TB and alpacas - advice update.

After a concerted effort, the owners of TB affected alpacas, if not some of their breeders, have achieved not a little success in raising awareness of the susceptibility of these delightful animals to TB.

The British Alpaca Society (BAS) has produced a TB question and answer file on its website, which highlights some problems with alpacas and TB.



As we pointed out in this posting, having made TB notifiable in 'all mammalian species' in early 2006, Defra failed to provide its AHOs with the tools to finish the tracing, restriction and testing part of TB control. The result is a mish mash of voluntary compliance with regulations which are limited in statute to 'bovine species and farmed deer'.

The British Alpaca Society (BAS) has warned its members ignoring bovine TB (bTB) could have dire consequences for the species. The society has set up a TB Action Group and is also raising awareness of the issue on its website and in its membership magazine.

Farmers Guardian has more.

And???

This week a new survey was published entitled "Scientific review on Tuberculosis in wildlife in the EU1". This 117 page pdf, gives a thumbnail sketch on the eradication problems in European member states (and other parts of the world) where wildlife reservoirs of TB are proving to be maintenance reservoirs.

"The evidence that badgers transmit bTB to cattle is compelling. Associative evidence includes descriptions of bTB in badger carcases, isolation of the causative organism, surveys where the badger was the only or the principal infected species, road traffic accident (RTA) surveys and statutory badger removal operations.
Laboratory transmission experiments have confirmed that badgers can infect cattle, and badgers are known to excrete M. bovis in faeces, sputum, urine and from open abscesses.
Molecular typing results have demonstrated that badgers and cattle generally share the same spoligotypes in the same geographical locations.
Intervention studies have provided stronger evidence of the direction of transmission between the two species.
Where badgers have been largely removed from areas of persistent cattle bTB infections, the cattle reactor rate has been markedly reduced for a sustained period subsequent to culling.
In recent, scientifically controlled trials, cattle incidence declined in areas where badgers were removed relative to comparable unculled areas.

All very true: this and much more can be downloaded here. We have not ploughed through too much of this because having said badgers are the acknowledged maintenance reservoir of TB in GB and RoI, the authors, many of whom are familiar names on the beneficial gravy train which services bTB, then spend an inordinate amount of time seeking cash for further studies to find out what to do about it. Some things are more than fudged. For instance there is the following all encompassing overview of past culling:

The Eurasian badger has long been implicated as the main wildlife reservoir of bTB in the UK and RoI, and their lethal control has formed an integral part of strategies to reduce bTB in cattle.

So, "lethal control has formed an integral part of strategy" to reduce TB in cattle? That is a remarkable simplification of what has actually happened. and the entirely predictable results of allowing it to happen.

From 1974 there was badger control in response to TB outbreaks in cattle, which could not be attributed to cattle movements. And very successful it was too, bringing the national tally down to less than 100 herds under restriction, and 638 cattle slaughtered in 1986.

But then vote begging politicians, animal lobbyists and other assorted hangers on made their strident voices felt, and policy was loosened to a point where any 'lethal control' was extremely limited and fraught with difficulty. With gassing now replaced by trapping and land available reduced from 7km, to just 1km of land which cattle had grazed, then a rise in cattle sentinels was inevitable. Especially as the authors of the paper observe:

Badger abundance in the UK tends to be relatively high in areas where bTB in cattle is a problem. National badger sett surveys suggested that in some parts of the UK there was a substantial increase in badger abundance between the 1980s and 1990s.

We get the picture - lots of badgers. Thousands of them. A very successful campaign. And dear readers, that 'substantial increase', upon which the authors of the paper have not put a figure, was 77 per cent. Despite this, and despite advice from the old Badger Panel, in 1997 after a £1million bung from the Political Animal Lobby, a moratorium was put on any badger control whatsoever. At that time the number of cattle slaughtered in GB was 3760. The resulting carnage hoovered up 40,000 cattle sentinels a decade later, and we have documented overspill to many other species, some of which are more than capable of sustaining infection within their populations and transmitting it onwards.

Although they have a convoluted way of putting things, the authors of this tome do recognise the dangers:

Research has revealed considerable detail about the ecology, behaviour and population demographics of badgers. Elsewhere in Europe where badger population densities are considered to be generally lower than those in the bTB affected parts of the UK and Republic of Ireland, there have been few confirmed reports of bTB in badgers. Hence, although the risks badgers may pose for onward transmission of bTB to domestic animals elsewhere in Europe are unknown, the evidence to date suggests that they are likely to be lower than in the UK or Republic of Ireland.

Quite. And you propose to reduce this risk, how?

EU Cash - for what?

This week, the European Union has agreed in principle to fund the testing and slaughter of more British cattle.

"THE UK’s bovine TB eradication plan has been given the green light by the EU’s animal health committee, which agreed a €10 million funding package to help implement the plan.The funding will be available to contribute to the costs of TB testing and compensation for cattle slaughtered."

Farmers Guardian has the story.

It is not clear from the news dripping out of the European Commission, just what sort of 'eradication' package the UK presented.
Scotland, having decided to 'go it alone', is not included, but the title not only implies a bit of serious dot-joining, the documentation issued by the DG SANCO (Directorate General for Health and Consumer Affairs) authorities in the EU, spells out governmental responsibilities quite clearly.

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 have said many times, a one sided non-policy such has been foisted on this country since a £1 million bung in 1997, is totally responsible for the unholy mess our cattle industry now finds itself in.
But spillover of bTB into numerous other mammalian species in happening in increasing numbers, with alpacas leading the field in numbers. And for them, inter herd spread appears a big problem. It would appear that once an alpaca or llama becomes infected, bTB spreads through these delightful animals very quickly, swiping them one after another.

So what of this 10 million euro cash pot, that will arrive from the UK and German taxpayers via the auspices of the 'European Union', presumably to implement T-Beggar's recommendations of more testing, more slaughter of cattle, and more ways to live with this (increasing) level of bTB? As the SANCO document says (in more than one place) unless parallel measures are taken to eliminate the risk from wildlife reservoirs, in tandem (that means ' at the same time'), any cattle measures and thus any amount of cash poured in to facilitate them, is destined for the same black hole which Lord Rooker so eloquently described in 2007 when he told the ERRA committee,

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

And now they have 10 million more euros to play with.

A square peg...in a very round hole.

The more we look at responses to our postings and those on other sites, the more we think that although baby-Ben Bradshaw was quite correct in making suspected bTB notifiable in 'any mammalian species', it would have been sensible to put a safety net of statute under such reports.

The minister for (some) Animal's Health made this amendment in 2006, which meant that Defra picked up the tab for postmortems, cultures etc. on any mammal suspected of having bTB. But there the joining of departmental dots gets disjointed, with AHO only having legislature over bTB in 'Bovine species and farmed deer'.

