Not guilty.

We have received sight of a press release from the Badger Trust in which our posting about the TB outbreak in Cumbria is quoted.

We're very grateful to Jack Reedy of the Badger Trust, for the heads up. Perhaps if people read the posting, they will see that we are treading water very carefully with this one, as we just do not know the source as yet.

However Mr. Reedy has voiced his own opinions on cattle farmers, and our animals, quite forcefully.

The press release is less than clear on a number of points, and we will summarise;

Badger numbers are tricky, but if populations are controlled then you do not see RTA badgers or badgers dead in fields. In fact you rarely see a badger at all. And that is how it should be. We stand by our statement that farmers in Cumbria have reported to us increasing numbers of road kill badgers and badgers dead in fields.
That was a precursor to our own TB outbreaks.

The Mammal Society (which the trust quote) did a survey on badger numbers and found that the population density had increased by 77% in a decade. That was what was reported in 1997. (14 years ago.)

(Ref: "Changes in the British badger population, 1988 to 1997" (1997). G. Wilson, S. Harris and G. McLaren. People's Trust for Endangered Species (ISBN 1 85580 018 7))

Nothing has changed since, except more growth.

Ernest Neal who helped frame the Protection of Badgers Act 1972, described 'good badger country ' and an 'excellent population' as about 1 adult per sq. km.
Roll forward 40 years of good intentions and our PQs noted that the highest recorded density in England (in 2003) was Witham Woods on Oxon, at 38 per sq km.
The vaccination trial last autumn cage trapped 16 adults per sq.km. in Glos.
PQs also note that as populations become larger, individual animals within them tend to get smaller as pressure on food supplies and space become higher.

We have been very careful not to hammer on the wildlife side for this outbreak, because we just don't know. But as we said, TB doesn't fly in with the tooth fairy. For the amount of cattle involved here, exposure has been high or continuous or both. This could be an open lung case cow (or udder lesion case with pooled milk) or a wildlife / other mammal continuing interface. And that could be a badger, alpaca or any other mammal with open lesions containing and shedding m.bovis.

But until that source is found and removed, tested cattle will continue to react and continue to get slaughtered.

AHVLA spoligotyping will nail the strain. Further investigation may nail the source.
Cumbria has its own unique strains, when further levels of DNA are examined down to VNTR. (Variable Number Tandem Repeats) And the county is certainly not TB free, as the Dunnett report quoted in our update, commented. But levels are low as shown by the tested, sentinel cattle.

From PQs:

Spoligotyping is used to determine molecular type for all isolates of the bovine tuberculosis bacillus (M. bovis) obtained from badgers and cattle. Variable Number Tandem Repeats (or VNTR), a technique able to subdivide some spoligotypes, is also used. Generally the different strain types of M. bovis that these techniques identify exhibit distinct and probably longstanding geographical clustering. Within each geographical cluster the same strains tend to be found in badgers and cattle .

.
It was found in 2002/03 that some FMD restock reactors did not carry the strain of the consigning farm, but had picked up the Cumbrian variety. (AHVLA info)

M. bovis isolates are routinely typed using a DNA fingerprinting technique called spoligotyping. In Great Britain 30 different spoligotypes have been identified in cattle and in 16 badgers. Of those in cattle, 12 of those account for 99 per cent. of the isolates.

Badgers can wander several miles, especially if they are 'dispersers' chucked out of a group - but many more if they are 'sanctuary' releases or caged transfers moved by car. Mandatory records are not required to be kept by such sanctuaries or rescuers of the location of released badgers. Just the permission or passive acquiescence of the landowner.

Alpacas may also figure, as they are capable of onwards transmission both within a herd, and to wildlife, and thus should be considered a possible source.

Finally, the number of cattle slaughtered as TB reactors, the Trust say is down.
But as shown in Defra's January figures for GB, reactor slaughterings are up by 34 percent on 2010.
AH tell us that this trend is continuing and they are having difficulty coping.

We think the man Trust doth protest too much.

Cumbrian TB outbreak

Having colleagues in the area, we have been alerted several times to the increase in badger numbers in Cumbria. Road kill are increasing, and some have been found dead in fields. But the news last week that a dairy farm near Penrith had been hit, and hit hard with TB is an unwelcome wakeup call.

According to Defra and VLA staff, Cumbria does have its own unique spoligotype when the primary strains of TB are taken down to VNTR (Variable Number Tandem Repeat) detail. And not all the much publicised FMD restock reactors were SW consignees. Some were home grown.

As AHVLA officials continue to investigate the outbreak in this herd, said to be 'closed' and subject to a clear test 18 months ago, one wonders if they will look at other contact possibilities ? For instance untested, unregulated and unidentified alpacas.

Although the Welsh Assembly Government have indicated an intention to include camelids in their TB eradication scheme, England have made no such announcement. And AHVLA still have no right of entry to alpaca premises.

We are not saying that camelids are responsible for this outbreak, it is far too early to make any assumptions, but they should be considered, along with a wildlife interface, if a cattle index case can be ruled out. TB doesn't fly in with the tooth fairy, and 'something' heavily infected with this bacteria has had contact with these Cumbrian cattle. And if none of the 64 reactors have open lung lesions, then that 'something' may be still around, continually infecting the herd.

Update. 28/04

Farmers Guardian are reporting more cattle face slaughter in this outbreak.

