…………… or in other words, the adroit circular movements of both the RSPCA and the Badger Trust with regard to farming data in general, and animal movements in particular. All 14 million of them, which, despite having the correct interpretation placed in his sticky paw, media adviser to the Badger Trust, Trevor Lawson insists on misunderstanding.
In order that the facts are clear to all – and that includes Mr. Lawson – your contributors have obtained the interpretation of movement data direct from BCMS (British Cattle Movement Service) and we print this below.
"We do require an ON and OFF movement for each animal when it is moved and both these movements are counted in the total number of movements. So the movement of an animal from farm A (off movement) to B (on movement) is counted as two movements in the total movements of cattle in the UK. If that animal goes through a livestock market it would be four movements "off" farm "on" market "off" market "on" farm or abattoir, and the movement from farm direct to an abattoir would also be two movements one "off" farm and one "on" to the abattoir."
So BCMS require two matching movements of data for each actual bovine trip, and if the animal moves via a market, then four are required. So how many were there?
For sure there were 14 million movements of DATA in 2005, but these comprised both ‘On’ and matching ‘Off’ movements, and also movements to dead end hosts – abattoirs, and visits to shows, exhibitions etc.
The figure BCMS have given us for total movements of data, both ‘On’ and ‘Off’ and including all destinations in 2005 is 14,661,407.
However the breakdown of this much quoted misinterpretation is:
Movements ‘ON’ to FARMS 2,718,599
Movements ‘ON’ to markets 1,999,974
Movements ‘ON’ to abattoirs 2,503,059
Other destinations ............ 59,251
A total of 7,280,883 ‘ON’ movements of which just 2,718,599 were ‘ON’ to farms.
BCMS also confirmed that of these 2.7 million movements (NOT 14 million Trevor) a number were made by calves under 42 days, which Defra say pose little or no risk.
"… around 401,000 calves under 42 days of age moved farms in 2005."
So the total live cattle moving ‘On’ to farms in 2005 was 2,317,599 – not including those young calves.
But what did the Badger Trust make of that information? And what is still being peddled to a gullible media? (see post below) This is from the Badger Trust website....
BADGER TRUST ; News Release 16TH February 2006.
Trevor Lawson, media advisor to the Badger Trust, commented:
"This decision demonstrates a shocking lack of courage on the part of Government. It means that around 1.3 million additional cattle movements will occur without pre-movement testing [2], spreading the infection even wider, …."
For further information, contact Trevor Lawson on 01494 794961 or 07976 262388.
And how did our Trevor arrive at that figure?
In the Notes to Editors is the following:
"Each year, the British Cattle Movement Service logs approximately 14 million cattle movements. Spread evenly throughout the year, this equates to approximately 1.3 million movements over five weeks.
The deliberate misinterpretation of this data is the worst type of ‘spin’ - but it is compounded by the diminutive John Bourne, whose address at the last ISG meeting carried the same totally misleading message. The minutes of that meeting however proved that Professor Bourne does indeed have friends in high places, who may understand the data - even if he does not. Reference to '14 million animal movements', heard by his audience at least twice in his address, was completely wiped. Well, well, well.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Trust in 'The Trust'?
Last week, one of our contributers bought a copy of weekly rural glossy 'Country Life'. This contained a lightweight piece on badgers and bTb written by freelance 'journalist', David Tomlinson. Now, the easiest way to produce copy, is to take swathes of scribe from somebody else - and to protect the 'author', ascribe anything controversial or even downright wrong, in their names. And so it is in this piece.
Much space is given to Trevor Lawson of the Badger Trust, who is attributed with the following:
"The Badger Trust estimates that [a culling programme] would result in a third of Britain's badgers being killed, a great many of them healthy individuals".
Not if PCR technology was used to identify infected setts Trevor. See our posting below.
And this little gem " According to the Trust, TB is spread by 14 million animal movements of cattle in Britian each year.."
Now this is really bad. Over a year ago, Trevor Lawson was told (and had, we understand, the paperwork placed in his sticky paw to prove the point) that the 14 million esposed by the diminutive John Bourne et al, mantra faithfully repeated by the Trust, was a movement of DATA - not hooves. What bit of 'On' and 'Off' = 2 movements, to each staging post, including markets( = 4 movements) and abattoirs did he not understand?
The figure for movements of live cattle ON to other farms is (or was in 2005) 2.7 million, including 401,000 very young calves under 42 days. So, around 2.2 million. Not 14 million at all. But it makes good copy, and lazy journalists obviously don't check. It is far easier to repeat dogma, than to 'investigate'.
And Bradshaw's "80 percent of Tb cases are spread from cattle to cattle" came up again, with no clarification of its context. These were the very few infected cattle which spiked short outbreaks in Cumbria after FMD restocks - all found, slaughtered and sorted. No, it should not have happened. With post movement tests which this site favours it would not have and Defra's testing programme for 'new and re formed herds' will prevent it happening again.
Then our Trevor endeared himself to his members by reiterating that cattle are giving Tb to badgers, "so it makes sense to focus on the cattle". That sounds good, and Defra are listening. Unfortunately with ears firmly shut, especially to experience of the past when the 'Downie Era ' in the Republic of Ireland did precisely this but with a burgeoning wildlife reservoir, failed totally to control bTb. Likewise a Cornish DVO in the 70's invented the word 'cohort', slaughtered many hundreds of cattle, implemented pre and post movement testing but totally failed to make a dent in the wildlife-borne infection cycle.
"Government received 47,000 responses from the public about the proposed badger cull - 96 per cent against it."
No mention there of the Advertising Standards Agency's damning censorship of this campaign. "Unsubstantiated and untruthful", the ASA found, but those words are missing from this piece.
The red corner is defended by the NFU and this in itself is 'unfortunate'.
Why not a vet? Especially a bTb expert ; someone from the State Veterinary Service for example, with years of experience under his or her belt - and also years of seeing first hand the devastating results of various political interventions and prevarications in a serious zoonotic disease prevention situation.
Why no 'google' into Bovine Tb, and all the parliamentary questions which form the basis of this site? A wildly out of date figure for badger numbers, (privately now thought to exceed 1 million) but no mention of the infectious load carried by a badger suffering the latter stages of bTb. This can be up to 300,000 units of bacteria in just 1 ml of urine. And that skittered across grassland and feed troughs at the rate of 30 ml in each void. And just 70 ml needed to provoke a 'positive' skin reaction in a cow. Not a squeak about that transmission opportunity.
No mention of the RBCT badger dispersal excercise, as described so devastatingly (and all in the public domain ) by Paul Caruana, one of its field managers.
No mention of the Thornbury exercise, where a complete clearance of badgers over several months was followed by a total clearance for 12 years of cattle Tb in the area. And the badger numbers recovered to their pre cull numbers. No other contemporous reason for this was found, other than the clearance of infected badgers, confirmed parliamentary questions.
And absolutely no mention of the diagnostics of PCR, which would answer many of the publication's readers' more anthropomorphic sensibilities.
And no mention of course, of the many herds who are under continuous bTb restriction, or who have had to give up cattle farming altogether but who have no bought in cattle or cattle to cattle contact. That would spoil a very good myth.
All in all, a very lazy and lightweight piece; Trevor Lawson managed to cover his badgers in inaccurate misleading propaganda while the villain of the piece, a highly infectious zoonotic bacteria lives on to kill more cattle and many more badgers, cats, dogs, free range pigs, alpacas ....... and human beings?
Much space is given to Trevor Lawson of the Badger Trust, who is attributed with the following:
"The Badger Trust estimates that [a culling programme] would result in a third of Britain's badgers being killed, a great many of them healthy individuals".
Not if PCR technology was used to identify infected setts Trevor. See our posting below.
And this little gem " According to the Trust, TB is spread by 14 million animal movements of cattle in Britian each year.."
Now this is really bad. Over a year ago, Trevor Lawson was told (and had, we understand, the paperwork placed in his sticky paw to prove the point) that the 14 million esposed by the diminutive John Bourne et al, mantra faithfully repeated by the Trust, was a movement of DATA - not hooves. What bit of 'On' and 'Off' = 2 movements, to each staging post, including markets( = 4 movements) and abattoirs did he not understand?
The figure for movements of live cattle ON to other farms is (or was in 2005) 2.7 million, including 401,000 very young calves under 42 days. So, around 2.2 million. Not 14 million at all. But it makes good copy, and lazy journalists obviously don't check. It is far easier to repeat dogma, than to 'investigate'.
And Bradshaw's "80 percent of Tb cases are spread from cattle to cattle" came up again, with no clarification of its context. These were the very few infected cattle which spiked short outbreaks in Cumbria after FMD restocks - all found, slaughtered and sorted. No, it should not have happened. With post movement tests which this site favours it would not have and Defra's testing programme for 'new and re formed herds' will prevent it happening again.
Then our Trevor endeared himself to his members by reiterating that cattle are giving Tb to badgers, "so it makes sense to focus on the cattle". That sounds good, and Defra are listening. Unfortunately with ears firmly shut, especially to experience of the past when the 'Downie Era ' in the Republic of Ireland did precisely this but with a burgeoning wildlife reservoir, failed totally to control bTb. Likewise a Cornish DVO in the 70's invented the word 'cohort', slaughtered many hundreds of cattle, implemented pre and post movement testing but totally failed to make a dent in the wildlife-borne infection cycle.
"Government received 47,000 responses from the public about the proposed badger cull - 96 per cent against it."
No mention there of the Advertising Standards Agency's damning censorship of this campaign. "Unsubstantiated and untruthful", the ASA found, but those words are missing from this piece.
The red corner is defended by the NFU and this in itself is 'unfortunate'.
Why not a vet? Especially a bTb expert ; someone from the State Veterinary Service for example, with years of experience under his or her belt - and also years of seeing first hand the devastating results of various political interventions and prevarications in a serious zoonotic disease prevention situation.
Why no 'google' into Bovine Tb, and all the parliamentary questions which form the basis of this site? A wildly out of date figure for badger numbers, (privately now thought to exceed 1 million) but no mention of the infectious load carried by a badger suffering the latter stages of bTb. This can be up to 300,000 units of bacteria in just 1 ml of urine. And that skittered across grassland and feed troughs at the rate of 30 ml in each void. And just 70 ml needed to provoke a 'positive' skin reaction in a cow. Not a squeak about that transmission opportunity.
No mention of the RBCT badger dispersal excercise, as described so devastatingly (and all in the public domain ) by Paul Caruana, one of its field managers.
No mention of the Thornbury exercise, where a complete clearance of badgers over several months was followed by a total clearance for 12 years of cattle Tb in the area. And the badger numbers recovered to their pre cull numbers. No other contemporous reason for this was found, other than the clearance of infected badgers, confirmed parliamentary questions.
And absolutely no mention of the diagnostics of PCR, which would answer many of the publication's readers' more anthropomorphic sensibilities.
And no mention of course, of the many herds who are under continuous bTb restriction, or who have had to give up cattle farming altogether but who have no bought in cattle or cattle to cattle contact. That would spoil a very good myth.
All in all, a very lazy and lightweight piece; Trevor Lawson managed to cover his badgers in inaccurate misleading propaganda while the villain of the piece, a highly infectious zoonotic bacteria lives on to kill more cattle and many more badgers, cats, dogs, free range pigs, alpacas ....... and human beings?
We are considering ....
.. the situation, said Mr. Bradshaw. Our Ben, baby Ben, junior Minister of animal welfare - well some animals anyway. This in reply to a parliamentary question posed by Jim Paice, his shadow minister and referrring to rt-PCR technology and the identification of bTb in badger setts, so successfully trialled last year... but now languishing it would appear, in 'somebody's in tray..
We have mentioned PCR many times on this site, not least to remind readers that such a magic box was offered on March 12th. 2001, by the late Fred Brown who had developed the American version, to detect with certainty the presence of FMD in cattle herds. Government turned it down in favour of the infamous 'carnage by computer' with led to the deaths, quite unecessarily in our opinion, of up to 12 million animals.
But things have moved on and we now a choice of magic boxes, some British (Enigma Diagnostics is one) some still in need of laboratory diagnosis but some described as 'real time' and giving results in the field in minutes - even when used by soldiers - or vets. Commercially the technology is now widespread in hospitals across the country, and offered by animal health screeners as an option in animal disease diagnostics.
Last year, Warwick University trialled the technology in the environment and in particular screened badger setts and latrines for bTb, precisely to avoid the mass wipe out so beloved of Defra (and John Bourne) and so emotionally fuelled by their incessant use of the 'E' word .... exterminate, exterminate exterminate. Like pre programmed Daleks, it keeps coming.
