Northern BAS shows to restrict entries.

Below are new biosecurity conditions which will apply to entries to the following two northern shows for alpacas. This is follow up post to our posting below, where the new BAS bio security guidelines were given an airing at Bristol.

The Northumberland show, to be held on 31st May, and the Border Union show, scheduled for July 30 - 31st at Kelso, have published the following conditions of entry:

Entries at both these shows are to be restricted on a geographical basis. This has been agreed by the BAS Board for 2010 only. The situation will be reviewed in 2011.

For any alpaca owners who are unaware of their parish testing interval, all areas west of Defra's maginot line (which is roughly from North Staffordshire, dropping south to Dorset, and coloured red on the map), are on annual testing of their cattle herds. The buffer zone to the east of this line and coloured orange, is on two year testing. The line has already moved further east than this illustration shows.


Full details are available on the website (www.bas-uk.com) under Shows & Events/Programmes.


The restrictions are as follows:

Northumberland

In order to instill confidence in both alpaca and other livestock exhibitors, entries will only be accepted for animals from 3- & 4-year cattle bTB testing areas. Please check your Parish Testing Interval on the Animal Health website before making your entry and include your holding number with your entry fees.
A reduction in the number of entries has been necessary to enable a 3-metre gap between breeders. Spit barriers and comprehensive biosecurity procedures will be in place, as per BAS recommendations.

And over the border to Scotland, which has recently been granted TB-free status,

Kelso

By order of the Border Union Show Committee, because of Scotland's TB-Free status, entries from England are only open to animals from 3- & 4-year cattle bTB testing areas. Please check your Parish Testing Interval on the Animal Health website.
Full postcodes and Holding numbers of origin are mandatory. Any herd that has been in contact with animals from a 1- or 2-year testing area within the 6 months prior to the show will not be eligible to enter.

More details can be found on the BAS website and local AHOs will confirm the parish testing interval of your holding.

© 2006 British Alpaca Society Ltd www.bas-uk.com

Biosecurity - camelids

The BAS (British Alpaca Society) is well aware after a series of 'TB Awareness' roadshows that when TB hits an alpaca herd, it is more than capable of inter herd spread. The society recently issued Bio security guidelines to all its members. These included the following advice which was designed to minimise contact with other alpacas:

* Herd pens should be separated three metres apart, if possible, with animals penned by county. If the Show Organiser deems it necessary, animals that have been bTB tested should be penned together and kept separate from those herds that have not been tested.

* There should be no collecting ring; the alpacas should enter and exit the show ring via single one-way circular routes.

* The show ring should be as large as possible to allow for the maximum separation of show animals.

* There should be no fans of any type for reasons of bio security and electrical safety

* Alpacas should only be permitted to leave their designated pens to enter the show ring for judging or exiting the showground. There should be no 'airing of the fleece' in outside areas.

Hard on the heels of this most sensible list, came an alpaca show in the SW, from where this pic was snapped. Pens 3m apart to prevent inter herd contact? No fans?
(see later Contributor Update for more on this)

We have given alpacas a considerable airing on this site, as unfortunately for them, they are particularly susceptible to tuberculosis. They also have the ability to become infectious very quickly, to spread the disease between themselves and the potential to transmit to TB to their owners or other mammals.

Unfortunately, even squeezed down to practically zero, the intradermal skin test is not a good indicator of TB exposure in alpacas, and Defra have recently pulled the financial rug on one promising supplementary blood test. The reason given for this was 'lack of funding'. But the cynical amongst us would point out that the "don't look, won't find" culture thrives in the upper echelons of Defra. Particularly as we understand that the BAS has offered to underwrite the costs of validating blood tests on behalf of their members. In a different pot, and slightly off topic, Defra are sitting on £420 million (yes that is correct - lots of noughts) underspend after over estimating take up on some Environmental schemes, and last week's national media reported the department spent (sorry - no link) £7000 per week (£3.5 million in the year) moving furniture around its many departments.

We do not overestimate the importance of clearing reservoirs of TB - wherever they may be. That is the ethos of the site. So to see irresponsibility on the part of some camelid owners is - disappointing. Particularly as from a very small section of owners who have banded together to form a TB support group, come the news of 144 confirmed alpaca deaths from TB during 2009. The group now report a doubling of TB incidence to 68 in the first three months of 2010.

We look forward to seeing these figures accurately reflected on Defra's 'Other species' TB stats, in due course.

This picture is of an alpaca trachea, heavily infected with open TB lesions right up to his throat. He had passed a couple of skin tests.

When questioned about infectivity of this animal: "would he have been infectious when he coughed or spat?" .....



... veterinary advice was that he was "grossly infectious" with every breath he exhaled.

And with no outward symptoms of disease, and having passed skin tests, this animal could have been amongst those in the pens, pictured above.
Right next to other groups - no 3m gap - and with his exhaled air having the benefit of electronic spread.

There are times when words really do fail us.

CONTRIBUTOR UPDATE:

We have had contact from several alpaca owners who attended the SW show. These are some of their comments on the biosecurity arrangements in evidence.
One breeder was 'interested to see how the new organiser would implement the BAS biosecurity guidelines', and being a BAS supported show, had expected to see efforts made to protect alpacas from disease.

What a disgrace. Just about every guideline was breached.
* There was nowhere near 3m between pens.
* Most pens had fans running, some as many as 3 fans per pen.
* There was a holding area, and alpacas were nose to nose.
* People were walking their alpacas around airing them outside...
* and allowing them to kiss noses with other alpacas.

This comment noted that there was 'a disinfectant pad to walk over'. That was the only measure he could see. And this breeder concluded that it would be unwise to bring his animals to a show.

A second breeder was equally unimpressed, commenting that on his arrival:

* We saw people walking their alpacas outside.
* We could have walked in without being challenged..
* and there were no disinfectant footbaths or pads at the front of the building.
* There was nobody to ensure that animals were walked over pads either on their way to the show ring.
*Animals were kept separated by one pen in the showhalls but this would be ineffective as they were in close proximity to each other in other areas..

The comment continued on the use of fans:

We were shocked at just how many fans there were. We counted at least 11 before we gave up and there were only 23 breeders in attendance; we have made a note of exactly who was using fans.

This writer of this communication questioned whether the organisers of this show had received the BAS Guidelines. And he ended with the comment on this apparent lack of biosecurity awareness:

This is particularly horrifying as it was the South West Show and we all are now aware that this is the area of the country at greatest risk from TB"

Tie a yellow ribbon?

The BVA (British Veterinary Association) have issued a statement supporting the High Court decision, that the proposed cull of infected badgers in Wales, is lawful.

Commenting on the verdict, Professor Bill Reilly, President of the British Veterinary Association, said:

“The BVA and BCVA welcome the outcome of the Judicial Review which means that the Welsh Assembly Government’s important work to control and eradicate bovine tuberculosis can go ahead.

John Blackwell, Senior Vice President of the British Cattle Veterinary Association, (BCVA) added:

“We have strongly supported the Welsh Assembly Government’s TB Eradication Order because it combines strong measures to tackle the disease in both cattle and wildlife. We are therefore pleased that the court has declared the Order is lawful.

“We will be watching the outcomes of the measures in Wales under the Order closely and hope that, if successful, these measures will be replicated in other areas of the UK.”

And therein lies the problem, as it was with the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial. Just how is this exercise going to be carried out and will it be 'successful' - as in reducing sentinel tested cattle slaughter and the opportunity for disease spillback into other mammals?

Will it be quiet, clean, thorough and anonymous? Will experienced operatives be allowed input to decision making, so that problems are tackled before they disrupt the operation? Or, like the bureaucratic, intermittent, incomplete and highly visible RBCT, will it actually achieve it's aim and just scatter a highly infectious population of badgers?

