Wales - FUW reports a 37 per cent increase in TB in one year.

The Farmers Union of Wales (FUW) have issued a press release, urging the new Welsh Government to work with the farming industry to address the issue of TB in wildlife.

 Speaking during the FUW’s Annual General Meeting, FUW President Glyn Roberts told members that an average of 36 cattle were culled every working day due to TB, representing an increase of 37 percent on the previous 12 month period, and an eight hundred percent rise since 1996.

“The pattern in the north Pembrokeshire Intensive Action Area, where millions have been spent on vaccinating badgers over the past four years, is no different”,Glyn Roberts told those present, referring to the latest scientific report into the impact of badger vaccination in the area, which found there was no improvement in TB rates in the area despite more than £3.7 million having been spent on vaccinating 5,192 badgers in the area since 2011.

We therefore look to this new government to finally grasp the nettle, and accept the basic facts which our Chief Vet has made clear to successive governments,” he said.

Glyn Roberts also highlighted the experience of other countries where cattle TB controls, which are less stringent than those applied in Wales, quickly eradicate the disease and restore TB-free status, citing the example of Germany. The badger population here is proactively managed, and numbers are reduced by around 65,000 a year.

“Their badger population [in Germany] is not endangered by any stretch of the imagination - and nor is it infected with TB.”

Glyn Roberts said such patterns are repeated around the world, and that scientific evidence gathered from across the EU and the globe showed that TB cannot be eradicated while the epidemic in wildlife is ignored.

“This truth, and the distressing figures in terms of the numbers of cattle being culled every day, is something we will be highlighting over the coming months, and we hope Welsh Government and those from across the political spectrum will work with us in helping educate the public about the severity of the situation, just as we have done in the past,” he added.

Pictured: (L-R) Chief Veterinary Officer for Wales Professor Christianne Glossop, FUW Deputy President Brian Thomas, Environment and Rural Affairs Cabinet Secretary Lesley Griffiths and FUW President Glyn Roberts

A (nother) new test for TB

Making the headlines this week, is another new screening test - [link] for zTB. This is a blood test, with results available in 6 hours, and aims to find TB bacteria circulating in blood, ahead of any lesions forming.

The test has been developed by a team at The University of Nottingham led by Dr Cath Rees, an expert in microbiology in the School of Biosciences and Dr Ben Swift from the School of Veterinary Medicine and Science.

The researchers have used this new method to show that cattle diagnosed with bovine tuberculosis (bTB) have detectable levels of the bacterium Mycobacterium bovis (M. bovis) - which causes this bTB - in their blood. The research: ‘Evidence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex bacteraemia in intradermal skin test positive cattle detected using phage-RPA' has been published online in the peer reviewed medical journal Virulence = [link]

The full paper is behind a paywall. More information is available from the authors.
Contact cath.rees@nottingham.ac.uk

 In her introduction Dr Rees explains: “This test delivers results within 48 hours and the frequency in which viable mycobacteria were detected in the blood of skin test positive animals, changes the paradigm of this disease."

This new, simple and inexpensive blood test detects very low levels of mycobacteria in blood using a bacteriophage-based technique developed by The University of Nottingham. The group has patented an improved version of the method that delivers results in just six hours. More recently ‘proof of principal’ experiments have shown that this is even more sensitive. This is currently licenced to a spin out company, PBD Biotech Ltd.

This test uses amplified DNA, and is explained by the authors thus:

Bacteriophage amplification technology was developed 20 years ago as a method to rapidly detect and enumerate slow growing pathogenic mycobacteria. In addition it can be used as a tool to rapidly detect antibiotic resistance and to investigate mycobacterial dormancy. The assay detects the growth of broad host range mycobacteriophage, capable of infecting a wide range of both pathogenic and non-pathogenic mycobacteria.

Any diagnostic test with a decent pedigree, is welcome, and having heard the guff circulating about the sensitivity of the internationally used skin test, many will latch on to these discoveries like the Holy Grail.
But tests such as this for cattle, would still be supplementary to the primary skin test. Just like Gamma ifn - [link] and Enferplex - [link] and even qPCR - [link]

But only a scientist on a mission could come up with the following two statements - and keep a straight face:

"Routine testing for Bovine TB uses the Single Intradermal Comparative Cervical Tuberculin (SICCT) skin test for M. bovis infection and all healthy cattle are regularly tested this way. However, it is known that this test is only 90 per cent sensitive at best and misses many infected animals."

and then in describing the test results:

"The data we are getting has taken the scientific community by surprise. In our paper we show that when blood samples from (45) skin test negative cattle were tested for M. bovis cells, all the samples proved negative."

Priceless.

Dr Rees then explains that the test showed:

"viable Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex bacteria (MTC) were detected in 66 per cent of samples (27/41) from skin test positive animals."

So this test agreed 100 per cent with the 45 skin test negative animals and 'found' 66 per cent of the skin test positives? We're trying to get our collective heads around that one, but suggest the remaining skin test positives would be NVL at post mortem. That is, both the skin test and this blood screen, had, in some cattle, picked up mycobacterium bovis circulating ahead of lesions. Dr. Rees explains:

“More excitingly, using our new more sensitive six-hour method, this figure is even higher - all animals with visible lesions were MTC positive, and even 26 out of 28 animals where the lesions were not yet visible also were positive suggesting that M. bovis is commonly found in the circulating blood of infected animals. Using our bacteriophage-based test the hope is that we can help improve herd control by finding animals at the early stages of infection and helping farmers control outbreaks of bTB more rapidly. ”

The Nottingham team are working with the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Animal Disease Center, to set up the first animal trial using the blood test to detect M. bovis in the blood of experimentally infected animals to determine exactly how soon this test can detect infection.

Dr Rees said: “The test also offers the potential for new, better tests for other farm animals. We are directly detecting the bacteria and so the method will work using blood samples from any animal species – so far we have detected mycobacteria in the blood of cattle, sheep and horses, but it could also be used for deer, goats or llamas. Not only that, we can detect any type of mycobacteria, we have use the same method to detect other diseases, such as Johne’s disease, not just bTB.”

Why only this suggested use on 'farm animals'? What about infected Badgers? Don't mention the 'B' word.

It could be useful. Just like non invasive qPCR on badger latrines and sputum could be useful. But it won't be used, as the responsibility for eradication of this Grade 3 zoonotic pathogen then becomes Defra's, not that of a farmer with a cage or a rifle trying to jump through Natural England's increasingly  convoluted hoops.

Finding cattle exposed to mycobacterium bovis, presently screened by the Intradermal skin test, and confirmed by this method is fine. As long as continuing  upspill from wildlife is then excluded. Otherwise, as now, we will shoot the messenger in ever increasing numbers, while gaining nothing at all.

Our take is that this test correlated very snugly with the results of the skin test, on the cattle which were examined.  

The paper is available to purchase on this link - [link]
For further information, please contact cath.rees@nottingham.ac.uk

T.O.W.I.E.

In our last posting we explored the bizarre - [link] and ridiculous release protocol for badger rescues, illustrating the post with a pic of a tattooed stripey which had expired in West Wales. Where had he come from? we asked. A member of Facebook asked the same question and this was the reply from Secret World.

Our badger rehabilitation and release policy follows the protocol agreed by wildlife charities, farming groups, specialist scientists and MAFF (now DEFRA) in 2001.

