Return to warmwell.com

Bovine TB pages


On-site rapid diagnosis, such as that given proper trials by Warwick, allowing any necessary euthanasia to be both humane and targeted, could defuse the whole, horrible, polarised "debate" between those who want to save their cattle and those who want to protect badgers. Both sides speak from the best of motives. But we have the technology to deal with bovine TB without a mass cull. It seems that only political understanding and willingness are lacking.

Bovine TB News 2008

August 10 008 ~ Bovine TB confirmed in another human

July 31/ Aug 1 ~ bTB: The EU Working Document’s ten point plan adds restriction and cost to farmers

29 July 2008 ~ "a better understanding of diseases present in wildlife ... is of key importance to develop control measures," says Bernard Vallat

28 July 2008 ~ Bovine TB - As we saw with Bluetongue, vaccine producers can work miracles when the money and commitment are really there.

28 July 2008 ~ While we care about the badgers, lets not forget the hedgehogs

28 July 2008 ~ "Farmers have had a rough deal from this Government who understand so little about the rural way of life. If we neglect our farmers we are going to really regret this now and in the future."

26 July 2008 ~ Jim Paice says the public would be “horrified” if they saw how badgers suffered as they were dying from the disease

July 26 2008 ~ No EU ban

July 25 2008 ~ "In England, the control and registration of bovine TB is not organised sufficiently...." Siem-Jan Schenck, Dutch Agricultural Board

July 24 2008 ~ "We must not be too English...."

July 23 2008 ~ "This is not good enough - it fails to recognise fully the seriousness of the situation."

July 23 ~ GOVERNMENT IS PLAYING DOWN THE SERIOUS NATURE OF CATTLE TB

July 23 2008 ~ An end to UK calf exports?

July 23 2008 ~"Information from the United Kingdom on the tuberculosis situation in calves exported to other Member States"

July 23 2008 ~ What a mess....

July 22 2008 ~ PCR test for use on environmental samples and excretions collected from badgers "ruled out" except in laboratory

July 22 2008 ~ Bovine TB: More Parliamentary answers yesterday

July 22 2008 ~ Bovine TB in the Netherlands: 32 more animals infected and 60 undecisive.

July 22 2008 ~ Bovine TB in Welsh goats - "many of the goats from that herd went to two other herds, from both of which stock had been sold on quite widely..."

Monday 14th July 2008 ~ bTB compensation: The judge not satisfied by the Secretary of State's stated position

July 13 2008 ~“It is ridiculous to expect farmers to continue fighting TB with one hand tied behind their back.

Wednesday 9 July ~ RABDF Questions Government Bovine TB Funding

July 8 2008 ~ "... this method did not do away with the badger population but TB was virtually unheard of. Surely someone in DEFRA is aware of how it was dealt with in those days..."

Tuesday 8 July 2008 ~ Bovine TB. The British Veterinary Association (BVA) "expresses disappointment, but no surprise"

July 6 2008 ~ "a few of the basic facts about this disaster which the BBC has not been telling us..."

July 6 2008 ~ "We confidently expect this to duck the elephant in the room, and concentrate on more severe cattle measures...."

July 5 2008 ~ "wildlife is a major source of new herd infection ....may be a more important source than cattle"

July 5 2008 ~ "We want to see healthy cattle alongside healthy badgers"

June 26 2008 ~ "Results from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial show that badgers are the main wildlife reservoir and contribute to bovine TB (bTB) in cattle." Jonathan Shaw

June 20 2008 ~ "... cattle-to-cattle transmission accounts for just 1-2% of herd breakdowns. The remaining 98-99% of bovine TB is brought in from other sources."

June 16 2008 ~ Even a closed herd does not protect cows from DEFRA's rules

June 16 2008 ~ Just 70 colony forming bTB bacteria are needed to infect a cow. A badger with kidney lesions can excrete up to 300,000 cfu of bacteria in just 1ml of urine

June 13 2008 ~ Why is DEFRA not heeding expert advice on the desperately important subject of bovine TB but instead giving partial and muddled information to its Minister?

June 13 2008 ~... "The great irony is that those with rampant infection (similarly in humans) do not produce any antibodies or white cell response and their skin tests will remain negative"

May 18 2008 ~ "Defra itself admits on its website that the blood test is cruder and less "specific" than the skin test..."

May 18 2008 ~ What an appalling waste.

May 17 2008 ~ "The fact that Defra insisted in doing this without a re-test is just awful. All those poor healthy cows have been put down without reason."

May 1 2008 ~TB blood test clear - but all the cows to be destroyed...

March 31/April 1 2008 ~ bTB - part of the answer at least lies in the soil

March 6 2008 ~ Bovine TB - polarised positions

February 22 2008 ~ Bovine TB gamma interferon test "One farm business has issued legal proceedings against DEFRA, a date has yet to be set for the claim to be heard."

February 12 2008 ~ Clarke Willmott case challenging Defra's refusal to allow re-tests on cattle that tested positive to the gamma interferon (gIFN) bovine TB test has been adjourned until April.


 
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/ 
 is a good source, if you haven't seen it yet.
 

