now face retraining, have a mental block together, all of them forgetting how to test cattle just after Christmas en masse . Must have been a good party.
And how delicious that the Lelystad tuberculin has been in the country from June 2005, and in use in the RBCT areas during the Krebs' trial, but without the benefit of Defra's new update and 'markedly tighter' (veterinary opinion, not ours) interpretation chart. What will that do to the already tortured data of the Krebs results - all of which rest on the number of cattle breakdowns, as tested and recorded by SVS and LVI personnel, who are now to undergo 'retraining' - and using serum which the CVO herself says 'has a small difference in performance"?
Madame, with the greatest of respect, a 2mm difference in performance is not 'small'. With only 5mm to play with, or under severe interpretation 3mm, as the late Tony Hancock pointed out, "It might only be a small amount to you, but it is the difference between life and death for someone". Or in this case some cattle, and certainly the difference between pass or fail, and a herd breakdown and a clear test.
Latest bTb figures
"There has been a substantial reduction in the number of new TB incidents in January - June 2006 compared to the same period in 2005. The provisional statistics presented here indicate that this reduction is 19%, although this figure will reduce as further test results are input by AHDOs. It is too early to draw any conclusions about whether the decrease is a temporary or a more sustained reduction and further analysis is needed to identify the reasons for the fall. However, it is likely to be caused by a complex combination of factors. There is no evidence at the moment that the switch in tuberculin supply has caused this reduction although further analysis is required before this can be confirmed."
See: http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/stats/latest.htm
If this paragraph seems familiar, then that is because it has been used in the last three months to express Defra's comments on its monthly bTb statistics, posted on the Defra website. The only difference in wording being the percentage drop: "April : 27%, May: 20% and now June: 19%." but these statistics are are an amalgum of several months, from which it is difficult to see the whole picture. And we would respectfully point out, produced by a department who comfortably airbrushed out almost 50% victims of its FMD culling spree.
So what is the story behind the figures? For sure 'other influences' will have had an effect. But how much? Two blazing hot summers will influence the time that m.bovis survives on cattle grazing ground, but the same dry hot weather will put badgers under stress as the ground is too hard to dig, and natural water supplies short. Any infectious disease has a 'bell curve' of a rise in cases, followed by a drop, and tuberculosis may have peaked in the badger population and be waning. Even farmers may have reached the end of their tethers and with the introduction of tabular valuations, be sorting out their own badger / cattle bio security. But all these factors, would have had to have happened together and at the same time last autumn, for the skin tests (for that is what Defra's statistics are based on) to have shown such a dramatic change early this year. And even this is only half the story.
Further analysis of the past 4 months are interesting. Defra's headline figures are for 'New Herd Incidents'. That is herds at a routine test, which were classed as 'clear' and are going under restriction for the first time. It is these herds which saw the drop of almost 30% in Jan - March, then 27% Jan - April, 20.2% Jan - May and 18.7% currently Jan - June. But what of Defra's other figures?
Cattle slaughtered over the last 4 months are consistantly over 30% less than 2005. (Range 36.6 - currently 33%) That is good news, but slaughterhouse cases, that is cattle found by MHS examination are up by much more than that. Range +75% - +35% currently.
Herds under Tb restriction through a bTb incident (as opposed to overdue test/data) are steady at between 1 - 3% less than last year. So although the new herd incidents are down (or not being found) the herds under restriction figure has barely changed. Jan - March -1%, Jan - April -3,5%, Jan - May - 1.7% and currently to June -1.9%, so they are not being cleared.
But the bad news behind this headline is that herds registered on Vetnet, from which Defra draw their statistics, are down too, so the percentage of herds under bTb restriction is actually UP on 2005. Jan - March 3.65% (up +0.05%) Jan- April 4% (=) Jan - May 4.33% (+0.03%) and currently Jan - June 4.55% (+0.02%)
So, a huge drop in February / March in new herd incidents , while not sustained but is still dramatically less than last year: cattle slaughtered are consistantly down over one third for each of the last 4 months - but slaughterhouse cases up by at least the same amount. The total number of herds under restriction, barely changed while the percentage of these herds, drawn from total registered herds is up. And just to throw a real spanner in the works, in February some AHDO's sent out a 'Revised bTb interpretation chart- TB64 02/06', to their local vets.
This indicates a marked tightening up on interpretation of the skin test, with zero tolerance to any oedema at all in the area jabbed. Below a 2ml rise on skin thickness, even '0' and '1' ml are classed as IR or Reactor, whether or not they matched by an avian rise of the same type. 2ml can be the difference between a Pass and an Inconclusive, or an Inconclusive and a Reactor.
Although we have no grounds on which to base this comment - yet - we suspect that Lelystad tuberculin has given a slightly different reaction from the UK serum, a fact that VLA have only just caught up with. It maybe also strain specific, in that our UK serum identified some or all of the UK strains better. And we also suspect a completely duff batch - for whatever reason - sometime after Christmas which accounted for the precipitous fall in Jan - March. Time will tell.
But as far as International Trade goes, while our herd incidents are at 4.55% of the national herds and rising, we are as far away from Tb free trading as ever.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Snippets.
As well as the much publicised new 'Advisory Group' which we covered in the post below, this week has seen a few more interesting snippets. As more information comes to hand, we will update.
* We do not propose to cover in any detail the Badger Trust's spokesman's convoluted reasoning with his calculater, that 3000 cattle may enter the food chain with undisclosed bTb. His target appears to be the intradermal skin test, and its alleged accuracy. Suffice to say that parliamentary questions covered this one in spades, with the unequivocal answers that in the abscence of a wildlife reservoir, it was used all over the world as the primary diagnostic tool for bTB under both OIE rules and EU Directive 64/432/EEC , with no problems whatsoever [8/12/2003 Col. 218W 141968] and [30 /01/2004 Col 540W 150492] and [25/03/2004 Col 989W 159061].
Cattle carcasses traded as beef have to undergo both an ante mortem (skin test) and post mortem examination for bTb. So in accusing Defra of allowing infected animals into the food chain, Mr. Lawson is in effect accusing the MHS (Meat hygiene Service) operatives, whose job it is to examine every carcass for signs of disease, of slack practise. Pretty smart.
* We expect Defra to announce a Gamma Interferon trial costing just under £750,000 - but only in areas of 3 or 4 year testing. For large parts of the country, now subject to persistant and pernicious drip feed from wildlfe, it is felt (we are told) that GI is " a complete waste of time". Without action on that wildlife reservoir, everything is a waste of time and money - but let that pass. We could point out however, that for the 3 and 4 year testing regimes Gamma Interferon is still under international trade directives a secondary tool. The intradermal skin test is the primary. But as in other countries, it may speed up diagnosis of animals in the 30-50 day latent period.
*The third snippet, is probably the most important, not that we would expect the voluble Mr. Lawson to agree with our emphasis. More on this as we get it, but this deals with the EU and a 'one size fits all' policy towards cattle testing.
Since the 1950's when a single jab was administered to detect bTB, and heaps of dead cattle indicated that something was amiss, the UK has developed the 'Comparative' intradermal skin test. Our environment is condusive to large flocks of birds, which share pasture with cattle - and carry tb. Avian tb. So the veterinary profession developed our comparitive test. And certainly it is our experience that if cattle are exposed to chicken farming at close contact, or to seagulls, rooks, pheasants or pigeons then the top bumps are very evident. But more importantly, they bring up a bovine bump too.
A Midlands vet, ordering tuberculin for pre movement testing, was recently asked "is this for export cattle?".
When querying why the difference, he was told that cattle for export could only have a single bovine jab. More questions were asked on this, and the answers (verbally at the moment) were that the bulk, if not all of mainland Europe manages with a single jab. And they think the UK should do the same, in fact as we know from the Veterinary certificate covered in our posts Sept. 2004 , http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2004/09/update-russia-and-tb.html the level of bTB in the UK and Ireland is giving our EU masters serious indigestion. So, a derogation - a year's grace - has been agreed whereby the UK can continue with a compartive skin test, not only for exports, but ALL TESTS. But after that .......
One size fits none? We may have to comply with EU Directives and use a single one - pigeons, pheasants, rooks, seagulls or not.
* We do not propose to cover in any detail the Badger Trust's spokesman's convoluted reasoning with his calculater, that 3000 cattle may enter the food chain with undisclosed bTb. His target appears to be the intradermal skin test, and its alleged accuracy. Suffice to say that parliamentary questions covered this one in spades, with the unequivocal answers that in the abscence of a wildlife reservoir, it was used all over the world as the primary diagnostic tool for bTB under both OIE rules and EU Directive 64/432/EEC , with no problems whatsoever [8/12/2003 Col. 218W 141968] and [30 /01/2004 Col 540W 150492] and [25/03/2004 Col 989W 159061].
