More on Killerton

Almost a year ago, we told the tale of the National Trust badger vaccination programme on its Killerton Estate - [link] in the Exe valley.

This area was a hot spot for cattle TB anyway, and the Trust decided to spend copious amounts of funds, and gain not a few brownie points by vaccinating some of its resident badgers. How many out of the total residing in Killerton's woods, it has no idea. And for results on cattle TB incidence, we have had to rely on farmers in the area, Defra flatly refusing to release stand alone figures for these latest playgrounds.

But this weeks, Farmers Weekly reports a pedigree beef herd - [link] on the estate, as going under herd restriction. From the notice on his gate, the farmer is less than happy.

And tonight, BBC local television network interviewed a very unhappy dairy farmer in a similar position. In fact we hear of several new herd breakdowns on the estate after 4 years of playing in the woods, with infectious badgers.

But the reason for vaccinating badgers, Defra tells us,  has nothing to do with the incidence of TB in cattle. Thus to collate and publish cattle test results in those areas, would they say 'be quite wrong'.

In 2011, they produced a paper with this little gem (and have repeated the doctrine many times since):

a): Bovine tuberculosis Animal species: Badger vaccination: Description of the used vaccination, therapeutic or other scheme Badger BCG licensed in March 2010 has been used as part of the Badger Vaccine Deployment Project to build farmer confidence in vaccines as a key tool in an eradication programme.

To build farmer confidence? Not with the farmers on the Killerton Estate, that's for sure.

And as we have said before, what an extraordinary reason for promoting a vaccine which doesn't work, for a zoonotic disease which kills.

Sometimes we wonder....

If you're as thick as two short planks, (or a May Queen badgerist) possibly you could be forgiven for getting things hopelessly wrong, but this site - [link] is said, quite proudly, to be 'managed by Defra', so in theory, anything it publishes should be correct.

So why is their September 5th post, flagging up Channel 4's "First Time Farmer's" problems with the disease whose full title is 'mycobacterium bovis' calling it a goddamn virus?
(Impolite note to Defra's apparatchiks - the clue is in that title.)

They describe the programme thus:

"The deadly Bovine TB hits the young farmers’ herds with a vengeance, and first to feel the full force of the disease is 24-year-old Charlie. The brutal virus is wrecking his investment in cattle, and now that the entire herd is quarantined, his livelihood is under threat. Robbie’s herd is smaller but just as vulnerable and is also quarantined. Robbie’s built-up a side-line in farm-reared pork, and turns to selling piglets to keep the cash flowing, but will it be enough?

No wonder this country is in such a mess with this disease.

On the other hand, this 'mistake' follows so many, that we really are not surprised at all.

(Actually, reading this through, we have been quite mild in our criticism. The grammar is crap too. The piece tells us that  "24 year old Charlie is the first to feel the full force of the disease"? That's a bit old for a bull isn't it? And we assume  that the First Time Farmer has not succumbed to zoonotic tuberculosis - yet. Sheesh.

But what we really think of these Jack and Jill 'mistakes' could not possibly have a place on a family blog.) 

Contradictions

It's ten long years since we started this site: mainly as a vehicle for information already collected about zoonotic tuberculosis, its effect on the wild maintenance reservoir in this country - badgers - and the epidemiological facts dragged out of Defra in the 538 Parliamentary questions which form the base.

We are now seeing projects come around again, wearing different clothes, and some extraordinary statements made which mean that current research projects have (in our humble opinions, of course) a very shaky base on which to stand.



Last week, Defra announced the rolling out of  badger vaccination - [link] in the current 'Edge' areas of England. We say 'current', because as a moving feast, what was an 'Edge' last year, could quite easily be included in high incidence this year.

For example, road kill badgers examined in Cheshire are showing a 24 per cent infection rate with farms following suit at an alarming rate.





So wherever Ken Wignall's badgers were heading, may not be an 'Edge' any longer and infection in its badgers is likely to be, as in Cheshire, considerable. Defra's data, as usual, is way behind the curve.
(Grateful thanks for permission to use the cartoon, published in Farmers Guardian 05/09/2014)



Now you know very well our take on badger vaccination - [link] , doled out indiscriminately to an unscreened population, on a very ad hoc basis. And seeing the take up of matched funding, (£20K out of £250K is a figure we've seen quoted) for these projects, maybe Queen May's badgerists know they're on a hiding to nowhere too.