Several contributers to this site had the serious misfortune to be included in the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial triplets. Some in the Proactive areas, one in the Reactive. Their experiences were the same. Intermittent hit-and-run highly publicised visits led to trap interference and trespass by 'activists' hell bent on protecting their chosen species, no matter what the cost to others. And this especially in the first four years of so-called 'culling'. We do not label this farce 'badger disersal' for nothing.

Our bitter experiences were supported in a submission to EFRAcom in 2006, by one of thetrial managers who said:

. * Krebs had too many anomalies and weaknesses in the strategy for it to be successful. It took us four years to steer away from trapping setts that had been interfered with by Animal Rights Activists, to be able to trap badgers anywhere, in order to eliminate them. That was only one of a raft of operational problems we faced and had to endure.

* Limited trapping - eight days per year with Krebbs - has little effect if carried out late in the year. The effect being that areas went almost two years without an effective cull. (In some cases three, or not at all - ed)

* The costs for a future culling policy must NOT be based on Krebs costings. [ snipped ]
Krebs was ridiculously expensive for what it delivered.

So what of the Welsh effort? Who is the trial manager? Will he listen to his operatives and has he learned anything at all from what went so wrong with the English version, described so eloquently in the submission above?

Cage trapping individual badgers is arguably the most expensive method of dispatching an infected group. So have the Welsh commandeered all those English badger cages (or what's left of them) lurking somewhere at the taxpayer's expense, or have they bought their own? The English ones, in use since the mid 1980s have been developed over time, to ensure that the mesh gauge encourages - as much as any cagetrap can - entry? We are told that a small mesh will not get many volunteers, and that in past trials, 5cm square, or the old 2 x 2 inch was about right.

This also allowed dispatch of the occupant without too much fuss. Any smaller mesh meant entry was limited but more important, the barrel of the rifle or pistol couldn't make entry. This would mean that the occupant had to be translocated into another cage before dispatch. A procedure which is neither fast, easy, or desirable and has meant escapees on many occasions.

The pistols or rifles used in the English badger culling operations were a) silenced and b) used hollow nosed shells for accurate and instant kill with no ricochet. (Too powerful a rifle using supersonic shells, as used in free running target running in open country, runs the risk of operator or onlooker injury in a confined area.)

The RBCT publicised their locations on websites. And sympathisers within Defra offices ensured that WLU operatives ran the gauntlet of abuse and physical attack on a daily basis. The vehicles used in the early days of the trial were like pink elephants, with white Crown tax discs, sparkling clean and their registration numbers noted. Have the Welsh learnt from this and will they protect their operatives? Or will bright shiny suits and noisy cloned vehicles be the order or the day?

We have reported many times the wastage of man hours and trap opportunities which resulted from this 'open house' on the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial. Hansard confirms that up to 2003, 5 years into the English trial, almost 70% of traps set were either 'interfered with' or had 'disappeared'. Have the Welsh Assembly taken on board this opportunity for disruption, or like the New Zealanders, do they plan to hang yellow ribbons from trees surrounding the trap areas?

In New Zealand, the aerial drops of poison pellets to clear out infected colonies of bush possums over a large area requires public notification so that anyone approaching an area thus baited, can keep a tight hold on dog, child or grandma. Cage traps laid one night and visited within hours are a different kettle of fish.

We make these points with a clear message to our Welsh colleagues. Don't let bureaucratic intransigence or inappropriate operating protocol screw this up.

As John blackwell of the BCVA said:

“We will be watching the outcomes of the measures in Wales under the Order closely and hope that, if successful, these measures will be replicated in other areas of the UK".

Carried out correctly, culling of groups of TB infected badgers works quickly. Get it wrong and they have the ability and opportunity to spread the disease far and wide.

The Welsh have it

.. and the English do not, as we pointed out in this posting.

TB eradication in the round, will go ahead in Wales.
BBC Wales and Farmers Guardian have the story.

While in England, we just kill cattle. And now alpacas. And cats. And dogs. And ...

That £1 million bung from PAL was well spent then? Good value?
Defra have overseen the slaughter of 255,963 cattle since it was paid, and the law of the land tied in knots by a backdoor moratorium on the clearing of tuberculosis from wildlife sources, whose name they dare not speak.. A moratorium which this government have no intention of repealing. In fact Jim Fitzpatrick said in the House of Commons as recently as April 8th., that although "The key issue with bovine Tuberculosis (bTB) in wildlife is when the disease is transmitted to livestock," the Government's policy is that

"no licences will be issued for culling badgers for the purpose of preventing the spread of bTB in cattle, although we remain open to the possibility of revisiting this policy under exceptional circumstances, or if new scientific evidence were to become available."

We have the best administration money can buy.

More on how to make a horlicks ...

We have not been terribly enthusiastic about Defra's attempts to control badger-TB in the recent past. And to be fair, Defra have not given us any reason to be enthusiastic. After several years of local control, overseen by experienced Wildlife teams answerable to local AH veterinary staff, the whole thing went pear shaped during the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial.

Political scientists organised - or not - 8 night-hit-and run visits in well advertised locations. FMD interrupted play for a year, and all in all, with trashed traps, spring lay offs and pregnant sows released, it could be considered a bonus to have caught anything at all, at least for the first four years.

Defra's Badger Vaccine Deployment Project appears to be heading in a similar, or even more hazy direction, as we pointed out in this post.
And this week, most of our points were confirmed in Farmers Guardian, with a piece headed 'ill thought out, and expensive'.

More snippets on this expensive charade arrived in a comment today. We cannot verify these, but from past (bitter) experience, they do sound just about right. The comment from the Glos. area points out that some of the badger setts to be targeted on his patch are enormous. And after talking with potential contractors, they confirm that they are instructed to limit the trapping to:

* 3 hours of daylight only.

* they must visit each sett twice, once to check traps and secondly to return with vaccine - however far away vehicular access and thus stored vaccine, may be.

* they may only trap a sett for two nights.

... and then the bit which came as a shock - even to us. Tender and payment, we understand is per sett - whether it has a single hole or happens to be one of these huge earthworks with 50. (And as 'someone else' is doing the survey, whether it is in fact occupied by a badger at all ?) It is certainly not 'per badger' vaccinated. Thus after the two nights (and six hours of daylight) and then the double hike to inspect and return with the 3 ft. hyperdermic laden with vaccine, even if there is only one badger caught out of a potential group of 10 or 20, they are 'timed out'. That's it. Job done and away they go. Leaving how many?

Our comment includes the phrase: "who on earth dreamt this up".


We would suggest, with the greatest respect as ever, 'someone' who doesn't have to account for another shed load of taxpayer's cash which may be spent 'to no good effect' - again.

'Someone' who is happy to blow smoke in the eyes of the gullible public that 'something' is being done by 'someone' who cares not one fig about the health and welfare of badgers.

A 'someone' who quite has happily overseen the slaughter of 255,963 cattle since the moratorium on infected badger control was purchased for £1m in 1997. (To put that in context, the previous 12 year block which had some semblance of well targeted infected badger control, saw 24,556 cattle slaughtered)

A 'someone' who is totally unconcerned about the overspill of badger-TB into numerous other species, to the extent that data is selectively sifted and support antemortem tests refused.


And 'someone' who is presently counting votes.

Defra short of cash? Nah ..

As the Badger Vaccine Deployment Project stutters along - or not, another £630,000 of taxpayer's money bites the dust. Defra have commissioned a few universities to ask what farmers think of vaccinating badgers.

"The social science study has been funded for four years in the first instance and will assess the level of farmer confidence in the use of vaccination before, during and after vaccine deployment. It will also identify motivators and barriers that could influence the future use of TB vaccines. The research is being funded with a grant of just over £630,000 from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)."