Cattle carcasses traded as beef have to undergo both an ante mortem (skin test) and post mortem examination for bTb. So in accusing Defra of allowing infected animals into the food chain, Mr. Lawson is in effect accusing the MHS (Meat hygiene Service) operatives, whose job it is to examine every carcass for signs of disease, of slack practise. Pretty smart.
* We expect Defra to announce a Gamma Interferon trial costing just under £750,000 - but only in areas of 3 or 4 year testing. For large parts of the country, now subject to persistant and pernicious drip feed from wildlfe, it is felt (we are told) that GI is " a complete waste of time". Without action on that wildlife reservoir, everything is a waste of time and money - but let that pass. We could point out however, that for the 3 and 4 year testing regimes Gamma Interferon is still under international trade directives a secondary tool. The intradermal skin test is the primary. But as in other countries, it may speed up diagnosis of animals in the 30-50 day latent period.
*The third snippet, is probably the most important, not that we would expect the voluble Mr. Lawson to agree with our emphasis. More on this as we get it, but this deals with the EU and a 'one size fits all' policy towards cattle testing.
Since the 1950's when a single jab was administered to detect bTB, and heaps of dead cattle indicated that something was amiss, the UK has developed the 'Comparative' intradermal skin test. Our environment is condusive to large flocks of birds, which share pasture with cattle - and carry tb. Avian tb. So the veterinary profession developed our comparitive test. And certainly it is our experience that if cattle are exposed to chicken farming at close contact, or to seagulls, rooks, pheasants or pigeons then the top bumps are very evident. But more importantly, they bring up a bovine bump too.
A Midlands vet, ordering tuberculin for pre movement testing, was recently asked "is this for export cattle?".
When querying why the difference, he was told that cattle for export could only have a single bovine jab. More questions were asked on this, and the answers (verbally at the moment) were that the bulk, if not all of mainland Europe manages with a single jab. And they think the UK should do the same, in fact as we know from the Veterinary certificate covered in our posts Sept. 2004 , http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2004/09/update-russia-and-tb.html the level of bTB in the UK and Ireland is giving our EU masters serious indigestion. So, a derogation - a year's grace - has been agreed whereby the UK can continue with a compartive skin test, not only for exports, but ALL TESTS. But after that .......
One size fits none? We may have to comply with EU Directives and use a single one - pigeons, pheasants, rooks, seagulls or not.
New Advisory Group - Talking the Talk.
Peter Jinman, a veterinary practioner from Hereford and former president of the BVA (British Veterinary Association) is to head a new advisory group on bTB.
Established by Defra, the group will replace the Tb forum, and will advise ministers and the Chief Veterinary Officer on practical policies to help control the disease. It will also play a leading role in Defra's "engagement with interested organisations". We hear that members of this elite squad will meet Mr. Jinman in small groups, thus leaving him the role of 'referee' in Defra's proposed 'engagement', whose remit includes:
* Working in partnership with Defra to develop Tb control policies in England and providing a practical perspective on delivery.
* Ensuring the views of all interested parties are taken into account in developing Tb control policies, and to help develop a shared understanding on possible control options.
* Acting as a conduit of information between Ministers and the CVO by responding to their requests for advice, and advising on issues of concern to interested organisations.
Defra was keen to point out that members of the group would serve as individuals, as would Mr. Jinman, and would not represent any organisations that they may be associated with. And our own 'little Ben' , Minister for animal health and welfare, Mr. Bradshaw commented that effective control of Tb would only be possible in partnership with farmers, veterinary surgeons, wildlife groups and other interested parties. He welcomed Peter Jinman's role in this.
We wish the group every success. But from Lord Recycled-Rooker's comments on BBC 5 live this week coupled with David Miliband's political expectations and the Badger Trust's scurrilous attempts to kneecap the meat industry, don't expect it soon. We would also take the opportunity to remind readers (and Mr. Jinman ) that control of bTb - a group 3 zoonosis, already spilling into other species - is the responsibility of Defra. Talk of 'partnerships' make are good soundbites. But they are a comfort blanket of prevarication and hot air when it comes to infectious disease control. Defra may be 'talking the talk', but we do not expect them to 'walk the walk' any time soon. And Parliamentary Questions 27/01/2004 Col 246W 150543 tells us that:
" Ministers consider carefully the advice of these bodies in formulating policy. However, there is no requirements for Ministers or the Department to abide by their advice, nor do these bodies have any formal power to veto departmental proposals".
Quite.
Established by Defra, the group will replace the Tb forum, and will advise ministers and the Chief Veterinary Officer on practical policies to help control the disease. It will also play a leading role in Defra's "engagement with interested organisations". We hear that members of this elite squad will meet Mr. Jinman in small groups, thus leaving him the role of 'referee' in Defra's proposed 'engagement', whose remit includes:
* Working in partnership with Defra to develop Tb control policies in England and providing a practical perspective on delivery.
* Ensuring the views of all interested parties are taken into account in developing Tb control policies, and to help develop a shared understanding on possible control options.
* Acting as a conduit of information between Ministers and the CVO by responding to their requests for advice, and advising on issues of concern to interested organisations.
Defra was keen to point out that members of the group would serve as individuals, as would Mr. Jinman, and would not represent any organisations that they may be associated with. And our own 'little Ben' , Minister for animal health and welfare, Mr. Bradshaw commented that effective control of Tb would only be possible in partnership with farmers, veterinary surgeons, wildlife groups and other interested parties. He welcomed Peter Jinman's role in this.
We wish the group every success. But from Lord Recycled-Rooker's comments on BBC 5 live this week coupled with David Miliband's political expectations and the Badger Trust's scurrilous attempts to kneecap the meat industry, don't expect it soon. We would also take the opportunity to remind readers (and Mr. Jinman ) that control of bTb - a group 3 zoonosis, already spilling into other species - is the responsibility of Defra. Talk of 'partnerships' make are good soundbites. But they are a comfort blanket of prevarication and hot air when it comes to infectious disease control. Defra may be 'talking the talk', but we do not expect them to 'walk the walk' any time soon. And Parliamentary Questions 27/01/2004 Col 246W 150543 tells us that:
" Ministers consider carefully the advice of these bodies in formulating policy. However, there is no requirements for Ministers or the Department to abide by their advice, nor do these bodies have any formal power to veto departmental proposals".
Quite.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Dear Mr. Miliband...
In a letter to the newly appointed Secretary of state for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, a core group of leading experts on the control of bovine tb in practise, has pointed out the weaknesses of the 'robust science' his department is leaning on, to avoid its obligations in eradicating bovine tb.
Farmers Guardian has the piece in this week's edition:
http://www.farmersguardian.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=3470
and we are grateful for sight of their core list of RBCT failings which we reproduce below:
FAILINGS OF THE RANDOMISED
BADGER CULLING TRIALS
Our view that the RBCTs were fatally flawed by a poorly conceived and badly implemented methodology is based on the following facts.
Poor culling efficiency.
1. Commenting part way through the RBCTs Mr Bradshaw noted culling efficiency was as low as 30% in some triplets (1). And in the consultation document the final trapping efficiency was reported to be 20 to 60%. (2). Previous trials were carried out to far more exacting standards; virtually 100% clearance was effected by gassing in the Thornbury and Steeple Leaze Trials whilst the clearance at Hartland, using trapping, achieved well over 80% removal. In the two Irish trials over 80% removal of badgers was achieved.
2. Inadequate number of days’ trapping per year.
Badgers were only trapped on average for 8 days per annum in the proactive triplets (3). This low level of trapping activity is wholly inadequate to remove sufficient badgers to reduce spread of infection to cattle. The DEFRA Wildlife Unit (WLU) customarily continued trapping for as long as necessary sometimes up to 3 months to ensure complete removal of all badgers on infected farms.
3. Substantial areas of land unavailable for culling.
In total 32% of land in the proactive areas was unavailable for culling with variations in different triplets from 18% to 57% (3). Thus substantial areas of land within culling triplets were left to support infected populations of badgers and provide a retreat for badgers dispersed by inefficient culling on adjacent land.
4. Inconsistent farm participation.
Consent status for culling inevitably altered as landowners withdrew permission to cull and new occupiers changed consents or prohibitions dictated by previous owners (3). Thus, the number of farms participating in particular triplets was variable, as was the time during which they were culled.
5. Significant interference with trapping and poor trapping strategy
The Independent Scientific Group naively posted the start time and place of the first trapping exercise on their website thus assisting the threatened animal activist interference. This interference persisted and by October 2003 had resulted in 8,981(57%) of 15,666 traps being interfered with and a further 1,827 (12%) being stolen (4). The ISG allowed trapping at setts to continue for 4 years (1998-2001) despite widespread interference, and it was only after Foot and Mouth Disease in 2001, following pleas from the WLU, that traps were laid away from setts on badger runs to avoid interference (5).
6. Failure to clear badgers effectively
The number of badgers killed in the Proactive Triplets was 8892 over 8 years. This figure is inevitably lower than it should have been due to the failure to achieve culling across all 10 triplets for 4 years. And once culling had started in all areas in 2002-03, the total number of badgers removed in that year was 2057 and in each subsequent year well over half this number was again removed, demonstrating that these areas had never properly been cleared of badgers. (3).
7. Inappropriate timing of culls
Badgers show greatly reduced activity during late autumn and winter. Thus trapping is likely to be relatively ineffective during November to January (February-April is the closed season when culling is prohibited). However, in the RBCTs, 15 out of the first 30 culls (culling years 1 to 3) took place in November, December or January and 16 of the total of 51 culls (29%) were in these months despite WLU’s advice to the contrary (3). As a result, some triplets went 2 years without an effective cull eg. Triplet B, North Devon (5).
8. Unscientific abandonment of the Reactive Culling Triplets
This occurred in 2003 when three triplets (D, I and J) had only completed one year’s culling, and a further 4 triplets only completed 2 year’s culling. This was regarded by many, including Professor Godfray in his independent review of the RBCTs (6), as a precipitate and unjustified decision, no doubt brought about by the sharp rise in disease in the reactive triplets attendant on the gross badger disturbance caused by poor culling methodology. The ISG should have understood the cause of the rise in cattle infections and could have rectified the situation had they listened more carefully to the WLU’s advice and redoubled their efforts to cull more effectively (5).
9. Temporary abandonment of the trials during 2001.
The unavoidable suspension of tuberculin testing of cattle and control of badgers in seven of the 10 areas for a year during the FMD crisis completely disrupted the RBCTs for at least a year.
J.M.D
J.G
L.H.T
July 2006.
References
(1). Hansard, 29 April 2004, column 1189
(2). DEFRA (2005) – Controlling the spread of bovine tuberculosis in cattle in high incidence areas in England: badger culling.
www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/badgers-tbcontrols/consultation.pdf
(3). Donnelly, C.A. and others (2006) Positive and negative effects of widespread badger culling on tuberculosis in cattle. Nature 439, 843-846 (and Supplementary Information)
(4) Hansard, 8 December 2003, column 218 W
(5). EFRA Select Committee, 6th Report into bTB, 8 March 2006, ref BTB 33 Evidence from Paul Caruana, WLU, Truro.
(6) Godfray H.C.J. and others (2004) Independent Scientific Review of the Randomised Badger culling trials and associated epidemiological research.
Ends.
As farmers with land within RBCT areas in three counties, we would agree, adding our own experiences of this protracted farce which include the introduction of several hundred acres into a Devon 'Pro active' trapping area - half way through the 'trial'. Boundaries were changed and changed substantially. And not only did our SW 'Matthew 5' not have a 'reactive ' cull for three years, a correspondent in Wiltshire was similarly ignored in a so-called proactive area!
And of course the much hyped figures of RBCT badger dispersal, were taken only from its first dismal year. The data has to be tortured for another seven years, until we see the full extent of its 'achievements'. And clouding those waters are the numbers of cattle breakdowns, on which this data relies, somewhat out of kilter with expectations and trends, i.e DOWN.
With a mixture of Lelystad tuberculin, the weather (the man in the moon?) thrown into the melting pot of possible explanations. On the other hand, the final years of the RBCT could just have worked. Now there's a thought.
Farmers Guardian has the piece in this week's edition:
http://www.farmersguardian.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=3470
and we are grateful for sight of their core list of RBCT failings which we reproduce below:
FAILINGS OF THE RANDOMISED
BADGER CULLING TRIALS
Our view that the RBCTs were fatally flawed by a poorly conceived and badly implemented methodology is based on the following facts.
Poor culling efficiency.
1. Commenting part way through the RBCTs Mr Bradshaw noted culling efficiency was as low as 30% in some triplets (1). And in the consultation document the final trapping efficiency was reported to be 20 to 60%. (2). Previous trials were carried out to far more exacting standards; virtually 100% clearance was effected by gassing in the Thornbury and Steeple Leaze Trials whilst the clearance at Hartland, using trapping, achieved well over 80% removal. In the two Irish trials over 80% removal of badgers was achieved.
2. Inadequate number of days’ trapping per year.
Badgers were only trapped on average for 8 days per annum in the proactive triplets (3). This low level of trapping activity is wholly inadequate to remove sufficient badgers to reduce spread of infection to cattle. The DEFRA Wildlife Unit (WLU) customarily continued trapping for as long as necessary sometimes up to 3 months to ensure complete removal of all badgers on infected farms.
3. Substantial areas of land unavailable for culling.
In total 32% of land in the proactive areas was unavailable for culling with variations in different triplets from 18% to 57% (3). Thus substantial areas of land within culling triplets were left to support infected populations of badgers and provide a retreat for badgers dispersed by inefficient culling on adjacent land.
4. Inconsistent farm participation.
Consent status for culling inevitably altered as landowners withdrew permission to cull and new occupiers changed consents or prohibitions dictated by previous owners (3). Thus, the number of farms participating in particular triplets was variable, as was the time during which they were culled.
5. Significant interference with trapping and poor trapping strategy
The Independent Scientific Group naively posted the start time and place of the first trapping exercise on their website thus assisting the threatened animal activist interference. This interference persisted and by October 2003 had resulted in 8,981(57%) of 15,666 traps being interfered with and a further 1,827 (12%) being stolen (4). The ISG allowed trapping at setts to continue for 4 years (1998-2001) despite widespread interference, and it was only after Foot and Mouth Disease in 2001, following pleas from the WLU, that traps were laid away from setts on badger runs to avoid interference (5).
6. Failure to clear badgers effectively
The number of badgers killed in the Proactive Triplets was 8892 over 8 years. This figure is inevitably lower than it should have been due to the failure to achieve culling across all 10 triplets for 4 years. And once culling had started in all areas in 2002-03, the total number of badgers removed in that year was 2057 and in each subsequent year well over half this number was again removed, demonstrating that these areas had never properly been cleared of badgers. (3).
7. Inappropriate timing of culls
Badgers show greatly reduced activity during late autumn and winter. Thus trapping is likely to be relatively ineffective during November to January (February-April is the closed season when culling is prohibited). However, in the RBCTs, 15 out of the first 30 culls (culling years 1 to 3) took place in November, December or January and 16 of the total of 51 culls (29%) were in these months despite WLU’s advice to the contrary (3). As a result, some triplets went 2 years without an effective cull eg. Triplet B, North Devon (5).
8. Unscientific abandonment of the Reactive Culling Triplets
This occurred in 2003 when three triplets (D, I and J) had only completed one year’s culling, and a further 4 triplets only completed 2 year’s culling. This was regarded by many, including Professor Godfray in his independent review of the RBCTs (6), as a precipitate and unjustified decision, no doubt brought about by the sharp rise in disease in the reactive triplets attendant on the gross badger disturbance caused by poor culling methodology. The ISG should have understood the cause of the rise in cattle infections and could have rectified the situation had they listened more carefully to the WLU’s advice and redoubled their efforts to cull more effectively (5).
9. Temporary abandonment of the trials during 2001.
The unavoidable suspension of tuberculin testing of cattle and control of badgers in seven of the 10 areas for a year during the FMD crisis completely disrupted the RBCTs for at least a year.
J.M.D
J.G
L.H.T
July 2006.
References
(1). Hansard, 29 April 2004, column 1189
(2). DEFRA (2005) – Controlling the spread of bovine tuberculosis in cattle in high incidence areas in England: badger culling.
www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/badgers-tbcontrols/consultation.pdf
(3). Donnelly, C.A. and others (2006) Positive and negative effects of widespread badger culling on tuberculosis in cattle. Nature 439, 843-846 (and Supplementary Information)
(4) Hansard, 8 December 2003, column 218 W
(5). EFRA Select Committee, 6th Report into bTB, 8 March 2006, ref BTB 33 Evidence from Paul Caruana, WLU, Truro.
(6) Godfray H.C.J. and others (2004) Independent Scientific Review of the Randomised Badger culling trials and associated epidemiological research.
Ends.
As farmers with land within RBCT areas in three counties, we would agree, adding our own experiences of this protracted farce which include the introduction of several hundred acres into a Devon 'Pro active' trapping area - half way through the 'trial'. Boundaries were changed and changed substantially. And not only did our SW 'Matthew 5' not have a 'reactive ' cull for three years, a correspondent in Wiltshire was similarly ignored in a so-called proactive area!
