Constructive ignorance?

We have spoken many times about overspill of bTB into other species, particularly alpacas. And we have spoken to Defra about this overspill too. Not with any great degree of success it has to be said - but hey, on this blog, we're nothing if not persistent, bloody minded ? tenacious.

We are aware of the cost and regulatory implications of flagging up bTB in group mammals other than bovines, but as cattle owners, we are equally aware of the problems which may occur for our animals (or clean wildlife), with onward transmission from such animals bouncing unchecked around the country, coughing up or excreting TB bacteria.
We face enough of that from translocated badgers.

From the alpaca TB support group we have data which just a handful of members have provided of their losses over the last couple of years. It is an eye watering over 422 animals. While another small group of alpaca owners, not members of this group, have lost a shed load more, with 28 going into Defra's mincer from just two breeders.

In July last year, hidden within a TB paper issued by Defra was the following snippet:

" We will be improving the current statistics collected for each non-bovine species to provide monthly statistics for the numbers of herds or flocks infected; number of animals’ skin or blood tested; number of TB test reactors and cases removed"

What Defra did not say of course, was when they would clarify these figures. And last week, we were alerted to a PQ answered by Defra minister, Jim Paice on just this subject.

Dan Rogerson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many mammals other than cattle were identified with or slaughtered for bovine tuberculosis as a result of (a) microbial culture sample, (b) reports from local veterinary practitioners, (c) gross pathology examinations by veterinary investigation centres, (d) disclosing diagnostic tests including intradermal skin or blood assays and (e) reports from Meat Hygiene Service examinations at abattoirs in (i) 2006, (ii) 2007, (iii) 2008, (iv) 2009 and (v) 2010. [89799]

Mr Paice: The risk to non-bovine species from TB is assessed as generally low and the surveillance system is therefore proportionate to these risks. This means figures are not collected or broken down by the specific categories the hon. Member has requested. Moreover, these scenarios are not mutually exclusive for a particular case and it would be difficult to allocate each case to one of these scenarios. In addition, TB in non-bovine species is not considered to have been “identified” until positive culture results are confirmed.

Figures from 1997 on the annual number of total samples from non-bovine animals that are (a) processed by the AVHLA laboratories and (b) found positive for M. bovis infection, are broken down by species and are available on DEFRA's website at:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/defra-stats-foodfarm-landuselivestock-tb-other-otherspecies-111124.xls

(These figures do not include the number of animals slaughtered from a herd where TB has been confirmed when M. bovis is not cultured from that animal.)

So, back we are directed to these damn statistics which only count the primary, single sample which a) confirms bTB and b) identifies the spoligotype. No skin or blood test failures and subsequent slaughterings, no deaths with TB confirmed by pm, and no knacker collections. As we said in our posting of 2010, all these have disappeared.


Defra seem to have quite a problem lining all their ducks in a row on this. They simply cannot count. This alpaca was not a primary sample death, so he too 'disappeared' - even with open TB lesions right up his trachea to his throat.


We aired the problem again in this posting as well. But the boss is more familiar with these duplicitous Ministerial shenanigans than perhaps we are. And while we would assume that these figures for alpaca (and other ) deaths are located 'somewhere', regardless of the minister's convoluted answer, he calls it deliberate and constructive ignorance.

SAM says 2 + 2 = 3 (or is it 5?)

Everyone, from the Treasury's bean-counters downwards to your lowly bloggers, watch Defra's monthly TB statistics for signs of change. Over the past decade we have watched the inevitable and predictable rise in slaughtered cattle, as bTB has spread, unchallenged, through an increasing badger population. Until now.

But as well as delaying reactor removal , churning out - or not - paperwork, Defra's new toy, a computer system known as SAM, appears to have trouble adding up.

The monthly tally of tested slaughtered cattle, herds under restriction and confirmed outbreaks of (cattle) bTB can be viewed on Defra's website on this link. But the stats appear stuck at August 2011, with the following information note:

As previously announced, the TB in cattle statistics for September 2011 onwards are being produced from AHVLA’s new IT system. Unfortunately we are not yet in a position to publish these statistics as there are still some issues to check and resolve. Defra statisticians and AHVLA are working together to resolve these issues and to minimise any delay. As soon as this work has been completed we will publish statistics for September 2011 onwards.

Good old SAM.

Cull areas announced

Today the North Devon edition of the Western Morning News announced the preferred sites of the two pilot badger culls. From the report...:

One of the pilot areas will be on Exmoor and the other around Tewkesbury in Gloucestershire, according to industry sources.

But there will not be a pilot cull in Devon – a major bovine TB hotspot county and widely expected to be the location of one of the two – because it was difficult to get a sufficient number of farmers to sign up in the individual areas.

An area of North Devon, however, is one of two reserve areas for a trial, if either Exmoor or Tewkesbury drop out.

In another part of this report, the privacy and security part of this project is again aired:

Natural England, the Government agency that will be handling the culls, will hold local consultations about the cull in the areas before they go ahead – so there is scant chance that the details about where and when will be a secret.

Now in his speech at the Oxford Conference which we touched on in this posting, Defra minister Jim Paice indicated that such actions were 'required by law'. By which law, or under what statute he did not explain, but cetainly when the Minstry's State Veterinary Service held the license, issued under the same part of the same Act, no such advance warning was given. In fact quite the opposite.

But then you can't believe everything you read in the press - this same article in WMN gives the cull area size as 30 sq km which could be a misunderstanding, a misprint or just plain mischief.

The pennies start to drop.

As 2012 dawns, farmers and their representatives begin to grapple with the nitty gritty of the 'cull plan' concocted on their behalf by Natural England.
This is the operating protocol to which we referred in the previous posting as :

the most complicated, divisive strategy imaginable ...

... but one for which farmers must bear the undefined cost and clearly defined publicity. It appears from the press this week, that questions which we asked at the time of NE's publication are now surfacing.
A bit late, but there are a lot of pages.

