Great Expectations

In December 2006, the Welsh Assembly established the biosecurity 'Intensive Treatment Area' across an area of approx 100 sq km. with a high incidence of bTB on the Carmarthanshire / Pembrokeshire border in West Wales.

The overall aim, it stated, was to "raise awareness, understanding and ultimately, uptake of biosecurity on farms". The ITA assessments were carried out by local vets and the exercise's scoring tool had input from the Royal Veterinary College. The collator of results and author of the paper is Dr. Gareth Enticott and the beneficiary of his research funding, Cardiff University.

Much has been made of a trite, lightweight, petty and insulting quote picked up by the press, and about which the Badger Trust's have got extremely excited. This was placed in comments on our posting below and the gist of it is that a farmer in the ITA thought he had a 'closed herd', but had purchased cattle from his sister. The examining vet thought this was hilarious; the Badger Trust use the example as an example of - not really sure, but it's certainly got them excited. And Dr. Enticott? Well it appears in his paper, while an example of a genuinely closed herd, of which we are sure he is aware, where all his tick boxes on the biosecurity scores are zilch, does not. What does that tell us about the depth of this paper? The farmer in question, must be horrified. Lampooned as a fool by his vet, the vet's employer and the agricultural press. A very smart way to encourage participation in any exercise - if we may be so bold as to suggest.

But we digress. Leaving aside the implication that if all the listed biosecurity markers are followed, somehow infectious badgers will not infect cattle on participating farms. And conversely, if markers are ignored then it is the farmers' own fault if bTB strikes his herd - especially if he has purchased cattle from his sister - the opening remarks of this statistical jumble are a classic.

"The expectation was that any improvement of on-farm biosecurity would in turn help to reduce outbreaks of bovine TB."

followed closely by the caveat:

"Testing the effectiveness of particular forms of biosecurity was not the explicit aim of the project"

Well that's the triumph of hope over experience then. Especially as the government's chief badger advisor, Dr. Chris Cheeseman of Badger Heaven Woodchester Park, has opined on at least two occasions that contributors to this site have witnessed, that keeping badgers and cattle apart is impossible. "You can't" he said. "You get rid of your cattle".

So, back to Dr. Enticott's (as yet untested) expectations. This paper (pdf) we think has its roots in the Welsh Assembly's hints that it intends linking a version of 'biosecurity' to either farm payments, or to TB compulsory purchase monies - eventually. But as was pointed out by some participants in the ITA survey, most of the points apply to factors outside their control. For example a farm will be scored highly (bad) if maize is grown by neighbours. This is contained in the section 'Local herds and Land use' - which accounts for 41 per cent of the total score. Now, how may one ask, can that affect the biosecurity of the participating farm? His cattle are not going to eat a neighbour's maize are they?

A farm accrues a bad score for biosecurity because his neighbour grows maize - because that fuels up little baby badgers into butterballs during late autumn, thus ensuring more survive their first winter. And impregnated females are at a weight to ensure their pregnancies survive. And such young females achieve better condition scores, produce more cubs, and earlier. But overall, a pretty smart way to draft a scoring system which may have financial impact on a neighbour.

And another little gem; all participating vets carried out their assessments in different ways. While some walked the farms and scored using their own eyes, others sat at the kitchen table. (Table 10) So there was no overall 'standard' trial protocol used.

We particularly like the Visitors and Protective clothing section too: in two parts, contact with cattle and provision of protective clothing. A 'No Entry' sign in badgerese and provision of footbaths and protective suits for refuseniks? "What good is wellington boot dipping", suggested one farmer, "when infected wildlife free range over my grassland"? Quite. And we note (with horror) the comment of one vet in the trial ITA, that his car and boots were often " a mess " but that he hadn't had the opportunity "to wash before he arrived." Whaaaaaaaaaaat???
I have been known to kick a vet off the farm for arriving with 'someone else's' s**t on his boots, but that is common sense. Memo to vet in question; wash down before you leave the last farm.

At the moment, these proposals are voluntary, but at the risk of repeating ourselves, we would refer readers - and of course the good Dr. Enticott - to the results of when such measures - particularly those relating to double fencing, cattle contact, purchased cattle and cattle movements, were compulsory.

We have contact with two DVMs, one of whom implemented the fierce cattle measures imposed in SW Cornwall during the early 1970s by the late William Tait. And we were grateful to receive from the Republic of Ireland, figures and detail to support their efforts to control bTB by cattle measures alone during what became known as the Downie Era. It is encouraging like pushing water uphill, to see another generation of vets and 'scientists', following lemming-like in their predecessor's footsteps.

Especially illuminating gratifying is the payment structure detailed; "Vets from seven practices took part; each practice receiving a fixed payment (based on eight hours work) to cover the time costs of participating in the trial", a point not lost on one participating vet, who commented [5.2]:

"I don't think we would be chasing the work [ biosecurity advice] if we weren't getting paid"

Did we say bTB was a beneficial crisis? You bet we did. Please note, no farmer 'giving' eight hours of his time to enable Cardiff University to garner research grants received any remuneration whatsoever. And no charge was made for the tea and biscuits.

The conclusion of many participating farmers was that while biosecurity had a place in some cattle diseases, in the context of bTB it "was a non starter". They expressed frustration with the number of cattle reactors which proved on slaughter to be NVL (no visible lesions) and culture negative. Helpfully, Dr Enticott quotes :

"The majority of the farmers interviewed did not appear to accept that if no evidence of TB was found at the point of slaughter, the animals may still have the disease"

No, no , no and no. For goodness sake. One would have thought that before poking his toe into matters epidemiological, the good Dr. would have ascertained the facts of the intradermal skin test. But one would have been wrong. If the skin test shows a response, the animal in question has had exposure to m.bovis bacteria. That is all. Exposure to something that has no place plastered across England's (or Wales's) green and pleasant land at all. This exposure in any mammal, may go on the develop into full blown disease, but it may be clobbered by the subject's own immune system and cause no problems whatsoever. Occasionally, it may 'wall up' and allow the recipiant to live a totally normal life with 'closed' lesions - until they break down when the body is under stress for another reason. But cattle 'reacting' to the skin test does not indicate clinical disease - at any stage.

While the paper started by expecting the ITA to deliver an improvement in bTB, despite the admission that its point scored recommendations had not been tested, it certainly finishes with the opinion of the author that

"Potentially, the biosecurity benefits arising from the ITA may help to reduce incidents of bTB. Repeating the ITA in other areas of Wales is likely to have similar effects, depending on current levels of bTB"

As farmers we are not unaware of 'biosecurity' measures. Indeed, over a decade ago, a couple of us took specific measures to avoid purchasing disease. And that is any cattle disease, not just bTB. For us, a closed herd was just that. Our farms were in a ring fence, isolated, with any common boundaries not shared with other cattle farmers. And unlike the Welsh ITA, the contributors to this site run their own manure spreaders and as we have said, the tick boxes of this area survey would not have gone very high with us. Public footpaths and neighbours growing corn however, being two high scoring points.

So biosecurity benefits of an ITA there may be for the Welsh farmers, but for cattle diseases such as BVD, Johnnes and IBR and possibly for the security of their SFP or TB compulsory purchase monies. Unfortunately bitter experience tells us that despite Dr. Enticott's 'great expectations' (unsupported by evidence of efficacy, he says) their effect on bTB while an infected maintenance reservoir remains in badgers, is likely to be very little.

Running for cover

As government flounder under a mountain of paper debt and bankrupt banks, discussed at length on our sister site, what of the political angles on bovine badger TB? Is there cross party consensus on control / eradication of tuberculosis, or a difference of opinion?

Her Majesty’s opposition lost a valiant and under utilised shadow, when Owen Paterson MP was moved shafted, first to shadow transport and then to the political equivalent of the gulag, Northern Ireland. It was Mr. Paterson’s searching questions on the epidemiology and disease progression / transmission of the disease through both badgers and cattle which form the basis of this site.

The present shadow for the Conservatives is Jim Paice, MP who has given an over view of his party’s policies to subscription magazine, Farm Business this week. (no link ) Agricultural policy for the Conservatives (note the ‘A’ word has returned - one Brownie point for that at least) has 5 core aims, including:

* A review of the current (non) policy on control of bovine TB, and
* A review of cost-sharing agenda. (Currently causing an impasse within industry / government negotiations due to the previous line)

In an effort to put ‘clear blue water’ between his party and government, Mr. Paice accuses Hilary Benn of “abdicating responsibility” over his government’s statutory duty of tackling bTB, a claim echoed by Lord Rooker last year when he accused his own department (Defra) of ‘having no policy, and spending £1 billion to no good effect in the last decade”. Farm Business reports:

“Defra Secretary of State, Hilary Benn recently rejected the use of a selective cull of badgers in infected areas as a means of control, telling the House of Commons that while badgers are part of the problem, a cull “might work, but then again it might not work”.

To Mr. Paice this was nothing short of an “abdication of responsibility”. Tackling bovine TB will be top of the agenda, he stated unreservedly. “We will review the government’s decision along the lines of the EFRAcom report, and find a way of working with farmers, to deliver a selective cull in heavily infected areas”.

Meanwhile in Lib-Dem circles, their spokesman Norman Baker, MP is equally committed – while in opposition – and he too proposes targetted culling to ‘square the circle’ of infection.