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/98849.php
 

Bovine Tuberculosis In Cattle And Badgers, British Veterinary Association

 Article Date: 28 Feb 2008 - 2:00 PST

The British Veterinary Association (BVA) has welcomed calls by a Parliamentary Select Committee for Defra to adopt a multi-faceted approach to tackling the growing problem of cattle TB, including control of badgers in endemic areas.

Commenting on the publication of the House of Commons Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee (EFRACom) report 'Badgers and cattle TB: the final report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB' BVA President Nick Blayney said: "The multi-faceted approach unanimously recommended by the Committee reflects our long-held view that both badgers and cattle are significant animals in the spread of TB and that both aspects must be tackled if TB is to be controlled and eradicated.

"For too long debate on TB control and eradication has been polarised. This has held up progress. EFRACom has addressed the very complex issues involved in a thorough and dispassionate manner.

"The current approach, whereby farmers apply restrictions on the movement of high-risk cattle, pre- and post-movement testing and the application of farm health planning to improve on-farm biosecurity is clearly not working, and it ignores the role of an infected badger population as was confirmed by the Bourne Report.

"Vaccination of both species involved is under investigation and we support the call for adequate Defra funding. However, the current situation must be addressed and it is time for Government to accept that the loss of so many cattle is a cost financially and emotionally that neither the country nor especially the farming industry can continue to bear. "

 
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080304/text/80304w0008.htm#08030488000050
 
 

Bovine Tuberculosis: Disease Control

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of cattle slaughtered in (a) Devon and (b) England which had (i) tuberculosis and (ii) lesions in lymph glands and lungs in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [190577]

Jonathan Shaw [holding answer 29 February 2008]: The following table shows the number of cattle slaughtered under bovine tuberculosis (TB) control measures in (a) Devon and (b) England in each of the last five years, with the number of cattle with demonstrable post-mortem evidence of infection (for instance, visible lesions of TB and/or isolation of the bovine TB bacterium on culture).

Devon England
Number of cattle slaughtered( 1) Number of “confirmed” cases Number of cattle slaughtered( 1) Number of “confirmed” cases

2003

3,767

1,118

17,551

5,293

2004

4,758

1,699

17,323

5,385

2005(2)

6,660

2,012

23,135

7,622

2006(2)

4,468

1,684

16,006

6,242

2007(2)

5,383

1,906

19,777

7,211

(1) Includes cattle slaughtered as skin and gamma-interferon test reactors, skin test inconclusive reactors and direct contacts.
(2) 2005-07 figures are provisional, subject to change as more data become available.

4 Mar 2008 : Column 2274W

Data on the number of cattle displaying TB lesions in particular organs or parts of the carcase is not centrally collated in an electronic format.

Following a TB breakdown, we aim to carry out post-mortem inspections of all the slaughtered cattle and to take tissue samples from the reactor (or if several animals must be removed, from a representative subset of those), to attempt isolation and molecular typing of the causative organism in the laboratory. This is done to support epidemiological investigations and management of the incident, rather than to validate the ante-mortem test results.

Failure to detect lesions of TB by post-mortem examination, or to culture M. bovis in the laboratory, does not imply that a test reactor was not infected with bovine TB. In the early stages of this disease, it is not always possible to observe lesions during abattoir post-mortem examination and, due to the fastidious nature of this organism, it is very difficult to isolate it from tissue samples without visible lesions.

Meaningful “confirmation” proportions for TB test reactors cannot be provided, as substantial numbers of skin and gIFN positive animals are not subject to laboratory culture, for example, once infection has already been identified in other cattle from the same herd.

4 Mar 2008 : Column 2273W

Bovine Tuberculosis: Compensation

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent by his Department on compensation to farmers whose cattle were slaughtered as inconclusive reactors to tuberculosis in each of the last three years. [190578]

Jonathan Shaw [holding answer 29 February 2008]: The following table shows the total amount of compensation paid to farmers in England, in each of the last three years, for cattle compulsorily slaughtered for bovine tuberculosis control reasons.

Compensation paid to farmers for all cattle slaughtered under bovine tuberculosis control measures( 1)
£ million

2005

27.2

2006

16.1

2007

15

(1) The compensation payments are for England only.

The Government require the compulsory slaughter of inconclusive reactor cattle that fail to resolve after three tests. Repeat inconclusive reactors must be deemed to be reactors under EU legislation.

The way that these cattle are recorded and slaughtered means that we are unable to provide a breakdown showing the amount of compensation paid for this sub-group of cattle.

 


 

 
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/environment__food_and_rural_affairs/efra_pn22_080227.cfm
 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

Session 2007-08

27 February 2008


DEFRA MUST ADOPT A MULTI-FACETED APPROACH TO TACKLING CATTLE TB

Badger and cattle TB: the final report of the Independent Scientific Group"—Report published

The Government's current method of controlling cattle TB, that of surveillance, testing and slaughter, is not working effectively. That is the conclusion of the EFRA select committee in its report Badgers and cattle TB: the final report of the Independent Scientific Group on cattle TB published on Wednesday 27 February.