Farmers Guardian published a long piece on the 3rd January, with the strap line 'Badger cull ball now firmly in the farmers' court'. Or put another way, 'This is your badger cull, this is how it's going to operate, now get on with it - if you can. The article defines the key concerns of farmers, which are and always have been - the timing, the cost and their security.

Timing looks as if the two pilots will be late autumn this year (post Olympic fervour) so another year bites the dust, as do several thousand more cattle.

Costs we have explored several times. Jim Paice is sticking with his £1.4 million + 25% contingency fund up front for each 150 sq km patch. That equates to £920 per badger. But the NFU have done their own fag-packet calculations and arrived at around £20. Until that gap closes, then we agree with Anthony Gibson's comments (made before he was hoovered back into the NFU fold) and aired in the posting below.

Unless these proposals are radically altered in the consultation process – particularly in terms of reducing the financial and other risks to participants – I find it hard to envisage a badger-culling licence ever being issued.

Quite so. But then licenses were never meant to be issued under these proposals and the costs relate to the operating protocol set out by NE and to which the 'industry' apparently agreed.

The security question is vital with the farming industry now at complete loggerheads with NE's proposals. FG reports that as far as the farming organisations go:

The names of farmers, landowners and contractors involved in the culling areas will not be made public. Neither will the exact timing of the culling operations.

Natural England’s guidance, however, states it should ‘give the public an opportunity to comment on the licence applications’. This has become a key area of debate between the licensing agency and industry, which is intent on preserving the anonymity of those involved .

And that is the problem. In their proposals, NE even go so far as to describe a '28 day consultation period with maps posted on parish notice boards'. That is what farmers are being asked to sign up to. And this was hammered home by Jim Paice at the Oxford Farming Conference this week.
Mr. Paice reminded delegates that:

Natural England is required by law in each area to consult the public. We are in discussion with them about how precise the boundaries on those maps need to be,” he said.
“But I have to say as a countryman myself that once these trials are underway, the grapevines will work and I don’t think it will be possible to keep it secret.
“I am afraid farmers will have to take that into consideration when they decide whether to sign up. I don’t think there is anything more we can do in reality,” he told journalists, adding that he hopes this does not deter farmers from signing up.

If nothing else about this half cocked load of bureaucracy, that one paragraph is enough reason to hand control of a serious communicable zoonosis back to Animal Health, where it belongs. That organisation (or its predecessor, the State Veterinary Service) always held a general license and applied it under Section 10 of the Protection of Badgers Act when and if it was deemed necessary. Control of TB has no place in NE's portfolio. And it's no use at this late stage, the great and the good throwing a hissy fit when at last they are reading the small print of that which they've already agreed in principle. Or thinking they can change it.

This is bureaucracy gone mad, said NBA TB committee chairman Bill Harper. “Our concern is the maps used in the consultation will be too precise. We want them to be fairly general.”

and the NFU's John Royle added that:

the NFU was still trying to persuade the agency ‘not to describe the areas involved exactly’.

How exactly you do not describe areas, which by the terms of the NE license have to be displayed for a 28 day public consultation ? But as Jim Paice said at the Oxford Conference:

“I am afraid farmers will have to take that into consideration when they decide whether to sign up. I don’t think there is anything more we can do in reality,” he told journalists, adding that he hopes this does not deter farmers from signing up.

Really? You could have fooled us.

Quotes of the year

As 2011 draws to a close, several people have had their say about badgers, TB the proposed cull and much more. Below are a few snippets.

From Jeremy Clarkson in the The Sun [sorry, no online link] a comment on the cost of Jim Paice's proposed cull, using a protocol described by Natural England. While he admits it is 'safer' not to get bogged down on rights or wrongs of culling badgers, Mr. Clarkson explains that he doesn't understand the numbers being bandied about...

" It's been suggested that the cost of culling 100,000 badgers over the next eight years will be £92m. That works out at £920 per badger. I'm sorry but what are they going to use? Golden bullet? Hellfire missiles? Apache gunships? That's the trouble with modern government. It trots out these big numbers without ever pausing for rational thought".

You get to that figure quite easily on the 150 sq km blocks as well Mr. Clarkson. Divide Mr. Paice's £1.38m per patch by Natural England's maximum number of badgers culled of 1500 - and bingo. That £920 pops up again. But if only 1000 (NE's lower figure) are culled, the per head cost rises to £1,380. The NFU are quoting a few £ per head at meetings to drum up support - but the distance between the two is enormous and deserves further exploration.

Still on the subject of cost, in The Daily Wail last Saturday was a comment on the cost of moving a badger sett. It was pointed out that the animal in question could dig another home quite quickly and the quoted figure of £180,000 would fund the creature a council flat. Quite so.

When the proposals outlined by Natural England were published in August, we drew your attention to the main document and its many annexes in this post. Later that week, former SW regional director of the NFU, Anthony Gibson published his overview of the proposals in the Western Morning News. With a strapline "Badger cull rules must change to be workable," Mr. Gibson commented :

It is hard to say whether it is the cost of what is proposed, or the regulatory burden which it will involve, which evokes the greater degree of concern. But if you put one together with the other, it will be a very brave and very determined group of farmers which signs a "TB Management Agreement" with Natural England.

The bureaucracy associated with such agreements will be formidable, if anything like the measures proposed in the consultation are finally agreed. I don't have the space to go into any great detail, but you will find it all at www.defra.gov.uk/consult/2011/07/19/bovine-tb/ which should be required reading – including the annexes – for anyone planning to get involved.

In this piece, Anthony went on to say that:

Unless these proposals are radically altered in the consultation process – particularly in terms of reducing the financial and other risks to participants – I find it hard to envisage a badger-culling licence ever being issued.

and he concluded

The only consolations I can offer are, first, that the principle of a badger cull has been conceded, and that could be crucial to TB control when sanity is restored; and second, that a bad cull could very easily be worse in all sorts of ways than no cull at all.

So have the costs been reduced? Bureaucracy loosened or protocol simplified? We don't think so, but others are now starting to question whether this is yet another 'designed to fail' exercise.

