www.countrychannel.tv

There is a film about the effect of bTB on cattle herds and their owners, on
this link.
Bovine TB - a Crisis in the Countryside.

Constructive Ignorance?

A comment has come into the site which has alarmed us somewhat. Our old friend mycobacterium bovis is, as we have said many times, a very serious zoonosis and as such, anyone who has had contact with either a human or an animal confirmed case should be checked out for the disease by the public health authorities. When bTB is confirmed in cattle, (unless anyone knows differently - see later) the local public health department are alerted by the AHO responsible for the area, and tests offered to anyone who has had contact with the cattle.

But when a pet is confirmed with bTB, the resulting health checks appear to be a tad selective, as this comment shows:

We lost all 4 of our pet cats to bovine TB late last year / early this year. (we had one confirmed case and were instructed by defra to euthanize the other 3 (all the while our vets were telling us not to worry, "this doesn't happen; cats don't get tb"))

Yes they do. We covered some feline victims here and another here. Over forty cats were positively identified with bTB 2005-2007. So what about their owners after sharing armchairs and airspace?


The comment continues that Defra did its job and recommended that the owners of the cats, and their 7yr old son were all be tested for btb. And then a stumbling block. the comment continues:

"Public health in our area of Wales flat out refused us tests. I spent hours every day for weeks on the phone to everyone I could think of (private doctors and hospitals, public health, the county's health board, newspapers, Defra, etc) and had no success."

Ten months on from the death of this cat with confirmed bTB and eight months from the euthanasia of its three companions, the owner is still unaware as to whether or not she or any members of her family were/are infected. She has also heard of another case of bTB in a domestic cat in the same area.

The advice from the numerous bodies dealing with bTB, acting it would seem, in glorious isolation both from each other and reality, was confusing. Defra saying that aerosol transmission was a serious risk, while public health parroting 1950s text books, and quoting "unpasteurized milk or infected udders" as the only source. Catch up, please. That loophole was firmly closed in the 1970s. Where on earth do these people think the exposure of 40,000 sentinel, tested and slaughtered cattle annually is coming from? M. bovis doesn't fly in with the tooth fairy. It is carried by infected mammals. Primarily badgers. And in quantities guaranteed to produce onwards transmission, and subsequent disease in anything which is unlucky enough to fall over the detritus they leave behind. Spill back is now increasingly seen in cats, alpacas, goats, sheep, pigs and other companion mammals.

This lady then asked Defra how her cats could've contracted the disease and Animal Health replied "cows or badgers." The location of these cats is a rural cottage, surrounded by sheep with a few herds of cattle as well. The spoligotype of m.bovis isolated from the first cat is described by local AHO as:

... the strain predominant in our area (the Brecon Beacons in mid Wales).

The comment continues with the worrying observation from local farmers who have had bTB problems in their cattle herds, that despite them having received advice from AHOs to be tested for bTB, they are being turned away by GPs.

This is a case of Wales not joining their respective dots with access to TB testing, Xrays and a merry-go-round between different regional health authorities - for which there is absolutely no excuse. We have touched on problems with human TB in Wales before and in this week's Veterinary press is a timely reminder that all too often, 'tuberculosis' in humans is not strain typed at all, being logged under the all-encompassing title 'tuberculosis complex'. Thus the true level of bTB, which would have involved health agencies joining hands with VLA to strain type, and examining causes and transmission opportunities, is likely to be described by the Public health authorities as 'low'. Of course it's 'low' if it's not looked for, diagnosed or strain typed. Now, our co-editor has a name for this: it could be (he says) different agencies protecting their respective castles, i.e total bloody incompetence, or what we have seen so many times before, when reality becomes uncomfortable - constructive ignorance.

The responsibility for control of this grade 3 pathogen is quite clearly set out in the Health Protection Agency's Zoonosis guidelines which proudly bears the logos of Defra, Animal Health, VLA and the Food Standards Agency. And it is bang up to date, printed in 'April 2009'. So, we suggest (or the boss does) that the first port of call for our Welsh lady, if these agencies fail to hold hands with the powers that be, is the HPU (Health Protection Unit) - with a copy of any correspondence to her local MP.

The booklet is quite proscriptive, describing bTB as a statutory notifiable disease which has 'multi agency discipline'. But that does mean that the numerous agencies can pass this parcel around and no one pick up responsibility for it.

6.1.5 p.16
"Responsibility for investigating transmission from animals to humans in a domestic setting rests with the HPA (Health Protection Agency)"

Meanwhile in her locality our correspondent has discovered a third cat with bTB, whose owners have been refused tests. See the comment section in this posting.

She concludes her story,

It's [ bTB diagnosis] a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare. A GP I saw out of hours (and outside of our own practise) told me that public health are useless. That was reassuring. The bTB situation in the UK is a mess and a nightmare. It is being handled appallingly badly by people who don't seem to care about the health and welfare of animals or humans.

We couldn't possibly comment.

Counting the cost

After a visit to some Bradshaw, Beckett, Benn, bovine badger-TB hotspots in the SW, Shadow minister, Jim Paice MP was up beat about a 'management' plan to target infected populations of badgers, rather than a wipe out over an area. But land owners will have to contribute, he told Farmers Weekly

Tory plans for a cull are in their early stages, but proposals topped the agenda during a three-day visit Mr. Paice to TB hotspot areas in the south-west of England this week. Any cull would be properly co-ordinated, said Mr Paice. "I have always said that any cull of badgers should be targeted at those setts most likely to be infected, rather than simply deciding to cull all the badgers in any particular area."

We understand this would involve not just geographical 'hard boundaries' so beloved by the Bourne group, but the sort of 'badger' boundaries used by the Clean Ring TB eradication strategies of the 1980s. These used a 'virtual barrier' of clean healthy badgers as the end of the cull area. It is our understanding that Mr. Paice was shown some well worked main setts which looked like an advert for JCB diggers which were (although this is without the benefit of PCR to confirm, Defra having thrown this technology into the long grass) described to him as 'actively, well worked and vibrant' - as were their occupants. Confirmation coming from the sentinel, regularly tested cattle, which were - clear.

He was then taken a few hundred yards away and saw satellite setts, often single holes, into which the old and sick of the group were kicked out at the end of their tenure. We understand the partially decomposed remains of a previous occupant were in evidence, outside at least one of these.

Although Mr. Paice declined to put a figure on how much individual farmers would be charged, industry sources suggested £7.50/ha (£3/acre), meaning a £600 bill for a typical 150-cow dairy herd run across 80ha (200 acres).

The bill for successive governmental non-policy is running at around £100m annually. To describe it as 'combating bovine TB' is stretching the imagination somewhat. Apart from ongoing 'research' some of which is vital, much is offered as top up grants to universities, producing a lightweight paper trail which has little to offer the real world of epidemiology and disease control. The main tranche of the budget is spent on continual testing of cattle, hauling reactor cattle to abattoirs, slaughtering cattle, taking samples from said cattle, culturing samples and sending results to local AHOs who then produce their pile of paperwork - to test more cattle. That isn't a 'policy', it is a thoroughly wasteful carnage, going absolutely nowhere.