And although Cumbrian farmers are heading for panic mode, and insisting the county is 'TB free' and that 'that there had never been TB in Cumbria, and where had it come from?', history has documented and published Cumbrian TB outbreaks, with badger involvement.
The Dunnett Report mentions two badgers with confirmed m. bovis and six cattle breakdowns with badger or 'unknown' (but not cattle) origins prior to 1984. So TB is a published and known problem for the county ...

Missing the point....

A new website has started up, to 'Rethink TB. Using some pretty spurious quotes on the efficacy of the skin test, the site concentrates totally on cattle.
It asks why test? Why cull? With milk pasteurisation, cooking of meat - why bother?
The authors also seem to think that vaccination can be their Holy Grail. The cynical amongst us would consider that to be the observation of a 'scientist' with his hand out. Vaccinating anything against tuberculosis, by the very nature of the beast is fraught and difficult. As is any wishful thinking on 'treatment' of this particular bacterium, which has a waxy hard shell, and is notoriously difficult for any drug to reach.

Defra are not killing cattle for the benefit of the farming industry. Neither is protection of infected wildlife anything other than a response to lobby cash. Government have a statutory duty to eradicate this disease from both cattle and wildlife under several international directives which protect human health. Killing cattle while leaving a wildlife reservoir to re-infect, is both ineffective and expensive. Herd breakdowns have mushroomed from their original hotspots three decades ago, to affect up to a third of herds in much of SW England, Wales and the west Midlands. This is reckless in the extreme.

‘Bovine’ tuberculosis is not a disease of cattle; it affects many mammals and human beings. But government inertia will ensure that this ancient and deadly zoonosis, which should have been consigned to history books, will in future affect a wide range of species – including human beings. We posted our opinion in this piece.

The skin test is the universally used primary diagnostic tool for detecting exposure to the bacteria which causes TB, in a herd of cattle. Our PQs told us that its sensitivity / specificity is approaching 100%, when used regularly. And using this test + slaughter of reactors to it, in the absence of a wildlife reservoir, many countries have cleared their cattle herds of TB. Completely.

Taking this a stage further, what has the progressive lack of action by successive administrations on our particular wildlife reservoir over the last three decades, (and none at all since 1997) achieved? Put another way, what are these tested, slaughtered sentinels telling us? And who's listening with ears tight shut?

In the last few years, the overspill of what Defra euphemistically call 'environmental TB' has gone way beyond cattle. And despite only counting culture samples, and only taking one of those, many group animals and domestic pets are dying in their hundreds.

These victims include mammals as diverse as free range pigs, the owners of whom now a TB leaflet all to themselves, and bison. A couple of years ago, we highlighted the spillover into domestic cats and a high profile case in rare breed goats. But the biggest problem has arrived at the door of the highly susceptible GB alpaca population, with a small group of owners now reporting several hundred deaths.

We note that the authors of this new site have neither linked to us (which is understandable) or to alpaca TB website (which is reprehensible) Perhaps a look there would burst a few bubbles.

Our sentinel, tested cattle herds and their slaughtered members are a warning sign which must not be ignored, and to dismiss them is totally missing the point..

Boxter lives to fight another day.

Today a High Court judge squashed the slaughter notice on prize winning British Blonde bull, Hallmark Boxter after his owner, farmer Ken Jackson appealed the procedure.

Farmers Guardian has the story.

RBCT + 4 years.

We have today received a press release from the FUW (Farmers Union of Wales) which we are happy to post in full. (Sorry - no links to the paper.)

NEW FIGURES SHOW POSITIVE EFFECT OF BADGER CULL

The Farmers’ Union of Wales today welcomed figures which show badger culling continues to result in major reductions in TB incidences up to four and a half years after the end of a cull.

Figures published yesterday in the scientific journal PLoS ONE, under the heading “Analysis of further data (to 25 February 2011) on the impacts on cattle TB incidence of repeated badger culling” show a 31.5% reduction in confirmed TB herd incidences in English badger culling areas over the four and a half year period after badger culling ended and a reduction of 37% in the six months to March 2011.

“These figures completely undermine previous claims that the positive effects of badger culling were not sustained in the long term after culling ended,” said FUW vice president and TB spokesman Brian Walters.

“They also provide further evidence that the Welsh Assembly Government and National Assembly for Wales were right to support plans to cull badgers in north Pembrokeshire.

“The way in which the proposed north Pembrokeshire cull has been designed means the overall impact in that area is likely to be significantly better than the results seen in England..

“North Pembrokeshire has geographic boundaries and is almost three times the size of the English trial areas. All the scientific evidence published to date indicates that this will lead to reductions far higher than those seen in the English trial areas,” said Mr Walters.

“The latest results from England show that scientists have previously been wrong to make sweeping statements about the impact of badger culling.

“When the Independent Science Group published its final report in 2007 we pointed out that the overall impact of culling would not be known for years, and were harshly critical of the politically loaded and unscientific claims made in the report.

“These comments continue to be quoted to this day by anti-cull campaigners, especially the claim that culling ‘cannot meaningfully contribute’ to future TB control.

“Yet the latest figures clearly show that culling continues to contribute to ‘future’ TB control, long after culling comes to an end, and we are still waiting for a scientific definition of the word ‘meaningful’,” Mr Walters added.



ENDS

Badger set-aside.

.

Dr. Brian May, has come up with a novel solution to the problem of TB. Move out the cattle. Farmers Guardian has the story, which is beautifully illustrated in Ken Wignall's cartoon (apologies for quality ).