We have mentioned, some cases of domestic pets, and given camelids several mentions, not least because they appear not only to be highly susceptible to bTB, but also highly infectious when they do get the disease. And therein lies a problem. Defra may have post-mortemed a cat, dog, sheep, pig, goat, alpaca or llama - and this is a cursory look, not a full pm, we understand - but there the story ends. A movement restriction may be issued. Or it may not. It may apply to certain groups of animals on the holding, but not to the whole area. Testing may be offered, or it may not; or it may be refused as may entry to the holding. Owners may be given permission to use supplementary tests but if these prove positive, whether or not they are 'validated' or accurate is dismissed out of hand, as positive candidates must be slaughtered before any further testing continues, or restrictions which have been accepted, lifted. Compulsory purchase of these 'other species' is discretionary, and owes more to 'who you know' than a genuine attempt to clear disease. We are aware of some eyewatering amounts paid for camelids, but the ex gratia figure, if owners follow what little protocol applies, is said to be around £750 / head.

In all this is a dog's breakfast of policies which individual veterinary practitioners, AHOs, VI centres, VLA and even (or especially) Health Protection Agencies seem reluctant or unable to coalesce. AHOs particularly, are caught between (B)rock and a hard place trying to shoehorn Bradshaw's 'other mammalian species' into statutory cattle regulations for bTB, while the various bodies charged with screening their human contacts for bTB are still locked into text books, decades out of date, looking for 'unpasteurised milk' from a 'cow with udder lesions'.

None of this non-policy fits, any which way you twist it. Like our square peg: into a round hole, it will not go.

Eradication - 20 / 30 years

The report of T-BAG's (TB Advisory Group) successor, T-Beggars (TB Eradication Group) is published today on the Defra website.

Foremost amongst its recommendations is a consolidation of 'parish' testing intervals to reflect risk. The maps (on P.21) in the report show how gaps will be filled in from next year (2010) to give annual testing for all the west / south west area, with a 10km two year testing buffer along the eastern edge. It is estimated that an extra 4000 herds will be pulled into this regime. We have no problem with testing cattle, or slaughtering reactors. Our 'problem' is with leaving the source of the outbreaks intact. The cynical among us may speculate on just how long this 'Maginot line' will stay in its allotted place, before it migrates eastwards at the rate a badger can travel in a year ?


Other proposals which have been widely speculated upon, involve advice on biosecurity (which will help, how?) and a handful of changes designed to make bTB more easy to live with. Or in the case of our cattle, to die from. And this will happen more frequently as inconclusives are given the chop at their second test, not third. Thus, as the boss says, leaving an increasingly 'naive' population of cattle, at increasing risk from an untapped wildlife source of endemic disease.

A change in definition of TB within herds is on the the cards too, from the misleading 'unconfirmed' breakdown, where neither lesions nor culture have been able to 'confirm' infection, to just a 'restriction'. This is academic to farmers, the ravages of herd restriction being no different whether TB is confirmed or not, (merely slightly longer if TB is confirmed, or infinite until the source is sorted out.) But it will make the picture clearer to our European masters, who may be under the impression that GB's TB incidence, based on a figure of New Confirmed Incidents only, is under 4%. It is not, it is rapidly approaching 10% as herds are under constant test and slaughter regimes, but are not cleared thus not shown as 'NHIs'. This method (NHIs) of tracking the spread of disease is excellent, provided there is a single source - which is being successfully tackled. But in this case, an increasing rump of herds are languishing under almost constant reinfection from 'wildlife' and are under restriction, incurring testing costs and slaughter but do not appear as headline figures.

But isn't T-Beggar's comparison with the Australian experience of 20 - 30 years to eradicate this disease, stretching the imagination somewhat? For a start, Australia is a slightly larger land mass than GB and it's wildlife reservoir, wider ranging with eradication involving 'Judas cattle', helicopters and a mass shootings. But the main difference is that Australia realised a while ago that they had to act on their wildlife reservoir to ensure TB cattle, and thus a TB free country. A fact which still appears to have escaped the current administration somewhat. And until that happens, making finishing units more accessible, and calf slaughter away from farms is - er, admirable. But livestock markets depend on throughput and set Defra's tabular valuations, while supermarkets want vertical integration of their supply chain, and will exert any pressure they can, to achieve this. But a dead calf is still dead, even if the farmer doesn't have to shoot it himself. And in the absence of any action on wildlife sources (we do not consider vaccinating endemically infected badgers 'action') the trend line for cattle slaughterings, predicts over 70,000 annually by 2014.

The NFU are said to be 'disappointed' that more emphasis was not given to the reservoir of disease in badgers, but accepted that the group had a tight remit. A remit that goes right back to reflect Hilary Benn's elation that his coup of changing of just one word, 'advisory' to 'eradication' could have been believed by so many. And he still does not have to accept a single word of the many that any such group is obliged to offer.

Depending of course on when 'eradication' of TB in badgers is started, we think 20 - 30 years is a gross overstatement. Thornbury achieved clean cattle in under a year, and kept them clear for a decade or more. But 'hard boundaries' to badger control are not necessary. A healthy badger group will do the job cheaper and quicker.

And in 30 years time, by 2040, these bloggers will be pushing up the proverbial daisies - as will most of the politicians, pseudo scientists and assorted hangers on, who have got us into this mess in the first place. So quite frankly, my dears.....



Just to remind readers, this map was the situation 30 years ago, in 1986. And before the aforementioned groups set about dismantling any semblance of badger control in response to confirmed cattle TB, which could not be traced to cattle movements. In that year GB reported less than 100 herds with breakdowns, and 638 cattle were slaughtered.

Such is progress.

Tories would bring camelids under TB umbrella

At the Tory party conference this week, Shadow Minister Jim Paice MP gave the clearest commitment yet to a bTB eradication policy which hoovers up all its susceptible victims, including camelids.

Farmers Weekly has the story.

Camelids and alpacas could be brought into the testing regime for TB under a Conservative government, shadow farm minister Jim Paice has said.

Speaking exclusively to Farmers Weekly at the Tory party conference in Manchester, Mr Paice said he realised concern was growing about the reported reservoir of disease in the animals.

And he said the presence of TB in camelids needed tackling, even though many owners were against TB tests being carried out.

We have touched on this subject before, with a story from a Devon breeder here and an ongoing Cornish breakdown here. Several more breakdowns in alpaca and llama herds are coming to our attention, and to Defra's as well. At present any testing, slaughter, pioneering of new ante mortem tests or anything else to do with camelids, is up to owners of these animals. And Defra. But ultimately, Defra have a boss too. And it is not that vegetarian bloke called Hillary, who flatly refuses to act on any reservoir of this pernicious zoonotic disease except tested sentinel cattle, culled because of their exposure to the bacteria which causes it.

Overseeing Defra's non-policies on (some) Animals Health, is the OIE (Office des International Epizooties) to whom Hilary Benn is responsible for control and eradication of bTB. Wherever that may be.

Party Political Animals

As preparations get underway for the third of the party conferences, here are a couple of links to show the great divide between the current government and any future one.