But our first contradiction comes in with Defra's outright refusal to publish results of ongoing vaccination areas - and there a few now - on the cattle who share these contaminated pastures. In fact the answer to that request earlier this year was an unambiguous 'No'. We quote it below:

"You asked that we consider adding data to our monthly bovine TB statistics to separately report on the Badger Vaccination Deployment Project (BVDP) area in Gloucestershire and the Intensive Action Area (IAA) in Wales. We have no plans to do this at present.

The purpose of the BVDP is 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 farmer confidence in the use of badger vaccination.

So it would be wrong to use TB statistics for the area to assess the benefits of badger vaccination on TB in cattle."

Well pardon us for pointing out the obvious, but if not to 'assess the benefits' on cattle reactors and farm breakdowns, what are you doing this for?
 (Grateful thanks again to Ken Wignall and FG for use of the cartoon)


The second contradiction comes with a text book answer from the delectable Dr. Cheeseman, ex director of Woodchester Park badger heaven, where peanut fed pets continue to employ many of Cheeseman's successors.

'Thornbury' he snorted both on Radio 4 and Countryfile last week, when presented with the 100 per cent success that the badger clearance there had achieved in just 8 months, (not 25 years) was not a research project because it had no 'control' area.
Mmmm. And the IAA in Wales, undergoing everything but badger culling, has?

Not according to their latest report - [link] which describes on p.6 (of 56) how their Control area may not be comparable at all. In the same genre, they criticise SAM too as unable to identify 'different sorts of breakdowns'. They point out:

Limitations of the report and study design.

"In other words, the purposive selection of the IAA and the difficulty in finding a CA with equivalent bTB incidence reduces the soundness of evidence that any observed differences in bTB incidence are due to bTB control strategies, rather than other differences between the areas in the epidemiology of bTB....."

From what we can see in those long awaited (but out of date by a long mile) graphs, apart from Defra's continuing reluctance to see the difference between 'Incidence' of disease (new breakdowns) and 'Prevalence' (those which fail to clear with testing and slaughtering cattle, bio-garbage or anything other than clearing out infected badgers) the IAA has not made any headway at all.

And who's bright idea was it to lump a badger vaccination programme into the same area as intensive cattle measures? Not very sensible, but neither seem to have had the desired effect, in a realistic time scale which Thornbury most certainly did.

There is a more readable description of these IAA cattle measures and more, on this site - [link] And we will once again remind readers that these cattle measures have all been done before - [link] and ended in inevitable, ignominious and expensive failure.

Our final contradiction is the current obsession with shooting badgers, or rather the thorny question apparently irritating Defra,  'is it humane' to shoot badgers? In mainland Europe, no such sensitivities get in the way of dispatching these animals if they are causing damage to land or property, and 66,000 were shot -[link] last year, from August to October in Germany,  seemingly offending nobody at all.

So these contradictions can be dismissed as pure prevarication - a further excuse for doing nothing at all.

What now?

As MPs pack their buckets and spades and head off for the summer recess, we re-examine the posting which we did in April - [link] In that, we asked a somewhat rhetorical question:

"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?"

And it seems those 'consequences' in the form of ever more punitive cattle measures are on their way, courtesy of AHVLA's new boss, Chris Hadkiss. The man obviously hasn't researched - [link] his new department very well at all, but we digress.

 Farmers Guardian - [link] has the story of his plans for us this autumn. But it is the comments below the article which are well worth a read. As is this little gem from career civil servant Mr. H, who after commenting on farmers 'becoming reliant on government support' made the staggering observation that:

“It does concern me – we don’t know it happens but it is quite possible – compensation is repeatedly paid with no improvement on farms."

Well hallelujah! Wake up and smell the coffee Mr. H. That is what happens with a one sided policy, as your predecessors found. Take out the cattle, even or especially those from farms with no bought in animals and no neighbouring cattle contact, but leave the source of the problem behind and you (or your department) end up shooting even more cattle.

On internet forum - TFF - [link] responding to the FG article, many comments echo those in Farmers Guardian.

 And this thread on British Farmers Forum - [link] suggested that if farmers paid to control  zTuberculosis, they would have more say in policy implementation. Again, the comments are worth a read.






Unusually for farmers, the theme through most of these comments is united.

Government introduced statutory protection for badgers, elected not to use that statute to control the disease endemic within them and now wants livestock farmers to 'take responsibility' for the inevitable mess - as in pay for two decades of political intransigence.