Now while Brian was strumming his guitar, and strutting his stuff, it 'may' have escaped his notice that cattle moved out before. In their millions during FMD. And guess what? In the spring of 2001, when the badgers came out to play, there was long grass, no dung pats, no placentas - in fact nothing to encourage a badger (which Dr. Cheeseman is on record as telling us, is totally dependant on cattle habitats) to stay. So they didn't. They upped sticks and legged it to the nearest cattle, as we explained in this posting.

It would be helpful if before launching 'big ideas', Dr. May did a spot of homework.

Wales bring camelids under TB umbrella

On March 31st, the Welsh Assembly Government brought in legislation to cover bTB in camelids. The full document can be viewed here.

England awaits.

... is enough.

Coming hard on the heels of this posting where we decided not to bash our collective heads into brick walls anymore, Defra have issued the following press release today:

Cattle testing positive for Bovine TB are to be DNA tagged to further strengthen controls preventing spread of the disease.

Evidence is emerging that some cattle farmers in the South West and Midlands may have been illegally swapping cattle ear tags. That means they may have been retaining TB-positive animals in their herds and sending less productive animals to slaughter in their place.

Retaining cattle that test positive for TB on a farm increases the risk of spread of TB to other herds and wildlife.

To strengthen deterrents, from mid-April cattle testing positive for TB will immediately be tagged and a sample of its DNA retained by Animal Health. These samples will then be cross-checked at random, or where fraud is suspected, against the DNA of animals sent to slaughter.

Agriculture Minister Jim Paice said:

“I am absolutely appalled any farmer would deliberately break the law in this way. The vast majority of farmers with TB in their herds are doing the right thing, and it’s reprehensible that anyone should be trying to get around the tough measures that are helping to control TB in cattle. Anyone doing this sort of thing will be caught and have the book thrown at them.

“We are introducing this extra safeguard to minimise spread of this devastating disease to other herds and wildlife.”

The alleged evidence of fraud has emerged from an investigation instigated by Gloucestershire Trading Standards, which reviewed TB cattle sent to two slaughterhouses. Investigations are now ongoing there and at slaughterhouses in the South West and Midlands.

The Bovine TB Eradication Group for England (TBEG) said:

“We are appalled at this emerging evidence of TB reactor fraud, and we strongly condemn any such behaviour. We urge the farming industry and the veterinary profession to continue to work together with the Government on the swift and decisive action announced today.

“We have given clear advice on what measures should be put in place quickly to tackle the problem. This suspected fraudulent behaviour by a few farmers should not be allowed to unfairly damage the reputation of the responsible majority or to undermine the TB control regime.”

"This suspected fraudulent behaviour by a few farmers should not be allowed to unfairly damage the reputation of the responsible majority or to undermine the TB control regime.”

Quite so.
But it will.

FUW welcomes U-Turn over misleading TB claims.

The FUW (Farmers union of Wales)today welcomed a decision by badger campaigners Pembrokeshire Against the Cull (PAC) not to repeat misleading claims in a leaflet distributed to homes in the county and published on the internet.

The decision comes after a complaint by the FUW triggered an eight-month investigation by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). PAC has since agreed not to repeat the advertisement and to amend problematic claims in line with the ASA’s Advertising Code.

FUW TB spokesman Brian Walters described the decision as a “welcome U-turn”. He added: “It is unfortunate that it took an eight-month investigation and the publication of a draft ruling by the ASA for PAC to finally cave in and admit that they published misleading claims, but we are glad they have finally conceded.

“PAC’s decision to accept they were wrong means the ASA has allowed the complaint to be closed informally, saving PAC the embarrassment of being ruled against in a formal adjudication.”

The original leaflet - which has now been removed from PAC’s website - claimed that "2 ½ years after the [badger] cull finishes, this benefit [the reduction of bTB] disappears"; that "WAG’s cattle measures are inadequate, and it has signally [sic] failed to address the most important route of infection, cattle-to-cattle"; that "there are no plans to control the movement of cattle within, into or out of the [north Pembrokeshire culling] area based on TB risk"; and that "Vaccination will help with TB eradication, culling will not".

“The FUW provided scientific evidence demonstrating why these statements breached Committee of Advertising Practice Code clauses on Truthfulness and Substantiation,” said Mr Walters.

“The ASA agreed with us, and PAC has now been forced to admit they were wrong. This gives out a clear message to politicians and the public that messages issued by single issue groups established to protect badgers need to be taken with a massive pinch of salt.

Pembrokeshire Against the Cull is a newly established organisation with only one objective, and as far as I am aware they were previously indifferent to the nightmare TB epidemic which has faced Pembrokeshire farmers for decades.

Conversely, the Farmers’ Union of Wales has been involved in the science of bTB for more than 50 years, and our views have been established following careful gathering and consideration of all the scientific evidence over a period of decades.

We don’t want to see either badgers or cattle being culled, but when you are faced with a massive disease epidemic in both animals you have to take action.”



Ends

Enough is enough.

For some time now, we have been considering the time and effort which all of us put into this site.
It was built on the 500 Parliamentary Questions on bTB, badgers, badger welfare, bTB transmission and general epidemiology which were lobbed by our co-editor at the then Minister, Ben Bradshaw, in 2003/4. We wanted to collect as much information on our own experiences with herd restrictions, on TB transmission opportunities and on other country's efforts to clear this disease.

Support has come from a number of sources including farmers, veterinary professionals, scientists and wildlife operatives. We all had a single aim: that of healthy cattle and healthy badgers.