The policy followed by Secret World is the best possible, as advised by these scientists, to minimise the risk of disease transmission and ensure good animal welfare. We work extensively with private landowners to ensure they understand our policies, that any release sites are suitable and that we have their full consent for any releases. You can read more about our release process on our website.

The badger photographed was a cub released in 2011. The cub was tested three times for bovine TB, as is our policy, and was vaccinated before release.

Actually, as our Parliamentary questions showed, release protocol dreamt up by these charities, was not approved by Defra, but let that pass. That assertion was contradicted in a later paragraph from SWorld.

So where had this rescue (now dead) originated? Secret World had not answered at first, but later volunteered this gem:

"It came from the 'low risk' area of Essex. Other animals in that group originated in areas of similar risk".

So a T.O.W.I.E 'rescued' in Essex, reared and tattooed in Somerset, and released in 'someone's' orchard in West Wales? Are they short of badgers in that part of the UK? Is it TB free?
What a mind blowingly stupid idea.

The question was posed as to the geographic spread of released badgers from these centres. The answer:

"I am not in a position to discuss exact sites for releases, not least to maintain the confidentiality of those landowners who work with us.

The aim is to release badger cubs (not just from Secret World, but from all rescue centres around the country) as close to where they were found as possible. This is for both genetic reasons, as well as being good practise for disease control (not just TB)."

It's just about as far as you can get  from Essex to West Wales without getting wet feet, but let that pass.
The answer continued:

"The distribution of release sites depends on availability, but broadly mirrors the population of badgers across England and Wales. So more badgers are found and released in the south west of England than anywhere else. All adult badgers go back exactly where they are found.

Most cubs rehabilitated at Secret World are released in the south west of England. When we decide which cubs to release where, this is based on a risk assessment that includes consideration of where they came from and where they are going."

Mmmm. But 42 11 W, an Essex badger, ends up released in a TB hotspot in West Wales? Which hardly fits the described 'protocol' does it?

 Secret World - [link] is registered with the Charity Commission - [link] documents from which, show its income in 2014 as around £1.15m. Better than cattle farming then?

Now it seems pretty ironic to us, that having seen an increase - [link] in main setts of 103 per cent in England over the last few years, combined with a disease level of around 50 per cent (FERA figures) in the South West of England, (an area which is presently putting together population reduction strategies to control a grade 3 zoonotic pathogen) that such outfits as Secret World should be introducing more badgers into the area from Lord knows where.

Anyone want a badger or three? Just contact Secret World. We are sure they'll oblige. Possibly for a fee?

From their comforting blurb, for the dead badger with the tattoo 42 11 W, obviously the only way should have been Essex. But not so: he was adopted by a landowner in West Wales, and died there.

Credit: Facebook.com/BadgerCullPage

You learn something new every day.

Long years ago when we were phrasing up Owen Paterson's Parliamentary Questions on zTB, most were crafted already knowing the answers. We just wanted the rest of you to know too.

But this week, we have learned that on one subject we did not probe far enough.

 And that subject is the translocation, following the rescue - [link] and release of badgers.

So as this week saw the further ratcheting down on cattle and extra testing, we must update our readers on that omission.

 In February 2004, Mr. Paterson asked this question and received the following answer:
6 Feb 2004 : Column 1109W

Mr. Paterson:" To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the sensitivity of the test used on translocated badgers is in (a)positive response and (b)negative response. [150583]

Mr. Bradshaw: The test, which is generally used, for the detection of TB in translocated badgers is a test for antibodies (the Brock Test). This is generally accepted to have a low sensitivity (the ability to detect diseased animals). However it is difficult to give accurate values for the sensitivity because euthanased animals are not always subject to laboratory culture.

Where a badger translocation is carried out under licence (from Defra or English Nature) each individual badger is tested three times. If any of the three results are positive, the badger is euthanased. Any other badger that has been in contact with the positive testing badger is also euthanased, regardless of the results of its own tests

Where an orphaned or previously injured badger is translocated by an animal centre or similar body they follow a voluntary code of practise (drawn up by the RSPCA, National Federation of Badgers Groups and Secret World Wildlife Rescue).

Any animal to be relocated is tested three times and, if it tests positive, is euthanased.

This protocol does not advise in the destruction of badgers who have had contact with a test positive badger.

It should be emphasised that this voluntary protocol was not devised or approved by Defra. "

But that is only half the story, as TB Information - [link] has discovered. On the site there is a link to a document drawn up to facilitate the release of rescued badgers.

And from that little gem, we note that the guff contained in the answer to PQ 150583, (above) does not apply to ADULT badgers. They are not tested as to do so would mean a long period of captivity to accommodate the 3 tests plus weeks in between. And that would never do.TB Information also reports:

About 70 badgers each year were reported in 2007 to be released by the wildlife rescue centre called Secret World.

 In 2003 a voluntary Badger Rehabilitation Protocol was drawn up by Secret World Wildlife Rescue National Federation of Badger Groups and The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Although it recommends testing badger cubs, it says the following regarding the testing of adult badgers.

* An adult badger should not be blood tested for bovine TB for the following reasons:

* It will be released to its original location, so eliminating the opportunity for the spread of disease to new areas;

* Recent published data show that a single blood test is unreliable (Forrester et al., 2001);

* It is unlikely to be held in captivity long enough to conduct three blood tests.

Marvellous isn't it? Cattle nailed to the floor, tested to extinction and the major UK wildlife reservoir of disease is rescued and released, translocated and fostered, 'accustomed to life in the wild', using, if it's used at all, a test with sensitivity of around 47 per cent.



We're grateful to a member of The Farmers forum - [link] for the above screen shot of a badger found dead in Wales.
(Credit : TFF and Facebook)






As you can see it's sporting a handsome tattoo - 42 11 W - so from where did it originate, to end up squished on a  roadside in West Wales? And why is this crazy situation still going on at all?

New TB rules.

Today, April 6th, Defra finally managed to 'zone' England into the dirty areas and clean for TB status.

This zoning has nothing to do with how you farm or the health status of your cattle. It is dependent on where you happen to keep your cattle. And in particular, the relation of that location to endemically infected wildlife.
Farmers Guardian - [link] has the details.

Blowing the budget

On March 16th., Budget Day for HM Government,  Defra released its 2015 figures for zTB casualties, and as we predicted in this posting -[link] the numbers of cattle slaughtered are some 32 per cent higher than were forecast.

Farmers Guardian has some nuggets - [link] from the annual tally; but as  Defra have offered their EU paymasters 27,440 dead cattle and a downward trend in disease in 2015, that particular budget is well and truly blown..

Wales reports a staggering 27 per cent increase in slaughtered reactors over 2014, and is said to be considering some drastic measures [ link] including reducing to not a lot, compensation for reactors purchased under license. England's increase over 2014 is 6 per cent, with the SW reporting arguably their worst year on record. And the areas allegedly acting as buffers, Defr'a  Edge, are bubbling nicely.
Thus despite a decade of cattle measures and their associated modeled predictions of reduction in disease incidence, nothing was achieved.

It is said that a definition of insanity, is repeating the same action - [link] but expecting different results.
But that is precisely what Defra's mandarins have done by bearing down on cattle with small token culls of grossly infected  badgers in a very few, small areas.

And we have no doubt that some more imaginative schemes to save money, such as dreamt up by the Welsh Assembly government, will surface as Defra's budget is blown apart .

