More on PCR

In the posting below - [link] we gave an overview of the recent Warwick University paper, SE3280, commissioned by Defra in 2012 at a cost of £467,353. We note that sadly, no mention of it or its stunning results have made it into the press.
And considering the indecent haste with which the badger vaccination mischief - [link] of 74 per cent efficacy, bounced around the airwaves, only to be retracted quietly in subsequent months, that is a damned disgrace shame.

 So we will cut and paste from the paper - link] which can be accessed by clicking on Final Report on the previous link. The study set out to explore a non invasive method of identifying diseased badger groups:

. "Controlling disease spread through UK cattle herds is a significant challenge as the European badger (Meles meles) has been highlighted as a wildlife reservoir that may be a significant source of continued re-infection. Determining the disease prevalence and TB status of badger populations is a demanding challenge and currently requires direct interaction with individual animals through expensive and labour intensive trapping and testing regimes. This report describes a robust and reliable non-invasive quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assay designed to detect the presence of M. bovis DNA in badger faecal samples."

Those samples were collected from Woodchester Park and matched with cultures and blood assays from cage trapped animals, over a long period of time.

" .. badger faecal samples were obtained from 12 social groups of badgers at Woodchester Park in Gloucestershire (the site of a long-term study on TB in badgers), with a recent history of trapped badgers having positive TB test results. Samples were taken throughout the year in a cross sectional style, contemporary with trapping efforts, while two additional intensive sampling periods were undertaken during spring and autumn. In addition, samples obtained directly from trapped badgers, were directly analysed by qPCR to compare against the culture status as a benchmark. "


The results were given in the paper as follows:

When comparing qPCR on faeces taken from trapped badgers with culture, the qPCR assay exhibited a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 30.8-100%) and a specificity of 95.7% (95% CI: 90.3-98.6).

and

"qPCR results varied by season, with spring and autumn exhibiting 100% and 80% sensitivity respectively against the combined trapped badger diagnostics for the same season. The degree of infection within a social group (trapped badger diagnostics) was strongly correlated with the degree of shedding as determined by faecal qPCR"

By taking samples over a long period of time, the Warwick team ascertained that the best results came from the most highly infected groups and that samples taken in spring gave the most robust results. They explain:

"We determined the optimum sampling strategy to be 20 samples taken over a 2 day period with a few days interval in the spring or early summer. With up to 20 samples from social groups taken across May and June, we had 100% agreement with the suite of other diagnostic tests in terms of identifying positive groups"

The paper explains that this study builds on the rigorous exploration of the contents of badger latrines in Defra project SE 3231 as a non invasive method of ascertaining infective status:

"It is a direct follow on from the rigorous ring trial (Defra project SE3231), during which Warwick University, the AHVLA and VISAVET processed faecal samples from 15 latrines from putative bTB negative badger social groups (Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire) and 15 latrines from putative positive social groups using real-time PCR (qPCR). All putative negative samples were found to be negative by all labs, two putative positive latrines were positive in all labs and one putative positive latrine was positive in one lab.

The probability of a false positive result for the two latrines detected in common is less than 3􏰄10-9. The methodology has been further optimised such that samples containing a ten-fold lower bacterial cell count can be detected as positive, resulting in considerably increased sensitivity (see Final report SE3231 Fig 11). The test that has been developed is implemented at the social group level, rather than the individual sample."

Also involved in this work, are the Republic of Ireland, which is providing post mortem samples to further quantify qPCR results. This work has found that respiratory shedding can also be identified using faecal samples.

"Other research at Warwick University, with qPCR of faeces and culture performed in parallel on samples taken from badgers in areas in the Republic of Ireland with high levels of TB breakdown in cattle, indicates that faecal shedding is a good proxy for respiratory shedding.

The qPCR test for faeces detected all badgers shown to be also shedding via the tracheal route (n=7). The qPCR and detection of M. bovis in tissue by culture were not significantly different, with a high level of correlation in detection by both methodologies in animals with severe disease progression (Travis et al. manuscript in preparation)."

The aim of the project was to enhance the detection capabilities of qPCR in the field.

"The main aim of this project was to maximise the sensitivity of the qPCR test for applied field detection of M. bovis in badger faeces through optimisation of latrine sampling strategies. A ten-fold increase in the limit of detection has been applied compared with the previous DEFRA project."

Sampling over a long period gave the following results:

The qPCR bacterial load data [] shows that particular social groups are disproportionately responsible for shedding large numbers of M. bovis bacilli into the environment.

The genome equivalents ranged from 1x103 to 4x105 per gram (N.B. 10-100s of genome equivalents are considered to represent 1 cfu)[22]. There is a variation in the cumulative load between social groups, as shown in the bubble plot; a small number of social groups appear to be responsible for most of bacteria shed and therefore potentially represent the greatest risk for onward transmission."

That mention of '1 cfu' reminded us of previous research - [link] which found just how little bacteria is needed to infect a calf.

So, the sampling:

"The state of infection in the social group affects the likelihood of detection: as expected, heavily infected social groups were identified positive with less intensive sampling regimes. The data clearly shows that by sampling in periods of peak badger activity, the chance of detecting a social group as positive with a fixed number of samples increases.

Spring is again clearly shown as the optimal sampling season, with the seven social groups with the highest prevalence of infection detected with 95% probability in 17 or less samples. In autumn 23 or less samples would detect the seven most infected social groups with 95% probability. In spring or autumn, all social groups could be detected positive with 95% certainty within 40 samples"

And the results:

"We have determined an optimal sampling strategy for latrine faecal qPCR testing, which when applied in the field demonstrated a 100% sensitivity, 100% specificity"

"Sampling should occur in the spring or early summer with up to 20 samples taken from each social group across two days with a few days interval."

"The faecal qPCR test has been shown to be robust and reliable with no significant difference observed between results obtained from two centres at the social group level."

And cost?

We would envisage the processing of the initial samples occurring in batches of five samples until either at least one sample was positive or all 20 samples were returned as negative

. To determine a sample as positive, a second and third replicate of that sample must be extracted. A social group will be considered positive if at least one sample is positive on at least one of the confirmatory re- extraction.

This gives a false positive rate of 1%.  The cost for a social group per season would range between £81.30 and £208.20 depending on when a positive sample was detected.

So, in a nutshell, Owen Paterson's qPCR project appears to be able to identify groups of infectious badgers, upspilling zTuberculosis  into the environment. Sensitivity and specificity is 100 per cent and the cost of this non-invasive technology is around £200 per group sampled.

So why no publicity?
Why were Defra giving false information to the secretary of State, about its capabilities?
And why are Defra and assorted fellow travelers so against identifying these highly infected time bombs?

The reason we think is that if a social group of badgers was so identified and APHA failed to act on that information, then as we have said many times, litigation for victims would not be a possibility but a certainty.


Far better to bury this work, and hope it stays buried. Keep killing sentinel tested cattle and ignore the message this canary is offering.

PCR - Prof. Wellington and SE3280

As farmers, we want eventually to target tuberculosis where it found, rather than a bureaucratic, high profile sweep of wildlife. But circumstances (and dead cattle, sheep, pigs, alpacas and cats) dictate that while levels of zoonotic tuberculosis in its wild life hosts - badgers - are so high, then an interim population reduction is working well. And we would encourage farmers to take the opportunity this new government has offered, without the Viva supported drag anchor of the LibDims - [link] and get on with it.

