Gardening leave.

Please refer to Warmwell -[link] for any TB updates, for the time being.

TB in camelids - has BAS got the hump?

As we explained in our posting below -[link] a Defra consultation is currently circulating on statutory and voluntary TB eradication measures for deer and camelids - [link]. And the breed society concerned with the latter appear to be less than happy, offering advice to their members to reply to the consultation and 'put pressure on Defra' thus:

Dear Sirs

I/We respond to your consultation document referenced above as follows:

1. Compensation (Question 6) - The compensation currently offered does not reflect an alpaca’s value. I/We insist that you base the compensation on market values as with cattle. The average price of BAS Registered Pedigree Breeding stock we sold last year was £…………. each.

2. Tests used in a breakdown (Question 7) - I/We feel very strongly about the tests used and insist on Enferplex being one of the choices available in all testing scenarios including bTB breakdowns.

3. Prohibition on Vaccination (Question 4) - I/We insist that DEFRA do not impose a blanket prohibition on vaccination until the research results relating to badgers and cattle are published and that further consultation takes place then.

 The whole consultation document can be viewed at the bottom of the Defra sheet in  the above link.

It indicates that identification of camelids and non vaccination or 'treatment' for zTB will be statutory. The rest is apparently up for discussion.

 On BAS's short reply sheet, 'Compensation' for infected animals is always a sticky one. For example, cattle in England are on a derisory tabular valuation, goat farmers, selling valuable products into the human food chain, get none at all, deer farmers (again producing a food product) a gratuitous £650 (or a lower carcase value) and alpacas £750 - if they co-operate with the shambles that is the present zTB non statutory programme for non-bovines.

Defra appear to want a choice of ante mortem tests, and until one is validated as something like accurate for camelids, that would appear to be sensible. We hear that the screening test 'Enferplex' (which BAS seem to prefer), was recently used on a herd of alpacas, which sadly is no more. Many animals had lesions which this test failed to pick up. So apparently 'Enferplex' is not the 'Holy grail' of ante mortem tests at all - or as with the skin test, only if it fails to identify infected animals?
We would agree  that no vaccination programme of any animal should be instigated until the results of the badger vaccination programmes (BVDP)  are known. But as the first BVDP is now entering its 3rd year, and Defra / AHVLA show no inclination to publish the results of sentinel, tested cattle breakdowns in those areas which are indiscriminately jabbing badgers, don't hold your breath. The object of that particular pyramid is to train more vaccinators, and 'build farmer confidence in the concept'.
Remember that. Efficacy of the process is immaterial.

On 'treatment' (with drugs licensed for humans), whether prophylactic or used on infected animals, which is included in this section, the possibility of introducing more drug resistant strains of zTB which may go on to infect humans,  is mind blowingly stupid. Just our opinion of course.

Over the last four years we have been banging on about the numbers of alpacas falling victim to 'bovine' Tuberculosis. In many instances, whole herds have been lost. But to get Defra's statisticians to produce the correct figures for these dead animals, rather than their single confirming microbial sample, has been difficult damn nearly impossible. - [link] Pushing water uphill would have been easier.
But in January, after meeting an alpaca called 'Eddy', newly appointed Defra Minister George Eustice managed to get his department's figures a tad more accurate. And their 17 samples morphed into 592 dead alpacas.

As we remarked at the time, an increase of some magnitude - and they would be only the ones reported to AHVLA / Defra. Many would not have been.

What was even more of a shock however, was sight of tables produced regularly by the alpaca breed society, (BAS) which show the causes of death in animals reported to them. And these tables show that by far the biggest cause of death in alpacas is .... 'bovine' TB - or as we have correctly labelled it, zoonotic Tuberculosis. So despite their email fliers to members stating:

We must let DEFRA know that Alpaca owners care what happens to their animals.

 

... when it come to zTuberculosis, that particular water is a tad murky.

So we are grateful to the area Welfare reps who receive and have allowed us sight of these BAS figures, which can be viewed on this link - [link] We expect camelid breeders who receive these tables will be grateful for the information too, but curiously, we understand that not all the area Representatives feel able to share it.

To save time we'll paraphrase this snapshot of registered alpaca deaths reported to BAS, and from what they have apparently expired in the year ending 2012, with particular reference to zTB.

Of 1355 alpaca deaths reported to BAS in 2012, 731 (54 per cent) had no postmortem, and their cause of death was described as 'unknown' or 'no reason given'.
Of the remaining 624 deaths reported and a cause confirmed, 383 deaths were either directly from zTuberculosis or the animals were euthanized after failing screening tests on a TB restricted herd.

In their table, BAS describe that figure as '28 per cent' of the total reported deaths - which is high enough. But if those deaths from z TB are taken as a percentage of all alpacas reported dead and to which a cause of death is attributed, the figure is far higher at over 60 per cent.

