Farmed deer and Tuberculosis.

We are grateful for any insight into the strange world of zoonotic Tuberculosis control and eradication in this country, and from time to time a new bit of news (to us) pops up.
As cattle farmers we are used to regular TB tests, usually carried out by the farmer's own vet and with the exception of pre Movement tests, paid for by AHVLA / Defra.
But TB control in other farmed mammals is substantially different and with no control on wildlife vectors, is an increasing problem..

 In 2010, we explored TB in pigs - [link] and like pigs, zTuberculosis in farmed deer is usually found at slaughter. But what happens then is substantially different from the regime for cattle.

Testing is not mandatory in the UK for any farmed mammal other than cattle:  thus sheep, pigs, alpacas and farmed deer rely on a post mortem diagnosis. The exception is breeding animals destined for export which need a skin test.

If zTuberculosis is found, then herd restrictions are applied and the intradermal bovine skin test is used as the primary diagnostic test. Whether it is sensitive or specific enough for mammals other than bovines is another story. - [link]

But for farmed deer, there, the similarity to cattle outbreaks takes a significant twist. If zTB is found, a herd of farmed deer faces the same restrictions as a cattle herd and skin tests are demanded by AHVLA. But owners pay. Furthermore only veterinary personnel trained in handling deer can conduct testing, and they are few and far between, belonging to specialist testing 'panel'.

Tests are at 120 day intervals, and two clear herd tests are needed to lift movement restrictions - which in practice is almost impossible as it interferes with the breeding seasons of these animals and apparently may still not pick up the source of the outbreak.

Compensation is 50% of current market value or a maximum figure of £650, whichever is the lower. But this is paid only if the animals are compulsory slaughtered as test failures. No compensation is paid for any animals which owners may choose to slaughter in an effort 'to clean up their own herd' - even if zTB is found at any subsequent post mortem.

Current legislation - [link] is culled from European directives and gives AHVLA power to test for TB in certain circumstances but does not appear to specify by which test. So if a serological test were to be used as a replacement or in addition to the skin test,  would a change in legislation be needed to allow that?

That is a question currently posed by some UK deer farmers to Defra, so that they may trial other diagnostic tests. Some blood assays  used in other EU countries appear to be giving a tad more confidence to the testing regime with farmed deer, and yet Defra appear to be dragging their collective feet over their use, even when owners are paying. 

We seem to have heard this scenario before...

Different tests may also work better with the current 120 interval of skin testing for deer, which we hear can be very difficult to accommodate due to the seasonality of the deer breeding cycle.

Many of these problems with  current TB diagnostics will be discussed on March 12th / 13th in Edinburgh when the Veterinary Deer Society - [link] holds its Spring meeting.

PCR will find it...

The long awaited alpaca PCR Proof of Concept study has now been published in the Irish Veterinary Journal. - [link]

 Commissioned by the Alpaca TB Support group, the study was seeking a more accurate test for screening alpacas and llamas for zTuberculosis. And as some fairly hefty sums were bandied about regarding the cost of collecting suitable ante mortem samples, it was suggested that as AHVLA had no shortage of alpaca carcases coming through their doors, that these could provide the relevant material to kick start the project.

There is a  difference between how the screening tests in use for zTuberculosis work.
The intradermal bovine skin test seeks an immune response from the candidate, to exposure to the bacteria which may go on to cause zTB. Various blood assays seek antibodies which the candidate may have thrown up to fight infection from z TB but PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) seeks the bacteria itself.
The skin test has proved extremely inconsistent when used on alpacas. And by that we mean, it's rubbish.

Blood assays, as applied to camelids in a confirmed TB breakdown herd, can throw up some false positives (3-4%), which is upsetting for the owners. Thus a different ante mortem test was sought - with dead alpacas, already in the AHVLA system  providing the raw material.

The first tranche of samples were taken from animals which at post mortem showed advanced gross pathology. (Large and extensive lesions) The Interim report into this part of the study, we explained in this posting. - [link]  And as expected, the more m.bovis bacteria available in the sample, the better the result using PCR. Disease had already been confirmed in the animals used in this project by postmortem, gross pathology and cultures.

A second tranche of samples were taken from animals with much less advanced disease and some may have been from lesions which were not shedding bacteria into the locations from which the two PCR samples (sputum and faeces) were collected. Nevertheless, with no false positives, if m.bovis was present in the samples offered, PCR appeared to be able to find it.

A combination of sputum and faecal samples gave even better results. The paper's authors suggest pooled samples (as with m.avium paratuberculosis) could be offered as a herd screen and they describe as 'highly significant' the increasing trend of positive PCR results in line with an increasing pathology score.

Their conclusions include:

"While more SACs (South American Camelids) were positive in the faecal PCR, problems associated with collection of the nasal swabs post mortem may have compromised the test on this sample type. A combination of the nasal swab PCR and faecal PCR appeared to have a marginally greater sensitivity than either of the tests alone.

Testing of both sample types may increase sensitivity but at increased cost. Nasal swabs and faeces samples are relatively easy for owners to collect though there needs to be consideration of the possible exposure of owners to M. bovis when collecting nasal swabs.

Pooling of samples from multiple SACs may potentially be a useful screening test.

There is a highly significant increasing trend in the proportion of positive results in the nasal swab and faecal PCR tests with increasing pathology score. This confirms, as expected, that a PCR test on clinical samples will have greatest sensitivity in SACs with more extensive pathology.

The number of SACs where culture results were available was small but the results were in agreement with the PCR results apart from three which were culture positive and PCR negative. This finding is not unexpected as post mortem and culture will be more sensitive than a PCR test on clinic samples."

This is a huge leap forward in validating this technology for use ante mortem in alpacas, but also in other species -[link] where gross pathology indicates a huge bacterial spread.

 The paper and more background to the project can be found on the Alpaca TB Support Group website - [link] and our grateful thanks for their piloting and funding of this study.

Fancy a swim?

Following on from our posting below which describes a 103 per cent increase in badger 'dens' and as our fellow farmers in flooded Somerset - (link) struggle with the effects of a couple of decades of computer modelled environmental hogwash, we ponder on the fate of all the subterranean mammals, caught up in these 'designer floods - (link).

For centuries, the Somerset Levels were kept dry in summer (the clue is in the name: Summer - settlers?) by the judicious clearing and management of the 'rhynes' or ditches which fed the tidal rivers.  And 'tidal' rivers inevitably empty into the sea, twice a day.

 The result was a fertile and bio-diverse habitat, supporting loads of different species - including our stripey friends.  But as our co-editor points out, if your aim is to create a wetland habitat, take a low lying area, and just add water. - (link)

The result of the Environment Agency's valiant efforts over a couple of decades, is a stinking lake of stagnant, polluted water in which nothing can live.
It's a pity they didn't inform any of the inhabitants of the Levels of their long term plans.

It is not the badgers who have 'moved the goalposts'. By deliberately flooding 30 sq. miles of their habitat, the Environment Agency has destroyed the playing field and everything around it.

Isn't it against some other Directive or the Bern Convention to drown badgers, because this is exactly what the Environment Agency, in pursuit of a different agenda, has done so spectacularly well?
 In fact it could be yet another 'pilot cull'.

Falling off the edge?

This week, the journal Nature, published the result of the latest badger census, - [link] which showed an increase of over 100 per cent in main setts. This is not to be confused with the controversial head count last year, when teams from the same agencies changed the numbers a couple of times and Owen Paterson blamed the badgers for 'changing the goalposts'..