But what then? We can't keep having bureaucratic area culls, and many would prefer to aim their fire at diseased badgers, rather than all badgers. And so we come full circle to the PCR study, SE3280 which last year was said not to be delivering expected results - [link]

On May 14th, Professor Wellington gave a lecture at Liverpool University, discussing the work, which can be viewed on this link

There are some fairly sweeping and totally contradictory statements concerning cattle and zTB in that clip, but she did mention sheep and cats. Nevertheless the core issues of identifying diseased groups of badgers, as opposed to healthy ones is addressed. And appears to have been successful. Professor Wellington indicated that 20 samples over 2 days in spring or autumn is the optimum for the qPCR screen, and at around £10 each, the cost is not astronomical.

 It would appear that infection levels in spring and autumn are very high as social groups shake out their old and young, and re group. This presents a danger period for cattle, if one assumes that badgers can be kept out of cattle yards in the winter.

The complete paper is "The Diagnostic Potential of Real Time PCR: Proportion of badgers clinical - Travis et al" 2014  Click the link for Final Report on this LINK
Key points we noted are:
 * The degree of infection [identified by culture, gamma IFN and StakPac bloods] strongly correlated with the degree of shedding as determined by faecal qPCR.
 * Sensitivety was 100 per cent
 * Specificity 95.7 per cent

And finally:

"We suggest that a small number of social groups may be responsible for the majority of m.bovis shed in the environment and therefore present the highest risk of inward transmission".

Above is a screen grab from Prof. Wellington's film clip, during her excursions to sample faeces from the inhabitants of Woodchester Park, and the level of infectivity in the various badger groups.

HRH Prince Charles and the need for a badger cull.

This week, the letters - [link] which HRH Prince Charles wrote to ministers a decade ago have been made public, and on agriculture in general and bTB in particular, they make for interesting reading.

 In March 2005, the Prince wrote to the then Prime Minister, Tony Bliar to express his concern over the increasing pile of dead cattle and lack of any control on eradicating zoonotic tuberculosis from its wildlife reservoir, badgers.

Political Editor,  of the   Farmers Guardian - [link] , Alistair Driver has the overview, and Bliar's reply.






HRH Prince Charles,  pictured here with Ayrshire dairy cattle,  confirming a recent meeting, pointed out  to Bliar : 

"You said that you were aware of the recent study in the republic of Ireland which proved that badger culling was effective in ridding cattle of TB - in Donegal for instance, by the fifth year of the trial there was a 96 per cent reduction in cattle infections in the 'badger removal' area."

And he emphasises the need for urgent action:

"I do urge you to look again at introducing a proper cull of badgers where it is necessary. I for one, cannot understand how the "Badger lobby" seem to mind not at all about the slaughter of thousands of expensive cattle, and yet object to a managed cull of an over-population of badgers - to me, this is intellectually dishonest."

We couldn't agree more Sir. And a week later, on March 30th 2005, Prime Minister Bliar replied thus:

"You raised the issue of bovine TB and the link to badgers. The Irish trials have indeed changed everything here, and I know Ben Bradshaw acknowledges this."

Acknowledge it he most certainly did, with answers to the carefully crafted 538 Parliamentary Questions, tabled to the Ministry of Agriculture's office in 2004 and which form the basis of this site.

And then the fragrant Ben, waved a couple of fingers at Owen Paterson who had tabled the questions, and said words to the effect "OK, we know it's badgers ..... but whaddya going to do about it?"





Ten years later,  the answer, as we have found out to our cost,  was over 300,000 dead cattle, thousands of dead alpacas, goats, sheep, pigs and domestic pets, and on badgers? Absolutely nothing at all.

Which gives support to the comment that if some politician's lips are moving, they're lying.

Research v. Research

The more we read these 'research' papers, some good, many weak and now some repeat performances, the more we understand that on many occasions, a conclusion is reached ahead of any work. And thus a paper can be quoted to fit almost any conclusion.

Take radio collars attached to badgers and to cattle sharing the same pastures. Work was done on this in GB in 2009. We reported it in this posting - [link] The conclusion of that paper was that contact was much more frequent than was thought.

The results showed that a single badger (V59) had recordable contacts with 5 of the 13 cattle. Inter-group contact between the two badger social groups was recorded, mainly in September.

Six proximity data loggers (two badger loggers and four cattle loggers) recorded 103 and 32 inter-species interactions respectively (Tables 3 & 4). Overall, two Valley badgers and five cattle were implicated in inter-specific contacts, with the two badgers contacting all of the five cattle. All five cattle were in the top eight for CI rankings in cattle, with four out of the five amongst the top five.

So just two badgers recorded 103 inter species interactions? (Inter species = contact with cattle) and the authors reckon Defra should test the cattle more regularly? Amazing conclusions.

But now a different set of collars were attached to some Northern Irish cattle and badgers - [link] with somewhat different results.Or maybe the parameters were set differently.

Researcher Dr O'Mahoney enthused: “Proximity collars are a new and exciting technology, which allow a hitherto unprecedented level of data to be obtained on interactions between animals.

Not really 'new'. It's been done before, but we digress. The study found no direct contacts and concluded:

This study occurred in one area of Northern Ireland over a relatively short period of time, so whilst direct interactions between cattle and badgers were not recorded, that does not necessarily mean that interactions never occur.

However, it does support the increasing evidence that such contact is likely to be at a very low level, but still may be important if infected animals are involved.

Nothing like stating the blindingly obvious, is there?

 However,  New Zealand came to a totally different conclusion, using sedated possums and a video camera [ [link]

 And they recorded the interaction on a video of how cattle react to a sedated possum - [link]

They nuzzle it, lick it, smell it and roll it around.

And if that possum happened to be a half dead badger???????????????????


What happens if a group of these..













..comes in contact with one of these?











As a cattle farmer, you live in fear of your next TB test, that's what.

Data on reactor cattle.

Defra's latest figures -[link] for cattle slaughtered in 2014, shows a slight increase for GB over all the county's records compared with 2013. (32,612 in 2013, compared with 32,858 in 2014)


However, in three counties, Somerset, Gloucestershire and Hereford / Worcester, the drop in reactor cattle was substantial while most other counties in the West region showed increases. Those with the largest fall in reactor cattle slaughtered are the ones where two pilot badger culls have taken place. (The Glos cull crossed the county border into Hereford / Worcs.)

We are aware that to get Defra to produce any figures for these two pilot areas is akin to pulling teeth. And it is only the diligence of the farmers concerned who have published -[link] their early results, that we have an inkling of what is going on.

Comparing figures for 2013 with 2014, Defra data - [link] indicates that the total number of bTB reactors slaughtered in the Western region of the UK fell from 17,822 (2013) to 17,017 (2014), a fall of 4.5%. But the variation in counties is considerable, with increases in Avon (18.1% increase), Cornwall (6.8% increase), Devon (12.6% increase), Wilts (16.3% increase). Warwickshire showed an increase of 66.5%.

There was a drop in reactors in Dorset (17% fall) but Gloucestershire recorded a 28.9% fall, Hereford and Worcs 28.5% fall and Somerset a 34% fall.

Over the same period the number of bTB reactors slaughtered in Wales - the land of intensive cattle measures (IAA) and vaccination of badgers - has increased from 6012 in 2013 to 6379 in 2014, a rise of 6.1%.