“It is clear that the incidence of Bovine TB is increasing rapidly in certain parts of the country, most notably the South West and South Wales, but also in Sussex. It is also clear that there is a triangular infection route, namely cattle-cattle, cattle-badger, and badger-cattle. It follows therefore that any sensible policy to deal with Bovine TB has to take account of all three transmission routes.”

VLA's painstakingly assimilated Spoligotype maps do not support the two former ‘points’ of Mr. Baker’s triangle but let that pass. The man is at least interested - he supports pre and post movement testing and continues:

“In respect of badger-cattle transmissions, I am afraid that I have concluded on the evidence I have seen that this is a route for infection and action does need to be taken to tackle this arm of the triangle as well. It is unhelpful that no test exists to determine the presence of TB in live badgers and this has undoubtedly made matters worse. The absence of any vaccine for cattle is also a serious drawback and I regularly push Ministers for more work to be done on this front. In the meantime however I am afraid I have reluctantly concluded that there is a case for the removal of badgers from infected areas, providing this is done comprehensively and of course humanely.”

In fact there is a test which may help, in the shape of PCR. It is government reluctance to use the damn thing which is the problem, both in identifying environmental sources of TB and many other animal diseases - but we digress. Mr. Baker continues:

“The Krebs trials were not carried out properly and because of that, they have indeed, in my view, made matters worse. I do think there is an argument therefore for identifying particular hotspots and removing the badger population from those hotspots. Part of the reason I have concluded that this is appropriate is that without such action TB will spread more widely, and can easily cross over into other species and ultimately into humans. “

And this is a scenario which we are seeing right now with domestic pets in the front line. They, as vets warn this week in Veterinary Times, have the potential to be up close and personal with their owners in a confined space and thus provide a short hop for the bacteria to spread.

Mr Baker also points out that tuberculosis in badgers “ is not a very pleasant experience ” and “there is now a welfare issue in allowing a disease like this to grow in the wild population.” Nah, it’s ‘natural’ say the RSPCA and Badger Trust. Badgers don’t suffer from tuberculosis.

“It is not sensible to allow farmers to shoot badgers on their land. That will not eradicate the population [whole social group ? - ed] and merely allow other badgers to fill the gap. If badgers do have to be killed, then I think it is probably more humane to gas a sett than to allow random shooting. Nor would I support the use of snares.
This is a very difficult subject, therefore I find it quite distressing to reach the conclusion that some elimination of the badger population maybe necessary, but I have done so because I feel that the animal welfare implications of not doing so are probably worse.”

Well that seems pretty solid. We can’t keep culling thousands of cattle, while leaving their source of infection coughing and spluttering its way to a ‘natural’ death, especially as the level of environmental contamination is feeding upwards beyond tested cattle sentinels and into other species.

So government response to industry talks and a damning EFRAcom report this week is illuminating to say the least. Farmers Guardian reports Benn as side lining a selective and targetted cull of infected badgers because of 'fear of extremists:

.."the likelihood that public order problems” which could ‘ jeopardise the cull and contribute to making disease worse’ he also had concerns that ‘landowners would not permit culling on their land’.

Leaving aside the fact that Defra have statutory right of entry to control zoonotic disease, is it not a an incredible statement that this administration will not take action against the acknowledged reservoir, now the maintenance reservoir of tuberculosis in this country because of the liklihood of ‘public order problems’? That is taking ‘animal rights’ to the level of eco-terrorism, as described by Bill Harper, chairman of the NBA TB committee:

“If the Government gives up on a policy because of the threat of extremists it is setting a very dangerous precedent for society at large,” said Mr Harper, who discussed the VLA 9 project in Devon with Defra Secretary Hilary Benn weeks ago.

“It is weak and it is an abdication of responsibility.”

We agree. Government capitulation to any vociferous, single focus activist group with deep lobby cash pockets and nothing whatsoever to lose from their shrill shrieks, is indeed a dangerous precedent. But if government think farmers culling 40,000 cattle a year, a ban on EU exports and £ billions wasted is a push over, just wait until they have to explain this non-policy to the devastated and angry owners of pets infected with tuberculosis from a ‘non-bovine’ source. That really will see ministers running for cover - if only from litigation lawyers.

Wales starts the countdown

October 1st. saw the start of the Principality's plan to eradicate bovine badger TB from its 13,835 registered cattle herds. The three point strategy kicked off this week with a sweep of cattle testing through the entire country.

A one-off test for bovine TB of all cattle herds in Wales began on October 1. An additional 3,500 herds will be tested over the next 15 months, concluding on December 31 2009.

Wales has seen a surge of outbreaks, particularly in the South and West of the region, where 14 per cent of herds were under restriction due to 'a TB incident' during the first six months of the year.
Defra stats show 1307 herds were tied up with movement restrictions, 60 day testing and slaughter in the 6 month period up until June 30th 2008, compared with 1500 during the whole of 2007.

The timetable for Wales begins with annual cattle testing and includes
compulsory purchase adjustments. A 'tightening up' - as in reduction? - is intended to:

"bring them more into line with market prices"

and an assessed 'risk management' package has been bolted on:

the aim being to link them to good biosecurity and animal husbandry on farms in order to encourage farmers to fulfil their responsibilities.

We calculated at the outset of this plan, that little 'new' money was available for this project, so tabular valuations were on the cards to pay for the extra testing, the setting up of stakeholder groups and finally - maybe, just maybe - a pilot badger cull. As to the latter, Farmers Guardian reports:

As far as the “intensive action pilot area” was concerned, various technical experts had been commissioned with a view to authorising a badger cull in one area of Wales on the basis that certain conditions were met.This information is being collated and reviewed, and includes ecological reviews, epidemiological assessments, and ethical and practical considerations as well as the relevant legal requirements,” said the Minister “It is anticipated we will be in a position to make a decision on this in the New Year.”

England's farmers, through their respective organisations, offered pre movement testing and tabular valuations in 2006, as part of a three part 'package'. For their part, Defra delivered a 'consultation' on badger culling, and Hilary Benn still refuses to operate the law of the land, hiding behind his as yet unchallenged moratorium and quoting Bourne's final report on the RBCT badger dispersal trial. He seems completely oblivious to more recent work, by members if the ISG team ( but not including its chairman) using the same ten cull areas (not referred to by the chairman) and the same data stream collector(but not written up by the chairman).
This work, if we may remind you, allowed for cattle testing to catch up with the effects of the RBCT's 8 night hit-and-run visits with cage traps. And from the summary of their results we saw:

The estimated effects on cattle TB of culling badgers within the cull areas during the trial increased over the time frame from a modest 3.6 percent in its first year, to 31.8 percent from the 4th to final year. But two years later that effect had increased to 60.8 per cent.

Conversley the 'edge' effect, (unique to the ISG 8 night cage trap fiasco), caused 43.9 percent increase in breakdowns up to 2 km outside the triplet zone in the first year of culling, falling to 17.3 percent in the 4th - final year's scrape up.
But within two years, that negative effect had somersualted to a (minus) -30.1 percent incidence outside the proactive zones.

A 60 per cent reduction in cattle TB would be good (100 per cent would be better). And it would reduce pro rata the TB budget by a similar amount, one may assume? thus saving taxpayers some £600,000 annually.

We note that the Welsh Assembly has moved on two parts of their TB eradication 'package', but are still discussing the third.

Going up

We are not referring to nationally acquired toxic debt, although a whole new blog could be devoted to the last few years' obsessional pyramid selling of unsustainable credit to people who hadn't a cat in hell's chance of ever paying it back. With that, like the Emperor's new clothes and our own core subject, the propagators of the resulting chaos, actually believed their own guff.

So as GB's debt spirals, and politicians who last year encouraged its growth now attempt to use our money to control it, so does the incidence of bovine badger tuberculosis. And growth more than fulfills Defra's predictions of 20 per cent year on year increase - should they continue current non-policies - which they seem determined to do.

Published figures for the period January - June 2008, show a rise of 23.8 per cent in herds under TB restriction from the same period last year. Another part of the labyrinthine Defra website shows stats in a slightly different format and quotes the lower figure of 19 per cent as an increase in Confirmed herd incidents. This figure is likely to change as more culture results are collected. But the most expensive part of this carnage is cattle slaughterings, up a massive 44 per cent on last year. (20,191 in six months, compared with 13,978 a year ago)

South and West Wales are recording herds under TB restriction of 13 and 14 per cent respectively, while in the West region, Gloucestershire has 24 per cent of herds affected, Hereford / Worcs almost 23 per cent and Devon & Cornwall 18.8 per cent. each. (This compares with the same period in 2007 of 18.6 per cent for Glos. 16.4 per cent for Devon and just 12.7 per cent for Cornwall. England's West region recorded 12.9 per cent of its herds with movement restrictions Jan - June last year. That figure has risen to 16 per cent in 2008.

This is a spiralling pyramid of growth which those of us with cattle herds, do not wish to be part of. Shooting the messengers does not seem to be assisting Defra's control of the situation one bit. These appalling figures, just like the totally avoidable mountain of toxic debt which all taxpayers will have to fund, are going up.

( Note: Web links will change when later statistics are published)

'Bovine' Tuberculosis - 'Badger' Tuberculosis?

We have been castigated on this site many times for flagging up the many victims of 'bovine' TB. "It's 'bovine' the comments shriek, and "what bit of 'cow' don't you understand?" But this clever little bacterium is able to adapt to many mammals and work published by Brosch et al tells us that from the ancient tuberculosis line, the M.bovis lineage has firmly established itself in:

".... natural host spectra as diverse as humans in Africa, voles on the Orkney Isles(UK), seals in Argentina, goats in Spain, and badgers in the UK."