In this census, only main setts or 'dens' were counted, with authors reserving the right to 'further research' before commenting on their occupancy. From the report:

"While badger sett surveys are well suited to estimating the abundance of social groups, on their own they are limited in their suitability for estimating populations of individual animals. This is principally because sett characteristics are a poor predictor of badger numbers, and group size can vary widely making it difficult to obtain a representative mean across an adequate sample. We are currently undertaking work to estimate group sizes across a large sample of setts in order to estimate badger population size".

No, we couldn't work that one out either. Particularly as the same agencies trousered £3.17m for counting badger heads and paws prior to those pilot culls; a task which they now describe sett side, as 'limited' in ability to estimate its occupants.
 Since the early 1980s the accepted formula for counting badgers has been an average of 6/8 adults per main sett, updated to 8/10 adults as populations expanded in the 1980s.

Exploring more of this paper,  Farmers Guardian - [ link ] has some snippets and comments and few more from the paper, we highlight below:

"The implications of increasing badger populations are numerous.

Badgers are the largest terrestrial carnivore in the British Isles. They feed across numerous trophic levels, and largely eat soil invertebrates, but will also prey upon ground nesting birds, hedgehogs and other vertebrates. Evaluation of the ecological impact of badger culling during the Randomised Badger Culling Trial identified an increase in fox abundance associated with reductions in badger density while reciprocal relationships between hedgehog [] and badger distributions suggest that increasing badger numbers might have had a negative impact on hedgehogs."

I think we get the picture. Too many badgers = not much of anything else? Including the 'iconic' hedgehog. Although whether those 'ecological surveys' conducted for the RBCT  by a graduate standing for 4 minutes on a red X within 1000 acres, once a year, achieved anything at all - is debatable,

We are also, thanks to the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial very well aware of the danger of shattering TB infected social groups, especially when the infection level of such groups in areas of endemic tuberculosis is typically around '43 per cent'. (quote: Mark Chambers - FERA)

But typically, this paper concludes:

"In terms of tuberculosis epidemiology, at a local level, disease prevalence and incidence appears to vary with mobility among groups and prevalence has been shown to be higher in smaller social groups. Consequently, despite a broad landscape scale correlation between the incidence of TB in cattle and the distribution of badgers, badger social group density alone may not predict patterns of TB infection in badgers or cattle."

But it's not just cattle, however much Defra and its quangoes would like to pigeonhole zTB to that end. After all, we're told often enough that cattle get killed anyway." - [link] But last December, that myth was well and truly busted with the publication of Defra tables which may be a tad more accurate than their previous efforts, which deliberately listed the single confirming sample.

Thus 'bovine' TB is no longer a 'bovine' problem', - [link]  but a problem for many grazing mammals and sadly,  their owners too.

But what does that 103 per cent increase in badger main setts actually  mean for their English inhabitants?

 Apart from an indication of the success of their voracious and high profile protectors, the level of disease (quoted by FERA) in these animals is quite shocking. But more than that, where are they expected to live?

They can't sit on each others' shoulders. They have to go somewhere. But to find them gazing out to sea from a Cornish beach is unusual to say the least.

The 'Nature' report concludes:

" Nonetheless, our survey represents a robust, national-scale assessment of badger social group abundance in 2013. It is comparable in approach to those based on sett surveys conducted in 1985–88 and 1994–97 and so is the best, and probably only, basis on which to assess badger population change at the national scale."

And the survey reported a doubling of main setts. And from our picture above, taken on a Cornish beach last weekend, one could assume, that there are so many badgers now that they are falling off the edge of our overcrowded island. A victim of their protectors' success.

Natural England and badger 007 licenses.

Since the much talked about, but rather elusive 'moratorium' on culling badgers 'to prevent the spread of disease', in 1997, Defra quango Natural England has consistently opposed the issuing of licenses for farmers with herds under TB restriction to cull badgers - should they be the source of the herd breakdown.

In fact spokespersons for NE say they have issued no such licenses in the last 15 years.

Prior to NE's tenancy of such licensing, in answers to Parliamentary Questions [Hansard 18th March 2004 - Col.431 W [158605] the answer given was similarly unequivocal:

"It is current policy not to issue any licenses under sub section 10 (2) a to prevent the spread of bovine tuberculosis, except for animals held in captivity"

Originally the paper shield of the RBCT was used for this moratorium's existance. But having ended in 2006,  that excuse is now looking rather threadbare.

However,  a number of such 007 licenses have been issued both by Natural England or their predecessors.

 In fact, since 2002, records show that 22 licenses to kill badgers have been issued involving 311 animals. - [link]  The NE criteria for this category of license is 'Disease' and the option across the spread sheet data is 'kill'. And in another document we see that the vast majority of licenses issued 2002 - 2011  for culling of TB infected badgers, were to premises in Somerset with the description of purpose:

"Euthanasia of TB infected badgers". 

Now that rather knocks on the head the old argument of  "you can't tell if a (live) badger has TB or not" does it not? So, musing aloud here, is the difference in license application between a farmer losing shed loads of cattle (or an alpaca, sheep or pig farmer losing his herd) and suspecting badgers by default, and badgers testing positive to TB by such sanctuaries as Secret World - [link] the crucial difference?

 Or is the difference, as the PQ answer implies, between 'wild' badgers and those held in captivity?

Of course zTuberculosis doesn't differentiate between the two such badgery hosts:  and it would be churlish to point out that wild badgers have more than a fighting chance of sharing their disease.
We could also point out that farmers, with a little help from AHVLA, badger tracking and possibly PCR can also identify tuberculous badgers - and probably with a great deal more accuracy than those tested in sanctuaries.
But we digress...

From that link to Secret World, the fragrant Ms. Kidner has tested 600 baby badgers and euthanased 78 of them as positive to the old Brock test.

Now this is a blood assay test trialled in the mid 1990s as a 'live test trial' and which although it proved pretty accurate on a positive, with published sensitivity of just 40.7 per cent, was dangerously inaccurate on a negative. It was so bad that even the diminutive John Bourne said it was rubbish, as did our Parliamentary Questions. The ISG Final Report described this test, (used by some, but not all, sanctuaries to screen its badgers before re-locating them) thus:

1.7 [] ... A live test for badgers had been developed and subject to trial from 1994-96, but its sensitivity was much poorer than had been hoped, successfully detecting only about 40% of infected badgers (Clifton-Hadley et al., 1995-and Woodroffe et al., 1999)

Since 2006, Natural England have held the competence for the issuing of  licenses to control badgers on a 20 year lease, as we explained in this posting. - [link]   But having spent a fruitless couple of hours trawling the Protection of Badgers Act (1991) for any sign of a Statutory Instrument, debated in Parliament which would legally support NE or their predecessor's stance on Section 10 licenses and this mysterious 'moratorium', our co editor patiently explained, 'it's not there'.

So, unless we've missed something, it is no use looking for that 1997 moratorium on Section 10 (2) a anywhere in writing to check NE's interpretation. Apparently, it does not exist. So how did this road block on a legal Act of Parliament come into being? Cooked up behind the equivalent of the Parliamentary bike sheds in exchange for £1m bung? Value for money then, if you factor in a £1 billion spend, 350,000 dead cattle and the possibility of another trade ban.

 And if that is how easily the Laws of this land are tweaked, what is the point of the rather grand building in the picture below, which is pretending to be the cradle of democracy ?