But having believed the guff churned out by mathematical modellers who convinced the world (and themselves) that selling houses they couldn't afford, to people who then could not pay, but that the value of said house would continue to increase - fuelling an eye watering pyramid of bonuses - the perpetrators of the current credit crunch reality check have mortgaged successive governments for the foreseeable future. Defra has no money and Mr Paice told Farmers Weekly:

"Frankly, I can't see me getting any extra money so either it is going to have to come from elsewhere in DEFRA's budget - which won't be immediately easy - or we are going to have to ask farmers to pick up some of the cost." Although the Tory plan would save money by bringing the disease under control, Mr Paice said any additional measures would involve an additional short-term cost.

This illustrates just how important it is that any TB eradication policy has overall AHO control. Contributers to this site have told us that although they have problems - some ongoing - with the disease, the badgers responsible are off-lyers. They are not located on the land owned by the cattle farmer. And that was the single most important restraint faced by SVS during the ten year 'Interim' startegy 1987 - 97. Not only was the 'clean ring' area reduced from 7 km from a confirmed TB outbreak in cattle , to just 1km, but wildlife teams could only trap on land which 'cattle had grazed'. Thus if the badgers responsible were located in woodland or the farm next door, they couldn't gain access. Even though badger territories extended over several cattle farms in the locality. So a cattle farm in that position today, would be throwing away money unless Defra utilised its 'right of entry' to such areas.

And in further slant, TB costs are put at £50 per head of finished cattle by a Cornish farmer. Weight loss in his regularly tested beef cattle and consequential labour costs are just some of the on-farm extras, which Defra's non-policy already load onto this industry. We told you more of the 'benefits' of TB restriction, in this posting.

You'll love this...

Over the years, we have heard some pretty imaginative spin from the Badger Trust. Dear old Trevor was a master whose manipulation of reports, statistics and research would have amazed even Alistair Campbell. Nothing excaped his cartwheels. From 14 million cattle doing bunny hops around the country, to a misleading over view on the Isle of Man's TB incidence, his enthusiasm for his chosen cause knew no bounds. Especially the bounds of honesty and accuaracy, when it came to reporting to his groupies or the media.

Lawson's successor, Jack Reedy, is walking in his footsteps, as we reported here when he told the Radio 4 audience in response to a programme about the Farm Crisis Network TB report, that

".. the TB problems of farms were merely "shoe pinches" because of the "economic penalty" which a breakdown entails, and nothing to do with its emotional impact on the animals or farmers. He went on to say that it is "very unusual for farmers to get fond of their cows" and that they are "usually very careful not to". Cattle are not pets (he helpfully pointed out)"

Which is possibly an slight improvement on Lawson's "cattle get killed anyway" line.

The impression Reedy gave in that interview, was that if farmers are paid enough, they'd roll over and that the TB problem would just disappear. We disagree, as would we suspect, several pet owners, and farmers of other breeds now caught up in the overspill of 'environmental' TB.
In the past, we have given a name to this elephant in the room, 'environmental' TB, labelling the bacterium after its current maintenance host, 'badger' TB. But a succession of ministerial prevarications has given us further inspiration: Bradshaw TB, Beckett TB and now Benn TB? But we digress.

Mr. Reedy,the latest offering ministerial morsels, in a long depressing line of hope over experience, has expanded his organisation's point of view in a longer interview with Alistair Driver, published in this week's Farmers Guardian, saying that:

Farmers are being ‘dangerously emotional’ about bovine TB and need to accept the scientific evidence in front of them.

We won't spoil your pleasure at this man's incredible naivity, by even cutting and pasting his comments. But we will comment on his failure to recognise any 'science' other than that produced by the ISG his apparent blindspots to his 'solution' of whole herd slaughter, which has been tried and failed. Or his kicking into the long grass, the painstaking work of local AH officers who complete a 'risk assessment' when they attend any new TB breakdown. These TB99s were ignored by the ISG, but show that in hotspot areas, as Lord Rooker realised, that only a tiny fraction of cases can be back traced to cattle movements. The majority - 76 percent and probably up to 90 percent, are down to badgers. The chart below was first shown at the BCVA Killarney conference.



The chart also bears out cause and effect of the Thornbury badger clearance in the mid 1970s. The area recorded a herd incidence of TB of 5.6 per cent and gassing setts started in December 1975, continuing for up to eight months. After that, badgers were left to gradually recolonise. Which they did. And the result?

"No confirmed cases of tuberculosis in cattle in the area of the Thornbury operation were disclosed by the tuberculin test in the ten year period following the cessation of gassing" Hansard: 28th Jan 2004 col 385W [150573]

So, what was the cause of the Thornbury success? Whole herd slaughter? Cohort slaughter? Zoning and movement restrictions, licensing and more cattle measures? Biosecurity and stricter testing? Change in the weather? All measures offered today by the Badger Trust, discussed by the T-Beggars ( T-BAG's successor around Defra's consultation table ) - and tried in the past by others, with humiliatingly expensive and ignominious results. However, we did ask. And remembering that it is a hanging offence to mislead a minister in written parliamentary questions, his answer was thus:

The fundamental difference bewteen 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 Mr. Reedy, the earth is flat.

'Alas poor Yorick.....'

We have mentioned not a few times a 'management' strategy, based on badger's own behaviour as a possible answer to the TB problems this country faces. But the idea that badgers themselves exclude their old and sick members has yet to find favour with Defra's desk jockeys. Although PQs describe how Central Science Laboratory (now reinvented as FERA?) explain that they had:

"... identified behavioural differences between badgers excreting m. bovis and uninfected animals. Badgers excreting m.bovis had larger home ranges, and were more likely to visit farm buildings." [ Col 684W 23rd. March 2004 [158375]]

And the diminutive John Bourne appeared to agree with this, commenting in the ISG Final Report that:

.. infected badgers appear to range more widely and disperse further than uninfected animals (Garnett et al 2005; Pope et al 2007)

So where do these illustrious researchers, professors and academics think such badgers go? Although they flit around the word 'dispersed', they do not appear to associate it with homeless, disorientated and sick badgers; where do they hide? Obviously the word' hospital sett' has got the good professor rattled. He gives it a derisory whirl on p.171 of the ISG report.
In fact it gets a whole paragraph.

"It has been proposed that [TB] infection may be controlled by repeated culling of badgers in a number of 'hospital setts'. This suggestion stems from the speculation ( ??? ) that m.bovis infected badgers may be "expelled from their own setts due to disease.." [ making them] .. more likely to colonise setts vacated by other badgers, as they are too weak to dig their own" (British Veterinary Association, 2005)

The paragraph goes on the say that culling such setts would be a highly 'imprecise method of removing infected badgers'.
That would be compared with, what? Doing nothing doesn't seem to be working too well, but let that pass. Defra have.