No mention of cattle there - even with a tag of 'bovine'. Not one. Which brings us full circle to why 'we' - that's 'we' as in cattle farmers - are testing and slaughtering cattle. It does not explain why the other half of that 'we', Defra, presently trawling the country gleaning support for its Cost and Responsibility Sharing Levy collection exercise, are hell bent on piling costs onto farmers while accepting no responsibility whatsoever for its own part in the eradication of this multi-species zoonotic disease - but let that pass.

Molecular geneticists say that analysis of recent work suggests that true cattle TB was eliminated by the 1970s, and what we have now is badger adapted TB spreading back into the environment. So maybe it's time for a name change. 'Bovine' TB becomes 'Badger' Tb. We like mycobacterium meles

The single most important thing - one may say the only thing of merit - that baby-Ben Bradshaw accomplished during his tenure of prevarication astride Defra's fence, was to make this disease, the so called 'bovine' TB, notifiable in all mammals. The result has been a steady increase in cases of companion animals and other grazing species as Defra picked up the tab for post mortems. And of course the inevitable spill over into human beings.

For twenty years since the low point of TB eradication in the mid 1980s, when less than 100 herds were under movement restrictions, and under 700 cattle slaughtered, successive administrations have ducked and dived, sanitised eradication policy - other than that applicable to cattle - and totally ignored the message those tested sentinels were giving. This culminated with a 'moratorium' introduced in 1997, on the control of badgers allowed under Section 10 of the Protection of Badgers Act, in response to confirmed outbreaks of cattle TB. Last year Defra proudly announced they had killed 28,000 cattle - but ignored their message. This year will be another vintage, with numbers up a staggering 42 per cent to May and some say, heading for 40,000 by the end of the year. But while Defra may be able to ignore this farm based carnage (except for moaning about its monetary cost, said to account for 40 per cent of Animal Health's budget) they will find it increasingly difficult to ignore the steadily increasing pile of 'other species' - the result of Bradshaw's notification amendment.

Figures seen by our editors confirm that while 'passive' surveillance (as Defra quaintly describe 'not actually looking for' a disease) of the past revealed a handful of cases in other animals between 1998 and 2004, from 2005 to 2007, incidence of 'bovine' tuberculosis rose sharply. In just those three years, spillover victims include 42 domestic cats, 24 llama, 19 domestic pigs, and single figures of goats, sheep, alpaca, ferrets and a dog. The areas where these animals were found are consistent with endemic TB in wildlife and sentinel cattle casualties. The largest group of casualties - the 42 cats - had identifiable spoligotypes described as

" various spoligotypes, each one consistent with the predominant strain at the location of the infected cat"

We have touched on this in previous postings, camelids here, and domestic cats here and here But the reason for all the testing and slaughter of cattle is not about the health and welfare of animals at all. The totally mislabelled 'bovine' Tuberculosis affects people. It is a zoonosis. It's what they do.

But the most recent case in humans, that of a Cornish lady, her dog and her child has finally alerted the main-stream media to the bigger picture of the total failure of the one sided, cattle based tuberculosis eradication programme operating in this country.

Describing the re-emergence of an old zoonotic threat, an unpublished paper submitted to the BMJ journal 'Thorax', warns that the high level of bovine TB infection circulating in cattle and wildlife across parts of the country is posing an ongoing health risk to humans.

Farmers Guardian has the story;

The paper discusses the case of a former veterinary nurse and her dog, from Cornwall, who contracted the same of the strain of the disease last year. It identifies badgers known to inhabit the woman’s garden as a possible source of infection.

The woman was diagnosed with bTB in late 2007, having felt unwell and suffered from a persistent cough for some time. Her daughter was also confirmed with latent bTB infection. Both were treated with a course of drugs.

The family’s pet dog began showing symptoms two months later. It was put down and subsequently confirmed with the same strain of M Bovis, the bacteria that causes bTB, as the woman.

The strain in question is a rare one found locally in cattle and badgers in the South West, prompting five scientists examining the case to suggest the infection therefore probably originated from either badgers or cattle. .

The point here we think, is that the spoligotype of the most misleadingly labelled mycobacterium bovis - 'bovine' TB, which has killed the dog, and infected its owner(s) is a strain known to circulate within tested (and slaughtered if they react to the test) cattle and untested but highly infective badgers in the SW of Cornwall. There is also doubt as to the assertion that the lady's previous employment as a 'veterinary nurse' and thus assumed intimate contact with cattle, was relevant.

"... they question whether the nurse could have been infected through contact with infected cattle while working as a veterinary nurse. However, this is considered unlikely as she had left the job three years prior to becoming infected and there was no sign of latent infection."

But the most telling phrase of FG's report we think is 'badgers known to inhabit her garden'. Inhabit, as in live. Not passing through then? And having examined the usual suspects, including the lady's past employment, this exposure would seem to be 'possible' (most likely) source of the outbreak.

Badgers were known to inhabit her garden and the scientists conclude that this was a more likely source of infection, according to veterinary sources who have seen the paper.

The Health Protection Agency said human cases of bTB did occur ‘occasionally’ in the UK but the current risk was considered ‘negligible’. But they also confirm that not all tuberculosis cases are strain typed. They were unable to provide the editors of this site with figures for the umbrella term 'tuberculosis complex' used to describe such 'untyped' cases. Farmers Guardian quote eight cases of m. bovis type tuberculosis in humans in the South West of England in 2006 and 2007 and 20 nationally in 2005. Only five cases in dogs have been identified in the past 20 years (to 2006).

In people under the age of 40 - 50, born outside the window of transmission opportunity presented by unpasteurised milk, prior to the TB eradication programme which finished in the mid 1960s, even a single victim is one too many. But as figures in our posting above show, and the horrendous, months long drug regime and other cases of onward transmission within human beings tell us, the spillover from environmental contamination with the misleadingly labelled ' bovine' tuberculosis is rising. And inevitably it will claim more victims than 40,000 cattle.

bTB and camelids

The popularity of camelids in GB can be seen from the estimated numbers of llamas and alpacas which are now conservatively put at 20,000 and 5,000 respectively. But recent spillover cases of "bovine" TB into this population has raised several problems. Correspondence in the Veterinary Record details a case of bTB in a commercial llama herd in Devon which resulted in the death of over half the animals.

The herd was established in Devon eight years ago with animals reared outside the county. At the time of disclosure of infection, it comprised 84 adult llamas and their crias. They graze outdoors all year round with occasional supplementary hay fed on the ground, and are only handled for routine vaccinations and worming. Water is provided in troughs, but the llamas also drink from a stream.

The authors point out "the only contiguous cattle herd has had repeated TB breakdowns since 2000 but that direct nose-to-nose contact is not possible between the llama and cattle herds along the common boundary." There have been 19 confirmed cases within a 5 km radius since 2001. Three active badger setts are located on the farm and one in immediately adjacent woodland, but no deer have been seen.

In February 2006, an adult female on the holding was euthanased on welfare grounds following chronic weight loss. Postmortem examination revealed widespread lesions in the lungs, pericardium, and bronchial and mediastinal lymph nodes and M. bovis spoligotype SB0274 (VLA type 11) was recovered. This is the spoligotype most commonly isolated from tuberculous cattle and road traffic accident survey badgers in the same part of Devon.

In May 2006, herd restrictions were applied and the outbreak reported to local consultants in communicable disease control in light of the zoonotic risk. There are no statutory requirements to register and identify South American camelids, or powers to test them for TB, but the owner agreed to have the remainder of the herd tested. But despite two clear herd skin test results, similar clinical signs to the initial case were seen in another adult female in August, which eventually required euthanasia. Lesions were found at postmortem examination and M bovis was subsequently isolated.

In light of this second clinical case and the previous negative herd test result in June, it was decided to blood sample other llamas in the herd to screen for antibodies to M bovis using a novel, non-validated in vitro lateral-flow assay, the VetTB STAT-PAK or `Rapid' test (Waters and others 2006). On the basis of either a positive sero logy result or being considered as dangerous contacts to the previous confirmed cases, 19 more adult llamas and two crias were culled and examined postmortem between August and November. TB associated with M bovis infection was confirmed in four of the adults. Two other adults and a cria also died over this period and on gross postmortem examination showed lesions typical of TB. Specific mycobacterial cultures are still in progress from these three animals.

Testing with both skin tests and bloods were continued for this herd and reactors to both tests were found.

Three tuberculin reactors and at least four seropositive llamas, one of which was a tuberculin reactor, have been identified. The results of postmortem and bacteriological examinations on all these llamas were not available at the time of writing, although one of the seropositive llamas, which had to be euthanased in extremis shortly after testing, presented with gross lesions of advanced TB.

The paper points out both the " susceptibility of llamas to M bovis infection and highlights the difficulty of making an accurate antemortem diagnosis using the tests currently available for this species." They repeat previous advice;

TB should be considered in the differential diagnosis of illthrift in llamas, with or without obvious respiratory involvement, particularly where the animals have been raised in areas of endemic TB in cattle and indigenous wildlife.