And our Trevor, Mr. Lawson has repeated the mantra, speaking of 'wiping out a third of the badgers in the country' in a recent glossy publication (which we will explore later, as he is also attributed with that '14 million animal movements' - again. Sheeesh. I thought we'd squashed that one)
We are most grateful to the ever vigilant www.warmwell.com for the following posting;
"James Paice asked yesterday when DEFRA "expects to undertake research on the use of Polymerase Chain Reaction technology to detect M. bovis in badger setts"[110858]
Unfortunately, Mr Bradshaw chose not to answer the actual question asked so we do not know when - or even if - scientific evaluation will follow up the Warwick work, reported on in March 2006. Dr Orin Courtenay from the University of Warwick's department of Biological Sciences said in the university department press release that the team did not advocate culling badgers to control bovine TB, particularly in light of the scientific results emerging from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial but that if the government did continue to cull badgers, culling should at least be targeted at diseased and infectious animals. Untargeted culling kills healthy and uninfected animals.
"With some further scientific evaluation, a "sett test" based on state-of-the-art molecular technology could provide a tool towards achieving this aim," he said.
Mr Paice's question was evidently asking about progress on this further scientific evaluation. It seems evident, from Mr Bradshaw's answer, that in the past year, DEFRA has done nothing more than "consider" proposals towards bringing forward a technology that is so vitally needed in Britain.
Why are we not surprised?
We have mentioned PCR many times on this site, not least to remind readers that such a magic box was offered on March 12th. 2001, by the late Fred Brown who had developed the American version, to detect with certainty the presence of FMD in cattle herds. Government turned it down in favour of the infamous 'carnage by computer' with led to the deaths, quite unecessarily in our opinion, of up to 12 million animals.
But things have moved on and we now a choice of magic boxes, some British (Enigma Diagnostics is one) some still in need of laboratory diagnosis but some described as 'real time' and giving results in the field in minutes - even when used by soldiers - or vets. Commercially the technology is now widespread in hospitals across the country, and offered by animal health screeners as an option in animal disease diagnostics.
Last year, Warwick University trialled the technology in the environment and in particular screened badger setts and latrines for bTb, precisely to avoid the mass wipe out so beloved of Defra (and John Bourne) and so emotionally fuelled by their incessant use of the 'E' word .... exterminate, exterminate exterminate. Like pre programmed Daleks, it keeps coming.
And our Trevor, Mr. Lawson has repeated the mantra, speaking of 'wiping out a third of the badgers in the country' in a recent glossy publication (which we will explore later, as he is also attributed with that '14 million animal movements' - again. Sheeesh. I thought we'd squashed that one)
We are most grateful to the ever vigilant www.warmwell.com for the following posting;
"James Paice asked yesterday when DEFRA "expects to undertake research on the use of Polymerase Chain Reaction technology to detect M. bovis in badger setts"[110858]
Unfortunately, Mr Bradshaw chose not to answer the actual question asked so we do not know when - or even if - scientific evaluation will follow up the Warwick work, reported on in March 2006. Dr Orin Courtenay from the University of Warwick's department of Biological Sciences said in the university department press release that the team did not advocate culling badgers to control bovine TB, particularly in light of the scientific results emerging from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial but that if the government did continue to cull badgers, culling should at least be targeted at diseased and infectious animals. Untargeted culling kills healthy and uninfected animals.
"With some further scientific evaluation, a "sett test" based on state-of-the-art molecular technology could provide a tool towards achieving this aim," he said.
Mr Paice's question was evidently asking about progress on this further scientific evaluation. It seems evident, from Mr Bradshaw's answer, that in the past year, DEFRA has done nothing more than "consider" proposals towards bringing forward a technology that is so vitally needed in Britain.
Why are we not surprised?
Saturday, January 20, 2007
November stats.
For a short time only, Defra have posted the Tb statistics for January - November 2006.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/stats/latest.htm
Defra describe the results thus:
"There has been a provisional 7% reduction in the number of new bTB incidents in Great Britain in January to November 2006 compared to the same period in 2005. There was a considerable drop in the number of new incidents in the first four months of 2006 compared to 2005. However, since May the number of new TB incidents reported in 2006 was slightly up on 2005. As a result, the percentage decrease in new incidents reported in previous months has now reduced" .
From March, when the drop in New Herd breakdowns was almost 30 percent, the fall (and thus increase) in bTb incidence has reduced and now stands at 7.2 per cent lower than in 2005 at the same time.
We have tracked these results with a great deal of scepticism, and reported our thoughts regularly. The immediate candidate for the fall was the substitution from September 2005 of our own UK produced 'Weybridge' tuberculin antigen with a product made by Lelystatd in Holland, which although a similar product, was found in the CVO's report to have given "a small but statistically significant difference" in performance. Annex C of the same report described the difference thus:
"The sensitivety of the combined dutch PPD is less because of failing to pick up NVLs ( animals which could be in the early stage of disease)... [ ] This would result in underdetection of cases, resulting in a transient decline in cases reported, despite there being no true decline in cases."
We covered this at http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/08/going-dutch-2mm-difference.html
At the time of the CVO's report, the authors, despite blaming their veterinary practitioners for jabbing the cattle in the wrong way (Have they all been retrained? All of them? Really? Wow..) leant towards this explanantion, but is it the whole story? For figures to be comparable, the root raw data must be from the same source, and in this case it is not.
Data in the past has been drawn solely from routine tuberculin skin tests. For sure, as bTb increased, so did the skin tests as more and more parishes fell under annual regimes.
And over the last two years, Defra has come down hard on the cattle side of bTb - short of the obvious of course, and that means testing annually every herd in the country, but let that pass.
Parish testing intervals have been extended outwards, drawing more farms into more regular testing, but also farmers' own pre movement testing results will build into these figures, giving a further increase in herds and cattle tested which was not in the data from 2005 or prior to that. Defra are compunding this increase with a 'hypothetical drop' of around 23 percent in bTb, given the increase in testing. Into this mish mash of figures add gamma interferon, now in use in all areas but under different circumstances, and the picture is even more muddled.
It is our understanding that in areas of annual and two year testing, a third time IR skin tested would only result in around 15 percent failure rate. But those animals now get no third chance; after two Inconclusive tests, gamma interferon is routinely used. And it is giving a failure rate of 50 percent. For what reason we can only repeat previous info. That this diagnostic test is different, picking up antibodies to bTb in the animal's blood and that it is much less 'specific' than the comparative skin test. We understand that it is confusing, amongst other things paratuberculosis (Johnes disease) which may or may not be a good thing - but when lumped together in a bTb statistical context, is misleading. Many will argue, probably quite rightly, that in a hot spot situation, many cattle will have had a small exposure to m bovis, and thus need a higher exposure to provoke either the disease itself, or a skin reaction to it. But Gamma interferon will take out exactly those animals who have acquired this degree of immunity. For more see: http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/11/new-leaflet-farmers-would-prefer-not.html
And then there is the weather. Blazing hot sunshine - with associated ultra violet - is the single most lethal influence on m.bovis. And we've had two consecutive summers, where its survival on grassland has been severly curtailed- to the benefit of any grazing cattle who may encounter it. The downside of the heat and the hard packed ground, is hungry badgers, foraging this summer, we hear, in farm buildings. The results of which will only show up in cattle tests this winter and into the spring.
But we are aware that with all these different data streams into the statistics, it is very difficult to compare. So we will concentrate on the figure which draws the attention of our trading partners. Bearing in mind that to achieve OIE 'Tb free' trading status, the number of herds under Tb restriction in a given period must be less than 0.02 per cent of herds registered on the country's database, the only thing we see, is that headline figure of GB herds under bTb restriction as a percentage of herds registered on Vetnet, is UP.
To November this appalling figure stands at 6.10 percent. An increase of 0.2 on last year.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/stats/latest.htm
Defra describe the results thus:
"There has been a provisional 7% reduction in the number of new bTB incidents in Great Britain in January to November 2006 compared to the same period in 2005. There was a considerable drop in the number of new incidents in the first four months of 2006 compared to 2005. However, since May the number of new TB incidents reported in 2006 was slightly up on 2005. As a result, the percentage decrease in new incidents reported in previous months has now reduced" .
From March, when the drop in New Herd breakdowns was almost 30 percent, the fall (and thus increase) in bTb incidence has reduced and now stands at 7.2 per cent lower than in 2005 at the same time.
We have tracked these results with a great deal of scepticism, and reported our thoughts regularly. The immediate candidate for the fall was the substitution from September 2005 of our own UK produced 'Weybridge' tuberculin antigen with a product made by Lelystatd in Holland, which although a similar product, was found in the CVO's report to have given "a small but statistically significant difference" in performance. Annex C of the same report described the difference thus:
"The sensitivety of the combined dutch PPD is less because of failing to pick up NVLs ( animals which could be in the early stage of disease)... [ ] This would result in underdetection of cases, resulting in a transient decline in cases reported, despite there being no true decline in cases."
We covered this at http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/08/going-dutch-2mm-difference.html
At the time of the CVO's report, the authors, despite blaming their veterinary practitioners for jabbing the cattle in the wrong way (Have they all been retrained? All of them? Really? Wow..) leant towards this explanantion, but is it the whole story? For figures to be comparable, the root raw data must be from the same source, and in this case it is not.
Data in the past has been drawn solely from routine tuberculin skin tests. For sure, as bTb increased, so did the skin tests as more and more parishes fell under annual regimes.
And over the last two years, Defra has come down hard on the cattle side of bTb - short of the obvious of course, and that means testing annually every herd in the country, but let that pass.
Parish testing intervals have been extended outwards, drawing more farms into more regular testing, but also farmers' own pre movement testing results will build into these figures, giving a further increase in herds and cattle tested which was not in the data from 2005 or prior to that. Defra are compunding this increase with a 'hypothetical drop' of around 23 percent in bTb, given the increase in testing. Into this mish mash of figures add gamma interferon, now in use in all areas but under different circumstances, and the picture is even more muddled.
It is our understanding that in areas of annual and two year testing, a third time IR skin tested would only result in around 15 percent failure rate. But those animals now get no third chance; after two Inconclusive tests, gamma interferon is routinely used. And it is giving a failure rate of 50 percent. For what reason we can only repeat previous info. That this diagnostic test is different, picking up antibodies to bTb in the animal's blood and that it is much less 'specific' than the comparative skin test. We understand that it is confusing, amongst other things paratuberculosis (Johnes disease) which may or may not be a good thing - but when lumped together in a bTb statistical context, is misleading. Many will argue, probably quite rightly, that in a hot spot situation, many cattle will have had a small exposure to m bovis, and thus need a higher exposure to provoke either the disease itself, or a skin reaction to it. But Gamma interferon will take out exactly those animals who have acquired this degree of immunity. For more see: http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/11/new-leaflet-farmers-would-prefer-not.html
And then there is the weather. Blazing hot sunshine - with associated ultra violet - is the single most lethal influence on m.bovis. And we've had two consecutive summers, where its survival on grassland has been severly curtailed- to the benefit of any grazing cattle who may encounter it. The downside of the heat and the hard packed ground, is hungry badgers, foraging this summer, we hear, in farm buildings. The results of which will only show up in cattle tests this winter and into the spring.
But we are aware that with all these different data streams into the statistics, it is very difficult to compare. So we will concentrate on the figure which draws the attention of our trading partners. Bearing in mind that to achieve OIE 'Tb free' trading status, the number of herds under Tb restriction in a given period must be less than 0.02 per cent of herds registered on the country's database, the only thing we see, is that headline figure of GB herds under bTb restriction as a percentage of herds registered on Vetnet, is UP.
To November this appalling figure stands at 6.10 percent. An increase of 0.2 on last year.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
They cannot be serious.....
It is difficult to find words to describe our reaction to today's headline in West Country newspaper, Western Morning News. Many times over the last couple of years, we have described the relocation of badgers - for whatever reason - as 'Tb takeaways'. This mainly because of the total ineffectiveness of the so called 'Brock' blood test, sometimes, but not always, used to identify lurking tb which although fairly good on a positive result, is only 40 per cent accurate on a negative.
We have also written of the dire results of Pauline Kidner's release policy from 'Secret World', in Somerset, where young badgers were chewed up by the indigenous brocks, resulting in Ms. Kidner releasing them elsewhere. Your place or mine? See: http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2004/08/relocation-relocation-relocation-tb.html
The RSPCA, that veritable bastion of truth and guardian of all things four legged and furry- except cattle - which was found earlier this year to have used 'unsubstantiated and untruthful' (http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/09/rspca-falls-foul-of-advertising.html )information to garner support for its 'Back off Badgers' campaign ( http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/03/rspca-under-investigation.html) have done just that. Released a group of badgers in a Tb hotspot.
Read where at: http://tinyurl.com/vry8h
Local farmers seeing vehicles parked up with long antennae, were told that badgers had been released and these operatives were 'tracking them'. They didn't stay put on the few square yards of land authorised by the land owner then? Of course they didn't. They would be disorientated and a certain target for the nearest group to fight with. That's what territorial scrapping is all about. And that spreads Tb.
The more polite among us would say the RSPCA's action was misguided and unwise. Those of us on the receiving end of the Tb problem may be less charitable. Try ... recklessly bloody stupid. And who issued the goddam license ?