But has anyone actually seen one of these 'hospital setts'? We haven't. But a blogger on Farmers Guardian website has. And we are grateful for sight of the photo of these excavated remains of a previous occupant, with a newly enlarged hole in the background..

The bones are described in the FG piece thus " .. the skull and leg bones appear to be at least 6 months old, possibly up to year. They could be older but are certainly no less. They are the skull, femur and tibia of a 'fully mature, well grown animal as shown by the very high parietal crest on the top of the skull. The teeth are worn and from that, the animal would appear to be at least 5 years old. The height of the crest of the skull, and the width of the jaws indicate a very powerful animal, likely to be male'.

Pat Bird, the writer, explains that this 'ties in very nicely' with a new confirmed TB breakdown of her herd which began in July 2008, and is ongoing. The health and welfare of the current excavators, digging into this huge, historic and disused sett is also discussed.

Farmers Guardian has two TB bloggers, and stories from the farm of Julia Evans can be read here.

bTB Risk - whose?

We touched on the subject of the 'risk' from exposure to mycobacterium bovis, the causal agent of bovine tuberculosis, in our posting here. And steering everything to do with this Grade 3 pathogen is HSE (Health and Safety Executive) who are extremely precise in their interpretation of the EU directives found here.

HSE do not distinguish between laboratories handling m.bovis, farms under TB restriction due to the exposure of their cattle to it, or exposure in the countryside from wildlife. As we quoted in that posting, they require Risk Assessment forms, data logs of visitors and protection offered. Up to date COHSS papers describe m.bovis thus:

Natural hosts: Cows, [but] also found in badgers and deer.
Disease in humans: Chronic progressive disease with fever and weight loss.
Transmission: Originally through drinking unpasteurised milk. Now from breathing in of infectious aerosols of respiratory discharges and possibly handling meat from infected animals.

We are glad that the 'unpasteurised milk' loophole as the cause of bTB, firmly closed for the majority during the TB eradication schemes of the 1950s and 1960s, is starting to die a death and HSE are at last beginning to wake up to 'aerosol' infection from all infected animals including wildlife. As in environmental contamination.

So what are the implications for farmers whose herds are under restriction from TB?
For open spaces where the public have a 'right to roam, and footpaths which cross territory occupied by infected wildlife?
For National Trust land, including the 'badger watch' areas of Woodchester Park?

In the words of a litigation lawyer, "there is no such thing as 'low risk'". Either there is risk, or there is not. You can't be a 'little bit pregnant', so no half way house, which is what Defra have been trying to argue with bTB. We have said many times that the level of environmental contamination which the tested, slaughtered sentinel cattle are flagging up, is something which our population, and other mammals have not encountered before. But not only is it reckless and dangerous to put them 'at risk', it may be against the many laws surrounding the control of this pathogen.

From HSE and top lawyers, the advice is that any risk must be advised, both to the public and to employees. Risk assessments undertaken, and all guidelines followed as befits the seriousness of this Grade 3 pathogen. As far as insurance goes, the matter is far from clear. But the gist of today's conversations is that if the steps advised in HSE literature have not been followed, including warning the public of the possible risk, then damages could be considerable.

So who should be responsible? For that and some sense we have to look to Switzerland, where Dr. Ueli Zellweger tells us that the Swiss veterinary authorities use public notices in their newspapers to post details of animal diseases, particularly zoonoses. Thus they fulfill their obligations to 'inform' their population of 'risk', and more importantly, what they are doing to reduce it. That way, he says, they keep the public both informed and on side.

So is there scope here for Defra to actually use the risk assessments which AHO have to complete for every new herd breakdown? These are the ones which the ISG did not use for the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial, preferring instead to use an 'assumption' of 2 parts cattle to one part badger, give each 'roughly equal importance' and run with that - but let that pass. Nevertheless, they are there and in the SW at least they come firmly down on 'wildlife, particularly badgers' as the cause of the majority (up to 90 per cent) of TB breakdowns in cattle. And this throws wide open the responsibility for such warnings of 'risk'. Given that in many cases, the 'wildlife' causing the problems is not domiciled on the farm which is on the receiving end.


Defra do however have the logistics with which to offer the appropriate 'risk' advice, in the form of their Parish testing maps. If a single farm within a parish has a confirmed TB breakdown, then the parish testing interval is reduced to annually. Twenty years ago, the job would have been quite small - just a scattering of dots on the map of GB - as shown on here and on page 60 of the ISG Final Report.








But two decades of prevarication mean that every parish shown in red on the most recent Defra map is on an annual testing regime. Thus environmental 'risk advice' is a much more comprehensive job.

That does not mean that it can be shirked.

(Maps courtesy of Defra, are Crown Copyright and must not be reproduced for commercial purposes, without permission from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. They may be used for news reporting or research.)

bTB in Spain

For the first time in 40 years, bTB has been found in continental mainland European badgers, according to a report in the Veterinary Record,[163:1 59-160(2008). R.Sobrino DVM (and others) say that this is the first time that active disease has been found since a badger with bTB was examined in Switzerland in 1963 (Bouvier et al)

They point out that although wild boar and deer are able to maintain a reservoir of the disease in spain, a serological survey found;

.. antibodies to M bovis MPB70 in badgers (23 per cent), foxes (3 per cent) and lynxes (4 per cent) from Doñana National Park (southern Spain), strongly suggesting that these animals had contact with M bovis.

In the report, the authors describe the first case of clinical bovine TB in a free-living Spanish badger and discuss the implications of this observation for bovine TB control in Spanish wildlife and livestock. They describe how an adult female badger was

.. found moribund in Cabañeros National Park (central Spain) on December 14, 2003 and taken to the nearby Instituto de Investigacíon en Recursos Cinegéticos laboratory immediately. The badger died during transport.

Subsequent postmortem found generalised TB pretty well everywhere in this animal, including lungs, trachea, kidneys liver and lymph nodes. It weighed just 3.5 kg.

The authors point out that although this is the first report of clinical bovine TB in a badger from Spain, and also the first report of bovine TB in a badger in continental Europe in the past 40 years,

..this is not an isolated observation, since a second case was detected recently in the León province of north-western Spain. In that case, a badger captured on a dairy farm with a recent history of bovine TB was analysed at the veterinary faculty of the University of Léon, and a positive M bovis culture was obtained from a pooled LN sample. Molecular typing revealed the same strain as in cattle (F. García-Marín)

The conclusion of the report points out that:

.. the badger, which is considered to be a reservoir host at other latitudes, may become infected in an area where bovine TB is highly prevalent in ungulates (Vicente and others 2006). The pattern of lesions was similar to that found in Great Britain (Gavier-Widen and others 2001), which is consistent with this badger being an excretor of mycobacteria and potential disseminator of the disease.