Paragraph 9 of the Protection of Badgers Act states quite clearly that:

"A licence under this section shall not be unreasonably withheld" .

And they are being withheld. Or, unlike those issued for sanctuary blood test failures, their conditions of issue to farmers made so damn difficult, complicated and expensive to operate that they can only be described as designed to fail - [link]

Perhaps a small levy on our 9million remaining cattle would help ease things along, if that is how this Parliament operates?

Finally, unNatural England, having made such a horlicks of counting badgers for the last pilot culls, and who together with their friends at FERA trousered a reported £3.17m for their trouble, are inviting expressions of interest, should the pilot culls be deemed acceptable enough to be rolled out again this year.

Details of criteria to be met are pretty much as onerous as before and can be found on this link. - [link]

SAM - not fit for purpose?

The sorry saga of Great Britain's struggle with successive governmental non-policies for the eradication of zTuberculosis can be, or could have been, tracked by a glance at the statistics which Defra / AHVLA produce(d) monthly.
 But thanks to a new, state of the art, multi million £££ computer system with the acronym 'SAM' these are once again suspended and up for investigation.

As we reported in this posting, - [link] taking over from the 'VetNet' computer system, SAM started his carnage in the autumn of 2011. More chaos and upgrades followed - [link] as we tracked his progress - [link] into 2012.

 Finally, the statisticians and analysts were happy - if AHVLA vets and farmers weren't - and in evidence - [link] to the EFRA committee on the 1st February 2012, AHVLA admitted the chaos 'should never have happened' but would fixed as soon as possible.

And by April 2012, AHVLA statistical analysts were confident - [link] that all was well. Until yesterday, when all TB statistics were again suspended pending yet another revision of input data. - [link]

Farmers Guardian has the full, sad and sorry tale of this monumental cock up.


Meanwhile the multi million £ white elephant known as SAM, having had huge and expensive resources thrown at him and numerous 'upgrades,' is once again acknowledged as being 'not fit for purpose.'
We hear that AHVLA may have to return to their old system of disease monitoring, developed internally in the late 1980s / early 90s by people who actually knew what they were doing.

Computers will only do what they are programmed to do. And based on what appears to duplicated or inaccurate information, SAM is still churning out overdue and penalty notice letters to farmers at a rate of knots, regardless of circumstances.

This data is now linked to the RPA computers - [link] and swinging penalties applied for alleged discretions. But it would appear that this particular computer (SAM) isn't always right.

Paying twice?

We note with interest and not a little curiosity that the press has released a set of figures - [link] which  assess the cost of the pilot badger culls using free shooting, at £4,100 per badger shot.

Wildlife charity 'Care for the Wild', through various sources, has attributed the costs of the shooting parties thus:

Farmer contribution was assessed at £1.49m, with policing of the cull areas, including police travelling time accounting for £2.66m.

But the biggest slice of  the £7.3m largesse goes to Natural England, FERA and Defra who, having dreamed up the most complicated, bureaucratic and divisive - [link] load of tosh ever, trousered £3.17m. 

One may wonder, what these governmental quangoes do for a day job, if this sort of 'work' is audited separately? And it also bears pointing out that in most civilised countries, the control of zTuberculosis whatever its source, is by statute. These laws are not subject to add on 'policing' costs and they invite custodial sentences for those who break them and encourage its spread..

Spokesman for 'Care for the Wild,' Dominic Dyer, also claimed:

... the figures undermined any justification for rolling culling out to new areas this year and claimed that, over four years, the costs of culling would outweigh the financial benefits of reduced disease incidence by more than seven times.

Those simplistic mathematical gymnastics ignore a very important side effect of allowing widespread zTuberculosis to decimate our cattle herds.  And that is the cost to the UK economy of another trade ban. - [ link] Which may be the not insignificant result of Defra's fiddling while this disease spreads not only throughout our tested sentinel cattle, but other internationally traded mammals - [link] and, as we saw in the 1996 'Beef Ban', the hundreds of products which cascade from them.

Finally, to compare this pilot cull with the cost of vaccinating badgers is just plain naive.

Conveniently ignoring as it does, both the efficacy of available vaccine (poor) and the disease status of any candidate (unknown) - should it volunteer to be cage trapped and jabbed at all. But also Natural England and FERA appear to require no data whatsoever on either numbers of badgers to be vaccinated, disease status of that population or the percentage of those totals which actually volunteer for a jab.
This seems strangely one sided one sided to us - to the tune of £3.17m.

But cost and potential trade bans aside, the main difference is that dead badgers don't spread zTuberculosis, either amongst themselves or to other mammals. And that is the point.

 

New testing rules for 2014

Today, Farmers Guardian's Alistair Driver describes Defra's new 'stick but no carrot' - [link] approach to TB tests which may be a day or two late on a desk jockey's computer print out.

These dates are now 'shared' with the RPA (Rural Payments Agency) who will dutifully deduct up to 5 per cent of any payments owed to the farm concerned. The full list is in FG's article.

 Commenting on the new rules, agricultural lawyer David Kirwan remarked that:

" Penalties would bring ‘further misery to cattle farmers already unjustly punished by Bovine TB regulations’.

Mr Kirwan, head of the agricultural unit at law firm Kirwans, said:

“This is the latest in a seemingly relentless series of punitive administrative and financially swingeing measures on farming families. Farmers need practical support not a bullying, stick-wielding master hell bent on inflicting more misery and hardship. It is an already over-regulated industry. This will make financial conditions even more difficult, prompting some farmers to quit beef and dairy production.”                     

He stressed TB testing was important but added that ‘common sense and flexibility over paperwork and deadlines is also important’.

With all of that, we would agree.
And it's also important to point out that TB testing cattle is not always a simple procedure, or one with which they willingly comply. Apart from bumps, bruises, trapped fingers, strains and sprains which are the inevitable result of shoving and jostling 800 kg where it would rather not go, during 2013, two farmers lost their lives while TB testing their own cattle.

One in Wales a year ago - [link] and the second a farmer from Shropshire, in December. - [link]

So to all our cattle (or sheep, pigs, alpaca and deer) farming readers; please be careful while complying with Defra's New Year present of non negotiable extras to the eradication of zoonotic Tuberculosis.

Happy Christmas - Happy Anniversary.

That seems a strange title, but it is exactly ten years since the contributors to this site and our co-editor phrased up those 538 Parliamentary Questions which so rattled the fragrant Ben Bradshaw in 2003/4.
Posed by Owen Paterson, the then Shadow minister, for reference, most are on our 2004 archive.

 If anyone had told us then, we'd still be plodding away ten years later, we would have thought them stark staring mad. But here we are and we aren't mad at all. Well not in one sense. Just being proved correct in that this zoonotic disease of mammals, (not cattle) which is entrenched and endemic in the iconic and cult worshipped badger, has up-spilled into many other species and thus onwards and upwards into vets and owners. Just as we predicted it would.

So we end this year with a few snippets after the pilot shooting parties finished last month.

Lord Krebs is in the news again, describing the culls as "even crazier than I predicted" - [link]
And he should know. His 1996 trial protocol spelt out just how infectious badgers should be managed, and he was right, as we explained in this 2007 posting. [-link] The whole weighty tome of Krebs' knowledge on how to 'manage' infectious badgers can be found on this link from TB Information's archive - [link[ but what he didn't say of course, was to launch forth on 8 nights annually, using cage traps, split infectious social groups to the four winds and then bugger off walk away - often for years.