And yet, this is this same Society which has consistently buried its collective head in the sand over the eradication of this disease from camelids, preferring, like Defra, to hide behind the derisory and misleading figure of the single confirming sample.

And prior to January 2013, when this table appeared - [link] that showed a figure of just 17 in 2012. Problem? What problem? We have no problem.
But judging by BAS's own figures, 383 registered animals did. But we "care what happens to our animals."


Defra's updated TB tables show almost 600 alpaca deaths in 2012. (These will include deaths of non registered animals, and deaths unreported to BAS)

As we have said in previous postings, this disease is no longer a 'bovine' problem.

 Polite Note: Defra's 'other species' figures for 2013 appear to have stalled in August / September of that year: Was it too hot for the computer? Everyone out with their buckets and spades? Easter egg hunt? Come on guys and gals, update those tables. Eight months is too long to wait.

zTuberculosis in deer and camelids - consultation

Following growing concern about the spread of the disease, DEFRA has published consultation document - [link] on the control of zTuberculosis in deer and South American Camelids (alpacas and llamas) and is inviting comments.







The Department is proposing changes to the current arrangements for dealing with bTB in deer and camelids in England. (Wales already has its own policy in place and Scotland are considering their options).

For camelids, proposed powers include statutory removal of reactors, which will be identified prior to removal and a flat rate payment of £750 per animal.
Other proposals include introducing blood tests that can be used outside of a breakdown situation: for example as pre-movement or pre-purchase and in cases where an animal may be showing symptoms which require TB to be ruled out.

Treatment and vaccination either prophylactic, or administered to animals with clinical symptoms of zTB, will also be prohibited.

At present these proposed measures are not mandatory, but Defra have indicated that they plan to introduce statutory powers, if camelid owners are reluctant to take the disease seriously on a voluntary basis.

The cynical amongst us would say that if the Department itself had taken the spread of this disease - [link] 'seriously' then applying punitive measures to other sectors may be given more than a lukewarm welcome.

 We understand that the alpaca breed society, the BAS have contacted members with the following message on this Defra TB Consultation:

 YOUR VIEW COUNTS 

19 days to go .. 

WE NEED YOUR HELP TO PUT PRESSURE ON DEFRA 

Look out for an email in the next few days to guide you through a response to the consultation document.

"Put pressure on Defra." To do what? One hopes that it is not to bury this disease deeper than ever. And thus infect more animals,  their owners and vets? - [link]

That would be extremely irresponsible. However, as no details of  the BAS 'pressure' are presently available, we will publish the their 'response guidelines' to camelid owners, if and when we receive sight of them.

The “Consultation on Tuberculosis (TB) animal disease controls for deer and camelids” can be found at the
following link:

 https://consult.defra.gov.uk/bovine-tb/consultation-on-tb-controls-for-deer-and-camelids

Further documentation and information can be found by following the above link, together with an online survey (and printable version) for your response.

Consultation responses must be received by 6th. May 2014.

Impasse or opportunity?

As the ill conceived -[link] pilot culls are inevitably thrown into Ministerial long grass, cattle farmers are left dangling from a rope of  punitive obligations which are supposed to keep their herds free of zTuberculosis.
 It has even been suggested that Herd Health schemes and pedigree societies include zTB as a 'health' brownie point.

To bundle zTuberculosis into a pot of diseases over which we do have a semblance of control, is about as low as it gets. Keeping a closed herd and secure, cattle free boundaries is fine; but if a manky badger piddles across your land, you're stuffed - and so presumably would be your 'accreditation'?

As Defra and its agencies are the only people who have the power to control zoonotic Tuberculosis in wildlife, but choose to exercise their right not to do that, why should cattle farmers suffer the consequences?

 So what now? As more punitive cattle measures rain down, several organisations appear to be joining us in calling for a cull of diseased badgers rather than a cull of badgers per se. These include The Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management -[link] and yesterday's press release from the SW Branch of the NFU has expressed similar sentiments. A quote from the NFU paper:

The NFU’s South West regional board has expressed its frustration that ‘politics’ have taken precedence over animal health and is compromising the welfare of all susceptible species, including domestic pets, in the battle against bovine TB. It is also calling on the NFU’s national council to ‘pursue with urgency’ other more targeted culling models for controlling the disease in the badger population.

Regional board chairman and beef farmer, Martin Howlett, whose own farm in east Cornwall has battled with the disease, has also written to HRH the Princess Royal on behalf of the board thanking her for expressing her concerns publicly over the animal welfare consequences for farm animals and wildlife of unchecked TB and contributing so compellingly to the debate about other means of controlling it amongst badgers.They point out that "Bovine TB controls which lead to the slaughter of thousands of cattle annually and the imposition of highly stressful testing regimes and restrictive movement measures upon livestock and those that farm it, are set to be ratcheted up still further."