They also say that the increase in numbers of badgers observed in certain parts of Spain, particularly the Aragon region from 1992 to 2006 (R. Sobrino, P. Acevedo, M. A. Escudero, J. Marco, C. Gortázar, unpublished observations), could mean an increased disease risk. Thus, more epidemiological research is needed, and active and passive surveillance of badgers and other wildlife TB reservoirs, mainly wild ungulates, is advisable."

And also from Spain comes the sorry tale of bTB, an alpaca herd and its owners, now receiving treatment themselves, for tuberculosis. They have sent us their story:

I am concerned that our story from here, Spain, might well make people say “That’s in Spain, not here in the UK” [But] to you and me it is the same. It’s just that the labs etc here have taken since April 2008 to diagnose our problem. So we have been given a long time, in total ignorance, to work out what is going on here and inadvertently MOVE animals. One of our clients has just lost a female who came from here.

In my opinion, the ability to move alpacas anywhere within England is basically suicide for an emerging industry, and for other livestock owners’ and the wildlife.

I have first hand experience of what TB can do to a herd of alpacas. They seem to be extremely vulnerable to this disease and the ante-mortem tests used at the moment, do not detect infected camelids. Here in Spain, we need movement licenses for our alpacas. This no doubt this could have saved a lot of lives here, if the skin tests did not repeatedly throw up false negatives.

We have lost 3 animals in the last two weeks to TB. All had tested negative in October 2008 and June 2009, using the skin test. We have never had a positive test. At the moment I see no way forward until we have a reliable ante-mortem test for camelids. I look at my animals and think who’s next?

This breeder has lost in excess of 30 animals so far and has witnessed 16 PM’s and seen more or less the same lesions time after time. These are mainly in the lungs and respiratory system. One animal’s trachea was 60% lesions. "We also see it in the liver, but not in all cases." The owners say that the Spanish authorities intend to blood test their remaining alpacas and comment:

I wonder how long other livestock farmers in the UK are going to put up with the knowledge that alpacas need no tests before movement, no licenses and no records of movement. If I was them I would be extremely upset knowing that these animals may have the potential to move any disease around the country, thus putting their herds of cattle etc. in danger. Not forgetting that alpacas, as can other animals, probably pass their diseases onto wildlife! Continuing the cycle.

The owners of this small alpaca herd in the Andalucia region of Spain are now considering a total herd cull of their remaining 20 animals, including 8 pregnant females. Their losses are around £120,000 so far, with the Spanish authorities offering around 300 euros per animal, but with offset disposal costs of 100 euro per carcass. (The remaining alpaca - the remnants of a once thriving business - are valued at approximately £145,000)

The spoligotype of this outbreak in SW Spain has not been found in the UK. It is SBO 295.

The owners of this herd point out that at present there is no [validated] antemortem test for TB in alpacas that allows breeders to 'get ahead' of the disease.

It can spread faster than testing can detect infected alpacas and decimate a herd rapidly. There is a need to spend money now or UK/ European [camelid] industry could collapse as more herds become infected & farmers are not allowed to trade (including mobile matings & ability to show) - cross infection between alpacas seems to be easy; infected animals can pass on the disease at communal hay racks!

They point out that TB in livestock can & does infect people working [or in contact] with infected stock & that this disease is untreatable in alpacas. It is notifiable to authorities and is not a disease to 'bury' down in the back paddock.

Latest figures from Defra in the UK, indicate that almost half of the premises with camelids which they suspect through either deaths or tracings of having bTB problems, have 'refused entry'.

The Spanish alpaca breeders in our story, have been given a long course of prophylactic antibiotics, so they assume that the Spanish authorities are taking the issue of bTB very seriously indeed.

Pathogens - Lest we forget.

Joining the media frenzy over a member Woodchester Park's staff who is said to have had a brush with badgerTB, is today's Times. But this should serve as a reminder to all of us, of the reasons for the eradication of bTB. All except those who have commented on the Times' article that is. And there was us thinking readers of that erudite publication were in possession of at least half a brain.

Our big sister site also gave it a prominent post.

Pathogens are listed in different classes according to virulence, infectivity and potential treatment. And lurking in HSE's labyrinth of publications is a listing of various pathogens and their classes. Mycobacterium bovis, the causal agent of bTB is listed as Grade 3. To put that in perspective, only such nasties as Ebola, Lassa Fever and flesh eating bugs are considered more dangerous at Grade 4. Most human diseases, and certainly the ones with which we are regularly bombarded with scare stories by the media, are Grade 2.

The EU, OIE and WHO rules on the handling and containment of pathogens within Grade 3 listings include as a definite 'Yes' to the following:

* People in contact to have regular medical checks for up to 40 years after the last known exposure.
* Access to pathogenic material limited to nominated persons.
* Air filtered by HEPA or other such systems.
* Infected material including any animal to be handled in a a safety cabinet, or in isolation or other suitable containment.
* Carcasses incinerated.
* Bio hazard signs posted.
* Protective clothing to be worn.
* Decontamination facilities to be provided.

Many more actions are 'recommended' as precautions against infection for Grade 3 pathogens. See page 12 of the pdf report (link at the end of this post) for the grading of m.bovis, and pages 21/22 for safety requirements. This is just one of many documents which detail precautions needed for people in contact with this grade of pathogen.

Now we do have a sense of humour, being farmers it comes with the territory. But to comply with the above, would take more than a little organisation, we feel. So we suggest :

* Bio-hazard signs on public footpaths crossing farms under TB restriction.
* A register of people entering the restricted premises.
* Protective clothing including masks and footwear, and an approved disinfectant at entrances to farms, fields and footpaths where movement restrictions apply.
* Handy 'badger bins' into which could be placed any carcasses found, suitably wrapped of course, prior to incineration in an approved facility.
And for the HSE decontamination facilities? Perhaps a sheep dip would suffice?

It's about time Defra took the control and eradication of this pathogen as seriously as do the HSE and the EU. One of the many documents which relate to Grade 3 pathogens and their handling, can be viewed here.

Crass and Insensitive.

On Saturday morning, BBC's early morning Farming Today programme covered bTB; in particular they concentrated on the FCN (Farm Crisis Network) report which we covered last month here. This listed comments in harrowing detail of the emotional impact on farmers caught up in the relentless grind of Defra's cattle killing machine which they euthemistically call 'a TB eradication programme'.

The programme interviewed both farmers and vets, who spoke of the 'huge emotional impact', 'fury and frustration' in pretty equal measures and the 'years of frustration' endured with no end in sight as long as the source of the problem remained at large. The veterinary practitioner interviewed described losing good young vets from the industry, who had become totally demoralised by lining up cattle to be shot and of his 'expectation that herds he was testing would fail'. He found the whole thing 'incredibly depressing.'

For a short time the programme can be heard on this link.

But wheeled out at the end of what was (for the BBC) a pretty good coverage, was the inevitible Badger Trust spokesperson. Gone is the bruising spin Dr. Lawson, who, if you remember - and we do - delighted his audience with the comment, also on Farming Today in June 2007, that 'cattle get killed anyway.' His equally crass replacement is Jack Reedy, vice-chairman of the BT.