In a follow up letter to this report, the authors re-iterate the insensitivety of the intradermal skin test when used on camelids and point out other anomalies ;

Many of us working with camelids believe the test to be so poor as to be fairly meaningless. Nevertheless, this test remains the statutory DEFRA-approved method of checking for TB in camelids, both for importation, exportation, and here in the UK. Moreover, if an `infected' herd achieves two successive clear herd tests 90 days apart there is no requirement to test the herd ever again. Neither is there any requirement to keep movement records or carry out any further postmortem examinations. The `Rapid' blood test shows promise but it is not allowed to be used without the express permission of the State Veterinary Service. That permission is not always forthcoming even when clients have offered to pay privately for the test. Surely DEFRA should be furthering research by promoting blood testing, not hindering it.

They conclude that better methods of identification, surveillance and control of TB in camelids is needed, given the population of these animals within GB, and point out;

They should not be ignored in the overall campaign to eradicate bovine TB. The Devon incident may be only the tip of the iceberg.

As we posted here a similar breakdown affected a herd in Wales. We understand Welsh Assembly are currently 'consulting' on what to do about the situation of spillover bTB into camelids. And as we can find no such documents on the English side of Offa's Dyke, would that be like the 'consultation' on whether to sort out the maintenance reservoir in wildlife - a name they dare not speak - or keeping piling up dead cattle then? We won't be holding our breath.

Under discussion...

The outcome of the European Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCFCAH) meeting on the export of live animals from GB, which we discussed here is outlined in more detail on the ProMed website. We are grateful for sight of this.

"The Commission gave a brief overview of the Community legislation on
bovine tuberculosis noting that calves under 42 days of age are
exempted for the requirement of the pre-movement testing and that in
this case, current EU provisions rely only on the status of the herd.
In addition, the Commission presented for discussion 4 possible
alternative provisions which could be implemented, either one at a
time or in combination, in order to prevent the spread of TB from
areas with high prevalence of the disease via intra-Community trade
in calves under 42 days of age, and in particular apart from the
mandatory officially tuberculosis-free herd origin:

1. Pre-movement test (intradermal skin test or gamma interferon test)
of individual animals concerned;
2. Low prevalence region origin (below 1 or 0,5 percent or other);
3. Recent herd test (such as, less then 6 months) with strictly
defined frequency of testing the herd (annual, twice a year, etc.);
4. Channelling procedure (post-movement test at destination or
dispatched to a holding at destination from which they can only be
moved directly to a slaughterhouse).

Conclusions-----------

There was general consensus on:
- the need to ensure that the officially bovine tuberculosis-free (TB
OF) status is properly granted to the herds, as this is the basic
requirement in order to ensure safe trade;
- the pre-movement testing is not suitable for animals younger than
42 days of age due to the lack of sensitivity of the test when used
on these animals;
- there is a need to have proportionate and effective measures in
order to address the risk posed by these animals that cannot be
tested before movement.

An acceptable regime for animals below 42 days of age would be as follows:
Bovine animals for breeding and production less than 42 days old
shall only be dispatched to other Member States if they come from an
officially tuberculosis-free bovine herd as defined in Article
2(2)(d) of Directive 64/432/EEC, and:

1. The holding of origin is situated in a Member State or a region of
a Member State as defined in Article 2(2)(p) of Directive 64/432/EEC
in which on average, determined at 31 December of each year, the
annual percentages of bovine herds confirmed as infected with
tuberculosis is not more than 0.5 percent of all herds within the
Member State or region thereof, or
2. All animals in the holding of origin, with the exception of
animals under 6 weeks old, have been subjected with negative results
to the routine intradermal tuberculin test in accordance with Annex B
to Directive 64/432/EEC at an interval of more than 3 months and less
than 6 months during the last 12 months, or
3. All animals in the holding of origin, with the exception of
animals under 6 weeks old, have been subjected with negative results
to the intradermal tuberculin test in accordance with Annex B to
Directive 64/432/EEC, carried out in the 30 days prior to the
movement, or
4. The animals are consigned, through a channelling procedure under
the control of the competent authority of the place of destination,
to a holding from where they can only be removed:
a. to be transported directly to the slaughterhouse for slaughter in
accordance with the first indent of Article 7 of Directive
64/432/EEC, or
b. to be introduced not earlier than at the age of at least 42 days
into another herd in accordance with the procedure provided for in
point 1(c) of Section I of Annex A to Directive 64/432/EEC [see
commentary. - Mod.AS]

On 3 Sep 2008 the conclusions of the meeting were presented to the
Standing Committee for Food Chain and Animal Health under point 4D of
the Committee's agenda."

It is our understanding that this matter will be revisited in October.

"Easily Cured" or an under-appreciated risk?

Recent media coverage of the Cornish lady (and her dog) who contracted bTB, had the glib and airy observation that "TB is easily cured", implying that an aspirin, an organic carrot and a dose of selenium would do the business. So what are the facts on 'treatment' of this ancient disease - assuming diagnosis allows time to treat at all?

Four years ago, a young man died from 'bovine' TB in the Birmingham area. Several more patients presented with symptoms 2004 - 2006 and much detective work was done to try and find a common source. The BBC carried an overview after the case was published in the Lancet last year.

Bovine TB can spread from human to human, scientists fear after a cluster of six cases, one fatal, in England. All had visited the same Birmingham bar or nightclub, yet only one of the young patients had been in contact with infected unpasteurised milk or cattle. The Health Protection Agency said although rare, the cases emphasised the need for rigorous checks and controls.

Experts told The Lancet that bovine TB was an under-appreciated cause of disease and death in humans.

This 'under-appreciation' may be because an undisclosed proportion of UK tuberculosis cases are not strain typed, but bundled under the all embracing term, 'tuberculosis complex'. And what was also not made plain was that doctor's text books have not kept up with public health measures applied on-farm in that anyone under the age of 50, (the average age of the Birmingham victims was 32)would have been drinking unpasteurised milk, from regularly tested (and slaughtered if they reacted to the test) cattle.

Certainly unpasteurised milk was the driver for transmission of bTB in the 1930s and 1940s, but during the TB eradication programme undertaken in GB, 1952 - 1960, all cattle in the country were tested and slaughtered if they reacted to the test. This brought the instance of TB reactor cattle down from 40 % of the national herd in 1934 to 0.04% in 1965. Thus strains (spoligotypes) of bTB circulating in the environment, are now limited one the one hand to tested sentinel cattle, mainly slaughtered ahead of clinical disease, and an unchallenged, uncontrolled but highly infectious wildlife reservoir of disease in badgers.

The TB infected index case went on to transmit the disease to several other people, in the confines of a Birmingham nightclub. And their treatment? Were they 'easily cured' as the recent press articles have told us? One of the cocktail of several drugs used for months to control or hopefully cure, tuberculosis is Isoniazid. This is the drug information sheet for it:

ISONIAZIDBrand names: , Nydrazid

Isoniazid is an antibiotic. It prevents tuberculous bacteria from multiplying in the body.Isoniazid is used to treat and to prevent tuberculosis (TB).

Avoid alcohol while taking isoniazid. Alcohol may increase the risk of damage to the liver during isoniazid treatment.
Contact your doctor immediately if you experience numbness or tingling in the hands or feet, weakness, fatigue, loss of appetite, nausea and vomiting, yellowing of the skin or eyes, or darkening of the urine. Before taking this medication, tell your doctor if you have ever had an allergic reaction to isoniazid, kidney disease, or liver disease.

It is not known whether isoniazid will be harmful to an unborn baby. Do not take this medication without first talking to your doctor if you are pregnant or could become pregnant during treatment. It is not known whether isoniazid will be harmful to a nursing baby. Do not take this medication without first talking to your doctor if you are breast-feeding a baby.

Your doctor may also want you to take a supplemental vitamin B6 (pyridoxine) tablet daily during treatment to prevent numbness and tingling caused by low levels of this vitamin. Your doctor may want you to have blood tests or other medical evaluations during treatment with isoniazid to monitor progress and side effects.

Seek emergency medical attention if an overdose is suspected.
Symptoms of an isoniazid overdose include nausea, vomiting, dizziness, slurring of speech, blurred vision, visual hallucinations, seizures, coma, and death.

Avoid alcohol while taking isoniazid. Alcohol will increase the risk of damage to the liver during treatment with this medication.
Use caution with the foods listed below. They can interact with isoniazid and cause a reaction that includes a severe headache, large pupils, neck stiffness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, flushing, sweating, itching, irregular heartbeats, and chest pain. A reaction will not necessarily occur, but eat these foods with caution until you know if you will react to them. Call your doctor immediately if you experience any of these symptoms.

Eat the following foods with caution:

cheeses, including American, Blue, Boursault, Brick, Brie, Camembert, Cheddar, Emmenthaler, Gruyere, Mozzarella, Parmesan, Romano, Roquefort, Stilton, and Swiss;

sour cream and yogurt;

beef or chicken liver, fish, meats prepared with tenderizer, bologna, pepperoni, salami, summer sausage, game meat, meat extracts, caviar, dried fish, herring, shrimp paste, and tuna;

avocados, bananas, figs, raisins, and sauerkraut;

soy sauce, miso soup, bean curd, and fava beans;

yeast extracts;

ginseng;

chocolate;

caffeine (coffee, tea, cola, etc.); and

beer (alcoholic and nonalcoholic), red wine (especially Chianti), sherry, vermouth, and other distilled spirits.

Not just an aspirin then? The website for trainee doctors run by the BMJ also had some information on m.bovis and m.tuberculosis infections. In particular note the reference to Isonaizid resistant strains.

