Defra must 'Spend to Save'

The main message from the EFRAcom final report was that government must not shirk its responsibility with regard to the control of bTb. They must, said chairman Michael Jack MP, 'spend to save'.

"Defra currently faces budgetary pressures. However, simply saying that more money cannot be found for spending on measures to control cattle Tb is not a solution. The measures we have recommended will require an increase in financial support from Defra. However, this is necessary if governemnt wants to avoid ever increasing expenditure forecast in future years, which could total £1 billion between now and 2013."

.
A VLA (Veterinary Laboratories Agency) forecast quoted in the report, suggests 9 million cattle tests may be carried out by 2010 (just two years hence) with the number of reactor animals rising to 66,000.

The ISG's final report into its ten year RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial, after pumping data comprising 2 parts cattle to 1 part badger through a mathematical model, announced with great confidence that the problem could be attributed to - errr 40 per cent badgers and 60 per cent cattle. Furthermore, with more draconian cattle measures, the incidence of bTb could be reduced by 15 percent.

For those who may have missed the ISG proposals, we list them again - as does the EFRA report.

* High and low risk zones could be created and the movement of cattle from high risk to low risk areas should be prohibited. The ISG acknowledged that this would protect low risk areas, but could exacebate the incidence of disease in high risk areas.

* As a variation on the above, individual farms could be categorised as high or low risk (eg. disease free for three or four years and at low risk of a cattle breakdown) and movement controlled between the two categories. Thus, disease free farms in high risk areas (i.e Tb hotspots) would not be prevented from trading with farms in low risk areas.

* Pre-movement testing in high risk areas, or areas with a recent history of cattle TB, should involve the combined use of tuberculin skin testing and the gamma interferon test.

* Post movement testing should be introduced in some situations using both the tuberculin test and gamma interferon test.

* Additional measures such as the introduction of whole herd slaughter should be considered for multiple reactor herds in low risk areas.

* Surveillance testing in low risk areas should be more frequent than it is is now, with testing intervals at a maximum of three years, or even annually should no additional movement controls be introduced.

* Annual testing applied to all herds in high risk areas.

* In high risk areas, gamma interferon testing should be used in herds with one or two reactors and no previous history of breakdowns, in order to identify all infected cattle.

Efra's report concludes from that shopping list that "current cattle-based measures are strengthened if we are to stop the spread of cattle TB into low risk areas." They go on to recommend post movement testing to alleviate this - a point with which we agree. However it may be timely to point out (again) that cattle measures such as suggested by the ISG, although a seductively and persuasively easy solution, have been tried before and simply do not work.

Neither is the concept of cattle doing handstands around the country and spreading bTb, borne out by the painstaking data analysis carried out at VLA, of 30 years of spoligotyping m.bovis type strains from badgers and cattle.

So where exactly is Defra being advised to 'spend' taxpayer's cash? More gamma interferon. Why? Until infected badgers are culled there is no place for the blood test. When they have been culled there will be no need for the blood test. Efra's report quite rightly reminds Government of its responsibilities, while arguing for the greater use of a test with low specificity, of marginally less latency than the intradermal skin test and a disputed cut off point. "The wider use of gamma interferon testing is likely to increase the number of cattle slaughtered as previously undetected infected cattle are identified. We acknowledge that this will be challenging for the farming industry and for Defra."

Bourne promised a 15 percent reduction in cattle Tb with these measures - which included gamma interferon. With increased cattle slaughterings referred to by the Efra report, he may achieve his prediction - with a 15 percent reduction in cattle.

"Defra have no policy", said "Lord Rooker to the Efra committee in his last session of giving evidence, "and have spent £1 billion to no good effect in the last decade".

It would be most careless of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to repeat that most expensive mistake again.

"Further procrastination is unsustainable..."

The influential EFRA (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) select committee has produced a report into the ISG's ten year Badger Culling Dispersal trial, and concluded that an annual cull of sentinel cattle is not working to reduce and eradicate bTb. In a report published today, they recommend "A multi-faceted approach to tackling cattle Tb", which includes culling badgers.

"The Government's current method of controlling cattle TB, that of surveillance, testing and slaughter, is not working effectively Government must now make a decision on what its strategic objectives are. The impact of this disease has reached a stage where further procrastination is unsustainable".

Their report points out that bTB is one of the most serious animal health problems in Great Britain today, with the number of infected cattle doubling every four and a half years. Projected to 2013, this figure could reach £1 billion, and involve 66,000cattle slaughtered. The consequential growing cost of the disease to the taxpayer and to the farming industry, they say, is unsustainable. And it is a Governmental responsibility.

"A reduction in funding at the risk of the disease spiralling out of control and eventually affecting England's export market is not justified. The rapid increase in this zoonotic disease continues to warrant Government involvement and financial support with the aim of reducing incidence."

The Committee called this approach "budgeting to save" and called on Government to "show commitment to finding a way to ease the grip" which bTb had on the cattle industry. They are very much aware of the stress and misery caused to farmers by a herd breakdown, and subsequent movement restrictions and inability to trade.

In "hot spot" areas where the prevalence of the disease is highest, the farming industry has reached a breaking point as the disruption to business in both human and economic terms has become unacceptable. The final straw for many farmers has proved to be the introduction of a new system of valuations for their slaughtered cattle which has proved inequitable in many cases.

The committee recommend that Governemnt overhaul the tabular valuation system for slaughtered cattle and other animals. They conclude that the system

"... is unfair to farmers of pedigree animals. Compulsory slaughter is a measure to protect the wider industry and society as a whole and it is iniquitable for those unfortunate enough to be hit by the disease effectively to subsidise others by receiving artificially low values for their animals."

The Committee's conclusion is that there is no simple solution that will control cattle TB. The Government must adopt a multi-faceted approach to tackling the disease, using all methods available. The Government's strategy for cattle TB should include:

• more frequent cattle testing, with more frequent and targeted combined use of the tuberculin skin test and the gamma interferon test;
• the evaluation of post-movement cattle testing;
• greater communication with farmers on the benefits of biosecurity measures;
• the deployment of badger and cattle vaccines when they become available in the future; and
• continued work on the epidemiology of the disease.

(We are delighted to see that post movement testing has made a belated entry to the toolbox, but urge caution on the gamma interferon, as its specificity - or lack of it - is well documented, not least by this committee.)
On controlling the disease within the wildlife reservoir, the committee has this to say:

The Committee recognises that under certain well-defined circumstances it is possible that [badger] culling could make a contribution towards the reduction in incidence of cattle TB in hot spot areas. However, as there is a significant risk that any patchy, disorganised or short-term culling could make matters worse, the Committee could only recommend the licensed culling of badgers under section 10 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 if the applicants can demonstrate that culling would be carried out in accordance with the conditions agreed between the ISG and Sir David King, which indicated that there might be an overall beneficial effect. These were that culling should:

• be done competently and efficiently;
• be coordinated;
• cover as large an area as possible (265km² or more is the minimum needed to be 95% confident of an overall beneficial effect);
• be sustained for at least four years; and
• be in areas which have "hard" or "soft" boundaries where possible.

We recommend that no application for a licence should be approved by Natural England, which already has statutory responsibility for the granting of culling licences, without scrutiny to ensure that it complies with the conditions set by the ISG and Sir David King. It is important that were such a cull approved, other control measures should also be applied. Any cull must also be properly monitored by Defra. It is unlikely that such culling would be sanctionable in more than a limited number of areas. We recognise that culling alone will never provide a universal solution to the problem.

So any badger cull should be along the lines of recommendations of the ISG and Sir. David King? Both agree that badgers give Tb to cattle - and the ISG showed us how not to deal with it. But agreement? We live in interesting times.

EFRAcom refer to the 7 point Industry plan, which we covered in the posting below, which calls for an organised licensed cull by farmers, or their contractors. The NFU believe it would fulfil the conditions agreed by the ISG and Sir David King.

If the NFU is able to meet the licensing requirements laid down by Defra, can satisfy Natural England both that it would conduct any cull in accordance with its animal welfare requirements and would satisfy the conditions agreed by the ISG and Sir David King, we accept that a licence for such a cull could be granted.

Commenting on the report, the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee the Rt Hon Michael Jack MP, said:

"This is a complex issue and there is no simple solution. But I am pleased that the Report represents the unanimous view of the Committee."

The report of this inquiry can be found at the EFRA committee page of www.parliament.uk

Industry 7 point plan

In the absence of any sign of such an elusive animal from Defra, the NFU has spearheaded an industry 'plan' to 'contain and eradicate' bovine tuberculosis from the wildlife and cattle herds and thus prevent its spillover into other mammalian species. It's framework covers a short but effective culling regime, followed by vaccination to protect incoming badgers, working in tandem with cattle testing and surveillance.

The Plan.