And of course the much hyped figures of RBCT badger dispersal, were taken only from its first dismal year. The data has to be tortured for another seven years, until we see the full extent of its 'achievements'. And clouding those waters are the numbers of cattle breakdowns, on which this data relies, somewhat out of kilter with expectations and trends, i.e DOWN.
With a mixture of Lelystad tuberculin, the weather (the man in the moon?) thrown into the melting pot of possible explanations. On the other hand, the final years of the RBCT could just have worked. Now there's a thought.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Just like double decker buses...
....either none arrive at all - or two come together. And so it was with Defra's Tb statistics. Shock, horror and nothing (that we can find) in February, then the March figures diluted with missing February and a still-increasing January. Defra released figures for the four months to April only a week ago, unusually pointing out a drop in incidents / cattle slaughtered of 27 percent. Which was less than Jan - March 29 . 'something' percent, but we won't dwell on that.
But the figures for May are now published, also showing a 'drop' over the 'five months' - of 20 percent. Defra explain:
"There has been a substantial reduction in the number of new TB incidents in January - May 2006 compared to the same period in 2005. The provisional statistics presented here indicate that this reduction is 20%, although this figure will reduce as further test results are input by AHDOs. It is too early to draw any conclusions about whether the decrease is a temporary or a more sustained reduction and further analysis is needed to identify the reasons for the fall. However, it is likely to be caused by a complex combination of factors. There is no evidence at the moment that the switch in tuberculin supply has caused this reduction although further analysis is required before this can be confirmed."
As the switch to Lelystad happened progressively from last autumn and the parachute drop in numbers only occurred after Christmas, and then only in certain counties, with that we would agree. However, we do hope that Defra's "analyses" include batch numbers of the tuberculin which in some instances gave no 'reaction' at all, not a single lump, for over a month. But we wouldn't bank on them asking those sort of questions, to the right sort of people.
Anyway, it seems to us, that there has now been a dramatic increase in herds going under Tb restriction, and cattle slaughtered. The tuberculin intradermal skin test is working again. Whatever happened to the serum in late January / February, ain't happening now. An extra 324 herds are under restriction from last month, and Defra shot 1,911 cattle (568 in April)
And Defra's unannounced almost 30 percent drop in cases, is now 20 percent.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/stats/latest.htm
But the figures for May are now published, also showing a 'drop' over the 'five months' - of 20 percent. Defra explain:
"There has been a substantial reduction in the number of new TB incidents in January - May 2006 compared to the same period in 2005. The provisional statistics presented here indicate that this reduction is 20%, although this figure will reduce as further test results are input by AHDOs. It is too early to draw any conclusions about whether the decrease is a temporary or a more sustained reduction and further analysis is needed to identify the reasons for the fall. However, it is likely to be caused by a complex combination of factors. There is no evidence at the moment that the switch in tuberculin supply has caused this reduction although further analysis is required before this can be confirmed."
As the switch to Lelystad happened progressively from last autumn and the parachute drop in numbers only occurred after Christmas, and then only in certain counties, with that we would agree. However, we do hope that Defra's "analyses" include batch numbers of the tuberculin which in some instances gave no 'reaction' at all, not a single lump, for over a month. But we wouldn't bank on them asking those sort of questions, to the right sort of people.
Anyway, it seems to us, that there has now been a dramatic increase in herds going under Tb restriction, and cattle slaughtered. The tuberculin intradermal skin test is working again. Whatever happened to the serum in late January / February, ain't happening now. An extra 324 herds are under restriction from last month, and Defra shot 1,911 cattle (568 in April)
And Defra's unannounced almost 30 percent drop in cases, is now 20 percent.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/stats/latest.htm
Defra - Responses to 'consultation' on if, when and how to cull badgers.
Defra's computer geeks have been working overtime with stacks of responses on the following link: http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2006/060712b.htm
That this so-called 'consultation' was deemed necessary at all is debatable, as m.bovis is a very serious zoonosis, responsibility for the control of which is wholly and completely - Defra's.
The Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs however, seems to want to shaft that responsibilty and is not shy of using any half baked piece of 'data' to avoid its obligations.
But as a vet writing in the Vet times remarked, if data is tortured long enough and hard enough - it will prove anything you want it to prove.
That this so-called 'consultation' was deemed necessary at all is debatable, as m.bovis is a very serious zoonosis, responsibility for the control of which is wholly and completely - Defra's.
The Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs however, seems to want to shaft that responsibilty and is not shy of using any half baked piece of 'data' to avoid its obligations.
But as a vet writing in the Vet times remarked, if data is tortured long enough and hard enough - it will prove anything you want it to prove.
Monday, July 10, 2006
"TB in a local badger may increase the risk..."
... of your herd contracting the disease".
Farmers in Wales are starting to receive letters from the State Veterinary Service, in response to postmortems carried out on the dead badgers submitted under this spring's survey.
We covered the somewhat premature end to this in our post:
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/05/update-on-wales.html .. but results now trickling out, generate the following letter:
"A dead badger found within 3km of your farm, and tested for TB as part of an on-going (err - we understood it had closed - ed) badger road traffic accident survey in your area. This animal tested positive for TB. Confirmation of TB in a local badger ( how do SVS know it was 'local'? or how far it travelled? 3 miles/km? 6? 10? - sorry, we digress) may increase the risk of your herd contracting the disease".
The letter then asks that farmers concerned test their cattle.
FUW representative Evan Thomas, said that the Union had emphasised the importance of testing cattle in areas where badgers had been found with TB, and that he was glad the Welsh Assembly was undertaking these measures. He pointed out that it gave SVS an opportunity to 'nip TB in the bud' early, but criticised the decision to end the survey (of dead badgers) early as 'premature'. "It is important to monitor the disease in badgers" he said.
And? His point is? OK, you've got a dead badger. One dead badger, and you've tested local farms in a 3 km. radius of it's demise. And if they test positive? Watchyagonna do then?
The same as the rest of England I suppose: keep testing and killing shed loads of cattle, ignoring the message they're sending you. That'd be about right.
Farmers in Wales are starting to receive letters from the State Veterinary Service, in response to postmortems carried out on the dead badgers submitted under this spring's survey.
We covered the somewhat premature end to this in our post:
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/05/update-on-wales.html .. but results now trickling out, generate the following letter:
"A dead badger found within 3km of your farm, and tested for TB as part of an on-going (err - we understood it had closed - ed) badger road traffic accident survey in your area. This animal tested positive for TB. Confirmation of TB in a local badger ( how do SVS know it was 'local'? or how far it travelled? 3 miles/km? 6? 10? - sorry, we digress) may increase the risk of your herd contracting the disease".
The letter then asks that farmers concerned test their cattle.
FUW representative Evan Thomas, said that the Union had emphasised the importance of testing cattle in areas where badgers had been found with TB, and that he was glad the Welsh Assembly was undertaking these measures. He pointed out that it gave SVS an opportunity to 'nip TB in the bud' early, but criticised the decision to end the survey (of dead badgers) early as 'premature'. "It is important to monitor the disease in badgers" he said.
And? His point is? OK, you've got a dead badger. One dead badger, and you've tested local farms in a 3 km. radius of it's demise. And if they test positive? Watchyagonna do then?
The same as the rest of England I suppose: keep testing and killing shed loads of cattle, ignoring the message they're sending you. That'd be about right.
Friday, July 07, 2006
The demise of Mrs. Tiggiewinkle.
In previous postings we have explored the relationship - annihilation? - which a burgeoning population of badgers has on other less high profile inhabitants of the British countryside. Earthworms may be their preferred food source, but when the soil is hard, or their population density is too high, (or even the good Doctor Cheeseman is not available with shed loads of peanuts) then practically anything else will suffice. And their number one target is a slow moving hedgehog.
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2005/09/badgers-10-hedgehogs-0.html
We are grateful to the Farmers Union of Wales for their press release highlighting research from the Central Science Laboratory, which suggests that in areas of high badger density, hedgehogs may be completely wiped out by 2025. To that we may add, as Professor Willie Stanton of the Somerset Wildlife Trust did in his excellent paper which we covered:
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2005/02/total-protection-for-badgers-sense-or.html
..... grey partridge, lapwing, skylarks, bumble bees and slow worms......
BADGERS COULD WIPE OUT HEDGEHOGS BY 2025
NEW research suggests the near extinction of hedgehogs in the British countryside should be blamed on the massive rise in badger numbers and not farming practices, says the Farmers’ Union of Wales.
A scientific article in July’s Journal of Zoology entitled "Abundance of hedgehogs in relation to the density and distribution of badgers" coincides with claims in the current edition of National Geographic magazine that hedgehogs could be extinct by 2025.
The research, by Richard Young of the Central Science Laboratory, showed that "as [badger] sett density increased, both the probability of occurrence of hedgehogs and their abundance decreased". It also suggested that hedgehogs have been eliminated in areas where badger densities are high.