In Farmers Guardian last week, Jim Paice explained why a cull was necessary.

“The science is not simple. But scientists agree that, if culling is conducted in line with the strict criteria identified through the randomised badger culling trial, we can expect it to reduce TB in cattle over a 150 sq km area, plus a 2 km surrounding ring, by an average of 16% over nine years, relative to a similar unculled area. That was based on trapping and shooting. Our judgement is that farmers can be trusted to deliver a similar result by controlled shooting

Our judgement is that Animal Health have abandoned their responsibility on this issue, preferring to dumb down overspill, test cattle to distraction yet still hang on to the coat tails of the worst bit of 'science' we have had the misfortune to be caught up in.

Predictably the Badger Trust, RSPCA and assorted followers are frothing at the mouth, with the Humane Society launching a broadside at the Bern convention on the following grounds :

The Government claims a badger slaughter will prevent livestock damage by reducing the spread of bTB. However, the proportion of cases of bTB in cattle attributable to badgers is very small and the Government itself admits that the slaughter is likely only to achieve a 12-16 per cent reduction in bovine TB cases in cattle after 9 years.
The Government has given insufficient consideration to alternative non-lethal solutions including cattle movement/testing controls and the development of vaccines for badgers and cattle. The Convention should not allow a slaughter of badgers in preference to alternative options such as stricter cattle movement controls, which have a potentially greater chance of reducing the spread of bTB, solely because it is more convenient for farmers.

Amazing how they talk of a 'massacre' of tuberculous badgers, but imply 'damage' to cattle and 'inconvenience' to farmers? Can't really get our collective heads around that one.

We do however see a distinct stumbling block in that mathematically modelled 12 - 16 per cent alleged benefit. It is farcical and Defra know it. Thornbury achieved 100 percent and even Professor Krebbs when he formulated his original protocol for the RBCT (before it became politicised ) had this to say about past culling strategies and their results : (p126)

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.

7.8.4 The interim strategy, introduced following the Dunnet report, is not likely to be effective in reducing badger-related incidence of TB in cattle for the following reasons:

i) The policy involves removing badgers from a limited area (the reactor land or the entire farm suffering the herd breakdown if the former cannot be identified) ; but social groups of badgers may occupy several setts covering more than one farm.

(ii) Partial removal of groups could exacerbate the spread of TB by peturbation of the social structure and increased movement of badgers.

(iii) There is no attempt to prevent recolonisation by badgers of potentially infected setts; even if infectivety in the setts is not a problem, immigrant badgers may bring new infection.

In addition, the current operation of the interim strategy involves a delay (27 weeks in 1995) to the start of the removal. The average period from the herd breakdown to the completion of the removal was 41 weeks in 1995.

7.8.5 In common with the clean ring strategy and the live test trial, the effectiveness of the interim strategy is further undermined by the failure to remove lactating sows which may also be infected. We recognise that culling lactating sows has a welfare cost in terms of cubs left in setts, but this needs to be balanced against wider animal health and welfare considerations for both cattle and badgers.

All the great and the good who pontificate from a distance on the insidious spread of this disease, and the many who glean employment from it, know what Krebbs knew in 1996 and what his predecessors Professors Dunnet and Zucherman knew.

They knew it then, they know it now and yet they will do nothing to address the situation at all except cook up the most complicated divisive strategy imaginable - and expect farmers to carry the cost.

A Happy New Year.

After the Olympics...

.. our Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is 'minded' to allow two pilot badger culls to go ahead, each lasting 6 weeks, in the autumn of 2012. The Defra statement can be viewed here (pdf) - note section 5 for the cull protocol which participating farmers will have to abide by.

More on the official press release, from Farmers Weekly, Farmers Guardian and the Western Morning News.

We'll revisit this later in the week, as the dust settles around various reactions.

1, 2, 3, 4 ... Brocks.

Still in the spirit of our Happy Brocklemas posting below we see from the Defra website that dear old FERA (Food Food and Environment Research Agency (UK)) have a received an early Christmas present in the form of a new project to keep them in the manner to which they have become accustomed handbags for the next couple of years.

Known as SE 3129, an estimated £870,984 will be spent enabling FERA to count badgers in 1700 x 1 km squares. They explain:

"Obtaining an up-to-date estimate of the current size of the badger population will help inform policy on badgers and will assist the UK in addressing its obligations under the Bern Convention. The last National Badger Survey of Great Britain was completed in 1997 and was a follow-up to the original survey carried out in the mid 1980s. The 1990s survey revealed that badger numbers had increased substantially in the intervening decade."

Although the Defra report appears somewhat reluctant to put a figure on that increase, members of the Mammal Society who carried out that survey revealed an increase in population of 77 percent in the decade to 1997. (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))

The objective of the new study will be:

1. To conduct a repeat field survey of badger setts in approximately 1700 1km squares that were surveyed in the 1980s and 90s
2. To produce estimates of the number of badger social groups in 2011-2013
3. To assess change in the number of social groups since the 1980s and the 1990s, if any
4. To produce estimates of the badger population of England and Wales, and of the UK.
5. To build and make accessible a GIS for the estimation of badger populations at a regional scale

The Project will run from 2011 - 2013 with taxpayers coughing up £870,984 to fund it. Most of us trying to farm cattle, would say there are too many badgers (and thus a paucity of hedgehogs and ground nesting birds) and suggest that unless the badgers are sitting on each others' shoulders, density of the 1700 original 1 km squares may be similar, but their occupants are likely to have spread out a tad ?

And keeping within the spirit of Christmas Brocklemas, we wonder, will this poor old chap be counted ?

Happy Brocklemas

Isn't he a cutey? And now we can reveal that you are able to buy bags of - Badger Food on which to feed him.
Searching amongst the shelves of a local pet superstore on a Saturday morning is not for the faint hearted, but occasionally it turns up something which may be a shock to some - particularly cattle farmers south / south west of Lancashire.
But such goodies would be viewed with delight by others of the Bill Oddie fraternity.