1. We are committed to doing everything possible to contain and eradicate bovine TB.

2. Industry participation in a badger culling programme can only be in the context of a genuine partnership with Government, involving their providing overt facilitation, mapping, monitoring, carcase disposal and other support.

3. In order to apply that principle in practice, we would recommend that TB Control Strategy Groups should be set up, aligned with DVM areas, involving farmers, vets, Animal Health and other stakeholders to determine overall strategy for their area, to advise on the delineation of control areas and facilitate the creation of local TB management groups.

4. Culling to be carried out by farmers and trained personnel engaged by TB management groups using all legally approved methods.

5. Culling to be authorised by licence issued by Natural England in accordance with guidelines set out by Defra on the basis of the findings of the ISG and related scientific advice. Timescale for the issue of licences should not be unreasonably protracted.

6. The industry and Government to work together to develop a “clear and protect” two stage strategy, that will move from area-based badger culling to reduce disease levels, followed, when available, by vaccination to protect re-populating badgers. This must work in parallel with appropriate cattle-based measures, based on sound economic principles and scientific evidence and advances, including consideration of the use of cattle vaccination accompanied by a reliable DIVA test on condition that export markets are not prejudiced.

7. We are committed to encouraging our respective members to co-operate in a culling strategy as outlined above, and in a programme of public information focused on the vital importance of controlling the disease.

The Statement was agreed by the NFU England and Wales, CLA, Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, Holstein UK, RICS, NFU Cymru, Tenant Farmers Association, Livestock Auctioneeers Association, National Young Farmers Clubs, National Beef Association, Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers and veterinary scientist, Dr. John Gallagher. Members of the British Veterinary Association and British Cattle Veterinary Association were present and approved the statement, but formal agreement by their organisations would have to be ratified by their Councils.

The Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management (VAWM) also support the proposal in principle, and have offered the following statement:

" The recent seven point plan put forward to the Secretary of State, Mr. Hilary Benn by the NFU and other interested parties is to be welcomed as a realistic framework for tackling the epidemic of bovine tuberculosis that is now affecting cattle and wildlife in large areas of south west England, the west Midlands and Wales.

The detail of how the plan is implemented will of course determine its success but we believe the concept of TB Control Strategy Groups that would devolve responsibility on the ground to local TB management groups represents a workable management plan. And we entirely agree with point 2 of the plan that “Industry participation in a badger culling programme can only be in the context of a genuine partnership with Government, involving their providing overt facilitation, mapping, monitoring, carcase disposal and other support.” We assume that this would include paying for the cost of the programme.

The methods of culling are not specified under point 4 but we would urge that daytime gassing underground is potentially the most effective method since it takes advantage of the ecological behaviour of the badger. It also obviates the problem of carcass disposal. Shooting at dusk with a silenced rifle also represents an effective and humane method of culling. We caution against live trapping and snaring both on humane and practical grounds.

The “clear and protect” two stage strategy (point 6), that will involve area-based badger culling followed by vaccination to protect re-populating badgers is an ambitious and potentially complex strategy. It will clearly depend on availability of both an effective vaccine and the means of delivery. But at the very least it should serve to reassure the public that farmers and vets seek not to eradicate the badger population but rather to achieve a healthy population and to bring numbers down to sustainable levels compatible with wildlife biodiversity.

Finally we do not believe that cattle vaccination should be seriously contemplated in the seven point plan. Even supposing an effective cattle vaccine became available, vaccination in the face of the huge weight of infection in the badger population would be against all the best principles of disease control. Furthermore if cattle vaccination was undertaken at some future date the industry would then become hooked into routine vaccination of the national herd with all the difficulties that this would bring for future testing and trade."

The only word of caution we would add, is that on past experience Government are rather good at fudging decisions, especially unpalatable ones they would rather not make. And the word 'contain' is what worries us. Contain TB? How?

But just this week we have seen snuck into Defra's February 'Farming Link' pamphlet, a gem of a problem in the making. And probably the first of many.

"Farmers are reminded that cattle subject to one or two yearly TB testing must be pre-movement tested when moving to and from both grass keep and linked holdings".

PreMT for linked holdings which happen to be several counties apart we can support, but grass lets? Testing cattle in the middle of a field? And what happens if they give an adverse reaction? Stuck there? Moved under license? Short tenancy land still under restriction for - how long? A can of worms.

And with the shopping list of cattle measures proposed by Professor Bourne, there's plenty more to go at.

Veggie-Benn at the NFU conference

Addressing the NFU conference yesterday, the BBC report that Defra Minister Hillary Wedgwood-Benn announced he would make no decision on Britain's appalling Tb situation "until the EFRA Committee delivered its report".

As GB's bTB figures last year rocketed towards 8 percent of herds under movement restriction and with some areas having a quarter of their herds affected, the Minister said that he had to make his decision on "science, impact of proposed measures, practicality and public acceptibility".

On the first point, he ignored the Chief Scientist's side swipe overview-which-came-to-a-different-conclusion, and plumped for the ISG's work. You remember, the ten year 'trial', whose chairman openly boasted had been steered from the beginning knowing that there was one conclusion it was not allowed to reach?

Benn also seemed unaware of the work from Stirling University, released last week, paid for, one assumes, by his Department of Food, Environment and Rural Affairs? which laid the root cause of 75 per cent of outbreaks of bTb in GB at the striped paws of - badgers. Not any badger of course, but grossly and endemically infected with tuberculosis badgers - as described in Parliamentary Questions by his predecessor in the hot seat, Ben Bradshaw.

A BBC report of the speech, is headed "Farmers heckle Benn over Tb plans"

What plans? He doesn't appear to have one - apart from an annual cull of sentinel tested cattle that is. The same old chestnut of 'public acceptability" was waved, to avoid making a decision on the control of a disease that is 100 per cent a governmental responsibility. And a disease whose spillover will increasingly and inevitably impact on 'the public' who, like his predecessors he is content to use as his ministerial shield.

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn has been heckled by farmers after he suggested culling badgers may not be the answer to preventing TB in cattle. Mr Benn was told to "stop waffling" as he pledged to take a decision based on science, its impact and practicality".

National Farmers' Union President Peter Kendall urged Mr Benn to make the "right decision" on culling badgers and to show political leadership in explaining to the public the "absolutely devastating" effect of the disease. (Forget cattle Peter - explain about the cats, dogs, free range pigs, llamas and children - all susceptible to tuberculosis, and more 'valuable' as vote fodder) He urged Mr Benn not to adopt a "nimtoo" approach - "not in my term of office".

Mr Benn said the call would be made "on my watch", based on the science, impact of proposed measures, the practicalities and its "public acceptability". and it was the latter comment which roused his audience....

To boos from the audience he said: "Many of you don't think that's a factor governments should take into account but I have to take it into account alongside the other three tests."

The BBC comments "While cattle farmers (and the Treasury??) may support a cull, a government consultation of more than 47,000 people suggested that more than 95% of people opposed it". Aah yes. That would be the consultation in which the RSPCA was later found found by Advertising Standards Authority to have offered misleading and incorrect' information? Yup, that'd be the one. The BBC nailed its colours to the mast this week with a David Attenborough TV special on the Secret Lives of Badgers. Repeated to allow for the sunday afternoon consumption. They didn't show one dying of Tb though.

One angry farmer shouted that the government had done nothing to tackle bovine TB in 10 years, adding: "Stop waffling." Answering his heckler, Mr Benn said: "I'm not waffling. I'm going to take a decision and we're going to have to find a way forward."

And that won't involve culling the wildlife reservoir of bovine tuberculosis. The Minister then announced that he was awaiting instructions. He was:

...awaiting a report by the Environment Food and Rural Affairs select committee, due within weeks, before making a decision.

NFU Chairman, Peter Kendall said it was "disappointing" Mr Benn referred only to the ISG report rather than one by former chief scientist Sir David King, which drew different conclusions.

No doubt Mr. Benn will also be awaiting the result of his department's 'Inquiry into the Inquiry', which went to tender last month

Anytime in the next ten years will do Minister.

Another Llama farmer 'devastated'.

Bovine tuberculosis has hit a llama herd in West Wales, killing half the animals. Western Telegraph reports that Wales' second largest herd of llamas has been decimated by an outbreak of bTb.

Although cattle are routinely tested for the disease, llamas and other camelids are not. Neither are their breeders compensated for their full market value. The absence of a test meant that bovine TB was not picked up in Liz Ford's herd of 25 llama at Bower Farm before the onset of clinical symptoms. Half are now dead.

"They succumbed very quickly. They became weak and ill and developed a severe cough. If a compulsory test had been in place, the disease would have been picked up sooner and some could have been saved. It is very difficult when animals are sick, and there are no rules on how to deal with it," said Mrs. Ford.