Cattle TB is an infectious disease that is one of the most serious animal health problems in Great Britain today. The number of infected cattle has been doubling every four and a half years. The consequential growing cost of the disease to the taxpayer and to the farming industry is unsustainable. In "hot spot" areas where the prevalence of the disease is highest, the farming industry has reached a breaking point as the disruption to business in both human and economic terms has become unacceptable. The final straw for many farmers has proved to be the introduction of a new system of valuations for their slaughtered cattle which has proved inequitable in many cases.

The Committee's conclusion is that there is no simple solution that will control cattle TB. The Government must adopt a multi-faceted approach to tackling the disease, using all methods available. The Government's strategy for cattle TB should include:

• more frequent cattle testing, with more frequent and targeted combined use of the tuberculin skin test and the gamma interferon test;
• the evaluation of post-movement cattle testing;
• greater communication with farmers on the benefits of biosecurity measures;
• the deployment of badger and cattle vaccines when they become available in the future; and
• continued work on the epidemiology of the disease.

The Committee recognises that under certain well-defined circumstances it is possible that culling could make a contribution towards the reduction in incidence of cattle TB in hot spot areas. However, as there is a significant risk that any patchy, disorganised or short-term culling could make matters worse, the Committee could only recommend the licensed culling of badgers under section 10 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 if the applicants can demonstrate that culling would be carried out in accordance with the conditions agreed between the ISG and Sir David King, which indicated that there might be an overall beneficial effect. These were that culling should:

• be done competently and efficiently;
• be coordinated;
• cover as large an area as possible (265km² or more is the minimum needed to be 95% confident of an overall beneficial effect);
• be sustained for at least four years; and
• be in areas which have "hard" or "soft" boundaries where possible. 

We recommend that no application for a licence should be approved by Natural England, which already has statutory responsibility for the granting of culling licences, without scrutiny to ensure that it complies with the conditions set by the ISG and Sir David King. It is important that were such a cull approved, other control measures should also be applied. Any cull must also be properly monitored by Defra. It is unlikely that such culling would be sanctionable in more than a limited number of areas. We recognise that culling alone will never provide a universal solution to the problem.

The National Farmers Union (NFU) has put forward a proposal for an organised licensed cull by farmers, or their contractors. They believe it would fulfil the conditions agreed by the ISG and Sir David King. If the NFU is able to meet the licensing requirements laid down by Defra, can satisfy Natural England both that it would conduct any cull in accordance with its animal welfare requirements and would satisfy the conditions agreed by the ISG and Sir David King, we accept that a licence for such a cull could be granted.

If Defra is to save expenditure in the long run it must continue to fund work to fill the gaps in the knowledge about cattle TB and the way it spreads. Central to this work must be an answer to the question of what is the precise mechanism of the infection between badger and cattle. Defra's approach to future research into aspects of cattle TB must not be determined simply by its wish to reduce its overall level of spending on combating the disease.

The measures the Committee has recommended will require an increase in financial support from Defra. However, this is necessary if the Government wants to avoid ever-increasing expenditure forecast in future years, which could total as much as £1billion between now and 2013. Ministerial assertions, driven by Defra's budgetary control problems, that the budget for cattle TB will be reduced are unrealistic. Defra has a continuing responsibility to seek to end the incidence of this disease just as it does with BSE. Defra is now justified in making a case to HM Treasury for a "spend to save" policy. But in so doing it will once and for all have to commit itself to a strategy with clear goals against which progress can be measured.

Commenting on the report, the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee the Rt Hon Michael Jack MP, said:

"This is a complex issue and there is no simple solution.  But I am pleased that the Report represents the unanimous view of the Committee."

NOTES TO EDITORS:

1. Further details about this inquiry can be found at:
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/environment__food_and_rural_affairs/efra_bovine_tb_follow_up.cfm

 

2. The Committee's inquiry initially focused on the conclusions of the final report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG), which was set up by the Government in 1998 to conduct the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) in order to establish the effects of badger culling on the incidence in herds of cattle TB. A subsequent review of the ISG's Final Report, produced by the then Government Chief Scientific Adviser Sir David King at the Government's request, produced a different interpretation of the same basic data. Both reports said that badger culling would have an overall beneficial effect.  However, whilst the ISG concluded that culling would make a "modest difference" in the incidence of cattle TB, the King report concluded that at 300km², culling "would have a significant effect on reducing TB in cattle".

Media Enquiries: Laura Kibby: Tel: 020 7219 0718, Mob: 079174 88557, Email: kibbyl@parliament.uk


February 12 2008 ~ Clarke Willmott case challenging Defra’s refusal to allow re-tests on cattle that tested positive to the gamma interferon (gIFN) bovine TB test has been adjourned until April.