BBC - British Badger Cabal ?

For years now we have had to endure anthropomorphic fluff from the nation's premier broadcasting company, (at least in its own eyes) when it comes to badgers. But is the tide turning?

 Shown on BBC 2 and hidden amongst a programme dealing with Country Life magazine, was a harrowing piece on TB testing, reading and finally loading for slaughter, some home bred dairy cattle. For the next couple of weeks, the programme can be viewed on iPlayer - [link]

Maurice Durbin, the farmer, his staff and their vet all came across as caring and deeply upset by the effect of zTB on this lovely herd. The story was reported in the local press - [link] but the programme then prompted an outraged flurry from the Badgerists, in the form of a letter to the Director General of the BBC, accusing it of 'bias'. On that we can make no printable comment.

 The editor of Country Life, Mark Hedges, who gave an excellent overview of the situation which many livestock farmers now find themselves in, at the end of the programme, also gave an opinion statement to The Times.

Under the strap line "BBC must not give in to bullying by the Badger Trust", the article begins with criticism of the 'grip that pop star Brian May and his Badger Trust, has on the media and the dairy-farming industry'.
Mr. Hedges explains:

"One section of the programme, which is based around the magazine I edit, showed the distressing reality of life on a West Country farm that has been shut down for most of the last six years due to bovine TB. It seemed to open the eyes of viewers, an overwhelming number of whom have demonstrated sympathy for the farmer and his family, but the trust didn’t like it one bit and has complained to the BBC about impartiality."

Mr. Hedges continues:

The programme has certainly got everyone talking about an aspect of the bovine TB tragedy that is rarely seen. The tension was palpable as we watched Maurice Durbin’s pedigree Guernsey herd, which he inherited from his father, being tested for TB. “Poor old girl, she’s got to have a little trip,” he said, bottom lip trembling, as another cow was sent to be slaughtered.

This happened to some 36,000 cows, many in calf, in the UK last year, although you won’t find protesters outside farm gates complaining about the cows’ fate. Instead, they’re too busy harassing the farming communities where Defra’s pilot badger culls have been taking place. Mr. Hedges resumes his story:

"As I said on television, the cull has not been perfect in its execution, but there is evidence that farms in Somerset are now free of TB for the first time in years. Science should be allowed to take its course. Although measures can be taken to prevent badgers getting into farmyards, little else can be done to prevent them infecting cattle in the fields."

And Mr. Hedges has certainly got the point that:

"Britain’s dairy industry is on the brink of disaster because of decades of government dilly-dallying and a one-sided view of the badger. However charming a creature it may be, its inexorable population growth has been at the expense of the hedgehog, ground-nesting birds and bumblebees.

There are always two sides to a story, and we are proud that we have enabled the farmer’s story to be told at last. A single-issue group should not be allowed to bully the BBC for doing that."

(Mark Hedges is editor of Country Life.)

 There is only one point we would make on this programme or Mr. Hedge's article, ( apart from sending our thanks and best wishes to Mr. Durbin and his family, Mr. Hedges and Country Life magazine) and that is zoonotic Tuberculosis is not a disease which affects only 'dairy cattle' .

It is a grade 3 pathogen and affects any mammal, and thus should not be allowed to rampage through our badger population at all.
Mr. Durbin's story can also be read in Country Life - [link]

Gesture politics.

As our country has progressively dismantled the ability to govern itself, periodically the civil servants at DEFRA have to submit a ‘plan’ to the European Union of their intentions and their progress in achieving them, for disease control. Particularly if they need some of our money back, in what is called ‘co-financing’.

Below are snips from their 2015 effort.

Member States seeking a financial contribution from the Union for national programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of animal diseases and zoonosis listed below, shall submit applications containing at least the information set out in this form.

Co-financing 2015 – 2020.

In December 2015, this somewhat out of date package for the eradication (??) of zoonotic tuberculosis was available for us to digest. As usual, it was high on hope and cattle measures, while doing very little other than a token sporadic cull of the wildlife reservoir, in very specific areas and on a small scale. And any farmers participating, paying for that dubious privilege. A few areas are licensed to indiscriminately jab badgers of indeterminable health - until such vaccines (BCG) were limited by the World Health Organisation which preferred them to be used on human babies.

As this EU submission is 117 pages of fierce cattle measures, combined with some rather spurious predictions, we’ll paste a few tasters of this document and leave our readers to do their own delving of what's in store.The overview is somewhat optimistic, we felt:

5. Overall, these descriptive statistics point to a gradual stabilisation of the main bTB incidence and prevalence indicators in England over the last few years, even though the greater testing effort has resulted in more positive herds being detected (at least until 2012). It is premature to reach any conclusions on the factors at work in these reductions, including the impact of any particular TB surveillance of control measure introduced in recent years. To draw more meaningful conclusions, we need to look at longer term trends and see whether the reductions achieved in 2013 can be sustained in the following years.

Reading from that hymn sheet in 2016 and twittering about 'stabilisation', members of Defra's TB staff obviously have not looked at longer term trends. Or if they have, they are not looking at the same stats - [link] that we are.

In 2013,  9056 herds were under TB restriction (TB2) out of  79,287 registered - if SAM can be believed.
Cattle slaughtered numbered 31,715. Two years later, to November, Defra's figures show that they  had slaughtered 35,650 cattle and their buffer, the Edge area was bubbling nicely. Now we wouldn’t call that ‘stable’ at all. In fact 2015, looks to be heading for the record books as one of, if the worst year on record when the December figures are in. This despite all the tightening of cattle controls and the vaccinating of badgers. Or in the case of the latter, possibly because of it?

The UK has had a raps over the knuckles - [link] before, from our paymasters, and as in section 8.2 of this document, they are asking for an increase above the 50 per cent co-funding arrangement, as ' reimbursement of eligible costs', then those projected costs must be accurate. Or our paymasters will want to know why.

The EU submission mentions badgers a bit, but their numbers in Defra-land have not altered one bit since 1997. Despite two head counts logging substantial increases - [link]
Targeted culling using PCR is mentioned in paragraph 26:

26. We are working to develop practical, sensitive and specific diagnostic tests for badgers as part of the GB research programme administered by Defra on behalf of England and Wales.

This would allow us to better understand the scale of badger infection in terms of geographical area. Such tests could mean that future interventions are targeted at individual badgers or setts, rather than the wider population. They could also help us judge how effective vaccination might be in a specific area. The research that Defra is concentrating on:

• Non-invasive tests to identify infected badgers, including the development of blood sampling devices; and

• Tests to identify setts and areas where infected badgers are resident, such as tests to detect bovine TB bacteria in environmental (soil, latrine) samples, including use of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. .

Another pretty underhand attempt at ‘gesture politics’ here: when the Department’s own blinded trial for the most promising ‘non invasive’ screen, passed its main criteria - [link] but is still being misrepresented by 'modeled' false positives and dismissed out of hand.

Interestingly, we note that Warwick University - [link] are in receipt of £930,032, part of a £7m grant, to use this screen or one similar, in the ‘farmyard’ environment. This funded by the  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) which in turn is funded by government. Let's hope no wandering stripey has marked his territory around said farmyard then. It's all m.bovis is it not? Yet we’re told by Defra, that these tests do not work on m.bovis material obtained from badgers?
How very odd when others seem perfectly happy to throw nearly £1m at screening the farmyard environment for the same bacterium.