Livestock farmers in Wales who lose animals to bovine Tb are compensated for their replacement value, and for cattle in England the infamous 'tabular system' operates - or not, depending on ones' point of view - but no such payment structure exists for llamas. And, as is the case for cattle farmers in areas of endemic Tb, insurance is not obtainable, companies only offering such umbrellas when there is minimal disease risk.

The Western Telegraph reports that Mrs. Ford has received what was termed an 'ex gratia' payment, which was equivalent to just one third of what each animal was worth. She says that the Welsh Assembly only agreed to test the herd, after she had signed a document accepting this level of payment.

Many llama farms are run as breeding enterprises, with animals sold all over the country where they become fashion - statement lawnmowers. Only when breeding stock are exported or during the sale of surplus culls into the food chain, is any form of Tb disease check carried out. In the case of exports, that involves a skin test and for meat a post mortem carcass inspection.

From comments on a previous post, we understand that llamas are notoriously difficult to skin test.

Veterinary officials from the Welsh Assembly are now testing the herd but, unlike the 60-day gap between tests in cattle, these tests will only be done every 90 days. Mrs Ford says this is too long and has caused huge management problems. The Welsh Assembly admits there is currently no legislation for testing llama for bovine TB.

We covered a similar story in November . Members of the EFRA committee left their corridors of power and visited a llama farm in Devon, whose owners were equally 'devastated' when bTb hit their farm near Crediton.

BTEC in Australia - pest destruction Oz style

Some countries around the world have wildlife reservoirs of bTb - but how they deal with them, is very much dependent on their government's attitude to agriculture, food production and / or exports and of course public health.

Much is made of the fact that GammaIFN was developed in Australia in the mid 1980's. The implication being that the blood test was used to eradicate Tb. Not so. Australia's Tb free trading status was attained using the just the intradermal skin test - and clearing out its wildlife reservoir of disease - ahead of the licensing of GammaIFN.

Known as the "BTEC" , or Brucelosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign, the feral cattle and water buffalo thought to be maintaining disease amonst the country's herds were rounded up and destroyed. Radio transmitters were attached to the necks of what were known as 'Judas' cows, who were then set free to join up with a herd of wild cattle, marking their position.

We are assured that Richard (Lord) Attenborough was not tracking their movements - but we digress. The herds were rounded up with helicopters, then coralled and the marked cow, sent off again. And again. And again, until all the feral cattle in the area were rounded up. About 13,000 went to the meat factories in 1986. And in the absense of a wildlife resrvoir, and using just the skin test, Australia became officially bTb free. A message from Oz tells us

" After we caught all we could the paddocks were shot out from the air without fear or favour. Some stud Brahman cattle got into the wrong paddock & were shot as well .... there were no exceptions.
It worked"

With 13,000 wild buffalo and feral scrub cattle rounded up with helicopters for slaughter, this was pest destruction on a big scale.

Re-examining the situation..

In a new report, scientists from the University of Stirling have re-examined data on cattle movements - which have been the subject of some wild accusations regarding the spread of bovine Tb.

Although not backed up by spoligotype data, much was made of a couple of lightweight studies which examined cattle movement data from 2002 and 2003, immediately after Foot and Mouth restocks - data which carried a health warning for the rest of us 'Do Not Use' - and concluded cattle were responsible for spreading Tb.

If a cow has Tb when she steps onto a cattle lorry, she is unlikely to have a miraculous recovery during the journey. The question of course should be, has she been the cause of onwards transmission of bTb? And if cattle are not the cause of an outbreak of this infectious disease, what is? New work by the team at Stirling, based on 2004 data, concludes that in around 75 % - yup that's right, SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT of cases - the cause of bTb outbreaks is not cattle movements, neither local nor national.

In an abstract now published, a piece entitled:
"Estimates for local and movement-based transmission of bovine tuberculosis in British cattle" concludes that 75% of bTb outbreaks were caused by what is quaintly described as 'local effects'. A new word for badgers perhaps?

The authors point out that "Both badgers and livestock movements have been implicated in contributing to the ongoing epidemic of bovine tuberculosis (BTB) in British cattle. However, the relative contributions of these and other causes are not well quantified".

We used cattle movement data to construct an individual (premises)-based model of BTB spread within Great Britain, accounting for spread due to recorded cattle movements and other causes. Outbreak data for 2004 were best explained by a model attributing 16% of herd infections directly to cattle movements, and a further 9% unexplained, potentially including spread from unrecorded movements.

So, using 2004 data on actual bTb outbreaks and matching that to cattle movements on to the farm, both local and national (should there have been any) the team found that just 16% could be attributed to such 'On' movements, with a further 9% unexplained. They explain that the model which best matched the actual circumstances on farm assumed low levels of cattle-to-cattle transmission and continue:

The remaining 75% of infection was attributed to local effects within specific high-risk areas.

Pointing out that "Annual and biennial testing is mandatory for herds deemed at high risk of infection, as is pre-movement testing from such herds", the Stirling team confirm that

"herds identified as high risk in 2004 by our model are in broad agreement with those officially designated as such at that time".

In other words, what was actually happening on the ground, was predicted by the modeling exercise which they used.

And of these outbreaks, three quarters were attributed neither to local cattle movements nor national. But to 'local effects'. And a name they dare not speak.

Lose the paperwork

Defra's infamous table valuations alledgedly constructed to "deliver value to the taxpayer" - if not to the livestock farmer on the receiving end - have had a bizarre effect on the pedigree dairy sector during the last few weeks for cattle slaughtered as bTb reactors. If you remember these were part of a package, agreed by the industry and offered to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as a package in late 2005. The ministers very cleverly grabbed the goody bag of cattle measures - as expected - but offered merely a 'consultation' instead of the targeted measures against a wildlife reservoir, whose name they dare not speak.

Their 'valuation' figures are a mish mash of auction ring sales of various categories of stock over previous weeks, but therein lies the problem.

Prices for livestock dipped sharply in the latter part of the summer, due to restrictions of the bluetongue zones. But in the late summer, a shortage of decent quality dairy cattle, pushed up prices. Considerably. And Defra's tables are not constructed on a like for like basis - nothing so simple. Non-pedigree animals have a one month bracket of calculation, while pedigree values are tabulated from prices over the previous six months.

5 . The values in the table of categories above have been derived from sales information obtained from store markets, prime markets, rearing calf sales, breeding sales and dispersal sales in Great Britain between 18 December 2007 and 20 January 2008 for non-pedigree animals, and between 21 July 2007 and 20 January 2008 for pedigree animals.

The system is clanking through with only calved dairy animals showing this disparity of £70 / head for February 'valuations'- but prices in January were more pronounced at over £200 differential.

Defra insist that to be classed as 'pedigree', an animal has to have all its paperwork which show its parentage and ownership details. But this tilt in values has meant much of this may should have been 'lost' over the past weeks.

" Defra have no policy...

... and have spent £1 billion to no good effect in the last decade".

So said Lord Rooker, 1 hour and nine minutes into a slippery session with the EFRA (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) committee on December 10th. This was a long and tortuous attempt to drag from a minister, who although fashionably 'recycled', has been in the Defra seat for a decade, just what government policy on bTb would be.

But Lord Rooker was not forthcoming. The chairman remarked that he was not getting any degree of clarity, and that after ten years in the job, Lord Rooker was coming over as "don't have a clue".

But some of what he did say was unequivocal and we will summarise.

* That he wouldn't argue with the projection of a £300,000,000 annual cost of bTb in 2012 / 2013, predicted in the Defra strategy document of 2004.

* At £100,000,000 the cost of bTb annually was consuming 40 per cent of Defra's Animal Health budget - that rose to 70 - 80 percent in some areas.

* Much of the cost was on antiquated trace and paper based systems. "The vets and AHOs never get mentioned, but they operate a cumbersome paper trail". The computer screens are black and white.

* Defra has to formulate a comprehensive strategy. "The issue is bTb. We have a reservoir in the wildlife and disease in a food producing animal. And it is growing".

* "We are in real trouble. AHOs and VLA tell me that the disease is virtually impossible to eradicate in cattle while there is a reservoir in wildlife".

* "In the hot spot areas, AHOs tell me that 70 percent of the cattle breakdowns are badger related. They are on the front line".

* Cattle movements geographically are important, but "both VLA and AHOs tell me that the molecular structure [of the bacteria] is unique to areas. If the issue was cattle moving Tb around, then this molecular spread would be obvious".

* Scientists not arguing about the science of culling [ badgers], but how to do it.

* "The present situation is unsustainable. Whatever policy government come up with, they will not pay for it. This is the end of the line for taxpayer's money".

* "Culling as done by the RBCT does not work. The implication is you don't do it that way".

* The rest of mainland Europe is fine with test and slaughter - they don't have a wildlife reservoir of disease.

* "Government cannot reasonably withold licenses from applicants under section 10 (9) of the Badger Protection Act"; the Act was to protect the badger before it became known that the animal was a reservoir for bTb. Moratorium 'may have been illegal', but was never challenged.

