Has the NFU had the wool pulled over its eyes?

The title of this post is a strap line for an excellent letter in this week's Farmers Guardian, written by Worcestershire vet, David Denny B.VET.MED.M.R.C.V.S    (Sorry, no link)

Replying to Alistair Driver's piece on farmer frustration - [link] over a TB eradication policy which appears to have stalled, Mr Denny says: "

The NFU themselves must take much of the responsibility for “the anger of farmers over lack of progress with TB strategy” (Alistair Driver 03 July 2015). Instead of being myopic and having tunnel vision they should have looked at the whole scene. Typically they are concerned over the delay in the consultation and not the consultation itself. It being yet another layer of bureaucracy and inconvenience to farmers will have minimal impact on the overall bTB status of the Country. It is fiddling with trivia while the bTB crisis is allowed to escalate."

Our own opinion is that EU rules to be implemented this year equal much cost and bring no benefit. Post movement testing does not allow for isolation units of differing status on the same farm.
Explain that one to a buyer - and his neighbours within 3km.

Mr. Denny continues with a parallel of the rules of engagement for any war:

One of the principles of war in my day was “the selection and maintenance of aim”. Since only healthy badgers result in healthy cattle, the aim must be healthy badgers.

And criticising the politically corrupt RBCT - [link] he continues:

The NFU have been both naïve and gullible. They have been mushroomed and had the ‘wool pulled over their eyes’, by flawed and biased pseudo-science, by corruption, by brainwashed civil servants and deliberate political interference.

They have accepted all the evidence ‘carte blanche’ without reading the small print. It was always obvious that Natural England’s proposals for a badger cull were flawed and could only have been designed to deliberately fail or by those ignorant of badgers.

Frustrated and desperate farmers were morally and financially blackmailed into participating into virtually signing a blank cheque. It was a public relations disaster. Instead of having a targeted cull of the infected badgers, the NFU, like the British Veterinary Association (BVA), only having a second rate policy on offer, rubber stamped it. Now that the BVA have withdrawn their support a further roll out will be even more difficult to defend."

And Mr. Denny's opinions for the future of the livestock industry of this country?

"The 25 year eradication programme is ‘living in cloud cuckoo land’. As a result of negligence, corruption and political cowardice the level of bTB in the environment is now so great, that it will never ever be eradicated. It must however be controlled, by a targeted cull of the infected badgers."

And describing our own experience over the last decades, Mr Denny concludes:

The whole debacle has been fuelled and influenced by the animal rights lobby with their own cynical agenda. They are not concerned with the welfare of the terminally ill badger slowly dying from starvation and parasites with multiple abscesses in multiple organs. What is their agenda? Frustrated and desperate farmers require and deserve leadership and not a supine, submissive organisation. "

That is a pretty hard hitting letter, but events over the last decades reinforce Mr. Denny's views.

The 1972 Protection of Badgers Act took population control of this animal away from farmers and landowners and gave it to the Ministry. Anyone requiring a badger culled or moved for either disease or damage had first to jump through MAFF's hoops. The State Veterinary Service held a general license to comply with culling 'to prevent the spread of disease'. It issued these only after presenting a case to the Badger Panel, who met quarterly.
Speedy wasn't in the vocabulary and any licensed Badger Removal could be months, several 60 day tests and many more dead cattle after the original breakdown.
Did this serve the farmers or the badgers? Doubtful. Bureaucracy never does.
Who agreed it?.

In 1992 the Act was further tightened, and by now land available for Badger Removals had been ratcheted down from 7 km to just 1km and then only on land cattle had grazed. The badger population at this time was expanding - [link] at a rate of knots and was reported to have increased by 77 per cent.
Did this serve either farmers or badgers?
Who agreed it?

In 1997, in receipt of a £1m bung from the Political Animal Lobby, a moratorium was put on the section of the Act which dealt with licensed culls 'to prevent the spread of disease'. This is still in place.
Did that serve either farmers or badgers?
Who agreed it.

 In 2005 a consultation took place to introduce pre movement testing and Tabular valuation. The wording offered to Defra by the consultees was quite explicit - [link] They would reluctantly accept this, on the condition that a cull of infectious badgers was introduced at the same time.
It was not.

 In 2006 the licensing of badger removals and their house moves was passed to Natural England, under a 20 year lease. - [link] Did that move away from Animal Health to a quango intent on protection at any cost, serve badgers or this country's livestock farmers? Did anyone voice concerns on behalf of either group? Or ask for a rethink on the first available 5 year break in 2011? [ The next opportunity will be in 2016.]
They did not.