We have also written of the dire results of Pauline Kidner's release policy from 'Secret World', in Somerset, where young badgers were chewed up by the indigenous brocks, resulting in Ms. Kidner releasing them elsewhere. Your place or mine? See: http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2004/08/relocation-relocation-relocation-tb.html
The RSPCA, that veritable bastion of truth and guardian of all things four legged and furry- except cattle - which was found earlier this year to have used 'unsubstantiated and untruthful' (http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/09/rspca-falls-foul-of-advertising.html )information to garner support for its 'Back off Badgers' campaign ( http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/03/rspca-under-investigation.html) have done just that. Released a group of badgers in a Tb hotspot.
Read where at: http://tinyurl.com/vry8h
Local farmers seeing vehicles parked up with long antennae, were told that badgers had been released and these operatives were 'tracking them'. They didn't stay put on the few square yards of land authorised by the land owner then? Of course they didn't. They would be disorientated and a certain target for the nearest group to fight with. That's what territorial scrapping is all about. And that spreads Tb.
The more polite among us would say the RSPCA's action was misguided and unwise. Those of us on the receiving end of the Tb problem may be less charitable. Try ... recklessly bloody stupid. And who issued the goddam license ?
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
"Overall level of disease remains unacceptably high"
This the bland non-statement from defra when explaining this month's bTb statistics, which for a short period are available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/stats/latest.htm
Defra says:
"When making year on year comparisons of bTB incidence, it is important that these are not made in isolation but in the context of the wider disease picture over a longer timeframe. Whilst bTB incidence in Great Britain has fallen recently, this follows a steady increase over recent years. Furthermore, the overall level of the disease remains unacceptably high."
We are not taking anything in isolation. Nothing at all. We can read stats and also comments from our European masters. We see that Ireland have a handle on their problem and we do not. (see post below on how Ireland have halved Tb incidence and related expenditure)
Defra's latest figures show that this year's upward trend continues with the headline figure of 'New Herd Incidence' down during the period Jan - Oct by just 9 percent, from the dizzy heights of almost 30 percent ..... the figure which gave our minister such a splendid shield in March / April.
Herds under bTb restriction are again up on last year, both in simple numbers (+ 40) and percentages. And the percentage of herds under restriction because of a 'bTb incident' Jan to October was 5.67 percent of herds registered on Vetnet database. (To put that in context, the international bTb 'Tb free trading level' for a country is just 0.02 percent)
Posts have been a little sparse this last month. Apologies for that; your contributing farmers have been testing cattle and guess what?
Yup, three of us are under restriction. Again. Happy Christmas.
Defra says:
"When making year on year comparisons of bTB incidence, it is important that these are not made in isolation but in the context of the wider disease picture over a longer timeframe. Whilst bTB incidence in Great Britain has fallen recently, this follows a steady increase over recent years. Furthermore, the overall level of the disease remains unacceptably high."
We are not taking anything in isolation. Nothing at all. We can read stats and also comments from our European masters. We see that Ireland have a handle on their problem and we do not. (see post below on how Ireland have halved Tb incidence and related expenditure)
Defra's latest figures show that this year's upward trend continues with the headline figure of 'New Herd Incidence' down during the period Jan - Oct by just 9 percent, from the dizzy heights of almost 30 percent ..... the figure which gave our minister such a splendid shield in March / April.
Herds under bTb restriction are again up on last year, both in simple numbers (+ 40) and percentages. And the percentage of herds under restriction because of a 'bTb incident' Jan to October was 5.67 percent of herds registered on Vetnet database. (To put that in context, the international bTb 'Tb free trading level' for a country is just 0.02 percent)
Posts have been a little sparse this last month. Apologies for that; your contributing farmers have been testing cattle and guess what?
Yup, three of us are under restriction. Again. Happy Christmas.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Dear Mr. Brown..........
As Chancellor of the Exchequer and a canny Scot - who are usually noted to be particularly parsimonious - we feel you are under pressure this week, so we offer a crumb of hope (with the greatest respect of course).
The national press has put you on the spot by trashing your figures for the national debt. You have they say, ignored the pensions' black hole and the debt of certain flagship projects when calculating your own figures. And that adds up to ......... negative equity. Or put simply, debt outstrips the country's assets and at £1.3 trillion is now 103.5 percent of the country's wealth. We're broke.
And what, we hear you ask has this to do with bovine Tb?
We have spoken on this site of the 'beneficial crisis' which this totally avoidable situation has created. The governmental largesse divided variously between researchers, 'scientists', focus groups and protectionists and vets, laboratories, hauliers, abattoirs and farmers. Could it be shaved? Could this phenomenal and exponential growth of 20 percent per year (Defra figures) be cut, and thus the expenditure?
Yes it could, and Ireland is leading the way.
A closer look at the Republic shows that they are using the results of previous 'trials' to eradicate bTb from the cattle herds, by a combination of skin testing and yup .......... badger culling. They say that by reducing the level of infection in the badgers, they can not only apply meaningful animal welfare to this popular wild mammal, but prevent bTb spill over into the country's cattle herds.
And dear Gordon, in five years they have halved the expenditure on bTb in the country. Think about that. Almost 50 percent less cash going out of the Treasury's piggy bank. Think of all the other things you could do with those £millions. No, perhaps not.
But we digress. You would like figures?
In 1999 the gross expenditure on bTb in the Republic of Ireland was 88 million euros. Levies and EU cash reduced this to 66.6 million euros, net. But in 2005, just 35.6 million euros was the net expenditure on bTb! In fact Gordon, so successful has the Tb eradication been that the government have been able to reduce - actually reduce by half - the animal disease levy paid by farmers! How about that, a government that is popular with its electorate! And the Irish government is popular with the its European masters too, with bTb incidence being described as 'under control and decreasing', while the UK is ..... well let's just say we're in a mess. The only country in the Community to have an 'increasing incidence'.
So, how have they done it? They have used their research (East Offaly 1989 - 1994) and the Four Counties Trial (1998 - 2002) and applied it to Tb hotspots as shown by the sentinel cattle. They realised that nailing the cattle to floor and ignoring wildlife, as done in the Downie Era (http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2005/04/anything-you-can-do.html) didn't work and they acted on both sources simultaneously, just as Professor Stephen Harris suggested to your predecessors in 1997 in fact, and which we covered in our posting: http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2004/07/krebs-there-was-another-way.html. But your lot preferred the prevarication and repetition of the Krebs 'badger dispersal' trial - and £1 million bung from the Political Animal Lobby. Value for money was it?
The decision to act on the results of the Four Counties trial was taken against a background of increasing Tb incidence and was probably influenced by the EU veterinary certificate issued in Sept. 2004, which we covered in several postings including: http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2004/09/from-russia-with-love.html .
A ban on exports would have seriously dented Ireland's GDP. The problem was thus taken out of the political arena, and placed firmly where it belonged - in the hands of veterinary scientists, well versed in epidemiological matters and out of the hands of focus groups, the public and most of all - politicians.
James O'Keefe from the Dept. of Agriculture and Food says quite bluntly, "If you don't like the plan, give me an alternative.... My primary concern is eliminating Tb in the cattle, but until we eliminate it in the badgers we can't do that".
So Gordon (may we call you that?) you are a canny Scotsman, but a canny Scot with a cash problem at the moment. How do you save some money? Your junior Minister, Baby Ben Bradshaw, has cut farmer compensation, but that has only made a small dent in the Tb budget as it accounted for less than a third of the Tb expenditure. And all the other little Tb hamsters are busily trundling around their respective wheels, linked firmly to the Defra cash machine which is tied to the Treasury and which we covered here: http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2004/08/tb-beneficiaries.html.
So what can you do? Well look west to Ireland where they have returned to almost a 'clean ring' policy which operated here in the UK in the early 1980's and when this country boasted less than 100 herds under restriction and 686 cattle slaughtered. (Now it is 4797 herds under restriction to Sept, and 16,000 cattle dead. And with 3 months still to go, incidence is rising sharply again - but your muppets in Page St. say "that doesn't change anything". Really? Change 'anything' they may not want to do, but buying votes with misinformation costs. And Gordon, you have books to balance.
Anyway, to explain the Irish approach. When a farm in Ireland goes under restriction and fast track veterinary investigation has ruled out infection from bought in cattle, the area up to 2km from the farm is 'ringed' and the badgers culled. This continues annually for four years. But in the only two years that it has been operative it has had a phenomenal effect on the incidence of Tb in the cattle herds - and associated costs to the taxpayer. The reduction in cattle reactors has been equally stunning, from 44,903 in 1998, to 25,884 in 2005. This Gordon, has a knock on effect for the costs of 60 day testing, vets, bTb antigens, hauliers, abattoirs and other assorted beneficiaries. You get the picture? Oh and the reaction from Ireland's badger groups, as the cattle figures tumble is described as 'muted', while here in the UK the 'cattle-to-cattle' chant has been adopted as a national anthem. But Ireland has proved that the circle of infection needs to be closed and when it is, bTb in the cattle just disappears, and with it all the associated costs.
More on this from Tom Levitt in Farmers Guardian: http://www.farmersguardian.com/story.asp?sectioncode=24&storycode=5975
So Gordon, there is a way to control bTb. In the UK, we do not have a different strain of Tb bacteria, as implied by John Bourne - we have a strain of misinformation and interference which is costing the Treasury £millions, the badgers their health and the country possibly its trading status. And it is as expensive as it is totally and utterly avoidable.
We wish you a Happy Hogmanay.
from Matthew 1, 2, 3 and 4.
ps. Trevor Lawson has still not explained to us how bTb arrives in
herds with 'No Bought in Cattle'.
The national press has put you on the spot by trashing your figures for the national debt. You have they say, ignored the pensions' black hole and the debt of certain flagship projects when calculating your own figures. And that adds up to ......... negative equity. Or put simply, debt outstrips the country's assets and at £1.3 trillion is now 103.5 percent of the country's wealth. We're broke.
And what, we hear you ask has this to do with bovine Tb?
We have spoken on this site of the 'beneficial crisis' which this totally avoidable situation has created. The governmental largesse divided variously between researchers, 'scientists', focus groups and protectionists and vets, laboratories, hauliers, abattoirs and farmers. Could it be shaved? Could this phenomenal and exponential growth of 20 percent per year (Defra figures) be cut, and thus the expenditure?
Yes it could, and Ireland is leading the way.
A closer look at the Republic shows that they are using the results of previous 'trials' to eradicate bTb from the cattle herds, by a combination of skin testing and yup .......... badger culling. They say that by reducing the level of infection in the badgers, they can not only apply meaningful animal welfare to this popular wild mammal, but prevent bTb spill over into the country's cattle herds.
And dear Gordon, in five years they have halved the expenditure on bTb in the country. Think about that. Almost 50 percent less cash going out of the Treasury's piggy bank. Think of all the other things you could do with those £millions. No, perhaps not.
But we digress. You would like figures?
In 1999 the gross expenditure on bTb in the Republic of Ireland was 88 million euros. Levies and EU cash reduced this to 66.6 million euros, net. But in 2005, just 35.6 million euros was the net expenditure on bTb! In fact Gordon, so successful has the Tb eradication been that the government have been able to reduce - actually reduce by half - the animal disease levy paid by farmers! How about that, a government that is popular with its electorate! And the Irish government is popular with the its European masters too, with bTb incidence being described as 'under control and decreasing', while the UK is ..... well let's just say we're in a mess. The only country in the Community to have an 'increasing incidence'.
So, how have they done it? They have used their research (East Offaly 1989 - 1994) and the Four Counties Trial (1998 - 2002) and applied it to Tb hotspots as shown by the sentinel cattle. They realised that nailing the cattle to floor and ignoring wildlife, as done in the Downie Era (http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2005/04/anything-you-can-do.html) didn't work and they acted on both sources simultaneously, just as Professor Stephen Harris suggested to your predecessors in 1997 in fact, and which we covered in our posting: http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2004/07/krebs-there-was-another-way.html. But your lot preferred the prevarication and repetition of the Krebs 'badger dispersal' trial - and £1 million bung from the Political Animal Lobby. Value for money was it?
The decision to act on the results of the Four Counties trial was taken against a background of increasing Tb incidence and was probably influenced by the EU veterinary certificate issued in Sept. 2004, which we covered in several postings including: http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2004/09/from-russia-with-love.html .
A ban on exports would have seriously dented Ireland's GDP. The problem was thus taken out of the political arena, and placed firmly where it belonged - in the hands of veterinary scientists, well versed in epidemiological matters and out of the hands of focus groups, the public and most of all - politicians.
James O'Keefe from the Dept. of Agriculture and Food says quite bluntly, "If you don't like the plan, give me an alternative.... My primary concern is eliminating Tb in the cattle, but until we eliminate it in the badgers we can't do that".
So Gordon (may we call you that?) you are a canny Scotsman, but a canny Scot with a cash problem at the moment. How do you save some money? Your junior Minister, Baby Ben Bradshaw, has cut farmer compensation, but that has only made a small dent in the Tb budget as it accounted for less than a third of the Tb expenditure. And all the other little Tb hamsters are busily trundling around their respective wheels, linked firmly to the Defra cash machine which is tied to the Treasury and which we covered here: http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2004/08/tb-beneficiaries.html.