A quick 'google' turned up two brands of badger bait food. One is a formed biscuit of meat concentrate, oils and other stuff which should, say the instructions, be left out at dusk. On this link it was also marked 'out of stock', which is somewhat depressing.
The other one which we found was a coarse peanut based mix
which has secret ingredient, and comes in packs up to 52kg. And that's an awful lot of badger food.

In this instance and as it's Christmas, we won't mention the ethical arguments of encouraging an already top heavy badger population to increase by artificial supplementary feeding, purely for public gratification. And we will ignore the very real danger of badgers encouraged to feed up close and personal, bringing a highly infectious zoonosis into your front garden, and thus directly to your cat, dog or child.

From our parliamentary questions, we are already quite well aware of Defra's attitude to the translocation of badgers, sick, mended or disease status unknown and thus would presume that this intransigence extends to artificial feeding too.

The answers to our Questions confirmed that :

"as native species, there are no specific restrictions under current law regulating where badgers can be released once they have recovered". [ 6th Jan 2004: Col 249W 144446]

Although the use of the old Brock test (which boasts just 47 percent sensitivity) is encouraged and is mandatory if a license is applied for, relocations undertaken by so called 'animal hospitals' have more leeway and our Question revealed that:

" testing guidelines are not mandatory, but are set down in a voluntary code of practise". 31th Jan 2004: col 543W [ 1500609]

And finally on this thorny subject of these 'rescues', answers to our Questions confirmed that :

"this voluntary protocol was not devised or approved by Defra". 6th Feb 2004; Col 1109W [150583]".

So, you may release him anywhere at all. Your place or mine? Nobody really cares. And he now has a purpose built feed to sustain him too. But the result of this crazy over protection of a species in which Defra state "Tuberculosis is endemic" is no less distressing for old Brock himself. It may be called 'conservation' but under no circumstrances can it be deemed 'welfare'.

The badger is a victim of his protector's success.

Happy Brocklemas.

More chaos

.. but don't mention that computer.

Last week, Farmers Weekly reported again on the slow down with data input to Defra's new computer system, and its consequences both to farmers, staff and taxpayers. Warmwell reports :

Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency's system has broken down and vital paperwork approving the movement of cattle has not been sent. Although applications for export health certificates are now being processed and consignments of calves in low TB incidence areas being able to move, calf exports from high TB incidence regions are not being processed. The AHVLA is an executive agency of DEFRA.

As cattle, including TB reactors, stack up farms while a couple of stiff fingers type test charts in, one laborious line at a time, AHVLA explain that they have "drafted extra staff in to input data manually". It would be churlish of us to point out that it may have helped if they had not sacked experienced admin staff to save on pensions, replacing them with untrained agency staff with little knowledge of veterinary terminology and even less interest. It would also have helped if the much vaunted SAM system could be directly accessed by LVI vets, instead of the 'manual input' referred to above. And it would have been really good if the original helpline number for vets using the system had connected with AHVLA, instead of a solicitor's office in Pall Mall.

Earlier reports on SAM from Farmers Weekly and Western Morning News are on these links. And we offer another glimpse at WMN's most excellent Comment which describes the reply from AHVLA to newspaper's point of frantic concerns of farmers snarled up in this unholy mess as :

"....anodyne and jargon-spattered response from the department, which talks about 'new functionality' [ snip] and seeks to paper over cracks rather than come clean about its shortcomings."

Farmers, AHVLA staff and taxpayers deserve better.

Progress? ...

.. or a very un-holy alliance?
Time will tell, but news last week of a joint initiative between the NFU and the Badger Trust was announced.

NFU chief farm policy adviser John Royle and Badger Trust director Simon Boulter have agreed a joint project in which the badgers will be vaccinated on two farms owned by NFU members. In addition, the Badger Trust has identified five other landowners around the UK wishing to vaccinate badgers and is working independently with them as part of the initial trial project.

Vaccination on all seven farms started in October after surveys were carried out to identify active badger setts and licences have been granted by Natural England. The vaccination project will run until the end of November 2011 and resume in May 2012

And then what?
Badgers have been vaccinated on seven farms, and this helps how?
What is the aim here?

Are we looking at NFU saying it's too expensive, cumbersome and won't work and actually we weren't really planning to do it as part of Option 6 of any badger cull?
And conversely, Badger Trust saying no it's not and yes you must?

In Parliamentary questions last week, Jim Paice seems to sticking to his original £1.4 million price tag on each 350 sq km cull area and much of that cost was ring vaccination - however much his own department knows that the PR surrounding last autumn's mishmash of 'scientific' trials on vaccinating wild badgers was a huge con. And the NFU are said to have told its members vaccination is too costly, impractical and they can ignore it.

But we digress.

We are a cynical lot at blogger HQ and do not believe for one moment that the NFU and Badger Trust, holding hands with Defra / FERA and Natural England actually want to break the polemic log jam or stop the beneficial gravy train of bTB. However the members of both the alliance members do want action - but from different directions.

So, who is paying for this project? NFU members? Badger Trust? Defra? or could it be the first 'cost sharing' exercise via the proposed Cost and Responsibility levy?
FERA already know the cost of vaccinating badgers from several previous forays. And most importantly, they knew the TB status of the farm's cattle (if indeed there were any cattle on the land) at the start of the project. How will success or failure be calculated in this short time scale? Or is this merely the practicalities of vaccination which are being considered - again? Are the badgers in question screened for TB ahead of their annual jab (or peanut fest) as they were in previous 'trials'? If you remember this excluded all but 262 of that headline grabbing 844. The remainder showing TB positive to at least one of three tests.

And finally, what chance of any discussion on a selective cull going ahead while this latest prevarication project is in progress, or being digested?

The press release indicates that:

It is hoped that the two programmes, although small in scale, will help to identify whether the injectable vaccination of badgers is practical and cost effective.

... with, as we have pointed out, one organisation possibly trying to prove the opposite of it's partner?