In response to claims that farming practices are to blame for the rapid decline in hedgehog numbers, Carmarthenshire FUW County Executive Officer Peter Davies recently wrote to hedgehog researchers at the University of London expressing the Union’s conviction that badgers are responsible.
He said: "This research highlights what we have been saying for many years, and reiterates what other research, dating back 15 years or more, has also demonstrated.
"Badgers eat just about anything, and hedgehogs are at the top of the menu if they come across them. It is a predator prey relationship, and one wipes out the other.
"By allowing the badger population to grow out of control, politicians and so called conservation groups have upset the balance of nature. As a direct result hedgehogs are now on the endangered list and farmers are getting the blame.
"Some scientists seem obsessed with the idea that the decline is caused by farmers spraying pesticides. Those people should come and visit Wales, where both hedgehogs and pesticides are rare, but we’ve got badgers everywhere.
"In fact, in suburban areas, where hedgehogs do survive, it seems likely that there is far more use of pesticides than in rural Wales."
Last year, the FUW called on conservation groups and politicians to come clean with the general public and admit that badgers were out of control and endangering hedgehogs.
"But the conservation groups kept their heads down and Countryside Minister Carwyn Jones even suggested that the decline could be due to a shortage of earthworms!" said Mr Davies.
"This seems highly improbable since badgers, whose numbers continue to grow unabated, also depend on earthworms in their diet. I would respectfully suggest that the Minister can’’t have it both ways!"
Ends
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2005/09/badgers-10-hedgehogs-0.html
We are grateful to the Farmers Union of Wales for their press release highlighting research from the Central Science Laboratory, which suggests that in areas of high badger density, hedgehogs may be completely wiped out by 2025. To that we may add, as Professor Willie Stanton of the Somerset Wildlife Trust did in his excellent paper which we covered:
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2005/02/total-protection-for-badgers-sense-or.html
..... grey partridge, lapwing, skylarks, bumble bees and slow worms......
BADGERS COULD WIPE OUT HEDGEHOGS BY 2025
NEW research suggests the near extinction of hedgehogs in the British countryside should be blamed on the massive rise in badger numbers and not farming practices, says the Farmers’ Union of Wales.
A scientific article in July’s Journal of Zoology entitled "Abundance of hedgehogs in relation to the density and distribution of badgers" coincides with claims in the current edition of National Geographic magazine that hedgehogs could be extinct by 2025.
The research, by Richard Young of the Central Science Laboratory, showed that "as [badger] sett density increased, both the probability of occurrence of hedgehogs and their abundance decreased". It also suggested that hedgehogs have been eliminated in areas where badger densities are high.
In response to claims that farming practices are to blame for the rapid decline in hedgehog numbers, Carmarthenshire FUW County Executive Officer Peter Davies recently wrote to hedgehog researchers at the University of London expressing the Union’s conviction that badgers are responsible.
He said: "This research highlights what we have been saying for many years, and reiterates what other research, dating back 15 years or more, has also demonstrated.
"Badgers eat just about anything, and hedgehogs are at the top of the menu if they come across them. It is a predator prey relationship, and one wipes out the other.
"By allowing the badger population to grow out of control, politicians and so called conservation groups have upset the balance of nature. As a direct result hedgehogs are now on the endangered list and farmers are getting the blame.
"Some scientists seem obsessed with the idea that the decline is caused by farmers spraying pesticides. Those people should come and visit Wales, where both hedgehogs and pesticides are rare, but we’ve got badgers everywhere.
"In fact, in suburban areas, where hedgehogs do survive, it seems likely that there is far more use of pesticides than in rural Wales."
Last year, the FUW called on conservation groups and politicians to come clean with the general public and admit that badgers were out of control and endangering hedgehogs.
"But the conservation groups kept their heads down and Countryside Minister Carwyn Jones even suggested that the decline could be due to a shortage of earthworms!" said Mr Davies.
"This seems highly improbable since badgers, whose numbers continue to grow unabated, also depend on earthworms in their diet. I would respectfully suggest that the Minister can’’t have it both ways!"
Ends
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Latest Tb figures
Defra have published their latest Tb figures for the 4 months up to April. Unusually, they add the following comment:
"There has been a substantial reduction in the number of new TB incidents in January - April 2006 compared to the same period in 2005. The provisional statistics presented here indicate that this reduction is 27%, although this figure will reduce as further test results are input by AHDOs. It is too early to draw any conclusions about whether the decrease is a temporary or a more sustained reduction and further analysis is needed to identify the reasons for the fall. However, it is likely to be caused by a complex combination of factors. There is no evidence at the moment that the switch in tuberculin supply has caused this reduction although further analysis is required before this can be confirmed."
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/stats/latest.htm
(Sorry readers, the links go to the 'latest' figures and not the ones we are discussing. The Defra comment is scanned in so stands.)
As you can see, Defra's 'reduction' figure is 27 per cent over the same period last year.
But in our post :
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/05/drop-in-cattle-reactors-good-news.html
when March's figures were published, the drop was over 29 per cent.
(February figures, we were unable to locate, but January's were still onwards and upwards)
So Defra's 'decrease' of 2.5 percent, (that reduction of 27%, which they expect to fall further) we calculate as an increase in tb incidents on March's (3 month average) vertigo inducing fall.
Without being churlish and without wantinf to look gifthorses in the mouth, we report what we see, and hear. And vets are telling us that during late January / February, some practises went through several weeks of cattle testing "without seeing a single lump". SVS officers confirm this. But not in all counties. In Staffs/Derbyshire, Devon and Cornwall cases were in free fall, with some counties recording drops of over 50 percent, while others (Cheshire and Hereford/ Worcs) reported business as usual.
In the good old days, a few avian reactions could usually be expected, just "to show the vet has actually done the test", as our previous vet used to say. But no lumps at all? Not one? Nothing to record? In herds smack in the middle of large area tb breakdowns? But this has not been sustained, (the vets say) and measurable reactions are again being seen, and measured, and cattle slaughtered.
We also note from Defra's April round up, that slaughterhouse cases are rising at an alarming rate, showing 242 suspected and sent for culture, compared with 109 in the same period last year. Most of these cattle have been regularly tested, yet the skin test has failed to record a 'reaction'. While this is a known rare exception to the reliable intradermal skin test, in that if the animal's immune system is so overwhelmed by disease, there is no 'immune response' to flag up, the numbers coming forward now should ring some warning bells as to why no response has been seen. An extra 288 herds are currently under Tb restriction in April than in March 2006.
Further notes on the imported Lelystad tuberculin, to which Defra refer in their explanation:
*It was first imported a year ago, in June 2005.
*It would have been distributed in batches as required by vets, as the UK product ran out. The batches would not have been used in all counties /areas at the same time.
*The bovine part contains 30,000 units compared with 25,000 in the formally used UK serum, (or should do) and initially vets were saying that it was 'more senstive' and flagging up more inconclusive reactors.
*It's original base is the same as the UK product, m.bovis strain AN5 - or was - but whether it has been refined to seek indigenous strains of tb, we have yet to find out.
*It does not have a 'cross border' pan-EU license, and is used under a different section EU license by VMD (Veterinary Medicines Directorate) for the UK's 'short term problems'.
*We understand that VMD have accepted the product on 'manufacturers' data' only.
Vets are telling us that Tb tests are now back to their depressing 'normal'. And from that we assume heaps of dead cattle and the intradermal skin test - behaving as it should.
"There has been a substantial reduction in the number of new TB incidents in January - April 2006 compared to the same period in 2005. The provisional statistics presented here indicate that this reduction is 27%, although this figure will reduce as further test results are input by AHDOs. It is too early to draw any conclusions about whether the decrease is a temporary or a more sustained reduction and further analysis is needed to identify the reasons for the fall. However, it is likely to be caused by a complex combination of factors. There is no evidence at the moment that the switch in tuberculin supply has caused this reduction although further analysis is required before this can be confirmed."
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/stats/latest.htm
(Sorry readers, the links go to the 'latest' figures and not the ones we are discussing. The Defra comment is scanned in so stands.)
As you can see, Defra's 'reduction' figure is 27 per cent over the same period last year.
But in our post :
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/05/drop-in-cattle-reactors-good-news.html
when March's figures were published, the drop was over 29 per cent.
(February figures, we were unable to locate, but January's were still onwards and upwards)
So Defra's 'decrease' of 2.5 percent, (that reduction of 27%, which they expect to fall further) we calculate as an increase in tb incidents on March's (3 month average) vertigo inducing fall.
Without being churlish and without wantinf to look gifthorses in the mouth, we report what we see, and hear. And vets are telling us that during late January / February, some practises went through several weeks of cattle testing "without seeing a single lump". SVS officers confirm this. But not in all counties. In Staffs/Derbyshire, Devon and Cornwall cases were in free fall, with some counties recording drops of over 50 percent, while others (Cheshire and Hereford/ Worcs) reported business as usual.