So what can you do? Well look west to Ireland where they have returned to almost a 'clean ring' policy which operated here in the UK in the early 1980's and when this country boasted less than 100 herds under restriction and 686 cattle slaughtered. (Now it is 4797 herds under restriction to Sept, and 16,000 cattle dead. And with 3 months still to go, incidence is rising sharply again - but your muppets in Page St. say "that doesn't change anything". Really? Change 'anything' they may not want to do, but buying votes with misinformation costs. And Gordon, you have books to balance.
Anyway, to explain the Irish approach. When a farm in Ireland goes under restriction and fast track veterinary investigation has ruled out infection from bought in cattle, the area up to 2km from the farm is 'ringed' and the badgers culled. This continues annually for four years. But in the only two years that it has been operative it has had a phenomenal effect on the incidence of Tb in the cattle herds - and associated costs to the taxpayer. The reduction in cattle reactors has been equally stunning, from 44,903 in 1998, to 25,884 in 2005. This Gordon, has a knock on effect for the costs of 60 day testing, vets, bTb antigens, hauliers, abattoirs and other assorted beneficiaries. You get the picture? Oh and the reaction from Ireland's badger groups, as the cattle figures tumble is described as 'muted', while here in the UK the 'cattle-to-cattle' chant has been adopted as a national anthem. But Ireland has proved that the circle of infection needs to be closed and when it is, bTb in the cattle just disappears, and with it all the associated costs.
More on this from Tom Levitt in Farmers Guardian: http://www.farmersguardian.com/story.asp?sectioncode=24&storycode=5975
So Gordon, there is a way to control bTb. In the UK, we do not have a different strain of Tb bacteria, as implied by John Bourne - we have a strain of misinformation and interference which is costing the Treasury £millions, the badgers their health and the country possibly its trading status. And it is as expensive as it is totally and utterly avoidable.
We wish you a Happy Hogmanay.
from Matthew 1, 2, 3 and 4.
ps. Trevor Lawson has still not explained to us how bTb arrives in
herds with 'No Bought in Cattle'.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Tb Spillover - Another Cat
The single thing which our Minister for Animal Health and Welfare, baby Ben Bradshaw did this year, and on which we congratulated him - never failing to give praise when it is due - was to make tuberculosis notifiable in all mammals.
We have already mentioned in our postings
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2004/10/tb-spill-over-cats-out-of-bag.html and http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2005/02/what-about-cats.html the susceptibility of cats (among many mammals) to bTB. And from a Midlands contributer, comes the sad tale of a ginger tom called errr - 'Ginger'.
Briefly, this puss was a family pet, a neutered male aged three and half, sharing his domicile with another cat, two young children and his owners whose house was on the edge of a development overloking fields. This summer, Ginger began to lose weight and looked ill, so he was taken to the local vet. Initial examinations showed 'a slight wheeziness' (where have we heard that before ?) and antibiotics were prescribed. The cat did not respond and began coughing. Much further investigative work was done on said cat, involving blood tests and X rays finally resulting in his demise a week later on 'welfare' grounds.
Postmortem indicated major lung damage, enlarged lymph nodes, pneumonia and emaciation. Cultures confirmed bTb.
In the immediate local area, no cattle have grazed the fields nearest to the house in which this cat lived for many years. But to the south of the area in 2005 a dead RTA badger tested positive for bTb, and this year, three farms are experiencing what Defra define as 'emerging new cases' in their cattle, involving multiple reactors. As we have said many times, and no doubt will continue to say, it is absolutely no use shooting the messenger - in this case the tested cattle - and leaving the other half (or even threequarters) of the circle, to wander about infecting anything that crosses its miserable path.
The ususal suspects clanked into action within this shocked family's household, with visits from the Communicable diseases section of the local council, TB tests for the children, monitoring of the remaining cat and advice on the symptoms they must look out for in themselves and neighbours and susceptible pets.
The source of this strain (17 spoligotype) of bTb in a domestic, non feral family pet is not linked to infection from either human beings or other local 'pets'. Cattle herds are to be tested within a 3km area. And the badgers, one of which expired locally and tested positive for the same strain of bTb? Sssshhhhhhh ... Defra may not speak its name.
We have already mentioned in our postings
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2004/10/tb-spill-over-cats-out-of-bag.html and http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2005/02/what-about-cats.html the susceptibility of cats (among many mammals) to bTB. And from a Midlands contributer, comes the sad tale of a ginger tom called errr - 'Ginger'.
Briefly, this puss was a family pet, a neutered male aged three and half, sharing his domicile with another cat, two young children and his owners whose house was on the edge of a development overloking fields. This summer, Ginger began to lose weight and looked ill, so he was taken to the local vet. Initial examinations showed 'a slight wheeziness' (where have we heard that before ?) and antibiotics were prescribed. The cat did not respond and began coughing. Much further investigative work was done on said cat, involving blood tests and X rays finally resulting in his demise a week later on 'welfare' grounds.
Postmortem indicated major lung damage, enlarged lymph nodes, pneumonia and emaciation. Cultures confirmed bTb.
In the immediate local area, no cattle have grazed the fields nearest to the house in which this cat lived for many years. But to the south of the area in 2005 a dead RTA badger tested positive for bTb, and this year, three farms are experiencing what Defra define as 'emerging new cases' in their cattle, involving multiple reactors. As we have said many times, and no doubt will continue to say, it is absolutely no use shooting the messenger - in this case the tested cattle - and leaving the other half (or even threequarters) of the circle, to wander about infecting anything that crosses its miserable path.
The ususal suspects clanked into action within this shocked family's household, with visits from the Communicable diseases section of the local council, TB tests for the children, monitoring of the remaining cat and advice on the symptoms they must look out for in themselves and neighbours and susceptible pets.
The source of this strain (17 spoligotype) of bTb in a domestic, non feral family pet is not linked to infection from either human beings or other local 'pets'. Cattle herds are to be tested within a 3km area. And the badgers, one of which expired locally and tested positive for the same strain of bTb? Sssshhhhhhh ... Defra may not speak its name.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Update: A voice of sanity.....
Earlier this year, the site received a comment which we felt worthy of hoisting into a posting. This posting has now received extra comments, and we feel it worth reminding readers of its content. It can be found:
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/01/voice-of-sanity-in-mad-world.html
Trevor Lawson's latest comment, (below on the post re. Gamma interferon) we will attend to as time permits. Or perhaps we should just say "look at the archives, and in particular the answers to PQ' s", which are seriously adrift of the points you are attempting to make - with no references or context.
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/01/voice-of-sanity-in-mad-world.html
Trevor Lawson's latest comment, (below on the post re. Gamma interferon) we will attend to as time permits. Or perhaps we should just say "look at the archives, and in particular the answers to PQ' s", which are seriously adrift of the points you are attempting to make - with no references or context.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Mr. Miliband - "the figures are dropping".
Defra have posted the bTb stats for the period Jan - September and as we predicted, the 'trend' is now firmly .... up.
For the next month only they can be viewed at; http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/stats/latest.htm
Our new, upwardly mobile and agressively ambitious minister, David Miliband (already spoken of in hushed tones as a possible replacement for Towny Bliar) has been firmly stating that while " the bTb statistics were dropping", he would not consider any action on wildlife reservoirs. And while his future promotional prospects are described in such hallowed terms, he is unlikely to do so at all, we might add. The fact that his CVO's report had such half-hidden gems describing the performance of Lelystatd tuberculin antigen, as "less effective because of failing to pick up NVLs (Non Visible Lesion reactors) " which would " result in under dectection of cases, resulting in a transient decline in cases reported, despite there being no true decline in cases" he has of course, ignored - even if we have not. We explored this in August:
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/08/going-dutch-2mm-difference.html
Lelystatd tuberculin antigen has now been use for over twelve months and these September stats will see the first lot of testing with this slightly different product, drop off the radar so to speak. The very big drop which caught even (especially?) Defra by surprise occurred in the months to March / April, but from then on there has been an inexorable rise in new breakdowns. They are up 13 percent to August and 16 percent to September, which now records a drop on 2005 of 11.3 percent, compared with 27.5 to March.
But even these headline 'Confirmed New Incidence' figures tend to confuse, as the number of herds under bTb restriction "because of a Tb incident" (i.e a bTb breakdown as opposed to delayed test or delayed test results) is up on 2005, showing 4,797 in 2006 to September, compared with 4,785 in 2005. This is 5.31 percent of herds registered on Vetnet, compared with 5.21 percent in 2005.
And as two of your contributers have recorded 'new breakdowns' (not yet confirmed) during November, and the 'Lelystad effect' continues to fall off the testing radar, we predict the autumn figures going higher. More on Defra's September figures from Alistair Driver in Farmers Guardian:
http://www.farmersguardian.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=5842
The regional figures are a disgrace. The 'West' region now stretches from Cornwall to Shropshire and the county figures are as follows:
Glos. had 20 per cent of herds under restriction because of a bTb 'incident, in the period to September, Hereford / Worcs. 18 percent, Devon 17.8 per cent and Cornwall 15 percent. The counties of Avon and Wiltshire had 10 percent of their herds under restriction, and Somerset, Dorset and Shropshire 6 - 7 percent.
Defra's 'North' region recorded all three Staffordshire offices with up to 8 percent of herds affected and South and West Wales areas had between 10 - 13 percent of their cattle herds under restriction Jan - September. And even our Midlands Matthew is twitchy, with parts of the East showing a persistant and 'amplifying' (Defra speak for increasing) problem and 2 percent of its herds under restriction; 20 years there was a big fat zero. None at all, in fact only 86 herds across the whole of GB were recorded as being under restriction, and less that 700 cattle slaughtered in 7 or 8 'hotspots'.
So as the figures are definitely on the up, and the statistical shield behind which our new minister has slunk since March is getting thinner by the month, what will he do about tackling the disease 'in the round'? Or are we still on track for Defra's predicted 20 percent / per annum rise in incidence, if the maintenance reservoir in wildlife is not tackled?
For the next month only they can be viewed at; http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/stats/latest.htm
Our new, upwardly mobile and agressively ambitious minister, David Miliband (already spoken of in hushed tones as a possible replacement for Towny Bliar) has been firmly stating that while " the bTb statistics were dropping", he would not consider any action on wildlife reservoirs. And while his future promotional prospects are described in such hallowed terms, he is unlikely to do so at all, we might add. The fact that his CVO's report had such half-hidden gems describing the performance of Lelystatd tuberculin antigen, as "less effective because of failing to pick up NVLs (Non Visible Lesion reactors) " which would " result in under dectection of cases, resulting in a transient decline in cases reported, despite there being no true decline in cases" he has of course, ignored - even if we have not. We explored this in August:
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/08/going-dutch-2mm-difference.html
Lelystatd tuberculin antigen has now been use for over twelve months and these September stats will see the first lot of testing with this slightly different product, drop off the radar so to speak. The very big drop which caught even (especially?) Defra by surprise occurred in the months to March / April, but from then on there has been an inexorable rise in new breakdowns. They are up 13 percent to August and 16 percent to September, which now records a drop on 2005 of 11.3 percent, compared with 27.5 to March.
But even these headline 'Confirmed New Incidence' figures tend to confuse, as the number of herds under bTb restriction "because of a Tb incident" (i.e a bTb breakdown as opposed to delayed test or delayed test results) is up on 2005, showing 4,797 in 2006 to September, compared with 4,785 in 2005. This is 5.31 percent of herds registered on Vetnet, compared with 5.21 percent in 2005.
And as two of your contributers have recorded 'new breakdowns' (not yet confirmed) during November, and the 'Lelystad effect' continues to fall off the testing radar, we predict the autumn figures going higher. More on Defra's September figures from Alistair Driver in Farmers Guardian:
http://www.farmersguardian.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=5842
The regional figures are a disgrace. The 'West' region now stretches from Cornwall to Shropshire and the county figures are as follows:
Glos. had 20 per cent of herds under restriction because of a bTb 'incident, in the period to September, Hereford / Worcs. 18 percent, Devon 17.8 per cent and Cornwall 15 percent. The counties of Avon and Wiltshire had 10 percent of their herds under restriction, and Somerset, Dorset and Shropshire 6 - 7 percent.
Defra's 'North' region recorded all three Staffordshire offices with up to 8 percent of herds affected and South and West Wales areas had between 10 - 13 percent of their cattle herds under restriction Jan - September. And even our Midlands Matthew is twitchy, with parts of the East showing a persistant and 'amplifying' (Defra speak for increasing) problem and 2 percent of its herds under restriction; 20 years there was a big fat zero. None at all, in fact only 86 herds across the whole of GB were recorded as being under restriction, and less that 700 cattle slaughtered in 7 or 8 'hotspots'.
So as the figures are definitely on the up, and the statistical shield behind which our new minister has slunk since March is getting thinner by the month, what will he do about tackling the disease 'in the round'? Or are we still on track for Defra's predicted 20 percent / per annum rise in incidence, if the maintenance reservoir in wildlife is not tackled?
Thursday, November 09, 2006
A new leaflet - farmers would prefer not to have...
... has been issued by Defra - don't they just love those fat green booklets? - printed on recycled paper of course. This one brings all the small pamphlets together in one 44 page A 4 issue entitled "Dealing with Tb in your Herd" - or something like that. Available in pdf format:
www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/pdf/tbinyh/pdf
(Sorry folks, just checked this direct link, and it won't flag up this file. Go to Defra home page, type ' gamma-interferon' into the search box, and the file is near the bottom of first page of publication options. Best we can do until they get their 'link fairy' operative.)
Meanwhile as a top up to our posting ;
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/08/new-gamma-interferon-trial-announced.html
on the proposed introduction of gamma interferon, the Veterinary Times reports unamimous welcome from industry spokesman on its introduction - but with reservations as to specifics.
Its use will mainly be limited to new outbreaks in 3 or 4 year testing parishes, on skin test- negative animals, and with that we would agree. As would Trevor Lawson of the Badger Trust, and under those circumstances, many veterinary organisations and farming groups.
The test as envisaged for herds in annual and 2 year parishes is of more concern. In those areas Defra say they plan to use it :
*On inconclusive reactors that fail to resove their first tuberculin re test.
* On tuberculin-test negative animals in severe TB incidents to inform decisions on whole or partial herd slaughter.
*On tuberculin test-negative animals in herds with persistant, confirmed infection that fail to resolve through repeated short-interval tuberculin tests and have taken the basic herd biosecurity precautions.
Those criteria could apply to most of our contributers. IR's are historically given two chances to pass the skin re-test, which will now be reduced to a single strike. And Matt 5 lost over 40 animals through a 4 year breakdown, of which only three proved to have culturable confirmed disease. A g-IFN test at the height of this outbreak would no doubt have enabled Defra's best to "de-populate" Matt's herd, but it would not have addressed the source.
BCVA president Andrew Biggs is quoted in the Vet Times article :
"We have to remember that the RBCT showed, if nothing else that badgers give Tb to cattle. If we don't address that, I don't see any future for closed herds that go down with TB, when cattle movements onto the farm or even nose-to-nose contact [with neighbouring herds] are not significant factors".
Meurig Raymond, deputy president of the NFU supported the announcement of the introduction of another diagnostic tool aid "as far it goes". But he said that it still did not get to the root of the problem:
"The increased use of the gamma-interferon blood test will make it easier to stamp out isolated outbreaks of disease away from the main hotspot areas, - but additional testing will be of little value to the thousands of farmers whose herds are constantly exposed to infection from wildlife as a result of the Government's refusal, so far, to deal with the disease in badgers ... ..... Until we get to grips with that, Tb will remain a scourge to cattle, badgers and farmers alike".
We confidently expect Matt 5 to receive his own copy of Defra's new booklet any time soon. Yup, after eighteen months of freedom, the routine test revealed one reactor and 4 Inconclusives.
So our Matt is under restriction again. And this is where pre movement testing is such a comfort blanket. Not. Matt has tested 15 animals this year - and sold them. He has also purchased ( for the first time in 13 years) pre movement tested pedigree bloodstock to establish a new herd of beef cattle. In Spetember the herd consigning the new cows and their calves, went under restriction, involving Matt in cattle tracing and retests, and now all 15 animals sold from Matt's farm this year may have to be traced and tested. Defra don't have too much faith in the preMT do they?
And neither of course, do we. All Matt's new ladies passed their post movement re-test by the way, and that is a far better indication of their disease status.
Matt's Reactor is a cheeky angus yearling which tested clear last year after her purchase as a 3 week old calf. The inconclusives are home bred incalf heifers, both beef and dairy. The source is - well we'll leave that for you to fill in, but I think Defra would describe it as "non-bovine".
More on the gamma interferon blood test on the Defra website:
www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/control/gamma.htm
www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/pdf/tbinyh/pdf
(Sorry folks, just checked this direct link, and it won't flag up this file. Go to Defra home page, type ' gamma-interferon' into the search box, and the file is near the bottom of first page of publication options. Best we can do until they get their 'link fairy' operative.)
Meanwhile as a top up to our posting ;
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/08/new-gamma-interferon-trial-announced.html
on the proposed introduction of gamma interferon, the Veterinary Times reports unamimous welcome from industry spokesman on its introduction - but with reservations as to specifics.
Its use will mainly be limited to new outbreaks in 3 or 4 year testing parishes, on skin test- negative animals, and with that we would agree. As would Trevor Lawson of the Badger Trust, and under those circumstances, many veterinary organisations and farming groups.
The test as envisaged for herds in annual and 2 year parishes is of more concern. In those areas Defra say they plan to use it :
*On inconclusive reactors that fail to resove their first tuberculin re test.
* On tuberculin-test negative animals in severe TB incidents to inform decisions on whole or partial herd slaughter.
*On tuberculin test-negative animals in herds with persistant, confirmed infection that fail to resolve through repeated short-interval tuberculin tests and have taken the basic herd biosecurity precautions.
Those criteria could apply to most of our contributers. IR's are historically given two chances to pass the skin re-test, which will now be reduced to a single strike. And Matt 5 lost over 40 animals through a 4 year breakdown, of which only three proved to have culturable confirmed disease. A g-IFN test at the height of this outbreak would no doubt have enabled Defra's best to "de-populate" Matt's herd, but it would not have addressed the source.
BCVA president Andrew Biggs is quoted in the Vet Times article :
"We have to remember that the RBCT showed, if nothing else that badgers give Tb to cattle. If we don't address that, I don't see any future for closed herds that go down with TB, when cattle movements onto the farm or even nose-to-nose contact [with neighbouring herds] are not significant factors".
Meurig Raymond, deputy president of the NFU supported the announcement of the introduction of another diagnostic tool aid "as far it goes". But he said that it still did not get to the root of the problem:
"The increased use of the gamma-interferon blood test will make it easier to stamp out isolated outbreaks of disease away from the main hotspot areas, - but additional testing will be of little value to the thousands of farmers whose herds are constantly exposed to infection from wildlife as a result of the Government's refusal, so far, to deal with the disease in badgers ... ..... Until we get to grips with that, Tb will remain a scourge to cattle, badgers and farmers alike".
We confidently expect Matt 5 to receive his own copy of Defra's new booklet any time soon. Yup, after eighteen months of freedom, the routine test revealed one reactor and 4 Inconclusives.
So our Matt is under restriction again. And this is where pre movement testing is such a comfort blanket. Not. Matt has tested 15 animals this year - and sold them. He has also purchased ( for the first time in 13 years) pre movement tested pedigree bloodstock to establish a new herd of beef cattle. In Spetember the herd consigning the new cows and their calves, went under restriction, involving Matt in cattle tracing and retests, and now all 15 animals sold from Matt's farm this year may have to be traced and tested. Defra don't have too much faith in the preMT do they?
And neither of course, do we. All Matt's new ladies passed their post movement re-test by the way, and that is a far better indication of their disease status.
Matt's Reactor is a cheeky angus yearling which tested clear last year after her purchase as a 3 week old calf. The inconclusives are home bred incalf heifers, both beef and dairy. The source is - well we'll leave that for you to fill in, but I think Defra would describe it as "non-bovine".
More on the gamma interferon blood test on the Defra website:
www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/control/gamma.htm
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Spoligotypes
The map of GB bTB outbreaks, as determined by the spoligotyping ferrets at VLA, is not - as one would expect if cattle to cattle transmission and cattle movements were the primary cause of the disease, - like a kaleidoscope of scattered strains. We have updated the post below:
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/10/premtesting-6-months-on.html to show the results of a thirty year survey which concludes:
"In general the spoligotype and VNTR patterns obtained from badger isolates between 1972 - 1976 were the same as those observed in the same geographical areas today. This suggests that the geographical clustering of strains has not changed since the first isolation of M.bovis from badgers over thirty years ago."
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/10/premtesting-6-months-on.html to show the results of a thirty year survey which concludes:
"In general the spoligotype and VNTR patterns obtained from badger isolates between 1972 - 1976 were the same as those observed in the same geographical areas today. This suggests that the geographical clustering of strains has not changed since the first isolation of M.bovis from badgers over thirty years ago."
The results of the geographic spoligotyping excercise on reactor cattle is below:
Type 9 isolated in 44% Cornwall/Devon 20% Dyfed
Type 17 " 66% Here /Worcs / Glos.
Type 21 " 74% Somerset / Avon
Type 35 " 77% Here / Worcs /Shrops.
Type 10 " 79% Glos.
Type 25 " 79% Staffs / Derbys.
Type 22 " 84% Gwent / Here / Worcs.
Type 15 " 89% Cornwall
Type 11 " 93% Devon / Somerset
Type 12 " 94% Cornwall
Type 20 " 95% Cornwall
So, up to 95% of m.bovis isolates identified from reactor cattle, are identical to the strains identified and persisting for over thirty years in ....... badgers indigenous to the same geographical area? Yup, they are.
We accept that the 5 - 25 per cent of isolates identified outside their indigenous home deserve attention, but what about the cause of up to 95 percent - which is getting absolutely none?
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Pre movement testing Survey
The National Farmers Union are trying to assess the costs to farmers of Pre Movement testing cattle over 15 months old, prior to sale out of annual / 2 year testing areas. This is to try and get some idea of cost v. benefit, ahead of the proposed roll down of the animal age cut off to 42 days next March. Farmers who have pre movement tested cattle since March 2006, are asked to contact the NFU with details of the test results and the costs incurred, both directly ( to veterinary surgeons) and indirectly to their businesses of extra labour etc.,
Press release with contact details is below;
"The NFU is collecting information to support its lobbying activity on TB. We are trying to establish the costs associated with, and the effectiveness of, pre-movement testing as a means of controlling TB.
We are asking all members to input information relating to their own experiences. This information will be crucial in strengthening our argument for improving the viability and effectiveness of control measures.
The survey can be filled out online by NFU members (http://www.nfuonline.com/x5162.xml ).
Non members can fill out a paper copy or an excel version. (Contact details below)
We ask them for their holding number so that we can be sure that they are genuine farmers, the validity factor is important! If any farmers have any queries about the questionnaire or would like an Excel version or paper copy sent out, please tell them to contact Nancy Fuller on 024 7685 8540 or nancy.fuller@nfu.org.uk.
Thank you.’
Press release with contact details is below;
"The NFU is collecting information to support its lobbying activity on TB. We are trying to establish the costs associated with, and the effectiveness of, pre-movement testing as a means of controlling TB.
We are asking all members to input information relating to their own experiences. This information will be crucial in strengthening our argument for improving the viability and effectiveness of control measures.
The survey can be filled out online by NFU members (http://www.nfuonline.com/x5162.xml ).
Non members can fill out a paper copy or an excel version. (Contact details below)
We ask them for their holding number so that we can be sure that they are genuine farmers, the validity factor is important! If any farmers have any queries about the questionnaire or would like an Excel version or paper copy sent out, please tell them to contact Nancy Fuller on 024 7685 8540 or nancy.fuller@nfu.org.uk.
Thank you.’
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Blame Cattle (and the Man in the Moon?) ....
....but not badgers.
From the rural heartlands of deepest London, Ms. Jenny Barsby, writing on behalf of the League Against Cruel Sports has this week bombarded the farming press and many rural newspapers, if not national ones, with a letter which she hopes will draw her readers attention to 'new research' on the spread of bTb. This opines Ms. Barsby, snugly tucked up in SE1, "should finally bring to an end the continuing myth surrounding badgers and the spread of bovine Tb"
We would challenge the ' myth' bit of that, but the lady will certainly be responsible for serious indigestion among her farmer readers, especially those under bTb restriction, who have the dubious honour of testing every 60 days, loading up good cattle for premature slaughter, and have had no bought in cattle on which to blame their plight - but we digress.
The letter is superficially persuasive, with Ms. Barsby purring gently : "I'd like to draw readers attention to new research which should finally end to the continuing myth surrounding badgers and the spread of Bovine Tb".
It isn't new, it's ISG Krebs data, recycled from Rosie Woodroffe's perch in sunny California which we covered http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/10/ring-ring-rosies.html; it's own operatives described it as "rubbish"and thus any data flow flow from it should carry a health warning, but let that pass. The lady continues"The NFU has long been propelling the view that badgers spread Tb to cattle".
Only the NFU? What about 450 members of the RCVS including pathologists, epidemiologists and practising veterinary surgeons? Sheesh, this woman really should get out more.
"New findings (No - recycled maybe but not new) by top researchers (Errr yes. 'Top' of what she doesn't explain, but we can visualise, I'm sure) commissioned by Government (Yup. No need to do that old badger dispersal trial at all, but never underestimate a bureaucrat's ability to waste your money) "show that the route of infection lies much more with cattle than badgers."
Well that's fine and dandy then. And having read that superficial bit of fluff, all those of us who have done the biosecurity bit, and got the closed herd T shirt can now unpeel ourselves from our respective ceilings. It was cattle after all.
The lady blathers on about the need, as expressed by the ISG and recycled by little Rosie's paper, that what is needed is better cattle controls.