But we digress: Defra has listed in this document all these futile cattle measures which it has either implemented already, or plans to foist on us, in an attempt to isolate zTB to the W/SW. Thus allowing the so-called Low Risk counties to achieve TB free trading status earlier, while ignoring the march of TB problems in the middle of this sandwich - their Edge area,  Defra also seek to form local discussion groups.

42. There are also a number of stakeholder groups looking at specific issues (e.g. cattle movements and biosecurity) which bring together different agencies and industry. In addition, the engagement of local stakeholders and their willingness to work together is essential and the draft Strategy proposes the establishment of voluntary industry-led local eradication boards particularly in the LRA. A local eradication board has been set up in Cheshire in the Edge Area and it provides a model for local organisations taking charge of their local disease situation and working together to integrate services and respond effectively to the disease situation in the county. The board comprises a wide range of representatives from farming sectors, veterinarians, auctioneers, wildlife groups, local authorities and APHA.

Essential? Que? For what? Fulfilling EU demands so Defra can trouser more funding to kill more cattle?
Such groups could, if Defra had not already made up its collective mind on its protocol of cattle carnage in eradicating zTB, have a part to play. But as this turgid 117 page tome already lists the department’s plans for the next 5 years, they are immaterial. Just another nasty piece of ‘gesture politics’.

Finally: 

153. The Commission Working Document SANCO/10181/2014 Rev 1 (Guidelines for the Union co-funded programmes of eradication, control and surveillance of animal diseases and zoonoses for the years 2015-2017) provides suggested ambitious targets for the reduction of disease levels for the years 2015 and 2017 against the baseline in 2012. Defra, Welsh Government and DARD have developed a series of targets for the period between 2015 and 2020, based on previous epidemiological trends.

As we pointed out, the data in this submission is based on 2012/3, with targets set for 2015 – 2020. So how accurate are these? We touched on the cattle slaughter figures for 2015 earlier in the post.

 In 2015, figures offered to the EU in this document predicted prevalence of disease (that’s herds not cleared by piling up dead cattle every 60 days) was 10.54 percent for England and 8.45 percent for Wales.
The New breakdowns target was 5.24 percent for England and 3.78 per cent for Wales. (total)
And the cattle slaughtered in 2015 was predicted to be 27,441 for England and Wales combined.

The actual figures for 2015 will not be available until March 16th, but the total number of cattle slaughtered to November totaled 35,650 for England and Wales. And that's an increase of 8,209 dead cattle and almost 30 per cent over Defra’s predicted figure offered to the EU. It's also 3,794 head above 2014.
DG SANCO - [link] should be as pleased with that, as they were in 2012 when they commented on Defra's progress as it swopped badger culls for vaccination:

"UK politicians must accept their responsibility to their own farmers and taxpayers as well as to the rest of the EU and commit to a long-term strategy that is not dependent on elections. The TB eradication programme needs continuity and it must be recognised that success will be slow and perhaps hard to distinguish at first. There is a lot of skill and knowledge among the veterinary authorities and they must be allowed time to use it."

We think DG SANCO will be delighted with this 'progress' and will not miss the point made in para 5, of a ‘gradual stabilisation’ of the TB situation in England and Wales. They may also question the optimistic forecasts that all these cattle measures, the majority of which have been in place for a decade now, are going to achieve their targets in 2020. And for which the Department of Food and Rural Affairs is seeking increased funding.

Gesture politics indeed.

Strategy? what strategy?

In today's Sunday Telegraph - [link] columnist Christopher Booker examines the rationale behind Defra's road block on its own research into a DNA test which will identify infectious badgers.

And a road block of some proportions it certainly is, with spurious misinformation freely offered, despite this test, as we remarked in this posting - [link] passing 4 out of 5 strict criteria (when offered genuine positively infected samples, not 'putative') And it achieved this even when the 'blind' testers used half the optimum samples required, one tenth of the bacteria and a third of background prevalence it needed for the best results.

What was left was 'specificity' (false positives) at group level which was described as 'borderline'..

But the samples were singles, were they not? And the group level specificity was 'calculated' from 1 animal out of 10. We think what Defra's apparatchiks did, was to take a single sample / badger? at say 99 per cent specificity and model it back to a group, thereby creating a heap of falsely accused, but very dead badgers.

But qPCR cannot to be modeled. It is DNA. So a simple answer - Yes or No, but not the milkman.
It is also a group test, not a single animal test.

These are the results chart for  Warwick University's Test B in Defra's 'blinded' trial.

The reason for this rejection and all the hubris surrounding it, is we think, that once zTB is found in an animal - any animal - then under International Statute, responsibility for its eradication commensurate with dealing with a grade 3 zoonotic pathogen, passes to Defra. It cannot be shafted onto farmer funded population reductions. Thus a battle is raging, as Booker explains:

" The truth is, I learn on very good authority, that a battle is raging, with officials still too much under the influence of the animal rights lobby, who are stopping further research needed to perfect the test. If they win, it would be a scandal not only to those thousands of cattle farmers for whom TB has been an appalling tragedy.

This is a tragedy for all the healthy badgers too. Badgerists please take note.

Thinking about this 25 year strategy which Defra are ratting on about, (21 now as the first four years have elapsed - but let that pass) designed apparently to eradicate zTuberculosis from our shores, we have come to the conclusion that it is not a 'strategy' at all.

What this country has is a reactive, annual, farmer funded cull, over very few of the affected areas, repeated in 4 year bites, 25 times plus a shed load of cattle measures. And then what? When areas deemed to have jumped through enough of Natural England's hoops have completed their 4 years, there is nothing at all to put in place afterwards. No 'management' at all.

And the so called, but ever moving 'Edge' area with its expanding number of TB restricted herds and slaughtered sentinel cattle? That mobile buffer between the High Risk area, steeped in cattle measures and infected badgers, and the far North, North East and Eastern counties, for whom zTB is a distant problem. For those farming cattle in the Edge, with an ever increasing, bubbling  infection, there is nothing at all.

 So when we speak of using qPCR to locate infectious badgers, we do not mean as an alternative to an initial population reductions in the areas where badgers are so abundant - [link]  and their infection rates extend to half the population.

We see this technique of DNA matching as a long term tool, to screen and manage infected groups of badgers (and wild boar or deer) over the whole country as and when they occur. Disease driven. And certainly to give the pilot cull areas some sort of safety net after their 4 year stints.

 The alternative is to leave infection to build up to the extent which is seen now in Wales, the West and South West, and then apply for a four year wipe out cull. Which is no strategy at all.

Never trust an authority figure..

... and definitely don't follow one. This cartoon reflects the position of our industry in 2016.

If we do not learn from history, then sadly for our cattle, our industry and the emotional and financial health of our livestock farmers, we are condemned to repeat it.

 Over the last twenty years we have listened in disbelief and increasing anger, to the prattling of those inhabiting their setts in the Westminster bubble, hell bent on finding that huge hidden reservoir of cattle TB which is driving the epidemic in this country, while ignoring the blindingly obvious.

Having trousered £1m in 1997, they employed one of the most 'political' scientists - [link] on the planet to prevaricate for another decade. And have wrapped the UK's primary wildlife reservoir of zoonotic Tuberculosis up in its grade 1 listed Ancestral home with ultimate protection. So, as they busily skip towards their protected pensions,  what can we remind them of as another new year breaks?