     "....the law farm acting on behalf of the partnership, Clarke Willmott, were granted permission for the case to be adjourned on Monday night. They had asked for more time, so they could respond to the scientific evidence submitted by Defra in support of the gIFN test. ...... agricultural specialistist Tim Russ said this suggested ‘something is seriously wrong with one or both of these tests’. .... "

 

January 25 ~ bTB "... If the High Court backs the case for a re-test .. it could force Defra to offer re-tests to other farmers and lead to a review of how the test is used."

     today "The credibility of Defra’s TB testing system will come under scrutiny in the High Court next month in a case that could have far-reaching implications for use of the gamma interferon (gIFN) blood test. A Somerset organic farming partnership, battling to save cattle that tested positive to the gIFN bovine TB test, this week won the right to a full High Court hearing of their case. A Judicial Review of Defra’s refusal to allow the animals to be re-tested will be heard on February 12..... Defra will mount a vigorous defence of its uses of the gIFN test that it insists is reliable and is a vital tool in the battle against bTB." See also below

January 20 2008 ~ Bovine TB - like FMD and Bluetongue, the problem is money, politics and trade

    It seems that DEFRA are testing whole herds in certain areas when there is one positive cow by post mortem, or skin test even, in a desperate bid to stop the spread of bTB.
    The gIFN test gives about 80 gamma interferon positive animals to one PM case or skin test positive. Farmers, some of whom are challenging the results in court or refusing to kill the animals said to be positive in large numbers with the gamma interferon test, are getting quite desperate.
    DEFRA gives the farmer only £400 but then sells the animals into the food chain. Some feel this is a policy of overkill that mirrors that used to control FMD and one that might well be giving underfunded DEFRA a much-needed boost in funds. See Lord Rooker's reply
    to the EFRA Committee in December
      "...a set of new policy options start to cost money. We have reached a limit. We are not going back to the Treasury".
    A change of emphasis would allow the boon of modern virology and technology to come to the aid of farmers.

January 20 2008 ~ BTb vaccination - ' a trade catastrophe and illegal under EU law'

     
      "... Lord Rooker was asked at the EFRAcom meeting why he was funding the development of vaccines for bTb if there was no possibility of using them. His reply was the same as our veterinary pathologists' .... ' a trade catastrophe and illegal under EU law', but he added, that doesn't preclude 'us' working on them. 'Us' being multi national pharmaceutical companies operating from the UK and Defra's science departments.."
    One sees that money, politics and ignorance of the science once again result in a policy that can only consist of killing. Vaccination against bovine TB would probably - like FMD - result in a trade ban if the UK were to use it unilaterally (other Member States do not have our huge problem) However, badger vaccination could go ahead as the animal is not a food producing species. But, as in the case of Bluetongue, appropriate vaccine will not be produced unless a firm commitment for orders precedes the work involved. So funding for research work on BtB vaccines continues, as politically it must, but with very little likelihood of the vaccines ever being used.

January 19 2008 ~ Gamma interferon (gIFN) test alongside the skin test is throwing up spurious results. DEFRA is challenged.

     is reporting on the bid by Clarke Wilmott, acting on behalf of the Higher Burrow Organic Farming Partnership, Somerset, which supplies organic milk to Waitrose, to challenge DEFRA on these bovine TB results and get 100 threatened cows retested.
      "Lawyers were due to issue proceedings this Thursday ...Clarke Wilmott is seeking an injunction to prevent Defra culling around 100 animals that tested positive to the gIFN blood test, at least until they have been re-tested."
    The farm is resisting the cull. According to the experienced agricultural lawyer, Tim Russ, this could cost it £100,000 but because it strongly questions the validity of the gIFN results it is going ahead. Since the gIFN has been used, hundreds more cows have been slaughtered than would have been under the skin test alone. Several other farmers are now questioning the accuracy of the gamma test used and fighting for a retest - including one anguished farmer whose cows are pedigree Guernseys, "virtually irreplaceable" and which "would all be calving over the next two or three months" DEFRA, who has now dropped farming from its title, is as deaf as ever to all such requests. But the accuracy of the test itself really must be questioned. We welcome comments.

      Tuberculin testing, the bovine TB skin test...the vet uses the same syringe (very expensive) and needle going from herd to herd. The needle is dunked in alcohol or surgical spirit. The orbivirus (bluetongue is an orbivirus) is very robust with a double protein shell and it should be checked out as to whether the surgical spirit or type and concentration of alcohol used would inactivate the virus.

      High Court gamma interferon case postponed

      News | 12 February, 2008

      A HIGH Court case challenging Defra’s refusal to allow re-tests on cattle that tested positive to the gamma interferon (gIFN) bovine TB test has been adjourned until April.

      Lawyers were due in court this morning to seek an injunction to prevent Defra slaughtering 100 animals belonging to the Higher Burrow Organic Farming Partnership, in Somerset.

      But the law farm acting on behalf of the partnership, Clarke Willmott, were granted permission for the case to be adjourned on Monday night. They had asked for more time, so they could respond to the scientific evidence submitted by Defra in support of the gIFN test.

      The partnership is hoping, ultimately, to force Defra through the courts to agree to re-test its animals, after the two TB tests used together gave vastly different results. While the skin test showed just two or three cases of TB, the gIFN test showed 100.

      Clarke Willmott agricultural specialistist Tim Russ said this suggested ‘something is seriously wrong with one or both of these tests’.