For that we have to thank (or otherwise) the political science delivered by Professor John Bourne. -[link] And it is on that basis, plus a nifty piece of Natural England -[link] footwork, that the the pilot culls were based.

So what can cattle farmers expect in 2014? For that we have to read between the lines of Chris Rundle's last article in the Western Morning News, published 18th December (sorry, no online link)
The piece describes a terse and frosty 'behind closed doors' meeting with NFU office holders - but not local delegates - to 'discuss' listen quietly and obediently to the next steps in badger control.

A less than jovial NFU director-general Andy Robertson is said to have informed the meeting that :

" ....a county wide control strategy was a non-starter and he had the Secretary of State, Owen Paterson's assurance on the matter. []And it was not up to local farmers to set the culling agenda, so they should back off, button their lips and leave it to the experts."

Chris Rundle comments that  "farmers labouring under tighter and tighter cattle controls and receiving less and less compensation for reactors, have been told that their views and wishes are pretty well irrelevant".

 We hear that the Badger Trust are seeking a new Chief Executive Officer, whose job description includes: "determining and implementing the Trust’s policy priorities and preparing a five year strategic plan."
At up to £35k per year, were there any takers? - [link] amongst our readers? Applications have now closed, but the advert stressed that the successful applicant must have "a passion for the Trust’s objectives and, preferably, an excellent grasp of the key issues currently facing the Trust."

Too many badgers? Of which, according to FERA, around 43 per cent in areas of endemic zTB already have the debilitating disease know as 'bovine' Tuberculosis? A zoonotic pathogen which they are readily spreading both amongst themselves and to many other mammals? That would be start, but is unlikely.

Sadly we note that far from adopting the Irish approach and doing a spot of re-labelling, both Defra and the farming industry seem determined to provoke a collective shudder down the spines of the general public. The 'G' word is back, as farmer's leaders call for 'Selective Underground Euthanasia' -[link] or 'SUE' as those who love acronyms, would label it.

Most accepted methods of controlling animals are banned by the Berne convention which 'protects' endangered species. But the Irish seem to manage quite well with banned snares leg restraints. So we suggest 'SUE' could be an apt substitute for 'gassing' which of course is also on Berne's hit list.
Of course, if infected setts were targeted by the reactor locations of cattle, sheep, pig or alpacas, then a whole different set of rules apply, as zoonotic Tuberculosis has to be treated with the respect this Grade 3 pathogen deserves under several existing laws to protect Public Health.
It's the 'targeting' of the disease itself which makes the difference - and much more sense.

Finally, in the posting below, a meeting - [link] between newly appointed minister George Eustice and an alpaca called 'Eddy', has bumped the recorded overspill of zoonotic Tuberculosis right up the Ministerial agenda. And substantially more accurate figures of the spread of this disease into other mammals and pets from badgers an animal which has somehow achieved the position of First Among Equals,  are now becoming public for the first time. The Alpaca TB Support Group -[link] website also mentions an internal BAS (British Alpaca Society) database, where (some) members report (some) deaths and the cause.
This snippet explains:

"In November this year The BAS (British Alpaca Society) released to the BAS National Welfare committee (though not sent directly to its membership or made available on its website) the numbers and causes of death reported to the society.

The tables included everything reported from old age, parasites (barbers pole etc) and of course bTB.

In 2012, 624 deaths were reported to the BAS for alpacas owned by its members. Of that total 533 were reported with cause of death due to bTB.

This is a staggering percentage of the national herd, especially considering that the vast majority of those bTB deaths were condensed into hotspot regions.  Not all alpaca owners are members of the BAS and this number is unlikely to include all alpacas lost to bTB.  Obviously the total does not include the number of llamas lost to bTB

The numbers demonstrate the impact of the disease and gives the lie to those who say it is not a serious threat to British alpacas and llamas."

So Defra were publishing a figure of 17 positive samples for alpacas and llamas during 2012, while the Alpaca breed society ( BAS) had collected data suggesting 533 deaths? Nice one chaps and chapesses.

But as we said at the end of the previous posting, with this publication of Defra's new and more accurate overspill table for 'other species', zoonotic Tuberculosis is not a 'bovine' problem any longer.

Happy Christmas and a big 'thank you' to all of our contributers.

One small step for George....

For several years now, we have been banging on -[link] about the way AHVLA presented their 'other species' zTB statistics. These tables consisted of the often single, microbial sample which confirmed m.bovis and only that. They did not include any previous or subsequent deaths either from 'bovine' tuberculosis, or slaughter of these animals in a government generated eradication process for this zoonotic disease.

And they were deliberately misleading as Dan Rogerson's Parliamentary Question of 2011 showed:

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, like a broken record, because the 'figures are low', we are directed back to these damn duplicitous so-called statistics which only count the primary, single sample which a) confirms bTB and b) identifies the spoligotype.
We were even told the figures were not collected into the categories we had requested.

That was not true: and we thought misleading a minister was a hanging offence?


In AHVLA / Defra's previous comfort blanket highly selective statistics, no skin or blood test failures and subsequent slaughterings, no deaths with TB confirmed by pm and no knacker collections were counted. As we said in our posting of 2010, all these had disappeared. - [link]

But this week, after newly appointed minister, George Eustice MP met an alpaca called Eddy - [link] a chink in the glossy coat of this subterfuge appeared. And AHVLA's carcase counters having been dragged screaming back to their tinsel wrapped computers, stepped up to the plate and produced a completely different chart - [link] which not only includes that single confirming microbial sample but all as many deaths as they could pull out of that particular pigeonhole and herd / flock restrictions as well.

So they did have them after all, and they were available when Mr. Rogerson posed the Parliamentary question. Mmmmm.

Thus we see the original 'low' figure of 17 positive samples taken from South American camelids (alpacas and llamas) in 2012 and behind which AHVLA was crouching, was hiding almost 600 animals slaughtered on the altar of 'bovine' tuberculosis. A significant order of magnitude.
 Also jumping out of this chart is the number of new TB breakdowns in sheep and pig herds in 2012, with 6,189 ante mortem tests performed on sheep. Premises with  'other species' under restriction due to confirmed 'bovine' tuberculosis at the end of the year were into double figures for pigs and camelids.

So in just two weeks George Eustice has succeeded, where years of prolonged hand wringing by T-BAG, T-Beggars, TBEAG and many others, including ourselves,  have failed.

And zoonotic Tuberculosis is not a merely 'bovine' problem any more is it?

So well done the Alpaca TB Support Group - [link] and well done George.

TB testing on Dartmoor

South West newspaper, the Western Morning News has some interesting columnists and one such is Dartmoor hill farmer, Anton Coaker, - [link] who breeds hardy suckler cattle, high up on the moor.

His herd is under TB restriction.


(Anton is on the left of the picture.)



Never short of comments about how bureaucracy treats his business, this is his latest offering on the process of TB testing scattered moorland suckler cows, just before Christmas.

Enjoy:

"Once more, we’re embroiled in gathering over 300 head of cattle from sprawling miles of moorland, to shove them through the race for yet another TB test. The logistics of this operation take a lot more than the 4 days of actual testing, and are not especially welcome just now.

We’ve had to fetch cattle back from places where they were happy, and now they’re busy scalping off the last of the grass about the in-bye. The breeding ewes were forlornly hoping this bite would carry them through until they were all safely tupped- but they’re to be disappointed.