This pic is of Hillary Wedgewood-Benn, MP our Minister for (some) Animal's Health, when he addressed the NFU conference a year ago.
Despite continuing carnage, his prevarication has not altered one iota, his stance rigidly against a policy which involves tackling badgerTB in its host species. This week's Farmers Guardian offers a thumbnail sketch of the current government's track record on disease control, tracing its cattle casualties of consistant non-policy from 6000 to 40,000 slaughtered per year, over the last decade.

"If there is a single issue that has defined farming’s uneasy relationship with the current Government, it is badgers and bovine TB."

But what of junior Ministerial colleagues, many of whom have openly disagreed with Benn and his numerous predecessors?

The political equivalent of a gulag in outer Siberia awaits dissenters:

"Ministers who felt differently either got nowhere while in office, in the case of Jeff Rooker, or only felt able to speak out afterwards, in the cases of Nick Brown or Jane Kennedy".

What a crazy, expensive, reckless and futile waste of time. But would any other administration be any different? This site was started with the posting of 500 PQs, which were lobbed in the direction of the ever obedient MP for Exeter, and then junior Minister of (some) Animal's Health, baby-Ben Bradshaw, who followed his masters voice, to the letter. And is now Minister for something else.

Many farmers are hanging their hats on the words of Benn's shadow minister in the Conservative party, Jim Paice, MP.

At least Mr. Paice was prepared to forsake the Westminister bubble, and get his wellies muddy. He explored some Benn badgerTB hotspots, as we posted here.
Unusually for a politician, there have been some recent clear, unambiguous statements by senior Tory figures, including leader David Cameron and Shadow Defra Secretary Nick Herbert, committing the party to a badger cull.

Farmers Guardian takes up the story:

In a sign of how seriously the party is now taking the issue, veteran Shadow Agriculture Minister Jim Paice has been given the task of developing a detailed badger culling policy for England, so a new Tory Government can hit the ground running.

“We would hopefully get on with it almost immediately,” Mr Paice says. “I really do not want this hanging about any longer. Twelve years ago, 3,000 animals were being culled. It has now rocketed to over 40,000 and the Government has just sat idly by and done nothing."

And in this pledge, he is backed by the Liberal Democrats who accuse Defra of shamelessly 'ducking the issue' and say;

A limited badger cull is necessary and the science does justify it. The reality is badgers are reservoirs of TB, we need to tackle them and the way is through a targeted cull in south west England.

We have been heard to remark that if a politician's lips are moving, he is lying. But, and it's a big but, the recent love affair this country has had with its financial services industry, which has now landed any administration with huge debts as this sector is bailed out, will inevitably mean some serious pruning of costs. And the sheer weight of unecessary cattle slaughter and it's knock effect on imports, and thus the balance of payments deficit, may just ring a few bells - somewhere. Maybe. Or, an MP's constituent may bang on his office door with a wake up call about a dead cat, dog, or alpaca. And demand some answers as to just where their pet acquired this disease from, and what is he / she going to do about it?

Welsh Announcement

Today, Rural Affairs Minister in the Welsh Assembly, Elin Jones said she had taken the decision to sign and lay the Order to give Welsh ministers the power to issue a cull and/or vaccination of badgers in Wales.
The Independent has the story.

And some background to the Welsh decision is described by Dr. Christianne Glossop, on a recent visit to the TB conference in New Zealand where she told her audience:

" We slaughtered 12,000 cattle infected with tuberculosis in Wales last year. In some areas of Wales, the infection rates are as high as 15%.

In contrast, New Zealand has an infection rate of 0.35% and it’s going down. You have nearly wiped this disease out through rigorous pursuit of pest management, stock movement controls and robust government policies built on co-operation between farmers, local councils and government."

New Zealand offers the following reminder to its farmers about their responsibilities, when dealing with the country's wildlife reservoir.

"There was 'A wall of silence'.

Our post below has provoked two quite different reactions. In it we told the story of four dead cats, one of which was tested positive for m.bovis,(the zoonotic bacteria which causes bTB) and the medical authorities who refused screening for the family in whose air space, rugs and knees the cats had lived.

After an airing the story on www.warmwell.com Dr. Colin Fink of Warwick University replied that as there were no symptoms after eight months, then HPA were probably correct.

" In the case of the cat diagnosed to have the disease, if the owners and immediate family remain asymptomatic, then all is well . Whether they have been exposed and have been infected with a small amount of the organisms and deal with this infection in the normal immunological way, is rather academic. Many of us meet M.Tuberculosis but remain entirely asymptomatic. The cat owners et al may be reassured. If they were to become ill and remain unwell for longer than a transient infection might be expected to last, then further investigation would be justified."

Up to a point, we agree. But, and this is a big 'but', the HPA and all its satellite agencies have a duty of care to screen for bTB where contact with a confirmed case either in a human being, or any animal (farmed or domestic) is known to have occurred. And that is far from 'academic'.

We described it last year, in this posting. And the documentation relating to that responsibility, can be found in this booklet produced by HPA in April this year.

But what is becoming quite clear, is the dumbing down of 'spill over cases' of bTB in mammals other than tested cattle and the reluctance of Defra to bring other farmed mammals into their bTB eradication plans. But more reckless is the absolute brick wall of reluctance, adopted by some local authorities to screen for possible onward transmission of this long-term zoonosis, to its human contacts.

Veterinary practitioner David Denny B.VET.MED.M.R.C.V.S has sent us the following comment from his area which is close to the location of the cat in this weeks' posting.

"The frustrating experience of Kira Lily is regrettably not unique. Her experience is typical of this despicable Government’s micro management of the Authorities involved. In order to skew the bTB statistics and being virtually gagged, the authorities have to ‘sing from the political hymn sheet’.

Mr. Denny then describes his own involvement with a case described as by local authorities as 'atypical tuberculosis from a non-bovine source' which we reported here. We post Mr. Denny's experiences with the authorities, in full.

In 2005 there was a cluster of young children near Newport, Powys - a bTB hotspot - who had swollen lymph glands in the neck and head glands. These are classical ‘scrofula’ symptoms of TB. Some of the glands were suppurating- leaking pus. Because some failed to respond to antibiotic treatment, their glands were surgically removed. Although Mycobacterium bacilli were isolated it is apparent that the unique media essential to grow bTB was not used.

One child a dairy farmer’s daughter developed enlarged glands, which burst. Months later a consultant paediatrician diagnosed “atypical TB”. The authorities allowed the child to go to school, provided the glands were covered up! Although the farm had a history of some bTB in the cattle, no one would tell her Mother where the TB had come from - there was a ‘wall of silence’ from the authorities. Unlike most of the parents who were probably too embarrassed to cause a fuss, one mother was so frustrated that she had front page coverage in the Powys County Times 24 March 2006. The National Public Health Service said “there is no such thing as atypical TB, it is a Mycobacterium infection which can cause a whole range of infections some of which are TB, which are usually acquired from the environment, but transmission can occur from animals to humans”.