But until government loosens its vice- like grip on the statutory protection which surrounds this animal, and treats zoonotic Tuberculosis with the respect a grade 3 pathogen deserves, no matter how much money is poured at the problem, or by whom, it's a hiding to nowhere. 






Cattle farmers and vets will recognise the pictures which illustrate this post, and many will have a pretty good idea what they'd like to do with the equipment.


And on whose anatomy.

Without anaesthesia.






But for those readers who do not recognise this particular 'vice', a description of its capabilities is here. - [link]

Flying under a flag of convenience?

This disease - zoonotic Tuberculosis - appears to attract the very worst in selective marketing.

From the notorious '74 per cent efficacy' - [link] attributed to BCG badger vaccine lobbed into an indiscriminately infected population, to the deliberate dumbing down - [ link] of statistics for 'other species' deaths from 'bovine' TB, we've seen many examples.

And it is to one of those 'other species' to which we return, with a very upbeat but totally misleading blurb about a a new blood test -[link] designed to seek out zTuberculosis in alpacas. And find it with 97 per cent accuaracy'.







Farmers Guardian - [ link] described the Enferplex test as needing:

"[] a single blood sample to be taken for testing from Camelids. The scheme also uses a statistical assessment to aid determination of herd infection status, pioneered by SureFarm’s Alastair Hayton. This has been approved by Defra.

The company said the scheme would enable herd level testing to confirm freedom from infection, testing of individual stock before movement or purchase and pre-export testing."

Sounds good? The National Beef Association magazine also covered the launch, which was attended by the NFU. The NBA splurge is expanded as follows:

"A £100,000K project, financed entirely by llama and alpaca owners in the UK has successfully developed a test, approved by government, which can prove at 97 per cent accuracy if an animal carries the disease [zTB] or not."

and

"It will give the owners of the UK's 30 - 40,000 llamas and alpacas peace of mind when exporting because it can demonstrate they are free of TB".

Well hallelujah to that. So what's wrong?

We would suggest a complete misunderstanding of the difference this test has exhibited in the trials between 'Sensitivity' - and 'Specificity'. The accuracy of any diagnostic test depends on a trade off between the two, and unfortunately, in the trials, Enferplex didn't fare too well as one of four assays trialled in terms of its ability to detect disease.

 The full results are in charts prepared by AHVLA  on this link -[link] and although in one chart, the Speciticity of Enferplex is approaching 97 per cent, the Sensitivity or ability to detect to disease is only 66 percent. Meaning that 34 per cent of candidate animals, carrying zTB may be missed.

In the third chart, the sensitivity of Enferplex is very low at 55 per cent, meaning it may miss 45 per cent of infected animals.

From the Alpaca tb website:

"The tables below show the sensitivity and specificity of the tests. The sensitivity of a test is the proportion of truly infected animals that are detected with a test - if a test has 55% Sensitivity it is missing 45% of infected animals.

The Specificity of a test is the proportion of truly uninfected animals that are correctly classified as test-negative. If a test has 99% specificity then 1% will be a false positive.

You can see that when used on their own, the Stat-Pak, IDEXX and Enferplex (2 antigen) have similar sensitivity and could miss around one third of infected camelids.

DPP and Enferplex 4 antigen could miss approaching half (45%) of infected animals."

More comment on this link - [link] and a button to direct readers to the actual paper.

Having looked at the tables, and in particular the Sensitivity or 'the ability to detect disease' in camelids, it would appear that IDEXX and STAT-PAK as a combined screen (after using a skin test primer)  give the best chance of not missing too many infected animals.

Conversely Enferplex, despite it's high profile launch, appears from these figures to be capable of missing anything from 33 - 45 percent of infected animals. As do the other blood assays as stand alone tests.

So one wonders - and not for the first time - what 'government' has to gain from its approval?

 UPDATE: The following information is from AHVLA:

The sensitivity of all the above tests is dependent on a prior skin test which boosts specific antibody responses. Without such a skin test the sensitivity of all the tests could drop by around 20% to 30%, which in the case of the high specificity options could reduce sensitivity to a level where the test is more likely to miss an infected animal than identify it.