I suppose I should express my thanks to whoever it is organises these things that we had a time-served vet who didn’t miss a beat, and a dry-ish week means we might get stock sorted out again before the place goes completely pear shaped.

If all this were getting rid of TB, I’d happily oblige, but given that I can’t see any hope of things improving, you can imagine I’m a little fed up with the idea. Still, at least the AHVLA –the state vets- are right on the case. With dazzling efficiency, just as we were finishing the main lot of jabs for the 3rd time in this year, a letter arrived explaining at great length how we are in a 12 month interval testing area. The incompetence is jaw-dropping. It’s no wonder TB escalates, if this is how they run their end of things.

Would I do things differently? Well, since you ask, should I awake from this twilight loony land, where up is down, and left is right, and find myself emperor, I would take some steps.

First, and most urgent, I would draw a line across the country where the pox seems to be already in the wildlife, and take draconian steps to ensure that it didn’t continue its march up the M6. Then I’d set about locating and removing the infected wildlife.

This might be by pouring resources into testing their scat, or by buying Bryan Hill a couple of metaphoric pints and asking him to show me how to tell for myself.

While I was at it, I’d want some boffin to come up with a far better test for the cattle. Perhaps a couple of million quid bonus for whoever comes up with the goods would help em focus their minds.

Alpacas and the like would be dragged into the testing regime and put under the same movement rules as cattle with immediate effect. Anyone objecting would be nailed to the wall by their ears, alongside anyone who mentioned the word ‘vaccination’ in the presence of El Presidenti Coaker.

There. I feel better now.

More of Anton's musings can be seen on this link.

We'll post a summary of the latest  TB news next week,  but meanwhile Happy Christmas (and to Anton, whose TB test described above, was clear)
But in the spirit of clearing zTB, he'll have to repeat it all again in 60 days' time.

George meets Eddy.

Newly appointed Minister of State for Agriculture, the Right Honourable George Eustice met an alpaca this week.

 In fact he met several, and also their owner who over the last few years has been brave enough to share the story of her losses of these animals to 'bovine' zoonotic Tuberculosis, and the disease itself, which has affected her so badly.

The Alpaca TB Support website describes the meeting with Dianne Summers, head of the support group at her farm last Friday:

The meeting was to discuss bTB as it affects alpacas, llamas (as well as their keepers and handlers) and to bring Mr Eustice up to date with the current situation. Mr Eustice was interested to find out about the Support Group’s work over the past five years and about the detailed factual data that Dianne has gathered from 41 members of the Support Group.

Mr Eustice said he was grateful for her input and level of knowledge and explained that he well understood the devastation that the disease causes. He asked about Dianne’s own herd breakdown and about her personal battle with the disease having been diagnosed with the same spoligotype as her herd in 2012.

We understand that Mr. Eustice was also informed of the privately funded PCR Proof of Concept Study - [link]  and its progress so far, as well as the results of other ante mortem tests presently used for camelids - some good but many not specific or sensitive enough to be used with confidence.

Disappointingly, the policy for camelids recently unveiled by AHVLA / Defra requests movement records,  tests and TB control, but as Farmers Guardian reports, this will all be on a voluntary basis. -[link]
Which means it is unlikely to happen.

Hiding behind the blackout curtain of their own statistics [-link] AHVLA have made it quite clear that despite the deaths of thousands of camelids, the paucity of the bovine skin test on these animals and their susceptibility to z Tuberculosis with its ramifications down the line their owners, handlers and vets,  TB control will not be under departmental statute..

One would have thought that the 400 alpacas slaughtered in a single outbreak - [link] might have shamed Defra's statistical bean counters into action. But their comfort blanket tables remain, stubbornly counting the single confirming microbial sample of any reported outbreak. Which last year numbered just 17.

However, this week, our new minister George Eustice met some alpacas,  and left with a bundle of facts, figures and some pretty gory post mortem pictures of what zoonotic tuberculosis does to camelids. He also met a victim of the inevitable overspill of this zoonosis into human beings.

And he met Eddy. 

More pictures and detail on the Minister's visit can be found on the Alpaca TB Support Group website - [link] .

We are hoping that after this visit,  Mr. Eustice will lift the blanket of secrecy emanating from his department, on the true level of zTuberculosis in camelids and on how it is dealt with.

That would be a Christmas present worth sharing.

More cattle measures for 2014.

Defra have announced yet another raft of cattle measures which will affect beleaguered cattle farmers, particularly those on depressingly regular short interval 60 day tests.

Starting on January 1st 2014, any farmer even one day late in carrying out his TB test will find a swipe taken from his SFP (Single Farm Payment)- should he claim one. And already problems are coming to light.
Farmers on short interval or needing trace tests, have very little wriggle room, and they are finding that a two week shut down for vets and AHVLA staff over the Christmas and New Year break, means they cannot get a test booked inside AHVLA's computer generated time limit.

But if these tests are not completed, data from the AHVLA computer, in theory at least, (has anyone spoken to SAM - [link] recently?) will be transferred to the RPA computer and fines levied of between 1 - 5 percent.

For more information, here is Defra's TB testing interval information for 2014. - [link] And here is the wording -[link] of the latest notification.

Sadly we note that although several 'partners' are involved in the TB testing procedure, it is all down to 'the farmer' to make sure that 'the vet' can arrive within the time scale, that no computer glitches prevent the transfer of information between the various data systems and that all runs to plan and on time.
And if it does not, then it is up to 'the farmer' to appeal.

Guilty until proven innocent then?

Another 'Consultation'

Yesterday Defra launched another Consultation document - (link) so that anyone who feels the need, could democratically comment on exemptions to TB testing UK cattle,  currently in place.




 If you remember, earlier this year another 'consultation' took place on many aspects of our non-policy towards zoonotic Tuberculosis. This was conducted under a technique known as 'Delphi' - [link] where small groups of people were herded by facilitators towards a predetermined conclusion.

And this one is little different, despite the pretense of a democratic process and opinions being sought.

 Both end game conclusions are writ large in instructions from our European masters and summarised  in a letter - [link] to Owen Paterson from Tonio Borg, a member of the European Commission in February this year.

The letter summarises the  UK bTB eradication programme to be implemented in 2013 which was approved by Commission Implementing Decision 2012/761/EU.

"This programme entails a number of commitments from your authority, in particular:

• the abolition of Approved Quarantine Units (AQUs) by the end of 2013;

* the completion and implementation of the plans for abolishing Sole Occupancy Authorities;

• a commitment to carry out in 2013 a further review of the remaining exemptions to pre-movement testing;

• a thorough review of the arrangements for the implementation in the UK of the concept "holding" as laid down in Union legislation;

• the limitation and phase out by the end of 2014 of the practice of de-restricting certain epidemiologically separate parts of bTB-affected holding."

The letter is on this link. [-link] And 'consultation' or not, several million Euros to test and slaughter more UK cattle, depend on compliance with it.

Thus we are seeing a decade or more of licensed exemptions to the old TB herd restriction rules, which while making zTB easier for farmers to live with,  did absolutely nothing to address the cause of their incarceration, unravelled in indecent haste by our paymasters.  

And no amount of 'Consultations' will alter the outcome.

An excellent day ..

... for the zoonotic Tuberculosis bacteria, known as mycobacterium bovis everywhere. In the shape of the great badger saviour, Dr. Brian May and his extraordinarily deep pockets, all its Christmases have come together.

