Page 1 of 1
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 11:42 am
by Jo Kemp
Our ministry vet came on Monday to check our bull prior (I hope) to our taking semen from him and we talked about bovine TB
He was adamant that farmers should not buy livestock from .... and then a long list of counties in England. When he took on the job 16 years ago we were promised a vaccine in 10 years now what is the wait? 10 years. absolutely no advance.
I said I was more worried about TB in deer rather than badgers up here and he said 'well, up to now and badgers do travel and Cumbria is next door'
This is worse that FMD - that is appalling for a year or so but the threat of TB and therefore the killing of our animals by authority hangs over us all the time.
In our area we are fortunate that testing is still every 4 years but more and more farmers find themselves in a 12 month testing zone through no fault of their own
Comments please and keep vigilant
Jo
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:50 pm
by PeterO
Jo
Two years ago my best cow (within a month of calving) was given a positive TB result - subsequent DEFRA lab tests on the carcase proved that it was a false reading. When I moaned to my vet he told me a local farmer had recently lost 10 cows (from a much larger herd) all of which had proved to be false readings ie tests on the glands etc had shown no sign of TB.
As Shropshire is a TB hotspot I am into the 12 month routine and very time consuming it is too, but I am more worried that i will lose cows to a very dodgy TB test!
If we can't have a vaccine or a badger cull - how about a decent TB test. Without this, if you start isolating herds that have had a positive or inconclusive TB test (with a subsequent all clear) you might be importing your stock from NZ in a year or so.
Peter
Peter
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:19 pm
by Liz
I too am in a 12 month testing zone. Not only is it time-consuming, but stressful. We lost all our sheep with FMD (luckily hadn't any cows then), so am quite anxious at testing time.
I had heard that you couldn't get false-positives with TB tests (unlike with FMD - our sheep tested negative after slaughter). That doesn't seem consistent with your comments Peter, so I guess I am wrong.
Also, I am sure I read somewhere that there is a second TB test (while the animal is still alive!) but that it costs a lot more which is why DEFRA don't use it. Does anyone know more about this? If it exists, is it something that one can insist on it if the normal TB test is positive/not definite?
Luckily the TB tests are done by our own vet - who I trust a lot. Unlike many of the DEFRA ones we enjoyed dealing with during the FMD crisis.
...Liz
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:25 pm
by PeterO
Liz
I don't blame the vets they just use the test. On a positive reactor firstly they look for visible lesions at slaughter then they attempt to grow the TB bacterium from tissue samples (I am quoting from the DEFRA letter). In my case both results were negative. I asked for a second test before the cow was slaughtered but was refused.
Given that 'TB has been increasing by 15% a year for several years in Shropshire' (DEFRA letter) plus a load of false test results and it doesn't take a statistician to work out that we will all be sheep farming before the end of the decade.
Peter
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 10:34 pm
by Inger
In New Zealand, our stock has to have a TB certificate stating how long the herd has been clear of TB. A copy of this certificate has to be carried with the truck (by law) when the stock is being moved to another farm or the freezing works. In areas which are known TB areas, stock cannot be moved without being tested first. If they are carriers, they can only go from the farm straight to the works.
In areas where there is no TB in the local possum population (our equivalent of badgers), testing is done every 4 years. In areas that have had TB cases in stock, the test is done annually.
You're right Jo, we need to keep vigilant and always check that the animals you are buying have tested clear, before bringing them into your herd. We also dose new stock for worms and other parasites as soon as they arrive off the truck. It's easier to prevent infestations than try to get rid of them once they've established themselves on your farm. Another thing we have to watch here, is worms becoming drench resistant. I guess you have similar problems in the UK.
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:23 am
by Sylvia
I live in yet another TB 'hot spot' but have had our 1 year testing put back to 2 years this time. My vet mentioned that fluke wormers were causing some problems in relation to false TB positives. Has anyone else heard this?
Fingers, and everything else, crossed we have had no problems so far. But I agree it is so worrying.