This ability of the skin test to boost specific antibody in camelids has been published in 3 separate research papers to date:

Stevens et al., 1998, Canadian Veterinary Journal, 62:102-109 Dean et al., 2009, Veterinary Record, 12, 165(11):323-324 Bezos et al., 2013, Preventative Veterinary Medicine, 111(3-4): 304-313

So sadly it would appear that Enferplex, particularly as promoted, i.e without mention of a priming tuberculin antigen skin test, follows several other blood assay screens for zTuberculosis into a black box of hope, rather than a useful tool for any zTB eradication programme.

An epitaph to the demise of common sense.

From today's Sunday Telegraph - [link] a thoughtful piece from Owen Paterson, the former Secretary of State at Defra, whose 538 parliamentary questions on 'bovine' TB posed a decade ago, form the basis of this blog.

"I leave this post with great misgivings about the power and irresponsibility of – to coin a phrase – the Green Blob.

By this I mean the mutually supportive network of environmental pressure groups, renewable energy companies and some public officials who keep each other well supplied with lavish funds, scare stories and green tape.

This tangled triangle of unelected busybodies claims to have the interests of the planet and the countryside at heart, but it is increasingly clear that it is focusing on the wrong issues and doing real harm while profiting handsomely."

We described much the same situation, in this post - [link] and this one, earlier this year - [link] as Defra's various quangoes accompanied by Queen May's guitar, circled for the kill.

Thanks for trying Owen, we wish you well.

Sadly, the winner of this particular battle is not David Cameron, but zoonotic Tuberculosis. And in time, that pyrrhic 'victory' will affect us all.

Photo from Sunday Telegraph article : origin AFP and The Farming Forum - [link]

From Russia with love - the saga continues.

The saga of Russia's sabre rattling allegedly because of levels of TB in cattle, continued today as the Irish Independent - [link] reports a ban from Russia on imports of beef offal:

"Suspected traces of Tuberculosis (TB) prompted Russia to impose the highly damaging blanket ban on imports of beef offal from Ireland, the Irish Independent has learned.

The discovery of characteristics of the disease is understood to have alarmed Russian authorities who have cut off the supply of offal from Irish factories.

Officials from the Department of Agriculture are now involved in negotiations aimed at getting the ban lifted.

The sanction was imposed last month following a series of visits from Russian vets to 12 food processing facilities in Ireland."

This is not the first time that Russia has rattled Ireland's cage about high levels of the disease in its cattle population: in 2004 - [link] together with Poland and the UK, The Russian sabre was raised and threats issued. And so serious was this, that the European Commission drew up an inter-community Veterinary certificate - [link] which, if implemented, was another Beef Ban.
And just because that certificate has disappeared into the labyrinth of Defra's website archive, it doesn't mean it isn't lurking in a European drawer, just waiting to be signed. And we have it.

Other postings in 2004 described the process - [link] which led up to this situation, and the frantic diplomatic cartwheels -[link] executed to avoid it. Anything really, except control of the problem in the first place.

When we were reporting this in 2004, with around 5,200 herds under restriction during the reporting period, ( 5.6 percent of the 93,489 herds registered) the UK had half the levels of TB in its cattle, which we now enjoy. And still the mandarins were blissfully unaware of the possible cascade effect - [link] of a possible ban on UK beef products.

 Roll forward ten long and, frustrating years and what have we achieved? The roll out of the new computer system (SAM) no longer gives the number of herds registered, together with the number of herds having TB problems, preferring to concentrate on new outbreaks - a substantially lower figure.

But in 2011, the number of registered herds in GB had fallen to 80,454 and of those, the number with a restriction due a 'TB incident' was 8,108. So 10.07 per cent - or almost double the figure ten years ago.

As the polemic deepens with an unhealthy concentration on cattle votes v. badger votes, and tuberculosis the disease is all but forgotten, just how long can GB keep shoving this particular problem under a diplomatic carpet?

Figures can Lie and Liars can figure....

A swift response to the recent Cull the Cows - [link] computer generated guff, came on Thursday from farming Minister, George Eustice. Speaking at he Livestock Event, and interviewed for BBC's Farming Today - [link] programme, the Minister was pretty scathing about the modeler's efforts.

Co author, Dr. Ellen Brooks-Pollock of Cambridge University described how the team had entered data into their model of potential TB bacterial transmission of:

Cattle to cattle infection, Cattle infections into to the environment and Cattle movements.

Which is pretty amazing when you realise that up to 52 per cent of badgers in areas of endemic zTuberculosis are carrying this disease. But we digress....