“We know we have to do our bit to rid the countryside of this pestilence and are jumping through every hoop to do so,” says Martin Howlett. “But when we see all too frequently closed herds going down with TB, where there is no contact with other cattle, like that of our Dorset chairman, we know the disease is in the wildlife population, particularly badgers, which inhabit the same pastures and are the greatest excreters of TB bacilli via their urine, dung and sputum.

“Vets confirm our concerns, and not even the most vociferous animal rights protesters can deny that there is cross contamination between the species, so farmers think why on earth are we sacrificing all these cattle and putting them and ourselves through a huge amount of stress when we know that the disease is still out there thriving in the fields hosted unwittingly by its primary wildlife vector – badgers – for which it shows no mercy and is an incurable curse too."

“We are especially concerned because other farmed and wildlife species as well as domestic pets and even humans in direct contact with infection are susceptible as well. Anyone with a genuine interest in animal health and welfare would surely see the sense in countering the main sources of infection and, unfortunately, where the disease is acute amongst badgers, vaccination is not curative and cannot tackle it.”

The press release also has a link to this footage - [link] of a distinctly wobbly badger, rooting amongst hay bales in a farm hay barn. The video is one of many obtained with night vision cameras by the South West TB Advisory Group. What they are unable to tell farmer clients, is what to do with it.

Perhaps it should be vaccinated? That will fix it - [link] And unfortunately many Badgerists do actually believe that.

 As a PR exercise, badger vaccination is on a par with the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial for prevarication and job creation. But unfortunately, it fills a comforting PR gap for wobbling politicians. And there have been many of those over the years.

But the results for our cattle of this latest in high profile chicanery, AHVLA appear to have no intention of publishing as 'stand alone figures', it seems. The vaccination areas are still absorbed into their home county statistics, so no one has any idea of what is happening to the cattle, (or alpacas, sheep, goats or cats) inhabiting the same area - except the farmers concerned. Collect your own data?

 But slowing down the upspill of this disease into sentinel cattle herds,  is not the object of this latest wheeze exercise at all. We explored that in this posting - [link] which also had that wonderful quote from AHVLA's Prof. Glyn Hewinson who told us:

"The primary aims of the project are to learn lessons about the practicalities of deploying an injectable vaccine; provide training for others who may wish to apply for a license to vaccinate badgers; and build farmers confidence in the use of badger vaccination. "

"Defra is providing funds to cover 50% of the cost of becoming an accredited and certified lay vaccinator and has extended the availability of its vaccination fund to cover 2013 training courses for members of voluntary and community sector organisations. So far, 137 lay vaccinators have been trained on the cage trapping and vaccination of badgers."

Excellent.
137 vaccinators, launching into unknown numbers of badgers, with no idea of the health status of any of them and using a product offering no efficacy data at all in its VMD license?
But that is expected to 'build farmers' confidence' in the concept?? In your dreams.

Correspondence has recently been submitted to the Veterinary press, which questions how FERA's claims for badger BCG have been exploded beyond its reality. A snippet:

" Although the Badger BCG vaccine has been shown by one parameter (disease severity score) to provide significant protection against experimental challenge it fails to protect against infection and all vaccinated animals shed M.bovis post challenge.

The likelihood therefore of the vaccine giving protection in the face of the massive infection out there in the badger population is therefore highly improbable. That is even supposing enough animals can be vaccinated which is equally improbable.

[] I do not accept that the difference in serological response between vaccinated and non vaccinated animals is direct evidence of protection.

I also raise the possibility of the vaccine being actually harmful, which doesn’t seem to have been considered by proponents of the vaccine. There are interesting immunological reasons why this may be so."

When this synopsis is published in full, we will revisit.

 Over the last 20 years, as one farmer contributor to The Farmers Forum so succinctly put it, successive Emperors Ministers have been left " standing in a deep hole, stark bollock naked" by their Agencies, assorted lobbyists and their own advisors. And instead of handing them a coat with which to cover their embarrassment, the advisor's only offering has been a larger shovel.

It is time for a change.

Comfort Blanket?

As AHVLA carve up the country into areas of 'Risk' from zoonotic Tuberculosis, the comfort blanket of four year testing outside the High risk and Edge areas has once again, taken a hit.
A dispersal sale of a cattle herd from Cumbria, sold in Cheshire, has subsequently revealed several reactors. Farmers Guardian -[link] has the story.

This is not the first time that this has happened, with this sale in 2010 - [link] causing similar problems. Unfortunately farmers purchasing stock are often quite unaware that in these 4 year testing areas, no test is required before any dispersal sales and several do ask for stock to be tested prior to purchasing.