      Defra wanted to slaughter the animals on Tuesday January 22, but agreed not to cull the animals until the NFU-backed case was heard.

      Clarke Willmott is also acting behalf of three other farmers, one in Devon, one in Dorset and one in Wiltshire, who are in a similar position.

       

      November 3 2006 ~ England and Wales are the only countries in the EU to have seen an increase in human TB cases over the past 10 years

        Bovine TB can affect all warm-blooded vertebrates. Although in the past, pasteurization of milk and improved inspection and hygiene virtually eliminated human illness cases linked with bovine TB, a series of 35 human cases in New York City in 2005 prompted warnings in America against eating soft cheeses made from raw milk. Now, according to today's Independent, there are "10 new cases of TB a day in London and more than 600 of the total diagnosed last year were drug resistant. Drug resistant strains can take over a year to treat and cost tens of thousands of pounds. England and Wales are the only countries in the EU to have seen an increase in TB cases over the past 10 years. Germany, France and Spain have seen decreases of up to 35 per cent. In New York, the number of cases has more than halved in the past decade."

      October 14 2006 ~ "The whole basis of Krebs was to remove badgers off the ground. For the first 4 years, that effort was farcical due to restrictions placed upon us. The trial had too many flaws in it to be trusted to produce meaningful evidence.."

        ProMed today quotes in full a letter about the published paper by Dr Rosie Woodroffe. The distressing first hand experience outlined in the letter from a West Country farmer whose closed farm of pedigree Holsteins - with MAFF-approved biosecurity - nevertheless fell victim to TB, refutes the findings in Dr Woodroffe's American paper. A botched RBCT Reactive badger clearance' a hit-and-run visit on the neighbouring farm led to the deaths of 48 cattle - " in our bitter experience, the last thing the RBCT did was cull badgers - but disperse them, it most certainly did. And then abandon any attempt to 'react' for 3 years."
        The farmer goes on to quote senior member of the RBCT wildlife team, Paul Caruana, in a submission to the EFRA committee:
          "The whole basis of Krebs was to remove badgers off the ground. For the first 4 years, that effort was farcical due to restrictions placed upon us. The trial had too many flaws in it to be trusted to produce meaningful evidence. How much weight do we give the latest ISG report, detailing their 'robust' findings to the Minister? If it were down to me and my staff, very little."
        The posting is also interesting for its description of the little studied effects of FMD on biodiversity: Read in full

      Oct 5 2006 ~ Dismay at new bovine TB 'hotspots'

        icNorthWales "...Farmers in parts of North Wales have reacted with dismay after learning their holdings are now in bTB hotspots. Letters, in Welsh only, were sent out this week announcing changes to the Parish Testing Interval (PTI) regime. It means that sections of Denbighshire and a small area around Deeside are now classified as bTB hotspots. Affected farmers were told their cattle would now be tested once every 12 months or two years, depending on the perceived threat. Previously they had been subjected to four-year testing cycles...."

      Oct 4 2006 ~ American bTB research "the same computers - or more up to date models - that were responsible for 11 million deaths in FMD"

        email received
          ".....The news today of 'American' research which supports cattle / cattle transmission of Tb, and even cattle/ badger (from Badger Trust) is spearheaded by our own Rosie Woodruffe, a former member of the ISG / Bourne / Krebs magic circle, but now domiciled in California.
          From what we can see the 'evidence' is the RBCT / VLA in all its glory. First year only of course, and masticated through Imperial College's computer modelling. Yup, the same computers - or more up to date models - that were responsible for 11 million deaths in FMD, and then had the audacity to halve the number, by ignoring lambs, piglets and calves. (compensation being paid for 'a single unit' which as you know, was a mother and her unweaned offspring)..."
        See also recent links

      See DEFRA site

      September 28 2006 ~ "Another glossy booklet and a new committee is not a solution to the problem of bTb, which after twenty years of prevarication is now "endemic" in the UK's badgers and producing an "epidemic" in the sentinel cattle..."

        The Blog, bovinetb.blogspot.com/ challenges current weasel words and woolly arguments. It is updated most days and its archive is important.

        ( Farmers' Weekly reports that tests on 459 found-dead badgers in Wales show 55, or about 12%, TB positive. FWi quotes Evan Thomas, the FUW's TB spokesman, "Imagine if one in nine of our children was infected with TB, it would be the worst epidemic in centuries.")

      September 27 2006 ~ Claims made by the RSPCA found to be unjustified by the Advertising Standards Agency

        Listen again to Farming Today (Wednesday 27 Sept) Earlier in the year the RSPCA paid for newspaper coverage to assert that badgers had nothing to do with the spread of TB and that it was a cattle to cattle disease. An email received today "... Nick Renwick (not sure if spelling is correct!) of the Welsh Farming Union and Hilary Seals a South Devon breeder from Derbyshire were the only people to challenge these articles with the Advertising Standards Agency - after a protracted investigation and the RSPCA employing a team of expensive lawyers - the ASA upheld the complaint saying that they had invesigated the claims made by the RSPCA and found them to be unjustified..... Whatever does the Charity Commission do? " Read in full

      Can the government now ignore the use of a technology that allows any necessary euthanasia to be both humane and targeted?