Over years, the NFU and Badger Trust have repeatedly clashed on the relative merits of badger culling and badger vaccination as approaches to controlling bTB in wildlife and cattle. John Royle said:

“We are pleased that the NFU and the Badger Trust have successfully liaised to facilitate this joint project, sharing equipment and resources as necessary, despite having differing views on the degree to which badgers are implicated in the transmission of bovine Tuberculosis.”

Editor's note: As 99 percent of biosecurity advice involves keeping badgers away from cattle, that 'implication' is somewhat outdated we think.

The Government is expected to make a final announcement before Christmas on whether to give the go ahead to two proposed pilot badger culls next year.

And we confidently predict that the NFU's latest stroll down the corridors of power will have a disproportionate effect on its members ability to deal with the source of bTB in their cattle herds.

Update
Farmers Weekly report today that a decision on any pilot culls is likely before Christmas. In the same report,
police officers warn of increased problems with 'activists' should any cull go ahead which may impact on the policing of the 2012 Olympics.

Success v Failure

New Zealand has produced a combined report of its progress in eradicating bTB. The documents report good progress in what they describe as 'an exceptional year':

"It gives me great pleasure to report on what has been an exceptional year for protecting the country from bovine tuberculosis (TB)," said Mr McCook.

The drop in infected herd numbers to around 80 in 2010/11 is the lowest recorded total since the TB control programme was conceived.

We covered their progress last in 2009, in this posting. And Christiane Glossop, in a paper written for the NZ Animal Health Board, also congratulated them on such stunning progress.

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

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

So how are we getting on in GB? The latest figures produced by our Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, DEFRA to July 2011 show a somewhat different trend.
Herds under TB restriction in the seven months to July, are UP and number almost 8 percent of our cattle herds, with 18 per cent of the West region's herds caught up in restructuins.
New herd breakdowns are UP by 5.4 per cent on the figure for 2010.
And cattle slaughtered fed into Defra's mincing machine, are UP by 6.1 percent on last year.

So what are New Zealand doing differently. That was a rhetorical question by the way, but they describe their strategy thus:

Introduction to the revised National Pest Management Strategy
In September 2009, the AHB presented a proposal to Agriculture and Forestry Minister David Carter to amend the National Bovine Tuberculosis (TB) Pest Management Strategy. The strategy amendment was duly approved and the revised strategy came into effect on 1 July 2011. This strategy will guide the TB control programme through to 2026, subject to five yearly reviews.

Over the next 15 years, the strategy aims to achieve the following primary objectives. These include:

The eradication of TB from wild animals over at least 2.5 million hectares of Vector Risk Area (VRA), including two extensive forest areas representing relatively difficult operational terrain from which to eradicate the disease
Continued freedom from infection in wild animals (vectors) in existing Vector Free Areas (VFAs) and areas where eradication is considered to have been achieved
A secondary objective is to maintain the national infected herd period prevalence level (the number of herds with TB during a period of time) below 0.4 per cent during the term of the strategy. The amended strategy gives priority to wildlife TB eradication and allows the AHB to prioritise operations and resource allocation for this purpose.

The TB control programme has made significant gains over the past decade, especially in reducing the number of infected cattle and deer herds. However, TB-infected possums continue to be a source of livestock infection across some 10 million hectares of New Zealand’s TB Vector Risk Area. The revised strategy sets out to address this underlying problem by aiming to eradicate TB from possum populations in selected areas. These areas make up 25 per cent, or 2.5 million hectares, of the total area of New Zealand known to contain infected wild animals. Achieving this objective will also confirm that TB can be eradicated from possums and other wild animals across large forest tracts where possum control is most challenging.

Eradicating TB from the possum population across one quarter of the total area known to be at risk from TB-infected wild animals would also from a basis for extending the eradication approach to further large areas of New Zealand.

The revised strategy will continue to protect the reputation and value of New Zealand’s dairy, beef and deer exports by ensuring infected herd numbers remain below a 0.4 per cent period prevalence. To achieve the objectives of the revised strategy, the AHB will vigorously pursue improvements in the cost-effectiveness of possum control. Herd testing and movement control policies will also be adjusted to reduce the risk of herd-to-herd TB transmission and, over time, reduce the need for herd TB testing in areas of low disease risk.

With a TB incidence of below 0.4 percent, NZ is intending to eradicate the disease risk from their wildlife reservoir, from 2.5 million hectares. 25 per cent of the total area of NZ.

And us? With a TB incidence of almost 8 percent in the first half of 2011, Defra is 'mindful' of setting up a couple of pilot 150 sq km plots for a four year badger culling 'trial'. But using a published operating protocol which should guarantee the outcome of this plan is similar to that of its previous exercise in prevarication, the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial.

These are outrageous figures by any standards. This country, its cattle, badgers and all the overspill victims of bTB deserve better. Much better.

Earthmovers

The Daily Mail reports that tunnelling badgers have caused huge problems to the safety of school buildings in Somerset. Click link for full story.

A primary school is under threat of collapse after badgers tunnelled underneath it and shifted 7.5 tonnes of soil. The school, which teaches 420 pupils, has been blighted by the badgers - leaving deep gaps in the foundations underneath two main classrooms. Parents and governors now fear buildings could cave in at Ashcombe Primary School, Western-Super-Mare, Somerset.

A spokesman person explained:

Our major concern is the fact that badgers have built or excavated under one of the buildings, which contains two classrooms. "These are elderly pre-fabricated buildings which need constant repair. The excavations by the badgers will have had some effect on the foundations.

"We worry that the buildings will collapse into the holes that have been left.

"Another problem is that the animals have brought their kill under the buildings, which of course we can't get to, so they decompose. All you can do is open the windows" ......

.
Read more of the antics of these weapons of mass destruction in this 2004 posting. We reported increases in tuberculosis in this posting and the predictable consequences for anyone getting up close and personal with diseased badgers, here.