* Zoning and cattle cordon sanitaires would destroy the industry. "The cost to the farming industry [of bTb] is horrendous, both financially and emotionally. It is very frustrating for farmers and the industry".

* The spread of bTb in "Midlands and SW hotspots has grown, but not as a result of trade".

* "bTb is the most serious disease that Defra face in terms of costs and resources. This cannot carry on".

So, an hour into the discussion, Lord Rooker was asked about the formulation of a policy to reduce costs and control bTb. And it soon became evident that his eminent lordship had one, he was not going to share it with the honourable members of the EFRA committee. When asked what the first issue on the menu of any policy would be, Lord Rooker replied:

We aren't paying for it.

And contradicting his earlier mention of farmer licenses, with Defra administrating any cull, he said Defra would :

".. not be paying for operational mapping or surveillance, even if we do sanction a cull

It is also far from clear who would issue any licenses, Defra or Natural England - although the indication was of an abdication of ministerial responsibility. Lord Rooker said repeatedly that there was abundant knowledge that if we do not deal with bTb in wildlife, we can't get rid of it in cattle. But he didn't know the cost of any clearance of wildlife reservoirs, because Defra hadn't done its sums.

Money is the key, he said. It dictates policy. Mmmm. The cynical may remind his lordship of the £1 million donation from the Political Animal Lobby which stopped all badger culling in response to outbreaks of Tb in its tracks. Was that value for money? We think not. But we digress...

Lord Rooker slammed the use of gamma interferon on the grounds of cost.

It would cost £1 million before compensation [for reactors]. We're not going down that route.

Doesn't say much for his faith in its efficacy either, does it?

And although pressing ahead with vaccination research, Lord Rooker was not too enthusiastic about either cattle vaccines (illegal under EU law, and would be catastrophic for international trade) or badger vaccines (who's going to pay for it?)

He said decisions needed clarity at the top. It wasn't there. Zuchermann, Dunnett, Krebs and the ISG and still no clarity. And they didn't understand the transmission routes of the disease. Whaaaaaaaaaaaat!! 'They' may not. We do. Sheesh.

Lord Rooker asked the committee not to "fall for another enquiry" (would that be like the like the RBCT?) and he intimated a decision early in 2008. He said that the disease had to be dealt with in the round, showing respect for a valuable industry and respect for wildlife. Chairman, Michael Jack, MP concluded the proceedings with a comment that they had a unanimity of agreement; that a practical decision and a plan has to be made. And quickly.

It was pointed out that GB may be othe only country in Europe to abdicate responsibility for a statutorily notifiable zoonosis. But Lord Rooker was having none of it.

"We shall issue the license".

he said.

If you don't like the answer.....

... ask the question again.

One of our northern contributers wrote to national newspapers at the beginning of the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial, asking just how many 'trials' government wanted. And he answered his own question with the ascerbic comment, 'as many as it takes to get the answer they desire'.

That was ten years ago, and much water has flowed under government bridges since then. Much cash too, with the incidence of bTb being one of the few things to fulfill governmental predictions. Lord Rooker confirmed in oral evidence to the EFRA committee on the 10th December that the Tb budget was on target for £300,000,000 by 2012. It was, he said, consuming 40 per cent of Defra's Animal Health budget.

But the diminutive prof. who chaired the dispersal trial, Professor John Bourne, was keen to point out that his 'trial' had had a political steer from the start. In fact he appeared to relish explaining to stunned MPs the difference between 'science' and his own brand of 'political science'.

He heard his master's voice in 1997, and delivered. But in ten years things have changed. And everything we, and other far more learned people than us mere farmers predicted, has come home to roost.

Lord Rooker listed many of these Tb 'chickens' in his addrees to the EFRA committee, and when we've listened to it - all 2 hours and a few minutes - we'll post a resume. Will we say 'we told you so'? You bet.

So, what are government going to do? They've wasted spent £millions on the prevarication of the Badger Dispersal trial, which at its inception was, according to its pilot, set up to deliver the obfuscation of cattle 2 v badgers 1.

7.24 ... The infection rate concerns all sources of infection for cattle, local infection for example across farm boundaries, infection from animals bought in particular(ly) but not only, from high incidence areas, and infection from wildlife, especially badgers. All these are important, but their relative importance and that of cattle-to-badger tranmission, cannot be estimated directly. In the following calculations we assume all three sources to be roughly equally important."

But times, as we said, change. And the answer government demanded then (and received) is not necessarily the answer demanded now. So, to paraphrase our contributer from Staffordshire, another session of number crunching is up for grabs 'until they get the answer they desire'.

Defra have invited tenders for 'Further Analyses of the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial databases This work is abbreviated to AHW-TB RRD 2008 - 2009 and tenders must be submitted by 18th January 2008.

Pity no one told Prof. Bourne that the goal posts had moved during his 'trial'.

One could almost feel sorry for the man. Almost, but not quite.

Defra - Achieving its predictions

In many articles during 2003 and 2004 (and in the PQs archived on this site) Defra (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) predicted a 20% year on year increase in bovine Tb. And if they are failing in the management of skools 'n 'ospitals, getting tangled up in dodgy party donations, sending clapped out kit into war zones and busy bailing out bankrupt banks, at least they got that bit right. Figures released this week show Defra on target for a rise of about 20% (over 2006) in herds under restriction due a 'TB incident'.

That's Defraspeak for cattle shot and the herd at a standstill: under indefinite movement restriction and 60 day tests ad infinitum - or at least until the infected wildlife responsible, expire voluntarily or compulsorily.

England's total of such herds, from Defra figures compiled to September is 6.8 per cent (up from 6.1 last year in the same 9 month period), Wales has recorded 9 per cent, (up from almost 7.0 last year) and even Scotland does not qualify for TB free trading, recording 0.5 per cent of its herds under restriction compared with 0.3 last year. Tb free trading is achieved with up to 0.01 per cent of herds affected, 0.02 per cent of cattle and a credible policy for eradication of the disease. We doubt an annual cull of cattle sentinels complies.

One casualty in the West region, (which has 15 per cent of its herds under restriction ) is breeder of pedigree South Devon cattle, Gordon Tully who has lost a valuable core of his breeding herd. Western Morning News carries the story with the headline "Brown Snub on Badger Cull".

Prime Minister Gordon Brown yesterday dodged repeated questions about his plans to tackle TB in cattle as it emerged that a leading Westcountry farm has been struck down by the disease. Mr Brown simply said it was an "issue that has got to be addressed from time to time". He added that he was doing his best to help the farming community

South Devon farmer Gordon Tully is only the latest in a long line of Westcountry farmers whose herds have been hit by bTb.He said watching the slaughter of his TB-hit livestock was like "having my own heart ripped out". He said the "cause is clear" and that a badger cull was the only way of stopping other farmers having to live under the "black cloud" of movement restrictions and slaughter. The report continues:

Mr Tully, from Waddeton, near Brixham, has already seen nine of his beef cattle killed, with a further 12 expected to be culled today. And it has cast a huge shadow over the remainder of his once 230-strong herd. In a heartfelt letter to his MP, Anthony Steen, urging him to raise his plight with ministers, he said: "I am in a state of shock and am very, very upset and totally lost. I am unable to see what to do now. I am having the heart ripped out of my herd and feel I am having my own heart ripped out as well."

Gordon Brown fended the questions - as only practised politicians can. He admitted there "have been problems" which have beset rural communities but "we have tried our best working with the farming community to make possible more successful farming in the future".

What the hell did that mean? (Answers on a postcard.)

Brown then referred to recent "difficulties" the farming community had faced, including foot and mouth disease and bluetongue. Difficulties? Trade bans, movement restrictions, lock down, bankruptcy? Yes, you could say we have 'difficulties'. But whose fault was the un-repaired leaky drain at the Pirbright IAH site? Who kept the State Veterinary Service, of which this facility was the flagship, so starved of funds that basic maintenance within a Grade 4 bio security level facility was compromised? And who, having seen the devastation wrought across Europe this year with bluetongue virus, advised the erection of 'sticky midge nets' instead of an all out commitment to vaccination? And who has counted more votes in dead badger than a dead cow, and still thinks he can buy his food supplies from abroad?

Former keeper of HMG's beans, and now Prime Minister, Gordon Brown who told reporters: "We have tried to do our best to give support financially."

How, he did not elaborate. The WMN report continues:

The far South West is one of the hardest-hit parts of the country. Between January and August this year alone, there were 468 confirmed cases of TB in cattle across Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and Dorset. That compares with 697 in the whole of 2006, sparking fears that another record could be set by the end of the year. Mr Tully said the outbreak on his farm was proof that action needed to be taken soon: "Until they address the rest of the equation they are never going to solve it."