Asked to comment (why, one cannot imagine) on the huge emotional impact, that continual TB restrictions and slaughter of cattle bring to farmers and their families, Reedy squidged and referred to ISG report. He was quick to dodge the responsibility of 'solutions to the problem', replying that any such were those of the ISG, "not ours".

But then the bit that had us reaching for the 'off' button. The problem [of badgerTB] he implied was not 'emotional' at all, but 'economic'. Thus when Reedy was asked what the BT's solution was to the present problems he regurgitated the ISG solution of 'living with it'. This was to "bear down" on the level of herd breakdowns, and to allow farms to continue trading "even if not definitively clear of infection". And the level of infection in GB will attain, what? We have almost 10 percent of herds having had a TB restriction or 'incident' now. What does this organisation think will happen to the level of environmental contamination should it not be curtailed in their 'chosen' species?

Reedy then explained the TB problems of farms by saying that the "shoe pinches" because of the "economic penalty" which a breakdown entails, and not because of its impact on the animals or farmers. He went on to say that it is "very unusual for farmers to get fond of their cows" and that they are "usually very careful not to". Cattle are not pets (he helpfully pointed out) So pay them enough, and they'll roll over and the TB problem will just disappear? We think not.

At the end of his crass and condescending little speech Reedy reminded his listeners [re a cull of infected badgers], of how this was to be done, who was going to do it, and then rhetorically, "If we cull badgers, who is going to pay?"


Maybe he should ask himself who is paying at the moment because we are not culling infected badgers. And in that equation, he should include pet owners and farmers of minority species equally tangled up in the infective swamp left behind by his cult status money spinners icons, who inevitably end up like this.

"Defra have put up their fence" - after the event.

We covered the story of some very mobile alpacas from Devon and the trail of destruction caused by bTB, diligently uncovered by VLA spoligotyping here, using a report of the incident published in a letter to the Veterinary Record in July 2009.

The owner of the Devon alpacas which made that fateful journey to West Sussex, tells his own story in a pdf entitled Protecting our Alpacas. In this piece he likens the situation of bTB in this country to a series of 'ponds', and points out that although Defra have a remit to control and eradicate bTB in cattle, that does not extend to wildlife or other susceptible species such as alpacas. Once bTB is identified in cattle the machinery of 'eradication' clanks in with slaughter and movement restrictions. But as the author points out:

Unfortunately, they [Defra] have no remit to address reactive wildlife, or minority species such as ours [alpaca] unless they are positively diagnosed at post mortem as having bTB. So the 'pond' keep getting topped up.

He describes the scenario of the journey which he organised for his own alpaca:

Unwittingly I took my alpaca to another part of the country for mating where they fell into someone else's 'pond' [and] brought it back to Devon. They fell ill and 5 1/2 months later were in the VLA Starcross autopsy room. Btb kills alpacas fast - period. I've lost two suri alpacas, their cria, and I've become the proud owner of my very own 'pond'. Defra have put up their fence.

Read this account in full here.

Update - New tests for TB in Alpacas

In case anyone is under any illusion about just what 'tuberculosis' does to a lung when it takes hold, this is a photo of pulmonary cavitation in an alpaca called Willow. He had passed a skin test in late January 2009, and another in early May.

His companion developed a cough and was subsequently euthanased. This was just six weeks after a clear skin test and his very responsible owner agreed to have Willow put down as a dangerous contact at the same time. The postmortem showed pulmonary cavitation and lesions in his throat. But at no time did Willow show any of the physical symptoms normally associated with TB: no weight loss, unthriftyness or cough.

As an update on the testing saga of Dianne Summers' Cornish alpaca herd which we covered here, the news is mixed. Having volunteered and gained permission to use the Chembio Rapid Stat-Pak blood test on her herd, the results were 4positives. Miss. Summers then agreed to pay for X rays to confirm any lung damage ahead of proposed slaughter. The whole herd was Xrayed and when the films were read at the Cambridge Veterinary School, two animals gave 'cause for concern'.

These were not two of the four animals which were positive on bloods. These two animals were isolated, and will be Xrayed again this week. The four alpaca which were positive on bloods are also isolated separately and the herd will be Xrayed at regular intervals to confirm blood results.

Miss Summers points out that if she had relied on the skin test results, her herd would be clear, despite having animals with the tuberculous lungs pictured above.
If she had relied on the blood test, another four alpaca would be for the chop, but having Xrayed the herd she comments that:

" ... if I relied on the results of the blood test alone - 2 of my herd who have shown on X ray as a 'concern', [but] who didn't show positive on Blood test would have fallen below the radar and wouldn't have been isolated and therefore possibly infect my other animals. My 4 positive blood test alpacas have been isolated because the blood test may detect very early signs of TB before it shows up on X Ray.."

Miss Summers's alpacas are not out the woods yet, and the herd will continue to be monitored and Xrayed regularly. Any sign of lesions, will mean the animals are culled. The unreliable results on camelids of the intradermal skin test, described in a 2007 paper as 'so poor as to be meaningless' leave owners who want to protect their herds from tuberculosis little choice but to pioneer different diagnostic tests which in tandem, may give a degree of antemortem confirmation of disease.

Dianne finishes her story thus:

"I will continue to Xray my entire herd every 3 months and will cull any that show TB lesions. I am taking advice from industry experts and have done everything they have recommended.
This is important research but it is going to take a long time before we know how accurate any of this is but its a start. At least I am trying and this may just help currently infected herds and newly infected herds."

We wish her well.

Update.
On further Xrays, the two alpacas which gave cause for concern on Xrays, appear clear. Cambridge recommend a repeat screening in a few months. (Xrays will pick lesions less than 1/2 centimetre across, thus at a very early stage). Their results on these two state "So, in summary, the new films do NOT show areas of concern anymore."
And how that leaves the four alpacas, positive to the unvalidated Rapid Stat-pak blood test, (all of which were clear on skin), is anybody's guess.

Cause and effect?

Staff working at MAFF's, Defra's, CSL's, FERA's Woodchester Park (otherwise known as Badger Heaven) in the Cotswolds, are to be tested for tuberculosis, following the possible infection of personel working there - on one of these?


Gloucestershire press has details together with a picture of a 'pretty' badger. Not at all like ours, which is how they end up after enduring a long and unhappy life infected with tuberculosis. Which is of course a serious and sometimes deadly zoonosis. Which is why we should be eradicating it, from whatever source.

While we wish the person involved in the Woodchester incident a complete recovery (far from certain, even with the present cocktail of long term drugs) this incident serves to remind us all - especially Defra - of the seriousness of allowing m.bovis, the bacteria which causes tuberculosis, to become rampant in the environment.

Update.
A comment on this post indicates that the problem with Woodchester personel and exposure to badger tuberculosis (bTB) may be more widespread. Although this is unsubstantiated, we post it and would be grateful for any further information.