In the good old days, a few avian reactions could usually be expected, just "to show the vet has actually done the test", as our previous vet used to say. But no lumps at all? Not one? Nothing to record? In herds smack in the middle of large area tb breakdowns? But this has not been sustained, (the vets say) and measurable reactions are again being seen, and measured, and cattle slaughtered.
We also note from Defra's April round up, that slaughterhouse cases are rising at an alarming rate, showing 242 suspected and sent for culture, compared with 109 in the same period last year. Most of these cattle have been regularly tested, yet the skin test has failed to record a 'reaction'. While this is a known rare exception to the reliable intradermal skin test, in that if the animal's immune system is so overwhelmed by disease, there is no 'immune response' to flag up, the numbers coming forward now should ring some warning bells as to why no response has been seen. An extra 288 herds are currently under Tb restriction in April than in March 2006.
Further notes on the imported Lelystad tuberculin, to which Defra refer in their explanation:
*It was first imported a year ago, in June 2005.
*It would have been distributed in batches as required by vets, as the UK product ran out. The batches would not have been used in all counties /areas at the same time.
*The bovine part contains 30,000 units compared with 25,000 in the formally used UK serum, (or should do) and initially vets were saying that it was 'more senstive' and flagging up more inconclusive reactors.
*It's original base is the same as the UK product, m.bovis strain AN5 - or was - but whether it has been refined to seek indigenous strains of tb, we have yet to find out.
*It does not have a 'cross border' pan-EU license, and is used under a different section EU license by VMD (Veterinary Medicines Directorate) for the UK's 'short term problems'.
*We understand that VMD have accepted the product on 'manufacturers' data' only.
Vets are telling us that Tb tests are now back to their depressing 'normal'. And from that we assume heaps of dead cattle and the intradermal skin test - behaving as it should.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Another £1 million. Who's counting?
While farmers are struggling with herd tb restrictions and undervalued pedigree cattle (see post below) there appears to be no shortage of the readies in the research field. Dr. Cheeseman of badger heaven, overwise known as Woodchester Park, has been awarded £1million to explore badger vaccination. This involves trapping around 250 badgers, transporting to a laboratory and vaccinating them and "could lead to more than 100, 000 badgers being vaccinated nationwide"
www.warmwell.com has a good piece on this little publicised work culled from the ever vigilant
ProMed .. The moderator's comments are, as usual, well worth reading in full. Extract :
"...The Randomised Badger Culling Trials demonstrated that if you do not achieve culling targets above 60 percent (and sometimes these were no more than 20 percent), you will only make matters worse -- Bovine TB was practically eradicated in the UK by 1986 by proactive badger culling along with tuberculin testing of cattle when only 84 herd breakdowns were recorded in that year. ...... as the UK Government acknowledges in their report of 2004, if the present policy of inaction continues there is no way but up!....... Culling, when done efficiently, i.e. when delineated areas are free of badgers for at least 12 months, has an immediate disease control benefit. In the UK there is a stark dichotomy between the demands for culling by the farming community, including wildlife veterinarians, and the extreme reluctance on the part of the government. We have yet to see what the impact of badger vaccination will be. - Mod.MHJ"
www.warmwell.com wonders " However good this news may seem, we are left once again wondering why - if the trials are successful and the vaccine found to be safe and effective - it has to "take at least 5 years before the vaccine could be administered to the general badger population outside the lab through microcapsules mixed with peanuts."
Parliamentary Questions explored some of these questions and received the following answer;
23rd March 2004: Col 686W.
"Under European legislation marketing authorisations for veterinary medicinal products, including vaccines, may only be granted where scientific assessment of data supplied by the applicant demonstrates that the product meets statutory criteria of safety, quality and efficacy. The fee currently charged by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) for processing an application for a UK marketing authorisation is between £1,480 and £21,210, depending on the type of application and application and the complexity of the assessment required. The fee for a novel veterinary vaccine, such as a TB vaccine is likely to be at the upper end of the scale.
European legislation requires applications for new markewting authorisations for veterinary medicinal products to be processed within 210 'clock' days of submission of a valid application. 'Clock days' are calendar days,including weekends and holidays, but excluding any period where further information is requested and awaited from the applicant. [..]
Typically, the total time taken to determine an application for a marketing authorisation for a novel medicine, such as a TB vaccine, could be approximately two years.
European legislation permits provisional marketing authorisations to be granted, in exceptional, objective and verifiable circumstances, without the need for a full data dossier. Such authorisations are only granted where safety has been established and are subject to specific conditions, such as carrying out of further studies for efficacy."
Any progress on damping down the badger / cattle interface is to be welcomed. However, we also note from PQ's March 22 2004, Col 510W, that "M.bovis is endemic in British badgers".
What therefore would be the result of 'vaccinating' an animal already infected with the disease?And if the vaccine were transferred to peanuts, what would be the effect of other species ingesting a not-very-accurate dose? In fact, as badgers are agressive eaters of most things, what would be the result of a single alpha male, scoffing all the laced peanuts on behalf of his tribe? And how practical is 'trapping and injecting' on a wider field scale?
Finally, although this research gives valued employment for Dr. Cheeseman et al , given the parliamentary answer quoted above re vaccines, plus the cost of drug registration, how viable would this product be to pharmaceutical companies? They usually trade worldwide, but this vaccine's use would probably be limited to the UK and Ireland. ( possibly as a single dose jab)
No comments from us here; just pondering.
www.warmwell.com has a good piece on this little publicised work culled from the ever vigilant
ProMed .. The moderator's comments are, as usual, well worth reading in full. Extract :
"...The Randomised Badger Culling Trials demonstrated that if you do not achieve culling targets above 60 percent (and sometimes these were no more than 20 percent), you will only make matters worse -- Bovine TB was practically eradicated in the UK by 1986 by proactive badger culling along with tuberculin testing of cattle when only 84 herd breakdowns were recorded in that year. ...... as the UK Government acknowledges in their report of 2004, if the present policy of inaction continues there is no way but up!....... Culling, when done efficiently, i.e. when delineated areas are free of badgers for at least 12 months, has an immediate disease control benefit. In the UK there is a stark dichotomy between the demands for culling by the farming community, including wildlife veterinarians, and the extreme reluctance on the part of the government. We have yet to see what the impact of badger vaccination will be. - Mod.MHJ"
www.warmwell.com wonders " However good this news may seem, we are left once again wondering why - if the trials are successful and the vaccine found to be safe and effective - it has to "take at least 5 years before the vaccine could be administered to the general badger population outside the lab through microcapsules mixed with peanuts."
Parliamentary Questions explored some of these questions and received the following answer;
23rd March 2004: Col 686W.
"Under European legislation marketing authorisations for veterinary medicinal products, including vaccines, may only be granted where scientific assessment of data supplied by the applicant demonstrates that the product meets statutory criteria of safety, quality and efficacy. The fee currently charged by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) for processing an application for a UK marketing authorisation is between £1,480 and £21,210, depending on the type of application and application and the complexity of the assessment required. The fee for a novel veterinary vaccine, such as a TB vaccine is likely to be at the upper end of the scale.
European legislation requires applications for new markewting authorisations for veterinary medicinal products to be processed within 210 'clock' days of submission of a valid application. 'Clock days' are calendar days,including weekends and holidays, but excluding any period where further information is requested and awaited from the applicant. [..]
Typically, the total time taken to determine an application for a marketing authorisation for a novel medicine, such as a TB vaccine, could be approximately two years.
European legislation permits provisional marketing authorisations to be granted, in exceptional, objective and verifiable circumstances, without the need for a full data dossier. Such authorisations are only granted where safety has been established and are subject to specific conditions, such as carrying out of further studies for efficacy."
Any progress on damping down the badger / cattle interface is to be welcomed. However, we also note from PQ's March 22 2004, Col 510W, that "M.bovis is endemic in British badgers".
What therefore would be the result of 'vaccinating' an animal already infected with the disease?And if the vaccine were transferred to peanuts, what would be the effect of other species ingesting a not-very-accurate dose? In fact, as badgers are agressive eaters of most things, what would be the result of a single alpha male, scoffing all the laced peanuts on behalf of his tribe? And how practical is 'trapping and injecting' on a wider field scale?
Finally, although this research gives valued employment for Dr. Cheeseman et al , given the parliamentary answer quoted above re vaccines, plus the cost of drug registration, how viable would this product be to pharmaceutical companies? They usually trade worldwide, but this vaccine's use would probably be limited to the UK and Ireland. ( possibly as a single dose jab)
No comments from us here; just pondering.
Defra challenged over Tabular valuations.