One of our veterinary sources has sent this comment:

It is also worth noting that cases of herd breakdowns are not that uncommon in Cumbria - years ago the outbreak can clearly be seen in the Dunnett Report maps.

The cluster of cattle cases was, at that time, as big as a cluster in the Midlands. Interestingly, the source was traced back to a couple of infected badgers.

Subsequently, it was found that the Cumbria area had its own TB type. The spoligotype was the same as one of the Midlands outbreaks, but the VNTR typing was different.

This type was found in badgers and cattle from the area and I believe that all the outbreaks from elsewhere with this type (that could be traced), traced back to Cumbria.

So, rather inconveniently, this is a TB endemic area. This has been known for decades.

So why is Cumbria on 4 yearly testing?

Why indeed.
Test and ye shall find.  More testing inevitably reveals more 'problems' in sentinel cattle. 








The Manchester Ship Canal and a large urban area look good on a map and are also thought to act as a badger barrier.  But that conveniently ignores the infected Cumbrian bred residents already behind it, and the untested alpacas and translocated badgers happily leaping over it.

Further speculation as the source of this outbreak is futile until AHVLA's team have done their spoligotyping of the type and VNTR responsible for this outbreak, in what, on their maps at least, should have been a clean area.
Meanwhile Defra's comfort blanket has a few more holes.

Royal approval?

As HRH the Princess Royal once again enters the fray over the control of tuberculosis in badgers, and badgers in general, by recommending gassing, we revisit an earlier comment which she made. And more importantly, a leading 'scientist's' reaction to it.  

22nd February 2003: Princess Anne commented - [link] as she left a meeting:

"If anyone tells me there is no proven link between bovine TB and badgers, I will see them outside later"

The following day, members of the EFRA Committee - [link] were giving the ISG chairman, Professor John Bourne a light toasting and here is that gentleman's answer to Princess Anne's remark:

 23rd February 2003

156: Just briefly then, we have not got much hope on the vaccination front, we have not got much hope from your report coming out in March that the Government will be able to formulate policy on this; have we got any hope to look forward to at all or is it going to turn out that Princess Anne was right?

(Professor Bourne) Princess Anne is right but what Princess Anne did not answer is the question, okay, badgers are involved, but what the hell do you do about it? We do not know.

But as we have pointed out so many times before, the diminutive professor had already had his political instructions. - [link] .

 Bourne was the leader of the RBCT, which started the 10 year prevarication trial with a political steer that no large scale culling of badgers would happen at the end of it. This is what he told the committee in 2007:

"Let us go back to 1999 when we started our work. It was made very clear to us by ministers of the day - and they have not refuted it since - that elimination of badgers over large tracts of countryside was not an option for future policy".

A horrified Geoffrey Cox, MP intervened "Is it not the function of science..." but the diminutive Prof. was in full spate. He was not to interrupted and continued:

"It was on that basis that we designed the trial. We also had to take into account welfare considerations with respect to culling used, and limitations on culling with respect that cubs were not killed or died underground [ ] Those were clear political limitations that we operated under; I have no reason to believe that those political limitations have changed".

Geoffrey Cox, MP then asked Bourne to clarify the report's findings and its conclusions in the light of his statement describing a political steer in what should have been a scientific exercise. Professor Bourne replied thus:

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

So this eminent 'scientist' did know exactly what to 'do about it'. Prostitute his credentials following political whims and slam down hard on the cattle industry?

 And this, dear readers is the basis on which the ill fated pilot culls were founded. Tied up in so much red tape by the government agency, Natural England - [link] that the more cynical amongst us would assume that they too were 'designed to fail'.

A quote first published in the Western morning News, on Natural England's pilot cull protocol from former NFU SW director Anthony Gibson - after he had read the Annexes:

"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. 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."

The cull protocols were not altered, radically or otherwise, two licences were issued and the inevitable conclusion was - they didn't work on many levels. They were never meant to.

So as the Princess Royal tells us to 'forget cattle' and concentrate on the damage badgers are doing to the ecology as a whole, and that they should be controlled preferably by underground euthanasia, we find ourselves at an impasse. Cutting through all the political guff, the Princess Royal is quite correct.
Like our contributors, she says it as it is.

But from the EU, via Defra and its agencies we have a shed load of punitive cattle measures, the likelihood of levies to fund future breakdowns and yet little or nothing on which to hang our collective hats concerning tuberculosis in wildlife.

So, a brick wall or an opportunity to change course? We'll discuss that in a later posting.

You can lead a politician to information ....

* This post has been updated.


 This post is in direct response to the Secretary of State's reply in the House of Commons today, concerning the progress - or not - of PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) technology to identify infected badger setts.