...a large proportion of those affected [by tuberculosis] are "young, UK born, white, and reasonably affluent. Almost half of the 7000 cases seen nationwide each year being found in the capital: 7.5% of the TB seen in London is isoniazid resistant.

The bacterium responsible for the outbreak is unusual in that it takes patients longer to recover from the illness. Nine months of antibiotic treatment is required to combat the infection, in contrast to the usual six months. Patients suffering from "normal" TB have a relapse rate of around 2-3%, but the rate is 10% in those with the drug resistant strain. [] Both the incubation period and mortality rates of the strain are similar to "normal" TB.

As a commentator in the Birmingham Post pointed out, "bTB has not gone away".

It has been pointed out that while some UK patients with tuberculosis have to be encouraged with payments to complete their course of treatment (so long and horrible it is) sufferers in the US used to have the big stick treatment. We are not sure whether this is still the case, hence the 'used to', rather than 'have'. But for sure, the seriousness with which the disease was taken was reflected in the compulsory attendance of patients to local police stations to take their medication under supervision. Should they default, then they had committed a criminal act and an arrest warrant was served.
In a part of of own 1936 Public Health Act, it is an offence to travel on public transport while infectious with a notifiable disease. Treatment of a notifiable disease is mandatory. Tuberculosis (of any strain) is a notifiable disease.

We will leave you to decide from those snippets whether bTB should be airbrushed into a politically expedient comfort zone, or treated with the seriousness we think it deserves.

European perspective - SCFCAH

Today the European SCFCAH (Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health) met to discuss, amongst other things, an ....

"Exchange of views on measures which may be required to prevent the spread of bovine tuberculosis from areas with a high prevalence of the disease via intra-community trade in live cattle: outcome of the working group of 2 September.(MZ)"

They could start by making sure that a maintenance reservoir of disease is not allowed to flourish amongst the tuberculin-tested cattle sentinels in GB. That would be sensible, as they outlined in this document which we posted in July. The responsibilities of EU member state governments with regard to such reservoirs are described quite clearly. One would assume that not even Defra could misunderstand them, but on the experience of the last decade, one would be quite wrong..

... in order to address the role of infected wildlife in the persistence of TB [measures] should be implemented without any delay so as to allow the progress of the eradication programmes. Removal of wildlife, either proactively or reactively following outbreaks, has proven to be an effective ancillary, and in certain situations necessary, measure to control and eradicate TB.

and to reinforce the point:

The elimination or reduction of the risk posed by an infected wildlife reservoir enables the other measures contained in the programme to yield the expected results, whereas the persistence of TB in these wildlife populations impedes the effective elimination of the disease.

Major socio-political resistance (lobbyism) against any measure involving the removal of infected wildlife or interventions affecting the environment are to be expected. The additional costs associated with these actions are not likely to be negligible."

As we pointed out before, the costs of not removing an infected wildlife reservoir are infinitely greater, both in straight monetary terms or the long term transmission opportunities afforded to the many and increasing spillover victims. But Defra's figures for TB incidence in GB in the first five months of the year are appalling. In fact they are a damned disgrace, with cattle slaughterings up a staggering 42 per cent, and confirmed new breakdowns increasing by almost 200 herds. Herds under TB restriction due to a TB breakdown, increased from 4391 in 2007 to 5209 this year.

(Note: The link to Defra website for the May 2008 figures will automatically update when later figures are available. )

Update

Farmers Guardian reports that early indications from the SCFSAH meeting in Brussels suggest that the European Commission has decided against adding further restrictions to UK cattle exports despite European fears that TB could be spread to the continent. But the cattle industry and Defra cannot breath easily yet, as the committee are said to be considering the risk of TB-infected exports at a meeting in October.

So while SCoFCAH monitor the situation without further sanctions at present, official trade restrictions demanded by the Dutch and Belgian veal importers, already imposing their own unofficial boycott, in the short term, have been avoided.

And 'short' is the appropriate word, as cattle slaughterings and herds under TB restriction mount. A week maybe a long time in politics, but a month is very short time span indeed in the life cycle of the bacterium quite misleadingly known as micobacterium bovis. This autumn's casualties are already in the pipeline.

The NBA (and Defra) on bTB

We are grateful for sight of the latest press release from the NBA (National Beef Association). Members of the NBA are reeling under a backdoor live-export ban, and with the minister in charge off with his bucket and spade, they pull no punches.
We quote the document in full, (with some highlights.)

NBA TB COMMITTEE

"The failure of Hilary Benn to meet his legal obligation under UK and EU law [1] to have an effective policy to eradicate a major notifiable disease (affecting both animals and humans) has led to the NBA TB Committee issuing new recommendations to the beef industry.

In the light of Mr Benn’s refusal to licence the culling of the occupants of diseased badger setts, farmers are recommended to take note of Defra’s “Husbandry best practice advice” on TB control:- 16 out of 21 of these guidelines refer to badgers with TB. In addition, the TB Committee points to the words of Mr Hilary Benn on the 7th July in Parliament

“We know that badgers are infected and are a source of infection — no one argues about that” and “section 6 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 allows someone to put down a badger if it is seriously injured or in such a condition that to do so would be an act of mercy. That is what the law currently says”[2] . If a diseased badger is seen, Defra advice is for it to be humanely destroyed, and only the occupier of the land is permitted to dispose of the carcase which has to be done “sensibly”.

At this time of year it is also crucial for farmers to check forage conservation areas, particularly maize, and follow Defra best practice advice. The TB Committee particularly advises farmers of the danger of maize crops. It recommends filling in any holes in the ground that might attract a passing badger. It is known that increasing badger numbers are partially attributed to badgers drawing in and living off maize cobs underground.

Defra wild-life officials have stated that underground holes can be checked as being unoccupied by placing two or more crossed sticks within the entrance to each hole and, provided these sticks are not disturbed for 21 days, the hole can be certified as not affecting wild-life. All nearby holes should be checked in the same way in the same period. Written records of daily inspections of the sticks should be kept.

If further reassurance is needed, spread sand at the entrance to such holes to ensure no animals are attempting to enter. The TB Committee further points out that an empty hole, which was occupied by diseased and dead badgers, is a hazard to any new transient healthy badgers because the carcase of diseased badgers and their bedding remains infectious underground in dark damp conditions for over twelve months. (A Defra licence is required to remove an active badger sett.)

In the Midlands, Wales and the SW over 3,500 farms are currently under TB movement restrictions. In Gloucestershire alone one in four farms are forbidden to move cattle. Because such a high proportion of parishes in these areas are one year testing parishes, any cattle picking up infection are removed and severe interpretation TB testing carried out until the whole herd passes two clear tests at 60 day intervals. The remaining healthy cattle act as sentinel animals – repeated reactors revealing that there is a source of infection in the local setts.

As TB continues to spread to fresh, healthy badger setts at over 10 miles a year, farms throughout these and adjoining regions are in two categories. They either have already shown there to be TB in their badgers, or it is heading towards them. Farmers in these and adjoining regions are urged to do everything in their power to protect their cattle and themselves from TB.

The TB Committee is also concerned at the lack of care for the badger population which is facing levels of TB at 70-80 percent in certain identifiable setts in these hot spot areas. With the rest of the industry, it will push the government hard to recognise wildlife within a TB eradication plan. The NBA TB Committee therefore strongly criticizes Defra for ignoring the main EU document [3] on TB eradication . This recommends that:-

“The reservoir of infection within wildlife populations should be effectively addressed’. (2.1.5),
‘Improved management of wildlife by strategic removal of infected wildlife’ (7e).
'It has now been reliably demonstrated that the persistence of an infected wildlife reservoir that enters into contact with cattle is a major obstacle to the eradication of TB. This obstacle should be addressed in tandem with the measures implemented in relation to the cattle population'.
'Removal of wildlife, either proactively or reactively following outbreaks, has proven to be an effective ancillary, and in certain situations necessary, measure to control and eradicate bTB'. (2.3.8)

The whole industry is devastated at the lack of care for the domestic healthy cattle population that is being newly infected and culled at a rate predicted to be 40,000 for 2008 - and rising. There also appears to be a total disregard for the welfare of badgers themselves by Defra and the rest of the government.
Ends.


Refs:
[1] Council Directive 78/52/EEC, Directive 82/400/EEC and Directive 87/58/EEC

[2] Hansard col. 1163 & 4 - in answer to David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): “We have a large number of badgers in Somerset, and TB is endemic among them. Is nothing to be done to rid the badger population of bovine TB? and Bill Wiggin (Leominster) (Con): “They are suffering.” Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman talks about the suffering of badgers” then the quote made above.

[3] Working Document on Eradication of Bovine Tuberculosis in the EU accepted by the Bovine tuberculosis subgroup of the Task Force on monitoring animal disease eradication
- Brussels, 10/08/2006 SANCO/10200/2006 final


UPDATE
Today, Defra have confirmed the legal position of dispatching a sick or injured badger, as an 'Act of Mercy' under section 6 of the Protection of Badgers Act.

"The law does therefore allow individuals to take action to allow the prevention of suffering which is so severe that killing the animal would be an act of mercy, but protects badgers from wilful killing which is not justified on this ground (or one of the other grounds mentioned in section 6 of the Act)".

However, from where we sit, it appears that the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wants farmers to shoulder the responsibility that is uniquely that of the department.

"Zoonosis" - define.