And during this last decade, after a raft of cattle measures designed to placate the ignorant and the badgerists, while doing absolutely nothing for the health and welfare of either cattle or badgers, this month Defra have surpassed themselves with the introduction of that Map - [link]

After a TB breakdown, a risk assessment form is filled out and shed load of paperwork arrives with instructions that Defra have 'purchased' the reactor animal (debatable - stolen would often be a better word, but let that pass) and that the breakdown information may be shared with your 'veterinary practitioner'. Nowhere does it say that my farm, and my location will be posted on the World Wide Web for all to see and possibly target.

Yes readers, dear old Camel Ebola, aka Gamal Eboe, described by the Daily Wail as a "convicted fraudster, the son of a wealthy Lebanese property developer who was born in the distinctly urban environs of Hammersmith in West London" and now calls himself 'Jay Tiernan' - [link] and who in later life has developed a love of all things badgery, may be poring over your farm details as we speak. And Defra have offered him a road map in high resolution of your farm.

Excellent. Thanks a bunch Defra ..... and your tame henchmen.

Leaving aside the inaccuracies and omissions in the map itself,  the 2014 Tuberculosis Order had to be changed to incorporate this little gem (Point 4): .

10 —(1) Where a skin test has been applied to a bovine animal, as soon as practicable after the results of the test have been read by an inspector or approved veterinary surgeon, the Secretary of State must give the keeper of that animal a written record of the results.

(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to animals in respect of which movement is, or remains, prohibited under this Order following the test.

{3) The keeper of any animal to which paragraph (1) applies must— (a) retain the record of the results of the test for a period of three years and 60 days following the date bovine and avian tuberculin is injected; and (b) produce such record when requested to do so by an inspector.

(4) Where a bovine herd loses its tuberculosis-free status the Secretary of State may publish information regarding that herd in any form that the Secretary of State sees fit for the purpose of helping other persons to protect against the further spread of tuberculosis.

"Helping other persons to protect against the further spread of Tuberculosis" How so, when up to 80 per cent of TB breakdowns in endemic areas are caused by infectious wildlife?
When cattle in the increasing Red zone of a Defra map are nailed to floor with testing?
When Defra know that the problem is not in cattle?
And when this damn map doesn't even include 1500 farms shown on other Defra stats whose breakdowns precede the 5 year window?

Is this futile exercise to be like points on your driving license? A penalty for trying to farm cattle next to infectious wildlife which, having taken away farmer's rights to control, Defra now refuse to do?
Will records disappear after 5 years on the WWW?

Who exactly dared to breach my Data Protection and agree that little lot on my behalf?

Back to Mr. Denny's letter and the influence of our National Farming Union, credit for the map is described thus:

"Defra said the Bovine TB Eradication Advisory Group for England (TBEAG), the NFU and others ‘all provided positive input into the development of ibTB".

No consultation then? Keep it in the family?

NFU Deputy President Minette Batters said the new website would ‘help farmers find out about any ongoing bTB breakdowns near their farms which will help them make informed business decisions’.

No it won't. It is inaccurate and doesn't include TB breakdowns in alpacas, sheep, pigs, goats, bison or any other grazing animal. It ignores up to 1500 farms whose TB restrictions occurred prior to SAM data being lobbed to Oxford University to play with.
All that was necessary was the provision on a TB99 to inform immediate neighbours of a TB breakdown.

This high resolution map is dangerous and divisive and serves no useful purpose at all, except to advertise to the world what a weak and supine administration we have in this country when it comes to dealing with badgers infected with tuberculosis. Minette Batters added:

"However, there are genuine concerns over the fact that this information will be readily available to anyone, particularly given the problems farmers in Gloucestershire and Somerset have faced, and we will continue to work with Defra on this project.”

Concerns? Concerns?? Publishing this personal and in some cases 'delicate' data on the World Wide Web? Available for anyone - [link] to read, identify and worse?
Didn't anyone put their half brain into gear and realise how this thing could be used?

The best thing the NFU could do now would be to invoke Data Protection, consider the Human Rights of its livestock members caught between Brock and a hard place, and lobby Defra to take the damn thing down.

But on past experience, Defra has spoken and we are not holding our collective breath.

Reverse gear?

After the announcement that the second and subsequent years of  Northern Ireland's  Test Vaccinate Remove (TVR) project would begin the 'R' bit - the Removal of badgers found to have tuberculosis, and the NI Badger Groups reported approval of the project, we were on the point of constructing a 'Dear Dominic' letter to our lot.

This may have been somewhat premature.

The BBC - [link] are now being accused of bias and the 'C' word is firmly out of bounds to the NI badgerists, who appear to insist that all the bacteria associated with 'bovine' TB is, er 'bovine'. And thus only in cattle. The project is primarily a 'Vaccination' exercise, they say.

But a BBC report, 'biased' ??  Surely not.

So what is the spokesman for the NI badgerists reported to have said, which has led to this about turn and his head on the proverbial?

 In the BBC report, NI's chief vet, Robert Huey explained the TVR policy thus:

"It's consistent with what we're doing in cattle," he said. "What we do with cattle is that we test and, if animals test positive, we remove. It's the exactly the same thing we're doing for the badgers. What I like is the consistency of the approach."

And in the original BBC report, Peter Clarke of the NI Badger Group was said to have backed it [the TVR project] because it is based on science rather than the "Gatling gun" approach that was taken in England.

Also mentioned was the same point made by the Chief Vet, (above), that a parallel action on tested badgers, to that of test and slaughter of reactor cattle appeared the 'proportionate approach'. But having received complaints from the NI badgerists, the BBC censored their strapline for Mr. Clarke to:

He said the scheme is "proportionate, has buy-in from everyone and at the end of the day, what we all want is healthy cattle and healthy badgers".

So what was wrong with that? According to social media - [link] and repeated on the NI Badgerist's web site, quite a lot. Primarily because originally it mentioned the 'C' word rather than the 'V'. They say:

To clarify, in light of a number of critical comments issued in the past few days, firstly the BBC has changed the caption that accompanied Pete Clarke's photo to indicate its actual context, "the TVR project was proportionate and had buy in from everyone". However, the video footage is still very much out of context. Peter Clarke talked extensively about the TVR project in terms of it primarily being a vaccination study but this footage was not included. We are very open to a debate and discussion on the right way forward in Northern Ireland, and elsewhere, in terms of protecting badgers and tackling the issue of bovineTB in general. In order to do so, we would invite individuals to consider the following detailed analysis and statements contained on our website, whilst guarding against poor journalistic tactics that are fuelled by hidden agendas and/or simply sensationalistic in motive: http://www.badgersni.org.uk/news.html and http://www.badgersni.org.uk/btb.html

We'll leave you to trawl their website, adorned with pictures of shiny individuals, all apparently free of Tuberculosis and waiting to be indiscriminately vaccinated, regardless of their health status.



Their supporters would rather not see the results of this ultimate protection so we will balance that up a bit.

This individual was grossly underweight and had open throat abscesses.

This one was one of a large group, culled in Devon.

All were described as 'grossly emaciated' and their post mortems showed advanced tuberculosis and pleurisy.





 

The RSPCA - [link] describes tuberculosis in badgers, as a 'slight wheeziness'.

Rather more than that, we would suggest.






So do badgers suffer? Veterinary pathologists say "It would be extremely naive to assume that with this level of disease, they did not." Sadly they remain unseen by their protectors. Victims of a flawed policy..

One can only hope that the 'proportionate response' of a targeted cull, where as well as slaughtering reactor cattle, diseased wildlife is also euthanased, put to sleep or whatever description is used, does not founder because of the anthropomorphic antics of a few.

After reading this reported response from NI's badgerists,  we were hopeful of some common ground in the eradication of this disease.  England's Live Test trial in the early 1990s, was said to be well supported and had no interference, and Secret World's Pauline Kidner makes no secret [pun] of the euthanasia of rescue badgers testing positive to tuberculosis.

But it seems that where tuberculous badgers are concerned, their most vocal supporters are not only in denial, they are firmly in reverse gear on any point of agreement. 

We've been here before.

This week, Farmers Guardian - [link] has an article on the frustration felt by many cattle farmers 'from the tip of Cornwall to Durham' over the grinding inertia they are experiencing; always promised 'jam tomorrow', if......

And thus far, those 'ifs' have been increasingly brutal cattle measures which have have little or no effect on the wildlife source of the majority of their zTB breakdowns.

The 'ifs' have been accepted with open arms by our industry representatives, who have shoveled the dirt in spades, on anyone disagreeing with this 'quid pro quo' approach - [link]
Meanwhile, as we have experienced over the last ten long years, Defra have a nasty habit of grabbing the 'quid' which is offered, while keeping the 'pro quo' firmly in their pockets.

 The fragrant Liz Truss,  Secretary of State now in charge of this unholy mess, has thus far unveiled no new cull areas, but has revealed an open access database for her department, chirping that this will 'transform farming' - [link] (Credit: This speech is linked to The Farmers Forum posting.)

One of the first pieces of data to be shared on line, is APHA's map of TB breakdowns - [link] in England.

Governmental reliance of computers is legendary, as is their steadfast belief in the data which is emitted from them. But apart from publicising to the world, the appalling level of TB breakdowns enjoyed by England, which one wouldn't have thought was a particularly good idea, are these pretty raindrops accurate?