Here's a few points for starters.
We are hearing some alarming 'factoids' about the universally applied intradermal skin test. But apparently only applicable in certain areas of England, Wales and Ireland it seems. In the rest of the world, it works just fine. Now if this internationally used skin test was missing X per cent of infected cattle in parts of Great Britain (take your pick on what figure is doing the rounds) but let's settle on 20 per cent, then eventually, all these disease riddled animals would end up in abattoirs. That's what happens. And they would go down the line past a Meat Hygiene operative, trained to look for evidence of - tuberculosis.
So how many do they find? Defra reported in 2014:

Between 2009 and 2013, over 11.1 million cattle were recorded as slaughtered in 313 slaughterhouses in GB. During this period 7,370 samples with lesions suspicious of bTB were submitted to AHVLA by meat inspection teams of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) leading to an overall rate of 0.66 submissions per 1,000 animals slaughtered.

M.bovis was identified in 5,366 [of those] samples.

Full report on this link - [link]
But 5,366 out of 11.1 million cattle with culture positive evidence of zTB is not 20 per cent missed, or even 2 per cent. Its just under 0.05 per cent. Some reservoir. Some lie.

And don't mention the Isle of Man - [link] a lump of rock in the Irish sea, from which you can see if not touch, parts of Ireland, Wales and England: enjoying the same weather, geology, cattle husbandry and testing. But no TB and no badgers. Maybe it is the TT races? But then correlation is not causation, is it?

So as more severe cattle measures rain down on herds unfortunate to live in the areas of England frequented by endemically infected badgers, will they work? Will testing all breakdown herds twice under severe interpretation, using more GammaIFN (with a specificity of around 65 per cent) and very little movements except direct to an abattoir, work?

So a message to all you bright young things, who think this is a new idea, it is not. -[link] It was done with bells on in Cornwall in the 1970s by a DVM called William Tait who operated  fierce and brutal cattle carnage. And repeated from 1988 - 1992 by Liam Downie - [link] in the Republic of Ireland.

 Predictably, the results of both were a futile and expensive embarrassment. Except that our lot seem hell bent on repeating them. Why?

Which brings us around to the latest guff to hit the cattle industry. The Berlin wall which Defra have erected around the best piece of pure science to be available to us for a long while.
A screening test to find infected badgers - [link] something which we have always been assured wouldn't happen.

But having accepted this validated test in 2011, repeated it to find its best operational protocol in 2014, Defra then proceeded to ignore that protocol in a blinded trial commissioned in 2015.
And still one test passed 4 out of 5 strict criteria with flying colours, when offered genuinely positive (spiked) samples. So what was left? Professor Wellington's PCR test was said to be 'borderline' on group specificity.

And would thus leave a possible heap of falsely accused, but very dead badgers.

We could remind readers that gammaIFN has a specificity around 65 per cent when used on cattle, leading to many  false positives, but let that pass.

The blinded trial used single samples, so how did they arrive at a group figure? We suspect that they 'modeled' it back from a single sample / badger. But PCR is not a test which can be 'modeled'. It is DNA.

Think paternity tests and Forensic Science. No interpretation, just a yes or a no - but not the milkman.

Now being the cynical lot that we are at blogger headquarters, we see this as an evasion of responsibility.

Because if a Grade 3 zoonotic pathogen is found, then the responsibility for its removal and eradication is not that of farmers, running around the countryside within a mythical boundary, trying to shoot 70 per cent of the possible carriers. That responsibility is Defra's, and must be operated under strict bio hazard conditions.

And that is a responsibility they would rather not accept.

Our co-editor has succinctly offered a quote by Upton Sinclair which fits the bill quite neatly;

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon him not understanding it."

Quite.

TB free

On January 12th 2016, Defra applied to the European Union for TB free status for the Isle of Man.

Apart from hosting races where motor bikes take over the island for a few days, the Isle of Man has many similarities with its geographic neighbours.
Sitting half way between Ireland and North Wales, with an amazing view of both those regions and Scotland, the island shares the same weather, geological features, cattle husbandry, cattle breeds, husbandry and veterinary TB testing regime. But there the similarity ends.

The chart shows their success and the basis for this application - [link]

The Badger Trust have used the Isle of Man to make mischief before - [link] as we described in 2007.
In 2012, they announced that the Isle of Man was 'rife with TB'. Nothing has changed. The chart taken from the application, tells a different story.

Animals imported into the island are post movement tested, and any breakdown not associated with a bought in animals, is dealt with swiftly by action on wildlife in the location. In this case, feral ferrets, polecats and wallabies. This was statement from the Isle of Man authorities, given to us in 2007:

"We can clear up our outbreaks without further breakdown because we don’t have a large reservoir of infected badgers.

We think it may be circulating to a minor extent outside cattle and are looking for a wildlife reservoir – suspects at the moment are feral wallabies, feral cats, polecats and rats. If and when we find proof of an infected wildlife reservoir, we will take action to control/eradicate.

If any badgers were to be imported and released illegally, we would take immediate steps to eradicate on the grounds that they are non-indigenous species and a threat to our national herd.

So while we in England and Wales prattle on about vaccinating badgers (and in Brian May's case, cattle) while vets and breed societies take their collective eye off the ball by producing genetic indices, and our Ministry ducks out of its collective responsibility for eradication of zTB in wildlife, by using the same basic tools of test and slaughter, the Isle of Man has succeeded in becoming TB free. The difference is that they also eradicate TB from their wildlife.

 As we said in 2007, we should be so lucky - or our cattle should. - [link]

We are reminded that annually, in order to receive the lion's share of the EU's TB budget, this country has to submit an eradication plan. And more importantly, the results of previous largesse. We reported the 2014 presentation in this post - [link] together with a screen grab of the twee back page which accompanied it.

We also remarked that cattle domiciled in mainland Britain have nothing to thank our ministry for.
Nothing at all.

A Happy New Year - not.

For a couple of Devon farmers, the last few weeks have been anything but happy. A couple of weeks before Christmas, farmer Michael Ashton's lovely jersey herd - [link] was reduced by a quarter, after 45 cattle were revealed as reactors. The reports carried an extraordinary comment attributed to the NFU, that:

" ...a fox may have dragged a dead, infected badger across pasture land and passed on the disease."

Whaaaat? Why bring a bloody fox into the equation? A half dead badger crawling around can easily infect a herd of cattle with no help at all from anything else. He's a mobile WMD. (Weapon of Mass Destruction)

(Picture credit - North Devon Journal.)

And the news this week is no better, with Crediton farmer, Malcolm Huxtable inviting Dr. Brian May to watch, as his cattle were condemned - [link] as reactors.

May's reaction was to once again push for cattle to vaccinated. That is the answer, he said, with all the confidence of the totally uninformed. And this posting, after his last foray into vaccination, explains why it won't work. Ever. [link]

And he forgets of course, the WHO's (World Health Organisation) rationing of BCG base vaccines to try and cover a 30 percent shortfall in supply. - [link]

He also chooses to ignore  the continuing upspill of badger TB into many mammals other than tested cattle, including domestic pets, their owners and vets. Or is Dr. May suggesting we vaccinate every mammal which may cross the path of a badger riddled with a Grade 3 zoonotic pathogen? And boost it annually, of course.

Come to think of it, what on earth are we doing even entertaining such obscure idealists?
The only people who should be dealing with the eradication of zoonotic Tuberculosis - where ever it is found - are Public Health, Defra and owners of animals which by International Statute have to be tested in an approved zTB eradication programme.