The comments to this story are depressingly predictable. Forget the enormous damage to property and definitely air brush the risk to persons of discarded bedding, latrines or urine. You know, all those areas we farmers are supposed to fence off to protect our cattle from tuberculosis? Everybody just lurves badgers.... from a very safe distance which usually involves four walls and a settee.

Edit. The boss has sent his favourite pic of the appropriate 'earthmover' to illustrate this post. We are happy to oblige. 7.5 tonnes is a lot, after all.

More on SAM

Following the Farmers Weekly report on Defra's new computer system 'SAM', which we posted here, another raft of problems appear to have surfaced. And the backlog of test charts awaiting input (and action), has reportedly increased to 1000.

Yesterday's Western Morning News, had the front page, an inside page and an opinion on all this. And the paper's 'Opinion' piece was not impressed by the mealy mouthed platitudes offered by a Defra spokesperson, which they describe as an:

"anodyne and jargon-spattered response from the department, which talks about 'new functionality' [ snip] and seeks to paper over cracks rather than come clean about its shortcomings."

The comment we note, is read from the same hymn sheet as that given to the FW, three weeks ago.

More of the problems with SAM are described in Farmers Guardian this week in a small snippet entitled 'IT Problems Hit Calf Exports. ' There is no online link, but the piece is as follows:

"Computer problems at the AHVLA Central Operations for Exports in Carlisle have seriously disrupted calf exports and it could be weeks before the backlog is cleared.
Exports were suspended on September 28th. and a statement sent to Farmers Guardian by the AHVLA said a new computer system was being developed to improve customer services, but problems in a new part of the system meant the agency was unable to establish the disease status of the some cattle prior to their planned export.

Although the article specifically mentions calf exports, this problem would affect all cattle exports, with breeding stock also snarled up. The window for exporting after a clear TB test is just 28 days from jab day, substantially less that the 60 day home market timeline, and export office vets at Carlisle would need to check the status of the consigning herd, as well as the log jammed test charts for these animals. And that apparently, they cannot do.

AHVLA problems with SAM are only one in a series of governmental cockups introducing new IT systems. The Telegraph describes a £12 billion bungle with NHS systems, following hard on the heels of the Fire Service's abandoned flagship which ratcheted up costs of £469 million of taxpayers' (borrowed) cash before being moth balled. The Telegraph piece on the NHS system notes that:

".. last month, the MPs on the Public Accounts Committee described the system (cost: £12 billion to date) as “unworkable”."

They haven't met SAM yet.

But all is not lost. While angry farmers were quick to point out on a BBC TV report, their own particular problems, snarl ups and confusing paperwork, ROD (perleese don't say Rod Who?) - Defra's acronym 'ROD' is the Regional Operations Director - a very nice man called Mark Yates appeared on camera to say that if farmers are experiencing any problems with SAM, they should report them directly to him.

According to his CV, Mr. Yates has been ROD for the South West for 2 years after a nine year stint in 'the army'. Now that could mean he was used to giving orders - or conversely, more used to taking them. But we digress:

Mark Yates, the South West's very own ROD is based at Exeter, and can be contacted on 01392 266373 - if the phones are turned on.

For readers in other areas of the UK, every AHVLA region has its very own ROD and they can be contacted from this list.

Don't mention the ....

... war computer. And in particular, Defra's new toy, SAM. This system was due on stream in July, but three months on is apparently causing havoc. Farmers Weekly reported this snippet last week. (sorry, no online link)


Under the strapline 'Computer Problems Jeopardise TB processing', the FW report describes:

".. how problems with the new [SAM] computer system and the loss of experienced administrative staff, have combined to create severe difficulties in dealing with TB paperwork."

While inexperienced and agency staff struggle to input TB test results, the report highlights a log jam

"..... of over 700 TB test charts for the SW region ( to the end of September) which have to be inputted manually."

The piece describes the morale of staff expected to 'lie to farmers' and the 'extra stress caused to lower grade staff'.
The report also describes problems with TB licensing experienced by one farmer, who having applied to move 20 animals, was given a licence for 23 including three breeding bulls, two of which had been sold. The final license sheet listed just 18 animals. So it would appear that manual overrides could be difficult, if not impossible too.

But with a unique piece of airbrushing, an AHVLA spokesperson gave the following comment to FW about Defra's new all singing, all dancing SAM computer system.

"This will improve the level of service provided to customers"

Not if the goddamn test charts aren't inputted on time, it won't. The main frame computer will generate a bloody shut down notice. Been there. Done that.
However

" ..... minor issues have been identified, and have now been fixed"

Really? How minor? And that backlog has decreased then? Yes? No?
No. Our information is that it has increased. The purring continues:

"During this time, additional manual checks have been implemented on all TB test charts and associated processes to ensure AHVLA is able to identify and remove reactor animals from farms as quickly as possible."

Additional manual checks? Why? So there is no backlog of reactors or test charts then?
According to many farmers we speak to, yes, there is. Mind, if the source was dealt with there wouldn't be any need for pernicious 60 day testing, abattoir slots, transport, or unskilled agency staff trying to log a million unique eartag numbers into a new computer system. But let that pass.

Sadly, all this sounds a tad familiar. Remember the phrase 'don't mention the war' ? We see a distinct parallel, and having been on the receiving end of a syrupy recorded message (twice) recently when trying to contact AHVLA, have a sneaking suspicion they may be turning the phones off. For hours at a time.
Nah, they wouldn't do that would they? What bit of 'Animal Health' is by passing the radar of Defra's top brass?

Of course they would. But don't forget, the AHVLA lady said it will " improve the level of service..."

What she did not say was when.

'white coat syndrome'

.. is a well known cause of blood pressure when patients visit a doctor's surgery; the sight of pristine, dazzling white attire, guaranteed to cause a flutter in most of us.

So imagine the reaction of cattle, more used to olive green - be that grass, silage or the boss's overalls - faced with the eye catching vision of a man in a white coat advancing.
Like it, they do not. As was found a decade ago during the carnage of FMD.
The picture below, is by Chris Chapman and was taken on a Dartmoor dairy farm in 2001. Even normally placid dairy cows are looking askance at the ghostly figure as they are rounded up to be shot. These cows were sedated. Cattle gathered for inspection and TB testing by AHVLA operatives are not.