        The University of Warwick's department of Biological Sciences press release about its research using PCR diagnosis on badger setts and latrines. "....without technology such as this its is very difficult to differentiate "clean" setts containing uninfected badgers from "problem setts" containing infected badgers.":
          "We do not advocate culling badgers to control bovine TB, particularly in light of the scientific results emerging from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial. However if the government takes the decision to continue to cull badgers, then we would prefer that culling is targeted at diseased and infectious animals- indeed cattle, badgers or other wildlife hosts-, rather than see a policy of untargeted culling..."
          "..... In the Gloucestershire population, they found 100% of the examined badger setts and latrines to be contaminated with M.bovis, whereas none of the samples in the Oxfordshire population were positive...... Results suggest that once the organism is excreted into the environment by cattle, badgers, or other wildlife, it could act as a source for further transmission..." More
        As one of the lead researchers on the project, Dr Orin Courtenay, says, " if the government takes the decision to continue to cull badgers, then we would prefer that culling is targeted at diseased and infectious animals"

      March 2006 ~ An Easy, Inexpensive Test Detects Tuberculosis in Livestock and Wildlife


      Open Letter 24 February 2005 from more than 350 vets and scientists (new window)


      LATEST news

      Recommended articles

      Worcestershire farmers fight for their cows.

      Use of an Electronic Nose To Diagnose Mycobacterium bovis Infection in Badgers and Cattle - extracts Journal of Clinical Microbiology, April 2005


      Rapid PCR diagnostic portable kits. The UK catches up....

      From the Telegraph15/09/2004"...... There will also be in-the-field testing for animal diseases, including foot and mouth or tuberculosis in cattle within 30 minutes, rather than having to send samples to a lab.
      Tim Rubidge, Dstl head of technology transfer and investments group, said the idea of a tabletop DNA test laboratory was no longer a "a twinkle in the eye of a research scientist looking far out into the future".
      "We have a portfolio of more than 20 strong patents, field-tested instruments and continuing research projects supporting the MoD and Department of Health," he said. "It is fair to say that we have taken PCR out of the research lab and into the field where it is most needed." ...." Read in full


      The obvious potential of a portable, rapid diagnostic PCR cycler machine is to give a rapid identification of TB and the spoligotype of TB present in badgers. If one animal from a sett is found to have TB of a type causing infection in nearby cattle, then that sett could be eradicated with carbon monoxide - a humane method of killing the infected animals. Of course "Brock" is a much loved icon of the Engloish countryside - but an unfortunate badger with TB should not in its miserable condition, be kept alive so that it can die slowly and infect everything else around.


      Only in an environment free of bovine TB would it make sense to cull anything that has had contact with tuberculosis. Unfortunately, the UK with over 30% of badgers are now infected, and capable voiding up to 300,000 units of bacteria in every 1 ml of urine, most of the cows in the West will have antibodies to bovine TB. This does not mean that there will be fewer dead cows, protected by antibodies. DEFRA's policy of killing anything that reacts to the TB test means there is massive slaughter of reactors - many of whom who do not have the disease itself.


      Recommended Blog http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/


      Britain 'is facing £2bn bill for TB in cattle'
      By Charles Clover
      (Filed: 26/11/2005)

        "Tuberculosis in cattle will cost £2 billion over the next decade unless the Government takes the kind of determined action seen in the United States...... Mr Paterson said: "I was overwhelmingly impressed by the absolute determination of the authorities to eradicate TB before it took hold, especially in comparison to the pitiful efforts of their UK colleagues." ..."


      Bovine TB Control in Great Britain A Paper for Discussion

      by the National Beef Association can be seen in full here pdf file

      It makes 18 recommendations, including "the obvious potential of a portable PCR cycler machine" (See below)

      NBA recommendations for TB control:

      1. Bovine TB is increasingly expensive both to Government and industry but it is a case where front-loading of cost will undoubtedly save money in the long run so long as a full basket of control measures is implemented. This needs to be properly explained to Treasury.

      2. To bring a disease under control it is imperative that one knows where it is. The inspection for bovine TB lesions in OTM carcases, a major element in surveillance for bovine TB, may be too hurried to be effective. It is recommended that more care is taken and a sample of culls from herds with repeated TB reinfections are examined with closer veterinary attention, if necessary growing cultures from tissue samples of any carcase under suspicion.

      (Only 154 cattle with visible lesions at inspection out of 3.4 million carcases seems to be almost too good to be true.)

      3. Conduct a full analysis of the DEFRA database and link its information to industry databases to construct a clear national, regional and farm cluster (not merely parish) description of the incidence of TB nationwide. Faster analysis of TB 99 information would assist in compiling this essential instrument of control.

      In many cases TB restrictions on neighbouring farms are completely anomalous merely because they are in adjoining parishes.

      4. Test all herds in parishes within 30 kilometres of any TB incident on an annual basis until that parish has been clear of TB for at least 3 years.