While many attempt to pigeonhole the disease caused by m .bovis - b.Tuberculosis, to either cattle or badgers, depending on your point of view, its significance, control and eradication should be defined by its 'zoonotic' status.

B.tuberculosis passes from animals to other animals, and to human beings. Thus it is known as a 'zoonosis'. That is what they do. So it was 'disappointing' to read in Western Morning News a story where the disease was said to 'crossed species' and infected a veterinary nurse. In a lightweight jumble of disparate quotes, farmers organisations distanced themselves from milk / meat and stressed how many cattle were being slaughtered, while Andrew Biggs speaking for veterinary organisations, suggested the infection could be linked to badgers - but that cattle may be involved too.

Fears have been raised about the spread of bovine TB after the disease crossed species and infected a Cornish woman.
The patient, who has not been identified but is believed to be a veterinary nurse, is undergoing treatment for the serious respiratory infection.

The WMN opinion column (no link) has a more coherent view. They realise that drawing attention to a 'human' case of bTB, risks suspicion falling on cattle products, but quantify their publicity thus:

".. Government does have a responsibility to tackle the problem. And that extends to dealing with the reservoir of bovine TB in wild animals, which inevitably means a cull of sick and dying badgers.
There was speculation yesterday that a badger was the more likely source of this case. Swift testing [and slaughter - ed] of cattle, means cases among domestic stock are caught early on, while the disease runs rampant among wild animals, from which domestic pets can catch the illness and pass it on. If that is the case here, it ought to make even Mr. Benn sit up and take notice.
If diseased badgers are implicated, not only in passing this illness to cattle but to at least one person as well, the excuse for failing to act with a badger cull will surely become untenable. There is no need for panic, but there is now a desparate and overwhelming need for action. "

More on this story comes from Farmers Guardian who have some delicious quotes from a Defra spokesperson:

“We are aware of a case of M. bovis infection in a human patient in South West England, and the patient's dog. The patient is receiving treatment,”

and:

“M. bovis is a recognised zoonotic agent and that is precisely why we have a compulsory bovine TB control programme in cattle."

and:

"Bovine TB can affect domestic pets such as dogs but the apparent incidence is low.”

On that final quote, we remind Defra to 'watch this space'. It is only two years since Hilary Benn's predecessor, another Ben - Bradshaw made bTB notifiable in 'all mammalian species'. That means that veterinary practitioners have a duty of care to forward suspect cases for full post mortems, at the taxpayers' expense. And once a problem is sought out, then it is more likely to be found as our posting below illustrates.

Playing devil's advocate here, we trust that the whole machinery of tracing has clanked into force? This unfortunate lady, (and of course her dog) will have had numerous 'dangerous contacts', which must be traced and tested. All the animals she has handled, petted, treated (?) in the veterinary practise where she worked for starters. Then her dog's contacts. Other dogs? his favourite lamp-post? fields and footpaths?

This whole scenario throws into sharp focus the utter futility of slaughtering thousands of cattle, whose test results show they have had 'exposure' to the zoonosis known as bTB, while leaving the cause of that exposure - said to be 80 - 90 percent in areas of high incidence - to mushroom out from the original 7 or 8 badger hotspots ten years ago. As seen from Defra's TB incidence maps, just like Topsy, these areas have 'amplified' (Defraspeke) into red blotches which now stretch from Lands End to Cumbria, giving users other than tested cattle, opportunity for contact and spillover transmission.

So our comment on this story is - it was inevitable. And this is not the first time it has happened And as long Defra are content to slaughter sentinel tested cattle, while leaving the source of their problems to spread rampant infection across England's green and pleasant land, the potential for transmission into human / domestic pets and all other mammals is also 'amplified'.

The inappropriately named 'bovine' Tuberculosis is a zoonosis - it's what they do.

" I thought it was just farm animals"

A posting on a farm forum this week brought home the reality of b.tuberculosis to a member of the general public. We have stressed many times that control of this disease is not optional. There is a statutory obligation on governments to eradicate it from both farmed and wild animals, primarily to protect human health.

Letting the disease rip through the badger population while slaughtering tested cattle (and now goat) sentinels will not reduce the amount of bacteria in the environment, and neither will it reduce the potential of its exposure to domestic pets and their owners.

A cat owner - or should we say 'former' cat owner - in Bristol, took his pet to his local vet after it developed a cough. The cat did not respond to any treatment, lost weight and was euthanased. Remembering baby-Ben Bradshaw's 2006 edict to veterinary practitioners of 'check for TB' and the most important bit - 'bTB is now notifiable in all mammals, so Defra pay for surveillance', the vet offered a postmortem. The post described the result:

"She had tuberculosis and we now all have to go for some sort of skin test to see if we have caught it from the cat. We live in the middle of Bristol and the vet said he had other cases. Apparently cats are very susceptable. On the waste land about half a mile away some badgers have moved in and the vet said this is the most likely place where the cats are getting it.

The cat owner said that he had telephoned the council pest control, but was told they could not do anything. Sometimes the area of waste land is used by children and he asks:

"Will they get tuberculosis as well? This is not something I have heard about before. I thought it was just farm animals".

No, it is not 'just farm animals', or even cattle. And as this bacteria, spread across the countryside in the urine, sputum and pus falling from endemically infected badgers is offered in increasing amounts to the general public and their pets, expect to see more casualties like this and this.
Farmers are being told, they must 'live with it', but continuing exposure to increasing amounts of m.bovis by the general public and their pets, inevitably means that many will 'die from it'.

UPDATE
The Bristol cat owner has posted the result of the TB skin tests which he and his family have now had. (11 / 08 - page 8) While he and the two children are clear, his partner had a grade 4 reaction, and now has to go for a chest x-ray.

UPDATE (2)
Thankfully caught at an early stage of possible transmission, the X-rays were clear. But sputum samples have been taken for cultures - a process which takes 6/8 weeks in cattle - and the patient started on antibiotics. The course of antibiotics used to treat tuberculosis is a mixture of several, some with particularly nasty side effects. One (Isoniazid) has a very long list of food and drink which may not be consumed while the patient is receiving treatment with it.

We wish her well.

Defra to appeal Tabular Valuation ruling

Yesterday (August 4th.) Defra announced that it would appeal the decision of Lord Justice Stanley Burnton in the case brought by David Partridge. The case, heard on July 14, ruled that applying table values to high value cattle ‘offends the principle of equality’ as it discriminates against their owners without sufficient justification.

We covered the Partridge Farms case here. Cash strapped and under pressure to 'save money' this is a case Defra cannot afford to lose. Equally, the breeders of high genetic pedigree cattle cannot be expected to surrender high value animals to the altar of political expediency for a handful of what they are worth.

In an ideal world, cattle farmers should be able to obtain top-up insurance for such animals but the situation with this politically motivated plague is such that the insurance underwriters have withdrawn cover. Exposure to risk is too high the man-from-the-Pru said. And in a world where only the short term is 'valued' at all, it was ever going to be the case that while farmers were screwed had their compulsory purchase monies reduced, the bTB bandwagon would roll on with the majority - two thirds - of its budget increasing at 20 per cent annually to cope with increasing Tb 'incidents'.

In a bizarre twist to this story, we have been alerted to another anomaly within the compulsory purchase maze. While camelids, those long necked fashion-statement lawnmowers such as alpacas and llamas receive full valuations from Defra, as the spillover into other species continues, goat keepers receive nothing at all. This we are told, is the result of deals done (fishing quotas?) when the UK joined the EEC (European Economic Community). In 1972, Government undertook to exclude goats as agricultural animals and therefore any part of our agricultural economy. So when goats are found to be infected with TB, or fail an owner funded skin test there is no compensation whatsoever for reactors.

Wildlife Management - OIE

In a well constructed editorial which highlights the interaction of wildlife with domestic or farmed species, and thus offers opportunity for disease transmission, Bernard Vallatt, Director General of the OIE (Office des Internationale Epizootics) sees 'management' of such reservoirs as essential. The full piece can be read here.

"The role played by wildlife in the world epidemiological situation is widely demonstrated. We also know that animals in the wild are both targets of and a reservoir for pathogens capable of infecting domestic animals and humans. Infections with tuberculosis, Nipah virus or Ebola virus, to name but a few, regularly afflict domestic animals and humans alike, and each of these events sounds a shrill alarm on the need for better monitoring of wild animal health and the source of wildlife diseases."

That would be a 'shrill alarm' to everyone except Defra's high level lobby fodder puppets one assumes? The paper continues:

... it is important to control the demography of such populations which can also serve as highly effective disease reservoirs for numerous pathogens. In this respect, the OIE is seeking to develop standards for the humane control of these undesirable categories of animal populations where necessary.

The vehicle for surveillance and management is the State Veterinary Service of countries, an organisation which has received scant support over decades from our governments - except of course the recent gagging order from Defra's very own 'thought police'.

There is clearly a duty to manage wildlife diseases. We must maintain biological diversity, improve our knowledge of the health status of all animal populations and prevent species at risk from disappearing, while protecting human and domestic animal populations from the introduction of diseases. This relies mainly on the Veterinary Services. A technically competent, adequately resourced Veterinary Service is needed, working with other regulatory authorities and with non governmental organisations (NGOs) in a cooperative constructive manner. This also requires political will and the dedication of the necessary resources for the implementation of programmes and scientific research. Furthermore, the efficiency of Veterinary Services in this field will be increased by various mechanisms of alliances and collaboration with agencies in charge of wildlife protection and hunting policies, and with NGOs working on the same topics. Alliances with hunters' organisations are very useful and important for the surveillance and early detection of wildlife diseases. These alliances are also useful for managing undesirable animal populations.