In the local school playing area a moribund badger was found. The local Veterinary Surgeon had the carcase sent to the VLA at Aberystwyth. The VS attempted to establish from the VLA the result of the PM. They would not tell him, “they were not allowed to”. Having been at College with the DVM at Shrewsbury he contacted him. “I am unable to tell you”. He eventually established, off the record that the badger did in fact have lesions typical of TB. Later it turned out that on instructions from above the lesions “must not be cultured. We don’t want a TB badger to be found in a school play area”!.

Tuberculosis is a very slow growing organism, and although it is considered to be a disease primarily involving the lungs it can establish itself in any organ or multiple organs of the body be it brain or bone etc. Thus a negative lung X’ray in no way indicates freedom from TB. Medical authorities may also, because of the very real risk of over exposure, be very reluctant to X’ray young children. The usual first line of screening is the Mantoux skin test, which is said to show exposure to TB bacteria. But increasingly, PCR sputum tests are also used as non invasive and arguably more specific screens.

Mr. Denny continues:

Whilst the aerosol route of infection is the accepted way, it is certainly not the only way TB can enter the body; it can enter through any orifice or even a wound. The main route of infection for cattle would be by them eating/ drinking contaminated food which badgers have contaminated, when each teaspoonful of their urine can contain 1,500,000 TB bacilli. [ And it only needs 70 cfu bacteria to provoke a skin reaction, or cause infection in cattle. - ed]..

As the figures of bTB spill back are slowly released, it seems that camelids (alpacas) and cats are the most vulnerable. Mr. Denny describes bTB infection in cats thus:

Because cats are so fastidious and are always licking themselves any bacilli in their hair or on their feet are ingested. Cat wounds can become infected as a result of being licked. It results in a non healing grossly thickened wound which does not respond to treatment.

And many of these cats, 'not responding to treatment' will have been 'fastidiously' grooming themselves on the lap of their owner. And that is not 'academic' at all. It appears to us that it presents a real and present danger.

Mrs. Tiggywinkle - again.

We never underestimate the amount of cash spent re-inventing wheels, and repeating previous studies. Especially not where badgers are concerned. Two years ago Defra released a study paper upon which our Trevor, late of the Badger Trust, attempted a spot of verbal gymnastics.
It concluded that too many badgers = no hedgehogs.

And now another paper, from another University has concluded exactly the same. And for any badgers who read the Daily Mail there is even a recipe for the dispatching of hedgehogs. Badgers, the paper says:

" ..... have learned to use their long claws to prize them [hedgehogs] open - even when they are curled up tight. Once the badger has the hedgehog pinned down tight, it swipes its victim with 1.5 inch claws, pulls it open and bites it to kill it before pulling the flesh from the prickles. The prickles and skin are discarded.."

The paper points out that "badgers have an exceptionally strong bite for their size and will bite each other on the rump during serious disagreements." The report may also have been a tad optimistic about that "bite to kill" statement, quoted above and implying a human death. We have heard that a hedgehog pinned down by his paws, will be peeled like an orange while still very much alive. His screams are not pleasant, and are prolonged.

The ecological effect of an uncontrolled badger population was first brought to our attention by Dr. Willie Stanton who tracked an increase in badgers on his patch for several years, and noted a corresponding decrease in virtually every other small mammal, reptile, insect or ground nesting bird. This latest paper merely reinforces previous work.

The findings come in a study which shows a close geographical link between the decline of hedgehogs and the presence of badgers.
Researcher Dr Anouschka Hof, of Royal Holloway University of London, estimates there are about a million hedgehogs in Britain.
'However, they have been declining over the last decade, especially in areas where there are a lot of badgers,' she said.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1215178/Hedgehog-lunch-Booming-badgers-developed-taste-spiky-little-rivals.html#ixzz0RpZ35VQa

www.countrychannel.tv

There is a film about the effect of bTB on cattle herds and their owners, on
this link.
Bovine TB - a Crisis in the Countryside.

Constructive Ignorance?

A comment has come into the site which has alarmed us somewhat. Our old friend mycobacterium bovis is, as we have said many times, a very serious zoonosis and as such, anyone who has had contact with either a human or an animal confirmed case should be checked out for the disease by the public health authorities. When bTB is confirmed in cattle, (unless anyone knows differently - see later) the local public health department are alerted by the AHO responsible for the area, and tests offered to anyone who has had contact with the cattle.

But when a pet is confirmed with bTB, the resulting health checks appear to be a tad selective, as this comment shows:

We lost all 4 of our pet cats to bovine TB late last year / early this year. (we had one confirmed case and were instructed by defra to euthanize the other 3 (all the while our vets were telling us not to worry, "this doesn't happen; cats don't get tb"))

Yes they do. We covered some feline victims here and another here. Over forty cats were positively identified with bTB 2005-2007. So what about their owners after sharing armchairs and airspace?


The comment continues that Defra did its job and recommended that the owners of the cats, and their 7yr old son were all be tested for btb. And then a stumbling block. the comment continues:

"Public health in our area of Wales flat out refused us tests. I spent hours every day for weeks on the phone to everyone I could think of (private doctors and hospitals, public health, the county's health board, newspapers, Defra, etc) and had no success."

Ten months on from the death of this cat with confirmed bTB and eight months from the euthanasia of its three companions, the owner is still unaware as to whether or not she or any members of her family were/are infected. She has also heard of another case of bTB in a domestic cat in the same area.

The advice from the numerous bodies dealing with bTB, acting it would seem, in glorious isolation both from each other and reality, was confusing. Defra saying that aerosol transmission was a serious risk, while public health parroting 1950s text books, and quoting "unpasteurized milk or infected udders" as the only source. Catch up, please. That loophole was firmly closed in the 1970s. Where on earth do these people think the exposure of 40,000 sentinel, tested and slaughtered cattle annually is coming from? M. bovis doesn't fly in with the tooth fairy. It is carried by infected mammals. Primarily badgers. And in quantities guaranteed to produce onwards transmission, and subsequent disease in anything which is unlucky enough to fall over the detritus they leave behind. Spill back is now increasingly seen in cats, alpacas, goats, sheep, pigs and other companion mammals.

This lady then asked Defra how her cats could've contracted the disease and Animal Health replied "cows or badgers." The location of these cats is a rural cottage, surrounded by sheep with a few herds of cattle as well. The spoligotype of m.bovis isolated from the first cat is described by local AHO as:

... the strain predominant in our area (the Brecon Beacons in mid Wales).

The comment continues with the worrying observation from local farmers who have had bTB problems in their cattle herds, that despite them having received advice from AHOs to be tested for bTB, they are being turned away by GPs.