From Roger Williams, Lib-Dem MP for Brecon and Radnor came the question:

I welcome the Secretary of State’s using all means at his disposal to control the disease. One of those is the polymerase chain reaction test, which will be able to identify infected live badgers and the setts in which they live. Will he ensure that all the available resources go into promoting that test, which could have a role in controlling bovine TB?

And the reply from Mr Paterson:

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it would be a huge change if we could use PCR to analyse diseased badgers on the spot. That would change the whole debate and would be an enormous help in disease reduction. We have been working closely with the university of Warwick and are bringing in other agencies to see whether we can accelerate that work. Sadly, PCR is not yet reliable enough. If we can get a greater than 50% chance of identification, it will cause a sea change on this issue.

It may be prudent at this point to remind readers that Defra agency AHVLA are offering PCR screening - [link] as a commercial enterprise for m.avium paratuberculosis (Johnnes disease) And not to put too fine a point on it, at £27.05 + VAT for 5 pooled samples of s--t, as far as we are aware, no one is saying that the screening is less than accurate and a waste of money. (Page 15 of the pdf on the above link for the price and description)
Johnnes disease or  m.avium paratuberculosis and as m.bovis, are both members of the m.tuberculosis complex group of bacteria.

 It may also be prudent to remind that same agency that they trousered a not inconsiderable sum of taxpayers' money in 2005 / 6 for screening farmland mammals for - m.bovis. What test did they use? PCR - [link] And the published paper had no addendum that it was not worthy of the dead trees on which it was written because the test was rubbish? How very odd.

 The NHS  routinely use PCR to screen patients for m.bovis, and a privately funded study using samples from dead alpacas - [link] found that PCR was extremely accurate and very much in line with the post mortem results of the animal concerned. Importantly, there were no false positives.

So what would we have here? A badger sett with a red flag of 'scientific ID' that its occupants have given samples containing a Grade 3 zoonotic pathogen, the eradication of which this country is a signatory?

We can't possibly have that, Minister. Because if a group is so identified, but then (as now) left to infect other mammals and their owners, - [link] litigation is not just a possibility. It is a certainty.

It's far easier to shoot the messenger. You know it makes sense.

EDIT: ( Updated ):
Identification is key to targeted culling of infected wildlife.
We are aware that the examples of PCR in use for m.bovis screens given above, are laboratory based. 

Please, do not throw this baby out with its bath water.
If this technology is working on other samples, why not on the ones offered now?


We are also aware that in the alpaca PCR project, zTB had been confirmed by culture and /or postmortem and that samples obtained from these dead animals were carefully identified and protected from contamination.

How are any samples for badger sett PCR screens identified, and what is their source?
Is that source secure, unbiased and the samples 'uncontaminated'?
Are samples being collected on a regular basis, or is repeat screening carried out on a single sample?

All these factors may influence results of DNA type screening.

From epidemiological information gathered patiently over decades, it was found that infected badger groups are not constantly shedding m.bovis bacteria. Thus in a group of a dozen animals, all may have the disease but may not all be 'infectious' at the same time. Their tuberculous lesions wall up, and shedding from them is thus intermittent: thus faecal material collected over time, may give varying degrees of contamination when sampled..

In the latter stages of disease, PQs confirmed that a 'super excreter' badgers, with infectious tuberculous  lesions in several organs, will shed constantly in the months before it finally dies. These animals have been excluded by their peer groups, living alone and often close to farm buildings.

Cat to humans - transmission of zoonotic Tuberculosis.

AHVLA and Public Health England, today report cases of domestic cats infecting their owners with zoonotic Tuberculosis. The PHE press release is predictably dumbed down, on this link.  It explains that:

"Two people in England have developed tuberculosis after contact with a domestic cat infected with Mycobacterium bovis (M. bovis), Public Health England (PHE) and the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA) have announced.

M. bovis is the bacterium that causes tuberculosis (TB) in cattle (bovine TB) and in other species.

Nine cases of M. bovis infection in domestic cats in Berkshire and Hampshire were investigated by AHVLA and PHE during 2013. PHE offered TB screening to 39 people identified as having had contact with the infected cats as a precautionary measure. 24 contacts accepted screening.

Following further investigations, a total of two cases of active TB and two cases of latent TB were identified. Latent TB means they had been exposed to TB at some point but they did not have active disease. Both cases of active TB disease have confirmed infection with M. bovis and are responding to treatment."

Through AHVLA's diligent spoligotyping, the strain of mycobacterium bovis identified in the people infected in this outbreak, is exactly the same as the cat(s).

Could this cluster be the one mentioned in this posting - [link] of June last year?