 Dr. Brooks-Pollock went on to explain that her work centred around 'idealised control measures'. Not if you're a cow about going to be shot on the back of a University's half baked theory it isn't: that's not 'idealised' at all. It's terminal.

But George Eustice was having none of it. He pointed out that despite epidemiological evidence to the contrary, the model had ignored badgers completely, focusing on cattle and making many false assumptions. Including one that the disease dies out naturally in the environment in 34 days.
For the pedants, badgers can sustain this disease, maintain body weight, breed and rear cubs for up to 8 years. Reactor cattle are shot - which Dr. Brooks-Pollock had in fact noticed, pointing out that 90 per cent of 'infected farms' posed no risk whatsoever. Quite correct. They are locked down, facing daily [in some cases] visits from infected wildlife and tests every 60 days with anything reacting to such 'visits' slaughtered.

Mr. Eustice stressed that computer models were only as good as the assumptions entered into them, and if those assumptions were wrong (as in this case) then the results were flawed. He also pointed out that a team of experienced Defra vets, and the Chief Scientist - [link] were exposing these flaws and that although the aim of this model was laudable, its assumptions were wrong.

 We can't take credit for the title of this posting: it appeared here - [link] with another succinct quote:

 'correlation does not imply causation'. 

Quite.

Cull the Cattle - Simples

Once again we can thank mathematical modelers for some hair raising conclusions - [link] obtained from the latest load of guff data entered, together with a generous sprinkling of mathematical symbols, into their new toy. The Guardian -[link] gleefully explores the story with the headline, Mass Cull of Cattle is required to control TB.

That sort of carnage was tried in 2001 for FMD, again using a rampant computer model if we remember correctly - but let that pass.

And we do not propose to remind readers of past efforts - [link] to control zTB with cattle controls alone. Or the effect on the incidence cattle disease if the maintenance reservoir -[link] of disease is removed. Or even the amount of bacterial contamination a single badger - [link] can generate, and how little of that 'contamination' is required to provoke a skin test reaction in cattle.

 Having relied so much on the 'rough assumptions' contained in models developed by the ISG, we won't remind the authors of this work -[link] which cost an eye watering £2.8 million, but failed to get any samples from salami sliced reactor cattle to provide evidence of onwards transmission of zTB.

And we will we do no more with this paper than point to this paragraph which describes its data input - or lack of it.

The role of badgers in the maintenance and spread of bovine TB is a matter of considerable scientific, political and public interest5, 25, 26. Owing to the absence of necessary spatial and population level data on badgers, our model does not explicitly include their role in transmission. The environmental reservoirs play a comparable function, although the contribution of reservoir species and contaminated pasture cannot be separated. The environment is essential in maintaining local infection and may be implicated in up to 80% of all herd breakdowns (Fig. 2b, green hashed area).

We have no computer model set up to ignore badgers, so we will stick to the basics.  Not of mathematical models, but epidemiology and disease control.

No disease control program in a target species can be successful if a maintenance reservoir in an interacting species is left to re infect. That is indisputable. Just as the self sustaining nature of zTB in the badger is indisputable. And ignoring it does not make it disappear.

Con tosh

From the Conservative home webpage - [link] comes a rather spiteful  and loaded piece which implies that farmers want to kill badgers for fun. And because (allegedly) AHVLA's newly published partial statistics show an apparent drop in incidence, then there is really no need to as cattle controls (many yet to hit the farmers concerned) are obviously working.

 Without going too deeply into the minutiae of SAM, the new computer system which is supposed to calculate these things, suffice to say his data are not comparable with the figures of old. Neither is it reliable.

New herd breakdowns are important and for sure, figures for those were the ones which Defra lobbed periodically into Brussels. But they hid the rump of registered herds stubbornly under restriction with zTB outbreaks, which testing cattle and killing reactors failed to clear. And that was far, far higher. In fact the last time those figures were available, over 10 per cent of GB's herds had experienced TB restriction in the reporting period.

Thus the difference between cleaning up an epidemic in a single species and eradicating it in more than one is quite simple.  If you shoot one and not the other, eradication will not happen.

That is the difference between 'incidence' and 'prevalence' of disease.
 
 Figures for zTuberculosis can be argued ad infinitum, with each side wheeling out an 'expert' complete with his mathematical model and predictably  conflicting view. But published data, based on actual AHVLA risk assessments - [link] put TB outbreaks attributed to badgers in area of 'endemic' TB at around 80 per cent.