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 6:47 pm
by Duncan MacIntyre
This is not my first attempt at a reply on this topic, but ads I feel so strongly that the whole situation is a disgrace and is being handled very badly by all concerned I tend to start ranting. I am sure most regulars on the site know that I never ever rant, so I have had to abandon a couple of efforts.
When I was at university in early 1970's there were only a handful of parishes in Gloucestershire and Somerset where TB was recognised as a persistent problem. A little tough medicine then would have cured the problem but would probably have been very hard for those affected.
Sadly the situation was not handled vigourously and now a substantial part of the country is in a mess. Whilst badgers maybe a local reservoir they do not spread the disease large distances - we manage that quite efficently by moving cattle, when in fact movement restrictions should be in place.
The UK has floundered in disease control and erradication in the last few decades whilst many other countries have forged ahead. Our government has been determined(not just under Tony) for a long time to make farming "stand on its own feet" so to speak, but has also taken action to destroy any organisations such as milk boards which would have been able to take on the role of health scheme supervisors and drive the issues forward, as have the equivalent bodies in Scandinavian countries. We have vets, ADAS and a multiplicity of other advisors all following separate agendas advising farmers independently, farmers who have not surprisingly got fed up with those who try to adivise them, and a cattle population with general health and welfare a lot worse in my estimation than it was 30 years ago. To compound that we also cannot expect commercial farmers to do more and more with less and less. But until some serious answers are found to these problems I fear TB and other disease situations have little hope of improving.
On the issue of false positive tests, I realise fully as a vet what a problem they can be, we have suffered from them on Bute for over 20 years now, and would be in danger of being complacent about odd inconclusive reactors - BUT a year or two ago I got a reactor in an almost closed herd, the oldest cow on farm, only 2 or 3 bought in animals in a herd of 85 milkers plus followers. She was taken by ministry, lesions seen at slaughter, positive culture. A serious wake up call to the fact that TB can strike any where any time, badgers or not, re-stocking or not. We have no idea of source. There has been a much more serious outbreak in SW Scotland where I think there were 47 reactors in a previously clean herd and it is not related to FMD restocking or other known sources. It must be worth the pain of a few false positives to make sure we catch ones like that. I would guess that it was the first case of TB on Bute for over 40 years.
The blood test which is being evaluated is expensive, needs to get the blood to a lab very quickly, and has various other technical disadvantages. It is I believe unlikely to totally replace the skin test but will be used in conjunction with it in certain circumstances.
Duncan, less ranting than I was yesterday but only a little less.
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 10:55 am
by Inger
You have every right to rant Duncan, it must be very frustrating as a vet, to be trying your best to combat this and other deseases, while the powers that be sit on their hands. We have an Animal Health Board in NZ that is responsible for taking care of desease prevention and combating any outbreaks. But we also have another government department called the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries which is respondsible for keeping deseases and pests out of NZ. Unfortunately as soon as one pest is dealt with, another one comes along which needs yet another million or so dollars spent on it to wipe it out. Tourism is one of our largest industries and with the tourists comes unwanted organisms and bugs from all over the world. It's a never ending battle and is very expensive to fund.
Surely the EU will put pressure on your government to adopt procedures which have been proven elswhere in Europe? It has to be done, for the sake of your rural economy.
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:43 pm
by PeterO
Ingar
Delete rural economy - insert rural themepark for urban ramblers.
Peter
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 9:31 pm
by Penny
Well said Peter!
Our Government and Europe have ideas/plans about what each country should be doing, and we are "the Nature Park". There is no doubt that there is reason behind the ineffective control of Foot and Mouth and TB in this country.......it suits the policy makers.
Paranoia aside, Dexters should have a place in the "New Britain" because they are a speciality ie they can produce something that cannot be accessed more cheaply abroad - fantastic beef.
Penny
ps if no one hears from me again on this website, assume that "the powers that be" do read this website!!
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 11:08 pm
by Mark Bowles
Unless the "POWERS THAT BE" sneak past my vetting,then you are safe to say what you like!!.
Mark