Quoteed in the press release is Professor Noel Smith, Head of the Bovine TB Genotyping Group at AHVLA,  who said:

“Testing of nearby herds revealed a small number of infected cattle with the same strain of M. bovis as the cats. However, direct contact of the cats with these cattle was unlikely considering their roaming ranges. The most likely source of infection is infected wildlife, but cat-to-cat transmission cannot be ruled out.”

This is not the first time we have mentioned cats - [link] in the same breath as 'bovine' tuberculosis - that name really does confuse many, hence our adoption of the bacterium's zoonotic principles.

Shed loads of sentinel dead reactor cattle are apparently acceptable - [link] (at least to the Badgerists) but it seems none too smart to shaft decades of MAAF / Defra's intransigence in dealing with wildlife reservoirs of this disease, on to the hard pressed NHS.

Not really a 'bovine' problem anymore, is it?

Isolated.

Below is the text of letter from Defra to cattle breed societies, sent 19th. March 2014. It is self explanatory.

Department for Environment & Rural Affairs Date: 19 March 2014

To Pedigree Herd Societies

Dear Sir or Madam

Bovine TB: Risk Based Trading(RBT) and Pedigree Herds

As you may be aware, as part of Defra's programme to eradicate bovine TB, markets are being encouraged to ask cattle sellers to provide certain historic TB information so that buyers can make better decisions on the TB risks associated with the animals they introduce into their herds.

We have been made aware that some owners of pedigree herds in the High Risk area are concerned that the approach we are taking to promoting RBT may damage their ability to sell their cattle outside that area.

We wish to establish if this a view widely held by pedigree breed societies and, if so, what steps might be taken to help your members.

One option that has been put to us is for sellers who carry out a pre-movement test and then isolate pedigree stock on their holding prior to sending them to market to make that known to the auction market and for relevant information to be displayed at market and/or in sale catalogues. We would welcome that.

What we are unsure of is whether there is any role that Defra could play in seeking to make it happen, given that we would not have the resource to assess such isolation arrangements.

If you feel we could add value to your efforts, and your members' efforts, please let us know.

Of course, isolating stock prior to sale would not work for owners of TB breakdown herds.These herds will need to continue to abide by TB breakdown controls until such time as their official TB freedom is restored.

We also want to take this opportunity to let you know about work that has started to establish an accreditation standard for TB, which we hope would be of particular benefit to pedigree herd owners.

We are in discussion with Cattle Health Certification Standards (CHeCS) about the details of such a standard. As I am sure you know, around 90% of farmers who are accredited to the CheCS standard for other diseases, such as BVD, IBR and Johne's Disease, are pedigree herd owners.

We would welcome a dialogue with breed societies on risk-based trading.

Depending on responses to this letter, we would be happy to set up a discussion with those of you who wish to work with us. A response to this letter by 28 March would therefore be appreciated.

Yours faithfully

Geoff Jasinski 

"Depending on responses to this letter, [the man said] we would be happy to set up a discussion with those of you who wish to work with us." ...
And then, having 'consulted'  we'll do it anyway? You've got a week to reply and by the way, any form of effective badger 'management' is in the long grass. And 'vaccination' has taken on a life of its own as an alternative prevarication 'strategy'.

  A point of order Mr. J:


 
'Accreditation' for zTB in dairy cattle started in the 1960s when the eradication of this disease began across the British isles.

Farmers thus 'accredited' received an extra 4p a gallon for their milk.

Prior to 1972, farmers managed their own populations of wildlife, and post 1973, MAFF managed infectious badgers under license.

This was the Ministry map of parishes on annual testing due a 'confirmed breakdown' in 1986. Less than 100 herds were under TB restriction, and 684 cattle were slaughtered.

Everything stalled in the mid 1980s, as parallel action on infectious wildlife in response to cattle breakdowns was progressively sanitised and land available for cage trapping was reduced from 7km to just 1km from base. And then only permitted on land cattle had grazed..

Inevitably, the red parishes spread out. And out.





 
And since 1997 when Defra and its agencies made a conscious decision not to issue licenses under Section 10 (2) a of the Protection of Badgers Act, to 'prevent the spread of disease' you and your cronies have all but destroyed the cattle industry in the south/ south west of these islands. And are having a damn good go at flattening the enterprises of farmed deer, milking goats, free range pigs, pedigree sheep and alpaca farmers.

Have the breed societies of these other mammals received a fast track missive on Risk based Trading? No? We thought not.

One of their latest maps, looking a tad truncated as Wales and Scotland are missing, issued by Defra in 2013.

This year, inevitably, Defra's Maginot line has moved again..












 
By changing a label, and resurrecting the old description 'accredited' you won't stop grossly infectious wildlife infecting other mammals, and that's any mammal whether they be the food producing kind or companion varieties. In fact you have no strategy for zTB - [ link] at all - except more pain for cattle farmers.