But over these six years, things have moved on and now alpaca owners are wringing their hands as 'environmental' TB rips through their herds. Similarly pig owners face TB restrictions which have no legal exit route except the skin test, which is not an option for many. Cats, dogs, bison, sheep, goats and deer have all made headlines which we have conveyed to you. While Defra have been noticeable by their absence in support for the true level of other species 'over spill'

Did we say bTB was a beneficial crisis? You bet we did.

In mid February, while a couple of us were busy preparing cattle for sale,(having dutifully pre movement tested them) a site comment late on Friday night had us reeling. No, not a scumbag dealer switching eartags, but one of the most high profile pedigree breeders in the country, drives a coach and horses through everything we have been trying to achieve over the last decade. No matter that none of this site's contributors have shifted restricted cattle, bounced them between holdings or presented unidentified cattle of unknown parentage for veterinary inspection. We're all tarred with the same brush, the damage is huge and the reaction, brutal.

Needless to say, the Badger Trust lumps us all together though.

And tonight another comment has found its way to our inbox. This describes how a Shropshire veterinary surgeon has been found guilty of not discharging his duty in respect of a TB test on a restricted farm.

No matter that we have yet to find our own vets wanting in this respect, and no matter that it is not the norm. Reports like this are seriously bad for our industry - and music to the ears of all those who do not want to face the fact that TB is endemic in badgers, and that over population has now exploded that disease into other mammals.

So, on balance, we have achieved nothing. And we have decided that enough is enough.


We will leave you with a link to a Farming Forum where a very dedicated and upset farmer is about to consign this lovely, healthy cow to the Defra killing machine.

By the time most of you read this, she will be dead.

News update for camelid owners

A couple of points relative to our postings below, but more specifically for camelid owners, can be found here. (Click the 'NEWS' button on the top menu bar).

On the spread of TB from the colourful 'Maginot line' which they drew in 2009, for the 2010 map, Defra describe the spread thus:

There has been evidence that suggests there has been some further limited geographical spread and increased risk of TB in certain areas. As a result, for 2011 the core annual testing area has been expanded in some places, and the whole of the two year testing buffer has been widened, particularly in Cheshire and the East Midlands. In doing this the two year testing buffer and background four year testing areas have been brought in line with the requirements of EU legislation (Directive 64/432/EEC (as amended).

That statement - or understatement - on parish testing intervals (PTIs) is explained more fully:

The new PTIs came into effect on 1st January 2011 and are detailed below in the ‘England PTI List’. Animal Health has written to herd owners individually to confirm what their parish testing interval and herd testing interval will be.

But Animal Health will not have written to camelid herd owners, as by statute they have no control over identification, movement or disease control of these animals.

Thus the new regulations which began on January 1st, and which we looked into in that posting, do not apply to camelid herds. The alpaca TB website has more. They explain that they have been inundated with enquiries from camelid owners, following these changes in terminology and consequential action on TB breakdowns, which they assumed included camelids. They do not. For the simple reason that, as we pointed out, Defra still have no statute to cover TB in any other species than 'bovine animals and farmed deer'. During communications to confirm the position, senior Defra policy officials explain:

There are no ‘officially’ TB free herds of camelids in the UK for the simple reason that they are not routinely screened for TB with a validated ante-mortem test as most cattle herds are, plus there are no agreed criteria for designating camelid herds as ‘OTF’ (Officially TB free).

Those that are NOT currently subject to movement restrictions due to an infection confirmed by VLA should at best be regarded as ‘TB status unknown’.

The changes apply only to cattle, farmed buffalo and farmed bison herds, which (unlike camelids and other non-bovine farmed animals) are within the scope of EU Directive 64/432/EEC and, therefore, subject to mandatory routine TB surveillance by tuberculin skin testing at regular intervals.

Current TB policy relating to camelids, which was updated recently can be found on the Alpaca TB website on this link.

Meanwhile, tuberculosis continues to ravage camelid herds, (and cats, dogs, free range pigs and many other mammals) despite Defra's other species statistics indicating problem? - what problem ?

Moving the line

Last year Defra produced a new Parish Testing Map, with areas shaded red having annual testing and the buffer of orange on two year testing.
This was the 2010 map.











And this one (left) is their 2011 version, showing how the insidious spread of bTB is now creeping northwards, north eastwards and east of the original hotspots.










To illustrate how decades of ministerial prevarication have affected the spread of bTB, this is a map of confirmed breakdowns in 1996 (right). This is not quite comparable with the maps above, but every confirmed breakdown would instigate an annual parish testing interval.






There are about eight major 'hotspots', (seen in the 1986 illustration (left)) which apart from expanding, had not changed in their geographic area or the spoligotype found there, in the time that TB breakdowns and badger postmortems had been logged by VLA.

We have been told that bTB tracks through the badger population, carried by 'dispersers' kicked out of their social groups and on the roam, at around 10 miles annually. So any guesses as to how long before Defra's map is solid red to the coastline of the North Sea and the Scottish borders?

To lead astray ...

... to 'mislead', or 'cause to believe something incorrectly'. Or all of those, with a touch of duplicity and hubris thrown in. Details below.

On November 8th 2010, Defra released a bundle of papers on the vaccination of badgers with an accompanying press release which explained:

A key finding of the field study, conducted over four years in a naturally infected population of more than 800 wild badgers in Gloucestershire, was that vaccination resulted in a 74 per cent reduction in the proportion of wild badgers testing positive to the antibody blood test for TB in badgers.

With the help of our resident scientific team, we explored the background to this in various posts throughout November, and early December.

Meanwhile on December 1st, the the BBC launched their campaign, with the strapline:

In a four-year project, UK scientists found vaccination reduced the incidence of TB infection in wild badgers by 74%.

