TB again

Originally from: frances fish
                        
So now we know, despite the reluctance of Defra to publicize the fact, TB is rampant in the wild life of Great Britain. No wonder they are so reluctant to authorise a massive badger cull. They are obviously the tip of a rather embarrassing iceberg ! Again, yet again, the question of vaccination has to be asked. We are told that the current vaccines are inadequate for the job, but surely they would have some effect in controlling the disease ? Surely anything is better than sitting on your hands and saying you can do nothing about the spread of TB ? Funny thing is, apparently beef cattle and all cattle under a year old, cannot have TB. At least that is what you would be lead to believe as these animals are not part of the testing program.The latest outbreak in Scotland was from animals from a beef fattening herd sent for slaughter when a high proportion were discovered to have suspicious lesions suggestive of TB.A friend of ours has purchased about half a dozen heifers (heifers because, as you do not get a premium paid on them,are cheaper than steers). He intends fattening them and sending them for slaughter, under the current restictions of the 30 months rule. Suckler heifers of an equal age ARE liable for TB testing, his are not. Steers of the same vintage are not(in fact, I do not think any steers have to be tested). So, do they NOT get TB ? Oh, yes they do,no reason to suppose they don't. It is worth the trip around the Defra website to discover just how many animals are slaughtered and compensation paid because they have teated positive for TB only to appear later in the statistics as negative. There are so very many false positives and, more worryingly, false negatives with the current test for TB as to make it almost totally useless as a diagnostic tool.Funny thing is, as I recall, Tb is only a threat to humans through the milk or, very unusually from working with infected cattle. So, if they test the milk shouldn't we all be able to sleep at night ? The amount of public money wasted is astounding. The sam e logic applies to the pursuit of the dreaded Scrapie in sheep. Are there human implications ? None are known. Someone, somewhere, started the witch hunt and did not just have a bee in their bonnet but a whole mind-blowing swarm ! Frances

Originally from: Farmtalking
                        
Hi Francis!

I think that beef cattle are tested for TB – The suckler herd that lives here certainly is!

BTW we are surrounded by deer – I saw one on the drive only a couple of days ago! – a beautiful creature that fortunately looked extremely well to me – its red coat gleaming in the sunshine at the time.

Author wrote:
So now we know, despite the reluctance of Defra to publicize the fact, TB is rampant in the wild life of Great Britain. No wonder they are so reluctant to authorise a massive badger cull. They are obviously the tip of a rather embarrassing iceberg ! Again, yet again, the question of vaccination has to be asked. We are told that the current vaccines are inadequate for the job, but surely they would have some effect in controlling the disease ? Surely anything is better than sitting on your hands and saying you can do nothing about the spread of TB ? Funny thing is, apparently beef cattle and all cattle under a year old, cannot have TB. At least that is what you would be lead to believe as these animals are not part of the testing program.The latest outbreak in Scotland was from animals from a beef fattening herd sent for slaughter when a high proportion were discovered to have suspicious lesions suggestive of TB.A friend of ours has purchased about half a dozen heifers (heifers because, as you do not get a premium paid on them,are cheaper than steers). He intends fattening them and sending them for slaughter, under the current restictions of the 30 months rule. Suckler heifers of an equal age ARE liable for TB testing, his are not. Steers of the same vintage are not(in fact, I do not think any steers have to be tested). So, do they NOT get TB ? Oh, yes they do,no reason to suppose they don't. It is worth the trip around the Defra website to discover just how many animals are slaughtered and compensation paid because they have teated positive for TB only to appear later in the statistics as negative. There are so very many false positives and, more worryingly, false negatives with the current test for TB as to make it almost totally useless as a diagnostic tool.Funny thing is, as I recall, Tb is only a threat to humans through the milk or, very unusually from working with infected cattle. So, if they test the milk shouldn't we all be able to sleep at night ? The amount of public money wasted is astounding. The s

ame logic applies to the pursuit of the dreaded Scrapie in sheep. Are there human implications ? None are known. Someone, somewhere, started the witch hunt and did not just have a bee in their bonnet but a whole mind-blowing swarm !