And when you've done that Ms. Barsby? Nailed home bred cattle to the floor, and still had years of continuous bTb herd restriction and seen infectious, overpopulated badgers, dying around the farms? What's the excuse this time? The man in the *!!!** moon?
If the League Against Cruel Sports wants to retain any credibility whatsoever- and we still remember its conspicuous absence during the FMD carnage - then the 'sport' of killing up to 30,000 cattle per year, and leaving bTb to infect more and more badgers - which end up like this ('A slight wheeziness') should be uppermost on its agenda.
That said, for all its victims, bTb is a very cruel 'sport' indeed.
From the rural heartlands of deepest London, Ms. Jenny Barsby, writing on behalf of the League Against Cruel Sports has this week bombarded the farming press and many rural newspapers, if not national ones, with a letter which she hopes will draw her readers attention to 'new research' on the spread of bTb. This opines Ms. Barsby, snugly tucked up in SE1, "should finally bring to an end the continuing myth surrounding badgers and the spread of bovine Tb"
We would challenge the ' myth' bit of that, but the lady will certainly be responsible for serious indigestion among her farmer readers, especially those under bTb restriction, who have the dubious honour of testing every 60 days, loading up good cattle for premature slaughter, and have had no bought in cattle on which to blame their plight - but we digress.
The letter is superficially persuasive, with Ms. Barsby purring gently : "I'd like to draw readers attention to new research which should finally end to the continuing myth surrounding badgers and the spread of Bovine Tb".
It isn't new, it's ISG Krebs data, recycled from Rosie Woodroffe's perch in sunny California which we covered http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/10/ring-ring-rosies.html; it's own operatives described it as "rubbish"and thus any data flow flow from it should carry a health warning, but let that pass. The lady continues"The NFU has long been propelling the view that badgers spread Tb to cattle".
Only the NFU? What about 450 members of the RCVS including pathologists, epidemiologists and practising veterinary surgeons? Sheesh, this woman really should get out more.
"New findings (No - recycled maybe but not new) by top researchers (Errr yes. 'Top' of what she doesn't explain, but we can visualise, I'm sure) commissioned by Government (Yup. No need to do that old badger dispersal trial at all, but never underestimate a bureaucrat's ability to waste your money) "show that the route of infection lies much more with cattle than badgers."
Well that's fine and dandy then. And having read that superficial bit of fluff, all those of us who have done the biosecurity bit, and got the closed herd T shirt can now unpeel ourselves from our respective ceilings. It was cattle after all.
The lady blathers on about the need, as expressed by the ISG and recycled by little Rosie's paper, that what is needed is better cattle controls.
And when you've done that Ms. Barsby? Nailed home bred cattle to the floor, and still had years of continuous bTb herd restriction and seen infectious, overpopulated badgers, dying around the farms? What's the excuse this time? The man in the *!!!** moon?
If the League Against Cruel Sports wants to retain any credibility whatsoever- and we still remember its conspicuous absence during the FMD carnage - then the 'sport' of killing up to 30,000 cattle per year, and leaving bTb to infect more and more badgers - which end up like this ('A slight wheeziness') should be uppermost on its agenda.
That said, for all its victims, bTb is a very cruel 'sport' indeed.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
PreM.testing - 6 months on.
Defra have just released the figures from the pre-movement testing of cattle to be moved within or out of, annual or two year testing regimes; this can be viewed:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/premovement/monitoring-data.htm
As we have pointed out in previous postings, pre-movement testing is only of value as part of a package, and while the theory of 'preventing spread of bTb' from cattle movements is a heroic gesture, a line on a map - in this case an annual or 2 year testing parish boundary - is not respected by wildlife who have tendency not to read the 'Keep Out' notices.
Our Ben, the minister for Animal Health, carefully cherry picked two of the items in the Industry package earlier this year, while impaling himself firmly on the fence over the third.
So what are the results of the costly and time consuming effort, farmers have put in? Well not surprisingly, they bear little resemblence to the predicted figures, contained in the policy documents drawn up by the pre movement testing group. Bill Madders, its chairman admitted that the exercise had picked up less infection than it was originally anticipated by the group. Which just goes to show, you can do anything with figures. Mr. Madders accepted that data flow from this will no doubt show less than the 700 'new cases' (indicating confirmed infection) predicted in Defra's Regulatory Impact Assessment. In fact at 176 cases, a number of which are almost certainly to show NVL (no visible Lesions) in just 6 months, it has a way to go. But as it is farmers who are paying, there is no pressure on Defra to look at the system at all. Neither does it have a 'sunset clause'. That is to say, as with the post FMD 6 day shut down, pre movement testing has no 'end date'. It stays despite its inability to predict infection, industry costs v. benefit or the level of bTb in GB's cattle herds. More in Farmers Guardian;
http://www.farmersguardian.com/story.asp?storycode=5109
Meanwhile, information about the spread of bTb, as shown by the spoligotypes in slaughtered reactor cattle, compared with indigenous badgers has been undertaken, but rarely used.
We have pointed out before that if cattle to cattle transmission was a serious contender for bTb spread, then the cattle spoligotype map of GB would look like a child's kaleidoscope. Different colours all over the country. But this is not the case, and work done is available at;
http://www.mbovis.org/spoligodatabase/GBmetadata/11.html
The report (a SID 5 / Project code SE3020) which delved into the spoligotype map of GB, describes its results thus:
"In general the spoligotype and VNTR patterns obtained from badger isolates 1972 -1976 were the same as those observed in the same geographical areas toady. This suggests that the geographical clustering of strains has not changed since the first isolation of M.bovis from badgers over thirty years ago."
The authors describe this data "as in sharp contrast to the rapid movement of strains " observed in positive post movement tests on re-stocked herds after FMD. Exactly. These were found by the skin test and slaughtered out; end of story.
The eleven main spoligotypes which have remained "in their geographical areas" we summarise below, adding geographical areas i.e 'shared border' counties together.
Type 9 isolated in 44% Cornwall/Devon 20% Dyfed
Type 17 " 66% Here /Worcs / Glos.
Type 21 " 74% Somerset / Avon
Type 35 " 77% Here / Worcs /Shrops.
Type 10 " 79% Glos.
Type 25 " 79% Staffs / Derbys.
Type 22 " 84% Gwent / Here / Worcs
Type 15 " 89% Cornwall
Type 11 " 93% Devon / Somerset
Type 12 " 94% Cornwall
Type 20 " 95% Cornwall
Thus up to 95 percent of slaughtered reactor cattle were subsequently found to have contracted a strain of bTb of the spoligotype indigenous to its badgery home.
Well, well, well.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/premovement/monitoring-data.htm
As we have pointed out in previous postings, pre-movement testing is only of value as part of a package, and while the theory of 'preventing spread of bTb' from cattle movements is a heroic gesture, a line on a map - in this case an annual or 2 year testing parish boundary - is not respected by wildlife who have tendency not to read the 'Keep Out' notices.
Our Ben, the minister for Animal Health, carefully cherry picked two of the items in the Industry package earlier this year, while impaling himself firmly on the fence over the third.
So what are the results of the costly and time consuming effort, farmers have put in? Well not surprisingly, they bear little resemblence to the predicted figures, contained in the policy documents drawn up by the pre movement testing group. Bill Madders, its chairman admitted that the exercise had picked up less infection than it was originally anticipated by the group. Which just goes to show, you can do anything with figures. Mr. Madders accepted that data flow from this will no doubt show less than the 700 'new cases' (indicating confirmed infection) predicted in Defra's Regulatory Impact Assessment. In fact at 176 cases, a number of which are almost certainly to show NVL (no visible Lesions) in just 6 months, it has a way to go. But as it is farmers who are paying, there is no pressure on Defra to look at the system at all. Neither does it have a 'sunset clause'. That is to say, as with the post FMD 6 day shut down, pre movement testing has no 'end date'. It stays despite its inability to predict infection, industry costs v. benefit or the level of bTb in GB's cattle herds. More in Farmers Guardian;
http://www.farmersguardian.com/story.asp?storycode=5109
Meanwhile, information about the spread of bTb, as shown by the spoligotypes in slaughtered reactor cattle, compared with indigenous badgers has been undertaken, but rarely used.
We have pointed out before that if cattle to cattle transmission was a serious contender for bTb spread, then the cattle spoligotype map of GB would look like a child's kaleidoscope. Different colours all over the country. But this is not the case, and work done is available at;
http://www.mbovis.org/spoligodatabase/GBmetadata/11.html
The report (a SID 5 / Project code SE3020) which delved into the spoligotype map of GB, describes its results thus:
"In general the spoligotype and VNTR patterns obtained from badger isolates 1972 -1976 were the same as those observed in the same geographical areas toady. This suggests that the geographical clustering of strains has not changed since the first isolation of M.bovis from badgers over thirty years ago."
The authors describe this data "as in sharp contrast to the rapid movement of strains " observed in positive post movement tests on re-stocked herds after FMD. Exactly. These were found by the skin test and slaughtered out; end of story.
The eleven main spoligotypes which have remained "in their geographical areas" we summarise below, adding geographical areas i.e 'shared border' counties together.
Type 9 isolated in 44% Cornwall/Devon 20% Dyfed
Type 17 " 66% Here /Worcs / Glos.
Type 21 " 74% Somerset / Avon
Type 35 " 77% Here / Worcs /Shrops.
Type 10 " 79% Glos.
Type 25 " 79% Staffs / Derbys.
Type 22 " 84% Gwent / Here / Worcs
Type 15 " 89% Cornwall
Type 11 " 93% Devon / Somerset
Type 12 " 94% Cornwall
Type 20 " 95% Cornwall
Thus up to 95 percent of slaughtered reactor cattle were subsequently found to have contracted a strain of bTb of the spoligotype indigenous to its badgery home.
Well, well, well.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Peturbation.
Much has been made of the so called 'edge' effect of the Krebs badger dispersal exercise and the resulting 'peturbation' of badgers. Personally speaking, I'm not too bothered about John Bourne's 'edges' - or any other part of his anatomy for that matter - it was what did not happen in the middle of the Krebs' areas which should be of concern. Peturbation, or put simply and not so anthropomorphically, the mixing up of badger social groups thus encouraging territorial scrapping, bite wounding and spread of bTb, is said by some to be the trigger for bTb in cattle.
The answer from the Badger Groups, is to leave well alone. Leave the badgers to their own devices, even letting Tb act as a population depressor and all will be well. This of course is absolute rubbish, as experienced by three of our contributers, all of whom did exactly that, and whose cattle paid the ultimate price. 'All was not well' at all. But Bryan Hill's letter (post below) and our observations of the effect of FMD on the badger (and other wildlife) populations, got us thinking that this 'golden goose' term, 'peturbation', about which many speak, but few understand is a natural phenomenon anyway.
When Dr. Tim Roper, formerly of Sussex University, put night vision cameras into farm buildings in Glos., he found that the badgers were using them as a local Macdonalds. Not one but three 'social groups' were regularly feeding there and sharing feed with cattle. Likewise the experience of Staffordshire farmers, unable to grow or harvest crops on a field adjacent to a wildlife park, sat up one night and watched to see why their grass was flat, and nothing was growing. They counted over eighty badgers trundling along to be fed shed loads of peanuts, for the 'benefit' of a paying public. Eighty ? That's a damn big 'social group'. Prof. Harris from Bristol reckoned about eight was stable, then updated this figure to ten a few years later. Pity nobody told the badgers.
So what of 'peturbation', and what is its effect on bTb?
Logically, even without the 2005 / 2006 drought stress as described by Bryan Hill (below), and depopulation of cattle from thousands of acres in the time of peak feeding for badgers which happened during FMD (see our posts on Rosie Woodroffe's 'Letter from America', below), movement of the population is inevitable. Old badgers will fight with younger males, lose the battle and be turfed out, and younger animals have to find their own 'group' structure to survive. Nothing is set in stone. That combined with very large territories in parts of the UK, and simply not enough pee for the alpha male to scent mark 6 sq. miles every week or so, means overlapping of territories will occur. Likewise feeding opportunities seem to indicate that groups will intermingle if a large and regular food source is available.
So is food source the key? With bTb 'endemic' in UK badgers (thank you Mr. Bradshaw) for sure anything that stirs up and stresses the population forcing movement is bound to have a dramatic effect on the diease, primarily in the badgers, but then spilling out into sentinel cattle and other mammals.
But this is where Trevor Lawson, Bourne, Woodroffe et al differ from the farmers who contribute to this site. Leaving an endemically infected population to fester,in our experience, is not an option. Our cattle are victims of that - even, or especially, within Krebs' areas. But neither is causing the territorial scrapping stress (as we prefer to call 'peturbation') as did the Krebs' badger dispersal trial, cage trapping in general and activist 'opportunities' for release or Tb-takeaways in particular.
Which is why, from the early days of this site we have been pushing for whole sett gassing, to reduce population stress, this preferably with the help of Warick University's PCR to identify badly infected setts, followed by continued removal of 'dispersers' or super excreters, living alone in single hole setts or farm buildings.