      5. Treat any new TB out-breaks in TB clean areas urgently by testing cattle on all neighbouring farms twice, firstly within two months and then a second time after a 60 day interval. Test sufficient of the local badger population to establish whether the TB flare-up is badger derived or cattle to cattle infection or from some other cause. Such testing could use the PCR method described in 4 (c).

      6. In any case immediately introduce field trials on the portable PCR machine described in section 4 (c) of this paper for both badgers and cattle.

      7. The NBA would support a blitz on cattle TB using both the skin test and the GI blood test (subject to the comments in section 4 (b)) in repeat TB incidents in low risk areas.

      8. The rescheduling of testing areas i.e. six months, one, two and three years using specifically targeted areas or farm clusters rather than parishes, is necessary (see recommendation 3 above).

      9. Continue enforcement of test intervals.

      10. Where practicable, farmers should maintain records of where individual animals (within groups) have grazed over the summer months  particularly if they have been in fields close to badger setts or fields in which badgers are regularly present. This could provide data valuable to the understanding of local patterns of infection.

      11. Reduce TB spread into low risk areas by post-movement isolation and double testing of all cattle carried from high risk to low risk regions. Where SVS veterinary inspection justifies it, cattle housed in isolation from breeding animals and going for slaughter before turn-out, could be put lower on the priority list and might often be slaughtered before a second test.

      12. Any translocation of badgers from one area to another (except by DEFRA officials) should be made illegal. All badger sanctuaries should be licensed, regularly inspected, and should have to keep full records of all badgers in their care.

      13. Expand the RTA survey of dead badgers throughout all high risk areas and for at least 150 kilometres beyond these. Indicate to farmers where the badger population remains free of infectious TB so they can be reassured that their local badger population is keeping outside badgers at bay. Where TB-infectious badgers are found, employ an experienced local wildlife watcher (such as a gamekeeper) to carry out an urgent survey of the numbers of badgers per sett within the locality to see the extent to which these exceed 8 per sett and to note the number of main setts in a given area.

      14. Krebs reactive trial areas (now only being "observed") should be treated as proactive areas. This should be done to reverse the 27% average increase (compared to the control areas) in TB herd breakdowns caused by the (often much delayed) reactive culls. Now that the main trapping has been done in the proactive areas the DEFRA badger trapping teams can be spread wider.

      15. DEFRA must remove the current moratorium on its use of section 10 of the 1992 Protection of Badgers Act which provides for licences to be granted for the removal of badgers for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease, serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property. This will open the way for limited and targeted removal of badgers under full DEFRA control, with the option for them to check such badgers to ascertain the extent of TB infection.

      16. Once the effectiveness of the Krebs proactive treatment is proven, roll this outwards into adjoining TB-infected badger areas and catch any new spread of TB in badgers into lower risk areas. It should be remembered that when the 10 Krebs trial areas were chosen, they covered 75% of the TB restricted areas of the country. They now only represent about 12% of the TB restricted farms. I

      17. Subject to the result of the field trials in 4 (c) (PCR testing) ensure that, where TB infected badgers are found within the Krebs trial proactive areas, and in danger spots in clean areas, the infected setts and their social groups are treated with carbon monoxide, and the setts filled in, to eliminate spread of infection to healthy badgers moving inwards. This task should be done working inwards from the outer ring to reduce the risk of infected badgers moving outwards to a clean area. See end note v

      18. Publicise through all possible means:

      a) The reasons why some badgers need to be culled. Include photographs of emaciated badgers in the final stages of death from TB and of their internal organs post mortem

      b) The use of the PCR technique to differentiate between infectious badgers and the rest.

      c) The fact that the skin test on cattle is close to 100% effective when repeated at a 60-day interval.

      d) The fact that the normal incidence of TB in a herd shows that only a very few cattle have been infected (often only one and more often under 5 in 1,000 cattle), and that farming methods are therefore unlikely to be the prime cause of escalating bovine TB.

      e) That the so-called 'bio-security' of attempting to separate badgers from cattle is wholly impractical.

      f) The high cost of TB control and the rate at which TB costs are escalating.

      g) The fact that bovine tuberculosis can be transmitted to people (children in particular), and pets, from badgers urine, pus or sputum, and that both people and other animals are in at greater risk because of the seven-fold increase in these sources of infection.


      (page 10 of pdf file)

      PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction)

      There are two forms of using this powerful technique by which an enzyme and a cycle of heating and cooling is used to generate billions of copies of segments of DNA (to make detection and spoligotyping easier). After multiplication, the system identifies TB, or any other bacteria, or virus or DNA material by comparison with a known sample, utilising the properties of florescent light to do so.

      a. Laboratory-based conventional heating block thermocycler using agra gel electrophosesis; this has greatly facilitated research in the Badger Road Traffic Accident study.

      b. A portable mini-lab which can give an on-the-spot diagnosis of infection within 30 minutes; this technique has been developed for detection of biological warfare agents on the battlefield in the US, and in this country by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. In the UK it is being "spun-out" by an offshoot of the MOD, Enigma Diagnostics, with investment led by Porton Capital, and including the Treasury and a private venture company, Partnerships UK, and was announced in the veterinary press in September. I

      A variant of this system in the form of a machine called a Lightcycler, was recommended by Professor Fred Brown of the US Plum Island Animal Disease Research Center in 2001 to the UK Government to rapidly diagnose Foot and Mouth on site. One individual went as far as ordering one, at a cost of £20,000, but the Government intervened to prevent this without providing the industry or even the individual with an explanation.