Gordon Tully's herd now faces regular tests until the cattle are given the all-clear on two successive occasions. Until then he cannot move any of his herd except to send for slaughter. But if the collective brain cell known as T-BAG (TB Advisory Group) get their way, after those two consecutive clear 60 day tests, Mr. Tulley faces several more years under effective 'restriction' - unable to trade his cattle in the market place under a daft idea of zoning dressed up as 'Risk Based Trading'

The background and 'pedigree' of Gordon Tully's cattle can be read in Farmers Guardian this week, under a piece which describes the farmer's devastation at losing them - and more importantly not being able to do a damned thing about it.

It [Mr. Tully's pedigree herd] is one of 10 foundation herds for the South Devon breed, with bloodlines dating back to 1891. It has provided the breed champion and reserve breed champion at the last two Royal Shows and, before that, the winner of the prestigious Queen Mother’s Cup at the Smithfield show. The successful herd has been built up through skillful breeding over six decades by two generations of the Tully family. But now the family could potentially lose everything.

After a clear test in the spring, Mr Tully's cattle had a devastating result at the end of October, when a herd test revealed 31 animals to be either reactors or inconclusives.

Twenty-one have been slaughtered over the past two weeks, leaving six calves under three months without mothers. With tests on a further 25 ‘inconclusives’ scheduled for January, the final toll could be much higher. “I fear for what is coming. How many more are they going to take?” an emotional Mr Tully said.

But the greatest frustration, he said, was knowing he was powerless to prevent the outbreak - or to stop it continuing to rip through his herd. “I am just so despondent. If I could say they were going for the benefit of other cattle and something good would come of it, that would be something. But it clearly isn’t as it is painfully obvious the disease is being spread by badgers – we had a clear test in April and no cattle have come on the farm since".

“I just feel I am a sitting duck here now. I backed down from refusing entry to take my cattle after the divisional veterinary manager said: ‘You don’t want diseased cattle on you farm, do you?’ I said: ‘No, and I don’t want diseased badgers, either. The badgers are dying slow and painful deaths. Who is looking out for them?”

Mr. Tully has written to Lord Rooker asking: “I cannot understand why the Government is more concerned about badgers than cattle. Are you going to introduce a badger cull in Devon?” He may also have asked, as a comment on this posting has suggested, enquiring why so-called animal lovers are totally opposed to culling diseased badgers, while content to see them die like THIS.

The usual suspects expressed sympathy and anger in equal measures.

A Defra spokesman said:

"The Government will only consider introducing a policy which would allow the culling of badgers to control and reduce bovine TB if the available evidence suggests that it would it be successful in the long term, and that a cost-effective, practical, sustainable and humane policy could be developed and implemented. The evidence base on this issue is complex and there are no simple answers.".

The Badger Trust claimed: "Killing badgers is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut - doing far more harm than good."

A 20 per cent increase in Tb restricted herds predicted - and achieved - annually?
7 per cent of England's herds under Tb restriction in the 9 months to September?
Devon, Glos and Hereford / Worcs recording over 20 per cent of their herds affected.
And herds like Gordon Tully's - condemned by infectious wildlife?

Some sledgehammer. Some nut.

Playing politics

Two stories hit the farming press this week which illustrate the total futility of farmers trying to play politics. Market prices, that is prices achieved in an auction, and on which a vendor can turn his back and take stock home, are the benchmark for most livestock trade - and for Defra's infamous tabular valuations. So what happens if the rug is pulled on the system?

Howard Walsh writing in Farmers Guardian, entitles his piece Movement Restrictions Strangling Trade and pulls no punches when he reports an auctioneer in the SE as saying:

Bluetongue (BTV) and foot-and-mouth rules and regulations will kill the UK livestock industry before the diseases do.

The piece explains the stranglehold such restrictions have on a livestock farm's ability to trade its stock at the 'market price', if that market is no longer there. Downward pressure feeds onto deadweight retailer prices, and as auctioneers all over the country are finding, the consequences are devastating. Current movement restrictions also threaten the markets’ longer term viability.

While attention is concentrated on the markets of the SE, the zoning of the area means that up to 150 km inland, markets are affected, with regular trade stifled.
Vendors are worried not only that they would not be able take stock home in the event of prices falling short of expectations, but that buyers are restricted anyway by the same boundary and movement controls.

York Livestock Centre is in this position and according to principle James Stephenson the fact that the Murton centre is just inside the zone, is decimating trade, particular store stock.

“The cattle finishers are being starved of store stock and this part of the country is, you could say a meat basket but the abattoirs will find next year that the stock are just not there. We are really concerned about the situation and if something is not done soon, then we will lose some auction marts

Livestock Auctioneers Association executive secretary Chris Dodds was not optimistic about the situation, describing a two tier market which has developed either side of the zoning line:

“There is a massive difference in livestock values being achieved either side of the line.”

We have touched on the problem of zoning risk-based trading for TB before in this post and this week, ironically on the same page as the piece above, Farmers Guardian reports that Farmers have requested just such movement restrictions for Tb.

Have they? We haven't. In fact we have pointed out many times the futility of such measures, all of which have been tried before - and all of which have failed. But the TB Advisory Group, our old friend T-Bag, in the shape of chairman Peter Jinman have proposed zoning risk based trading for farms who have had a confirmed breakdown in the previous - well they aren't quite sure, 2, 3 or 4 years? Maybe.

These farms will only be able to sell stock to consenting farms of similar status. No markets. In fact a buyers' market - if you can find a buyer. Zoning per se may find itself on the back burner if rumours of the whole of England adopting a more regular testing regime, rather than the 3/4 year testing areas which operate now, are correct. This would be sensible, as would post movement tests - but we've said this before as well. It is this fixation with extra non-productive cattle controls, offered as a sop to HMG that is worrying.

In a letter to Lord Rooker, Peter Jinman, outlined the groups' proposals and said that he was struck:

".. by the industry’s willingness to consider additional cattle controls’.

Who is this 'industry'? Has anybody told the farmers what you guys are offering on their behalf? Yes? No?

No, we didn't think so.

Mr. Jinman said representatives had made it clear that going down this route without parallel wildlife controls would ‘not be acceptable’. Right. That's OK then. Which tree did these people fall out of? We've been here before in fact almost two years to the day, the 'industry' rolled out a three part plan. Defra got its tabular valuations and preMT - and delivered a new group (T-BAG) and a 'consultation'.

Defra's track record on farmer 'deals' is not good. Duplicitous, mendacious and slippery, it's usually a case of Defra saying jump and a very few egotistical lightweights saying 'how high'? Or in this case 'on who'?

And in this case, the 'who' are livestock farmers who have had the misfortune to have had Tb confirmed on their farms in the last 2, 3 or 4 years. They been under restriction during the outbreak and felt the impact on their businesses, but this bolts on a whole new layer of problems for another 2, 3 or 4 years. (Mr. Jinman's group Defra haven't decided yet)

T- BAG kindly explain the bones of what they have offered to Government on your behalf:

* Restricting farmers with a recent history of the disease to moving their cattle only to other ‘high risk’ farmers.

* Examining the costs and benefits of increasing routine surveillance.

* Looking at the costs and benefits of greater use of the gamma interferon test.

* Exploring the scope for introducing a risk-based trading, and how it could work.

* Targeted use of post-movement testing.

Mr Jinman said there was no support for ‘zoning’, banning the movement of cattle out of high risk areas, as this would have an ‘unacceptable economic impact’ and would not reflect risk accurately for those farmers who had stayed disease-free.

But there was, he said,

A ‘willingness’ to consider other options, such as risk-based trading. While the details still have to be fleshed out, the broad principle is that farmers would be categorised according to risk, with those that have experienced breakdowns in the past two to four years, for example, categorised as ‘high risk’.
They would be allowed to move cattle to other high risk farms but not to farms deemed lower risk.

So, we have a story that livestock farms in the as the SE, NE and Midlands are described as 'Strangled by the movement restrictions", which they say will destroy more businesses than the diease. But on behalf of every farm which has had a confirmed outbreak of TB in the last 2, 3 or 4 years (Defra haven't decided yet), a small 'stakeholder' group, has offered - " willingly" the man said, er, more movement restrictions, and a two tier market - if any market for such stock can be found at all.

One could say that such ideas show a distinct 'lemming' gene to be prevalent amongst the group.

Red Herring?

Researchers at the Institute of Animal Health's Compton laboratory have been awarded a commendation described as "Outstanding Contribution by an Academic or Scientific Institution", at the Animal Health Awards, for their work in developing a diagnostic test for cattle which have been "vaccinated against bovine tb".

But is the vaccination of cattle for Tb a viable solution to a problem which is endemic in wildlife?

The test as Farmers Weekly reports, is said to differentiate between cattle 'vaccinated against bTb' and those infected with the disease.