This is a case of Wales not joining their respective dots with access to TB testing, Xrays and a merry-go-round between different regional health authorities - for which there is absolutely no excuse. We have touched on problems with human TB in Wales before and in this week's Veterinary press is a timely reminder that all too often, 'tuberculosis' in humans is not strain typed at all, being logged under the all-encompassing title 'tuberculosis complex'. Thus the true level of bTB, which would have involved health agencies joining hands with VLA to strain type, and examining causes and transmission opportunities, is likely to be described by the Public health authorities as 'low'. Of course it's 'low' if it's not looked for, diagnosed or strain typed. Now, our co-editor has a name for this: it could be (he says) different agencies protecting their respective castles, i.e total bloody incompetence, or what we have seen so many times before, when reality becomes uncomfortable - constructive ignorance.

The responsibility for control of this grade 3 pathogen is quite clearly set out in the Health Protection Agency's Zoonosis guidelines which proudly bears the logos of Defra, Animal Health, VLA and the Food Standards Agency. And it is bang up to date, printed in 'April 2009'. So, we suggest (or the boss does) that the first port of call for our Welsh lady, if these agencies fail to hold hands with the powers that be, is the HPU (Health Protection Unit) - with a copy of any correspondence to her local MP.

The booklet is quite proscriptive, describing bTB as a statutory notifiable disease which has 'multi agency discipline'. But that does mean that the numerous agencies can pass this parcel around and no one pick up responsibility for it.

6.1.5 p.16
"Responsibility for investigating transmission from animals to humans in a domestic setting rests with the HPA (Health Protection Agency)"

Meanwhile in her locality our correspondent has discovered a third cat with bTB, whose owners have been refused tests. See the comment section in this posting.

She concludes her story,

It's [ bTB diagnosis] a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare. A GP I saw out of hours (and outside of our own practise) told me that public health are useless. That was reassuring. The bTB situation in the UK is a mess and a nightmare. It is being handled appallingly badly by people who don't seem to care about the health and welfare of animals or humans.

We couldn't possibly comment.

Counting the cost

After a visit to some Bradshaw, Beckett, Benn, bovine badger-TB hotspots in the SW, Shadow minister, Jim Paice MP was up beat about a 'management' plan to target infected populations of badgers, rather than a wipe out over an area. But land owners will have to contribute, he told Farmers Weekly

Tory plans for a cull are in their early stages, but proposals topped the agenda during a three-day visit Mr. Paice to TB hotspot areas in the south-west of England this week. Any cull would be properly co-ordinated, said Mr Paice. "I have always said that any cull of badgers should be targeted at those setts most likely to be infected, rather than simply deciding to cull all the badgers in any particular area."

We understand this would involve not just geographical 'hard boundaries' so beloved by the Bourne group, but the sort of 'badger' boundaries used by the Clean Ring TB eradication strategies of the 1980s. These used a 'virtual barrier' of clean healthy badgers as the end of the cull area. It is our understanding that Mr. Paice was shown some well worked main setts which looked like an advert for JCB diggers which were (although this is without the benefit of PCR to confirm, Defra having thrown this technology into the long grass) described to him as 'actively, well worked and vibrant' - as were their occupants. Confirmation coming from the sentinel, regularly tested cattle, which were - clear.

He was then taken a few hundred yards away and saw satellite setts, often single holes, into which the old and sick of the group were kicked out at the end of their tenure. We understand the partially decomposed remains of a previous occupant were in evidence, outside at least one of these.

Although Mr. Paice declined to put a figure on how much individual farmers would be charged, industry sources suggested £7.50/ha (£3/acre), meaning a £600 bill for a typical 150-cow dairy herd run across 80ha (200 acres).

The bill for successive governmental non-policy is running at around £100m annually. To describe it as 'combating bovine TB' is stretching the imagination somewhat. Apart from ongoing 'research' some of which is vital, much is offered as top up grants to universities, producing a lightweight paper trail which has little to offer the real world of epidemiology and disease control. The main tranche of the budget is spent on continual testing of cattle, hauling reactor cattle to abattoirs, slaughtering cattle, taking samples from said cattle, culturing samples and sending results to local AHOs who then produce their pile of paperwork - to test more cattle. That isn't a 'policy', it is a thoroughly wasteful carnage, going absolutely nowhere.

But having believed the guff churned out by mathematical modellers who convinced the world (and themselves) that selling houses they couldn't afford, to people who then could not pay, but that the value of said house would continue to increase - fuelling an eye watering pyramid of bonuses - the perpetrators of the current credit crunch reality check have mortgaged successive governments for the foreseeable future. Defra has no money and Mr Paice told Farmers Weekly:

"Frankly, I can't see me getting any extra money so either it is going to have to come from elsewhere in DEFRA's budget - which won't be immediately easy - or we are going to have to ask farmers to pick up some of the cost." Although the Tory plan would save money by bringing the disease under control, Mr Paice said any additional measures would involve an additional short-term cost.

This illustrates just how important it is that any TB eradication policy has overall AHO control. Contributers to this site have told us that although they have problems - some ongoing - with the disease, the badgers responsible are off-lyers. They are not located on the land owned by the cattle farmer. And that was the single most important restraint faced by SVS during the ten year 'Interim' startegy 1987 - 97. Not only was the 'clean ring' area reduced from 7 km from a confirmed TB outbreak in cattle , to just 1km, but wildlife teams could only trap on land which 'cattle had grazed'. Thus if the badgers responsible were located in woodland or the farm next door, they couldn't gain access. Even though badger territories extended over several cattle farms in the locality. So a cattle farm in that position today, would be throwing away money unless Defra utilised its 'right of entry' to such areas.

And in further slant, TB costs are put at £50 per head of finished cattle by a Cornish farmer. Weight loss in his regularly tested beef cattle and consequential labour costs are just some of the on-farm extras, which Defra's non-policy already load onto this industry. We told you more of the 'benefits' of TB restriction, in this posting.

You'll love this...

Over the years, we have heard some pretty imaginative spin from the Badger Trust. Dear old Trevor was a master whose manipulation of reports, statistics and research would have amazed even Alistair Campbell. Nothing excaped his cartwheels. From 14 million cattle doing bunny hops around the country, to a misleading over view on the Isle of Man's TB incidence, his enthusiasm for his chosen cause knew no bounds. Especially the bounds of honesty and accuaracy, when it came to reporting to his groupies or the media.

Lawson's successor, Jack Reedy, is walking in his footsteps, as we reported here when he told the Radio 4 audience in response to a programme about the Farm Crisis Network TB report, that

".. the TB problems of farms were merely "shoe pinches" because of the "economic penalty" which a breakdown entails, and nothing to do with its emotional impact on the animals or farmers. He went on to say that it is "very unusual for farmers to get fond of their cows" and that they are "usually very careful not to". Cattle are not pets (he helpfully pointed out)"

Which is possibly an slight improvement on Lawson's "cattle get killed anyway" line.