Thus for general farm work, AHVLA operatives have always worn dark green or navy disposable overalls. 'Elf and safety being paramount as several tonnes of spooked bovine, attempts to flatten any stranger wearing white.

Or that was how it used to be until the arrival of Defra's new, all singing, all dancing and very streamlined central ordering system. This was designed to give economy of scale, with orders channelled through the Finance section of the regional office. We understand that since FMD, Defra staff are not allowed to use the infamous 'white overalls' in the field. This is partly to avoid media surveillance but mainly to avoid being squashed by freaked out cattle.

But guess what? Our moles tell us that what were delivered by a this new team of desk bound admin clerks (with no idea of the problems faced at the coal face and no remit to listen) were packs of tissue-paper thin, single use overalls. And they were white.

Why are we not surprised?

Update;
At blogger HQ, we are more than familiar with Defra's deskbound windowbox solutions to livestock problems, but our co-editor roared with laughter over the white coat scenario.

"Perhaps if they wore the overalls over their heads, at least they wouldn't see what is coming."

... was his erudite comment - while not identifying the 'they'.

As cattle farmers, we tend to call a spade a spade - and suggested the correct interpretation could be for AHVLA operatives to layer their 'never-to-be-used-again after the carnage of FMD', white tissue-paper overalls over the heads of the cattle. Simples.

Update - Michigan and a $200 bounty

In 2005 we posted on the newly emerged threat of bTB to Michigan's cattle herds. Politicians and veterinarians had a dilemma with the needs of hunters and livelihoods of cattle farmers with tuberculosis the bone between two dogs.

Supplementary feeding of deer to encourage bigger horns, also had the effect of bringing them out of the woods to eat from molassed corn buckets, which could be shared by cattle. A voluntary ban on this practise was in place when the then Defra shadow MP Owen Paterson visited the state in 2005, to see for himself how such disease dynamics were handled.

In an update to this story, we learn that Michigan has made supplementary feeding illegal, and has also introduced a bounty on deer found to have bTB. The Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development has announced an incentives program to encourage more Michigan hunters to have their deer tested for bovine tuberculosis.

"Under this new program, if a wild free-ranging, white-tailed deer harvested during the 2011 hunt is turned in for bovine TB testing, and it cultures positive, the hunter may apply for a $200 incentive," said MDARD Director Keith Creagh.

Bovine TB is a contagious bacterial disease of cattle that can affect other mammals, including humans. In 1994, a unique strain of bovine TB was identified in Michigan's free-ranging deer.

"MDARD recently announced 57 counties in Michigan's Lower Peninsula achieved bovine TB-free status; but there is still a pocket of bovine TB in deer that can be transmitted to cattle," Creagh said. "This new incentive program is one tool in our toolbox to help refine the footprint of the disease and protect Michigan's $9.2 billion beef and dairy industries."

"Some of the best hunting in the state is in Northeastern Lower Michigan," said State Sen. John Moolenaar (R-Midland). "Our wildlife enthusiasts can show they care about TB eradication, and at the same time, Michigan's Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will reward them for removing disease from the landscape."

Under the Incentives Program:

Hunters must take the deer to a DNR check station.
They can have the antlers removed, but the head is submitted for testing.
DNR collects the heads from all the check stations and transports them to the Wildlife Disease Laboratory at Michigan State University's (MSU) Diagnostic Center for Population and Animal Health.
If the deer is confirmed to be TB infected, the hunter will receive routine test notification from the DNR laboratory which will include an Incentives Program contact number.
Notified hunters should contact MDARD with their confirmation code. A form will be mailed to the hunter's address for them to fill out and mail back for payment.

Upon receipt of the completed form, hunters will be mailed $200 for each TB-positive deer harvested.

Visit the Emerging Diseases web site for an all-positives map and additional information, including an advertisement about the incentives program; or to join the Michigan Animal Health LISTSERV: www.michigan.gov/emergingdiseases.

Copyright 2011 WNEM. All Rights Reserved.

Link to more information on bTB in Michigan's white tailed deer is on this site.
The picture (from the site) shows tuberculous abscesses on the lungs of a deer.

RBCT Update

Although the operatives of the Badger Dispersal Trial RBCT ended their 8 night forays (if they arrived at all) and chopped up the cage traps in 2005/06, data collection from this exercise in prevarication, continues.

We posted the first offerings from Prof. Donnelly's mathematical abacus in 2008. This was followed by a further tranche of number crunched advantages (and cost disadvantages) in 2010 which we posted here.

And last week, the modelling machinery clanked into action again with the following observations on the longer term effects of this most peculiar option of 'controlling' bTB in badgers. The paper makes the following observations:

In the time period from one year after the last proactive cull to 28 August 2011 (the post-trial period), the incidence of confirmed breakdowns in the proactive culling trial areas was 28.0% lower (95% CI: 15.0% to 39.1% lower) than in survey-only areas, and on lands up to 2km outside proactive trial areas was 4.1% lower (95% CI: 25.7% lower to 23.7% higher) than outside survey-only areas.

and continues;

Exploratory analyses stratified by 6-month periods (Table 1) are consistent with an ongoing, but diminishing (test for temporal trend p=0.008), benefit of proactive culling continuing through the latest 6-month period analysed (55 to 60 months post-trial).

The paper also observes that "the effects observed outside trial areas remained consistent with no ongoing effects of proactive culling in these areas."

Stating that their

"post-trial results must, of course, be considered in the context of the smaller reduction seen inside proactive trial areas and the increased incidence seen outside proactive trial areas in the period from the end of the initial proactive cull until one year after the last proactive cull in each triplet."

..... we can at least see where the current 'benefit' of culling modelled at a modest 16 per cent only, has come from.