TB is on the increase in the UK cattle herd, costing more than £90m a year and vaccination is under "active consideration", say the Institute of Animal Health. This would involve using the same vaccination used to immunise humans against the disease, BCG.

However, BCG-vaccinated cattle test positive using the tuberculin skin test. Before a bovine TB vaccination strategy can be implemented, a method of distinguishing between vaccinated and infected animals has to be established.

With all due respect to the researchers at Compton, Tb vaccine has been "under consideration" for as many years as I can remember. On other forums, vaccination of cattle for various disease is under active discussion. Vaccination is used worldwide for some notifiable dieases as an anti- marketing tool, and should countries adopt it, their produce is automatically disqualified from entry into other trading blocs.

The current discussions centre on the midge bourne BTV (bluetongue virus) which had not been reported in the UK before this year. We therefore qualified for "BTV free status zoning". And for years this country excluded exports of breeding stock, embryos, semen etc from parts of the world whose geographic location encouraged BTV midges and whose stock were vaccinated. Vaccination across Europe is now on the cards, but as a compulsory trading bloc, which will probably mean in due course that BTV is "de-listed" from its current notifiable status.

FMD (Foot and Mouth Disease) has similar trading restrictions under OIE and EU trading rules, and the inevitable two tier markets develop between countries with endemic disease and vaccination policies, and those without either.

So why should a cattle Tb vaccine even be considered other than as a reserach project? It's use is strictly limited, and its disadvantages many.

We asked several epidemiologists and also industry leaders who have connections with export markets, and the replies were unequivocal. Unworkable, unnecessary and commercial suicide.

..I doubt very much that this is the prelude to a vaccination programme for cattle. For a start there is currently no effective vaccine for cattle and I rather doubt there will be. Secondly the idea of vaccinating cattle in the face of massive challenge in the field from infected badgers is daft. Yes, vaccination against brucellosis was successful but there was no wildlife reservoir to break down resistance (and the S19 vaccine was a good one) ...

So, if cattle are the only candidate and there is no wildlife reservoir to break down resistance to a vaccine, it would work. But vaccination minimises an immune response to bacterial challenge: it does not stop it altogether. Thus cattle vaccination in the face of exposure from disease endemic elsewhere would be pointless.

And on trade, as we have said an immediate ban would come from the EU - that's if any pharmaceutical company decided with such a limited market, to produce a vaccine at all. Only countries with an uncontrolled wildlife reservoir of Tb would be remotely interested. Manufacturers are demanding a 100 million dose underwrite across the EU for BTV-8 vaccine, before they'll think of applying for market authorisation, so how viable is a Tb vaccine for the West of GB and Wales?

Another quote on this subject:

If we vaccinated cattle there would be an immediate trade embargo with the rest of the EEC. In fact I reckon they are almost waiting for it! Vaccination for badgers is a long term approach which Ireland are currently trialling (or will very soon be ). But no vaccine can cope with the current weight of infection in the badger population at the moment and strategic culling will be an essential pre requisite.

Now that is interesting. We have expressed support for vaccination for badgers, if only to protect them from their infected sett mates, but vaccination + disease = death, was always the mantra. And it would appear that for any vaccination programme to succeed, the candidate must be uninfected at the time of vaccination. So how would the Badger Trust sell the concept of a badger cull as a prerequisite of a badger vaccination programme to its members?

But we digress. The test which IAH Compton have developed, relies on the information that immune cells of cattle previously infected with TB contain more of the protein gamma interferon than those vaccinated for TB. They describe the test as able to provide:

.. same day, on farm diagnosis of TB and identify which are vaccinated and which are infected.

That sounds suspiciously like PCR. And if it is, good. Especially if it is rt-PCR and we're not still lagging 6 years behind the plot on this stunning technology. Next step, use it to identify bTb in the environment and that is progress.

The researchers at Compton comment: "The ultimate benefit of accurate diagnosis of disease, in the light of vaccination, would be a reduction in the incidence of TB with associated improvements in animal health and welfare, and the livelihood of farmers."

Don't think so. Vaccination in the face of an endemically infected wildlife, would be ineffective and vaccination per se would destroy the livlihoods of all cattle producers, by creating a two tier market - or even no market, for their goods. Archaic, that may seem but it is the reality of global trading.

And what about the cats? And llamas? And free range pigs? ...

Spill over - now llamas...

Several be-suited members of the EFRA (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) committee donned wellies and perched on straw bales for a trailer ride tour, to see for themselves the interaction between livestock and wildlife on SW farms affected by bTb. Member of the committee, Geoffrey Cox, MP said:

"I believe that my colleagues were deeply impressed with the dignified eloquence of those who spoke to us about their experiences and shocked by the destructiveness of the disease on herds and on farming livelihoods".

Mr. Cox, whose constituency is one of the most badly affected in the country, had urged his committee colleagues to see for themselves, the devastation caused by the disease, Western Morning News reports.

The committee visited a farm in Shebbear which has been under restrictions for several years, learning first hand from farmers and local vets of the impact the disease has had, and is continuing to have, on farming families and businesses.

Mr. Cox was one of the main badgerers questioners of Prof. Bourne when EFRAcom examined the ISG final report into the 10 year antics of the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial. The committee will, in due course prepare a report for government, and Mr. Cox continued:

"The message that must come out of our report is that the Government can no longer postpone the urgently needed action to control the disease in wildlife, which Defra - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - accepts is an important factor in the spread of infection here in Torridge, by a locally targeted, humane cull in heavily infected areas."

We have spoken many times on this blog, of the inevitable spill over casualties of this debacle. Shooting the messenger does not get rid of the problem. And following the Torridge visit, the EFRA committee members moved on to a llama farm in Mid Devon where half of this unique breeding herd of animals has been wiped out by Bovine TB.

This is breeding herd of llamas, selling valuable stock for export which have to be TB tested before they can travel. A 'closed herd', it has over the course of a very few months, lost half its stock to bTb.

Crucially, the committee members heard at each farm visited, that not only had the farmers operated bio secure 'closed herd' policies,

"...they had found sick or dying badgers on their farm before the outbreak of infection."

And this is the bit that our friends in the animal protection charities do not like. Up with pictures of the reality of tuberculosis in their chosen species, they will not put. But as the disease runs riot through the wildlife, more and more spillover becomes inevitable. As the llamas found, to their cost.

Mass cull? - it won't happen.

Farmer Ian Pettyfer from Devon echoes our thoughts in an opinion piece in this week's Western Morning News. Forget pythagorus and huge cull areas aka John Bourne. They may work in a hypothetical, mathematical modeling situation but are a bloody disaster in any other.

Mr. Pettyfer welcomes Sir David King's overview of the Bourne report, pointing out that the ISG only considered one form of culling. (And accomplished that with total arrogance and aplomb, ignoring both the advice from their WLU managers and the recommendations of Professor Krebs)

[Sir David King] correctly, in the opinion of farmers, disputes the conclusion of the Bourne Report that any cull will merely exacerbate the problem, since Professor Bourne was only looking at one form of culling - cage trapping. However, King, in proposing a cull, goes on to agree with Bourne that, for this to be effective, it needs to be over a very wide area, a minimum of 100 square kilometres at least, but fails to consider any evidence to show that a different form of culling could succeed in much smaller areas, involving the deaths of far fewer badgers, and only in the diseased setts.

It is unfortunate that Sir David did not go further back than AB (After Bourne). In fact it is quite remarkable that (scientific) life began with Bourne and the ISG. No research, trials, cattle controls - nothing to do with controlling bTb happened BB (Before Bourne) it would seem. At least nothing that isn't ridiculed and pilloried into submission by a new 'modeling' exercise. Forget if you will, that 20 years ago GB achieved Tb free trading status. The last time we able to say that. And certainly ignore the advice of the people who fought so hard to gain that status. They were BB. But we digress. Mr. Pettyfer doesn't like the idea of huge area culls any more than we do - or the Bern Convention would.

Forget a massive cull - it is simply never going to happen. For a start, many landowners and farmers, let alone the general public, will never tolerate it. Where are the natural barriers, which are necessary for it to succeed in Devon and Cornwall - the M5, the English and Bristol Channels? Attempting to slaughter 80 per cent of the badgers in such a huge area is a preposterous idea.

Quite right. It is a red herring designed to prevaricate even more on the contentious subject of culling selective wildlife reservoirs of tuberculosis. Mr. Pettyfer concludes that he is "inclined to believe that Sir David intended to stir up controversy by suggesting it, knowing that the adverse public reaction would allow the Government to stall for the remainder of this parliament."

The sooner we start doing what we did successfully 40 years ago, and should have been doing for the past 20 years, the sooner we shall beat this heartbreaking and costly disease. Farms where TB keeps recurring and where cattle are not being introduced from other herds, should be licensed to take out the badgers, using carbon monoxide gas under veterinary supervision, and kept free of badgers until the herd goes clear. That is what farmers and vets have been advocating for years. It will eventually happen, and the public will tolerate it.