The opinions of anyone else, no matter how famous, are distractions. Fudge.

Merry Christmas to all our readers.

We wish you all a merry Christmas and a peaceful, prosperous New Year. And we hope that none of your plans are derailed by any small, black and white critters with a persistent cough and severe incontinence.

The end of another year.

It's now 12 years since we posted most of the 538 Parliamentary questions, which formed the basis of this site in 2004. It is also over 100 years since Professor Koch did his experiments with m.bovis, and instigated the first postulates of disease transmission, which relied on a set of principles, rather than absolute proof.

In between then and now, this country had almost eradicated zTB from its cattle herds, only to see a resurgence in the mid 1980s from a wildlife reservoir it seems soooo reluctant to touch. And hasn't touched at all since a £1m bung to the Labour government in 1997.

Not unsurprisingly,  in the last couple of decades, main setts in England have increased by 103 per cent. How do we know? Because almost two years ago now, this article - [link] was published by Fera, which told us. Fera have also confirmed that in areas of endemic TB, about 50 per cent of the badgers are infected.

Apparently, we have a 25 year plan, but from where we stand, that seems long on cattle measures and short on anything to do with a wildlife reservoir of disease. But then, it's what Professor Bourne manipulated - [link] his team to deliver, almost 20 years ago. His idea was to let farmers knock off a few (a very few ) badgers to get them to accept cattle measures. Most of which, by next year, will be in place.

Meanwhile the Chinese whispers surrounding a DNA screening test for infected badgers get louder. Who has the megaphone we have yet to find out, but they are dead wrong. - [link]

Even when offered half the optimum number of samples, one tenth of the optimum number of bacteria and using a third of the background prevalence of disease, this test performed very well, meeting 4 out of 5 of Defra's criteria. The one on which it was 'borderline' was Specificity. That is the number of false positives any test gives;  which while not upsetting many people when it comes to tests used for cattle, appears to give Defra's mandarins indigestion when applied to badgers.

But how do they calculate DNA? Obviously the acronym PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) fuddles their collective brain, so we'll stick to Deoxyribonucleic Acid which is the long word for DNA. An acronym most people have heard of and trust.
Think paternity tests, forensic science, Silent Witness and TV murder mysteries.

And the only way a DNA sample (PCR is DNA fragments) can give a false positive is if the sample (or those playing with it?) is corrupt or contaminated. It's a straight 'Yes' or 'No'. But what you cannot do is 'model' it to give stupid results, if you want to trash the whole idea. Neither can you take specificity of one test on one badger and model it back to a group. Warwick's badger DNA test is a group test, relying on 20 samples taken from a group latrine - the one nearest the sett. And used as instructed and validated, it works.

So as this year draws to a close, what have we achieved? Just three small pilot cull areas with some dubious input data on existing herd breakdowns - [link] which are proving difficult to substantiate - one way or the other. Two of these pilots end next year, with nothing in place after that. Meanwhile, we have several mini cull areas awaiting Natural England's attention. They'll have to move quickly to catch up on Fera's 103 per cent increase in main sett populations.
And, we hear, possibly some mini T-Bags. Local discussion groups which are to feed 'information' - as yet unspecified - up to the big TBEAG and thus to government.Who can then file it.

 Inevitably, we also have another raft of cattle measures to look forward to. Two tests at severe interpretation for any herd in the high risk area which has a breakdown, regardless of the cattle post mortem results. And a post movement test for cattle moving out of that area and not slaughtered within 120 days.

The one good thing which happened this year, is that the daft idea of vaccinating badgers - [link] has hit the buffers. But with cynicism born of years of practice, we expect some other inventive  prevarication to replace it - bio-garbage security being one possibility.

Meanwhile zoonotic Tuberculosis marches eastwards and north on four small paws, at a rate of knots. And there is nothing at all in the way of targeted wildlife management for these areas, only a nervous wait until they achieve High Risk status. And then they can try to comply with Natural England's mathematical carnage of a 70 percent cull on 90 per cent of land, in 6 short weeks. And pay for it..

Our grateful thanks to all our contributors around the world, and a very merry Christmas from us all at blogger headquarters.

BCG for badgers, while babies go short,

As the worldwide shortage of BCG vaccine for human beings hits the headlines, we hear that Wales has abandoned its trial of using the drug for badgers. Farmers guardian - [link] has the story of the Welsh Assembly Government's second U turn affecting the cattle farmers in this area.

Their first was to abandon plans for a cull of badgers, in favour of jabbing them.

There was no head count, no pre screening for existing health status and using a drug which had no efficacy data presented. Just trap and jab - as many as you can. And the cost? a staggering £2.8m in the first 3 years, and around 5,500 doses delivered in four years; with no certainty that they were given to the 'right' badger, or one who just put up with a needle in its bum, for the sake of a reward of peanuts.

We say this after hearing of a Devon badger which arrived on a local autopsy table, with numerous puncture wounds in its derriere. It appeared to have been 'vaccinated' numerous times.

Shortages of BCG first hit the headlines in 2012, when The Telegraph - [link] reported the closure of the plant operated by Canadian company, Sanofi Pasteur. This story was updated in 2014 by the Daily Mail - [link] which reported 'thousands of people' were left without the drug, which was now being used for bladder and bowel cancer.

Thousands of bladder cancer patients face an uncertain future because stocks of a drug that prevents the disease progressing are running perilously low.

The crisis means patients may be soon given a stark choice: surgical removal of the entire organ, or risk the cancer returning. Up to 12,000 people are to be left without the crucial medication, called BCG, as British hospitals run out of supplies.

And earlier this summer, the World Health Organisation (WHO) issued a rationing system for supplies of BCG. Their new recommendations are on this WHO paper [link] with their explanation for the rationing:

In 2015, 180 million doses were needed, and only 107 million were available."

That is a 30 per cent shortfall.

Just one badger vaccination offered to a candidate of unknown health status and due to be repeated for at least 5 years - if the badger volunteered for his jab, is 10x the strength of a 'normal' dose for a adult human being and 20x that needed for a baby.

Excellent PR for the farming industry isn't it? Particularly as the drug itself, as predicted, seems to be having no effect on cattle TB in the area whatsoever.

But that was never the intention. What did Defra say in 2011? "Pump-prime farmers to accept the concept of vaccination"? We discussed it in this post - [link] And it gets no more palatable with re-reading it.

Patronising guff. And if Defra want to carry on vaccinating badgers, as one veterinary pathologist wryly commented, they could " use saline: it will have just the same effect".

* Grateful thanks to Ken Wignall for the use of his cartoon, first shown in Farmers Guardian.

"We can't tell which badgers are infected" say Defra.

That infected badgers could not be identified, has been the clarion call for as long as we have been investigating zoonotic tuberculosis (zTB) on this site. But as long ago as 1996, Professor, now Lord Krebbs, in his report to the Minister, predicted that a such method of identification would be available 'within two years'.  This is what he said:

7.9.5 We also recommend that the scope for using modern DNA amplification techniques, such as the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), for diagnosis should be further explored. The PCR is quicker than microbial culture and can detect the remnants of dead bacteria in addition to living organisms. If sufficiently sensitive, we see two applications for such a test.