Now any drop in TB incidence or reactors will be attributed by the Badgerists to bio-garbage and stricter cattle controls; or, in the case of the Lib Dims, you may add floods. But it may be prudent to point out that the measures mentioned, if not the Ark on the Somerset Levels, applied to all counties.

The only event which was different from the other counties, was, in the case of Somerset, Gloucester and Hereford Worcester, the population reduction badgers within a small area of those counties and over several weeks.

 And as our PQ's a decade ago, explained about the effect of  Thornbury's badger removal;

"The fundamental difference between the Thornbury area and other areas [] where bovine tuberculosis was a problem, was the systematic removal of badgers from the Thornbury area. No other species was similarly removed. No other contemporaneous change was identified that could have accounted for the reduction in TB incidence within the area" [157949]  

Especially when neighbouring counties recorded increases in dead cattle.

Some good news

Western Morning News reported this week, that after several years of TB restrictions, Gordon Tully, - [link] was finally cleared of herd restrictions. Mr. Tully, breeder of prize winning South Devon cattle, is now clear to show and sell his cattle.

We told his story in this 2009 posting - [link] where Mr. Tully, whose herd had been clear of TB for 63 years, informed a senior civil servant - [link] that a third of his pedigree herd had been killed unnecessarily.

Mr. Tully's Lib-Dim MP, Adrian Sanders, reportedly told the farmer that "culling badgers was cruel".

However a Lancashire vet, who arrived to do the risk assessment for Mr. Tully's breakdown was more forthright as Mr Tully pointed out:

"I told a vet who came down from Lancashire to do a risk assessment on my farm that I was farming with one armed tied behind my back. He said; ‘yes and with a blindfold on as well’.

He understood the difficulties.

Some of the comments below this article are predictable. And wrong.

Mr. Tully's herd had had no cattle contact, and with few if any bought in cattle, this herd, on annual testing had remained clear of TB for 63 years, as had many of us.
So where do these spurious claims of a rubbish skin test (comments below the article) come from?

We suggest it is from that tome of multiple assumptions, the ISG Final Report, where on page 140, 7:4 the group postulate that :

"If, for example, the true sensitivity of the [skin] test is 75 per cent, infection will remain in one in four herds ...... etc. etc."

Delete the first three words, and bingo. But despite these grammatical gymnastics over how accurate the skin test actually is, the evidence from around the world suggests that in the absence of a wildlife reservoir, it works just fine. It is the primary test, compulsory under OIE (Office des Epizooties) and rubber stamped under EU Directive 64/432/EEC.

Our Parliamentary Questions confirm that its sensitivity at standard interpretation is up to 95 per cent, with specificity up to 99 per cent. [150495]
 It is intended and designed as a herd test, not for individual animals and another PQ reminded us that:

"All countries that have eradicated, or have a programme to control bTB, use one or more forms of the skin test." [ 150492]

And

"Evidence from other countries shows that, in the absence of a significant wildlife reservoir, cattle controls based on regular testing and slaughter, including abattoir surveillance and movement restrictions [] can be effective at controlling bTB." [15906]

All those PQs are from 2004.

But think about it: if the skin test was missing shed loads of cattle, then that abattoir surveillance - [link] designed for exactly the purpose of finding TB lesions, would be finding the 25 per cent of the annual kill that the skin test missed, would it not?

Wind up your calculators dear readers, because there are too many noughts for us in that Defra paper.

But briefly, out of 11.1 million animals from TB free herds, passing under the MHS officer's TB inspection microscope 2009 - 2013, just 5,366 samples proved positive for m.bovis. We cannot find any more details as to whether these samples were from old, walled up lesions, or active disease. But nevertheless, the figures and evidence from around the world do not support the ISG's mischievous assumption that 'If for example....' the skin test is rubbish.

On the other hand, FERA now confirm that the figure of 43 percent infectivity which they confirm was  'typical of the level'  found in badgers in the endemic areas of TB, has now increased to 52 per cent.

So in a nutshell, (information offered by FERA itself)   if you have the misfortune to farm livestock in an area of endemic TB, half the badgers urinating across your pastures, coughing into your maize and dying in your ditches are infected with bTB.

So what the hell do we expect when we test cattle who have had the misfortune to stumble over that level of environmental contamination? That question was rhetorical, by the way.

And enjoy the freedom to trade your lovely cattle, Mr. Tully. After 7 years and  40 herd tests, you've earned it.

Election - poles apart.

Nope, we are not discussing immigration. But giving a very quick overview on how the various political parties in the coming election would honour this country's commitment to control zoonotic Tuberculosis. And for some, it is a subject about which they would rather not speak at all.

Without saying from which camp we were coming from, or reminding any of them about previous successes, when infected badgers were removed, we either asked directly or picked up from websites, their answers. And they couldn't be more diverse.

 The Conservatives - [link] replied promptly and spoke at length. Liz Truss, caretaker Secretary of State, having seen the results - [link] of the two pilot culls, explains that she is keen for them to be refined and expanded.

While coalition partners over the last 5 years, the Liberal Democrats - [link] fully supported by VIVA, say they are proud to have blocked a wider roll out of any badger culls until the full four years are completed, examined and reported upon. Which is a not particularly helpful policy if you want ££s for skools n'ospitals and you have read up on a bit of history.

 Ulster's politicians - [link] in much the same position as us in GB, are trying to test then vaccinate healthy animals, and remove individual badgers proven to have TB. At least they see the problem, while the Scottish National Party -[link] appear to have made no policy statements at all during the last 6 years, other than to want to distance themselves from Defra's 'disastrous fudge'. Whatever that might mean.

UKIP - [link] say they will "Take and follow professional veterinary advice on the control of bovine TB" which is a bit vague, but possibly in a better direction than this lot. - [link]

In 1997, Labour, having steered the diminutive John Bourne in an armlock to deliver their very own political variety of 'the science' - [link] are not about to abandon its conclusions any time soon.

So that leaves the Green party - [link] who have produced a myriad of county 'manifestos' and appear to want to give animals 'oooman rights'.

One could say that a certain furry creature with a white stripe down its face has acquired too many 'rights' but let that pass. The Greens do not want to kill any badger, infected or not, and together with Labour would stop any culling immediately - as the Welsh Assembly Government has done already.

So, two diametrically opposed views, with a handful of whoring middle ground hopefuls prepared to sell out the control of zoonotic tuberculosis for a cosy seat and pension. Inspiring choice, isn't it?

 

..shame about the cow.

We have been less than supportive of the over generous cattle measures introduced, steered, pushed through - call it what you may - at the behest of his political masters anyway, by the chairman of the AHWB (Animal Health and Welfare Board) Michael Seals.

So given his location, it with no great surprise that we learn from Farmers Weekly - [link] that the small pedigree herd belonging to the illustrious gentleman, no doubt doubly bio-secured, insured and protected, has revealed a reactor.
Mr Seals said of the moment its death sentence was passed:

It was quite an emotional moment. This was a home-bred animal, born here in 2010. It was immensely frustrating because we knew the cow very well as an individual.

And the rest of us do not have 'emotional moments' as good cattle are consigned to the scrap heap?

 He continued:

"However, I was very surprised at the amount of paperwork that followed. I think we could consolidate that."