They'll tolerate it even more when their pet cats, dogs and free range companion animals start coughing. Spill over has already decimated a llama farm in East Devon which operated a 'closed herd' policy. We will post more on that in due course.

Manx mischief

We are used to the politics of 'spin' from government. But we are becoming increasingly weary of the same misinformation spin, churned out via press releases from various prominent animal charities and unquestioningly regurgitated by lazy media hacks.

In our posting Spot-the-difference we showed a master in action. Our Trevor, Mr. Lawson, media advisor to the Badger Trust, carefully snipped a vital piece of English grammar - the subject no less - from a sentence and turned scientific fact into Badger Trust fiction.

That was after both he and the ISG spent more than a few years chasing postcards, in the mistaken belief that the 14 million animal movements logged by the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) were individual bovine hoofprints. They were not. They were data, often quadrupled, generated by just 2.2 million cattle movements and 400,000 calf hops.

And now they have turned their attention to the Isle of Man. An island enjoying similar climate and geographic features to both Ireland and West Wales, it has cattle herds (large, small, organic and conventional, beef and dairy) - but no badgers. And the clarion call has gone up that TB is 'rife' on the island and as badgers are in no way implicated - well it's gotta be cattle.

First of all Tb is not 'rife'. The Isle of Man logged just five cases from 2001 - 2003 as described in the Department of Agriculture's newsletter of 2003:

Bovine tuberculosis was discovered on the Island in October 2001, the first outbreak since 1971. The affected milking herd on the initial farm had to be destroyed because of clear evidence of rapid spread of the disease within the adult cattle. Four other locations had only one affected animal each. No evidence of spread from any of the five locations has been found. Laboratory tests conclusively demonstrated that at least four, if not all five, of these outbreaks were unrelated to each other.

The last confirmed case was in April 2002. All herds that had confirmed cases have been subjected to further testing with negative results.

Government and private practice vets, have worked together to deliver the increased level of testing required. The 2003/4 programme has been completed with no herd under restriction for failing a tuberculosis test.

The Manx government take bovine Tb very seriously. Cattle imported on to the island are subject to strict veterinary controls, which the Department describes thus:

All imported cattle are subject to -
* testing prior to importation;
* movement restriction following importation; and
* post-import testing.

We are grateful for information direct from the Manx veterinary authorities for the following up-to-date quote:

...Other advances in genetic testing have permitted the Animal Health Division to specifically identify the bacteria isolated from each of the Island’s outbreaks (12 since 2000) and determine whether they may be related. These investigations, together with movement analyses, have shown that many of the outbreaks are unrelated and are likely to have been the result of importation. ...

There is two year testing on most herds on the island, but much more important, as described above, they post movement test imported cattle at 60 days plus.

If a cow is carrying Tb when she jumps into a lorry, it his highly unlikely that the journey to the Isle of Man will produce a miracle cure. And it is this vital post movement skin test, we are told, that is finding the occasional reactor,(12 in 7 years) described as "unrelated" and "likely to be the result of importation".

And this is the crucial 'snip' that escaped the press releases.

The Isle of Man is also looking at its own particular 'wildlife' in case a reservoir is building. They are mindful of problems not a million miles away from their shores. They may not have badgers - they do have feral ferrets, wallabies and polecats. If an outbreak cannot be traced to imports the IOM authorities comment:

We can clear up our outbreaks without further breakdown because we don’t have a large reservoir of infected badgers.
We think it may be circulating to a minor extent outside cattle and are looking for a wildlife reservoir – suspects at the moment are feral wallabies, feral cats, polecats and rats.
If and when we find proof of an infected wildlife reservoir, we will take action to control/eradicate.
If any badgers were to be imported and released illegally, we would take immediate steps to eradicate on the grounds that they are non-indigenous species and a threat to our national herd.

All of which sounds extremely sensible. The Department of Agriculture is aware that the threat of Tb is always present. Particularly as TB incidence in the nearest exporting country (that's us) has risen from under 100 herds affected in the mid 1980s to 5,787 (in 2006)and thus the odds that the IOM will import problems have increased considerably. The authorities, by using a post movement test are determined that Tb will not be imported and they add that although TB is present on the island, it is definitely not 'rife'.

GammaIFN has been used in one herd, as was described here and the Isle of Man's Animal Health Division co-ordinates the periodic testing for Tuberculosis of all the Island's cattle. All herds are currently tested within a two-year cycle. The period of testing will be reduced to an annual basis if the herd is deemed a high-risk herd, if the herd has imported any cattle or if the herd sells retail milk. Link to that information.

So is TB 'rife' on the Isle of Man? Official Manx documents from the Department of Agriculture (at least they still have a Department which even mentions 'Agriculture') describe 5 cases 2001 - 2003 and a total 12 cases from 2000 - 2007 - all of which proved to be 'unrelated' after culture spoligotypes were received, and most were 'likely to be the result of importation'. Result: less than two cases annually over the last seven years and all found by post-movement skin tests?

The Isles of Scilly off SW Cornwall enjoys similar status - or its cattle do.

We should be so lucky.

Political pressure v. science

The editorial of the scientific magazine 'Nature' has a hard hitting attack on Sir David King, chief scientific adviser to the H.M Government, commenting on his recently released critique of the ISG final report. They accuse him of bowing to 'political pressure'.

The question of whether British farmers should be allowed to cull badgers, on the basis that the animals may help spread tuberculosis (TB) among cattle, is perhaps not the most momentous matter on which a government has sought scientific advice. But the mishandling of the issue by David King, the UK government's chief scientific adviser, is an example to governments of how not deal with such advice, once it has been solicited and received.

Mishandling? That 'government' had had its sticky paws in this most unholy of messes from day one of the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial, appears to have escaped the editors of Nature. But not of course, the diminutive professor who orchestrated the trial. If you remember (and Nature obviously does not) he was most forthcoming, in fact inordinately proud of this political skew - as we reported here In fact Profesor Bourne was quite open with the EFRAcom, as to who steered his 'trial' and how:

"We repeatedly say "culling, as conducted in the trial." It is important [that] we do say that. Those limitations were not imposed by ourselves. They were imposed by politicians."

"At the end of the day I think you have to accept that it is the price society puts on a badger. [ ] In this country there is a price on a badger and on badger welfare".

"Whatever has driven that I do not know but the fact is that a price has been put on the badger in this country which related to the way we were able to carry out our scientific work. That is exactly what we report".

That the man even mentioned the word 'science' in the same sentence as the political steer to this 'trial', is breathtakingly arrogant. That Nature have not picked up on his assertions, is worse.

We re-run a comment from CLA representative Mr. Rooney, himself a scientist, who expressed his displeasure at Bourne's discription of 'political science' most forcefully:

Perhaps I might preface my remarks by saying that I was brought up as a scientist; it was not in this discipline, but scientific principles hold, whatever the discipline. One of the things that I was taught was that, in designing an experiment to try to address an issue or a problem, you may not like the results, but you accept them. I find it deeply shocking that responsible scientists should have been prepared to undertake a research study having been told at the outset that there is a conclusion that they are not allowed to reach. I find that utterly disgraceful".

It is noteworthy that Sir David King vehemently denied any such political skew, when he appeared before the EFRAcom last week. Speaking before his appearance, Professor Bourne claimed Sir David’s report was politically motivated.

Sir David refuted the claim. “I would never give advice based on pressure from politicians,” he said.

Which is more than can be said for the author of the ISG's final report, and its chairman.

Reactions to the King.

Some reactions - predictably polarised - to Sir. David King's peer review of the ISG final report, in which he used quite un-scientific, but eloquently cutting phrases to describe the report's unequivocal findings.

"the data do not support such an unqualified conclusion..."
"the ISG's view...is unsound..."
"the confidence intervals are very large..."
"it was unclear whether it had been considered..."
"we are concerned about the time frame..."
"this time lag does not seem to have been taken into account..."
"the results...should be viewed with extreme caution..."
"we were not fully persuaded by it..."
"we have concerns about the biological plausibility of the ISG's interpretation of the results..."

A comment on a posting below quoted Animal Aid's predictable hype, which cited "overcrowded factory farms, dirty conditions" - conveniently forgetting 'Shambo' - and The Guardian has John Bourne as defending 'hero' and Sir. David as 'villain', in a short overview of the theatre that is EFRAcom.

The government chief scientist's recommendations to ministers on badger culling were "hastily written", "superficial" and "selective" according to the scientist who led the government's study into the problem of cattle TB.

However, it is quite apparent from ploughing through the dough of this Final Report, that much is based on 'assumption', 'rough' estimates and 'hypothoses'. And those can be skewed. And according the the person who framed its methodology, Professor Bourne, it was politically skewed from its outset.