A quick check of the total outbreaks which this site logs in 2015 (2,525 ongoing + 131 cleared)against other Defra TB databases - [link]  shows a substantial discrepancy. Official Defra figures indicate farms with a TB2 restriction order in place January - March 2015 in England, range from 3,451 to 4,037. Which is some degree of magnitude adrift from the new map data. This may be explained in part by farms with longstanding, ongoing, uncleared outbreaks not recorded at all. And that is more than opaque. It is the obfuscation we have come to expect from this department.

So as we head into the second half of 2015, with lorry loads of cattle still heading for Defra's mincer, will anything change? We've been here before, and apart from nailing first cattle farmers, then their vets -[link] to the floor on cost, nothing, absolutely nothing appears to be moving on dealing with zTuberculosis in wildlife.

This situation has led the NFU's Minette Batters to remark:

“The NFU and the farmers on the ground (in potential new cull areas) have gone above and beyond. Prices are crashing and people have put their hand up and paid big sums of money because they know if we don’t take out this disease in badgers we are not going to get rid of it on farms,” she told Farmers Guardian.

But as England's cattle play football with a lethal type of ball, (left)and pay the ultimate price at their next TB test, Northern Ireland roll out their 5 year TVR - Test, Vaccinate, Remove (TVR) plan.

In areas of endemic TB, this may  include the 'R' bit - eventually. Currently in the name of 'research', all badgers are tested, vaccinated and released.




 
This BBC Report - [link] report quotes the government Chief vet, farmers and the N.I badgerists broadly in favour of a targeted approach. And much more detail on the project is in the Northern Ireland Assembly's presentation - [link]
This confirms that in year one (2014) all badgers trapped were tested, vaccinated and released.
This year (2015) after parallel tests on blood assays to validate set side tests (PCR?, any badger found to be infected will be removed by lethal injection.
Some 40 badgers are fitted with collars to check movement and ascertain any perturbation issues.

The cost is £7.5m over 5 years on a 100 sq km area and funded by Government.

Meanwhile, in England, a 25 year badger control, funded by farmers appears stalled and our representatives argue about 'further cattle measures'.

Shaft me once, shame on you. Shaft me twice, shame on me.  We've been here before. Twice.

The EU will be impressed.

As a contributor to the cost of GB's pile of dead reactor cattle, government has to submit an Annual Report - [link] on the eradication process to which they are signatories.

We note from the content that Defra are still using New Herd breakdowns as a benchmark in this paper, while conveniently airbrushing those herds still remaining under restriction firmly under the proverbial carpet.
 The incidence of herd restriction due to zTuberculosis in GB cattle herds in 2014 - [link] was 11.15 per cent of registered herds. In 2013, it was slightly higher at 11.4 per cent and significantly more than the figures submitted to the EU. But does it matter?

On 20th Nov 2003, Ben Bradshaw answered a Parliamentary Question - one of 538 posed by the then Shadow minister, Owen Paterson, MP - on this subject:

Column 1205W

Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the OIE limit of the incidence of TB in cattle necessary to maintain TB-free status trading for the UK, expressed as a percentage of the national herd. [140308]

Mr. Bradshaw: The Office of International des Epizooties (OIE) provides expertise for the control of animal diseases.

Article 2.3.3.2 of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code states that for a Country or zone to qualify as officially free from bovine tuberculosis, shall satisfy the following requirements:

Bovine tuberculosis is notifiable in the country;

99.8 per cent. of the herds in the considered geographical area have been officially free from bovine tuberculosis for at least the past three years as disclosed by periodic testing of all cattle in the area to determine the absence of bovine tuberculosis.

Periodic testing of all cattle is not required in an area where a surveillance programme reveals that 99.9 percent of the cattle have been in herds officially free from tuberculosis for at least six years.

So, 0.2 per cent of herds to be TB free, and 0.1 percent of cattle tested.

And we dare to send this bilge Annual Report into the EU, begging for more money, when our level of disease is rumbling along at over 11 per cent of our herds?

When direct contacts are counted as well as reactors, the figure for cattle slaughtered in 2014 is 32,851 - 239 more animals than in 2013.





So when Defra illustrate the final page of this quaint package with a picture of a Hereford cow, quietly grazing the green grass of GB's pastures, and  mark it  'Thankyou',  she has nothing to thank our Ministry for.

  

They have it perfectly clear that they prefer one of these, (right) grossly infected and roaming her pastures, to keeping our cattle safe, and our ability to trade intact.

So it must be a 'Thankyou' to the European Union for sending more of our cash back to us, so that that we can kill more cattle - just like the one in the picture above.






The EU will be impressed  with GB's progress on badger vaccination and other prevarications, so 'Thankyou' just about sums it up.

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.