From The Farmers Forum posts on this subject:

To bundle zTB into a pot of diseases over which cattle farmers do have a semblance of control, is about as low as it gets.
Keeping a closed herd and secure, cattle free boundaries is fine, but if a manky badger piddles across your land, you're buggered - and so presumably would be your 'accreditation'?

As Defra and its agencies are the only people who have the power to control zoonotic Tuberculosis in wildlife, but choose to exercise their right not to, why should farmers suffer the consequences?

.

Mr. Jasinski's contact is: geoffrey.jasinski@defra.gsi.gov.uk

Hot air

If you had nothing better to do yesterday afternoon[ link] an interesting but depressing few hours could have been spent listening to a group of people, discussing with incredible certainty and many howlers, a report which they had yet to read on a subject which few had any knowledge at all.

 As the Telegraph - [link] pointed out, 'the Honourable members agreed that they did not know what they were talking about'.

 So a more pertinent debate might have been on why the Secretary of State and the Honourable members were apparently the last the read the report into the pilot badger culls, ahead of a media driven, opportunist frenzy led by the BBC?

 A couple of beacons of light in an otherwise total waste of time, were comments from David Heath and in particular, Roger Williams @ 3.12 who said: "

Continuing results from the RBCTs show continuing benefits from proactive culling many years after the conclusion of the trials. The TB situation continues to improve in New Zealand and Australia. Improvements are also evident in southern Ireland where, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge might like to note, a reactive cull has been used.

Surprisingly, those areas that used reactive culling in the RBCTs now show improvements compared with the survey areas. Perhaps we should re-examine the use of reactive culling. More support for culling could be generated if we had a better test for TB in live badgers.

The good news is that the polymerase chain reaction test is making progress and hopefully by next year we will have a conclusive test. I am sure that the culling of infected setts, as identified by PCR tests, and the protecting of healthy setts would be supported. I ask the Minister whether there is any advance on those tests.

I am told that badgers culled in the pilots vary in weight from 6.5 kg to 22 kg. Evidence of disease in the lightest badgers probably implies that they would not survive the winter and would die in considerable distress of starvation, hyperthermia and disease. I have not heard anything today that would lead me to believe that the BCG vaccine alone will lead to an elimination of disease in the wildlife reservoir. I believe a cull is also needed as part of a wide-ranging policy, and for that reason I cannot support this motion."

By concentrating on cattle and badgers, the Honourable members missed the point that control of zTuberculosis, a grade 3 zoonotic pathogen,  is a statute to which this country is a signatory.

As a footnote, if as the leaked document implied, it took a badger 5 minutes to expire after being shot, is that not more the responsibility of the trial protocol, which demanded only two shots in the rifle chamber?
It also compares very neatly to the length of time it takes an unborn calf to die, kicking in the belly of its destroyed, heavily pregnant mother when she is shot as a TB reactor.

Hypocrisy.

Long distance hikes

A new study published in the Journal of Animal Ecology - [link] describes wild badgers as traveling ' great distances'. (so not the short rambles that Woodchester's peanut fed pets walk?)
A simple overview in Nature World News - [link] found that after tagging over 960 badgers in Kilkenny, the researchers noted:

"On average, the badgers were found just 2.6km from their dens, but 5 percent of those tagged were found more than 7.5km away from their dens, with the longest having made a 22.1 km journey."

In old money, that is an average of 4.6 miles for the 5 percent of the tagged animals moving away from their home base with the furthest long distance hop measured at 13.70 miles.
No mention is made of a return ticket.

And in Owen Paterson's Parliamentary written questions, tabled a decade ago now, the reason for these 'long distance' travels was described thus:

"Research conducted by the Central Science laboratory has identified behavioural differences between badgers excreting M bovis and uninfected animals. Badgers excreting M.bovis had larger home ranges and were more likely to visit farm buildings."

23rd March 2004 Column 684W [158375]

 The Irish research appears to confirm this, but goes further with some staggering statistics on infectivity:

"In lower-density populations, infection may be seeded, or disease prevalence maintained, in relatively isolated populations from dispersing badgers (Hardstaff et al. 2012). [snip]

However, this speculation must be considered against a backdrop of high bTB badger prevalence in Ireland (36%; Murphy et al. 2010) and parts of Britain (35–53%; Carter et al. 2012).

Given our findings, we would expect that 5% of badger dispersal attempts in this population would be at distances of  7·3 km over a 4-year study. This would indicate that, in the absence of physical movement barriers, buffers of ≥7·3 km may be needed to restrict inward dispersal and maintain site independence with a high degree of confidence.

We get the picture ....  which we've seen many times before.