Yesterday, (26th November) May's 'Save Me' campaign funded an 'exceptionally urgent' High Court challenge to halt the extension to the Gloucestershire -(link) pilot badger cull.

Please note Update  5.pm. Farmers Weekly interactive report that the High Court challenge has failed - (link)


But from the earlier Farmers Guardian report this morning:

John Cooper QC said: “From the material I have seen already, it is clear that appropriate procedures have not been taken in relation to this action, which will inevitably lead to the destruction of more wildlife if the Government remains unchallenged.

“In all the circumstances and for the grounds we have set out, we assert that the decisions made by Defra, the Secretary of State and Natural England, separately and or cumulatively were unreasonable and should be immediately revoked.”

Other quotes in the FG piece refer to the number of badgers culled out of an uncertain and moving target within a certain time frame and the subsequent effect on zTuberculosis levels in cattle. Not forgetting of course, other mammals which May's groupies and Defra would prefer to airbrush. Which is a bit bloody rich considering the disastrous launch with cage traps into grossly infected badger populations with cage traps for just 8 nights, undertaken by the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial almost two decades ago.

And as we predicted, the polemic widens, with poor old Monty Don having to close his Twitter account - (link) after a deluge of abuse. He mentioned that control of the badger population was probably necessary.

Responding to a request to join a march against the cull, Mr Don, who succeeded Jonathan Dimbleby as President of the Soil Association in 2008, tweeted: “Not sure whether the cull is in principle a bad thing. Probably ineffective but not necessarily wrong as a trial.”

Later, as opponents of the policy questioned his comments, he added that the cull was ‘an honest attempt to control TB’.

He said: “We cull many animals – don’t know why badgers get special treatment.”

Quite. Apart from becoming a 'cult' animal for a few and a beneficial cash cow revenue stream for many, badgers are the main predator of many ground nesting birds, bees and wasps (via nests) hedgehogs and small invertebrates. And they dig up carrots. But as more land developments proceed, even if their ancestral homes are protected by statute, their grazing habitats may not be. A consequence is territorial displacement and the perturbation which then explodes the disease which is endemic in the population.

Those statements are not the fanciful wishes of your editors: they are contained in the answers to PQs archived on this site from Owen Paterson's 2003/04 questions. Scroll down to 2004 and read them.

 This is not a debate about badgers or cattle. Controlling the spread of a zoonotic Grade 3 pathogen needs no debate at all. It is by statute an undertaking Governments must adhere to, to protect human health.

 But as the rift grows between the misguided people who want to 'save' all the badgers regardless of their disease status, the ambitious and unscrupulous pseudo scientists who play the 'vaccination' card as an alternative to disease control and those who want a meaningful control of zTB, the only 'winner' is the zoonotic bacteria which infected badgers share so easily.

 This is a comment found on one of the few sites which still allow badgerists that sort of platform:

“The longer this sorry debate drags on, the weaker the democratic process looks. I don't think peaceful protest is working. The innocent are still dying. Until the badger killers are actually slaughtered on the job themselves by the same gunfire they are using against these defenceless creatures, we shall get nowhere. We need to put people off killing with a dose of their own medicine. It worked in World War 2. Democracy has to be fought for - it doesn't just happen.”

That was a comment in a Westcountry online newspaper. And from the fragrant Chris Packham, he of the BBC Badger Benefit club, comments on his Twitter account recently earned him a severe rap on the knuckles after an enquiry into his 'intemperate' comments by Lord Hall of Birkenhead. At the start of the pilot culls, Packham's Tweets included this little gem:

"Tonight could be the darkest for British wildlife that we have witnessed in our lives. [] ..that brutalist thugs, liars and frauds will destroy our wildlife and dishonour our nation's reputation as conservationists and animal lovers."

So Merry Christmas to the zoonotic Tuberculosis bacteria of Gloucestershire. Brian May and Chris Packham love you all.

Incidentally as happened in the RBCT, we're hearing from Gloucestershire of the back up cage traps trashed, intimidation, damage and trespass. In fact complete chaos in an area where FERA's Mark Chambers told us that around 43 per cent of the badgers were infected and that this was "typical of badgers in areas on endemic zTB".

 In that area (Gloucestershire) as well as sentinel tested reactor cattle, we also have reported bison, alpacas and sheep as spill over victims of this bacterium which badgerists are sooooo keen to protect.

So this latest High Court challenge proves an excellent day indeed, for zoonotic bacteria everywhere - on what should be an incontrovertible Public Health issue.

zTuberculosis - a very personal battle.

While Brian May's groupies chitter on about 'saving' tuberculous badgers and Defra wring their collective hands while counting the exorbitant cost of slaughtering sentinel, tested reactor cattle (not to mention sheep, alpacas, goats and deer), a very poignant reminder has appeared on FACEBOOK - [link] as to why the eradication of this disease is so very necessary.

It tells the story of one person's father and his very personal battle, not with badgers, cattle, alpacas, sheep or the family cat, but with tuberculosis. A battle which inevitably, he lost.We quote it in full:

"My father, a minister in Scotland during the war, contracted TB at some point, and its effects were to be devastating to us all. At first it lay dormant, as it often does - but by the time I came along, some ten years later, it was starting to make its presence felt.

By this time he was a professor, and had had to move to the city, and a combination of winter smog and the pressures of his new job resulted in a twelve month stay in hospital. We moved to the country, where at least there was no smog, and life settled down.

As a child I simply accepted that he loved walking, but that hills defeated him; loved rugby but was never able to join in our back garden games. I can recall so well the sound of his breathing as he climbed the stairs, the noisy laboured sound so familiar and almost comforting to me, but a 'not-rightness' about it which worried me too. His coughing fits were frightening, his gasping for breath, the veins standing out on his forehead - but he was fiercely independent and we were never allowed to offer sympathy, or discuss his illness, and the TB word was never mentioned.

I was eleven years old when he collapsed again. I knew I had to be brave, but once he and Ma had gone to the hospital, I cried and cried as never before, terrified that we were losing him, my brother unable to comfort me.

He was in hospital for months again. I still have the letter he sent me for my twelfth birthday, sweet, funny and self-deprecating, it still makes me smile - and cry - when I read it now.

Eventually we were allowed to visit him, and I carefully chose a copy of 'Punch' magazine from a newsstand to take him, desperately wanting him to laugh again, for everything to be all right once more. He came home at last, and threw himself into his work.

He was hugely popular with colleagues and students alike, and he impatiently brushed aside any intrusive questions as to his health. I had my skin test at school for the BCG injection, and of course my arm blew up like a balloon - and at last my mother explained to me that he had tuberculosis, but that he didn't want anyone to know.

He wrote a brilliant but controversial book about Scotland and the terrible injustices of the Highland Clearances, drawing on the experiences of his Hebridean forbears. He was constantly in demand, at the very peak of his career - and he was failing..

He 'raged against the dying of the light', even as this awful thing was engulfing him; working feverishly, trying to finish another book, write lectures, address students, even as his hopelessly damaged lungs started to let him down. He collapsed again, but this time there was to be no recovery.

Tuberculosis finally defeated him; he was 58, and I was days away from my 18th birthday.

And within a few years of his death, we had TB virtually eradicated from the UK. We forget the awful toll it used to take on children and adults alike, and generations have grown up never having seen its effects. But we belittle it and forget it at our peril - because by allowing it to rampage unchecked through our badger population, we have put ourselves and our children, and our children's children, at risk once more, and it is stupidity beyond belief. TB is still a killer disease, and it's still there, waiting for any of us, just over the hedge."