Online site farminguk has the story.

Defra has no spare cash (we're told). They are certainly reluctant to spend much on PCR machines - even made-in-Britian ones. Postmortems and TB transmission opportunities for newly diagnosed species are limited or nonexistant due to that paucity of cash, we understand. And staff (veterinary, if not managerial) are demoralised even after being launched into a series of bongo drum playing 'bonding jollies' at the taxpayer's expense. But our delightful Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are able to dig deep enough to fund University budgets for this garbage 'fascinating piece of longtitudinal social science research'.

"This is a fascinating piece of longitudinal social science research. It has real academic value and will be useful to both the farming industry and to policy makers."

Never underestimate the ability of bureaurocrats to spend your money.

Vaccination hiccoughs...

Defra's idea to vaccinate badgers against TB in hotspot areas, where most / many candidates are already 'endemically infected' with tuberculosis (and before any of our BT friends start jumping about, that was the answer to a PQ) has got off to a rocky start. Or perhaps no start at all ?

We were alerted by a comment on a previous post to a Farmers Weekly report on the progress (or chaos) of the proposed trial thus far. There is no online link for this so we will type the relevant bits.

"The approval of the first ever tuberculosis vaccine for badgers has been overshadowed by doubts that the July start date for Defra's vaccination trial can be met. While almost 600 farmers have signed up to have their land included in the trial, recruitment of contractors and surveying of target areas has slowed."

That may be because the smoke and mirrors bunny hops which passed for 'policy' on this project were slowly but surely exposed, contradicted and often changed as we pointed out in this posting. But many salient points have yet to be answered and the FW report describes delays in surveying and contractor training which could ..

".. push the start date back to the autumn in four of the [target] areas. "The Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA) has suggested, behind closed doors, that the start in these areas could be September" an industry insider said.

The Stroud area of Glos is likely to be the area which starts first with Cheltenham also beginning in July. "It is the Hereford/Worcester site , the Staffordshire site and the two Devon sites which face delays" he added.

"If FERA's suggestion of a September start date is correct, that leaves just two months until vaccinating must stop again, ahead of the breeding season in November. The time pressure will be huge and contractors will have to throw a huge amount of extra resource into the project."

We understand from previous posts that contractors bear the cost of traps and labour but will not be responsible for their own surveying. Defra have now kindly agreed to fund vaccine and FERA operatives will survey the land for what they hope will be badger setts. But the insider also points out that:
Some companies are already voicing their concern that the increasing number of traps and personnel required could cause costs to spiral.

"Surveying land for badger setts has also taken time. In some areas only 20 per cent of the land has been surveyed so far. Contractors are having to base tenders on too little information to give accurate costs. Even if they cope this year, they may decide to opt out in 2011," he warned.

And now for the latest 'top up' to this unholy farce latest prevarication from our comments section:
Apparently (and we say this guardedly as it is unsubstantiated thus far) as well as the delays and problems described above, we understand from our contributor that:

* Contractors will only be allowed to operate within 3 hours of daylight and two nights trapping only.
(To put this in context, the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial operatives were allowed almost double that 'daylight' time and eight nights trapping.)

* They will have to pay two visits to each sett, in order to determine how many badgers have been caught before they can prepare the vaccine. (Are the badgers waiting patiently in their traps while all this is going on, one wonders? Cue cartoon? We understand that what this means is the traps must be visited and examined, then the operative must return to his / her vehicle, prepare the vaccine and return, so yes, the badgers are waiting in their traps. You really couldn't make this up.)

* Contractors cannot be sure of what they are tendering for, as FERA have to check their own figures and will not tell them whether it is within budget. ( That sounds very professional.)

* The cut off date for tenders is 7th May. (The election is the 6th May, not that we would presume to draw any conclusions whatsoever from that, you understand)

and finally:

* Contractors will operate on 30 day notice contracts with Defra paying nothing until the first traps are set.

So vehicles, traps and labour must be provided, organised and in place - relying on surveys done by others and with Defra having the option of refusing to cough up?

Our commentator who added this last gem has decided that trying to cost out vaccinating badgers for Defra on such a tenuous basis is not for him, and has pulled out. And he suggests that a different administration, not bound to any contract may just do that too after May 6th.

"The blind leading the blind, in an attempt to waste even more money on our behalf" was how our first contributor described it.

And on that, we couldn't possibly comment.

Spring update.

This week, badger vaccine were given the go ahead for a late summer start. Farmers Guardian reports:

The Defra-funded Badger Vaccine Deployment Project will now take place in areas of 300 sq.km in Staffordshire, the Herefordshire and Worcestershire border, two locations in Gloucestershire and two in Devon from this summer. Within each location, vaccination will take place on up to 100sq.km of target farms. Participants are currently being signed up.

Below some 'participants' - and from their locations described above, it is a fair assumption to say most will already be coughing - as is pointed by a longer overview in Western Morning News.
Defra's overview if you remember, on this latest daft idea policy is that 'they hope it won't make things worse'.
Cage trapping badgers already endemically infected with tuberculosis? Holding a wild animal for hours in this cage? Large man appears to turn cage on its end, and stick toasting fork across the bars to secure the not-to-happy occupant, nose down, bum up in said cage? Jabbing them with a (very) long hyperdermic? Applying splodge of paint (not lead based) to identify a once-vaccinated badger? And then releasing it? Repeating this annually? No stress then.

(Our grateful thanks once again for Ken Wignall's permission to use his cartoon.)


From Farmers Weekly, comes a short report which suggests dosing cattle with mushrooms could help tackle TB. Readers should note that this story was filed prior to April 1st. Thanks to the comment which alerted us to the story, and in answer to 'any volunteers?' the answer is no. Not unless all the alpacas, llamas, cats, dogs, goats, sheep and humans have had their 'magic' fix as well.

And finally, Defra's 2009 TB cattle statistics can be seen here. Slaughterings are down and new herd incidents are down, but the number of herds affected taken as a percentage of a dwindling number of cattle herds, is up. The different regions show markedly differing trends, with the incidence in the West slightly up from 22 percent of herds affected during 2008, to 23.4 in 2009. But an 'amplifying' - that's Defra-ese for getting worse - problem in their East and North regions. Cue change regional boundaries? Move the maginot line?

Cattle herds in the East, particularly those served by the Leicester AHO, saw an increase of 35 percent in herds affected by TB during 2009, while the North (including Staffs, Derby and Cheshire) recorded a 53 percent increase in herd restrictions.

For TB in 'other species', which as only cultures sent to VLA form raw data, are likely to be an underestimate, can be viewed on this link .
This chart is compiled from autumn postmortem samples, many of which still await culture results.

Baaaaa - more sheep

Hard on the heels of our posting below, comes the story this week of a flock of Lleyn sheep, with several 'bovine' TB casualties.

Vets were alerted by chronic weight loss in 20 of 220 ewes and one ram. Postmortem findings in three of the six sheep were consistent with TB and M. bovis spoligotype 10, the predominant strain in local cattle herds and wildlife, was subsequently isolated. Lesions in these three sheep were ‘extensive’, a letter in the Veterinary Record reports.

Farmers Guardian has the story which concerns a farm in Gloucestershire.

Defra's 'other species' TB statistics show 9 sheep samples under culture surveillance for 2009, and for 2005 a couple of positive samples. We told the tale of one of those positives here with Defra contacting farmers who had consigned sheep to Worcester market during late 2005, but who also farmed cattle. As the sheep sample proved positive, farmers who fell into that category were asked to test their cattle.