The impression Reedy gave in that interview, was that if farmers are paid enough, they'd roll over and that the TB problem would just disappear. We disagree, as would we suspect, several pet owners, and farmers of other breeds now caught up in the overspill of 'environmental' TB.
In the past, we have given a name to this elephant in the room, 'environmental' TB, labelling the bacterium after its current maintenance host, 'badger' TB. But a succession of ministerial prevarications has given us further inspiration: Bradshaw TB, Beckett TB and now Benn TB? But we digress.

Mr. Reedy,the latest offering ministerial morsels, in a long depressing line of hope over experience, has expanded his organisation's point of view in a longer interview with Alistair Driver, published in this week's Farmers Guardian, saying that:

Farmers are being ‘dangerously emotional’ about bovine TB and need to accept the scientific evidence in front of them.

We won't spoil your pleasure at this man's incredible naivity, by even cutting and pasting his comments. But we will comment on his failure to recognise any 'science' other than that produced by the ISG his apparent blindspots to his 'solution' of whole herd slaughter, which has been tried and failed. Or his kicking into the long grass, the painstaking work of local AH officers who complete a 'risk assessment' when they attend any new TB breakdown. These TB99s were ignored by the ISG, but show that in hotspot areas, as Lord Rooker realised, that only a tiny fraction of cases can be back traced to cattle movements. The majority - 76 percent and probably up to 90 percent, are down to badgers. The chart below was first shown at the BCVA Killarney conference.



The chart also bears out cause and effect of the Thornbury badger clearance in the mid 1970s. The area recorded a herd incidence of TB of 5.6 per cent and gassing setts started in December 1975, continuing for up to eight months. After that, badgers were left to gradually recolonise. Which they did. And the result?

"No confirmed cases of tuberculosis in cattle in the area of the Thornbury operation were disclosed by the tuberculin test in the ten year period following the cessation of gassing" Hansard: 28th Jan 2004 col 385W [150573]

So, what was the cause of the Thornbury success? Whole herd slaughter? Cohort slaughter? Zoning and movement restrictions, licensing and more cattle measures? Biosecurity and stricter testing? Change in the weather? All measures offered today by the Badger Trust, discussed by the T-Beggars ( T-BAG's successor around Defra's consultation table ) - and tried in the past by others, with humiliatingly expensive and ignominious results. However, we did ask. And remembering that it is a hanging offence to mislead a minister in written parliamentary questions, his answer was thus:

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

And Mr. Reedy, the earth is flat.

'Alas poor Yorick.....'

We have mentioned not a few times a 'management' strategy, based on badger's own behaviour as a possible answer to the TB problems this country faces. But the idea that badgers themselves exclude their old and sick members has yet to find favour with Defra's desk jockeys. Although PQs describe how Central Science Laboratory (now reinvented as FERA?) explain that they had:

"... identified behavioural differences between badgers excreting m. bovis and uninfected animals. Badgers excreting m.bovis had larger home ranges, and were more likely to visit farm buildings." [ Col 684W 23rd. March 2004 [158375]]

And the diminutive John Bourne appeared to agree with this, commenting in the ISG Final Report that:

.. infected badgers appear to range more widely and disperse further than uninfected animals (Garnett et al 2005; Pope et al 2007)

So where do these illustrious researchers, professors and academics think such badgers go? Although they flit around the word 'dispersed', they do not appear to associate it with homeless, disorientated and sick badgers; where do they hide? Obviously the word' hospital sett' has got the good professor rattled. He gives it a derisory whirl on p.171 of the ISG report.
In fact it gets a whole paragraph.

"It has been proposed that [TB] infection may be controlled by repeated culling of badgers in a number of 'hospital setts'. This suggestion stems from the speculation ( ??? ) that m.bovis infected badgers may be "expelled from their own setts due to disease.." [ making them] .. more likely to colonise setts vacated by other badgers, as they are too weak to dig their own" (British Veterinary Association, 2005)

The paragraph goes on the say that culling such setts would be a highly 'imprecise method of removing infected badgers'.
That would be compared with, what? Doing nothing doesn't seem to be working too well, but let that pass. Defra have.

But has anyone actually seen one of these 'hospital setts'? We haven't. But a blogger on Farmers Guardian website has. And we are grateful for sight of the photo of these excavated remains of a previous occupant, with a newly enlarged hole in the background..

The bones are described in the FG piece thus " .. the skull and leg bones appear to be at least 6 months old, possibly up to year. They could be older but are certainly no less. They are the skull, femur and tibia of a 'fully mature, well grown animal as shown by the very high parietal crest on the top of the skull. The teeth are worn and from that, the animal would appear to be at least 5 years old. The height of the crest of the skull, and the width of the jaws indicate a very powerful animal, likely to be male'.

Pat Bird, the writer, explains that this 'ties in very nicely' with a new confirmed TB breakdown of her herd which began in July 2008, and is ongoing. The health and welfare of the current excavators, digging into this huge, historic and disused sett is also discussed.

Farmers Guardian has two TB bloggers, and stories from the farm of Julia Evans can be read here.

bTB Risk - whose?

We touched on the subject of the 'risk' from exposure to mycobacterium bovis, the causal agent of bovine tuberculosis, in our posting here. And steering everything to do with this Grade 3 pathogen is HSE (Health and Safety Executive) who are extremely precise in their interpretation of the EU directives found here.

HSE do not distinguish between laboratories handling m.bovis, farms under TB restriction due to the exposure of their cattle to it, or exposure in the countryside from wildlife. As we quoted in that posting, they require Risk Assessment forms, data logs of visitors and protection offered. Up to date COHSS papers describe m.bovis thus:

Natural hosts: Cows, [but] also found in badgers and deer.
Disease in humans: Chronic progressive disease with fever and weight loss.
Transmission: Originally through drinking unpasteurised milk. Now from breathing in of infectious aerosols of respiratory discharges and possibly handling meat from infected animals.

We are glad that the 'unpasteurised milk' loophole as the cause of bTB, firmly closed for the majority during the TB eradication schemes of the 1950s and 1960s, is starting to die a death and HSE are at last beginning to wake up to 'aerosol' infection from all infected animals including wildlife. As in environmental contamination.

So what are the implications for farmers whose herds are under restriction from TB?
For open spaces where the public have a 'right to roam, and footpaths which cross territory occupied by infected wildlife?
For National Trust land, including the 'badger watch' areas of Woodchester Park?

In the words of a litigation lawyer, "there is no such thing as 'low risk'". Either there is risk, or there is not. You can't be a 'little bit pregnant', so no half way house, which is what Defra have been trying to argue with bTB. We have said many times that the level of environmental contamination which the tested, slaughtered sentinel cattle are flagging up, is something which our population, and other mammals have not encountered before. But not only is it reckless and dangerous to put them 'at risk', it may be against the many laws surrounding the control of this pathogen.

From HSE and top lawyers, the advice is that any risk must be advised, both to the public and to employees. Risk assessments undertaken, and all guidelines followed as befits the seriousness of this Grade 3 pathogen. As far as insurance goes, the matter is far from clear. But the gist of today's conversations is that if the steps advised in HSE literature have not been followed, including warning the public of the possible risk, then damages could be considerable.