A challenge to Defra's tabular valuations has been launched by West country law firm, Clarke Wilmot. The case has been brought on behalf of Devon dairy farmer, Graham Partridge who has 300 pedigree dairy cattle on his farm near Tiverton and who feels they are seriously undervalued by the new system.
Introduced in February, the tables cover 'average market value' of various class of livestock. Male or female, beef or dairy, an age banding and crucially, 'pedigree or non pedigree'. Thus an aged pedigree jersey cow would be 'valued' at the same rate as a young holstein in her prime. Conversely a old Dexter bull with minimal influence on beef values, would rate the same as a Perth show winning Charolais or Limousin. 'Market value' is exactly what it says. The price of that class of animal traded in the local livestock market, in the previous time frame. And therein lies the problem. Animals of high genetic merit are rarely traded in that marketplace. And on farm dispersals, breed 'showcase' sales and private sales are excluded from Defra's tables.
Little Ben, our remaining Minister is quoting - or misquoting - his two reports into cattle compensation, both of which concluded that the majority of valuations were OK. Reading was the first, the most recent Exeter, who followed Reading's format so as not to tread on any professional toes. Exeter found that 80 percent of the valuations were 'in line', and that, said the author, was "as good as it gets" on the scale that these compensation payments were made. (We think he meant there were a lot) He went on the describe as many 'under valuations' as over, with just one or two very high profile over payments, making headlines.
Mr. Partridge feels that Defra's valuation tables do not reflect the true value of his stock, and his lawyers will now use this case to bring a judicial review of the controversial new system.
In an ideal world, this situation should not have arisen at all, with farmers able to insure for any value above 'average' that they felt their stock merited. In fact a couple of years ago, our own Rear Admiral Ben, gave the following answer to just such a parliamentary question:
15th Dec 2003: Col 629W
Mr. Paterson.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether farmers are able to obtain insurance cover for TB infection in dairy cattle after a TB breakdown and subsequent claim. [141083]
Mr.Bradshaw:
It is government policy to pay compensation at 100 per cent of market value, with no upper limit, for cattle that are compulsorily slaughtered under TB control measures. Farmers therefore do not need to take out insurance on their animals. Theoretically, insurance can be bought to cover other consequential losses for which compensation is not paid, but that is a commercial matter between farmers and their insurers.
Section 34 (5) of the animal Health Act 1981, explicitly allows insurers to deduct the amount of Government compensation from the value of any payout they may make.
Insurance companies will make their own decisions on whether to insure, and about the size of the premiums, based on their assessment of risk.
Recent contact with the insurance industry in early 2003 indicated that, although companies were honouring existing policies, they are not offering new policies to cover TB in cattle herds, particularly in areas where TB is increasingly prevalent. This is because farmers do not wish to take cover in areas where the risk is low (such as Yorkshire) but do wish to purchase cover in areas of high incidence (such as the South West) However, the insurance companies consider that the financial risks in offering insurance policies in areas of high incidence are too high at present.
Quite explicit isn't it? Farmers need not take out insurance. Defra will pay 100 of valuation, but even if they wanted too insure, exposure to risk is likely to be too high for them to get cover. Last year, the cost of tb cover increased tenfold, and cover halved. That's if you were lucky enough to still have a policy in place, and not been unlucky enough to have made a claim.
Introduced in February, the tables cover 'average market value' of various class of livestock. Male or female, beef or dairy, an age banding and crucially, 'pedigree or non pedigree'. Thus an aged pedigree jersey cow would be 'valued' at the same rate as a young holstein in her prime. Conversely a old Dexter bull with minimal influence on beef values, would rate the same as a Perth show winning Charolais or Limousin. 'Market value' is exactly what it says. The price of that class of animal traded in the local livestock market, in the previous time frame. And therein lies the problem. Animals of high genetic merit are rarely traded in that marketplace. And on farm dispersals, breed 'showcase' sales and private sales are excluded from Defra's tables.
Little Ben, our remaining Minister is quoting - or misquoting - his two reports into cattle compensation, both of which concluded that the majority of valuations were OK. Reading was the first, the most recent Exeter, who followed Reading's format so as not to tread on any professional toes. Exeter found that 80 percent of the valuations were 'in line', and that, said the author, was "as good as it gets" on the scale that these compensation payments were made. (We think he meant there were a lot) He went on the describe as many 'under valuations' as over, with just one or two very high profile over payments, making headlines.
Mr. Partridge feels that Defra's valuation tables do not reflect the true value of his stock, and his lawyers will now use this case to bring a judicial review of the controversial new system.
In an ideal world, this situation should not have arisen at all, with farmers able to insure for any value above 'average' that they felt their stock merited. In fact a couple of years ago, our own Rear Admiral Ben, gave the following answer to just such a parliamentary question:
15th Dec 2003: Col 629W
Mr. Paterson.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether farmers are able to obtain insurance cover for TB infection in dairy cattle after a TB breakdown and subsequent claim. [141083]
Mr.Bradshaw:
It is government policy to pay compensation at 100 per cent of market value, with no upper limit, for cattle that are compulsorily slaughtered under TB control measures. Farmers therefore do not need to take out insurance on their animals. Theoretically, insurance can be bought to cover other consequential losses for which compensation is not paid, but that is a commercial matter between farmers and their insurers.
Section 34 (5) of the animal Health Act 1981, explicitly allows insurers to deduct the amount of Government compensation from the value of any payout they may make.
Insurance companies will make their own decisions on whether to insure, and about the size of the premiums, based on their assessment of risk.
Recent contact with the insurance industry in early 2003 indicated that, although companies were honouring existing policies, they are not offering new policies to cover TB in cattle herds, particularly in areas where TB is increasingly prevalent. This is because farmers do not wish to take cover in areas where the risk is low (such as Yorkshire) but do wish to purchase cover in areas of high incidence (such as the South West) However, the insurance companies consider that the financial risks in offering insurance policies in areas of high incidence are too high at present.
Quite explicit isn't it? Farmers need not take out insurance. Defra will pay 100 of valuation, but even if they wanted too insure, exposure to risk is likely to be too high for them to get cover. Last year, the cost of tb cover increased tenfold, and cover halved. That's if you were lucky enough to still have a policy in place, and not been unlucky enough to have made a claim.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
The survivor.
After an (almost) complete cull of ministerial staff in Defra recently, only our own little Ben, Rear Admiral Bradshaw survived. Years ago he reportedly told enquirers that his policy for bTb was "not to be in the hot seat when action needed to be taken". Well folks, he's still there. He's cogitated, created committees and stakeholder groups, and most recently asked for a public consultation on culling badgers. One may ask of the latter, why? as the responsibility for control of a grade 3 pathogenic zoonosis is wholly and completely - Defra's.
As government sneak through a fast track method of what is euthemistically called 'ventilation shut down', in the event of bird flu striking intensove flocks of chooks, we cull from from www.warmwell.com, comments with which we fully agree on the bTb situation still facing the single surviving minister of Defra's old team:
"When Ben Bradshaw, with no apparent understanding of the undertow of his words, proclaimed last week, in relation to the killing of badgers:
"My Department undertook a desk study of possible culling methods and identified shooting, snaring and gassing as the methods most worthy of further investigation. This research is currently under way. .."one wonders, and not for the first time, about the methods and ethics of the sort of research needed to decide on ways of mass killing. We wonder too, as we did in April, why animal health policy always seems to be driven by politics, bureaucracy and budgets instead of by science, technology and veterinary skill. No one really wants an untargetted mass cull of badgers and the Government, surely, has within its grasp a Middle Way. The tools to avoid such a politically unpopular, ethically questionable and scientifically unnecessary move are documented. The research below using UK built rapid RT-PCR diagnosis in badger setts and latrines shows which badgers are infected;
"we would prefer that culling is targeted at diseased and infectious animals" said the researchers.Have Mr Bradshaw and "his Department" really not seen the importance of the work from Warwick University?"
from wwww.warmwell.com.
As we have said many times, every PCR magic box negates the need for a couple of 'government scientists', so why would they agree? Perhaps ventilation shut down (VSD might be a better way out for them (the scientists, not the badgers or the chooks) Up to 60 minutes to suffocate. Nice.
As government sneak through a fast track method of what is euthemistically called 'ventilation shut down', in the event of bird flu striking intensove flocks of chooks, we cull from from www.warmwell.com, comments with which we fully agree on the bTb situation still facing the single surviving minister of Defra's old team:
"When Ben Bradshaw, with no apparent understanding of the undertow of his words, proclaimed last week, in relation to the killing of badgers:
"My Department undertook a desk study of possible culling methods and identified shooting, snaring and gassing as the methods most worthy of further investigation. This research is currently under way. .."one wonders, and not for the first time, about the methods and ethics of the sort of research needed to decide on ways of mass killing. We wonder too, as we did in April, why animal health policy always seems to be driven by politics, bureaucracy and budgets instead of by science, technology and veterinary skill. No one really wants an untargetted mass cull of badgers and the Government, surely, has within its grasp a Middle Way. The tools to avoid such a politically unpopular, ethically questionable and scientifically unnecessary move are documented. The research below using UK built rapid RT-PCR diagnosis in badger setts and latrines shows which badgers are infected;
"we would prefer that culling is targeted at diseased and infectious animals" said the researchers.Have Mr Bradshaw and "his Department" really not seen the importance of the work from Warwick University?"
from wwww.warmwell.com.
