Saffy wrote:I'm not sure how good the reason is. However it is one of the reasons that despite being subsidised pricewise and giving it a "label" to shout about, having discussed it with my vet a few years back I decided I would much prefer to quietly test my animals yearly for my own peace of mind and the sake of any buyers than go on a high health scheme.
This is quite satisfactory even for semen collection for foreign sales and for exporting cattle.
Stephanie
If your herd is free of disease and all animals in your herd are being tested on an annual basis then what possible reason would one have for not joining a scheme? It isn't a label to 'shout about' any more than linear scoring is.
A single negative test result for Johne’s disease, by any method, in the case of an individual animal is relatively meaningless, particularly in young animals. Greater reliance can be placed on negative test results in older animals or if multiple tests have been carried out over a period of time hence the benefits of joining a scheme. A risk of false negative results still, however, remains and no animal can be considered ‘safe’ on the basis of individual testing. I am glad that you were able to avert disaster however isolation and individual testing alone is unsound in the case of Johnes according to CheCs. Further information can be found on their site. http://www.checs.co.uk/
Jac my vets and the many vets and authorities that have asked for a test before my bull had his semen taken for sales abroad and similarly for my cattle to be sold abroad didn't seem to think that the tests done were meaningless, are you telling me that they are all wrong?
Joining a scheme is I believe still voluntary at the moment.
Yes you are correct much greater reliance can be placed on results from older animals. The reason that many diseases are tested for often is that they do not show up - even in the blood until the animal is older- a false negative of a kind, some of them not until the animal is are over 2 years of age. This however does not mean that the animal is clear, it has the disease but does not show it in the blood until a certain age.
Saffy wrote:Jac my vets and the many vets and authorities that have asked for a test before my bull had his semen taken for sales abroad and similarly for my cattle to be sold abroad didn't seem to think that the tests done were meaningless, are you telling me that they are all wrong?
Stephanie
It is not a personal opinion, I can only say that I have confidence in the experts including the British Cattle Veterinary Association who (with others) set the rules of health scheme membership. Any testing is better than no testing at all and in a way I can see a connection with Louise's post on TB and one year testing areas. Although I would point out that the whole of Wales is on a one year regime even those who meet the criteria for four year areas. In the 'hotspots' it is in the wildlife.
As far as isolation and testing are concerned with new entrants and the more experienced. In some cases you can lead a horse to water..... the cost of doing so outweighs what is perceived to be the advantages. The longer term implications of introducing disease even if one has no other cattle on the holding is not I feel fully understood in that the land can be affected as well as other species (including the human variety). People are in general eternal optimists it always happens to someone else.
It all depends upon your view of disease. As we can see in the pig & poultry industries, an extreme level of isolation has led to animals with compromised immune systems that then depend upon the protection to thrive, and we're beginning to see the same in cattle, particularly dairy cattle. Like F1 cars, they may achieve better results as a result of the higher inputs but will they cope with the farm track?
Health testing is more feasible if you own/long term FBT all your land in a ring fence but many new entrants have to make do with what they can get, so the costs are more than the testing/culling itself extending to fencing on land that may not be cost effective or even possible.
Rob R wrote:It all depends upon your view of disease. As we can see in the pig & poultry industries, an extreme level of isolation has led to animals with compromised immune systems that then depend upon the protection to thrive, and we're beginning to see the same in cattle, particularly dairy cattle. Like F1 cars, they may achieve better results as a result of the higher inputs but will they cope with the farm track?
Health testing is more feasible if you own/long term FBT all your land in a ring fence but many new entrants have to make do with what they can get, so the costs are more than the testing/culling itself extending to fencing on land that may not be cost effective or even possible.
I don't know about isolation causing compromised immune systems more likely the over use of antibiotics due to insanitary conditions and overcrowding.
I hear what you say about having to make do and mend but it is a sad state of affairs when folk have to be forced into disease eradication programmes by the government. It does make me wonder what will happen to the number of TB cases in Wales when the WAG bring in compulsory testing for BVD and slaughter without compensation for the PIs.
Rob R wrote:It all depends upon your view of disease. As we can see in the pig & poultry industries, an extreme level of isolation has led to animals with compromised immune systems that then depend upon the protection to thrive, and we're beginning to see the same in cattle, particularly dairy cattle. Like F1 cars, they may achieve better results as a result of the higher inputs but will they cope with the farm track?
Health testing is more feasible if you own/long term FBT all your land in a ring fence but many new entrants have to make do with what they can get, so the costs are more than the testing/culling itself extending to fencing on land that may not be cost effective or even possible.
I don't know about isolation causing compromised immune systems more likely the over use of antibiotics due to insanitary conditions and overcrowding.
It is difficult to breed for resistance where an animal is not given the chance to encounter a natural challenge. More to do with over cleanliness than overly dirty ones.
Yes, there is exposure (vaccination) as a method of disease prevention but you cannot be seriously suggesting that widespread TB, BVD, Johnes, Lepto and IBR are caused by farmers running closed herds or that it can be eradicated by doing nothing and letting nature take its course. Could not specific problems with general low disease resistance be attributed to inbreeding rather than isolation in high performance units? Apologies to the original poster that we have again wandered off topic.
Rob R wrote:You're right, I'm not suggesting that, just that there is a difference between high health and low exposure.
All animals develop a degree of immunity to certain bugs on the farm of origin be that high health or not. Of course, you are not implying that it is safer to buy an animal from a herd where the health status is not proven regarding diseases which are not treatable especially since visual inspection is unreliable? 'Well, it looked healthy enough to me' - I think it is this particular aspect that confounds even the most experienced because it defies logic.
There's a lot of reading between lines and finding many words that aren't on the page going on here, so I'm just going to reitterate that there's a difference being an animal that has a strong natural immune system and one which just rarely encounters pathogens. It's hard to say whether an animal, tested or not, is healthy because it's got a strong immune system or because it doesn't encounter any disease challenge. A balance of both is important and I think of the Dexter, as a breed, errs on the side of the former, rather than the latter.