So who should be responsible? For that and some sense we have to look to Switzerland, where Dr. Ueli Zellweger tells us that the Swiss veterinary authorities use public notices in their newspapers to post details of animal diseases, particularly zoonoses. Thus they fulfill their obligations to 'inform' their population of 'risk', and more importantly, what they are doing to reduce it. That way, he says, they keep the public both informed and on side.

So is there scope here for Defra to actually use the risk assessments which AHO have to complete for every new herd breakdown? These are the ones which the ISG did not use for the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial, preferring instead to use an 'assumption' of 2 parts cattle to one part badger, give each 'roughly equal importance' and run with that - but let that pass. Nevertheless, they are there and in the SW at least they come firmly down on 'wildlife, particularly badgers' as the cause of the majority (up to 90 per cent) of TB breakdowns in cattle. And this throws wide open the responsibility for such warnings of 'risk'. Given that in many cases, the 'wildlife' causing the problems is not domiciled on the farm which is on the receiving end.


Defra do however have the logistics with which to offer the appropriate 'risk' advice, in the form of their Parish testing maps. If a single farm within a parish has a confirmed TB breakdown, then the parish testing interval is reduced to annually. Twenty years ago, the job would have been quite small - just a scattering of dots on the map of GB - as shown on here and on page 60 of the ISG Final Report.








But two decades of prevarication mean that every parish shown in red on the most recent Defra map is on an annual testing regime. Thus environmental 'risk advice' is a much more comprehensive job.

That does not mean that it can be shirked.

(Maps courtesy of Defra, are Crown Copyright and must not be reproduced for commercial purposes, without permission from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. They may be used for news reporting or research.)

bTB in Spain

For the first time in 40 years, bTB has been found in continental mainland European badgers, according to a report in the Veterinary Record,[163:1 59-160(2008). R.Sobrino DVM (and others) say that this is the first time that active disease has been found since a badger with bTB was examined in Switzerland in 1963 (Bouvier et al)

They point out that although wild boar and deer are able to maintain a reservoir of the disease in spain, a serological survey found;

.. antibodies to M bovis MPB70 in badgers (23 per cent), foxes (3 per cent) and lynxes (4 per cent) from Doñana National Park (southern Spain), strongly suggesting that these animals had contact with M bovis.

In the report, the authors describe the first case of clinical bovine TB in a free-living Spanish badger and discuss the implications of this observation for bovine TB control in Spanish wildlife and livestock. They describe how an adult female badger was

.. found moribund in Cabañeros National Park (central Spain) on December 14, 2003 and taken to the nearby Instituto de Investigacíon en Recursos Cinegéticos laboratory immediately. The badger died during transport.

Subsequent postmortem found generalised TB pretty well everywhere in this animal, including lungs, trachea, kidneys liver and lymph nodes. It weighed just 3.5 kg.

The authors point out that although this is the first report of clinical bovine TB in a badger from Spain, and also the first report of bovine TB in a badger in continental Europe in the past 40 years,

..this is not an isolated observation, since a second case was detected recently in the León province of north-western Spain. In that case, a badger captured on a dairy farm with a recent history of bovine TB was analysed at the veterinary faculty of the University of Léon, and a positive M bovis culture was obtained from a pooled LN sample. Molecular typing revealed the same strain as in cattle (F. García-Marín)

The conclusion of the report points out that:

.. the badger, which is considered to be a reservoir host at other latitudes, may become infected in an area where bovine TB is highly prevalent in ungulates (Vicente and others 2006). The pattern of lesions was similar to that found in Great Britain (Gavier-Widen and others 2001), which is consistent with this badger being an excretor of mycobacteria and potential disseminator of the disease.

They also say that the increase in numbers of badgers observed in certain parts of Spain, particularly the Aragon region from 1992 to 2006 (R. Sobrino, P. Acevedo, M. A. Escudero, J. Marco, C. Gortázar, unpublished observations), could mean an increased disease risk. Thus, more epidemiological research is needed, and active and passive surveillance of badgers and other wildlife TB reservoirs, mainly wild ungulates, is advisable."

And also from Spain comes the sorry tale of bTB, an alpaca herd and its owners, now receiving treatment themselves, for tuberculosis. They have sent us their story:

I am concerned that our story from here, Spain, might well make people say “That’s in Spain, not here in the UK” [But] to you and me it is the same. It’s just that the labs etc here have taken since April 2008 to diagnose our problem. So we have been given a long time, in total ignorance, to work out what is going on here and inadvertently MOVE animals. One of our clients has just lost a female who came from here.

In my opinion, the ability to move alpacas anywhere within England is basically suicide for an emerging industry, and for other livestock owners’ and the wildlife.

I have first hand experience of what TB can do to a herd of alpacas. They seem to be extremely vulnerable to this disease and the ante-mortem tests used at the moment, do not detect infected camelids. Here in Spain, we need movement licenses for our alpacas. This no doubt this could have saved a lot of lives here, if the skin tests did not repeatedly throw up false negatives.

We have lost 3 animals in the last two weeks to TB. All had tested negative in October 2008 and June 2009, using the skin test. We have never had a positive test. At the moment I see no way forward until we have a reliable ante-mortem test for camelids. I look at my animals and think who’s next?

This breeder has lost in excess of 30 animals so far and has witnessed 16 PM’s and seen more or less the same lesions time after time. These are mainly in the lungs and respiratory system. One animal’s trachea was 60% lesions. "We also see it in the liver, but not in all cases." The owners say that the Spanish authorities intend to blood test their remaining alpacas and comment:

I wonder how long other livestock farmers in the UK are going to put up with the knowledge that alpacas need no tests before movement, no licenses and no records of movement. If I was them I would be extremely upset knowing that these animals may have the potential to move any disease around the country, thus putting their herds of cattle etc. in danger. Not forgetting that alpacas, as can other animals, probably pass their diseases onto wildlife! Continuing the cycle.

The owners of this small alpaca herd in the Andalucia region of Spain are now considering a total herd cull of their remaining 20 animals, including 8 pregnant females. Their losses are around £120,000 so far, with the Spanish authorities offering around 300 euros per animal, but with offset disposal costs of 100 euro per carcass. (The remaining alpaca - the remnants of a once thriving business - are valued at approximately £145,000)

The spoligotype of this outbreak in SW Spain has not been found in the UK. It is SBO 295.

The owners of this herd point out that at present there is no [validated] antemortem test for TB in alpacas that allows breeders to 'get ahead' of the disease.

It can spread faster than testing can detect infected alpacas and decimate a herd rapidly. There is a need to spend money now or UK/ European [camelid] industry could collapse as more herds become infected & farmers are not allowed to trade (including mobile matings & ability to show) - cross infection between alpacas seems to be easy; infected animals can pass on the disease at communal hay racks!