But in the real world, well away from the square root of stupid, one would assume that the response to culling an infected GROUP of badgers would be somewhat different from picking off the scent markers one at a time during 8 nights annually, with time out for FMD and during hibernation periods, over six years. Thus the resulting drop in cattle TB would be more marked, as in Thornbury where a 100 percent drop in cattle TB was observed over a decade later, and more recently the RoI strategy where a more thorough and ongoing clearance is having marked and beneficial effect on cattle TB incidence.

A full analysis with graphs, of all this modelling post Badger Dispersal Trial RBCT can be seen here.

Cull management plan

After a pep talk to the troops in Exeter this week, NFU leader Peter Kendall was in 'head teacher' mode - we're told.

"It's the only game in town"
"Get on with it"
"Only chance in a generation"

You get the picture ?

But when challenged Mr. Kendall said no, he had not read Natural England's proposals.

We published these in this posting.
(Click the underlined title for a link to the post)



Unlike the NFU president, if any farmer wants to understand the commitment being asked for, and if you read nothing else from the Natural England library on 'how we don't want to cull badgers' then have a look at their costings in Annex C.

The bio security obligations intended to form part of the package, but are said to be 'not stand alone' are in in Annex D. and Annex E.

A working draft of the NE Management Agreement in Annex F.

How to shoot a badger (with illustrations -above) in Annex G.

And how to prevent impact on non-participants in
Annex H

The farming organisations who are invited to answer the consultation on these proposals have until September 20th to respond on their members' behalf.

Update on PCR technology

We have explored PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) technology in many previous postings. But it appears that some readers and the wider industry are falling behind in just how far these diagnostics have advanced in a few short years.

In 2003, the most usual 'primer' used for PCR was m.tuberculosis complex, an overall grouping of many bacteria, sharing some of the same genetic material. Thus the results were similar to putting lawn mower petrol in a Ferrari. It coughed and spluttered and only achieved an 86 per cent sensitivity. Compared to gammaIFN, that could be considered good - but let that pass.

Move on a few years and last week the International Society for Infectious Diseases, ProMed, reported the findings based on pathology and histology of another dead alpaca. First published in the Veterinary Record, ProMed describes the methodology of 'spoligotyping' to establish strain types of m.bovis, using PCR thus:

Spoligotyping (spacer oligonucleotide typing), a polymerase chain
reaction-based amplification of a region of the mycobacterial genome, is recognised as a rapid and reliable test for the differentiation between _M. bovis_ and other mycobacteria.

".. recognised as a rapid and reliable test, for the differentiation between m.bovis and other mycobacteria. So by amplifying part of the genome, unique to m.bovis it would appear that the Ferrari may function to expectations ?

Thus we offer our continued support to the Alpaca TB Support group for commissioning their Proof of Concept project. If this study can demonstrate that PCR technology, already widely used in VLA for other diseases including Johnnes (m.avium paratuberculosis), is useful in the diagnosis of bTB, then there is every likelihood of its being used for other species, especially cattle. For instance, PCR could avoid the long wait, sometimes of weeks, while bacterial culture is carried out to confirm that a suspected abattoir case showing visible lesions is, in fact bTB.

PCR technology detects m.bovis the bacteria: it is not fussy as to its host. So other species which vets are finding difficult to diagnose with the intradermal skin test (such as pigs), may also benefit. And ultimately, operating in 'real time' and not laboratory based, the technique may prove a vital tool in locating 'environmental' TB spilling back into domesticated species.

As an additional tool in the eradication of bTB, PCR could be extremely useful, plugging a gap in our current tests. Although commissioned and paid for by a small group of camelid owners and others, bTB (m.bovis) in camelids should not be seen in isolation from the disease in cattle or any other mammal, since the same bacteria is responsible.

Please note that any donations to this project should be made direct to the AlpacaTB Support Group who can be found on this link. For more information, see the PCR tab on the top bar, and how to contribute on the 'Donate' button.

This is bTB in an alpaca. And it is not pretty. This animal's lymphatic systemic was bursting with solid cheesy abscesses of bTB, his liver is spotted with abscesses and he was infectious with every breath he took, due to open lesions along his trachea, right up to his throat.


Now whether they are still regurgitating out of date research into PCR technology, or whether it is not in the interests of the wider alpaca sellers to confront the problem of bTB is debatable. But thus far we see no reference to this project on their websites, and certainly no information as to how camelid owners may support it, should they choose to do so.
And we are puzzled as to why this should be so.

But being a magnanimous lot at blogger HQ, we expect the main Societies representing camelid owners are waiting to contribute to some further validation projects for PCR, which could bear their unique names and affiliations.

The Big Bad Wolf ?

Looking through Natural England's prematurely released consultation document, ( post below )- apart from getting the message that this is something they would rather not touch with the proverbial bargepole, we were struck by a paragraph on licensing contained on page 3:

Natural England is authorised to do so by what is known as “a Part 8 Agreement ” made in accordance with section 78 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006;

This is not just licenses to move badgers causing damage, but concerns the issue of licences under Section 10(2)(a) of the Protection of Badgers Act (1992) which deals with preventing the spread of disease.

It is our understanding that MAFF, the predecessor or Defra (when Agriculture still had a part to play in this department) held a general license under this section of the Act, and used it with great care and after outside scrutiny, to control badger populations where bTB outbreaks in sentinel tested cattle, proved not to be of a bovine origin.

But in 2006, along with sacking the WLU trappers, this part of the Act appears to have been thrown into the long grass to the quango known as 'Natural England'.

This agreement came into effect on 1st October 2006.
It's duration is twenty years from that date.
A review is allowed for in five years.


The clandestine transfer of responsibility is described in this document.

Five years from 01/10/2006 is 01/10/2011. In a month's time.

But, as of July 11th 2011, according to the Defra website, this agreement is currently under review. Note - none of Defra's links to their documents work.

Is it time to throw infectious disease control back to where it belongs, with AHVLA?

Or would that give Mrs Spelperson the 'get out jail free' card she's been angling for all along.

We've been sold a wolf in sheep's clothing.