This was picked up by lazy media tarts journalists, and flipped around the world.

The 'consultation' on whether to cull badgers infected with tuberculosis, closed on December 8th 2010 in England and December 17th., in Wales.

The Badger Trust cite the BBC report in their submission.

But on December 14th., one week after the close of the English consultation, and with just hours before the close of the Welsh one, Defra issued a sort of retraction or plain English explanation of this bundle of research papers. And it says categorically that some media interpretation of this data, should not have been used to make the claim:

1. The findings in the paper were reported by some sectors of the media to mean that vaccination produced a 74% reduction in the proportion of badgers that had TB: e.g. "In a four-year project, UK scientists found vaccination reduced the incidence of TB infection in wild badgers by 74%."

The data should not be used to make this claim.

The results of the field study actually show that BCG vaccination of free-living badgers reduced the incidence of positive serological test results by 73.8% (a new incident being a badger that changed its test status from negative to positive during the study). This is not the same thing as saying that vaccination reduced the incidence of disease by 74% as a negative blood test is not an absolute indicator of protection from disease, so the field results cannot tell us the degree of vaccine efficacy.

Data from the laboratory and field studies do not lend themselves to giving a definitive figure for BadgerBCG vaccine efficacy, defined as the reduction in the incidence of disease (new cases) among badgers who have received vaccine compared to the incidence in unvaccinated badgers. A definitive figure for efficacy could only be determined by field-testing the vaccine on a large scale over a long period of time. Several thousand badgers would need to be killed to determine the presence and severity of TB at detailed post-mortem examination." 　

This paper was not released as a follow up press release to Defra's November 8th. offering, and neither was it released hard on the heels of the original misleading simplified BBC version which got the Badger Trust so excited. We are grateful for sight of it. As were Farmers Guardian who had the story on the FG online edition of January 4th.

So dear readers, what do we make of the time line on this?

* A bundle of papers and their million annexes on badger vaccination, released in a blaze of glory just a few weeks before the end of a consultation on whether (or not) to cull badgers infected with TB?
* The media scrum, led by the BBC and supported with quotes from Messrs. Cheeseman and Macdonald, offer their spin that 'Scientists have found that vaccination reduces TB in 800 wild badgers by 74%'.
* The consultation closes in England.
* With hours to go to the Welsh consultation deadline, Defra offer this little gem to their in-house group. "The data should not be used to make this claim."

Too bloody right it shouldn't. But it was, and it was not corrected until after the event - or at least the English event. And then only released within the magic circle of Defra's TB section.

And under those circumstances, we make no apology for the title of this post.

Jan 1st. - love thy neighbour?

As we enter 2011, the UK will adopt new terminology for TB breakdowns, courtesy of our paymasters in the European Union (who coughed up 27 million euros last year to help test and slaughter more cattle.) It all sounds fairly innocuous, but the implications are far from that.

Back in early December, some English cattle farmers would have received a missive from Animal Health explaining that 'in Wales', things were changing. And?
As we are not in Wales at blogger HQ, we shredded it. Nothing has been sent to English farmers yet, but Farmers Guardian has details of the changes.

The main difference is not terminology at all, but the implications of a confirmed breakdown on future problems in a herd and more importantly on any breakdowns in the herds of 'contiguous' neighbours.

Herds not under TB restriction will be known as OTF or Officially TB free. If a breakdown occurs which cannot be confirmed by either lesions or culture, then that status is suspended (OTFS) but if TB is confirmed then status becomes withdrawn (OTFW).

In England and Wales, to regain OTF status herds designated as OTFS will require one clear short interval test and this was the testing situation prior to Jan 1st 2011.
But from now on things change:

However, if either of the following circumstances applies, two consecutive tests will generally be needed:

* The herd has had OTFW status in the three years prior to the current breakdown, or;

* The herd is contiguous to another which currently has OTFW status. This will not however be changed retrospectively if contiguous herds subsequently have their OTF status withdrawn

And it is those changes, but particularly the latter, which will have a far greater impact on testing regimes than has been realised. Like a ripple in a pond, any neighbour of a herd which has had TB confirmed and status withdrawn, will adopt that status (or the testing regime that accompanies it) if there is a breakdown in his herd - regardless of post mortem results. And that could involve several farms in a 'ripple' generated from a confirmed outbreak.

Meanwhile, Animal Health have just retrieved short interval TB testing from LVI vets, with herds between 100 and 250 animals having the benefit of a Defra vet to test cattle. Just how they are going to cope with Treasury budget cuts, extra paperwork and now extra short interval testing this will generate, is up for discussion.

Meanwhile we have a feeling of deja vu as this year begins.

In the 5 years since Defra's last 'consultation' on whether or not to remove badgers infected with tuberculosis, 250,000 cattle have been shot, not a single TB riddled badger apprehended but the industry face another raft of new cattle restrictions.

A very Happy New year.

Update:
We are hearing from LVI vets up and down the country, that many have been hauled back into short interval TB testing due to injuries sustained by AHO desk jockeys. Some of these people are good with cattle, but many may be more used to handling a computer mouse, than a ton of angry cow.

And this change in TB 'terminology' - which is not that at all - is still generating much discussion as to how it may be implemented in practise. Will it be 'contiguous' as in neighbouring holdings on a parish map? Or 'contiguous' areas where cattle have grazed, and when they grazed? We understand that this is still very much work in progress. And we think this could generate quite a discussion at the coal face, as to exactly what herd restrictions may follow a new breakdown.

And English farmers have still to receive formal notification from Defra, of any changes to its policy at all.

ASA uphold (another) complaint by FUW.

Once again, the Advertising Standards Authority have upheld complaints against misleading statements issued by the so-called protectors of badgers. This time the 'Save the Badger' campaign, operating from the address of 'Secret World Wildlife Rescue' in Somerset, has had the majority of its claims ruled as being 'untrue and unsubstantiated' by the ASA, say the Farmers Union of Wales.

Following a complaint by the FUW (Farmers Union of Wales), the ASA ruled that claims made in advertisements placed by the 'Save the Badger' charity and published in May this year, repeatedly breached Truthfulness, Substantiation, and Matters of Opinion codes. Welcome though this ruling is, it is too late. The 'Save the Badger' campaign encouraged members of the general public to oppose badger culling, and called on them to write to the Welsh Assembly Government and the Rural Affairs Minister opposing plans to cull badgers in north Pembrokeshire. And it used advertisements which repeatedly made statements which the ASA now say breached their standards of 'Truthfulness, Substantiation and 'Matters of Opinion' codes.

Following the ASA’s ruling, the advertisements must not appear again in their current form, and the ASA has written to the operators of 'Save the Badger' instructing them to ensure in future that claims which are not clearly an expression of their view, can be substantiated.

In 2006, publication of unsubstantiated claims by the RSPCA and others, once again brought by the FUW, provoked a similar response from the ASA, as we reported at the time. But the damage - and it is considerable - is done. People are misled, many animals suffer and the only winner is tuberculosis.

We note that similar emotive and misleading generalisations which are today condemned as 'matters of opinion which were untrue and unsubstantiated' by the ASA can still be found on Brian May's 'Save the Badger' website. Including, amusingly, irritatingly, the old assumption that mycobacterium bovis, is a virus. Dr. May's website has the following introductory paragraph:

The disease at the centre of this appalling tragedy is called Bovine TB. The history of the establishment of this virus in populations of Cattle in the British Isles is well documented. It did NOT, of course come from Badgers (or it would presumably have been called "Badger TB") - it was allowed to flourish because of intensive farming methods, and was spread around the UK by farmers moving cattle around to maximise the profit that could be made from them when they were slaughtered. Badgers were infected by the cattle, entirely innocent of any wrong-doing except being in the vicinity of these diseased farm animals.

.

And that from a superannuated, former pop star with a newly acquired 'ology?

Corrections to all Dr. May's erroneous assumptions may be found in this post and the PQ answer below. We do not intend to go through them again.


But we also note that pictures of badgers adorning his site, do not reflect the true result of tuberculosis on badgers. Emaciation, exclusion from the social group, starvation and finally death? Very nice. Disease in the badger on the right, had developed as tuberculous pleurisy and when the animal was caught, it was emaciated to the point that its death was imminent.






And this badger, weighing a fraction of its optimum weight had starved to death. A postmortem showed that it too, had generalised tuberculosis, the bacteria from which were available to any mammal which crossed its miserable path.


Finally, we would remind readers of the answer to our Parliamentary Questions as to the likely reason for the total and complete clearance of 'bovine' TB from the cattle herds at Thornbury, after a short period of badger clearance. The effect lasted for over a decade:

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 ad infinitum by the T-Beggars ( T-BAG's successor around Defra's TB round 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 between 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]

Congratulations, once again to FUW.

Deadline for the Welsh consultation.

Just a day to go before the closing of the Welsh Assembly Government's consultation on culling badgers infected with tuberculosis.

Details can be found on the FUW website, which has online links to submit replies.

The deadline for replies to this consultation, is midnight on Friday, December 17th.

24 hours to go.

The consultation on whether or not to control infectious badgers to prevent the spread of tuberculosis closes on the 8th. December.

Farmers Guardian has a timely reminder.


Responses can be sent via email to: tbbc@defra.gsi.gov.uk

Professionals comment on that 74%

When we put up a brief glimpse of the source of Defra's '800 badgers, vaccination and 74% efficacy assumption' posting, it attracted the attention of several biologists, veterinary pathologists and other suitably qualified people.

Their somewhat explosive response, we did not expect.

A protocol designed to do one thing cannot and should not be tweaked to fit another scenario, and assumptions made without postmortems to support. That is 'outrageous' was one comment offered. The following snips are from a comment of the efficacy of BCG posting (below) with which we absolutely agree.

"As a biologist, I find these results rather perturbing. I know that BCG isn't all that effective, but results such as this demonstrate that it is so ineffective as to be near-useless, especially given the stress and disruption of vaccinating wild badgers ."

As cattle farmers, the results that even badgers receiving a very high dose of BCG, still developed lesions and still shed m.bovis was not good news to us either. As was the postmortem result for badger D313, (1 of the 9 given high dose BCG after a clear pre-jab screen) and for whom BCG gave no protection at all. The comment continues:

This is worthy of much wider publicity, since the general public seem to think that one dose of vaccine gives immediate, 100% effective, lifelong protection from a disease. This simplistic notion needs to be corrected; people need telling that BGC isn't all that effective, and that M bovis is definitely not a disease only of cows and badgers, but one which can readily spread to people.

We are trying, but when faced with a brick wall of vested interests, lobby money and index linked pensions, a TB riddled badger supports a huge industry on its back. Pushing water uphill may be easier.

This is, I think, a matter of some urgency since if this isn't done then the usual myths and magical thinking regarding vaccination will persist (i.e. the disease isn't a problem for people, and vaccination is a cure) and the necessary widespread badger cull will be that much more difficult to achieve

We think that as soon as Defra delivered this skewed piece of non-science to the Badger Trust, the general media and various assorted celebrities in need of a cause, it was game over.

And you are absolutely correct in thinking that the public and many animal activists genuinely believe that BCG will protect the badger, completely and indefinitely, whatever its current disease status. And yes, the label 'bovine' TB implies the only victims are cattle.
As to what can be done, well we've tried. Lord knows we've tried. But battling against arrogance and vested interests, who are in an armlock with government is a thankless task and one which we are afraid we have lost. The winner is the bacterium known as m.bovis, which will continue to infect any mammal unfortunate enough to fall over it.

BCG efficacy - does it work?

We have so far concentrated on ploughing through the reams of paper and annexes associated with the 800 badger project, the results of which we explored below. But VLA / FERA have had several goes at vaccinating badgers with BCG, and then chopping them up to see the result.
With nothing better to do on a snowy Sunday afternoon, we trawled a couple of recent documents, where VLA / FERA checked their results with recognised efficacy protocol of a measured challenge and a postmortem of their results.

Briefly, 23 badgers were captured in Suffolk, where cattle sentinels are testing clear, and pre screened them to check they were clear of TB at the time of vaccination.

They were then allocated into three groups. VES1 which received a normal (low) dose of BCG vaccine, VES2 which received a higher dose (10 x higher) and a Control. Interestingly, the measured dose of m.bovis was inconsistent, with low dose vaccinates (VES1) receiving a higher dose of bacteria than the VES2 group.(Table 1, p.5 in the first link)

Of the these 23 animals, 5 were controls with exposure to m.bovis but no BCG, 8 had a low dose vaccine and 9 a high dose. All had m.bovis introduced by measured dose. All were euthanized 29 weeks after vaccination, and 12 weeks after experimental introduction of m.bovis.

The postmortems showed all badgers to have visible lesions in several parts, including lungs, lymph nodes etc. varying in severity. and m.bovis of the spoligotype introduced experimentally (VLA 9 - 8 5 5 5 *3 3 3 ) was recovered from all 23 animals in the trial.

In one test used (Dunns) a statistically significant reduction was found in the high dose animals compared to control. But using another test (Tukey's) all tests revealed 'no statistical significance' between the groups.

Below a couple of quotes from the postmortem reports:

Distribution of infection.
As there was some discordance between culture positive and histologically positive tissues, to describe the dissemination of infection an affected site was defined as either culture positive or histologically positive or both.
The median number of tissues affected by M. bovis was nine in the non-vaccinated group, five in the HD BCG group and eight in the LD BCG group. These differences were not significant.

However, the authors conclude that there was a reduction in excretion of bacteria of 13 per cent (compared with the control animals ) in the low dose VES1 group, twelve weeks after challenge. And a higher reduction of 67 per cent in the VES2 high dose BCG group - with the exception of one animal ( D313) , who was badly affected with tuberculosis and whose protective vaccine, even at high dose, had failed completely. It is not clear from the paper whether this animal was included in the results - or not.

After ploughing through all this, it appears that at twelve weeks after challenge and twenty nine weeks after vaccination, using a dose of BCG ten times 'normal' may reduce bacteria shed, although there is still a measurable quantity. All the vaccinated badgers had lesions and all were shedding bacteria to some degree.

Twenty nine weeks is just over six months, and no animals were kept longer than the three months post vaccination to see if their ability to shed m.bovis remained low, after high dose BCG or increased parallel with their level of disease progression.

More postmortem reports:

Summary of gross and histopathological findings in Vaccine Efficacy Studies VES1 and VES2
Macroscopic visible lesions were observed in the lungs, particularly in the right middle (inoculation point) and other lung lobes. Lesions were typically multifocal to coalescent tuberculous granulomas, variable in size and were found within the lung parenchyma and often protruding to the visceral pleura (Figure A8.1). Multifocal to coalescent granulomas were also frequently observed within the mediastinum The right bronchial lymph node was the most affected (Figure A8.3), but other lymph nodes within the thoracic cavity (posterior mediastinal and left bronchial) showed also visible lesions. The typical observed gross lesion was a multifocal to coalescent granulomatous lymphadenitis, affecting occasionally more than half of the lymph node section.
TB-like lesions were observed in spleen, liver and extrathoracic lymph nodes, and most of them were confirmed caused by M. bovis by culture.

The rest of this pathological description and illustrations can be found on p71 of the second paper to which we linked, but the authors say:

Briefly, the main differences were a higher severity of gross and histopathological lesions in the “most severely diseased” lung lobe and the draining lymph nodes (right bronchial and posterior mediastinal) in the control badgers compared with the vaccinated badgers with the High Dose BCG. In addition, the higher average score of the granulomatous lesions and the presence of more collagen in the non-vaccinated control group, together with a higher number of AFBs, are indicative of more severe/advanced lesions in this group in comparison with the High BCG dose.

Within the Low BCG vaccinated animals, many individual differences have been found, showing features similar to those of the non-vaccinated control group, and on the other hand, some animals showed similar results to those of the High BCG dose.,

In the real world, at twelve months post the first jab, the animal would need another booster jab. And by then it may be clinically infected. All the badgers in this trial, whether vaccinated at high rate BCG or low, had lesions and all were shedding m.bovis Thus the success rate of BCG, in an environment now so contaminated (remember the background level of the 800 captured badgers in the posting below? 43 per cent positive to at least one of the pre screening tests?) may be over estimated.

... and more

In our posting below we explored in a little more detail, Defra's headline grabbing claim:

A key finding of the field study, conducted over four years in a naturally infected population of more than 800 wild badgers in Gloucestershire, was that vaccination resulted in a 74 per cent reduction in the proportion of wild badgers testing positive to the antibody blood test for TB in badgers.

Further explanations have been passed to us which confirm that of the 844 badgers trapped in this project, after the prescreening with three different tests, just 262 were negative to at least one test. We questioned that background level of TB in the posting below, but now we have the words of the author himself which confirm:

"We worked in a high density population of naturally infected badgers, in what was the largest clinical trial in wildlife of its kind. Studies of vaccination are always focused on evaluating the prevention of new incident cases, so our analysis is based on 262 animals in 64 social groups that were test negative when they "entered" the study and which we caught a second time so that we could see how the vaccine had affected them. However, the total population size we report of 844 badgers is important, since it correctly includes all the animals that were already infected and gives an indication of the typical force of infection present in badgers in a TB problem area."

It most certainly does. 69 per cent of the badgers captured presented a result which would have guaranteed the death of a similarly tested bovine, and gives an indication why 34.9 per cent of herds in Glos had TB breakdowns in 2009. And 844 trapped over 55 sqkm gives a captured population density of 15.3 badgers per sq km. which is higher on both counts than the Consultation assumptions and which the Defra press release omitted to mention. But we digress...

In the posting, we quoted work done by Chambers et al, on the sensitivity (ability to detect disease) of the Statpak rapid blood assay. This work was published in 2008, and involved the postmorteming of almost 1500 badgers to more accurately validate this diagnostic test.

The Statpak achieved a very variable sensitivity ranging from 33 - 78 percent, the latter in grossly infected, super excreter badgers. Its average was a published 49.2 per cent only, which we compared with the much rubbished Brock test. If you remember, this is one Prof Bourne described this as 'poorer than hoped' as it 'only' detected about 40 per cent of infected badgers.
And Statpak starts life at 33 per cent? And averages 49 per cent? Do the maths.

But we are now even more puzzled by the Defra headline and inevitable media fest on this '74 per cent reduction' in the same breath as 'tuberculosis' and '800 badgers'.

The lead author on the Statpak validation we quoted in the paper below as 'Chambers et al., 2008, and is none other than Dr. Mark A.Chambers, who was lead author on the Vaccine project running at the same time. As were a number of the et als.

So let's get this right.
* While validating the Statpak blood test at an extremely low sensitivity in 2008, in the paper just published, the same authors attempt to morph their project to assess whether BCG is safe for badgers, into an efficacy test of BCG - even though they say it should not be taken as such?
* From an original trapping of 844 badgers, they then shake out the positives (582) leaving 262 testing negative of which around 160 are vaccinated. (60 percent of the 262, leaving 40 percent as controls ?) So it was not 844 trapped badgers which formed part of this 'efficacy' bit, (that should not be counted as efficacy) but 160?
* Having turned the badgers loose after their annual vaccination, the authors have no knowledge of what (or even if) any challenge from m.bovis has been faced. But they assess the results of the BCG vaccination on approximately 160 naive candidates, with gammaIFN (sensitivity 80.9 percent) and achieve a benefit of 19% to this unknown challenge ?
* Similarly with Statpak, which their own validation procedures give only a 49 percent sensitivity to, and they achieve 74 per cent benefit, again on an unknown, unquantified challenge ?

Having been questioned as more of this comes to light, the authors are keen to stress that :

"It's important to realise that the 74% (73.8%) figure represents a reduction in incidence of positive antibody tests brought about by vaccination and should not be equated to a vaccine efficacy of 74% "

And they do say that in the paper. But it is a pity Defra (or whoever wrote the press release) didn't realise that. Or the media or anyone else similarly taken in mislead by the headlines which followed the press release.

Dr. Chambers is also keen to stress that Statpak is very sensitive when faced with grossly infected badgers. Sure it is, but in this project the badgers were not post mortemed. So was it the 33 percent end of Stakpak's very variable sensitivity which it was flagging up? Or the 'more sensitive' 78 per cent? They don't know because they didn't look.

And then the inevitable wriggle. That annexes may be overlooked,(nope, read those too) and possibly not immediately explicit to 'lay-persons'. ( A wild assumption there.) And the fact that the main paper was prepared for submission to a regulatory authority as a 'health and welfare' issue for badgers. But presumably not submission to the VMD as an indication of efficacy, as the previous Statpak validation paper would have already covered that bit?
Nothing like telling you, you're stooopid is there? And of course cannot be expected to understand papers of this ilk.

And then the nitty gritty (that's not a very 'scientific' term, but hey, we'll live with it):

"...the decision was only taken subsequently by Defra to make the data widely available as part of the public consultation."

Well, well well. Impeccable timing with a startling, if misleading headline. So it was Defra who decided to publish. So that's all right then. And the media fest, headline grabbing, 800 badgers, 74 per cent reduction in TB? Which most of Defra's 'lay readership' swallowed hook, line and sinker? Is that all right too ?

Of course it is. And not a hair of a single badger will be harmed. Even the hairs on the heads of the 43% blood assay positive ones, roaming the Gloucestershire countryside and still available for more research.

Things are never what they seem.

(We have updated the headcount of blood assay positive rejects to this research, after contact from the authors. They offer around '43 per cent' of the 844, a figure which they describe as a 'typical force of infection present in badgers in problem areas'. The remaining 26 per cent comprised badgers which were only trapped once and those which expired during the research.)