As we have said before, the main tranche of its conclusions on the relative importance of cattle or badgers in the 'net reproduction rate of the epidemic' are summed up in para 7.24 where the ISG describe how they come to the conclusion that badgers account for 40 per cent of incidents. It is a 'tentative' prediction, they say:

...all sources of infection for cattle, local infection for example across farm boundaries, infection from animals bought in particular(ly) but not only, from high incidence areas, and infection from wildlife, especially badgers. All these are important but their relative importance, and that of cattle-to-badger transmission, cannot be estimated directly. In the following calculations, we assume all three sources to be roughly equally important"

And that lazy, contradictory (see more in our comment below) 'tentative' prediction, based on 2 parts cattle to 1 part badger, extruded through a 'simple mathematical model' in three 'roughly equal' sound bites are what the final report boils down to. That and John Bourne's infamous 'edges', which Sir David at least was at pains to reinterpret.

Sir David defended his corner well, reminding his audience that his remit was not to offer solutions but to examine the evidence for the ISG's conclusions. He also reminded them that it was his group who brought up sharp the government scientists exploring for three long and expensive years, the possibility of BSE in sheep - by examining cattle brains.

And from the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management (VAWM) comes the following:

The recent statement by the chief scientist Sir David King that badgers will have to be culled in order to control bovine tuberculosis is a welcome breath of scientific fresh air and common sense to be contrasted with the politically compromised recommendations of the so called Independent Scientific Group earlier this year.

They also point out that as control of bTb in wildlife reservoirs has been abandoned for the last ten years, after its progressive sanitation in the previous decade, its spread has effectively been allowed to "run out of control".

VAWM's response to the ISG final report and their statement on Sir. David King's response can be read here, and the farming press comments here and here.

Cutting to the chase

The media has led a hysterical chorus, aided and abetted by the Badger Trust and fuelled by John Bourne's final report - now neatly chewed up by Sir David King - that cattle-to-cattle transmission of bTb is the primary author of its spread.

Keep focussed readers.. The existing model used worldwide for eradication of Tb from cattle herds is the well proven intradermal skin test. In countries with an environment uncontaminated by other mycobacteria, it is used alone. In the UK and some other countries it has evolved as a comparison test between m. avium and M. bovis. Nevertheless, this primary OIE / EU approved test has managed in the majority of countries worldwide, to clear bTb from the cattle herds with a programme of test and slaughter.

If the chattering voices citing cattle-to-cattle transmission are correct, this would have been unachievable. The only countries having problems are those where bTb has been allowed to establish in a wildlfe reservoir, which has proved a secondary but a maintenance source of disease. And in areas where regular testing and cattle culling have exceeded predictions and failed to stem the increase in disease, by default such reservoirs have become the primary source of spread.

We explored this on several occasions with Parliamentary questions to 'Baby' Ben Bradshaw, in his days manning the Animal Health desk for his boss. And most grateful we were for his patient replies:

Parliamentary Questions. 30th January 2004 Column 540W [150492]

Mr. Bradshaw: All countries have either eradicated or have a programme to control bovine tuberculosis use one or more forms of the skin test. The government have close links with a number of countries in various stages of eradication and exchanges information and experience on the use of the tests in the context of these programmes.

The government is not aware of any country that has replaced the skin test as the primary test for bovine tuberculosis.

And on vaccination v. wildlife interface and the skin test:

Parliamentary Questions 25. March 2004 col 989W. [159061]

Mr. Bradshaw. Evidence from other countries shows that, in the absence of a significant wildlife reservoir, (of Tb ) cattle controls based on regular testing, and slaughter (of reactors), inspection at slaughterhouses, and movement restrictions (including tracing and contiguous testing), can be effective at controlling bovine Tb without vaccination."

A case of tripping over the obvious?

A long time coming

In a report released today, October 22nd, the Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King paves the way for a badger cull in areas of endemic cattle Tb. The report was originally submitted to the Secretary of State, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on 30th July. The report unpicks much of the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial data and many of its conclusions. It emphasises that this is not a badger 'elimination' exercise. It begins;

...I have had regard that the overiding aim is to control Tb in cattle. As badgers are a continuing source of infection in certain areas of high cattle Tb prevalence, a secondary aim is to control Tb in these badger populations. It is not to eliminate badgers; any removal of badgers must be done humanely and within conservation considerations (including the Bern Convention). Thus references to removal in this report are to reducing the number of badgers in an area rather than completely removing them from that area.

Sir David comments on the surge of new herd breakdowns, and recommends "strong action to reverse the upward trend". He sees badger removal coming parallel to current and 'future' cattle controls. Any description of 'future' ones are not expanded upon. But the ISG described them in a fair amount of detail. After stressing that removal of badgers should only take place "in those areas of the country where there is a high and persistent incidence of TB in cattle", the report concludes:

Removal of badgers is the best option available at the moment to reduce the reservoir of infection in wildlife. But in the longer term, alternative or additional means of controlling Tb in badgers such as vaccination, may become available. Research into these should continue.

The report seems to have taken on board the complete shambles achieved by the ISG in their 8 night hit-and-run visits, repeated annually if at all.

Badger removal programmes should be sustained (unless replaced or supplemented by alternative means of control)
Removal which is improperly carried out, or which is fragmented in space and time, could cause detrimental effects on the incidence of cattle TB.

With that, we would not disagree. Badger dispersal the RBCT most certainly was, and yup, it caused havoc in many a closed herd - including those of our contributors.
On badger behaviour and population density the report is rather less clear, but attributes the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial published results as 'indirect field signs' and 'an informed guess' at badger density.

Over the whole duration of the RBCT, badger density was reduced by about 70 per cent in each of the proactive trial areas (though the data are indirect field signs and this is, therefore, an informed guess) As the ISG note, removal of badgers disrupts their social structure. When a social group is disrupted, the population density is reduced, other badgers move in rapidly (possibly within days). There will be mixing within groups neighbouring the removal areas. Overall there will be net immigration into the removal areas. If removal is not sustained the badger population is likely to recover over time, although this may happen slowly.

So, ten years and over £50 million, and the ISG works on 'indirect field signs' on which they and Sir David's team thus make an 'informed guess' at data flow? Clever stuff this 'science' then? The report continues:

Dispersed infectious badgers are more likely to come into contact with uninfected susceptible badgers through fighting over mates and territory and via close general contact. Therefore they are more likely to spread TB to new areas.

And on the 'dispersal' of badgers by the ISG;

Because of the dispersal effect brought on by removal, [TB] clustering was disrupted over the course of the trial and there is evidence that the prevalence of infection in badgers in those areas increased.If removal is not sustained, there is a risk that the population of badgers could return to pre-removal levels, but with an increased prevalence of infection. It is therefore extremely important that removal is carried out effectively and be sustained.

Don't 'disperse' the problem in other words. Just what we said. But Sir David's team describe badger disruption as transient or 'temporary'. That is, it is not a continuing factor if the whole social group is removed. This gives a more stable population and reduces badger-to-badger transmission. They note that even using Bourne's hit-and-run occasional visitsthe ISG report's data, any detrimental effect on cattle outside the removal area reduced with successive removals.

And on the conclusions drawn by the ISG: they find that the "ISG statement 'That badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the control of cattle TB in Britain' is not supported by the RBCT data and as such it was an 'Unqualified conclusion'. They find some data is 'unsound', confidence levels for the detrimental effect on Bourne's 'edges' are 'very large'. (the levels not the diminutive Prof's edges) They criticise the time frame for resulting cattle tests after the conclusion of the trial and urge caution over interpretation of the first year results. (We would urge extreme caution over most of the results - but let that pass) And the report has concerns that the rug was prematurely pulled from the Reactive culls, and say they are unable to comment on the published results 'with confidence.'

We have concerns about the biological plausibility of the ISG's interpretation of the results and do not consider that the evidence in the ISG report should be used either to support or to rule out reactive removal strategy.

It would have helped if they'd 'reacted' at all, Sir David. Arrival would have been good, or at least more than once in three years, as would a stay longer than 8 nights.

Finally, the report concludes:

In our view, a programme for the removal of badgers could make a significant contribution to the control of cattle TB in those areas of England where there is a high and persistent incidence of TB in cattle, provided removal takes place alongside an effective programme of cattle controls.

Good as far as it goes, but if those bolt on cattle measures upon which Bourne was so insistent, are more of a problem than the disease itself ....

So finally, may we caution those VIP stakeholders on T-BAG: any challenge to these measures must bring up short introduction of any new cattle measures - which are totally unecessary anyway. Otherwise Bourne's Trojan Horse will cut a swath through the cattle herds of the west, with absolutely no reduction in cattle TB, just a reduction in cattle and bankruptcy for cattle farmers.

Farmers Weekly has the story and a link to the full report (pdf)