Whaaaaat? So the chairman of the AHWB has no idea of the shed loads of paper emitting from Defra's various offices, when a reactor is found? You don't say.
That's rich when he's just launched another load - [link] on us.

We examined more of the measures dreamed up by the quango chaired by Mr. Seals in this posting - [link]

So although we are sad for his South Devon cow, her calf at foot, and the calf she was no doubt carrying, we trust that Mr. Seals took his own advice and obtained TB insurance for just this event?
And we assume that unlike the rest of the hoi polloi, he may get a renewal of that insurance, after this breakdown? After all, he seems to think that we can all do that.

He explained that he:

".. now faces an anxious wait until the next scheduled TB test in May."

Don't we all.

Edit:
In an update to this posting, Farmers Guardian reports that the herd of NFU deputy president, Minette Batters - [link] is also under a TB2 restriction, and awaiting further tests in May.

So these two high profile people, both involved with TB eradication in this country, now have herd restrictions imposed, thus joining the 11.3 per cent of GB herds in that position during the last three years.

And just to remind readers, to trade as a TB free, the international standard for that status is reached when 99.8% of domestic cattle and deer herds have been free of bovine TB for three years. This figure has been set by the Office Internationale Epizooties (OIE) and in the absence of a wildlife reservoir, many countries have achieved it.

With constant cattle testing, but an ignored and protected wildlife reservoir, as our appalling TB incidence  shows, GB needs to move the decimal point several places to the left.

Cows that may squeak.

Just when you think you've heard it all - something pops up which reminds you that really, you must get out more.

This time it's milk; sold as healthy and free range from happy cows grazing green pastures. That is the advertiser's dream and the consumer's hope.

So waddya find in the press this week? GM cows with added mouse genes - [link] which, the Chinese developers say, may make them a tad more resistant to TB.

So what else may you get? Long muscular tails? whiskers? Ten offspring in a litter? Squeaks not moos? And sharp gnawing teeth?

Who knows. The driver of this is cash.


And methinks, we may need some very large mouse traps.  
  

There's a hole in my bucket,

... dear Lisa, dear Lisa. Remember the old song?

The rhyme goes around in a large circle and comes back to the very same start point. The hole in Lisa's bucket.



And unfortunately for cattle farmers, the Government appointed quango, Animal Health and Welfare Board for England (AHWBE) under the tutorship of Michael Seals, appears to be doing exactly the same thing.













It was in 2012 that Defra's bean counters - (link) decided that the TB budget must be reduced and reduced considerably. And true to form, the redoubtable Mr. Seals went to work.

Several bright ideas were floated, and although most were completely rejected by the industry, like Lisa's leaking bucket, they keep bouncing back. But as Mr. Seals points out, in true Defra speke:

"This is not a single issue. It is not just about wildlife or cattle movements. It has many different causes on many different farms and that is something some people find hard to admit or accept.”

Rubbish. Tuberculosis is the single issue. Not badgers and not cattle. And Parliamentary questions, so reluctantly answered by Ben Bradshaw MP a decade ago made it clear that it's eradication most definitely is a single issue.
Albeit one which Defra would rather not deal with.

When badgers were removed from a small area of Gloucestershire, the cattle remained clear of TB for at least ten years. So we asked why this should be.
 The answer was recorded in Hansard for posterity - if not Defra staff:

The fundamental difference between the Thornbury area and other areas in the south west of England, where bovine tuberculosis was a problem, was the systematic removal of badgers from the Thornbury area. No other species was similarly removed. No other contemporaneous change was identified that could have accounted for the reduction in TB incidence within the area" Hansard 24th March 2004: Col 824W [157949]

And of course it would be churlish to point out to the AHWBE that many other countries using the same screening test for cattle, and slaughtering reactors, in the absence of a wildlife reservoir, are TB free.

Another bright idea this quango has thrown around is the 'Accreditation' of cattle herds - [link] , which is a way of tying herd health in with the usual bag of cattle diseases, about which cattle farmers can do something. What an insult! To lump a disease over which cattle farmers have little or no control, with BVD, IBR, Johnnes and leptospira - over which most can and do exercise much control.

But Mr. Seals is nothing if not a dogged follower of instructions: and cattle farmers are again urged to back the strategy - [link] - with all the rigmarole attached to bovines and their trading that this entails.

And sadly, the man is still talking about insurance, - [link] when at least ten years ago the loss adjusters described TB claims as a "haemorrhage on their farm business budgets", which were otherwise profitable. And once again, a Parliamentary question confirmed that Insurers no longer offer this cover. The full question and answer are below:

5th Dec 2003: Col 629W Mr. Paterson. To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether farmers are able to obtain insurance cover for TB infection in [dairy] cattle after a TB breakdown and subsequent claim. [141083]

And the quite explicit (if not for Mr. Seals, the AHWBE and the Treasury) answer was thus:

Mr.Bradshaw:

"It is government policy to pay compensation at 100 per cent of market value, with no upper limit, for cattle that are compulsorily slaughtered under TB control measures. Farmers therefore do not need to take out insurance on their animals. Theoretically, insurance can be bought to cover other consequential losses for which compensation is not paid, but that is a commercial matter between farmers and their insurers. Section 34 (5) of the animal Health Act 1981, explicitly allows insurers to deduct the amount of Government compensation from the value of any payout they may make. Insurance companies will make their own decisions on whether to insure, and about the size of the premiums, based on their assessment of risk.

And now the sting in the tail....

Recent contact with the insurance industry in early 2003 indicated that, although companies were honouring existing policies, they are not offering new policies to cover TB in cattle herds, particularly in areas where TB is increasingly prevalent. This is because farmers do not wish to take cover in areas where the risk is low (such as Yorkshire) but do wish to purchase cover in areas of high incidence (such as the South West) However, the insurance companies consider that the financial risks in offering insurance policies in areas of high incidence are too high at present."

That's pretty explicit isn't it? Farmers need not take out insurance. Defra are contracted to pay 100% of valuation, but even if they wanted to insure, exposure to risk is likely to be too high for them to get cover.

 In 2006, the year in which we wrote that piece, the cost of insured TB cover increased tenfold, and that cover halved. That's if you were lucky enough to still have a policy in place, and not been unlucky enough to have made a claim. Any farmer who has made a claim, is uninsurable.

But still the charade continues. In 2013, a series of facilitator led meetings - [link] were held to try and shoehorn these pesky cattle farmers into Mr. Seals' blueprint. After all, we're told often enough that without farmer co-operation, there can be no strategy.

But on February 7th Mr. Seals gave an interview to political editor of the Farmers Guardian, Alistair Driver. And guess what? Like the hole in Lisa's bucket, the same old, same old -[link] same old came around again.
The cost of this non strategy, who pays and some outrageous suggestions for plugging the financial gap, if not the disease one.
Mr.Seals explained:

For me it has always been about creating what I call the English solution; finding a structure which suits England in terms of our disease status and our needs on the ground, delivering services to farmers.”

and:

It was also necessary to define areas which ‘only Government could deliver’, such as badger culling, he said.

Not expanding on the fact that successive Governments have absorbed into statute any semblance of control of this wildlife reservoir - and then, since 1997 have chosen not to exercise their responsibility, he concludes:

“There is one thing for certain about this particular disease - you cannot avoid politics of one form or another and Ministers are in charge".