The tables published by Defra are by no means complete, up to date or accurate.
Although they show 144 positive samples at the time of publishing, that is the number of samples presented to VLA for culture. For camelids, if a herd is heavily infected, we understand that cash is not wasted sampling after the first couple are submitted. Thus the figures for alpaca deaths, personally communicated to vets leading the Alpacac TB Awareness roadshows, are in excess of 140, with some herds losing all their animals. Although veterinary postmortems confirm lesions which indicate TB, Defra has yet to acknowledge these deaths in their stats page - or anywhere else that we are aware of.

432 samples of species other than cattle were sent for culture surveillance during 2009, but many of the later results will not have been posted yet as these tables are compiled quarterly. Of the positives to date, 23 pigs, 26 cats and 68 alpaca make up the bulk of the culture-sample confirmed, 'bovine' TB casualties in 2009.

EDIT addition:
The veterinary press this week has published the story of TB in the Lleyn sheep, but added a cautionary wakeup call to all veterinary practitioners, advising not to confuse CLA with TB lesions in sheep:

Clinical signs and postmortem findings of TB in sheep may resemble lesions of visceral CLA. Failure to demonstrate serological or bacteriological evidence in cases of suspect CLA should trigger a suspicion of possible TB. Colleagues are reminded that suspect cases of TB detected in farm animals are notifiable to Animal Health. The small number of previous incidents of M bovis infection in sheep in Great Britain have been incidental findings at slaughter or at postmortem examination, but have not been associated with clinical signs. The VLA plans to provide more details of this incident in the near future.

TB transmission - why we bother.

Every so often the comment comes up 'why bother'?

Why bother to test and slaughter cattle? - milk is pasteurised, meat inspected at slaughter and cooked, so why not just ignore tuberculosis? But although Defra are making a fine job of doing exactly that, it is of course a statutory requirement of EU and OIE trading, that tuberculosis be cleared from cattle and farmed deer herds, to protect human beings. And although badgers carry bTB in spades, (they must do or why is Defra spending a huge amount of taxpayer's cash telling cattle farmers how to avoid their animal's contact with them?) they do not "suffer" from this disease - so some would argue, let them live with it.

But to concentrate on sentinel tested and slaughtered cattle, the numbers, trading implications or otherwise - or even the maintenance reservoir of tuberculosis in badgers, is missing the point. We have mentioned spillover into camelids and other species several times (and will continue to do so) because that IS the point.
Exposure to tuberculosis, from whatever source is to be avoided.

The young vet in this Veterinary Record report was examining a dead cria (young alpaca) and was wearing protective gloves during the postmortem, although she did not wear gloves to euthanase the animal.

Six weeks after the postmortem examination, she noticed a tingling sensation in the tip of her right thumb, but no lesion was visible at that time. After a further three weeks, a painful, circular, pale lesion approximately 4 mm in diameter developed at the site. Despite initial antibiotic treatment with cefalexin and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, the thumb lesion enlarged and assumed a verrucose appearance (Fig 3), with associated swelling
and pain in the elbow, lymphadenopathy of the trochlear and axillary nodes, and pyrexia. She was referred to North Devon District Hospital, where mycobacterial infection was suspected.

The lesion was tested, and samples sent for mycobacterial culture. M. bovis was identified with the strain being spoligotype SBO140, VLA 9, VNTR 6-5-5-4*-3-3.1.

.." 21 days after sampling, the skin lesion, which had regrown, was surgically debrided, and a six-month programme of anti-TB therapy was prescribed, comprising isoniazid, rifampicin and ethambutol. The symptoms resolved completely after this programme of therapy had started, and there has been no recurrence of mycobacterial disease at the time of writing, four years later.

The alpaca cria on which she performed a postmortem, was considered to be a possible source of infection.

We have showed you photos of the ravages of the disease on badgers, in the posting below. So for those who may not be up to speed with what tuberculosis does when it takes hold, here are some more photos - this time of some alpacas. The animals whose tuberculous lesions we show were euthanased either as a 'dangerous contact' to an animal showing clinical signs, or with the second photos, an X ray and blood test positive. Both had passed skin tests, the second animal 3 rounds over several months. Neither had clinical symptoms.

His body condition was good, giving no indication of what was lurking underneath his curly, white coat... but his lungs (first picture) at 20 percent, were barely functioning. He weighed over 100kg when euthanased.

The second alpaca also showed no symptoms but post mortem showed black spots on his trachea (pic. right) indicating open lesions right up to his throat. TB bacteria from these was available to other alpacas, his owner and any other mammal every time he exhaled, or spat, or coughed....


In the final picture, the lymph nodes on that second animal had been doing their job, hugely enlarged and sifting infection from his body. They are choc full of m.bovis 'cheese' - or in veterinary terms, "caseous abscessation".

This animal weighed 92 kg at the time of his death, but he had multiple tuberculous lesions throughout his body, including:

Abdominal cavity: Multifocal 2-20mm diameter creamy-white well encapsulated gritty focal lesions were present throughout the liver.

Alimentary system: Multifocal creamy-white well encapsulated gritty focal lesions, up to 10mm in diameter, were present at the junction of C2 and C3 stomachs and extended on to the proximal wall of C3 stomach and the distal wall of C2 stomach.

Respiratory system: Multifocal red/purple raised ovoid approximately 10 x 3mm plaques were present on the mucosa of the trachea, containing occasional gritty focal lesions. Multifocal 1-2mm diameter generally red-purple gritty focal lesions were present throughout the lung lobes. Two approximately 20mm diameter creamy white gritty focal lesions in the caudal left and right lung lobes also were seen.

Lymphoreticular system: Occasional up to 5mm diameter creamy-white well encapsulated gritty focal lesions were present within the spleen. The mediastinal, gastric, hepatic and bronchial lymph nodes were massively enlarged, often up to chicken egg size and effaced by caseous abscessation. The cervical lymph nodes were partially effaced by abscessation.

Urinary system: One approximately 1mm diameter creamy-white focal lesion was present in the right kidney cortex.

We are grateful for permission from the owner of these animals to publish the photos, and we offer thanks to the organisers of the recent " Alpaca TB Awareness " meetings, for raising the profile of this disease amongst their members, and for allowing these photos a wider audience.

The alpaca wearing blue, is the animal in the second and third postmortem pics - in happier times.


And he, his dead companions and the young vet described in the Vet. Record article above, as contracting tuberculosis while performing her job, is why we bother.

Air brushing

Warning:
This posting contains images which should cause distress.


Four years ago, almost to the day, our co-editor blasted the RSPCA and the badger groups with this posting after their collective 'airbrushing' of the effect of tuberculosis on their chosen species.


If you remember, the RSPCA came up with the witheringly simplistic phraseology, that in the latter stages of the tuberculosis, badgers may experience 'a slight wheeziness'.
This was to support the Badger Trust's 'Back off Badgers' campaign.

A dose of Venos, two paracetamol and an (organic) carrot then?

Now much as we hate to burst this cosy bubble - and we too would like all badgers to mirror the one at the top of this posting - too many with tuberculosis, end up like these pics which we list below. All were taken at, or prior to, postmortems which showed them to have generalised, highly infectious and often terminal tuberculosis.

Of badgers taken in Ministry removals 1987 - 97, the area of Broadway in Worcs., came out top of the pile, with over 70 per cent of its badgers showing tuberculous lesions at postmortems.




Tuberculosis is not like a sniffle or a common cold. And although badgers can and do live with the disease, sometimes for years, intermittently shedding copious amounts of bacteria, eventually, this is their end, often after fierce fights.



They maybe diseased and excreting bacteria for 1 - 3 years, but once tuberculosis becomes generalised, they are in a very sorry state indeed. Often excluded from the group, they become what is referred to as 'super excreters'. That is, having tuberculosis in several organs, and capable of excreting huge amounts of infectious material from all of them, which is then available to any mammal unlucky enough to trip over it.