(i) It could provide rapid screening of samples from badger carcases. We suggest MAFF should consider whether this might be an alternative to culture. We estimate that existing assays could be optimised within one to two years.

(ii) MAFF could monitor the presence and distribution of infection by environmental sampling of areas used by badgers.

It is said that a week is a long time in politics, but that 2 years to identify badgers infected with zTB has stretched to almost twenty.

 In 1996, when Lord Krebbs made that pronouncement, Great Britain slaughtered 3,776 cattle as TB reactors.

 But the work into PCR and zTB continued and in 2005 / 2006 Defra having risen from the ashes of the previous ministry label, MAFF,  screened many farmland mammals - [link] using this method. The reports were SE3009 and SE3010  and they cost £1.954 million.

 In 2006, Great Britain slaughtered 22,062 cattle as TB reactors and introduced pre movement testing and tabular valuation.

 During 2006 - 2011, Professor Elizabeth Wellington and her team from Warwick University were investigating the use of this non-invasive screening method for infected badger setts. They published their work, validated by three laboratories in two different countries, in November 2011: it can be viewed on this link - [link]

And encouraged by this work and the paucity of the skin test when used on camelids,  in 2012, a small group of alpaca owners, commissioned a qPCR screen. This used fecal and sputum samples from dead animals coming in increasing numbers to AHVLA's autopsy tables, as a Proof of Concept study. - [link]
It was to try and push forward a reliable live screen for these charming animals.

 In 2012, Great Britain slaughtered 37,735 cattle as TB reactors, Defra ratcheted down hard on cattle movements and zoned our country into areas of 'risk' for zTB. Their 'Edge' area is moving further northwards and eastwards, annually.

The then Secretary of State for Defra, Owen Paterson MP, (above)  liked the idea of a targeted cull and after learning of her previous work, commissioned Professor Wellington's team - [link] to conduct a wider field trial of their qPCR method, to see if it correlated with the known health status of badgers in Woodchester Park.
This was SE3280 which when published in 2014, also showed the most cost effective way of identifying infected groups, the number of samples needed, how they were collected and when.

At the same time,  Warwick's qPCR was and is, being used in the Republic of Ireland, comparing the findings of this test with mortem results for badgers caught in their reactive TB culls. It will report in due course, but we understand that as with the alpaca project, using correlation between visible lesioned, culture positive animals, this test is doing well.

However, after questions were tabled in the House of Commons about this method of screening, the fire blanket of  'we can't use it and it won't work' was given and yet again qPCR for identifying infected badger setts was on the back burner. Somewhat prematurely we feel.

Meanwhile, other organisations other than Warwick's team, had developed screening PCR tests which were said to be delivering wondrous results, so in June 2014 Mr. Paterson set up a comparison trial to find the best. This project was not the usual exercise in prevarication; it was a genuine attempt to seek out the best performing test, refine if necessary and to take it forward for routine use.
 It cost £360,065 and was labelled SE3289.

Samples were either 'putatively' (thought to be or assumed) positive or spiked with a known quantity of m.bovis, or 'putatively' (assumed) negative or taken from captive badgers. The samples were distributed to individual laboratories, who tested them according to six candidate's screens and then reported results to a statistician. No badgers were harmed during the trial. Or post-mortemed.

The results showed Test B (Warwick's qPCR) as the best performing of the 6 offered, having fulfilled 3 out of 5 criteria, and 4 out of  5 when spiked positive samples were substituted for those 'putatively' positive.
And the one 'borderline? That was specificity - false positives at group level on the 'putatively' negative samples offered.

Warwick's qPCR screen found by trial and error that to achieve a safe sensitivity (ability to detect disease) together with an acceptable specificity (few false positives) then certain criteria had to be followed.
1. A minimum of 20 samples, taken on non consecutive days. The blinded trial used 10 samples.
2. A minimum of 1000 units of m.bovis to work with. The blinded trial allowed 100 units many 'putative'.
3. An optimum 15 per cent background prevalence of infection. The trial used 10 per cent.

This trial could be compared to using a recipe to make a loaf of bread, and adding half the amount of yeast the recipe demands: then being surprised when your loaf doesn't rise to the occasion. But we digress.

The results are described by the trial's authors (Defra) who explain:

Test B was the best performing test overall. It meets three criteria and is on the borderline for two others: group level specificity and group level sensitivity. (It achieves the latter criterion when spiked samples are analysed but is on the borderline when putative (assumed positive) samples are analysed)

So Test B achieved 4 out of 5 of the criteria set by Defra, which considering the way in which it was watered down, is amazing. But what happens when it is reworked, using the protocols which the Warwick team have spent long years refining?

Using 20 samples (to prove a negative) 1000 units of bacteria and directed at a group of badgers with a background prevalence of disease which is in excess of 15 per cent, with samples collected spring/summer:

" the Sensitivity of Warwick's qPCR is 95.5 per cent and the Specificity 98.2 per cent."

 Having described the Warwick test's performance as 'the best performing' of  the 6 offered, and it having met 4 out of 5 criteria, using half the samples, one tenth of the bacteria it was designed for and at a lower assumed prevalence than optimum, what is its future?

The report concludes:

"The results of this inter-laboratory comparative study provide objective data on the relative performance of the diagnostic methods assessed. Only one test appears to be potentially suitable for taking forward to routine use. However, its borderline performance against some criteria highlight areas which may need further assessment and validation to fully understand the performance characteristics and utility of the test and hence determine if, and how, it could be best used practically.

The potential practical use of a badger faecal test will also depend on future Defra policy and how the use of this test would fit alongside other interventions and control policies. To support such decision making a cost benefit analysis maybe useful to provide more information on the cost of this approach relative to other options."

We would point out that three years into 25 year TB eradication plan, only three small areas have been licensed for indiscriminate culls. As far as we are aware, there is no follow up planned  for Somerset and Gloucestershire who finish their pilot culls next year. And apart from a small area of Dorset, there are no more in progress.

 Meanwhile several areas are vaccinating badgers, any badger they can trap, regardless of its health, a concept which Defra say they are keen that farmers accept and are 'pump priming' them to do so. BCG is  now is very short supply and the World Health Organisation has advised rationing its use - for human beings.

Cattle controls rain down in buckets and measures which made herd restrictions livable with, are being dismantled, brick by brick.

 Many farmers and certainly the general public are far more likely to embrace a cull of badgers which targets diseased animals, rather than a hit and miss affair, accounting for 70 per cent of animals in a given area but which might possibly fragment social groups.

The only driver for culling any animal should be the presence of disease. And this test used correctly, will show where that is in our increasingly  infected wildlife reservoir.
FERA estimate that in areas of endemic zTB, 50 per cent of badgers are now infected with this disease. 

 Bearing down with ever more stringent cattle controls has had no effect whatsoever in the past, and from 1996 when Lord Krebbs first referred to the use of PCR for this screening purpose, in almost two decades of repeating this futility, the number of cattle slaughtered has increased tenfold, from 3,776 to 37,735.

 The mantra driving this inaction, has always been "we cannot tell which badgers are infected. "

And now we can.

A sad story .....

We recently heard of this small alpaca enterprise and its struggle with biosecurity and zoonotic tuberculosis in its animals. The story also charts the added stress, anger and disbelief of the alpaca owners after their dealings with the government agency charged with eradicating zTB.
This body is now called APHA - the Animal and Plant Health Agency.