"What this story is missing is some key facts. Such as the person has been treated in hospital and they are testing her further. Plus another 8 people from Woodchester had tested positive for signs of TB.
Out of the 30 people tested 27 had no immunity to TB, due to no BCG being active".

Scotland goes it alone ..

... maybe.
It was reported last week that Scotland was exploring the possibility of applying to the EU Commission for TB free status.
Farmers Weekly reports;

Scotland is set to capitalise on its low incidence of bovine tuberculosis by applying to the EU Commission for TB-free status.

Only the reservations of auctioneers and meat wholesalers have delayed the Scottish government from applying for "Officially Tuberculosis Free" status.

The rest of the industry, including the country's chief vet, Simon Hall, have appeared keen to adopt even tighter measures to keep the disease at bay and give Scotland an edge over the rest of the UK.

Although Scotland's TB is low, according to PQs, to achieve this hallowed status, the following criteria must be met:

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 be the periodic testing of all cattle in the area to determine the absence of bovine tuberculosis.

If and when periodic testing of all cattle reveals that 99.9 percent of tested candidates have been in herds officially free of tuberculosis for at least six years, then testing is not required. (20th Nov 2003. Col 1205W [140308]
Data must also collected in a manner of which the EU approves; see also:

"The United Kingdom does not satisfy the requirements of the OIE or the EU to be TB free". ( 16th Dec 2003. Col 821W [ 142000)

In 2008, Scotland recorded 13,854 herds on its VetNet database of which 70 had experienced a TB restriction during the year. That is not 0.2 percent of herds, it is 0.5 percent. And even if Scotland's equivalent of Defra, propose only CNI (Confirmed New Incidents) as they frequently do for GB's data, the figure is still 0.35 percent, almost double the incidence needed for TB free status accreditation.

So although Scotland, from an English viewpoint is in an enviable position with this disease's incidence, it is nowhere near the 99.8 percent required for TB free status, as defined in OIE and EU statute.

South of the border during 2008, GB achieved 9.3 percent of its herds under TB restriction at some time during the year. But from the EU quoted TB incidence for us of around 3.8 percent for 2007, ( a figure which appals the EU Commission, we hear) the figures submitted by Defra are those for CNI only, and do not take into consideration the rump of herds under almost continuous restriction but still shooting their messengers.
Using those figures, (CNI) GB recorded 5.8 percent TB incidence in 2008.

That is half the correct figure, half a story and the result of two decades of half baked non-policy.

Infectivity - badgers.

When the word 'tuberculosis, is mentioned it is simplistic to suppose that infectivety is similar between species. In our posting below, we quoted the remarks of VLA personnel on the results of camelid postmortems thus:

.. the predominant distribution of tuberculous lesions in alpacas which they had postmortemed as "within the lungs and associated thoracic lymph nodes", which they say, is "similar to most TB cases diagnosed in British South American camelids." And go on to describe " a heavy concentration of thoracic mycobacterial infection" which indicates that the respiratory route is the most likely means of transmission between these animals in close contact. This effect they say "may well be enhanced when some of the lesions show pulmonary cavitation".

So how does tuberculosis in camelids compare with the disease in badgers or cattle? Buried in the labyrinth of information on this subject is a passage from earlier work, which describes relative infectivety in badgers and cattle;

Within an infected social group of badgers, only a limited proportion of them may be infected, and even fewer individuals may be excreting the bacteria due to the presence of open lesions leaking infected material. The badger can remain clinically normal for many years despite having severe lesions that produce infected material and will often excrete intermittently. The lungs and kidneys are most frequently affected, but infected bite wounds can result in new infections and can themselves excrete large quantities of infected pus into the environment.

And then the important bit:

Tuberculous lesions in badgers differ from those of humans and cattle in that there is little cellular reaction but massive numbers of tubercle bacilli are present that can contaminate the surroundings. Infected lactating sows are known to pass infection to their cubs, and this may be a major means of spreading infection within the sett. Disease does not spread rapidly between social groups unless there is a dispersal of the badgers or there are males fighting to protect their territories.
(Stuart F.A., and Wilesmith J.W. 1988. Tb in badgers: a review. Rev. Sci. Tech, Off.int.Epiz.,7(4),929-935.)

From that we assume the authors support local AHO postmortem results in that cattle lesions are generally pretty non-infectious even when open. And that in 'field' conditions (as opposed to shooting zillions of bacteria up the noses of young calves), cattle to cattle transmission is overstated, as we reported here from work done in Ireland.

But badger lesions are highly infectious without appearing large and open and will shed intermittently throughout the animals' life, eventually overwhelming the system and leading to them becoming 'super excreters'. Camelid lesions would appear to be both large, open - and highly charged.

The observations on badgers and cattle by Stuart and Wilesmith was published in 1988 Ten years later, the National Badger Survey, published in 1997 showed that the UK badger population had increased by 77% in the previous decade. No current figure is available for population density, and thus the opportunity for more 'territorial fighting'.

Transmission - alpacas

We are grateful for sight of this week's Veterinary Record, where a report investigates an outbreak of disease which appears to be the result of convoluted movements, undertaken by some of this country's alpacas.

We have touched on the thorny problem of tuberculosis and camelids before with an on-going breakdown in a herd of Cornish alpacas covered by Farmers Guardian.

The report was submitted by VLA staff at Starcross, Exeter and follows the fortunes of some Devon alpacas, sent to a herd in south-east England for mating, where they were mixed and stirred with alpacas from different parts of GB, there for the same purpose. All are subsequently dead, with we understand, some onwards transmission from this outbreak evidenced on the Devon farm. The spoligotype isolated from the Devon females was neither Devon nor West Sussex, but proved to be Shropshire. A female from Shropshire visited the stud over a similar time period, and she had subsequently died.

The report points out that there is little or no documentation on the transmission of tuberculosis between alpacas - but as we have said, if a scientist hasn't seen something, that does not mean it does not happen. The saga of this deadly triangle is described thus:

"Four adult females alpacas from a herd in Devon (A) visited a breeding herd in south-east England (B) from October to December 2008. The owner noticed clinical signs in two of these, including lethargy, weight loss and occasional coughing, four and eight weeks respectively after returning to herd A. The disease was progressive and despite treatment under veterinary supervision, both alpacas eventually died in May 2009."

The report describes clinical postmortem results, including extensive lung lesions, pulmonary cavitation and lesions on the kidney in one alpaca. M.bovis was cultured and identified as VLA type 35 or SBO134. (The part of Devon from which the alpaca came is usually home to badgers and spillover sentinel cattle hosting VLA type 11)
Searches of VLA's extensive database revealed that SBO 134 had been reported in a Shropshire alpaca (Herd C) which had presented with weight loss and respiratory disease over a period of three weeks, and which had died in February 2009. This animal had not been off the farm for 16 months, but another female from the herd had visited the stud farm in the south east (Herd B) in September 2008, and remained there until December, when it developed 'respiratory disease' and died. It was not postmortemed, although clinical signs were consistent with TB.