.

M. Vallatt concludes "wildlife diseases will not solve themselves". But in the Alice in Wonderland world of Defra, our own State Veterinary Service - now relabelled Animal Health - has been down-sized, demoralised, starved of cash and bullied into submission. Not an ideal way to form 'constructive partnerships' perhaps. And certainly not the way to halt the onward march of tuberculosis.

Up one entry...

... and down another. Or in this case a badger sett - or rather an artificiallly created tunnel, above ground. We are gratefully to Trevor, Mr. Lawson of Badger Trust fame for pointing out that Defra have (allegedly) said:

" It was impossible to develop a reliable model for predicting whether humane concentrations of carbon monoxide gas could be achieved in a badger sett [4].

Please keep a close eye on that piece of verbal gymnastics - a single sentence from just one (of many) very long pdf file - as we summarise the work done in 2005/2006 by both Defra with one set of artificial sandcastles, or Porton Down with their very own bucket and spades .

Both were looking at reaching an optimum level of 1 percent concentration of carbon monoxide (CO) for long enough to euthanise the tunnel occupants without any visble side effects. Both used (different) models to predict concentrations, and a number of 'assumptions' were made in order to construct the model. Neither factored in animal movement, and thus movement of air / gas within the chambers.
In Defra's paper (No 2 on the list)

Target concentrations were exceeded 13m from the entrance in all trials and sustained for 24 hours when tunnel entrances were blocked - in all conditions. The trials achieved concentrations of CO thought to be sufficient to kill badgers.

Porton Down repeated this exercise in paper 4 with the same results. They may even have used the same delivery vehicle. Defra appear to have located an 18 year old Rangy 3.5l petrol automatic, which they are at pains to point out would have failed its MOT on emmissions and couldn't be transported legally on the public highway. Did it have a SORN declaration, one wonders? They continue:

"In all four trials CO concentration exceeded 3 percent after 60 - 80 minutes, and stayed above 1 per cent for at least 60 minutes in all trials. When all entrances were closed, CO levels were still above 1 percent after 24 hours. Levels were maintained after the engine was switched off.

In paper 3, Porton Down had another go, but their model told them that within a complicated sett system, the CO left dead spots. When they repeated Defra's number 2 'trial' - possibly with the same old Rangy (one would hope the taxpayer didn't fund two) they achieved similar results in all conditions of wind speed and soil porosity.

In paper 5 (2006) Defra had a blast with a portable generator - presumably the Rangy 3.5l automatic had eventually died. They had its portable replacement de-tuned to deliver levels of CO greater than its 4 wheeled predecessor and in a series of trials, all exceeded the target delivery of 1 percent concentration of CO for at least one hour.

In paper 8, Defra were looking at soil porosity and had mixed results until somone suggested they seal the entrance hole around the delivery pipe. When this was done, all trials revealed CO (Carbon monoxide) exceeding the 1 percent concentration on all models. In one test Miracle-Gro was used to mimic large soil particle size (2.36 - 2.80mm) and we had visions of an artic load.... However from the accompanying illustration, this experiment was done in a test tube, so enough for Defra's window box perhaps, rather than 'gardening leave'.

They tried GPR to map actual setts and see if CO worked underground as well as in the above ground tunnels sandcastles they'd built. But it failed to map and the two computer models were at logger heads. So Defra's conclusion of this work is more than interesting. As is its comparison with the Badger Trust statement we quoted above. In the overview paper published July 2008 which summarises all the work with CO done in 2005/2006, Defra say of the computer model log-jam:

"however by this stage of research two other viable culling techniques had been identified and further work on fumigation [with CO] had been suspended.

And this is the bit Trevor missed

"Although significant additional work would still be required to demonstrate the efficacy and humaneness of CO fumigation in the field (including regulatory approval) the most recent work suggests that development of a CDF model to predict gas flow within badger setts could be achievable. Defra July 2008"

If you have a spare three hours, all the papers can be seen here. Most indicate time pressure to deliver, and, as we've come to expect from the passengers on this miserable but highly beneficial gravy train, request 'more research' to confirm their findings.

Golden Guernseys

The label attached to micobacterium bovis is proving very wide of the mark. We have had comments of the site, reminding us that 'bovis' means cattle and thus the disease must be primarily a disease confined to cattle. This is 'unfortunate' (in politocospeke) and totally misses the point; which is that bTB is a zoonosis affecting many species. And, as we said before, the single most sensible thing baby-Ben Bradshaw did during his tenure astride Defra's fence, was to make it notifiable in all mammalian species. This means Defra picks up the tab for postmortems and VLA log results.

As well as many tens of domestic moggies, a handful of pet dogs, free range pigs, camelids and a few sheep, the latest spillover has appeared in goats. Specifically - this time - in a breed of very rare Golden Guernsey goats, which had the misfortune to co-habit the pastures of West Wales where sentinel tested cattle in the area are showing big problems, and RTA badgers also badly infected. More on the story from BBC Wales

"The disease was discovered in some rare golden Guernsey goats which were being sold by a Carmarthenshire breeder. Nick Clayton of The Goat Veterinary Society said the outbreak had come as a "complete shock" to the industry and "it was only the second of its type in more than 50 years".
Twenty-two goats have been culled and 20 had lesions typically associated with the effects of TB. Bovine TB was diagnosed in a small number of goats in England 12 months ago, but it is not clear at present if that is linked to the latest scare.

However, a "significant portion" of the rare golden Guernsey breed was now at risk, Mr. Clayton said.

Mr Clayton added. "Six herds dotted around England and Wales have been tested now and a few cases have been found". Tracing of contacts is ongoing we understand, and this weeks' Vet. Record carries a summary of the problem thus far.

"Reports of caprine TB have been very rare in the UK since the introduction of a mandatory TB testing and slaughter scheme for cattle herds in the 1950s. However, the extent of the current outbreak illustrates that goats are susceptible to M bovis infection and TB should be considered as a differential diagnosis in goats with respiratory signs and weight loss, particularly if kept in regions of high bovine TB incidence.

.
As a result of Bradshaw's notification instruction, one goat from the Welsh farm was submitted for postmortem in June 2008. Results revealed two large lesions, and multiple smaller lesions in the lungs. Culture from the lesions identified M bovis spoligo type SB0140 (VLA type 9). (VLA mapping shows 20 percent of outbreaks in Dyfed are found to share this spoligotype, and it is found in 44 percent of outbreaks in Devon / Cornwall.)

The remaining goats in the herd were tested using the intradermal comparative tuberculin test. Thirteen of 20 animals tested were disclosed as reactors using the standard bovine interpretation. Postmortem examination of these goats at the VLA showed gross lesions similar to the first case in all but one of the reactors. Four other nonreactor goats, slaughtered as dangerous contacts, did not show any gross tuberculous lesions at postmortem examination. Three goats with negative test reactions, all belonging to a separate management group, remain on the holding.

The goats on the holding showed anorexia, particularly refusing concentrate food, a sometimes precipitous fall in milk production, a chronic intermittent cough and sometimes loss of weight. Pulmonary lesions were the most obvious pathological sign on postmortem examination. Lesions in the bronchial, mediastinal, and mesenteric lymph nodes were more caseous, sometimes with 'gritty' calcification. Lesions have also been seen in the retropharyngeal lymph nodes, liver, spleen and udder.

The most likely source of infection for the herd appears to be the movement in May 2007 of three golden Guernsey goats from another herd in west Wales that was dispersed last April. Tracings from these two herds are being investigated by Animal Health and include goats moved to other holdings in England and Wales. At the time of writing, tracings involve 20 destination herds in 13 different counties of England and Wales. To date this has revealed a further eight herds with skin test reactor golden Guernsey goats presenting with tuberculous lesions at slaughter. Mycobacterial cultures on tissues from these goats are in progress.

The report concludes:

This outbreak has shown that goats can be very susceptible to M bovis infection and that the within-herd prevalence of infection can be high. It also highlights the importance of considering the risk of the introduction of M bovis infection when moving animals between herds and the potential consequences of failing to do so.
The positive predictive value of tuberculin skin tests performed so far on the at-risk goats has been very high.

The authors remind veterinary practioners that they should be consider TB when investigating goats with chronic respiratory disease and weight loss, and goats that die or are euthanased should undergo postmortem examination. [That warning applies to any 'mammal' - ed] However, skin testing goats is not mandatory, and any veterinary surgeon undertaking skin testing of goats must seek prior permission from the DVM and notify Animal Health of the results.

And as it appears to work well on goats, the skin test should be considered as part of a regular testing regime, we think. We understand that Wales is considering this route. If however the wildlife maintenance reservoir of disease is not tackled simultaneously, then goat keepers will find themselves in the same position as cattle farmers. A heap of dead animals - and no nearer to clearing the problem.

EFRAcom response to Benn - 'Not good enough'

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs committee has responded to Secretary of State, Hilary Benn's cop-out announcement, with their own verbal broadside,

We concluded that the Government's current method of controlling cattle TB, that of surveillance, testing and slaughter, was not working effectively.