If they have been bitten by a tuberculous assailant, then generalised tuberculosis is often the result.

Behind the puncture wounds, this is the sort of infection they are harbouring. Pints and pints (or litres if you prefer) of pus - all capable of dripping from the original bite wound holes. And with the organisms travelling to other parts of the badgers' body, particularly his lungs and kidneys.



From the outside of the animal, the puncture wounds from inciser teeth appear quite small. Badgers are strictly territorial and will fight to protect their patch, so bite wounds are common. If the assailant has not got tuberculosis, these may heal.

But if it is infected.....








... then tuberculous abcesses form at the entry point. This is the cleaned abscess site of the badger pictured above.

It may be useful to point out that when a badger's kidneys are affected by TB (and this is a common site for lesions) he is capable of excreting up to 300,000 cfu (colony forming units) of bacteria in just 1ml of urine. Badgers are incontinent and will void this indiscriminately across grassland, at 30ml a squirt. It is also used as scent markers and as a 'fright / flight' defence if startled.
About 50 bacteria is enough to provoke a 'reaction' in a tested cow. And she is shot.

The reason for this posting, as we said at the beginning, a mirror image of one four years ago, is this blindingly naive and misleading statement by the Badger Trust, issued last week and criticising farmers for pointing out the effect tuberculosis has on badgers.

“We know of no scientific evidence or authoritative validation for a statement of that kind, though we are, of course, aware that similar but totally unsubstantiated claims have been made repeatedly by pro-cull lobbies in an attempt to emotionally influence the public to support their case,” the Trust said.

Well how about this for 'scientific evidence'.
An emaciated badger, drowning in the fluids issueing from a massive tuberculous pleurisy. This can occur when a lung abscess bursts and affects the surrounding membranes. Pleurisy is extremely painful, and this animal would certainly have shown respiratory distress before death.

That's what tuberculosis does. Abscesses (or lesions) burst or multiply to affect many of the organs of the body, until the animal starves or suffocates to death.

In 2003, on this very point, the 'welfare' of badgers with tuberculosis, we received the following answer from the then minister, Baby-Ben Bradshaw. [142462]

"It is difficult to make objective assessment of whether these animals suffer"

Those pics don't exactly show the individuals in glowing health and comfort - but let that pass...

Typically individuals may live for many months or even years while infected, showing no overt signs of clinical illness and maintaining normal body weights. Infected females often give birth and successfully rear litters.

Which is why they are so bloody successful as a maintenance host. TB kills alpacas who are equally riddled, and tested sentinel cattle, with little infectivety at all, are shot. But we do get the answer eventually, so bear with us:

However, post mortem findings (as our pics ?) where advanced pathological changes have occurred, particularly in the LUNGS ( my emphasis - ed ) indicate that during the final stages of the disease there would undoubtedly be an effect on the quality of life of such an animal. This stage is thought to last a few weeks at most".

Well that's all right then. They only 'suffer' for a few weeks (they think) This animal is drowning in its own body fluids (this is a close up of that 'massive tuberculous pleurisy).

Veterinary scientists advise that this badger would have been in extreme pain, possibly excluded by its peers, certainly starving and probably seeking shelter.

“Badgers have no divine rights over TB and as disease takes hold they lose bodyweight and condition, while the disease processes gradually invade and finally engulf their lungs over a period of many months.

“Proper appraisal will show, as with any species with a slowly developing pneumonia, that respiratory disease signs worsen as disease advances. Also kidney disease frequently occurs and as this can be acutely painful. In the badger this results in a more rapid deterioration of condition.

“Does TB cause painful disease? It is rather naive to assume that it does not.”

Some of these photographs were used to illustrate the following article: "The Cause of ill health and natural death in badgers in Gloucestershire". Gallagher J, Nelson J. and published in Vet Record. 1979 Dec 15;105(24):546-51.
An abstract from the piece, describes cause of death in these animals thus:

During the period 1973 to 1976 inclusive, 1206 badger carcases were examined for evidence of tuberculosis and other diseases. Tuberculosis was the major cause of natural death, killing 39 per cent of the natural death cases, followed by bite wounding and starvation.

But remember the words of the Badger Trust and the RSPCA - a badger does not 'suffer'.

Somebody needs a reality check.

Moving the line?

As our readers will know, we have long been critical of Defra's 'maginot' zoning lines on a map. Badgers can't read, and cattle on 3 or 4 year testing regimes may have already been infected. As no testing is required prior to any sale, let alone dispersal sales, prospective purchasers may inadvertently import trouble.

The parish testing map on the right of the pic, is the new improved 'red' zone requiring annual testing and all the paraphernalia that goes with it. A buffer of two year testing edges it to the east, and further east, but only a couple of miles from acknowledged hot spots, trade continues as normal.

Last October, several dairy farmers purchasing high quality and high priced animals from a big dispersal sale from beyond Defra's 'maginot' line, bought trouble. We heard of this quite early on with the Holstein jungle drums beating loudly as cattle purchased days before, became reactors or inconclusives during routine tests in their new herds from Glos. to Cornwall and as far away as Norfolk. One particular cow that we know of was condemned on slaughter, with generalised TB. Thus a purchase of several £thousand only days before, was 'worth' peanuts on Defra's tabular valuation, and nothing at all as salvage clawback.

But although the sale was mid October, Defra's cattle tracing mechanism has moved about as fast as a sloth on Valium in following up purchases from this sale - as the Eastern Daily Press reports.
Ken Procter, who is the former president of the Holstein Cattle Society explains:

We bought three cows on October 14. We had them tested. One failed and the others were inconclusive. They were only with us for four days," said Mr Proctor, who as a precaution put the cows into isolation on another holding, which does not have cattle.

When re-tested on December 19, two cows were both positive for bovine TB and have since been slaughtered in early January. Although he will receive some compensation, the loss on the breeding cattle will be more than £1,000 per head.

But Mr Proctor, who said that the disease had to be kept out of Norfolk, was concerned about the whole approach to testing: "The speed at which cases are tackled is horrendous. What really irritates me is that they still hadn't followed up the farm where the cows had been, and we didn't get a letter until about three weeks ago. They had waited four months before sending out tracing letters."

This farm was outside Defra's red area, and outside its buffer zone - which one presumes will now have migrated a tad further east?

'Fluid' data = questionable results.

After the remains of the ISG (in the shape of the outpourings from Christl Donnelly's computer), further boosted our Minister for (some) Animal's Health in his decision not to cull badgers in TB hotspots, we have patiently attempted to deconstruct the origins of that data.

We could not criticize the ISG computer, nor would we. But as we pointed out in this posting the costs from which their data was drawn, was decidedly questionable. Farmers Guardian explores this further this week (sorry - no link) with quotes from a WLU manager, who said it would be

"pointless and misleading" to judge the cost effectiveness of any future culls on the basis of the "hugely inefficient" trials.

But so like Melville's Captain Ahab, roped to Moby Dick and ultimately destined for the bottom of the ocean, our minister is clinging maniacally to his very own whale. The RBCT.

John Bourne, chairman of the ISG pointed out on more than one occasion to the EFRA committee, that 'culling as undertaken in this trial' was not to be taken as a bench marker for any future cull. His WLU personnel, based in just two areas spent an inordinate amount of time in their vehicles, and racked up over a 1,000,000 miles a year visiting Krebs triplets hundreds of miles apart. Defra having advertised their locations, the teams then had to run the gauntlet of Animal Rights activists, removing, damaging and destroying traps. Police activity varied tremendously as well, with Staffordshire enjoying their policing from urban coppers used to trouble, up with which they would not put. By contrast, the south west triplets had to run the gauntlet of almost uninterrupted terrorism, intimidation and damage to farms, as well as traps.