The Veterinary Record report is submitted by D.F Twomey and T.R. Crawshaw of Exeter VLA, who describe the predominant distribution of tuberculous lesions in alpacas which they had postmortemed as "within the lungs and associated thoracic lymph nodes", which they say, is "similar to most TB cases diagnosed in British South American camelids."

The illustration shows an camelid lung, with extensive necrosis and cavitation. The authors of the VR report consider that a "heavy concentration of thoracic mycobacterial infection" indicates that the respiratory route is the most likely means of transmission between these animals in close contact. This effect they say "may well be enhanced when some of the lesions show pulmonary cavitation".

In other words, camelids are very susceptible to TB, the disease advances extremely quickly, most lesions are found in the lungs and, unlike cattle lesions, these are pretty loaded with a 'heavy concentration' of bacteria, especially when 'pulmonary cavitation' occurs.

Control over this potential swamp of tuberculosis is non-forthcoming from Defra, who believe it to be 'a minor problem'. Camelids are outside the TB regulations in England, thus movement records, AHO entry to trace-back premises and herd restrictions may be considered 'voluntary'. Or kicked into the 'too difficult' box? And then there is the thorny question of a test. At the moment the intradermal skin test is the only test recognised to indicate TB free herds - of any animal, including camelids. No matter that it is 'meaningless' on camelids (Vet Record 2007.) Nevertheless, herds are exporting alpacas, being released from TB restriction (always assuming they have actually reported ill-health or deaths of their animals, and not buried the evidence) and tested or untested, offering mating services such as undertaken with such devastating results by the Devon herd described above, and exhibiting these delightful creatures within children's play areas in tourist attractions and agricultural shows.

The VR report concludes:

"These new TB cases provide evidence of spreading M.Bovis infection through uncontrolled movements of South American camelids between holdings, particularly those situated in recognised endemic TB regions." and they warn "The zoonotic risk to human contacts is also a serious consideration to those handling potentially infected animals".

That risk is ever thus, as we posted here.

FCN - New report

The Farm Crisis Network , a charity which supports farmers in times of stress ( for whatever reason) has produced a report on the effect a TB breakdown has on the farmers caught up in it.

We covered some of the many 'advantages' of TB restriction in a very early post on this site, many of which are repeated in FCN's report. The pdf.document (Note - file size 1.12 MB) is called 'Stress and Loss' and contains the results of interviews with many farmers whose herds have experienced TB restrictions.

FCN carried out research on the impact of bovine TB on farming families in three TB hotspots. The results are contained in a 39 page document, inter spaced with quotes from the many farming families interviewed.

"The worst thing was that cows very close to calving had to be shot on farm. We could see the calves kicking inside as they died....I feel there is a constant dark cloud of uncertainty over me, causing stress, anxiety and fear. I feel weary, mentally and physically which results in pain in my body.....Financially it is very stressful. Cash flow is a huge problem. Having to keep animals when I would normally sell them puts more pressure on me, on my family, animal accommodation and feed costs. I don't know how long we can keep going...."

The interviews were carried out by FCN volunteers in three areas - West Wales, the South West and Worcestershire - all longstanding bovine TB hotspots which having experienced decades of Ministerial prevarication, just like Topsy, have grown.


In fact they now link up, in a river of red annual testing parishes, from Lands End heading northwards and westwards, (as Defra's 2008 Parish Testing Map shows.)

Defra are more than happy to pile on the cattle restrictions (and pile up the carcasses) but as one farmer interviewed remarked:

"[TB] restrictions change the nature of the business - we are 'dancing to others' tune' rather than managing our own business as we would wish to."

And by dancing to Defra's tunes on their non-control of environmental tuberculosis, we are all playing games with a most deadly of diseases.

Hansard - Vaccination update

As the long hot summer begins and MPs trot off with their buckets and spades for the longest recess on record, a raft of answers to Parliamentary Questions appeared, some of which dealt with vaccination of badgers.

The MP for part of the Cotswolds, Geoffrey Clinton-Brown was asking about Defra's Vaccine Deployment project. Questioned about the time scale, junior minister, ex fireman and member for Poplar and Canning Town
Jim Fitzpatrick replied that the six proposed area sign ups would be in phases.

".. to allow capacity to be built up and early lessons to be implemented. Therefore, during 2010, vaccination will be carried out in a lead demonstration area, where contractors will be trained, and 20 per cent. (20 km(2)) of the other five areas.

The project will be fully rolled out, in all the areas, by the third year (i.e. all areas will have been vaccinated by 2012). Once this initial phase has been completed vaccination across 100 per cent. of the areas will continue each year and each area will be vaccinated for at least five years."

So just a single area of the six starts in 2010, followed by others. When teams of contractors have been trained. Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to pay all the experienced wildlife teams in 2006 after all?

The ever practical Mr. Clinton-Brown then asked how many vaccinations each badger would require. The answer is below.

We do not know how long the protection lasts but an annual vaccination campaign is consistent with published results that BCG protection lasts at least one year in animals. Safety data from the Badger Vaccine Study (BVS) on repeated annual vaccinations will be reported in the final report of the BVS which is expected in March 2010.

And on the subject of marking any candidate badgers vaccinated, the reply was thus:

The temporary marks on vaccinated badgers will last for at least several weeks, depending on weather conditions. This is so a marked badger re-trapped in any given trapping session can be released without further vaccination. There is no need for long-term marking as there is no detrimental effect if a badger is injected again in subsequent years.

Now, given the answer to Mr. Clinton-Brown's previous point on how often BCG needs to be administered, (it is expected to last at least one year) this answer would seem to be somewhat contradictory. Further questions sought information on costs (Defra don't know, they are working on it)and expected labour requirements (100sq km will employ 10 people in 5 teams of two people, for a single vaccination season) and BCG may have to adminstered annually. This really is not what our industry expected from its Ministry, particularly as we explained in our posting below, Defra are encouraging farmers outside the six trial areas, only one of which will be actioned in 2010, to sign up at their own expense.

And by 2014, GB will be slaughtering how many cattle per year?

Any talk of Defra rushly blindly into this, armed with more hope than expectation, is purely in our readers' imagination.

This post may contain nuts.

Defra on Vaccination

Defra appear to be wearing two hats. On the one hand their badger Vaccine Deployment Project, as described to veterinary personnel, uses phrases such as:

Not a silver bullet - a way of reducing risk: Another tool in the box - use with other measures, and Defra cite 'practical and legal difficulties.'

.
On timetable, badger vaccines are described as "2010 for an injectable" and at the very earliest, "2014 for oral." Problems envisaged include:

Expense and lack of farmer confidence ( now why would that be?
Practicality of trapping badgers, need to access land, vaccinating a wild animal and technical barriers to developing an oral bait.

The initial six areas aim to vaccinate badgers in endemically infected areas and will continue for five years. The 'trial' is completely funded by Defra and will be carried out by trained contractors. Participation is voluntary and farmers may withdraw if they want to. Protocol is described as 'flexible' as 'this is not a scientific trial'.

