Originally from: Farmtalking
                        
It may be that the tests used to detect various diseases are not always 100% accurate.

That can be for many reasons and not necessarily the fault of the test itself or the vet administering it. All animals are different and just like humans react or are susceptible, differently.

Nevertheless, the TB test has been used for many years and appeared successful, having at least practically eradicated TB in Scotland until recently.

The apparent high incidence now, must in part, be due to the delays in keeping the tests up to date, caused by FMD, as well as by an increase in TB infections in wild-life. Some species populatons, such as Muntjac have increased in many areas and along with hedgehogs and badgers, no doubt become a source of infection.

There are also aguments for the fact that the law introduced for the protection of badgers may have contributed to the increase, while the planned culling of badgers in some areas may also have played it's part.

However, laying blame does not solve this or any other problem!

DEFRA does puplish a considerable amount of information about TB, including the tests used and the monitoring proceedure, which can be found here – http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/index.htm and a link to it is also on the Farmtalking web sites.

Each farm and it's circumstances are different and they have to be considered by all involved. At times, the tendancy to follow instructions 'blindly', rather than question or seek alternatives, occurs in all of us especially when we're unaware of all the facts and the whole picture.

From: ...

Originally from experience, I know that a farmer firmly believing his cattle are not infected, (even though they may have reacted, which they can do for many reasons other than TB), should decide to politely question the decision to slaughter and requests 'isolation and monitoring' as an alternative for a reacting animal, he can succeed and save his stock from what may well have turned out to be unecessary slaughter.

It's can well worth reading the information and understanding the proceedure and alternatives to slaughter, before stock is tested, but I wonder how many farmers actually do so?

The research to find an effective vaccine for cattle and wild life continues – The DEFRA web site publishes the following –

"BCG has been tested as a cattle vaccine but results have shown that it is not very effective. An experiment in New Zealand involved treating cattle with low doses of BCG and resulted in a reduction in the number of animals showing signs of TB but protection was only partial.

Using BCG in cattle would affect reactions to the skin test which is currently used to test cattle for TB. At present it is difficult to distinguish between animals that have been vaccinated and those that are infected with TB.

BCG is a starting point for much of our research. We are looking into how BCG protects animals and what environmental factors affect this.

Also, some of the possible new vaccines have been developed from mutated or altered forms of BCG.

The ISG has completed a Scoping Study on the feasibility for pursuing a TB vaccination strategy for either cattle or wildlife and has considered future research requirements in addition to those already in place. This section of the Website will be up-dated shortly to reflect the results of the Study."