... a severe understatement, we think. EFRAcom quote the government's own figures for disease incidence:

. Our Report considered that cattle TB was 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. The consequential growing cost of the disease to the taxpayer and to the farming industry was unsustainable. In "hot spot" areas where the prevalence of the disease was highest, the farming industry had reached a breaking point as the disruption to business in both human and economic terms had become unacceptable. The final straw for many farmers had proved to be the introduction of a new system of valuations for their slaughtered of TB incidence cattle which had proved inequitable in many cases.

And on badger culling, in response to confirmed cattle TB outbreaks...

We also recognised that under certain well-defined circumstances it was possible that badger culling could make a contribution towards the reduction in incidence of the disease in hot spot areas. However, we acknowledged that badger culling alone would never provide a universal solution to the problem of cattle TB.

... it did at Thornbury.
"The fundamental difference between the Thornbury area and other areas in south west England, where bovine tuberculosis was a problem was the systematic removal of badgers from the Thornbury area. No other species was removed. no other contemporaneous change was identified that could have accounted for the reduction in TB incidence within the area." [157949] 24th March 2004. Col. 824W

Reduction? Another understatement. NO cases of TB in cattle were found in the ten years after gassing ceased at Thornbury, and badger numbers had recovered to pre-cull levels.

6. We are extremely disappointed that the response was so tentative in many areas. It also appears to play down the serious nature of this disease, asserting that the problem is a regional one, that the Government's cattle TB policies are working effectively, and that the position is not as "bleak" as our Report suggested. We note that PSA 9 (adopted in 2004) set a target for Defra to reduce the spread of cattle TB to new parishes to below the incremental trend of 17.5 confirmed new incidents per annum by the end of 2008, but not a target for the reduction of TB in existing hot spot areas or overall. The Departmental Annual Report 2008 says that the Department is "on course" for meeting its targets for limiting the spread of cattle TB to areas currently free from the disease. Whilst this might explain the optimism contained in the Government response, the statistics for incidence of cattle TB in 2007 show that the number of herd breakdowns is still increasing.

Now, when a politician says he is 'disappointed', it is politicospeke for bloody frustrated, angry and downright disgusted that committee advice has not been heeded. In this case the adjective 'extremely' has been added, thus giving emphasis to EFRAcom's 'disappointment'.

7. The Government is unwise to have put all its eggs in one basket and to have chosen to focus its energies and funding on the long-term goal of developing cattle and badger vaccines when it is unlikely that a badger vaccine will be available before 2014 and a cattle vaccine before 2015. The response indicates that there is little in the Government's strategy, beyond the current policy of surveillance, testing and slaughter, to tackle the disease in the short-term. This is not good enough — it fails to recognise fully the seriousness of the situation.

Couldn't agree more, but for any disease 'strategy', governement requires the co-operation of its farmers. And that Defra has patently lost.

... Defra's plans for partnership with farmers on the issue of animal disease control appear to be in disarray as the farming industry has walked away from current discussions on responsibility and cost-sharing.[2] This will surely have serious consequences for the credibility of the Government's plans for a Bovine TB Partnership Group to discuss cattle-based measures with the industry.

From vaccines to bio-security, badger culling to the widespread use of gammaIFN, compensation levels and farmer co-operation, it would appear EFRAcom are far from happy with the minister's response. Having described his response variously as 'tentative', 'unwise', 'not good enough' and too reliant on woolly future events, the committee have 'invited' him to appear to give oral evidence to support his non-decisions.

We ask Defra to respond to the points raised in this report. We will also be asking the Secretary of State to give oral evidence on his response to our original Report.

While EFRAcom (and others) are making the case for 'cattle measures' we will remind readers of their total failure (and continuing failure) when used in isolation. And when politicians talk of 'reducing the spread' of TB they totally misunderstand that the disease is NOT spread by cattle movements. A point well understood, by Lord Rooker, who had taken the time to study VLA's painstakingly constructed spoligotype maps.

VAWM response to Benn's statement

We have received from the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management, their response to Hilary Benn's 'no-cull' decision, which we quote in full. We can't add to the sentiment or the content, both of which speak eloquently for themselves.

"DEFRA cops out on controlling bovine TB - July 2008

Predictably, coming as it does from this feeble Government, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Hilary Benn, announced on Monday, July 7, 2008 that DEFRA will continue to pursue the policies that have, over the last decade, led to a tenfold increase in bovine tuberculosis in cattle. In spite of statements by the Chief Scientist, Sir David King last October and the more recent report in April by the Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of the House of Commons that the wildlife reservoir of bovine TB, namely badgers, will have to be culled in order to control the disease, DEFRA have stuck their heads firmly back in the sand in the hope that the situation will get better if they just go on killing more and more cattle (some 28,000 in 2007 and rising already in 2008).

Like Mr. Micawber, Mr. Benn is hoping that something will turn up. In this case something like a vaccine. But a vaccine, if one ever does turn up and however potent it may be, cannot be expected to work, either for cattle or badgers, in the face of massive challenge from the current heavily infected badger population. Furthermore vaccination of cattle against TB is prohibited for this and other good biological reasons under current EU legislation. Scientists have been looking for decades without success for a better vaccine than BCG.

As long ago as 1998, when figures were last published, the prevalence of TB infection in badgers taken during Government removal operations across Great Britain was 26% and this figure cannot be expected to have improved since then.

All six reports since 1980 including the report last year of the so called Independent Scientific Group have identified badgers as the major wildlife reservoir of infection. Dunnet in 1985 declared that no further expenditure was necessary to prove the role of badgers in the epidemiology of bovine TB and in 1995 the Chief Veterinary Officer wrote that 90% of all cattle outbreaks were badger related with less than 10% due to cattle sources.

Mr. Benn has been seduced by the siren voices of Lord Krebs and Professor John Bourne, who, being desperate to defend the hugely expensive and flawed Randomised Badger Culling Trials of the last 10 years, have persuaded the Minister that to bear down solely on the disease in cattle whilst ignoring the huge reservoir of infection in badgers is a realistic policy for control. Lord Krebs is quoted as saying killing 170,000 badgers is simply not an option (where does he get that figure from?) but does he suppose killing 30,000 cattle year on year is an acceptable alternative?

Cattle unlike sheep are highly susceptible to bovine TB and simply act as sentinels for the disease in badgers. To ignore the disease in badgers is to ignore a ticking biological time bomb. It is estimated that some 2,000 badgers a year in the south west alone die from bovine TB. Furthermore they die slowly (340-730 days depending on the site of infection) during which time they will be excreting vast numbers of tubercle bacteria into the environment.

Mr. Benn should take his head out of the sand, look west and emulate the robust approach by the Welsh Government that is planning to eradicate bovine TB from Wales.
For more information, including our response to the ISG’s report, June 2007, see:

www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk

Please address any comments direct to VAWM.

Dutch calves - update

In the posting below, we quoted the bones of this story from the Timesonline reporting of a Dutch Farming Paper snip quoting NBA Director, Kim Heywood as saying "We're so sorry".

"We' re so sorry .... all calves from the previous two months are traced so that they can be tested. As has happened with these animals which have gone to the Netherlands"

Ms. Heywood pointed out that for their part, UK stock breeders do "everything they can to keep this disease under control, but the government refuses to cooperate by dealing with the wildlife source.."

A 'ban' on exports/imports by one member state to another within the EU is illegal, unless it is instigated by the Commission. Thus it is left to Dutch farmers and exporters to vote with their feet on the import of calves, if they feel risk outweighs value. And this has given another industry commentator pause for thought. Ian Potter, in his newsletter (July 18th) seems to think that this 'embarrassing coincidence' the timing of which couldn't be more opportune to put EU pressure on government, is all down to an effort by Dutch importers, or at least one Dutch importer to control his market.

The Dutch desire for complete control of the UK calf export market is turning into nothing short of a ruse leading to questions as to their professionalism and integrity. National newspapers have swallowed hook, line and sinker the news that calf exports from the UK have been banned due to the detection of TB in calves on Dutch veal units. The accurate story is that the Dutch and Belgian veal industry, directed by one particular Dutch importer, have called for a voluntary ban on purchasing calves from the UK. The bottom line is this Dutchman and some of his associates are insisting the delivered price of the calves from the UK is immediately dropped. Although numbers exported are now increasing which will reflect in the price, there are numerous farmers who we deal with who have been exporting since the ban was lifted who in the past two weeks have returned to shooting the calves at birth, which puts more valuable milk in the tanker and not into a worthless calf. If the Dutch want to play games they may just find they have control of an unviable market."

Time tell on this one. Is Mr. Potter saying that calves from the dairy farm, which is now under a confirmed TB restriction, were neither exported, nor traced to Holland? We are also told that gamma bloods were used to check these animals, not the skin test, so just how 'accurate' is the 'positive' result reported in the Dutch paper and which kicked the whole thing off?

The whole scenario is just a bit too much of a coincidence for our liking. And we believe in those like we believe in the tooth fairy. Whatever the root of this story, it's outcome, we will continue to follow with interest.

UPDATE
We have just received a bit more on this story:
* The calves apparantly came from a dairy farm in Worcestershire and were taken to be batched and lairaged, by an exporter in Staffordshire.
* At a Prm test [on older cattle] at the Worcs farm, one reactor was found.
* Whole herd test found 50+ more [including calves] Two cows had multiple lesions including mammary glands.
* Large no. of reactor calves were found to have multiple lesions from drinking mastitic milk from these two.

The exporter's cattle have all tested clear.

(more as we get it.)