That Mr. Hill has described his own 'population mangagement' of a heavily infected area, with such stunning success is a victory for common sense, and the result is a healthy badger population living alongside clean testing cattle. But more importantly, the opportunities for territorial scrapping are gone. There is no perturbation if the whole group is dispatched underground. No 'peturbed' animals searching for lost relatives, and instead encountering vicious opposition.
There is no territorial scrapping, bite wounding and stress induced Tb because the main groups which are left, just quietly spread out.
The problem of Tb infected setts reinfecting incomers is solved too - at least for a time, as decomposing carcasses in a sett appear to prevent immediate recolonisation. But what do we know? Probably not a lot. But certainly more than Bourne and Co. - and we're still learning - mainly because we are prepared to listen.
The answer from the Badger Groups, is to leave well alone. Leave the badgers to their own devices, even letting Tb act as a population depressor and all will be well. This of course is absolute rubbish, as experienced by three of our contributers, all of whom did exactly that, and whose cattle paid the ultimate price. 'All was not well' at all. But Bryan Hill's letter (post below) and our observations of the effect of FMD on the badger (and other wildlife) populations, got us thinking that this 'golden goose' term, 'peturbation', about which many speak, but few understand is a natural phenomenon anyway.
When Dr. Tim Roper, formerly of Sussex University, put night vision cameras into farm buildings in Glos., he found that the badgers were using them as a local Macdonalds. Not one but three 'social groups' were regularly feeding there and sharing feed with cattle. Likewise the experience of Staffordshire farmers, unable to grow or harvest crops on a field adjacent to a wildlife park, sat up one night and watched to see why their grass was flat, and nothing was growing. They counted over eighty badgers trundling along to be fed shed loads of peanuts, for the 'benefit' of a paying public. Eighty ? That's a damn big 'social group'. Prof. Harris from Bristol reckoned about eight was stable, then updated this figure to ten a few years later. Pity nobody told the badgers.
So what of 'peturbation', and what is its effect on bTb?
Logically, even without the 2005 / 2006 drought stress as described by Bryan Hill (below), and depopulation of cattle from thousands of acres in the time of peak feeding for badgers which happened during FMD (see our posts on Rosie Woodroffe's 'Letter from America', below), movement of the population is inevitable. Old badgers will fight with younger males, lose the battle and be turfed out, and younger animals have to find their own 'group' structure to survive. Nothing is set in stone. That combined with very large territories in parts of the UK, and simply not enough pee for the alpha male to scent mark 6 sq. miles every week or so, means overlapping of territories will occur. Likewise feeding opportunities seem to indicate that groups will intermingle if a large and regular food source is available.
So is food source the key? With bTb 'endemic' in UK badgers (thank you Mr. Bradshaw) for sure anything that stirs up and stresses the population forcing movement is bound to have a dramatic effect on the diease, primarily in the badgers, but then spilling out into sentinel cattle and other mammals.
But this is where Trevor Lawson, Bourne, Woodroffe et al differ from the farmers who contribute to this site. Leaving an endemically infected population to fester,in our experience, is not an option. Our cattle are victims of that - even, or especially, within Krebs' areas. But neither is causing the territorial scrapping stress (as we prefer to call 'peturbation') as did the Krebs' badger dispersal trial, cage trapping in general and activist 'opportunities' for release or Tb-takeaways in particular.
Which is why, from the early days of this site we have been pushing for whole sett gassing, to reduce population stress, this preferably with the help of Warick University's PCR to identify badly infected setts, followed by continued removal of 'dispersers' or super excreters, living alone in single hole setts or farm buildings.
That Mr. Hill has described his own 'population mangagement' of a heavily infected area, with such stunning success is a victory for common sense, and the result is a healthy badger population living alongside clean testing cattle. But more importantly, the opportunities for territorial scrapping are gone. There is no perturbation if the whole group is dispatched underground. No 'peturbed' animals searching for lost relatives, and instead encountering vicious opposition.
There is no territorial scrapping, bite wounding and stress induced Tb because the main groups which are left, just quietly spread out.
The problem of Tb infected setts reinfecting incomers is solved too - at least for a time, as decomposing carcasses in a sett appear to prevent immediate recolonisation. But what do we know? Probably not a lot. But certainly more than Bourne and Co. - and we're still learning - mainly because we are prepared to listen.
"Nature is having its own unofficial cull"
Last year we told how farmer Bryan Hill of mid Devon, had 'managed' his badger population to exclude the sick and suffering individuals which the groups had turfed out, and thus had gradually kept a very large area bTb free - but with healthy, stable groups of badgers living alongside the cattle.
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2005/03/update-silver-bullet.html
Mr. Hill, has written of this year's extraordinary weather conditions and their relation to bTb in cattle, in the Western Morning News : http://tinyurl.com/y963jq
where he points out that the very hot dry summers of 2005 and 2006, have had a huge effect on badger behaviour:
"....this summer, 95 per cent of the badgers' natural food sources vanished in the drought. Water supply, streams, ditches and puddles all dried up, causing the biggest natural 'peturbation' of infected badgers since foot and mouth."
Mr. Hill points out that under these circumstances, baked earth with worms deep underground, and a very limited natural water supply, the badgers had two choices: "Stay and starve, or move and fight" [for territory already occupied by other groups of badgers] ..... or they had a third option.." to drink, eat and hide in barns, sheds or under stacks of bales ; spreading bTb to cattle. "
It is this close contact, often within farm buildings and involving 'shared' water and feed sources that, in our experience is the cause of btb cattle breakdowns which are depressingly long, bitterly persistant and difficult - though not impossible - to control. The main sett and its group are not the problem, it is the badgers which they have turfed out that will lurk around farm buildings - as Bryan Hill says. But this hot dry weather has forced even established groups to either move, and then fight for territory, or stay, sharing feed and water with the cattle.
"The same thing happened with foot and mouth, only it wasn't drought that caused the mass badger movement, but the slaughter of cattle on hundreds of farms .... [ ] .. no cattle, no muck, no worms; just long grass, covering thousands of acres." And then as now, Mr. Hill points out the badgers left to search for food, a situation he has been told by farmers all over the SW this summer, which is happening again.
"...starving badgers in sheds and barns, carcasses going through balers and forage harvesters; nature is having its own unofficial cull this summer".
Mr. Hill's letter is addressed mainly to Trevor Lawson of the Badger Trust, vociforously defending all badgers - especially the sick ones - which Bryan Hill has made a point of putting out of there misery, to protect the rest of the group, and the cattle. He concludes;
"..... I've never made any secret that if there are any sick badgers in this area, for their own welfare and to protect the healthy badgers and the cattle, they will be killed. I'm proud that I didn't just sit waiting for my cattle to be tested, killing the reactors, then on the same day turning what was left of the herd out with infected wildlife. Proud that I didn't leave sick badgers to nature's long merciless cull, freely spreading infection as they die a long, slow death. "
"If he (Mr. Lawson) thinks that by changing the cattle tests without removing wildlife infection, just killing ever more cattle in the hope that bTb will be contained, then his head is in the clouds with the flawed science..."
Mr. Lawson's job, as did his predecessor's, the fragrant Elaine, depends totally on 'defending' badgers. But it does not go as far to defend them from Tb:
see our posts: Badgers don't suffer from TB!and'A slight wheeziness'
The cynical amongst us may point out that if the problem of Tb in badgers was solved, as Bryan Hill has solved it in his patch of Devon, then Mr. Lawson and many more bTb 'beneficiaries' would not have a job at all.
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2005/03/update-silver-bullet.html
Mr. Hill, has written of this year's extraordinary weather conditions and their relation to bTb in cattle, in the Western Morning News : http://tinyurl.com/y963jq
where he points out that the very hot dry summers of 2005 and 2006, have had a huge effect on badger behaviour:
"....this summer, 95 per cent of the badgers' natural food sources vanished in the drought. Water supply, streams, ditches and puddles all dried up, causing the biggest natural 'peturbation' of infected badgers since foot and mouth."
Mr. Hill points out that under these circumstances, baked earth with worms deep underground, and a very limited natural water supply, the badgers had two choices: "Stay and starve, or move and fight" [for territory already occupied by other groups of badgers] ..... or they had a third option.." to drink, eat and hide in barns, sheds or under stacks of bales ; spreading bTb to cattle. "
It is this close contact, often within farm buildings and involving 'shared' water and feed sources that, in our experience is the cause of btb cattle breakdowns which are depressingly long, bitterly persistant and difficult - though not impossible - to control. The main sett and its group are not the problem, it is the badgers which they have turfed out that will lurk around farm buildings - as Bryan Hill says. But this hot dry weather has forced even established groups to either move, and then fight for territory, or stay, sharing feed and water with the cattle.
"The same thing happened with foot and mouth, only it wasn't drought that caused the mass badger movement, but the slaughter of cattle on hundreds of farms .... [ ] .. no cattle, no muck, no worms; just long grass, covering thousands of acres." And then as now, Mr. Hill points out the badgers left to search for food, a situation he has been told by farmers all over the SW this summer, which is happening again.
"...starving badgers in sheds and barns, carcasses going through balers and forage harvesters; nature is having its own unofficial cull this summer".
Mr. Hill's letter is addressed mainly to Trevor Lawson of the Badger Trust, vociforously defending all badgers - especially the sick ones - which Bryan Hill has made a point of putting out of there misery, to protect the rest of the group, and the cattle. He concludes;
"..... I've never made any secret that if there are any sick badgers in this area, for their own welfare and to protect the healthy badgers and the cattle, they will be killed. I'm proud that I didn't just sit waiting for my cattle to be tested, killing the reactors, then on the same day turning what was left of the herd out with infected wildlife. Proud that I didn't leave sick badgers to nature's long merciless cull, freely spreading infection as they die a long, slow death. "
"If he (Mr. Lawson) thinks that by changing the cattle tests without removing wildlife infection, just killing ever more cattle in the hope that bTb will be contained, then his head is in the clouds with the flawed science..."
Mr. Lawson's job, as did his predecessor's, the fragrant Elaine, depends totally on 'defending' badgers. But it does not go as far to defend them from Tb:
see our posts: Badgers don't suffer from TB!and'A slight wheeziness'
The cynical amongst us may point out that if the problem of Tb in badgers was solved, as Bryan Hill has solved it in his patch of Devon, then Mr. Lawson and many more bTb 'beneficiaries' would not have a job at all.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Using you, using me.. ?
In a stance reminiscent of the General Sir Richard Dannatt's statement on Iraq, its relationship to government policy and the media, which our sister site has flagged up:
http://www.eureferendum.blogspot.com/#116073935786440875 ,
Western Morning News yesterday placed the head of the 'Sustainable Food and Farming Delivery Group, Sir Don Curry, squarely in the frame over the politically thorny issue of bovine tb.
For the full article, see link at: http://tinyurl.com/vqrko
"Bovine Tb is a barrier to progress for so many livestock farmers in the region", said Sir Don, while on a visit to the Westcountry. And he continued "Until we recognise the source of the infection in wildlife, we shan't make the progress that is so vital. There are many of us who have believed for a long time that we need a comprehensive campaign to beat bovine Tb."
Quite. And the key word here is 'us', in fact the 'many of us' Sir Don is reported as saying.
Your cynical contributers believe that Sir Don's timely statement is a smaller echo of the situation we see with General Sir Richard Dannatt, the Daily Mail (and others) and the British army's presence in Iraq, still under scrutiny at; http://www.eureferendum.blogspot.com/#116084217396013090.
Government knows what it needs to do, but for reasons of perceived 'popular support' either in the form of votes, donations or inter country links, is reluctant to step into the frame and so spins up a heavyweight 'outsider' to the media, who then spearheads the unsavoury decision for them. That it was the decision which government wanted to make anyway is thus removed from their responsibility and media reporting attributes the idea to an independent source.
More in Western Morning News' editorial: http://tinyurl.com/sogsw which concludes:
"No one relishes the prospect of a badger cull, but those who oppose it need to recognise that there are animal welfare issues involved that transcend their routine arguments. There is the welfare of the wildlife afflicted with this spreading disease; there is the welfare of the cattle [ .. ]and there is the welfare too of the farming economy that is vital to the life of the countryside and the nation as a whole."
Government recognise this; of course they do. But the RSPCA's / Badger Trust's recent campaign only shows that with skewed information, there are more votes in dead badger than a dead cow. Coupled with an administration which has handed responsibility for the security and safety of British food production to the supermarkets, government desperately need a figurehead to extract them from the ever deeper hole (of bTb) which they have excavated for themselves over the last almost ten years.
In Sir Don Curry they may just have found one.
http://www.eureferendum.blogspot.com/#116073935786440875 ,
Western Morning News yesterday placed the head of the 'Sustainable Food and Farming Delivery Group, Sir Don Curry, squarely in the frame over the politically thorny issue of bovine tb.