 The owners of Wellground Alpaca stud in Wiltshire, have listed on Facebook, a video diary telling the sad story of the havoc - [link] that TB can bring to any farm. When they attended the alpaca Futurity show in Coventry last March, and chose a new bloodline for their herd of animals, little did they realise the heartache this would cause. - [video link]

But added to the stress of losing this animal and its cria, was the shambles that is APHA, struggling to operate a TB eradication system which does not mention camelids, compassion or even common sense.

The Facebook diary reports that agency's communication was intermittent and often contradictory. Its stock of validated (but still poor) blood tests, patchy and the whole process of screening the remaining animals and for some, their destruction, far more prolonged, stressful and potentially dangerous, than it should have been.

From August to November 2015, the whole sad story is laid bare in this Facebook blog, ending with last week's entry from November 6th:

I have to admit now that I am struggling to keep this FB page going. It's hard to describe to anyone who has not gone through this. Those who have been through it will have a better understanding.

I have read how having bTB in a herd of alpacas has had terrible effects on people psychologically. Now I understand that. The problem is a culmination of events. It was bad at the beginning as you find out the horror of what has happened. Then that horror subsides as you become accustomed to your predicament. But the worst was yet to come.

The culling of animals that were not showing signs of illness is a terrible thing to have to do. Unlike sick animals being put out of their misery, they do not go quietly, your favourite babies fight you in trying not to die.And you don't want to be doing it anyway, you love them. It was beyond my imagination.

Now I don't sleep at night, reliving that awful day every night. Then the final insult to your sanity, the silent waiting for the next test after 90 days. It's a long wait.

Dreading the next test every day. It's the last thing you think of in bed at night and the first thing you think of if you wake from any sleep. Then I make myself write this FB page and I try to keep it all inoffensive.

Why? I must be mad. So if you don't hear from me for a while, hopefully you'll understand. Rob

For our readers, here are a few links to TB in alpacas, a subject which sadly, we have kept returning to.

A video clip of the effect of TB in alpacas - [link] which we posted in 2010, and this one, again from 5 years ago,  showing 'biosecurity' at shows. - [link]   

And then there are Defra's statistics for alpaca TB deaths, which at one point held a list of exclusions longer than the tables themselves. We highlighted some of the imaginative explanatory notes in this posting - link] and had a small success and a more realistic update when George met Eddy - [link] in 2013.

 The breed society (BAS)- [link] for alpacas has been, shall we say, less than enthusiastic, about promoting herd health of the alpacas it claims to support. Even when breeders are exporting the problem - [link] to other countries. Their fliers also seem to be much more keen on not culling animals which do not have TB (specificity of a test) than finding the ones which do (sensitivity) as we describe in this posting. - [link]

But all of this biosecurity advice is voluntary. Alpacas can and do move around not only being bought or sold, but to shows, agistments and matings with no records or tests for disease whatsoever. These are 'recommended' but not mandatory. - [link] And so often the result is a nightmare story like the one Wellground alpacas have described in their blog.

For more information on TB in alpacas, please visit the Alpaca TB website. - [link]

And please do not forget the reason why zoonotic Tuberculosis is such a dangerous killer - [link]
Two years on from that posting, we wish Diane Summers well in her continued struggle with this disease.



Alpacas are charming animals, but this type of encounter,










can so easily lead to this.

Statistical wizardry

The long awaited results on incidence of cattle TB, in the areas of the two pilot culls, or at least the first year of them, are now published. And indeed, Queen May, with guitar in one hand and badger in the other is crowing.

 "No statistical difference" he repeated, between a comparison block and the pilot cull areas in an article, published by Farmers Guardian - [link]. And everyone from Owen Paterson, who set the pilots up through the NFU who backed them, down to the farmers involved are 'lying'.

But can the farmers concerned - [link] be so wrong? And how can the drop of some 60 per cent in herds under restriction - {link] become so skewed after its journey through a computer?

In her paper - [link] reporting the methodology used for the analysis, Professor Christl Donnelly, of Imperial College explains:

"Herds under restriction for four or more months of the reporting period due to an incident that started before the reporting period were excluded from the analyses."

and:

"Baseline date: The date on which the culling is initiated in an intervention area. Cattle bTB incidents prior to this date are not attributable to any effects of culling."

Now this lady and her electronic abacus have history. And unfortunately, many of us have had the misfortune to have lived and watched our cattle die, through all it has churned out. From BSE, to FMD the RBCT and now these pilot badger culls.

Whatever statistical wizardry has been employed, the first question asked of its results should surely be 'does it adequately reflect the situation on the ground?' Because if it does not, it is not only meaningless, it is misleading and wrong.

And it appears that as with the RBCT input data, a cut off date for inclusion of data from farms involved in these pilot culls, specifically excluded farms already under long term TB restriction and the results of culling the wildlife reservoir of infection, had on them.

Wizardry indeed. And if this really is the case, dead wrong.

The longest of long grass?

Just as one small area of Dorset is licensed to do mathematically fraught cull of badgers this autumn, a new consultation - [link] appears from Defra. This closes on September 25th, so a short time frame, with we note, Environmental and Animal Welfare Campaigners at the top of a long list of consultees.

Tackling zoonotic Tuberculosis, a Grade 3 pathogen - where ever it is found - is not an option for Defra. They are signatories to International agreements which seek to eradicate this disease, to protect human health. And that includes wildlife, if it is found there.

Hence the deafening silence - [link] on this technology which allows the infected badger group to be identified with stunning accuracy. Far better to set Badgerists against livestock farmers, in a parody of the Roman arena and let them fight it out. This of course, after giving the former, the tools with which to find their prey - [link]

So what is asked in this latest wheeze which may invoke yet another delve into Queen May's pockets for a Judicial Review and  kick the control of badgers with zTB into the long grass?

This consultation is a short questionnaire which seeks to reduce the minimum area for a map drawn population control badger cull from 150 sq km to 100 sq km. Now that was the size of the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial zones, and one which John Bourne opined was too small. Subsequently the benefits outweighed the inevitable problems with occurred from cage trapping an infected population for 8 nights only, annually if you were lucky. Thus, hanging on these throw away remarks, the present cull areas of Somerset and Gloucestershire being three times that size and of longer duration.

 Together with a smaller minimum size, Defra also propose to increase the amount of landowner participation required to be accessible for culling to '90 per cent of land to be accessible, or within 200m of accessible land'. That is a complicated mathematical formula which takes no account of the presence of disease at all, and may in fact be more difficult to achieve in practice than the previous 70 per cent requirement. Who knows?

There is also a proposal to increase the time 'allowed' for culling but with Natural England giving itself the right to stop the cull at any time it thinks fit. They explain:

We want to know what you think about our proposed licence changes. They will provide more flexibility in the control of badger populations in areas where bovine TB is a problem and will increase the potential to achieve disease control benefits. The proposals would apply to applications to Natural England for a licence from 2016 onwards.

Of course if Defra used the research - [link] into the identification of infected setts, for which it the taxpayer has paid, then all of this long running farce would have to stop. And it would, as once an infected area and group of animals is identified, by international statute, Defra have to act on that information. They have no choice.

 On superficial examination, these proposals seek to tweak a flawed policy, which in turn was based entirely on a politically corrupt - [link] concept.  And our response will reflect that.

We would also question the roll of an environmental organisation such as Natural England in the licensing of what is ultimately an obligation to public health. And that concept could be explored further later this year.