We can add nothing to that.

What we see happening now IS stupidity beyond belief.
 Tuberculosis IS still the killer disease it always was, particularly if not diagnosed and treated early enough.
 It IS now plastered over our environment, and it IS waiting to pounce, from just over the hedge.

And in many cases, the current generation of health professionals, vets and vaccinators are unaware of the not inconsiderable risks this disease carries. 

For some [- link] the warning is too late. For others - [link] although 'treated', the disease may remain and their lung capacity and thus lifestyle, be severely impaired for the rest of their lives. We play with the bacterium which causes zTuberculosis at our population's - [link] peril.

 But by concentrating polemic surrounding zoonotic tuberculosis merely to its animal victims and tested dead sentinels, 'playing with it' - [link] is exactly what we are doing.

BCG in Spain - a modelled scenario.

In GB, we are not alone in torturing the old BCG (Bacillus calmette-guerin)  vaccine into some sort of alternative control for  zTuberculosis in wild life reservoirs of the disease.

We understand that if it works at all, BCG is better at preventing 'extra pulmonary' lesions. Which means that lung (or pulmonary) lesions are still a problem and a source of spread of the disease - including or even especially to BCG vaccinated human contacts - [link]
 



Reporting earlier in August this year is a paper - (link) which discusses the modeled effectiveness of BCG, in controlling zoonotic Tuberculosis in wild boar, one of the wildlife reservoirs of the disease in southern Spain.


 The abstract is as follows:

"Bovine tuberculosis is a persistent disease of livestock in many parts of the world, especially where wildlife hosts co-exist with livestock. In south-western Spain, despite the widespread implementation of test-and-cull strategies for cattle, the herd prevalence in areas with high wild boar densities remains stable. The control of M. bovis infection in wild boar is likely to be essential for effective disease control in livestock."

The control of a zoonotic disease in any wildlife reservoir is essential, but we all know that don't 'we'? The authors of this paper, including British scientists from York University, developed an individual-based model to evaluate whether vaccinating wild boar piglets with oral BCG bait would be an effective strategy to reduce the prevalence of M. bovis infection in wild boar populations and thus the effect on farmed cattle.
The abstract explains their modelled method:

"Specifically, we quantified the proportion of piglets requiring vaccination and the number of years the vaccination programme would need to continue to eradicate bTB from wild boar within 25 years, comparing ‘managed’ populations on hunting estates where supplementary food is provided, [and populations controlled - ed] with ‘unmanaged’, free-living populations. Successful vaccination was defined as the proportion of piglets that were delivered the vaccine and were effectively protected from infection."

The key results of this exercise were as follows:

"Longer-term (25-year) vaccination strategies were more successful than short-term (5-year) strategies at either eradicating M. bovis or reducing it to below 90% of its original prevalence.

M. bovis infection could be eradicated under a 25-year vaccination strategy if 80% of piglets were vaccinated in a managed population or 70% of piglets were vaccinated in an unmanaged population. In contrast, 5-year strategies in which 80% of piglets were vaccinated reduced only by 27% or 8% in the managed and unmanaged populations, respectively."

Just so there is no misunderstanding of this result, the model showed that when oral bait was thrown at 'unmanaged'  free living, wild populations of wild boar in Spain, the take up necessary by the young piglets to give any protection again z Tuberculosis required 25 years of baiting and a coverage of 70 per cent of the population. A lot of 'ifs' and 'maybes' but the gist is, coverage has to be very comprehensive and the time scale very long. And that the programme is aimed at a population whose size, health and welfare is controlled or 'managed'.

 Conversely if vaccination was offered over 5 years to an 'unmanaged' population the effect was just 8 per cent drop in disease spill over.

 Compare this more realistic (if mathematically modeled) scenario to the outrageous claims (- link) being made for a single dose, ad hoc vaccination programme on an unmanaged, wild population of grossly infected British badgers - and weep.

The paper concluded that:

"The results of our simulation model, coupled with the promising results of initial vaccine and oral bait- uptake trials in wild boar indicated that vaccination could be an effective strategy to reduce the prevalence of M. bovis infection in wild boar if used in conjunction with other disease-control measures."

Before anyone gets over excited and does an abbreviated cut/paste on that snippet, please note the end of that particular sentence:

 Vaccination of unmanaged wild boar in Spain, may have a part to play over a 25 year zTB eradication strategy, "if used in conjunction with other disease-control measures".  

Disease control measures as in 'managing' the population? And removing the grossly infected pockets?

The National Trust and its badgers.

*Please note : This post has been updated. New information has come in and sadly, blogger's calculator needed a new battery. Apologies for the previous error.

The AGM of the National Trust took place in Cardiff last week, and a motion to vaccinate badgers on NT land was defeated. Although this was possibly more on the grounds of cost than any pretence at the assumed efficacy of the procedure. To put you in the picture, we have received the following message from a farmer living near the NT's flagship project, already taking place at the Killerton Estate in the Exe valley of Devon.

"The Killerton Estate is roughly 6,500 acres, has large areas of deciduous woodland and park land. None of the farms are huge and all of them have relatively small fields with what would probably add up to thousands of miles of hedges and Devon Banks. So ideal habitat for Mr. Badger."

We understand that the area known as the 'Exe valley' is a catchment of rivers feeding into the river Exe; it is around 250 sq km and we are told, is one of the biggest TB hotpots in Devon. So with that level of infectivity in its stripey residents, and many cattle farms under restriction, possibly not the best place to launch a vaccination project?
But all in all, a pretty extensive area supporting how many badgers?

Remember, contrary to culling badgers, no contentious head count is needed by those about to vaccinate them. Grab a cage and a needle, a mask if you must ... and off you go.

So from us, a spot of fag packet maths for a badger head count on the 6,500 acres (or 26 sq km) at Killerton. The average number of badgers volunteering to be trapped in one square kilometre is said to be between 9.6 (by the RBCT in 1997) and 15/16 (FERA in their 2008/9 badger vaccination project.) So without going out  as FERA did for the pilot culls and counting heads, (and getting it wrong. Twice.) we will take 250 badgers as the lower figure and 430 as the higher, as inhabiting the NT's Killerton Estate.

And out of that lot, how many badgers did the National Trust's vaccination team manage to cage trap and jab in their night time forays?

In 2011, oral bait was deployed  skittered around, and a lot of traps set 'open' with an emphasis on finding the most suitable bait. As FERA were doing this work, one would have thought that after 50 years of trapping  Woodchesters' badgers they would have known their favourite treats - but we digress....
We are told that in 2012, the first year of vaccinating playing around in the woods, just 104 individuals had been jabbed of which about 40 were adults. In 2013, a better result and 202 were trapped. It is unknown what proportion that was of the local residents, and of those,  how many were already infected before being jabbed with a vaccine whose modeled 'efficacy' is now rolled back to 54 per cent.
The vaccination trials at Killerton started in 2011, so they have been "playing around in the woods" for over 3 years now. In that time (and a spend of £240,000)  they have managed to trap and vaccinate a total of 306 Badgers. But in the trap area, there could be up to 430 individuals.
 FERA don't know. They didn't have to count them.

And the cost of all this?  The Killerton project was predicted at £80,000 per year for four years. So, in the 3 years reported thus far (2011, 2012, 2013) this NT  'trial' has cost to date £240,000.00  with 306 badgers trapped and vaccinated in years 2 and 3. And that works out at a cost of £784.31 per Badger jabbed. 