Defra officials say that "If vaccination reduces the level of disease in badgers it should reduce the risk to cattle."

Note our emphasis on the carefully crafted 'maybes' in that sentence and compare to what the farmers are told. And it gets better. On the thorny question of vaccinating badgers already infected with tuberculosis, Defra agree that it is a waste,

But it keeps it simple.; you can't identify an infected badger in the field, the field diagnostic tests are not good enough yet. And infected badgers don't look any different ( From what? A bite-wounded bag of bones should be pretty obvious. What happens to that one?? )

And on perturbation - the excuse-for-doing-nothing that Defra have used, when hiding behind John Bourne's skirts:

The deployment project will be a lot less disruptive and less stressful for badgers. (than what?) The only risk of perturbation would be if you try to remove badgers, and we are not going to do that.

Mmmmm. Didn't John Bourne's recent efforts in the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial, cage trap a few badgers, leave them confined for a fair while - but then return to find a shed-load of empty cages or cages gone walkabout as 'activists' released the contents or moved them to 'safe houses'? And wasn't perturbation cited as the reason for the early years' of the RBCTs apparent increases in cattle TB? And is it not the sole reason for doing absolutely nothing about a reservoir of disease now back-spilling into many other species?

So how is trapping a wild badger (that is 'wild' as opposed to the Woodchester badger population, who view a baited cage as their Ritz self service bar), leaving it a few hours to stew, tipping the cage on its end to make sure the occupant has its backside in the air, jamming a pronged fork through the mesh to secure it, jabbing a (long) needle in its backside, painting it yellow and then releasing it, not 'disruptive or stressful' for wild badgers, and will neither cause stress related perturbation nor increase disease status from 'infected' to (highly) 'infectious' ?
(That question was rhetorical by the way)

But we digress. That presentation was for vets. And it crept along with a lot of hope, little certainty and an abiding prayer that it would not make things worse. Our European masters demand a tuberculosis eradication strategy, and hey, Defra have one.

But already the Defra spin machine has clanked into action, inviting farmers outside the six 'trial-that-isn't-scientific' areas to volunteer to vaccinate their badgers. Farmers Guardian has the story.
Briefly, vaccine will be available at between £12 - £20 per dose and licenses to use it from Natural England. The work will be contracted out to trained personnel who will bill the farmer and that cost is likely to be much higher than that of the vaccine. But an upbeat presentation used rather different phrases and tone from that which was delivered to vets. Defra officials:

... believe farmers elsewhere, particularly owners of high value pedigree herds, may also see the economic benefits of doing it themselves.
... are confident that vaccinating in the project areas will bring benefits in terms of cattle disease.

To be fair (and why should we be?) Defra's upbeat officials also accept their latest prevarications strategy could take a number of years to come through "as already infected badgers will survive for some time". Other pamphlets we have seen use 4/5 badger generations (that's 20 - 30 years), but Defra say "disease trends will be carefully monitored".
Good. We are sure the world is watching UK's 'disease trends' with interest..

Defra conclude:

Badger vaccination will not eliminate the risk but should reduce it and will not make things worse.

Well that's all right then. Some strategy. Some eradication programme.

Specific powers for Wales

The Welsh Assembly has issued a document in which they describe a more comprehensive approach to TB.

"Specific powers have already been granted in Wales for inspectors to enter land and obtain a warrant for the purpose of testing for disease. The Order applies to cattle, sheep and goats and all other ruminating animals (including camelids) and swine."

Defra (England) may like to take note.

BCG - what it is, how it works.

We are most grateful to Swiss veterinary practitioner Dr. Ueli Zellweger, who offers a thumbnail sketch of BCG, the vaccine with which Defra hope to stem the tide of badgerTB (and thus cattle casualties, camelids, cats and dogs, goats, sheep and pigs) by injecting the product into badgers, which are likely to already have er, badgerTB.

Dr. Zellweger and many others are less than enthusiastic about Defra's plans, as we posted earlier. We quote Dr. Zellweger's short paper, in full.

"DEFRA and its TB Vaccine for Badgers and Cattle

The vaccine is called BCG which stands for Bacille CalmetteGuérin. This strain of bovine TB bacteria was found 88 years ago and has been the main one reproduced for vaccination ever since. It is common practice to cultivate virus and bacteria for a long time for after some 10 to 20 generations they tend to loose their power to infect but still may produce specific antibodies.

BCG is rather an uncommon type of vaccine. In most infections the infected body copes with production of a large amount of specific antibodies within a few days which protect against an infection becoming serious trouble and these antibodies can be traced for diagnosis. This is not so with Tuberculosis for 2 reasons:
1. TB bacteria need 12 to 18 hours to multiply ( E. Coli takes 20 minutes only).
2. TB bacteria have a waxy coat – quite unusual in microbes – to which antibodies cannot attach themselves.

Therefore the body’s defence against TB has to work by making an allergic type of reaction instead of antibodies, a reaction which is made use of when humans and cattle are skin tested for TB.

We have pointed this out on numerous occasions, that 'reactors' to the skin test, both cattle and human, are 'reacting' not necessarily to active or infectious disease, but producing an 'allergic reaction' to exposure to the bacteria which causes disease. A serious, often fatal bacteria, which it must be stressed, has no place plastered in increasing quantities across our green and pleasant land.

In the past BCG was used for millions of doses for healthy young babies and in some countries it is still administered to a certain extent. It does not prevent an infection but minimizes the risk of it turning into a serious generalised form. BCG’s efficiency was never over 80% and new scientific papers say it is dubious to rely on it.

The way BCG should work in already diseased badgers (and cattle) is highly questionable, meaning it is much more likely to produce adverse reactions such as awaking existing “ silent “ or low scale Tuberculosis.
The Merck Veterinary Manual covering all aspects of Vet Medicine worldwide comments:
“ The BCG vaccine, sometimes used to control TB in man, has proved to be poor at protecting most animal species, and inoculation often provokes a severe local granulomatous reaction.“ This is likely to be a quite hurtful process and the vaccination site itself might well end up as an abscess.

As seen in trials one cannot trap more than 60% of all badgers roaming around. Therefore if 60 out of 100 badgers are vaccinated with a vaccine which is only efficient to a maximum of 50 - 80% ( in healthy animals! ) you end up with far less than 50 badgers with a rather dubious protection.

It is well known and common practice that if you do not succeed to vaccinate up to 95% of all animals of a target species, the long term positive effects in an area are likely to be pretty close to zero. If BCG is used as planned by DEFRA there will be huge perturbation and stress for all badgers, high costs and risk that the whole project will backfire.

In the hot spots some 50 % or more of all badgers might carry the TB infection already increasing the risk of TB spreading when being vaccinated and according DEFRAs plans all badgers should get a booster vaccination every 12 months making things even worse.
Who will be liable when it all goes wrong?

Taking a wild guess at any future 'culpability', not a career politician, that's for sure.