---

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

Although DEFRA has always maintained that the current risk posed by bovine TB to human health in the UK is "considered negligible," a woman in Cornwall has had the disease confirmed. (See Western Morning News) "..... In the past 14 years, 44 people have been confirmed as having the disease in the South West, which represents a tenth of the national figure for the same period." See also below.

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

As we have seen, it is much easier and more politically expedient to kill cattle who react to controversial TB testing than to concentrate on eradicating bTB in wildlife reservoirs - but farmers, frustrated with Defra and deciding to complain to the European Commission may, according to today's Farmers Guardian, discover that such an appeal could backfire.
" and it is not impossible that restrictions could extend to all live animals, raw milk and raw milk products. .."
The Commission’s ‘Working Document on the Eradication of TB in the EU’ suggests whole herd culling in places - and includes such bland-sounding but devastating sentences as "Provided depopulation of a herd is carried out in accordance with a well-defined and appropriate strategy, then there is a reasonable likelihood that the reconstituted herd or epidemiological unit will remain free from the disease...."
The FG says,
"Defra could apply 95 per cent of the Working Document’s ten point plan (which add restriction and cost to farmers) and concentrate on wildlife alternatives (not removal), thus creating a far worse situation for the British livestock industry."
A sobering read

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

The Director General of the OIE said on Friday. "....the OIE strongly encourages its 172 Members to put efficient monitoring systems in place and notify outbreaks of diseases in wild, feral or partially domesticated animals, as is the practice for all other animals. .
....There is clearly a duty to manage wildlife diseases. ....This relies mainly on the Veterinary Services. A technically competent, adequately resourced Veterinary Service is needed..." Read in full

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

Lord Rooker said recently at an EFRA committee meeting that vaccination for bTB was a "trade catastrophe" and "illegal under EU law" - but that, although it could not be used, such research could still be funded. The winners here are not farmers, cattle or wildlife.
Vaccination was politically demonised two decades ago because of the EU's dishonourable insistence on finding a tool to maintain its trading differential. The inevitable acceptance of Bluetongue vaccines has hardly dented this mindset: profits have been much more highly prized than animal health.
In England last year, 19,800 cattle were slaughtered as a result of the government's policy. Compensation in the UK for this was £24.5 million (Hansard). But in today's economically unstable situation, we cannot afford such miserable waste of life and public money. Worst of all, livestock farmers now wearily reject any form of "partnership" plans with government so the future looks bleak indeed.
Yet no one wants to make money out of importing or exporting badgers . Why should badger vaccines not be developed and used? As we saw with Bluetongue, vaccine producers can work miracles when the money and commitment is really there.

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

Concern for the fate of badgers might be considered alongside concern for the demise of the British hedgehog, considered by many to be a result of the explosion in the number of badgers across the country. One emailer writes today:
" I never see sight nor sign of hedgehogs in my garden, except flayed skins. This is because they are a favourite food of badgers...."
He suggests that concern for Mr Brock might be extended to the demise of Mrs Tiggywinkle, also a favourite British mammal. Perhaps it is time for a realisation that to allow one species to have no predators at all comes at a very high price for others. We need to care - and indeed accept - that many animals die horribly as a result of the spread of disease and of well meaning but disastrous human interference

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."

It is encouraging to read of the prospective Conservative candidate for Loughborough, Nicky Morgan, who has spent a day with a local farmer getting the lowdown on the real difficulties and pressures farmers face. She .used the opportunity "... to discuss a number of issues affecting the farming community such as Bovine TB, meat prices, the lack of support for farmers from the Government, security and crime and food production..." See Loughborough News

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

Speaking at the Game Fair at Blenheim Palace this weekend (see Fwi) James Paice urged farmers with TB-infected badgers on their land to take photos of them.... "They suffer immensely. If we can bring this to the public’s attention, we can change their minds about a badger cull." Mr Paice may well be right. Badgers are certainly endearing creatures, but when they have been excluded from the sett, wandered in misery, and succumbed to TB, they can look like this. (Photos taken by vet.)