All this data was adding £thousands to each badger actually caught, until protocol was tweaked in 2003/4, but this is what was entered into Donnelly's computer, which prepared the base for her conclusions. Although our PQs told us quite unequivocally that:

"Information on the costs of trapping as a 'proactive' culling method in the RBCT cannot be used to to assess the resources required to clear an area of badgers, because this would require the use of snares, poisoning or gassing which have been ruled out by the government on welfare grounds. The RBCT clears as many badgers as possible from the Proactive areas using cage traps, but this removes, at best, 80 per cent of the badgers". [ 148659: 22/ Jan 2004]

But Prof. Donnelly's computer has done precisely that. So what about the cattle side of the RBCT? Constant, or a fluid, ever moving base?

Most of our contributors were involved in one or other of the triplets, so as well as general points, we can make observations from personal experience.

When the 'trial' was first announced and meetings held to explain it, farmers who attended and were already under TB restriction were not well pleased to learn that they didn't qualify. As didn't herds who had had the benefit of a Ministry badger clearance in the previous three years. Whether this restriction on potential entrants carried on, we are unable to say, but certainly herds were allowed to leave and to join the trial at any time during its duration. Thus it was not unusual to have different cattle herds involved at different times of the trial, and thus the results of any badger dispersals associated with these herds, were not a constant over the whole time period.

Another tweak was boundary change. The triplet areas were mapped in 1997 as circles, but phone calls to our contributors over the course of the trial indicated a degree of 'fluidity' in areas covered. Two farmers in Hereford and Devon, having been excluded from the trial at its inception, were included after 2004. And a Parliamentary Question, confirmed:

"All areas were modified marginally to include or exclude whole farm premises following surveying and prior to initial proactive culling."

Fair enough, but after four years? Blocks of land in excess of 200 acres suddenly hoovered up, that had not been included before? The answer continued and gave us a grudging 'yes':

"On occasions slight changes in treatment boundary have been agreed by the ISG [ ] in response to changes observed in badger activity and social group organisation."[150894] 28th Jan 2004 ."

Define 'slight' if you will. So what do we understand from that? Boundaries were drawn, setts mapped, farms and cattle herd details entered, then a social group of badgers see the WLU boys approaching and leg it? With the Defra landrovers in hot pursuit? Over a different farm and different cattle from those mapped in 1997?

Sounds a bit like it.

And even the basis for trapping appeared to change. In the ISG 4th report a 'TB Breakdown' is described as - "A cow or herd of cattle found to suffer from TB", a description which needed TB to be confirmed by lesions or culture to trigger a removal of badgers. But later, the Final report has 'Breakdown' explained as either a

Confirmed breakdown "when cattle are proven (eg by postmortem examination to have TB) or a TB incident, when one or more cattle in a herd shows evidence of exposure to M.bovis, the infectious agent of bTB (ie reacts to the tuberculin test)

If indeed these significantly different definitions in the two reports were adhered to, (and it may explain why one of our contributers whose 'TB breakdown' was not confirmed for two years, was ignored by the WLU teams from 2001 - 2003) this would certainly skew the resultant data would it not?

But all this - and we have no doubt there will be more - is the basis for the latest pronouncements from the ISG computer. And their extraordinarily skewed conclusions which have sprung from it. Or as the ISG has treated, and continues to treat bTB as a disease of cattle, was those conclusions actually the beginning?

"Doing nothing

...... [ ] and allowing TB to spread through the UK badger population, is not necessarily a position of moral superiority".

As the thorny question of targeted badger culling refuses (quite rightly) to lie down, Veterinary Times last week published a thought provoking Point-of-view, from T.O Jones, MBE, BVSc, CBiol, FBS, FRCVS on how this may be achieved.[ sorry no on-line link, so we'll summarise.]

The piece begins by describing the TB situation in West Wales, which has led to the Welsh Assembly's intention to pioneer a targeted cull of badgers in that area. We have covered some farmer's stories from this area here (Trioni Farms) and here (Cilast herd) But how will Wales actually carry out the deed? So much red tape is wrapped around this animal, that cage trapping and shooting appear to be favourite - not ideal, in fact far from it, which is why Mr. Jones puts his eloquent pen to paper.

He points out that this method is unlikely to achieve even 80% of the target group at best, with the RBCT's halo of 'peturbation' and spread of bTB by distressed untrapped badgers as a result. (We continue to attribute this 'perturbation' phenomenon to the Badger Dispersal Trial, and that alone, because it was not evident in previous AH culls.) And of course, there has to be a 'closed season' from February to May to avoid leaving cubs to starve underground by shooting lactating females. All in all, a pretty poor effort if one is serious about disease control.

The use of carbon monoxide (CO) Mr. Jones suggests, is worth looking at, with a machine which uses it for rabbit control being tested in Australia. He then asks if this is not available in the UK, in cylinders? or as solid (concentrated) frozen CO?

"Many humans would opt for an unpremeditated, painless euthanasia during sleep as their exit of choice. Pure unadulterated CO poisoning might well be acceptable for such an approach in badgers."

Also a possibility is Carbon dioxide (CO2) and possibly pure nitrogen. Pointing out that:

"Mobile on-site nitrogen generators are used in the oil industry, but are presumably too large for the Welsh countryside. But would it be worth purpose building a small one? One litre of liquid nitrogen produces 683l of gaseous nitrogen at normal atmospheric pressure and could have a place in euthanasia apparatus."

As Mr. Jones points out, badgers obligingly live in their setts during Defra's working hours and during prolonged cold periods may not emerge for several weeks when they are said to be in a state of 'torpor'. "Could they not", he asks "be euthanased while in 'torpor', during this period?"

"Collection and disposal of carcases would not be problematic [ with gassing] A 100 per cent cull, with no perturbation could be anticipated. Setts could be blocked or collapsed to hinder recolonisation in the sure knowledge that no live animals were present."

Much of this thought provoking essay, calls on other industries to throw their respective hats into the ring and offer ideas for practical administration of a humane gas to these subterranean animals.

The delivery of gas into badger setts has been trialled both by Defra and Porton Down when with their very own unique buckets and spades, they built an artificial sett - each. And despite howls from the Badger Trust, gas was available in adequate quantities at all parts of the sett - once they'd blocked up the entrances.

Mr. Jones argues that a targeted cull of badgers in bTB hotspot areas, followed by a gradual infiltration with vaccinated, healthy badgers would deliver the nirvana of healthy badgers, healthy cattle (and cats, dogs, alpacas, llamas, goats, pigs ..... ed)

"Our country has an established meline TB problem - some badgers suffer from TB and spread it to healthy badgers. A lingering death from progressive TB in a proportion of infected badgers is painful. What action is suggested? Doing nothing, and allowing TB to spread through the UK badger population is not necessarily a position of moral superiority"

Policy on the hoof

We have become used to our department's habit of altering policy on a whim, or making it up as they go along. And that evolutionary process is arguably better than the 'cognitive dissonance' which affected them over FMD.

However, not to acknowledge such departmental developments is stooping very low indeed.

A letter from Mr. D. Denny, B.Vet., MRCVS published in Farmers Guardian Feb 12th., pointed out that there were many sticks with which to beat farmers but few incentives in government's handling of TB.

"The handling of the TB crisis is typical of the micro management of farmers by politicians with their own agendas. Instead of giving farmers incentives, the Eradication Group recommends more superfluous, petty and expensive impositions on farmers, none of which will have any significant impact in controlling TB."

A longstanding critic of 'vaccinating ' badgers already endemically infected with TB, Mr. Denny then remarked on the protocol of the vaccine scoping trial, pointing out that having to purchase their own vaccine was "hardly an incentive" to its success.