Originally from: frances fish
                        
Hi Jane, We are at cross purposes here. Beef -fattening herds are not suckler herds. Ours are sucklers, they are or were a breeding unit, Beef fatteners are usually bought in specifically to send off when they reach weight. I still say, they are NOT part of the TB testing program, seeming to have a DEFRA given immunity by virtue of what they are called. Beef-fattening, no TB tests, suckler herds need testing. Breeding stock can get TB and must be tested, castrated males (steers) are safe from the Bacillis !! Ain't life wonderful ? Explain to me the logic of it all as I cannot see it myself. Frances

Originally from: Farmtalking
                        
Sorry Francis!

I guess I was in too much of a rush this morning to consider carefully what you meant and my response!

In fact, I had been talking about this to my neighbour, as there are fattening beef on two neighbouring farms, bought in from many different places and in large numbers every year!

There is no doubt that it is a concern for all of us.

Best wishes – jane

Originally from: mona parr
                        
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/notifiable/disease/tb.htm
EXTRACT
TB in cattle has been subject in GB to a compulsory eradication programme since 1950. There are two main elements of this programme:
routine free tuberculin skin testing of cattle herds (except beef fattening units) carried out by the State Veterinary Service (SVS) every 1 to 4 years depending on the local incidence of TB
routine post-mortem meat inspection by the Meat Hygiene Service of all cattle carcases, followed by tracing back to the farm of origin of those with TB lesions

Strange isnt it!!!
                        

Originally from: frances fish
                        
Dear Jane and Mona, Such are the tests for TB that it is little wonder that many have little faith in them. After 2001 when they slaughtered so many healthy animals would many people want to volunteer more on the basis of testing which is so unreliable ? As I say, if you wish to see the exact figures, they are posted on the Defra website and make quite alarming reading. I expect that the latest scare in Scotland will prove my point. They say that a high proportion of the herd tested positive, what they will not do is several weeks later, state that, of these, a very high percentage, on further testing, proved to be negative ! If you take the trouble(and you have the time) its all there, in the various tables and statistics.I think the SVS took a severe bashing, credibility-wise during and after 2001 and they are not trusted (with good cause).Tony Blair may think that no-one is to blame, the RCVS says none of their members are guilty, but the farming community knows better.Many of the schemes to detect animal diseases like TB, Brucellosis, Scrapie,scab rely on co-operation and it is as scarce on the ground as hens teeth. Whose fault is that ? I think most of us could hazard a guess, don't you ? Frances

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."

Originally from: Farmtalking
                        
Hi Francis!

Yes, I have seen the figures and agree they are dreadful.

However, I was also trying to suggest that it's the farmers who need to read them too and understand the proceedure.

I wrote about this some months ago and published info on the Farmtalking web sites but as you know, 'One can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink'!

IMO perheps too many have accepted the reactive test and subsequent slaughter without considering the alternatives. ie: Monitoring, re-test etc.

Just as during FMD many farmers were quite unaware of their legal rights and MAFF's and just went along in agreement with what they were told.

Tragic though it may be, it's no good bleating about the loss of stock if farmers weren't prepared to aquaint themselves with the facts with regard to their rights during FMD or re TB testing now.

Those that have done so can choose to stand up for them and those that do, can frequently win!

Originally from: frances fish
                        
Hi, Jane, Nobody is suggesting that a test should be 100% reliable, we wish ! BUT, do look at the figures if you have time. The actual percentage of the animals slaughtered which eventually prove to be negative is quite astonishing. I am also not inferring that all state vets are incompetent,like all professions,they will have their share of inadequates, that's life. What I did say, is that they are not trusted. If you have had blood testing faked and you know it, then how can you let them test anything again with any degree of confidence, especially if it involves the further slaughter of your stock should they state that you have a positive result ? What I am saying is that too much depends on a test which is so inaccurate it makes your hair curl. I know that it is routinely used and that, if there is no problem, then it appears,if not to work well, then to be adequate. However, when there is a real problem, such as has surfaced after restocking after FMD, then the cracks begin to show. Frances
—

Whatever you Wanadoo:
http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/

This email has been checked for most known viruses – find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm