Short memories

Professor, Lord, Sir John Krebbs has popped up again. He of the original RBCT protocol in the mid 1990s. He is reported as saying that a cull of badgers'would not work' in this weeks' Farmers Guardian.

The scientist who instigated the 10-year Randomised Badger Culling Trials (RBCT) has insisted that a badger cull would not be an effective way of controlling bovine TB (bTB). Professor Lord John Krebs said the results was commenting on the publication of a Defra report suggesting that, based on the findings of the trial, culling badgers would reduce bTB incidence in cattle by approximately 12-16 per cent over a nine year period.

“You cull intensively for at least four years, you will have a net benefit of reducing TB in cattle of 12 per cent to 16per cent. So you leave 85 per cent of the problem still there, having gone to a huge amount of trouble to kill a huge number of badgers. It doesn’t seem to be an effective way of controlling the disease.”

He's right of course, if the result of a cull was 16 percent or any other number dreamed up by a mathematical modeller. But that is not what the man said in his observations or report which instigated the RBCT two decades ago.

We read this report cover to cover at the time and some snippets arein this posting where Krebbs observes, quite correctly, that:

7.8.3 The gassing and clean ring strategies, in effect, eliminated or severely reduced badger populations from an area and appear to have had the effect of reducing or eliminating TB in local cattle populations. The effect lasted for many years after the cessation of culling, but eventually TB returned

That's 'eventually' as in more than a decade in most cases, by the way.

Krebbs then (in his original paperwork)went on to describe a list of dos and don'ts with regard to any cull of badgers. A sensible list which Bourne and the ISG turned completely on its head when the trial began. In 2007, Bourne gave the following reasons for this in oral evidence to the EFRA committee.

What followed was an indignant Krebbs, spitting feathers at how his trial had been tweaked for political gain, which was entertaining for a short while. But he soon saw the future prospects light, and engaged in a group hug with the ISG in general and Professor John Bourne in particular. As our co-editor wryly remarked in a joint posting at the time, Krebbs was following the cash. To the FSA, to Climate Change committees and any other lucrative rewards appointments likely to be thrown his way.

So where did that '9 -16 percent' benefit originate? What was the data input responsible? The RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial, carried out by Bourne and the ISG, as later management of it showed, had an ongoing beneficial result according to Christl Donnelley's electronic abacus, of around 32 percent, and that extending beyond the cull areas, negating the wholly predictable 'perturbation' halo achieved earlier by the trial.
So 32 per cent (at least) is recorded data for culling badgers, very occasionally, for just 8 nights using cage traps, over a number of years.
At the other end of the spectrum, is Thornbury and the earlier Clean Ring clearances, where gassing took place for a few weeks. Months in the case of Thornbury (not years), and gave a 100 percent benefit to cattle herds for more than a decade.

The averaging of that actual data (not guesses, estimates or simple assumptions) and discounting the different operating procedures, would give a thumb nail benefit of 65 - 70 percent ?

But then we have no 'agenda' to follow and no 'expectations' to look forward to. Just more testing and more dead cattle.

Update - the laughing badger.

We are grateful to Ken Wignall for permission to use this cartoon, originally published in Farmers Guardian last week.


It should be viewed in conjunction with this posting where we listed some of the hoops farmers will be expected to jump through in order to control TB in wildlife.


The cartoon strapline, where coughing badgers splutter as they read about a proposed 'Badger cull' that they have "nothing to worry about, but our great, great grandchildren might have to watch out" hits the nail squarely on the head.

They (and Defra) are laughing at us all.

Mischief

This posting is an extension of the one below, in which we expressed our intense depression with the polarised comments following hyped up media headline grabs.

Many of these comments, after having the usual dig at cattle farmers, referred to the vaccination of badgers as an alternative to a hotspot cull.

If you remember, a tranche of vaccination papers were released in early November, with the ever predictable BBC offering the headline;

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

This is absolutely NOT what the papers showed, and no one from Defra stood tall enough to put the record straight immediately or publicly.

We added our take on the whole sorry debacle in this posting, after sight of an internal Defra memo in which they instructed;

"The data should not be used to make this claim."

Last week, Jim Paice MP, Minister of State for his Department of Evasion, Fables and Risible Arrogance, is reported as describing the press releases thus:

"... a research paper published by Defra suggesting a 74 per cent reduction in TB levels in badgers that had been vaccinated had been ‘seriously misreported and misunderstood’ and had ‘not helped’ the debate. "

This November 2010 release, as we said before, impeccably timed, has done a huge amount of damage - but that was intended. We have no illusions about the timing of these papers in the middle of a consultation on whether to cull badgers infected with TB, or the subsequent BBC press release, headlined round the world (even if it is now said to be "seriously misreported and misunderstood")
At the time it was eagerly supported with quotes from Cheeseman and MacDonald and swallowed hook, line and sinker by a gullible public and the Badger Trust.

The latest 'real' efficacy trail for BCG vaccination of badgers, even with a dose ten times normal, was done and published in 2010. We reported its findings here. And virologist Dr. Ruth Watkins explains the technical bits of BCG in an email to warmwell this week.

All the rest is pure mischief.

Don't get too excited.

Headlines this week indicate a decision on badger culling may be in the wind, ahead of parliament packing its collective bucket and spade for the long summer recess.

Farmers Guardian had the story as does the Independent. The
Mail On-line echos the Independents 'farmers in shooting free-for-all' report.

Nothing could be further from the truth.
If the policy is given the green light, culling will not start until next May or June, as there would still be a number of details to be resolved, reports Alistair Driver in Farmers Guardian. And that's ignoring any time out for a celebrity funded Judicial Review.

Following the announcement, there is expected to be a consultation on the proposed licence conditions the groups of farmers will need to abide by. It will then take time for Natural England to process any applications and for the groups of farmers to prepare for the cull. There is also the prospect of a legal challenge.

So, a consultation on a consultation ? With a dose of Natural England added to the mix? Seen as a really urgent problem then.

Culling is likely to be introduced in a phased approach, with just one or two areas sanctioned initially.

Now at blogger headquarters, we don't 'do' kilometres but 150 of 'em squared, sounds huge. It is not. In fact eighteen of these areas would fit comfortably into Cornwall and still leave room for buckets and spades, urban areas and roads.. So 'one or two areas' as a pilot, leaves an area from north Staffs, Derbyshire, Cheshire, down through Leics., Glos., Hereford and Worcs., Somerset, Devon and Wiltshire to quietly cook ? And bubbling away with big increases in incidence are counties just over Defra's ever moving Maginot line like Dorset.

But it is the comments on these stories which are really depressing. A total divide and a complete lack of knowledge or appreciation about the dangers of tuberculosis - not to cattle, but to any mammal including and especially pets and companion animals, up close and personal with their owners.

Defra do produce a few stats on these hidden casualties, and after many searching questions, we did this posting last year, which explains some of the disparities, but more have come to light since.

The link to Defra's other species stats is here. Our explanations gleaned from patiently tabled questions is below.

Table 1 is cultures only - as the notes explain. But as cattle owners may know (but the alpaca people did not) only one sample is taken. The outbreak may involve several animals - up to 108 dead is the biggest single alpaca herd loss of which we've heard - but just a single sample will be logged on Table 1. And that may not be the first death.

Table 2 is headed 'animals examined'. Now that is really woolly. Examined? All of them? And? Do they then end up in Table 1 when cultures are cooked? Or are they the negatives? They are neither and they are both. Table 2 figures are carcasses examined, which are positive for TB by postmortem at either a VI centre or by an LVI vet and which need a culture sample taken to confirm tuberculosis, and the spoligotype responsible. But if TB has already been confirmed by culture, we have a sneaking feeling that this table is not counting them.
Missing completely are deaths, voluntary euthanasia and skin or blood test failures subsequently slaughtered. Either straight to the knacker yard, or buried, they have disappeared.

In this way 2010 figures of 43 alpaca samples in Table 1, is actually a single initial sample from each breakdown. The 151 in Table 2 were examined of which 43 were confirmed as having bTB at the very beginning of a suspected outbreak. But just 30 members of the alpaca TB support group report over 400 of their animals dead, when further un-cultured deaths or skin test and gamma failures are added in.
As far as we can see, one answer to the huge divide still so evident in these depressing comments, is to remove the public's long distance comfort blanket of someone else's 'cattle' (badly farmed, dirty conditions and moved illegally of course) and substitute ' MY cat', my dog or 'MY alpaca'.

Illustrated with pics like the lungs of this one, totally destroyed by tuberculosis, he was once 'somebody's' pet.

Only then will tuberculosis in a wildlife reservoir, become their problem as much as it is for any cattle farmer.

Wales cuts the tow rope

For some time now we have assumed that England's proposed badger culls would piggy back the Judicial Review piloted by the Welsh Assembly Government(WAG). Particularly as the revised operating procedures for Wales included free shooting and ring vaccination, which was Defra's preferred Option 6 in the English consultation.