Up to 53 per cent of GB's badgers now carry zTuberculosis. (Carter et al- 2012)
When they achieve 'super excreter' status - or even before - these highly infectious animals make long distance hops in an attempt to find sanctuary and die.(PQ 158375]
And these mobile time bombs can range an average of 'more than 7.5km from base, with the longest recorded at 22km.'
 This can 'seed' strains of M.bovis in previously uninfected areas.

And...? 

More sharks...

Following on from our posting below, another member of the voracious predators hacking away at the supposed content of a much leaked document, is the left wing Bow Group. - [link]

The group has found the time to compile a report into the as yet unpublished 'Expert' inspection report on the pilot culls, and also to publish it.

We do not propose to go through its lightweight content in any detail: suffice to say it begins and ends with the RBCT, Badger Dispersal Trial, learning nothing of any work on zTuberculosis done prior to that charade, or conclusions drawn since.

For the origins of the trial, it is useful to note the comments of the arch magician, Professor John Bourne, describing to the EFRA Committee - [link] how 'his' trial was designed with a steer not to cull badgers at the end of it. And as one member of his team, wanders through leafy glades on your television screen, explaining how any cull of badgers must be quick and complete to be successful, one may wonder how she manages to keep a straight face. Professor Rosie Woodroffe was part of the team which oversaw the 8 night annual forays with cage traps, the location of which were well publicised. That was the protocol dreamed up to capture badgers within the zones of  the RBCT.

Instead of believing her own guff, had Rosie ventured into the realms of history, she would have seen that a thorough clearance -[link] kept the area in which it took place clear of cattle TB for at least a decade.

But we digress: contrary to his instructions, John Bourne's efforts to create perturbation and stir up heavily infected populations of badgers and then bugger off  disappear for a year or more, did have an effect on cattle TB. And it wasn't the one which he expected. - [link]

And contrary to the populist green bio-garbage mantra that sentinel tested cattle are responsible for this epidemic of zTuberculosis - now affecting many other mammals and about which Defra would rather keep schtum - intense cattle measures have been attempted before. And failed completely.

But the Bow Group and their assorted followers, would very much like to see this country condemned to repeat -[link] this stamp down on cattle movements. This despite its recorded futility and despite the readily available spoligotype maps - [links] which after four decades of painstaking work, still show distinct blocks of one strain of zTB circulating between tested, slaughtered sentinel cattle - and free ranging badgers. 

Shooting the canary who brings you the message is never very smart, as the coal miners of old found out to their cost.

Encircled.

This week has shown the true extent of the problems any Secretary of State faces when attempting to solve a problem which various of his un-civil servants would rather he did not.

We do not intend to comment on the unknown content of a document 'leaked' to the BBC, except to enquire, by whom and for what purpose was it leaked to this particular organisation?
As Alistair Driver comments in this report - [link] published by the Farmers Guardian:

The BBC’s report has raised questions about how the report, or parts of it, was leaked and whether the leak, if genuine, came from the panel itself, Defra or its agencies.

This comes hard on the heels of another alleged mathematical cock up - [link] by the AHVLA's amazing  new TB computer programme known as 'SAM'.

A year ago almost to the day, SAM was pronounced 'fit for purpose' - [link] when it most certainly was not, - [link] and if the latest news is to be believed, is still not up to scratch.

Meanwhile, as FERA's Mark Chambers , "Mr. 74 per-cent" encourages his followers to indiscriminately jab any badger they are able to catch, - [link] the BBC gives free rein to a consortium of opportunist Badgerists and their assorted travellers on this over loaded gravy train, while totally ignoring the increasing march of a grade 3 zoonotic pathogen, zTuberculosis.

 Vital to any eradication process for zTuberculosis, is solid and current data on its progress. So may we respectfully suggest that:

1. If they have not already done so, Natural England share with AHVLA the identity of farms involved in the cull areas of both Somerset and Gloucestershire and produce cattle zTuberculosis results as stand alone figures. Statistics which are not be watered down (if you'll pardon the pun) by the rest of the county stats and attributed to cattle measures introduced in 2014.

2. That the IAA area of Wales, (where intensive cattle measures have been applied) produce monthly figures, as above and not diluted by the county stats, or, as happens at present, lagging 15 months behind the event.

3. Areas vaccinating any passing badger also produce up to date monthly statistics on the incidence of cattle zTB in those areas.

From the lack of up to date -[link] statistics from areas both vaccinating badgers and operating an Intensive Action Area for cattle, one must assume that the sharks are more than happy to continue their circling in a vacuum of silence on results of these efforts.

In this case, it is the various Agencies which together form the megalith known as 'DEFRA', holding hands with the BBC, various NGOs, the Wildlife Trusts and dancing to the tune of Brian May's guitar, who are circling for the kill around their new boss, the Right Honourable Owen Paterson MP.

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.