They point out that TB in livestock can & does infect people working [or in contact] with infected stock & that this disease is untreatable in alpacas. It is notifiable to authorities and is not a disease to 'bury' down in the back paddock.

Latest figures from Defra in the UK, indicate that almost half of the premises with camelids which they suspect through either deaths or tracings of having bTB problems, have 'refused entry'.

The Spanish alpaca breeders in our story, have been given a long course of prophylactic antibiotics, so they assume that the Spanish authorities are taking the issue of bTB very seriously indeed.

Pathogens - Lest we forget.

Joining the media frenzy over a member Woodchester Park's staff who is said to have had a brush with badgerTB, is today's Times. But this should serve as a reminder to all of us, of the reasons for the eradication of bTB. All except those who have commented on the Times' article that is. And there was us thinking readers of that erudite publication were in possession of at least half a brain.

Our big sister site also gave it a prominent post.

Pathogens are listed in different classes according to virulence, infectivity and potential treatment. And lurking in HSE's labyrinth of publications is a listing of various pathogens and their classes. Mycobacterium bovis, the causal agent of bTB is listed as Grade 3. To put that in perspective, only such nasties as Ebola, Lassa Fever and flesh eating bugs are considered more dangerous at Grade 4. Most human diseases, and certainly the ones with which we are regularly bombarded with scare stories by the media, are Grade 2.

The EU, OIE and WHO rules on the handling and containment of pathogens within Grade 3 listings include as a definite 'Yes' to the following:

* People in contact to have regular medical checks for up to 40 years after the last known exposure.
* Access to pathogenic material limited to nominated persons.
* Air filtered by HEPA or other such systems.
* Infected material including any animal to be handled in a a safety cabinet, or in isolation or other suitable containment.
* Carcasses incinerated.
* Bio hazard signs posted.
* Protective clothing to be worn.
* Decontamination facilities to be provided.

Many more actions are 'recommended' as precautions against infection for Grade 3 pathogens. See page 12 of the pdf report (link at the end of this post) for the grading of m.bovis, and pages 21/22 for safety requirements. This is just one of many documents which detail precautions needed for people in contact with this grade of pathogen.

Now we do have a sense of humour, being farmers it comes with the territory. But to comply with the above, would take more than a little organisation, we feel. So we suggest :

* Bio-hazard signs on public footpaths crossing farms under TB restriction.
* A register of people entering the restricted premises.
* Protective clothing including masks and footwear, and an approved disinfectant at entrances to farms, fields and footpaths where movement restrictions apply.
* Handy 'badger bins' into which could be placed any carcasses found, suitably wrapped of course, prior to incineration in an approved facility.
And for the HSE decontamination facilities? Perhaps a sheep dip would suffice?

It's about time Defra took the control and eradication of this pathogen as seriously as do the HSE and the EU. One of the many documents which relate to Grade 3 pathogens and their handling, can be viewed here.

Crass and Insensitive.

On Saturday morning, BBC's early morning Farming Today programme covered bTB; in particular they concentrated on the FCN (Farm Crisis Network) report which we covered last month here. This listed comments in harrowing detail of the emotional impact on farmers caught up in the relentless grind of Defra's cattle killing machine which they euthemistically call 'a TB eradication programme'.

The programme interviewed both farmers and vets, who spoke of the 'huge emotional impact', 'fury and frustration' in pretty equal measures and the 'years of frustration' endured with no end in sight as long as the source of the problem remained at large. The veterinary practitioner interviewed described losing good young vets from the industry, who had become totally demoralised by lining up cattle to be shot and of his 'expectation that herds he was testing would fail'. He found the whole thing 'incredibly depressing.'

For a short time the programme can be heard on this link.

But wheeled out at the end of what was (for the BBC) a pretty good coverage, was the inevitible Badger Trust spokesperson. Gone is the bruising spin Dr. Lawson, who, if you remember - and we do - delighted his audience with the comment, also on Farming Today in June 2007, that 'cattle get killed anyway.' His equally crass replacement is Jack Reedy, vice-chairman of the BT.

Asked to comment (why, one cannot imagine) on the huge emotional impact, that continual TB restrictions and slaughter of cattle bring to farmers and their families, Reedy squidged and referred to ISG report. He was quick to dodge the responsibility of 'solutions to the problem', replying that any such were those of the ISG, "not ours".

But then the bit that had us reaching for the 'off' button. The problem [of badgerTB] he implied was not 'emotional' at all, but 'economic'. Thus when Reedy was asked what the BT's solution was to the present problems he regurgitated the ISG solution of 'living with it'. This was to "bear down" on the level of herd breakdowns, and to allow farms to continue trading "even if not definitively clear of infection". And the level of infection in GB will attain, what? We have almost 10 percent of herds having had a TB restriction or 'incident' now. What does this organisation think will happen to the level of environmental contamination should it not be curtailed in their 'chosen' species?

Reedy then explained the TB problems of farms by saying that the "shoe pinches" because of the "economic penalty" which a breakdown entails, and not because of its impact on the animals or farmers. He went on to say that it is "very unusual for farmers to get fond of their cows" and that they are "usually very careful not to". Cattle are not pets (he helpfully pointed out) So pay them enough, and they'll roll over and the TB problem will just disappear? We think not.

At the end of his crass and condescending little speech Reedy reminded his listeners [re a cull of infected badgers], of how this was to be done, who was going to do it, and then rhetorically, "If we cull badgers, who is going to pay?"


Maybe he should ask himself who is paying at the moment because we are not culling infected badgers. And in that equation, he should include pet owners and farmers of minority species equally tangled up in the infective swamp left behind by his cult status money spinners icons, who inevitably end up like this.

"Defra have put up their fence" - after the event.

We covered the story of some very mobile alpacas from Devon and the trail of destruction caused by bTB, diligently uncovered by VLA spoligotyping here, using a report of the incident published in a letter to the Veterinary Record in July 2009.

The owner of the Devon alpacas which made that fateful journey to West Sussex, tells his own story in a pdf entitled Protecting our Alpacas. In this piece he likens the situation of bTB in this country to a series of 'ponds', and points out that although Defra have a remit to control and eradicate bTB in cattle, that does not extend to wildlife or other susceptible species such as alpacas. Once bTB is identified in cattle the machinery of 'eradication' clanks in with slaughter and movement restrictions. But as the author points out:

Unfortunately, they [Defra] have no remit to address reactive wildlife, or minority species such as ours [alpaca] unless they are positively diagnosed at post mortem as having bTB. So the 'pond' keep getting topped up.

He describes the scenario of the journey which he organised for his own alpaca:

Unwittingly I took my alpaca to another part of the country for mating where they fell into someone else's 'pond' [and] brought it back to Devon. They fell ill and 5 1/2 months later were in the VLA Starcross autopsy room. Btb kills alpacas fast - period. I've lost two suri alpacas, their cria, and I've become the proud owner of my very own 'pond'. Defra have put up their fence.

Read this account in full here.