Yes, I think we had finally got that message. With so many mentions of 'pump priming' us to accept the concept of vaccination and other prevarication gems, it is crystal clear.

 And what is also clear, is that without a policy inclusive of meaningful control of the UK's wildlife reservoir of disease, Defra's TB strategy bucket is still as full of holes as the one in the old song.

2 plus 2 = 4.

In this post, we highlight the 'indescribable frustration' - [link] of a small family run dairy farm trying to cope with politics; which at the moment seem hell bent on protecting badgers, grossly infected with Tuberculosis at the expense of their cattle.

For decades this farm had been clear of TB on annual testing, and ran a 'closed herd' using AI and breeding all their replacements, thus buying no stock in.

So in Badgerist mantra, their cattle should have been fine? Safe - in theory.

But in 2008 they had a brush with zTuberculosis, losing just a couple of cattle, before going clear and staying clear until April 2013. During this time, they invested £9400 in 'badger proofing ' their farm buildings, and also buying their own manure spreading equipment.

In fact doing everything they could to protect their cattle.




This is one of the entrances to their cattle yards, with newly erected shiny, sheeted gates which badgers are said not to be able to climb over, slither around or squeeze under..

They were erected in September 2008.

The herd remained clear until spring 2013.

 Unfortunately, cattle grazing ground is pretty well impossible to 'protect' and in the spring of 2014, dead badgers were found near the farm buildings. And at the TB test that summer, more cattle were lost.

This badger was photographed in March 2014 just before the herd was turned out to grass.






 The 60 day tests rolled on for this herd and in September, 13 animals were disclosed as reactors.

These are two of  those thirteen. When she was slaughtered, the black heifer was 6 months in calf and carrying a heifer calf, having been inseminated with sexed semen.









In early November 2014 a moribund (that means half dead) badger was found crawling around in broad daylight outside the cattle yards.

This was the badger a day later on November 9th.

Or it may have been a different one. This one is dead and has what appear to be open tuberculous abscesses in its throat..





 And inevitably, the November TB test revealed more reactors.

But for this small farm, far worse to come. The legacy of the miserable specimen above, photographed on November 9th 2014, has, in their January test been the deaths of 25 more heavily in calf, homebred cattle.

So as our well publicised modelers, shunt their cattle assumptions - [link] into their electronic machines, believing and recycling their own guff, please humour us.
Why not put a few infected badgers into the mix as well?

Ones like those photographed dead in the fields of this biosecure family farm, with no bought in cattle and no cattle contacts, excellent biosecurity and no shared equipment. But which last week lost 25 cattle in one hit and has a running total of 47 dead cattle, revealed in TB tests since April 2013.

 Then 2 + 2 really would equal 4.

(With grateful thanks to TBInformation - [link] for allowing us to highlight this story, originally published on their site January 2015.)

'Unsafe'?

We gave a fair hammering to the paper released by Moustakas & Evans (M&E) in this posting - [link] and the Guardian - [link] was amongst many media outlets to run with the abstract.

Mathematical modeling is a useful tool, but only if the input data is solid. And even though M&E have listed a hundred references, as we pointed out, many are previously modeled assumptions based on or around papers by the ISG or their followers, involved in the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial or, in the case of other stuff, so historic as to be meaningless after almost 20 years of inertia on badger control.

So let's look at some of the input data, entered by M&E:
Their model area is approx 67 miles square (or 11,500 km2) and contains 1.4 million (dairy) cattle. That's an area slightly more than the size of Devon plus Somerset. The total cattle population of GB at the end of 2013 was 9.7m, of which the dairy herd was said to be 1.8m and the beef herd 1.6m; the rest are calves, young stock and fattening cattle. So they've got almost the entire national dairy herd squashed into two counties, and they're not allowing for sheep, arable, woodland etc, never mind the occasional town or village?

They've also assumed 5.7 adult badgers per km2, which seems on the low side for what appears to be a lovely area of wall-to-wall dairy farms and much lower than FERA have published for Gloucestershire where they trapped 844 in 55 sq km during their vaccination 'Elf n' Safety' trial in 2007/8. That is over 15 per sq km. (or 15.5 if one counts half a badger). And in parts of Oxfordshire, population densities of 38 per sq km have been recorded.
 
Following those badger numbers, the M&E model starts out with badgers in only 3113 out of 16384 of their "cells" - which seems unlikely.

Cattle-to-cattle infection: M&E say that cattle can transmit TB at even early stages of the disease and so their model reflects this belief. But actual hands on research on reactor cattle [SE3013] -[link] referred to by the ISG - but not in detail for obvious reasons, found that of 1543 nasal samples taken, and a further 1000 in a parallel study [SE3033] not a single one was capable of onward transmission.

 To avoid confusion, we'll quote again the conclusion of this £2.8m study:

"M.bovis was not detected by bacterial culture in any of the nasal mucus samples." and "The results suggest that large concentrations of M.bovis are not present in the nasal passages, and the shedding of M.bovis, if it occurs, is rare in naturally infected GB cattle."

This is also born out by pairings of reactor cattle with in contacts, done in Ireland - [link]Ireland by Eamon Costello and Dr. O'Reilly.

Thus M&E's 'Winter housing' assumption is just that, and not the experience of studies which housed reactors together for months, slaughtered, salami sliced and collected samples to prove or disprove their work.

Their model also seems to assume that all cattle on a farm are housed together in one place. This is not what happens in practice, as is their assumption of cattle moving round their entire farm 'cells' randomly all of the time. Again, not what happens in practice, particularly on a dairy farm.

But the 'assumption' we appreciate most, is that of badger-to-cattle transmission: M&E do not seem to have a clear idea what the rate of badger-to-cattle transmission is, even claiming that it is a "little studied variable". Whaaaaat???

 This has been 'studied' to death - in fact the death of up to 40,000 cattle a year, even if it did not need to be, and as we pointed out in this posting, where we listed the 'postulates' of disease transmission - [link] , a table used by epidemiologists and veterinary scientists - if not modelers.

All papers written over the past four decades - Zuckerman,  Dunnett, Krebbs etc - have concluded that infected badgers pose a significant risk to cattle. And even dear old Defra, in a booklet issued in 2001, instructing readers about reducing the TB risk [to cattle] state:

"The consensus of scientific opinion is that badgers are a significant source of TB infection in cattle...."

So as the conclusions of the model M&E have used, seems to turn all this on its head, one has to question the input data they have used. On the other hand, in a few short months, an election is looming...

But we digress: on badger culls, their model seems to assume that if just one badger is shot in a cull, then all the other badgers in its group will move out? That is taking the perturbation myth a tad too far we think. Particularly as at least twice annually, the badger groups have a shake out of the old, the sick and the young males. And they seem to 'leave' without causing a problem or even a space?

A paper by 'Gilbert' is quoted many times as a source of the M&E assumptions on cattle movements as 'a significant source of TB spread'. This paper is modeled on post FMD restocks, when a handful of cattle were found to have moved, carrying TB. The point here is that their post move skin test identified them, they were slaughtered and that was that. They did not pass their TB on to other cattle on new farm. A point lost on M&E, as is the compulsory pre movement testing of all cattle moving around or from annual testing areas. A policy in place since 2006.

Thus based not on any of the epidemiological work which Defra has produced, taxpayers have funded we have quoted, but assumptions modeled on previous assumptions, M&E published that the "three main factors influencing TB were the percentage of cattle movements, the frequency of testing, and the badger-to-cattle transmission rate."