So read and learn Tory toddlers at ConHome. If every cow in GB was placed in a hermetically sealed box for the duration, the disease hosted by badgers would continue to upspill into other mammals, and from them to their owners -[link] and vets. As it has started to do already. - [link]

And no amount of 'managing' statistics - [link] rather than the disease, a Grade 3 zoonotic pathogen which governments have a statutory duty to eradicate, will alter that.

As easy as ABC?

We have long held the view that any sort of zoning - [link] or 'risk based trading' of cattle would be bureaucratic, divisive and always running behind the problem - especially if you were unlucky enough to farm in a 'dirty' area.

That's 'dirty' as in rampant with infected wildlife, which Defra would rather not touch with a very long pole, rather than anything whatsoever to do with cattle.





But having carved the country up into dirty, High risk, Edge and clean  Low risk areas - rather too late for some areas, it seems - [link] - we wondered if an animal based certification scheme for the whole country may not be a more workable idea.










In another life, and contributing greatly to MAFF staff pensions, many of us joined the voluntary EBL (Enzootic Bovine Leukosis) eradication scheme. The country eventually became EBL free so these schemes were no longer needed, but the way they worked was to issue the farm with a certificate of compliance which accompanied any cattle sold.

 The certificate was an official State Veterinary Service document, having the farm name and holding number on the top and then a gap for animal details.. Any animal sold from the farm was accompanied by a copy of this document, and to keep its EBL status, wherever it was, it had to be retested by the date on the paperwork which is this case was three years from it's clear blood test. In effect an MOT for cattle.

 So, would this work for TB?

The result of the last TB test is important, but the due date of the next one is crucial.

 Rather than divide up historically affected areas, assuming but not really sure that 4 year testing areas are clear of the disease, why not issue an Animal Based Certification of TB testing after a clear test, with the date of the next due test on the paperwork?

This would not penalise or stigmatise any farm unlucky enough to have experienced a breakdown, but would ensure that cattle traded into 4 year testing areas were tested on the consigning farm's regime, at least once. It would also be a reminder to people buying from farms in these so called 'clean' areas, who may be  dispersing cattle just before a herd test is due.

 The 'due date' could be flexible enough to include the animal at a routine test - within reason. But should farmers not comply with this requirement to test, then if the animal concerned was subsequently found to be a reactor, compensation could be affected.
(Steers due for slaughter could be exempt as abattoir surveillance would pick up any problems. )

Discuss.

Predictable, inevitable and avoidable.

Norway is said to have been TB free in its cattle since 1963.

 The last confirmed case of 'bovine' tuberculosis was in 1986, when the disease was found in a dog.

 That is until now, when Internet site The Cattle Site -[link] report an outbreak thought to originate in alpacas imported from England.



.

"A shipment of British Alpacas is behind a rise in bovine tuberculosis in Norway.

Bovine tuberculosis (TB) has been spreading through Norwegian alpaca herds following the arrival of 28 Alpacas from southern England, the Norwegian Veterinary Institute has announced.

Twelve Alpaca herds are now infected with bovine TB after the batch reached Norway in the autumn.

Prior to this, Norway had been TB-free since 1986."

The Norwegian Veterinary Institute reported the 'problem' on 22nd May - [link] with added information that the animals were being subject to further serological testing after failing skin tests. Direct translation thus:

  
In a importisolat for alpaca in Eastern Norway is suspected of storfetuberkulose. There are positive reactions on skin test (intrakutantest) as well as complementary serological tests on several animals that are the background for suspicion.

28 Animals were imported to the appropriate isolatet from Southern England in autumn 2013.

In England is a comprehensive tuberkuloseepidemi on herds.

In addition is detected at the dozens of nysmittede alpakkabesetninger annually.

It has not been demonstrated storfetuberkulose in Norway since 1986.

This translation implies that this consignment of British alpacas at least, is held in quarantine after positive skin tests and pending further serological testing. The comment also points out that England has a comprehrensive 'tuberculosis epidemic' and detects dozens of infected alpaca herds annually.

Norway has been officially TB free since 1986. More on this, as and when we receive it.

And we won't say "we told you so".

Yes we will.

BRAN - the tale of a 21st Century badger.

This simple cut and paste (left handed) from a Facebook page, illustrates so graphically the fate of a tuberculous badger and his trail of destruction as his life ebbs slowly away. We quote it in full with thanks to the author:




BRAN - the tale of a 21st Century badger.