But this week, the new Welsh Assembly Government decided to put on hold the current plans, and re examine 'the science' behind them. We will resist the opportunity to comment on that piece of spin. This time.

So where does that leave England? Defra minister Jim Paice MP, is treading water just as fast as he can paddle, with mentions of higher up 'decision makers' and 'public opinion' coming thick and fast. The minister's commitment may be undiminished but his boss, having had her chain saw confiscated, is unlikely to be seen waving a dead badger around any time soon.
And his ultimate boss, the Boy King, has an irritating habit of 'U' turns at the slightest hint of public dissent.

We also hear from Jan Rowe, a member of the T-BEG , that a holistic approach will be considered. Mr Rowe said he was ‘still pretty confident’ Ministers will give the go ahead to the cull.

“But I think we will be expected to do quite a lot, including some quid pro quo tightening of cattle measures, and the rules will be very tight,” he said.

That latin expression quid pro quo (or something given up for something in exchange) strikes a chord in our memories, (and sends a shiver of apprehension down our collective spines) if not in T-BEG's. The Welsh farmers have already had the screws tightened with this 'holistic' approach. And extra cattle measures have now left them high and very dry. And in December 2005, we reported a similar shafting negotiation on behalf of English farmers, as industry representatives delivered preMT and tabular valuation, while Defra delivered - precisely nothing.

So what now for England, as the WAG cull and subsequent court case looks set to stall? It is our gut feeling that Defra will flunk it. As they and their predecessors have done so many times before. Thus the increasing environmental contamination will affect even more pets and companion mammals than it is doing now.
And in doing so, it will bring tuberculosis straight to the general public's hearthrug.

'Boxster' clear on first skin test

Champion bull Hallmark Boxster, owned by the Jackson family in Yorkshire and condemned on gammaIFN earlier this year, then reprieved by a High Court judge, has passed his first skin test, the Yorkshire Post reports today.

A further blood sample was taken at the time of the jab, but the paper reports:

DEFRA said the sample had clotted, so it could not be properly analysed.

We couldn't possibly comment on that little gem. After putting the bull and his owners through sheer hell this last year, when all they asked for was the correct operating procedure for Defra's TB tests, one would have assumed that the sample from Boxster would have been airlifted to the bloody lab in cool cotton wool. But we digress. The report continues:

They want to come back and take yet another. But the Jacksons argue they might get a false positive arising from the skin test procedure. They say the Department should wait until Boxster is due for his second skin test, 60 days from the first.

Our readers will be aware that the intradermal skin test is the primary test for the EU, recognised by the OIE and used worldwide. GammaIFN is an ancillary and secondary test. And should Defra manage to extract yet another tail full from this animal, and even get to a laboratory in reasonable condition, he will still have to clear two skin tests to be declared out of restriction.

Background to this farce story is here and here.

"My commitment is undiminished"

.. so said Defra Minister Jim Paice today (June 7th) in parliament.
That is his commitment to dealing with bTB which he described at the end of the debate, thus:

Finally, I come to the issue of tuberculosis. I am grateful for the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon about my personal commitment to the matter, which is completely and utterly undiminished. However, as he has said, we must get things right. A number of his presumptions about why we have not yet been able to make any final decision were accurate. We launched our consultation in September, and it concluded before Christmas. As I have said repeatedly in public, that consultation threw up some serious issues that must be dealt with because, as he rightly presumes, we would almost inevitably be faced with judicial review if we were to decide to go ahead with the badger cull. Several of those issues have taken some tackling. We are working with our own lawyers, and we have retained QCs to advise us. As he will know from his own eminent career, they have raised all sorts of issues to which we must have answers in the courtroom if the situation arises.

.

This sounds very much like an example of MPs being vociferous when in opposition, but treading water now they have the opportunity for some solid decision making. And that decision being the subject of a departmental musical chairs to determine ultimate responsibility with a disturbingly unquantified 'wider package of measures' thrown in to placate any wobblers.

Update. Link above mended. Apologies.

New link here which includes a piece on the BBC's "shall we let farmers murder / exterminate control badgers" questionnaire. The piece also includes an optimistic look at vaccination.
Perhaps if Defra's 'Other species' TB stats were more up to date and accurate, and perhaps if the public answering such questions were aware of the risk to them and theirs, their answers may have been somewhat different.


PR is vital, and with not a little assistance from the spinning axis of the BBC, FERA and Defra, farmers are losing that battle. The public are increasingly divorced from reality, assuming that bTB is limited to badgers or cattle - and probably just cattle. Meanwhile TB overspill is costing the lives of hundreds of their pets and companion animals, as we discussed here.

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.