But hidden within the paper they also say that:

"Culling of badgers does seem to be a strategy that will eventually lead to a lower incidence of TB in cattle."

Really?????

MAFF / DEFRA knew this thirty years ago, when the Thornbury area of Gloucestershire was cleared so successfully, leading to over a decade of TB free cattle. We asked why:

" The fundamental difference between the Thornbury area and other areas [] where bovine tuberculosis was a problem, was the systematic removal of badgers from the Thornbury area. No other species was similarly removed. No other contemporaneous change was identified that could have accounted for the reduction in TB incidence within the area" [157949]

So from a professional modeler,  a comment on computer modeling generally:

" There are usually a few key variables and you can adjust them to give you almost any answer you want."

 And finally a reminder that less than a year ago, the Guardian - [link] ran a story on computer generated guff, which was published and regurgitated, because no-one was prepared to challenge it or admit they couldn't understand a bloody word of it.

If the input data is 'unsafe' then its modeled conclusions, however seductive to the politics of the day, are even more so.

Mistakes and Evans - a modelled scenario

The headlines this week have included an astonishing abstract from Mistakers Moustakas and Evans of Queen Marys University of London (QMUL) in which their computer model suggests that more frequent TB testing and keeping cattle outside in the winter are the best ways to control bovine TB (bTB) And that culling badgers has minimal effect.

Amongst many others, Farmers Guardian - [link] has the story. The abstract which has got the Badgerists so excited is on this link - [link]

But the paper itself is a wonderful fairy land of cells in which badgers move, cells, (square or round) in which cattle move and apparently, so does zTuberculosis. At least in theory. If the cells are correct, the movements are correct and the input data used was solid, this may have been a useful exercise, but...
The paper asserts:

Computational models provide a valid alternative to expensive experimental approaches (Godfray et al. 2004) as a method of testing the likely effects of various strategies designed to control or eradicate TB in cattle. To be useful such models need to represent the modelled system in sufficient detail to allow realistic predictions to be made about the outcome of any control strategy (Evans et al. 2013b

True. but if the data input is incorrect, aged or derived from flawed assumptions? What then?

This justification is part of the basis of this particular 'theory' now expounded by Mistakers Moustakas and Evans who explain:

Model coupling (Verdin et al. 2014) of multiple dynamically acting animals can provide powerful predictive tools (Evans et al. 2013a

However, entering other people's 'assumptions', even if they've been published, is never a good way to begin, especially if actual available data tells you it is way out of date, or just plain wrong.

 Much of the modeling seems to stem from 'Meyer et al : 2007 - who is mentioned quite a lot. As we haven't heard of  an epidemiologist called Meyer, we assume that he may have developed mathematical models, the calculations for some of which is explained below:

Sensitivity analysis of model input parameters (Latin hypercube sampling) indicated that observed and simulated values in terms of percentage of infected cattle were not significantly different from each other (t test statistic = -1.26, P = 0.45).ANOVA results of the most parsimonious mixed model with the number of infected cattle as a dependent variable, show that there were significant effects of the percentage of cattle that are moved in a year (F4, 156 = 54.62, P\0.0001), the distance which cattle were moved (F4, 156 = 7.74, P = 0.006), both the cattle-to badger and badger-to-cattle infection rates (F3, 156 = 4.46, P = 0.036; F3, 156 = 8.59, P\0.004), the inter-test interval (F4, 156 = 59.80, P\0.0001) and the accuracy of the test (F3, 156 = 3.81, P = 0.053), badger culling (F2, 156 = 8.91, P = 0.003) and the initial number of infected badgers (F2, 156 = 16.08, P = 0.0001).

Still with us?

We note that present, factually incorrect and expanded are the 'assumptions' made by the diminutive professor, John Bourne who explained so helpfully in his Final Report (2007) [ 7:24] that actually looking at herd breakdown risk assessments was just too time consuming, so his team had assumed two parts cattle (contiguous or purchased) and one part badger .........   and switched on their model.

This is a chart of what they assumed and 'roughly estimated'.

The data from the same period for the county of Devon,  which they received but failed to examine, showed a completely different picture, with at least 76 percent and up to 90 per cent of herd breakdowns due to infected badgers. This according to the data sheets, painstakingly filled in by AH staff.

This paper of Mistakers Moustakas & Evans is peppered with mathematical terminology designed to baffle brains. They speak of 'regressions, co-efficients and remaining parameters' but also, echoing the ISG models, use words such as 'assumptions and estimates', building on previously well churned ISG sand.
 The sources of cattle and badger data are also predominantly post 2007, and thus ISG / Woodroffe material.

We suppose we should be grateful they didn't include the modeled scenario published in July 2014 by Dr. Ellen Prook-Bollocks,  Brooks-Pollock, who put 100 per cent of cattle into her model, switched on, and then exclaimed that if we culled all the cattle, - [link] zTB would vanish.

This well publicised model took cattle to cattle transmission, cattle into the environment and cattle movement, describing them as 'idealised control measures'.

But we digress: in the Evans paper, badger numbers seem way too low, as is tuberculous infection within the badger population, now given by FERA at around 50 percent in areas of endemic infection.(Chambers et al)

And much as we hate to break into the QMUL modelers' bubble,  actual data on what makes a difference does exist, and has done for some time. As is shown above and in PQs below.

A decade ago, Shadow minister Owen Paterson, MP asked for the results of the Thornbury badger clearance and why it had been so successful at reducing TB in cattle to zero: a situation which lasted at least a decade. They didn't ask a computer, but the answer was unequivocal:

"No confirmed cases of tuberculosis in cattle in the area were disclosed by the tuberculin test the the ten year period following the cessation of gassing" [150573]

 So not 20 years of buggering about trying to cull out infected badgers in ones and twos, very occasionally? (Or even taking pot shots at the scent markers ?)

Was anything else done? Biosecurity? Extra cattle measures? Pre movement testing? No cattle movements at all? Licenses? Shrink wrapped grass, raised troughs and cattle in hermetically sealed boxes?

The answer:

" The fundamental difference between the Thornbury area and other areas [] where bovine tuberculosis was a problem, was the systematic removal of badgers from the Thornbury area. No other species was similarly removed. No other contemporaneous change was identified that could have accounted for the reduction in TB incidence within the area" [157949]

And bringing this right up to date are the published results from the Somerset cull, lasting merely a well publicised (and interrupted)  few weeks in 2013, when 34 per cent of herds in the cull area were under TB restriction.

A herd data check before the second cull in 2014 and reported here - [link] showed that this figure had reduced to just 11 percent - a drop of almost 68 percent.

We are pleased that Mistakers Moustakas and Evans appear to appreciate the accuracy of the skin test though, observing that: "

Accuracy of the test to detect infected cattle explained less than 3 per cent of the variance in the number of infected cattle."

But we also note that their model predicts MORE cattle infected while tucked up in their winter housing.
However, the current advice and biosecurity guidelines issued by the APHIDs  APHA, and expanded by Professor Godfray recently, is to place all dairy cattle - [link] in hermetically sealed boxes, into which badgers cannot gain access.

Thus cattle farmers receive diametrically opposed views even on that one small piece of husbandry advice.