 "Early spring, and life was good for Bran the badger.
 The weather was mild and food was plentiful. The cubs, his cubs, were just starting to leave the sett and explore the woodland. Bran was the strongest badger in the sett, and in his prime at three years old.


 A bright full moon illuminated the sett in the woods. Bran sniffed the air, suddenly alert - something wrong. A new smell, sour and rotten. Not the enticing scent of a dead rabbit, this was foul, repugnant, terribly wrong. He paused, puzzled, and heard a sound of pawprints, coming his way.

He tensed, hackles lifting, ready for fight or flight. And a badger appeared, a stranger, its eyes oddly piercing bright in the moonlight. Bran lifted his top lip in a snarl as the stranger came closer. It was painfully thin, its face sunken, its coat dull and dry, its breath rasping noisily. It half choked as it snarled at Bran. And in an instant he understood. That stench, that awful rancid stench - the Rotting Death, the Old Ones called it. Your insides died, turned to pulp, while the rest of you kept on living. Three moons, maybe four, till it finished you.

Bran screamed at the stranger - GO AWAY! We don't want you here, clear off! The stranger's eyes blazed with fury as it leapt at Bran. For a few minutes they fought, the stranger with surprising strength for all its emaciated condition. It bit Bran hard on the underside of his neck, and hung on. Bran squealed with rage and pain, and snapped again at the stranger's face. And suddenly the fight was over - exhausted, pus and blood soaking its dry coat, the badger turned and fled.

Another moon, and a warm early summer night. A terrible change had come over Bran - he was lean now, and his coat was dry and harsh. His joints were stiff and aching, and the wound on his neck was hard, tight and swollen, throbbing painfully with every step he took. Constant pain had made him angry - one of the cubs had jumped on him playfully, and he'd turned on it, snapped at it, cracked its skull with his powerful jaws. The other badgers, his family, were restless now.

That stench, the awful rotting death stench, was everywhere in the sett, permeating every tunnel and den.

They were waiting for him as he came home in the first light of dawn, all suddenly hostile, snarling, blocking the entrance which had always been his. Bran stepped towards his brother Jem, the ringleader, it seemed. How dare he? Jem stood his ground. Go, he said, you must go, now. Furious, Bran jumped at him and they fought bitterly. Jem grabbed Bran's neck and bit hard, bursting the painful swelling. Pus and blood shot out, spraying both badgers, and Jem jumped back in surprise. Bran bit him hard on the belly before turning and running away, heading north, away from his sett, homeless and alone now.

 Another summer moon. Bran had a new home now, a dry ditch, cool and shady. He hated being so close to the little town, but there was food there, so he had no choice. A silly terrier pup had found him in his ditch the other day and wakened him with its yapping. There was a scuffling fight and Bran bit it, sending it yelping back to its owner on the footpath.

Bran was a pitiful sight now on his moonlight travels. His eyes were sunken in his lean face and his body was emaciated and tucked up. His once-glossy coat was dull and flecked with pus from the weeping abscess. He was too weak to dig for food now, so his claws had grown long and curled over, and his breathing was shallow and noisy.


The short summer night was nearly over when he reached the gardens in search of food. He found a discarded biscuit in a child's sandpit, and ate it slowly, without pleasure. There was a toy dumper truck in the sandpit so he piddled on it, marking his territory, before lying for a few minutes on the sand, enjoying the coolness on his burning abscess, pressing it into the moist sand.

 As he headed home across a field of cows and calves, he paused again, aware that he had been spotted - the farmer, walking across the field to check on his stock, saw him and cursed, the joy all gone from his day. There had been no TB on the farm for sixty years, but he'd known it was coming ever closer. And there was a tuberculous badger - no, please God, not now, not my cows.......

 Mid morning. The terrier was in the vet's surgery, his owner concerned about the ugly puncture wound and her pup's lack of energy.

In the garden, a little boy played happily in his
sandpit, engrossed with his beloved dumper truck, making new roads in the cool moist sand.






 Back in his shady ditch, Bran slept fitfully, even in sleep tormented by the bluebottles buzzing round his oozing abscess.
The rotting death would release him, but not yet.

Not just yet"






Work at FERA confirms that the number of Britain's badgers infected with zTuberculosis, is in some areas, up to 53 per cent.

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.