We covered Defra's on-the-hoof developing protocol for their latest prevarication wheeze, here. And in mid-December, such a purchase was on the cards.

These people are being asked to tender to trap and vaccinate 'x' number of badgers in an area of land, not yet decided? And the badger surveying, we understand, will not be in the hands of the contractors tendering for the job, but 'someone else'. Someone who may assess numbers correctly, but may not. And if they do not, then tough.

Both vaccines and cages are to be the responsibility of the contractor, and their purchase, storage and maintenance, together with assessed labour and area to be covered will be the basis of the quotation offered. This is so vague as to be like catching smoke. Especially as by the date tenders have to be submitted, the majority (80 per cent)of surveying will not have been completed.

As this project unravelled, potential contractors trying to get to grips with exactly what it was they were tendering for, apparently pointed out the vagaries of this smoke and mirrors idea and along with Santa's little helpers, and after the inevitable departmental New Year jollies, came the clarity of a rethink on some of the cost sharing. Particularly those on the purchase of vaccines for an unknown number of badgers, on an unsurveyed patch of land of indeterminate size.

Thus in this week's Farmers Guardian, and curt note appears from a representative of our beloved Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, stating that Mr. Denny is incorrect in his statement that 'contractors would have to buy their own BCG vaccine'.

"That is not the case. The cost of the vaccine used in the BVDP will be funded by Defra".

We are delighted of course, to give our readers an update of Defra policy, even as it evolves. But not so delighted that they omit to mention that it had been updated, implying errors on the part of a comment made ahead of the now acknowledged policy change.

We also note no mention was made of the meat of Mr. Denny's letter which concluded "demoralised farmers must be given incentives, not petty reforms".

"Nothing short of a targeted cull of infected badgers will result in any improvement in the TB crisis".

Thus in the absence of howls of derision, we assume that with that final statement, Defra's representatives must agree.

The money trail

Today we have 'borrowed' a posting from our co-editor who tells the tale of his own bitter experience in attempting to fly in the face of 'science'.

There was a time when scientists chased information, de-constructed that information and formed considered opinions. Now it seems the conclusion is what drives 'research'.

Dr. North points out:

Anyone who has the remotest idea of how academia works will know instantly how corrosive this sort of money really is. Department heads, anxious for funding to keep their empires going, would tailor their research proposals to ensure that they conformed with the programme objective. Without being told, they would know that to submit a counter-hypothesis [] would be to invite instant oblivion. The chances of getting funding would be nil.

Dr. North then relates his own first hand encounter with the Ministries who steer our industry.

I actually saw this at first hand after the 1988 Salmonella-in-eggs scare. With food poisoning in the headlines, the issue suddenly became fashionable in the halls of academia and the Research Councils, MAFF (as it was then) and the Department of Health were suddenly throwing huge amounts of money at the perceived problem.

It was at that time that I decided to do my own PhD, offering a counter-hypothesis that the "egg scare" was an artifact, arising from poor investigational technique, institutional bias and many other factors, including scientific fraud – yes ... we've been there before.

Naturally, Dr. North was unable to get funding, his presence on campus "could prejudice the ability to tap into the well of funds aimed at supporting the prevailing hypothesis." So much for 'investigative science'. But one brave pioneer did take him on. The consequences of which were that:

"He was summonsed down to London and grilled by MAFF officials. Only under the most stringent of conditions was his funding stream allowed to continue, which included my (Dr. North) being excluded from all the government-funded activities in the department.

Having seen the complete bias under which the RBCT worked, the scorn and derision poured on previous work, scientific and veterinary experience by a self seeking bubble of individuals, all circling around each other, we see a depressing parallel. As Dr. North says, of this 'political science':

Basically, it is bought and paid for – it will follow the money. [] ... "scientists" will dutifully fill in their grant applications, proposing to do precisely that. Those who do not conform fall by the wayside – they simply do not get funded.

Then, of course, the overwhelming weight of funded papers is taken as proving the point, and evidence of the "consensus". But it is money, not science, that is talking.

The basis of the RBCT was graphically explained by its leader, ISG chairman Professor John Bourne, who said quite openly to the EFRA committee:

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

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

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

And as we saw last week, this particular politically driven gravy train shows no sign of stopping.

Costs - and Defra costs

This week saw the publication of a further tranche of material from the ISG's electronic abacus. Professor Christl Donnelly having agreed that when badgers are removed, cattle TB reduces, sometimes significantly - then concluded in this paper that removing badgers was too expensive.

Quotes from the farming press ask expensive for whom? But we will take our own line and examine answers to Parliamentary Questions on the trial protocol and its efficacy, communications from WLU staff working on the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial and our personal experiences of their efforts - all of which have informed us just how the ISG went about their task of trying to cull badgers and the influence this had on their costs. These costs of RBCT cage traps averaged £3,799 per sq KM per year, (updated within this paper to £17,709 per sq KM ?) and form the basis of the paper published this week.

From a submission to EFRAcom in 2006, a culling trial manager stated:

" The whole basis of Krebs was to remove badgers off the ground. For the first four years, that effort was farcical, due to restrictions placed upon us. The trial had too many flaws in it to be trusted to produce meaningful evidence. How much weight do we give the latest ISG report, detailing their ‘robust’ findings to the minister? If it were down to me and my staff, very little".

And on the subject of using anything to do with trial costings, the submission was emphatic...

The costs for a future culling policy must NOT be based on Krebs costings. The Wildlife Unit have many great ideas on how to reduce costs vastly should the State remain involved in it. Give the Unit a chance to see how innovative it can be when it comes to reducing operating costs. Krebs was ridiculously expensive for what it delivered.

However, this latest paper appears to rely on 2005 costings of badger culling as carried out during the Krebs trial referred to in such scathing terms above. As usual the figures in this mathematical modelling exercise are subject to 'assumption' but what isn't, is the raw, unadulterated information from the trial, gleaned by answers to our PQs over a similar time scale to Donnelly's 'assumed' costs.

The RBCT relied on cage trapping over a very short period of 8 nights annually, with locations widely advertised. Operations were co-ordinated from two VI centres: Polwhele near Truro in Cornwall and Aston Down near Stroud in Glos. Approximately 133personnel from these sites covered all ten trial areas. Thus WLU operatives from Truro, after visiting farms on their home turf could head north on the M5 / M6 for Staffordshire via Hereford, while Aston Down's staff were also covering many miles at exorbitant and unnecessary cost.

[141974] The number of WLU staff employed on the RBCT was 133 in 2003/04, at a cost £6.8 million.

So what were they doing? Catching badgers? Nope. Not all the time. In fact not much of the time.

[1509079] In 2003, 1,130,000 miles were driven in WLU official vehicles, which equates to 2 - 3 hours travelling per person, per day.

How many times to the moon and back is that mileage? And as local expertise was not used, overnights, B&B and security allowances were also stacking up to the tune of around £130/day per operative, over and above their usual salary. That's £500 a week for each operative + salary. All presumably included within the ISG costs of their very own unique method of trying to trap badgers. We are unaware if Prof. Donelly's or the rest of the ISG team's own remunerations were included in the total.

So what of the efficacy of their attempts?

[141971] Of 15,666 traps sited in the RBCT to October 2003, 8,981 were 'interfered with' and 1,827 disappeared.

A pretty poor success rate then, if almost 70 percent of the traps set at dusk were empty in the morning. And the cost to the trial of traps damaged was answered thus:

[150494] (Over a similar time scale to the PQ above), 6,239traps suffered damage and 1,926 were stolen or lost at a cost of £50 each.