      I Veterinary Times 27th Sept '04 "Battlefield technology deployed in fight against bovine TB" and BBC News 4th Oct '04
      The obvious potential of a portable PCR cycler machine is to give a rapid identification of TB and the spoligotype of TB present in badgers. If one animal from a sett is found to have TB of a type causing infection in nearby cattle, then that sett could be treated with carbon monoxide with less nervousness by Ministers who would be able to give a better explanation to the general public.

      There are 29 strains or spoligotypes of bovine TB, of which 17 are found very infrequently. In the UK the most common is type 9 with type 11 being more common in Devon, type 21 and 9 more common in Somerset and Dorset, and Cornwall being higher in types 9 and 15. The geographical distribution of spoligotypes of bovine TB in badgers has a high level of correlation with the distribution of spoligotypes in cattle. Spoligotype 35 has recently been identified in farmed deer near Ulverston, Cumbria, and linked to a spread to cattle there. The samples for multiplication in the PCR machine can be from any source and could merely be from a small amount of cattle blood or badger sputum or urine. Samples from several animals can be put in each of the glass testing tubes within the machine. A single case of infection in one animal would show up, allowing immediate rechecking of the animals in that batch.

      The suitability of the portable PCR cycler machine for testing cattle for TB obviously depends on finding cattle that are shedding TB bacilli - either in milk, saliva, dung or urine - or which have bacilli in their blood.

      The potential advantages of the PCR cycler over the gamma interferon test is that it should be able to differentiate between bovine TB and avian TB in blood and can be used on farm and give a result within 30 minutes. In the case of cattle this would save the wait of 3 days to read the skin test and the further wait of 6 to 12 weeks for confirmation of TB by culture test.

      However the PCR cycle seems potentially to be of even more use in identifying bovine TB in badgers - which no other test can currently do satisfactorily. The sensitivity of the current (brock) ELISA blood test for badgers is only 40.7 per cent, and needs to be done 3 times at 28 to 42 day intervals, which entails keeping wild badgers in captivity for at least 84 days for a result. I

      A further attraction of using this PCR technique is that it may be accurate enough to distinguish the TB status of individual badgers within a sett. If a half hour test can reveal this, then the targeted cull of badgers that we propose might be refined even further.

      Bovine TB - news section

      TB in badgers

      September 2006 ~ Claims made by the RSPCA found to be unjustified

      June 23 2006 ~ Why did we have to find out about the new trials from the BBC? asked Daniel Kawczynski , MP

      June 23 2006 ~ Million pound Badger vaccine trial in Gloucestershire "could lead to more than 100 000 badgers being vaccinated nationwide"

      June 16 2006 ~ "A DEFRA spokesman refused to be drawn

      June 11 2006 ~ Bovine TB policy and badgers " joint and cooperative approach" needed - Letter in the Vet Record

      June 9 2006 ~ Bovine TB "as the vets have now comprehensively exposed, the Krebs trials were only a pseudo-scientific charade, never designed to work."

      May 1 2006 ~ Badgers, TB and Modern Farming Practice.

      April 28 2006 ~ Re the bovine TB and badgers consultation, Defra says....

      April 24 2006 ~ DEFRA job cuts signals the Government's intent to have no direct involvement in the future control of badgers

      April 24 2006 ~ "A Welsh Assembly prediction that it wold take a year to collect 400 dead badgers for TB testing looks like being wrong

      - 323 of the animals had been reported by the end of March, says Glyn Davies, Welsh Conservative AM for Mid and West Wales....."
      "I hope the Assembly Government will now quickly establish the relationship between Bovine TB and badgers - and quickly develop a policy to tackle the disease. Bovine TB is causing devastation to the cattle herds of Wales and to the lives of many farming families. The disease is running out of control. The quick response by the public has removed one of the reasons for lack of Government action." News Wales co.uk

      April 23/24 2006 ~ Pedigree calf, Fern, did NOT "show typical signs of bovine TB at the post mortem" There were no open lesions at all - but the press were told there were.

      April 13 2006 ~ TB TESTING CONCESSION ANNOUNCED BY MINISTER

      April 13 2006 ~ "the Government today (Wednesday) announced that it would meet the cost of one pre-movement test per farm

      April 11 2006 ~ BBC reports that post mortem test showed bovine TB in Fern

      April 11 2006 ~ Bovine TB testing move turned down by Assembly

      April 2 - 9 2006 ~ "The University of Warwick is developing a portable machine to test whether a badger sett is infected...."

      April 2 - 9 2006 ~ "Government vets prepare to slaughter Fern, the pedigree Dexter calf at the centre of the Kremers bovine tuberculosis case in South Devon"

      April 2 - 9 2006 ~ "both theories were dismissed as "tinkering at the edges of the problem" by Dartmoor vet John Gallagher