But as we have pointed out, not all the badgers will have been trapped and of those which were,  many will already be infected. And that could be as few as 25 percent, or more likely, as in  FERA's vaccination project to test its 'Elf 'n Safety' in 2010, that figure could be 43 per cent. Which lead author Mark Chambers kindly explained at the time, was a level of infection "typically found in badgers in endemic areas" - which the Exe valley most certainly is.

So jabbing Killerton's 306 badgers has cost £784.31 per badger jabbed, so far. And an average population head count means that between 198 and 296 were not trapped. And there is of course, no indication that the badgers trapped and vaccinated in 2013, were the same badgers who volunteered in 2012. Taking this further, the modeled efficacy of the 'vaccine' plus the 'vaccinating'  of animals already infected with z tuberculosis means that of those 306, just 94 animals may have benefited from the experience.
Up to half the estimated population of badgers at Killerton have yet to be caught at all.


And that very rough calculation works out at a staggering  £2553.19  for each jab on a badger which has not yet contracted z tuberculosis.

Sheesh, the landlords could have mended a good few tenant's roofs for that money. And on tabular valuation £2553 would buy Defra a couple of cows, or 3.4 alpacas. No compensation, tabular or otherwise, is payable by AHVLA / Defra for sheep, pigs, deer or goat victims of z Tuberculosis.

As we explained, the Killerton Estate website cites a figure of around £320K for this vaccination 'work' over its four year time span. But as more badgers were trapped in 2013 than 2012, they will only be on year one of the four year jab programme will they not? Some may not be the same badgers volunteering a second time round at all. But following Saturday's AGM resolutions, we are unsure as to whether the project will continue into 2014, or even beyond that, as planned.  It is due to report its results (levels of cattle TB?) in 2015.

This is a video - (link) made at the start of the project.


But back to the National Trust's AGM. We are grateful to Dr. Lewis Thomas who attended and also noted that there was a huge amount of emotional disinformation being voiced from those lobbying for vaccination.

Dr. Thomas's presentation is below:

Chairman, there is one compelling biological and epidemiological reason to reject the resolution before the meeting today namely that: A proven vaccine against bovine TB either for badgers or cattle currently does not exist. The Badger BCG vaccine, which was granted only a Limited Marketing Authorisation in March 2010, has no proven efficacy against bovine TB in the field. And even in challenge experiments with naive, uninfected badgers in the laboratory it fails to protect solidly against infection that is vaccinated animals become infected and shed the causal organism. The LMA was granted essentially on the basis of safety data that showed the vaccine did not harm the target species although that is open to question since post mortem examinations were not carried out on the test animals. Limited efficacy data were published in a paper published in the Royal Society’s on line journal and trumpeted on BBC News on line in December 2010 claiming the vaccine afforded 74% protection to vaccinated animals in the field. This was an outrageous and totally unjustified claim, the findings merely demonstrated a 74% difference in serological response between vaccinated and control animals. This is not evidence of protection as was claimed by FERA in the BBC report.

Furthermore to expect such a vaccine to protect against the huge burden of infection currently present in large parts of the badger population can only be described as highly speculative, driven it would appear largely by public perception of vaccination rather than scientific reality."

Dr. Thomas then voiced out own views that ad hoc and indiscriminate vaccination of wild badgers, many of which will already be infected with z. tuberculosis, is being portrayed as a valid alternative to culling infected pockets of these animals. He concludes:

"We are seriously concerned that the Government and other organisations such as the NT are presenting vaccination using the BCG vaccine in badgers as a realistic option in its own right as an alternative to culling.

Vaccination is not a magic, fits-all-diseases bullet. Vaccines may provide solid immunity against some diseases for example rabies and canine distemper but it does not follow that they will be effective against TB.

BCG is not a reliable or efficacious vaccine in man and other mammals (only 70% efficacy in man) It has been in existence for nearly a century and attempts to improve it over the years, particularly recently, have not met with success.

Promotion of the Badger BCG vaccine by DEFRA and its agencies can only be described as scientific deception on a grand scale. We therefore urge the meeting to reject the proposal to widen the deployment of the Badger BCG vaccine across all National Trust properties for the sound biological reasons outlined above and not to squander valuable resources on highly speculative projects."

After the meeting, Dr. Thomas commented that the NT resolution  was defeated possibly " not for entirely the right reasons"  but he thought it significant  that the proposer conceded in her summing up that  "vaccination was an “act of faith”" .

* Biographical note: Dr Lewis Thomas joined the Institute for Research on Animal Diseases, Compton in 1968 after a short period in general veterinary practice. At Compton he worked on the pathology and immunology of large animal diseases, principally respiratory disease and mastitis of cattle. He retired in March 2000 from what by then had become the Biology and Biotechnology Research Council’s Institute for Animal Health.

More on the National Trusts' AGM is in this Farmers Guardian - link report.

Section 10 (2) (a) - Protection of Badgers Act.

Section 10 (2) (a) of the Protection of Badgers Act (1992) allows for the culling of badgers 'to prevent the spread of disease'. But a £1m bung from the Political Animal Lobby in 1997 purchased a moratorium on this part of the Act and in private correspondence, Natural England confirm that no licenses have been issued since then.

In his raft of Parliamentary Questions lobbied in 2004, Owen Paterson asked "What was the current policy on the issuing of licenses under this section of the Act, and how many the Secretary of State (then Madame Beckett) expected to issue in the next 5 years. [158605]

 The answer given on 18th March 2004, Col 431W was unequivocal;

Under section 10 (2) (a) - to prevent the spread of disease: "It is current policy not to issue any licenses under sub section 10 (2) (a) to prevent the spread of bovine tuberculosis, except for animals held in captivity."

And as far as we were aware, that was still the situation. Until today. When we read Natural England's letter of reply to the Badger Trust's hissy fit query over the extension to the Gloucestershire pilot cull.

 These pilot culling areas were we thought, to determine whether free shooting was a humane way of dealing with badgers. And an expert group will examine the results and the protocol, when they finish.
But perhaps we were wrong? Paragraph 5 of the letter, explains:

5. But the purpose for which the licences were granted in Gloucestershire and West Somerset is disease control. Thus it is incorrect to characterise the cull as being for 6 weeks only.

So not to test the protocol at all? But for disease control? Well, well, well.

Paragraph 8 nails this further:

8. The purpose of the requirement for a 6-week limit to the licensed period of culling was to ensure that every effort would be made to achieve the objective of reaching the minimum number to be culled within the six weeks.

At no point has it been said by Defra or by the CVO that, if culling did not achieve the objective of reaching the specified minimum number within the six-week period of the annual cull, then culling would never be permitted to continue. Indeed it would be irrational to have done so, given that the purpose of granting the licence was to reduce bovine TB, if a further licence would achieve a greater reduction in bovine TB.

The letter from Natural England is on this link. And the Badger Trusts's original challenge. (- link) is here.

The original wording of the NE license for the pilots is worded as a "TB AREA CONTROL LICENSE ' which could mean controlling badgers in an area where sentinel tested cattle are flagging up TB, regardless of outcome for the cattle - as in the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial. But equally, it could mean controlling badgers to prevent the spread of disease within such a TB area. Whatever NE wants it to mean, we think.

 So is the moratorium on Section 10 (2) (a) still in place - or not?