So, £408,250 to be added to 'costs' of not catching badgers in cage traps. But how did all this affect how efficiently the RBCT was able to do what it allegedly intended? i.e to catch and cull badgers?

[157954] There has been a level of illegal activity and interference with the operation of the RBCT which is certainly undesirable and could be considered significant. Culling stopped for a variety of reasons, including interference from activists and weather. Some activities led to trapping being extended or prematurely suspended.

But presumably the costs which now form the basis of Donnelly's paper were not suspended? WLU personnel were paid to set traps; whether or not they succeeded in catching badgers in them, we are unable to extrapolate from the ISG data.

Given such skewed protocol, operated under bureaucratic straitjackets and unbridled costs the average cost per badger caught and dispatched would be £thousands. And yet in spite of all the aforementioned and acknowledged problems, Donnelly confirms a drop of an average of 30% in new herd breakdowns of TB. (a figure which in itself is misleading, as herds under restriction at the beginning of the 'trial' did not qualify for badger removals, and although forming mini-hotspots within the ten triplets, are not included in RBCT data.) And 30 per cent is very meaningful if you happen to one of that number.

Dividing these extraordinary WLU 'costs' during the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial by the number of badgers they actually managed to catch is a crude assumption, but it is the only one available to them. Their trial, their data, their conclusions.

But commenting on the paper, Professor Bill Reilly, President of the BVA, said:

“This paper clearly demonstrates that badger culling did have an impact on the incidence of bovine TB in cattle, which is a very positive outcome.

The Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) was undertaken in very specific circumstances and it could be misleading to extrapolate the findings to any future control programme".

Quite.

The ISG final report and everything which has sprung from it, confirmed (again) that badgers do transmit TB to cattle, but it showed us quite clearly how NOT to deal with that situation.

Update: New bTB leaflet for Camelids

Defra have updated their advice leaflet on Tuberculosis in Camelids, which may be accessed on this link.

They point out that:

Transmission can occur between animals, from animals to humans, more rarely from humans to animals and between humans.
Transmission is predominantly through exposure to respiratory aerosols from an infectious animal. Camelids have a habit of spitting a mixture of gastric contents and saliva and this could increase the risk of transmission, particularly in the later stages of infection when lesions are present in the lungs and bowel.

In their new missive, and keen on the bio-security angle, Defra also advise that water troughs (and feed?) be offered '3 feet off the ground' to prevent the ingress of badgers.

Aim to make salt and mineral blocks inaccessible to badgers by raising them off the ground. Water troughs should also be raised at least three feet above the ground to prevent badger access.

.

Filming carried out by Professor Tim Roper of Sussex University showed badgers feeding from cattle troughs set at 4 feet 3 inches off the ground, which as Defra were helpful to point out in answers to our Parliamentary Questions, is too high for cattle (or camelids) to access. Thus to comply with Defra's advice may involve the modification of both camelids and cattle with one of these.

BCG - how it works

From Dr. Ueli Zellweger we have received the following explanation of how BCG vaccination - the live attenuated strain of Mycobacterium bovis known as Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) - works.

Defra are keen to use this in hotspot areas (where badgers are known to have endemic tuberculosis) The vaccine may or may not work, they really do not know, but are on record as hoping 'it won't make matters worse'. The jabs will need to be repeated at least every twenty months. And that, together with advice on bio security, constitutes Defra's 'eradication policy' for tuberculosis in England..

Why BCG does not perform like other Vaccines

In any normal infection the body defence works by production of vast amounts of antibodies. Such antibodies can also be stimulated by ordinary vaccines for all kinds of bacteria and virus diseases and they can be traced in blood which makes diagnosis with various techniques fairly easy.

But this does not work for Tuberculosis – it never did and it never will do – because the tubercle bacteria have a waxy coat to which antibodies cannot attach. Tuberculosis therefore causes a so called humoral body defence; that means the very slowly multiplying bacteria are attacked by enzymes and white blood cells mainly. These are killing or even digesting the bacteria by a method called phagocytosis resulting in crumbly pus in the so called tubercles – whole heaps or lumps containing several 1000 to billions of bacteria.

This defence is much more unspecific and slower than the usual one by antibodies.

Any BCG vaccine stimulates this humoral defence only but never prevents an infection; it may keep it on a low scale maybe. There is no other vaccine available and there most probably will never be another one.

No matter how many millions more DEFRA invests ( I hear of some 30 so far for the Vaccine only ) this is nature - which cannot be forced by politics.
Dr. Ueli Zellweger

More on Defra's badger vaccine scoping project, it's progress and time scale here.

Update.
We have added the following link to an email sent to www.warmwell.com by virologist Dr. Ruth Watkins who explains how BCG works when injected and also points out:

BCG is not effective if given after infection with M bovis or M tuberculosis.

All those queueing up to 'vaccinate' badgers endemically infected with TB, please note....

Sideline?

For anyone with a thorough knowledge of bTB and the required tea-and-sympathy skills, the NFU are offering three EU funded posts in the SW.

Salary: £27,410 - £33,806
Location: Exeter
Job Type: Contract - 4 years
Source: The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development Europe investing in rural areas. South West bTB Farm Advisory Service (based from the NFU Regional headquarters, Exeter)

The NFU, supported by all farming and related industry organisations, has recently secured funding through the Rural Development Programme England for a four year farm advisory programmes to provide cattle farmers with bespoke Bovine Tuberculosis advice and training in the South West Region.

Being delivered for the industry, by the industry, this initiative will provide practical and technical support, advice and training for trade, supply chain and animal health solutions to all cattle farmers across the South West region affected directly or indirectly by bovine TB. If you want to really help cattle farmers in a 'hands on' and practical way this could be the job for you.

Under the direction of the programme Manager, the service will be delivered by three Advisers who will have a good understanding of Agriculture, Animal Health and the Rural Environment, and be able to "demonstrate an understanding of bTB".

Yup. We understand only too well. Cattle are tested and culled if they react to exposure of m.bovis. Tabular valuation is rubbish if you have spent a lifetime breeding high quality genetics, or if you've purchased expensive bloodlines and they are condemned. There is no appeal. You can't trade, except to approved finishing units, will probably have to shoot calves which you can't sell, and any movements at all have to be licensed by your local AHO - who may, or may not agree to them. Direct slaughter is your only outlet. Your bank may, or may not be sympathetic.

Up to 90 percent of TB breakdowns, both new and ongoing in the SW are down to badgers say AHO risk assessments, but the only 'advice' which can be given to affected farms is 'touch them not'. And possibly a reminder that hidden in the folds of the new Animal Health Bill, are penalties for not keeping 'bio-secure' - whatever that might mean in this context. Hermetically sealed boxes for cows? Shrink wrapped grass?

Update: We understand that key people in various farming organisations have pushed for this initiative, as their telephone lines are busy with farmers asking the same questions. But we are also mindful that our current Minister for (some) Animal's Health, is hell bent on saving cash. Our cash. Compensation cash, (the figure for which in Defra's convoluted accounting system, includes haulage, abattoir costs, valuers and incineration of reactors, but is net of carcase salvage). So while we welcome any support for farmers under herd restrictions, we are very much aware that what may be possible and planned for today, could be completely different tomorrow. And that someones idea of 'bio-security' may have a profound effect on any compensation monies due, however unproven, ineffective, impractical or costly such measures may be. We are also reminded of the words spoken at least twice in our hearing, by the former chief at Woodchester Park's Badger Heaven, Dr. Chris Cheeseman. When asked how to keep badgers and cattle apart, his reply was an unequivocal "You can't. You get rid of your cattle".

We understand that positions will be available in the Midlands and the North as well.

The closing date for the Exeter applications is Monday 15th February 2010 at 4pm, should you feel you have the right skills.