So as all this taxpayer funded 'research' spills into the press with headline grabbing sound bites which inevitably exclude badgers, hang on to those basic facts. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. And sometimes, simple squared really does equal stupid.

2015 - In Limbo

As 2014 draws to a close, cattle farmers are in limbo-land as far any meaningful control of diseased badgers is concerned. The two pilot culls in Somerset and Gloucestershire have just lurched through their second high profile year, and having adjusted their target numbers, Somerset was deemed to be a 'success'. But Gloucestershire, who did not challenge Natural England's guesstimates of badger numbers, was deemed not to have been a success.

 However, the proof of the pudding is in the number of cattle herds, previously under TB restriction, which are now trading clear. And it is reported - [link] that after a single year's culling, in Somerset, the figure of 34 per cent of herds under TB2 has fallen to just 11 per cent. A significant and substantial improvement of around 68 per cent.
And while the great and the good argue about how many beans make five, or in this case how many badgers live in the cull area of Gloucestershire, 'success' for many herds has come in the form of clear TB tests after years of restriction.

As we scribble this on New Years' Eve, more cull areas are apparently being formed to hit Natural England's collective desks for licensing, in mid January. But being a cynical lot, we see nothing at all happening in 2015 which gives us any cause for cheer. Politics will get in the way. A General Election in May, with results too close to call, will we suspect, see the current caretaker Secretary of State, Ms.Truss replaced.

And should the other party win an overall majority, the delightful Maria Eagle is already on record as saying she will 'stop the badger culls'.
She is intent on playing to gallery and in doing so, 'honouring the lie - [link] that vaccinating an infected group of badgers can somehow improve the situation. - [link]

The cost of the two pilot culls ran way beyond licensed farmer contributions and was underwritten by the NFU. But will they underwrite any more areas? Or are any newly licensed areas going to share that support pot? It has been hinted that some of the more onerous protocols, dreamed up by fully paid up member of Owen Paterson's Green Blob, Natural England - [link] may be relaxed. But should that be so, then we predict an immediate challenge by Queen May's Team Badger.

And even if Defra - if such an organisation exists any more - are successful in defending the right to control infected badgers, the opportunity for doing so in 2015 is likely to have been lost. Along with participating farmers' up-front cash, paid in advance with no security of tenure as to its eventual use.

 Meanwhile the group previously headed by Michael Seals, which was charged with 'reducing costs' within the TB budget, has been hard at work.

We've already seen heavily pregnant dairy cattle shipped from Dorset to Wales - [link] passing within 9 miles of a Somerset abattoir which takes reactors, for the sake of 2p/kg. This is neither animal nor human welfare but we can expect to see more of this desk-jockey type of juggling pennies, regardless of its animal or human consequences.

We also understand that on the table is another bright idea. That of an 'on the hook' price for any reactor, rather than even the current miserly tabular valuation. And not content with that, further deductions could be made by a shady, under the radar group, passing judgement on the affected farm's efforts at 'biosecurity'.

Are your feed stores secure from .......? Is the way you feed your cattle inaccessible to ......., are your gates sheeted and hung the regulation had height of 7.5cm (3" in old money) both off the floor (concrete) and at the sides, to prevent ingress by ......? And in all these questions, the ....... are referred to as 'wildlife'.

It would be churlish to point out that deer would have difficulty squeezing under a 3" gap, and that rats would have no trouble at all. But badgers? Even now, it's still a name they dare not even speak.

So to all our readers, whose businesses are still suffering the ravishes of an over protected animal, worth more votes to the average politician than any number of dead cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, alpacas or even pet cats, we wish you a Happy New Year.

To those personally suffering from the disease itself, we wish a speedy and satisfactory outcome to the long, hard drug regime you have had to endure, some of you with no success other than a brief respite.

To contributers across England, Wales and beyond, grateful thanks for sharing your stories and experiences.

And to the vets and professional epidemiologists who help and support the site - thankyou.

 There are no words which we could submit to print,  to describe the members of the Green blob who have, through political chicanery and self serving obfuscation, supported and encouraged the spread of mycobacterium bovis, and continue to do so.

Happy Christmas 2014

It is now over a decade since as Shadow Minister, Owen Paterson MP, irritated the hell out of Labour's baby Ben Bradshaw with his 500 Parliamentary Questions. The answers, most of which were extremely revealing, form the 2003/4 archive on this site.

Ten long years of blogging about zoonotic tuberculosis, and have we achieved anything at all?

A coalition of greens, celebs and badgerists, aided and abetted by the BBC's PR machine and fueled by fully paid up pseudo scientists - [link] has presented a case for vaccination - [link] as an alternative to culling wildlife, both infected and infectious with z.Tuberculosis. While seemingly they are quite content to keep testing and slaughtering cattle and banging on about biosecurity.

And earlier this year, they succeeded in ousting the best Secretary of State - [link] we have ever had.

The European Union has approved funding - [link] to the tune of around £25 million for the UK, to test more cattle and offer advice. This, says Farmers Guardian is by far the largest slice of this particular pie, needed or requested by any EU member state.

"In total roughly £25m will be provided to the UK from the EU, the single largest allocation for a member state’s animal disease eradication programme. The funding received will be split between England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Defra said the funding would help it pursue elements of England’s TB strategy, including for on-farm cattle tests and laboratory work.

This is the sixth year running, that funding has been allocated, after the EU first approved the UK TB eradication programme in 2010.

We would have thought EU patience was wearing a tad thin, especially as the bottomless pit of cattle carnage while leaving a wildlife reservoir of disease to flourish, appears to be errr - bottomless, with almost 24,000 cattle slaughtered in the 9 months to September 2014. That is slightly down on 2013, but so are the number of herds registered on Defra's computer network. Thus the percentage of herds experiencing TB restrictions remains stubbornly high at around 10 per cent of all cattle herds in GB.

We note that 2014 ends with some pretty outrageous statements made by the top end staff at Defra, which in the positions which they hold, and with the qualifications they wave about, are an insult to reality.

We reported Ian Boyd's gaff at the NFU TB Conference - [link] in November, and he is not alone in using wild, computer  generated assumptions when solid data is available from his own departments.

But the word which seems to have got the great and good in such a tail spin is 'Transmission'. How it happens, by what method, why, when, how... and usually combined with the need for more 'research'.
It goes on like a broken record. And merely confirms the total lack of epidemiological credibility within the upper echelons of Defra / AHVLA.

Which brings us neatly back to those PQs of a decade ago.

For sure they were publicity for a problem which should never have been allowed to ferment, but they were much more than that. They sought to satisfy the 'gold standard' of disease transmission, by answering certain postulates originally formulated - [link] by Professor Koch for the spread of Tuberculosis, in 1884.

This is pure epidemiology, where if certain events happen, (causality)  then how transmission occurs does not need further investigation. Such transmission can be assumed.

These early postulates were upgraded by Evans in 1977 and include:

* Disease should follow exposure to the putative agent

• Exposure increases disease incidence prospectively 

* Exposure increases disease prevalence

• Exposure to the cause more common in those with the disease than those without ceteris paribus

• Dose-response relationship.

.* Experimental reproduction of the disease possible

• Measurable host response following exposure to the cause

          • Elimination of putative cause reduces incidence

          • Prevention of the host‘s response eliminates the disease

          • The whole thing should make biologic and epidemiologic sense

But how this zoonotic, bacteriological killer has been handled in this country over the last three decades make no sense whatsoever; biological, epidemiological or any other descriptive term Defra can dream up.

 As research over the last century has shown, for zoonotic Tuberculosis, the epidemiological postulates are satisfied. Thus further prevarication over its control in wildlife is purely political .

And that is a damned disgrace.

We'll end this post with a snippet which we hope you will appreciate.

You may have read the [shock, horror, how awful ] stories of how long it takes a badger, shot during the pilot culls to 'die'. But all may not be as it seems. For sure, the stopwatch starts ticking when the rifle fires.

 But then the marksman has to discharge the spent round, discard his camouflage gear, (including trousers), having removed his boots so that said trousers could be discarded. Put on bio security garb commensurate with the examination of a Category 1 waste product under EU Waste regulations, (a dead badger) and sprint across to where said badger was felled.

Now this may be 10 feet, 10 yards or 100 yards. And when he finally reaches the animal, he has to tickle its eyelid with a twig to confirm death. And it is only when he indicates a 'thumbs up' to the man with the stopwatch and a torch, does that apparatus get stopped.

So all is definitely not as it seems. And let's hope there were no chimneys involved. Happy Christmas.

Hermetically sealed boxes for dairy cows .....

... and beef cows to decorate the landscape?

A suggestion from Professor Charles Godfray, from Oxford University, who delivered the prestigious annual Bledisloe Memorial Lecture at the Royal Agricultural University, in Cirencester, last week. is that dairy cows be housed 24/7 to protect them from infected badgers, while beef cattle should graze, to add to the landscape value.

It's not April 1st. and  Farmers Guardian - [link] reports his suggestion thus:

Farmers should consider keeping more cattle indoors to protect them against bovine TB (bTB) infection where the disease is being spread by badgers, a leading academic specialising in food and farming has suggested.

That is not so daft as it sounds, as we reported last year, in this posting - [link] where a restock herd of dairy cattle were 'incarcerated' - but safe. And regularly, it is noted that cattle herds will test clear in the winter, as cattle are housed away from pasture (and providing feed stores and access points to buildings are badger proofed) only to fail skin tests after a summer of grazing, 'au naturale'.

 But now an Oxford academic, whose claim to fame in 2005 was a paper on the sex life of yeast, (Goddard, M.R., Godfray, H.C.J. & Burt, A. 2005 Sex increases the efficiency of natural selection in experimental yeast populations. Nature 434, 636-640) wants to rearrange the life of Britain's cattle herds, to suit infected badgers? Professor Godfray's  speciality appears to be the  biological control of parasites in insects. He is a parasitologist. We suppose he could broaden his scope to include other, larger parasites? 

 Seriously, have we gone stark, staring berluddy mad?

"I think there are some really interesting questions about the way we farm and the way we manage land in the west of the country,” said Professor Godfray.

Interesting maybe, but missing the point of 1:3 tractor free slopes and wonderful grassland which supports grazing animals but not machinery, he also pointed out that:

The mixture of pasture and woodland where many cattle graze in the west of England was an ideal breeding ground for worms, which in turn, creates perfect conditions for badgers.

“There are higher densities of badgers in the west country at the moment than ever before,” Prof Godfray said.

“We like to farm in a particular way. We could farm in other ways. You could bring more dairy cattle indoors in larger facilities so they can be protected from badgers. You could still have beef cattle out so the landscape would not look different.”

Obviously other grazing mammals succumbing to 'badger' tuberculosis have failed to cross the good Professor's radar. Or perhaps we should house them all? Alpacas, sheep, pigs, goats, deer, bison - a modern day Noah's Ark.  And then farmers could run badger sanctuaries, as a diversification.

And when the eminent gentleman said 'housing' of dairy cattle, as Ken Wignall points out in his brilliant  cartoon to illustrate this bovine fantasia, we don't think he meant, errr ' farm house housing'.

.
Or perhaps he did?

(Ken Wignall's cartoon appeared in Farmers Guardian, December 5th. and we reproduce it with thanks.)  

The 'right' sort of scientific consensus? - Nudge.

In an article for the Western Morning News this week, Anthony Gibson, - [link] former SW regional director, then reincarnated as press officer for the National Farmers Union, has apparently nudged back into the NFU fold, describing a conference at which, from his dialogue, he was not present.

 Illustrated with a library picture of a shiny badger, Gibson's piece is a mass of contradictions. But given a  Nudge Farmers Under hymn sheet from which to sing, and despite a totally guesstimated model presented by Ian Boyd which we described in this post - [link] he's sung to it very obediently and in tune.

He explains:

.... we do need to achieve a scientific consensus as to how and why the infection spreads if we are ever to achieve political agreement on action to prevent it. To that extent, any consensus is better than none, even a consensus with which very many farmers might feel profoundly uncomfortable – always provided the scientists are right, of course,...[ although that is another story]."

"Any consensus is better than none?" Whaaaaat? You cannot be serious.
 Nudge.

And if these desk jockeys are not 'right'?
Nudge.


And if they are completely unaware that the data they require to formulate policy given proven risk, particularly before making such wild statements, is actually collated daily within their own departments?

Who is going to tell them? Is anyone going to point that out?
Not Nudge. They can always rely on Nudge.

 The Nudge Farmers Under group will always do exactly as their masters tell them. Dissent is not permitted.




Thus we have a group of over qualified people, (but not a single epidemiologist) faithfully worshipping a model created with guesses. Estimates.

 Assumed data, not the actual figures which are  available for every new TB breakdown.


And telling us quite sincerely, that up to 94 per cent  of outbreaks are down to cattle?



Nudge.
Although it may be 100 per cent badger related. Wonderful. And they call that 'science' ?

Gibson continued, observing quite correctly that:

"Of course, no such official foot-dragging is evident when it comes to cattle controls. In that context, the prospect offered by the conference was of ever-more tests and ever-tighter restrictions, without anything being done – quite possibly not even the continuation of the pilot culls – to cut off the flow of disease from infected badger setts."

Quite. But in the whole disgraceful, sycophantic diatribe, that was the only bit he did get correct.

And predictably, he failed to mention documented data of those who had previously attempted these drastic 'cattle only' measures, now proposed. Thus history - [link] is likely to repeat itself on a grand scale with similarly ignominious and expensive results..

Nudge
But hey,  when Government says jump, Nudge says  "how high"?

Disgracefully, what Gibson omitted to mention (while polishing some Nudge egos), is that the NFU appears to have done absolutely nothing to avail their Conference speakers of information relating to the circumstances leading to the TB breakdowns of their members, most of whom, according to recorded SVS / AH data, did not fit Boyds' model.
And that is unforgivable.

Thus there is nothing at all to prevent the scenario which we described last year - [link]

But somehow that is a good outcome?
Nudge.

For whom?

Not farmers, not cattle, alpacas, sheep, pigs, bison, deer, goats, cats and dogs. And not badgers.

If you remember, last year, Defra carried out some mind games - [link] giving them the excuse to say that they had 'consulted'. Never mind what was said at these gatherings, the end result would be a heap more dead cattle - [link] - a scenario now apparently supported by the Nudge Farmers Under group which approves a 'consensus'.

The NFU will 'nudge' those pesky farmers along as instructed, one miserable, expensive, ineffective step at a time, and hope they don't put all these miserable barbs together at the same time. That would never do at all.