As we have said many times, every PCR magic box negates the need for a couple of 'government scientists', so why would they agree? Perhaps ventilation shut down (VSD might be a better way out for them (the scientists, not the badgers or the chooks) Up to 60 minutes to suffocate. Nice.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
"Time for a Veterinary concensus"
A letter in this weeks' Vet. Record calls for a concerted and joined up effort on the part of the veterinary profession, to eradicate bTb from any sources which harbour it.
In his letter Bovine TB policy and badgers " A joint and co-operative approach" is needed :
Mr. Swarbrick wrote:
"...... Like many others, Bourne and colleagues appear to be ignoring several important factors and offering no real solutions. Over 25 years there does not appear to have been any concerted national action to control, let alone eradicate, the relentless spread of bovine TB. We have an EU obligation to eradicate bovine TB. Given that there are no vaccines, prophylaxis or therapy for bovine TB, we can only adopt the long-established medical and veterinary principles for infectious disease control by removing all infected, and more especially diseased, individuals from any contact with healthy populations............. We need a veterinary consensus as to what to do and how to do it, and veterinarians must also find consensus with the ecologists, who have an important contribution. ...... We also need to persuade the pro-badger lobby that some of their comments are incorrect. Time is not on our side and veterinarians, farmers and the UK as a whole cannot allow the perceived difficulties to be an excuse for inaction. Will the ISG please now put forward its strategy and protocols for the eradication of bovine TB from the UK and also for preventing diseased badgers from infecting cattle, badgers and all the other animals, bearing in mind that there is a potentially important human dimension." Read in full
(With thanks to www.warmwell.com )
In his letter Bovine TB policy and badgers " A joint and co-operative approach" is needed :
Mr. Swarbrick wrote:
"...... Like many others, Bourne and colleagues appear to be ignoring several important factors and offering no real solutions. Over 25 years there does not appear to have been any concerted national action to control, let alone eradicate, the relentless spread of bovine TB. We have an EU obligation to eradicate bovine TB. Given that there are no vaccines, prophylaxis or therapy for bovine TB, we can only adopt the long-established medical and veterinary principles for infectious disease control by removing all infected, and more especially diseased, individuals from any contact with healthy populations............. We need a veterinary consensus as to what to do and how to do it, and veterinarians must also find consensus with the ecologists, who have an important contribution. ...... We also need to persuade the pro-badger lobby that some of their comments are incorrect. Time is not on our side and veterinarians, farmers and the UK as a whole cannot allow the perceived difficulties to be an excuse for inaction. Will the ISG please now put forward its strategy and protocols for the eradication of bovine TB from the UK and also for preventing diseased badgers from infecting cattle, badgers and all the other animals, bearing in mind that there is a potentially important human dimension." Read in full
(With thanks to www.warmwell.com )
Friday, June 09, 2006
"Krebs was a pseudo-scientific charade.."
Ever vigilant, Muckspreader (Private Eye) has been reading the veterinary comments emerging from the Krebs trial and concludes that the RBCT was never designed to work at all:
"Even Defra admits that the percentage of badgers culled was sometimes as low as 20 percent. Prof.Bourne has admitted in the Veterinary Record that his staff were not allowed into a third of the land chosen for study. Meanwhile the tragedy rolls on: for farmers, for cattle, for taxpayers, and for all those sick badgers, condemned to a lingering death, only because humans became so blinded by sentimentality that they allowed badger numbers to explode to a level nature could no longer tolerate.."
And from a landowner who also happens to be a member of the RCVS, yet another damning indictment of skewed 'science'.
"As a landowner in one of the 'trial' areas, I had the dubious pleasure of being invited and attending Professor Bourne's meeting to explain the aims and implementation of the Krebs trial to landowners. (Mmm, us too. Good weren't they?)
His presentation was fluent, forceful and full of spin. During the presentation, he pontificated on some events in the history of badger / bovine TB in Dorset. Unbeknown to him, these were events that I had been personally involved with and knew full details of.
It was very educational to me.
I realised that he was describing the facts in a strictly accurate - yet totally misleading - way, so the impression given was the opposite to the truth."
(Well there's a surprise - doesn't he always? - ed) The letter continues:
" That the trial is severely flawed - in my opinion, fatally so - is self evident to any objective scientist. A sound experiment, for that is what the 'trial' purported to be, depends on knowledge of, and control of, all the variables. This trial had no control.
In the 'proactive' areas no culling took place during the lactating periods, and 20 percent of the babgers were left behind. (In our patch we reckon it was more like 80 percent left behind - ed) It would seem that there was, effectively, not a great deal of difference between proactive and reactive areas." (Err there was. At least in the proactive, eventually the Wildlife teams actually turned up. In some of the reactive areas, not a sign. Sick badgers and dead cattle, but no diminutive professors with cage traps. But we digress - the writer explains further:)
"When one allows for the unofficial culling that took place in the no treatment areas, these results are skewed. No matter how the statistics are applied (we prefer 'tortured' - ed) the conclusions drawn can be challenged by a competent sixth former.
Over the past 25 years or more, many veterinary officers have diligently collected masses of data on thousands of breakdowns, and have had their work scrutinised by a sceptical mini panel. All that work, together with that of the veterinary investigation officers, has been effectively been ignored by both Krebs and Bourne. The results of the inquiry and the trial appear to have more to do with egos of eminent men, than science or truth. Bourne's insulting personal response to the points raised by Paul Caruana is no less than I expected from this most arrogant of men."
That broadside, with which we fully agree, was launched by John Cohen, BVetMed, MRCVS of Chard, Somerset, and printed in Veterinary Times, June 12th.
"Even Defra admits that the percentage of badgers culled was sometimes as low as 20 percent. Prof.Bourne has admitted in the Veterinary Record that his staff were not allowed into a third of the land chosen for study. Meanwhile the tragedy rolls on: for farmers, for cattle, for taxpayers, and for all those sick badgers, condemned to a lingering death, only because humans became so blinded by sentimentality that they allowed badger numbers to explode to a level nature could no longer tolerate.."
And from a landowner who also happens to be a member of the RCVS, yet another damning indictment of skewed 'science'.
"As a landowner in one of the 'trial' areas, I had the dubious pleasure of being invited and attending Professor Bourne's meeting to explain the aims and implementation of the Krebs trial to landowners. (Mmm, us too. Good weren't they?)
His presentation was fluent, forceful and full of spin. During the presentation, he pontificated on some events in the history of badger / bovine TB in Dorset. Unbeknown to him, these were events that I had been personally involved with and knew full details of.
It was very educational to me.
I realised that he was describing the facts in a strictly accurate - yet totally misleading - way, so the impression given was the opposite to the truth."
(Well there's a surprise - doesn't he always? - ed) The letter continues:
" That the trial is severely flawed - in my opinion, fatally so - is self evident to any objective scientist. A sound experiment, for that is what the 'trial' purported to be, depends on knowledge of, and control of, all the variables. This trial had no control.
In the 'proactive' areas no culling took place during the lactating periods, and 20 percent of the babgers were left behind. (In our patch we reckon it was more like 80 percent left behind - ed) It would seem that there was, effectively, not a great deal of difference between proactive and reactive areas." (Err there was. At least in the proactive, eventually the Wildlife teams actually turned up. In some of the reactive areas, not a sign. Sick badgers and dead cattle, but no diminutive professors with cage traps. But we digress - the writer explains further:)
"When one allows for the unofficial culling that took place in the no treatment areas, these results are skewed. No matter how the statistics are applied (we prefer 'tortured' - ed) the conclusions drawn can be challenged by a competent sixth former.
Over the past 25 years or more, many veterinary officers have diligently collected masses of data on thousands of breakdowns, and have had their work scrutinised by a sceptical mini panel. All that work, together with that of the veterinary investigation officers, has been effectively been ignored by both Krebs and Bourne. The results of the inquiry and the trial appear to have more to do with egos of eminent men, than science or truth. Bourne's insulting personal response to the points raised by Paul Caruana is no less than I expected from this most arrogant of men."
That broadside, with which we fully agree, was launched by John Cohen, BVetMed, MRCVS of Chard, Somerset, and printed in Veterinary Times, June 12th.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)