For the full article, see link at: http://tinyurl.com/vqrko
"Bovine Tb is a barrier to progress for so many livestock farmers in the region", said Sir Don, while on a visit to the Westcountry. And he continued "Until we recognise the source of the infection in wildlife, we shan't make the progress that is so vital. There are many of us who have believed for a long time that we need a comprehensive campaign to beat bovine Tb."
Quite. And the key word here is 'us', in fact the 'many of us' Sir Don is reported as saying.
Your cynical contributers believe that Sir Don's timely statement is a smaller echo of the situation we see with General Sir Richard Dannatt, the Daily Mail (and others) and the British army's presence in Iraq, still under scrutiny at; http://www.eureferendum.blogspot.com/#116084217396013090.
Government knows what it needs to do, but for reasons of perceived 'popular support' either in the form of votes, donations or inter country links, is reluctant to step into the frame and so spins up a heavyweight 'outsider' to the media, who then spearheads the unsavoury decision for them. That it was the decision which government wanted to make anyway is thus removed from their responsibility and media reporting attributes the idea to an independent source.
More in Western Morning News' editorial: http://tinyurl.com/sogsw which concludes:
"No one relishes the prospect of a badger cull, but those who oppose it need to recognise that there are animal welfare issues involved that transcend their routine arguments. There is the welfare of the wildlife afflicted with this spreading disease; there is the welfare of the cattle [ .. ]and there is the welfare too of the farming economy that is vital to the life of the countryside and the nation as a whole."
Government recognise this; of course they do. But the RSPCA's / Badger Trust's recent campaign only shows that with skewed information, there are more votes in dead badger than a dead cow. Coupled with an administration which has handed responsibility for the security and safety of British food production to the supermarkets, government desperately need a figurehead to extract them from the ever deeper hole (of bTb) which they have excavated for themselves over the last almost ten years.
In Sir Don Curry they may just have found one.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Ignorance or Arrogance ?
Our postings below which outline Rosie Woodroffe's 'Letter From America', and blame cattle untested for twelve months for the increase of infectivety found in the RBCT badgers, has provoked a response on the ProMed website from a person involved with bTb 'at the sharp end'. That is, in the field as opposed to behind a computer with a crystal ball and a wish list.
From ProMed:
Date: Tue 10 Oct 2006From: Roy Fey <Roy.Fey@hpa-em.nhs.uk>re: posting 20061005.2857 Tuberculosis, bovine, badgers - UK
"I read the posting and found some of the claims a bit difficult. I am a consultant in communicable disease control (CCDC) with the Health Protection Agency (HPA) in the UK. Part of my training was in Gloucester, which has been a hot-spot for TB (both in cattle and badgers) for many years. Indeed, one might say that the largely successful programs to control TB in cattle after World War II failed in that area (or were never successfully concluded). I recall a vet from the (now) State Veterinary Service (SVS) office in Gloucester explaining that the major differences between the TB they were seeing in badgers and in cattle were:
1) Cattle were captive and being checked regularly, with the result that the reactors were being detected at an early stage of the disease and very few had "open" lung lesions that are necessary for airborne transmission (and none had udder lesions necessary for transmission through unpasteurized milk);
2) Badgers were free ranging and not being checked, with the result that the disease progressed in the badgers to the stage where an infected animal was excreting (in various body secretions, excretions and fluids) vast quantities of bacilli onto the ground/pasture, in their setts, etc;
3) As a consequence, an infected badger was the source for both other sett mates (and other badgers in the area and other animals) and for cattle [A badger sett is a deep burrow that they dig, share with other badgers, and raise young. - Mod.MHJ]. The cattle picked up the germs as they grazed on the infected pasture (and also inhaled germs from the pasture).
Badgers [and possibly other infected wild and domesticated animals: posting 20061009.2896 records "Although called bovine tuberculosis, the bacillus has a broad host range, including cattle, pigs, goats, cats, dogs, badgers, foxes, marsupials, rabbits, sheep, horses and deer. - Mod.LL] also possibly raided stores of feedstuff and contaminated the feedstuff, increasing transmission. In contrast, because most of the cattle were not "open" cases, they were only very rarely transmitting the germ to other animals (including man or badgers).
Clearly, there will be the occasional "open" TB case in cattle, but I must say that, in the past 8 years I have been in my present post, I have only seen one report from the SVS to me in which there have been macroscopic lung lesions (as a proxy, not perfect, I agree, for "open" pulmonary TB) and many hundreds where the skin testing has detected an earlier stage of disease, principally retropharyngeal and mediastinal lymph nodes without lung lesions or even no visible lesions.
[ ................................... snipped]
The conclusions of the report from Dr Woodroffe, that the results clearly show "that there is substantial transmission of TB from cattle to badgers", and "no other explanation fits the data [of an increase in the prevalence of TB in badgers in areas that were left alone during the FMD restrictions]" are not the only logical possibilities and I would contend are not even the most likely explanations."
And with that, we would agree.
From ProMed:
Date: Tue 10 Oct 2006From: Roy Fey <Roy.Fey@hpa-em.nhs.uk>re: posting 20061005.2857 Tuberculosis, bovine, badgers - UK
"I read the posting and found some of the claims a bit difficult. I am a consultant in communicable disease control (CCDC) with the Health Protection Agency (HPA) in the UK. Part of my training was in Gloucester, which has been a hot-spot for TB (both in cattle and badgers) for many years. Indeed, one might say that the largely successful programs to control TB in cattle after World War II failed in that area (or were never successfully concluded). I recall a vet from the (now) State Veterinary Service (SVS) office in Gloucester explaining that the major differences between the TB they were seeing in badgers and in cattle were:
1) Cattle were captive and being checked regularly, with the result that the reactors were being detected at an early stage of the disease and very few had "open" lung lesions that are necessary for airborne transmission (and none had udder lesions necessary for transmission through unpasteurized milk);
2) Badgers were free ranging and not being checked, with the result that the disease progressed in the badgers to the stage where an infected animal was excreting (in various body secretions, excretions and fluids) vast quantities of bacilli onto the ground/pasture, in their setts, etc;
3) As a consequence, an infected badger was the source for both other sett mates (and other badgers in the area and other animals) and for cattle [A badger sett is a deep burrow that they dig, share with other badgers, and raise young. - Mod.MHJ]. The cattle picked up the germs as they grazed on the infected pasture (and also inhaled germs from the pasture).
Badgers [and possibly other infected wild and domesticated animals: posting 20061009.2896 records "Although called bovine tuberculosis, the bacillus has a broad host range, including cattle, pigs, goats, cats, dogs, badgers, foxes, marsupials, rabbits, sheep, horses and deer. - Mod.LL] also possibly raided stores of feedstuff and contaminated the feedstuff, increasing transmission. In contrast, because most of the cattle were not "open" cases, they were only very rarely transmitting the germ to other animals (including man or badgers).
Clearly, there will be the occasional "open" TB case in cattle, but I must say that, in the past 8 years I have been in my present post, I have only seen one report from the SVS to me in which there have been macroscopic lung lesions (as a proxy, not perfect, I agree, for "open" pulmonary TB) and many hundreds where the skin testing has detected an earlier stage of disease, principally retropharyngeal and mediastinal lymph nodes without lung lesions or even no visible lesions.
[ ................................... snipped]
The conclusions of the report from Dr Woodroffe, that the results clearly show "that there is substantial transmission of TB from cattle to badgers", and "no other explanation fits the data [of an increase in the prevalence of TB in badgers in areas that were left alone during the FMD restrictions]" are not the only logical possibilities and I would contend are not even the most likely explanations."
And with that, we would agree.
A Wake Up Call.
The reporting this week from New Scientist, ProMed and the BBC Midlands website, of a human to human spread of tuberculosis, strain mycobacterium bovis, between 6 young people, one of whom has died, is a timely reminder that bTb, is not confined to cattle, and affects other mammals uncluding human beings.
We have variously reported spillovers not only into the tested 'canaries' - cattle - from the maintenance reservoir of disease in badgers, but into cats, free range pigs and deer. Camelids, such as alpacas are said to be very susceptible as well, but are rarely tested unless for export. Once infected and left to fester, any animal with bTb lesions carrying bacteria capable of onward transmission of the disease is a walking time bomb - to anything that crosses its path.
See some bTb time bombs :
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/02/badgers-dont-suffer-from-tb.html
The seriousness with which this disease should be taken, cannot be overstated. And the cavaliar attitude of government towards its eradication is a gross abdication of their responsibilty. After the 'Attested Herd' scheme for cattle in the 1950's, and the pasteurisation of milk, this disease was so nearly eradicated. Almost. This outbreak which spread laterally from one or two indivuduals, is a reminder that bTb kills. Period.
The article on ProMed website, and taken from the New Scientist report [edited]
"Six people who spent a night clubbing near Birmingham, in the English Midlands, in late 2004 have contracted bovine tuberculosis (TB). One man has been identified as the source of the outbreak, and one woman who was infected has died.
This is the 1st time in decades that human-to-human transmission of bovine TB has been documented in the United Kingdom and coincides with a steady increase in the rate of infection in cattle. Nearly one per cent of the British herd is now thought to carry the disease. (And how many badgers? - 28 percent in Monmouthshire - ed)
In the 1930s, around 40 per cent of cattle in the UK were infected with TB, and around 2000 people a year died from the disease, mostly as a result of drinking unpasteurized milk or coming into close contact with the animals. Pasteurization and the introduction of routine TB testing in cattle brought this under control but, in recent years, bovine TB has been on the rise, a trend that some farmers blame on badgers spreading the infection.
Peter Hawkey of the University of Birmingham, who presented findings on the human outbreak last week at the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy in San Francisco, says that all the evidence suggests it was an isolated incident. "The increase of infections in cattle may increase the opportunity for human infection, but nothing has changed about virulence or transmission from cattle," he says.
(By that we assume he means that cattle are regularly tested, and slaughtered if they show contact with the bacteruium. Milk is pasteurised and so very little opportunity arises in the UK for onward transmission from cattle)
Hawkey says the outbreak was caused by a confluence of rare circumstances and should therefore not cause undue alarm. Some of the people affected had underlying medical conditions such as being HIV positive, or were using anabolic steroids, both of which would make them more susceptible to infection. The average age of the people affected by the outbreak was 32, whereas those who catch the disease from cattle are usually much older.
(bTb can have a long incubation period and contact in early years may not be apparent until late adulthood - although not in this case)
[byline: Michael Reilly and Linda Geddes]- -- ProMED-mail<promed@promedmail.org>
Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/6039216.stm
We have variously reported spillovers not only into the tested 'canaries' - cattle - from the maintenance reservoir of disease in badgers, but into cats, free range pigs and deer. Camelids, such as alpacas are said to be very susceptible as well, but are rarely tested unless for export. Once infected and left to fester, any animal with bTb lesions carrying bacteria capable of onward transmission of the disease is a walking time bomb - to anything that crosses its path.
See some bTb time bombs :
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/02/badgers-dont-suffer-from-tb.html
The seriousness with which this disease should be taken, cannot be overstated. And the cavaliar attitude of government towards its eradication is a gross abdication of their responsibilty. After the 'Attested Herd' scheme for cattle in the 1950's, and the pasteurisation of milk, this disease was so nearly eradicated. Almost. This outbreak which spread laterally from one or two indivuduals, is a reminder that bTb kills. Period.
The article on ProMed website, and taken from the New Scientist report [edited]
"Six people who spent a night clubbing near Birmingham, in the English Midlands, in late 2004 have contracted bovine tuberculosis (TB). One man has been identified as the source of the outbreak, and one woman who was infected has died.
This is the 1st time in decades that human-to-human transmission of bovine TB has been documented in the United Kingdom and coincides with a steady increase in the rate of infection in cattle. Nearly one per cent of the British herd is now thought to carry the disease. (And how many badgers? - 28 percent in Monmouthshire - ed)
In the 1930s, around 40 per cent of cattle in the UK were infected with TB, and around 2000 people a year died from the disease, mostly as a result of drinking unpasteurized milk or coming into close contact with the animals. Pasteurization and the introduction of routine TB testing in cattle brought this under control but, in recent years, bovine TB has been on the rise, a trend that some farmers blame on badgers spreading the infection.
Peter Hawkey of the University of Birmingham, who presented findings on the human outbreak last week at the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy in San Francisco, says that all the evidence suggests it was an isolated incident. "The increase of infections in cattle may increase the opportunity for human infection, but nothing has changed about virulence or transmission from cattle," he says.
(By that we assume he means that cattle are regularly tested, and slaughtered if they show contact with the bacteruium. Milk is pasteurised and so very little opportunity arises in the UK for onward transmission from cattle)
Hawkey says the outbreak was caused by a confluence of rare circumstances and should therefore not cause undue alarm. Some of the people affected had underlying medical conditions such as being HIV positive, or were using anabolic steroids, both of which would make them more susceptible to infection. The average age of the people affected by the outbreak was 32, whereas those who catch the disease from cattle are usually much older.
(bTb can have a long incubation period and contact in early years may not be apparent until late adulthood - although not in this case)
[byline: Michael Reilly and Linda Geddes]- -- ProMED-mail<promed@promedmail.org>
Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/6039216.stm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)