July 26 2008 ~ No EU ban

Although the EC had tabled a proposal to SCOFCAH which would have made the export of calves from Britain virtually impossible, the committee rejected the idea of such stringent changes.
In an article dated July 23, the FWi quotes an official: "Even with this additional testing, it would not have prevented the export of these calves to Holland. The EU Commission is still keeping our TB control programme under scrutiny. A number of Food and Veterinary Office reports have identified perceived shortcomings - for example in the frequency of testing and the use of parishes as control areas. They may come back on this in future."
Lord Rooker's comment (Fwi) was "We were close to a difficult decision in Europe, but we got away with it this time."

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

We are still not sure what will be the eventual ruling on exports from the UK as a result of Wednesday's ScofCAH meeting. The Scotsman's Dan Buglass in an article today "Scots calf trade on horns of UK TB dilemma" quotes Siem-Jan Schenck, chairman of the department of cattle with the Dutch Agricultural Board, who says that no more calves should be imported into the Netherlands.
" To prevent further spread, Brussels should impose an export ban."
Some sources apparently have indicated the country would still be willing to import UK calves, as long as herds are subjected to an annual test for TB - but as we hear from one experienced farmer
".....if an area is designated 'low incidence' of TB, then the testing is four yearly! NO area would qualify - not even Scotland - unless it jigs up its testing to annual. Areas of high incidence are on annual testing but as 'risk' (i.e confirmed cases in cattle) decreases, so the testing interval lengthens. Some areas are on two year testing, some on three or four and then adult cattle only, no calves.It is a real muddle.
So Mr Buglass' assertion that "Testing for TB in most of England is carried out yearly at government expense" may be in error (clarification would be much appreciated). But certainly, testing all farms yearly who want to export is expensive and, as he says, "it might be cheaper to cull at birth than accept £50 per calf" At a time when waste is even more of an issue than ever, this seems a miserable solution.

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

In the bTB debate on July 22, Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury & Atcham, Conservative) spoke with great energy. While, like so many of us, he knows that culling badgers is not a panacea, he would have liked the opportunity to discover what impact a small and limited cull would have on the disease and would have used it in his own rampantly infected constituency. "As it is," he said, " I have to joke with farmers in my constituency about chasing the badgers across the border into Wales. The Government have given the Welsh Assembly autonomy and responsibility, but they will not give it to us in the west midlands." In answer to a PQ on the same day, Jonathan Shaw said that " if badger culls do take place in Wales, their effects will be considered as part of our overall TB strategy..."
Mr Kawczynski: (Hansard)
"We should be more like the French... We should make the Government sit up and listen to what we have to say...They must take more specific and proper action. ...."
He has written to Mr. Barroso, ("even though it was galling to me as an arch-Eurosceptic") in order to check the EU's stance on the Government's handling of bovine TB, adding,".... I wanted to ask Mr. Barroso and legal experts what are the human rights implications of not dealing with the disease in the UK?..." Read in full

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

The EFRA Select Committee has published today a 26 page report which is a reply to the government's own response to the EFRA report on TB back in February. We have extracted here the major points that appear in bold text. Few punches are pulled:
"...The response indicates that there is little in the Government's strategy, beyond the current policy of surveillance, testing and slaughter, to tackle the disease in the short-term. This is not good enough - it fails to recognise fully the seriousness of the situation. ."
What the EFRA All Party Committee certainly takes for granted is that DEFRA needs "to regain the confidence of the cattle industry" and that "important discussions and decisions on cattle-based measures will be delayed should the industry not be prepared to participate in the work of the Bovine TB Partnership Group."
The pdf file in full can be found here.

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

The EFRA Committee is disappointed with the Government’s response to its report: "Badgers and cattle TB: the final report of the Independent Scientific Group on cattle TB", which was published on 27 February . The Committee says the Government response to its report is tentative in many areas and appears to play down the serious nature of cattle TB, asserting that the problem is a regional one. However, the statistics for incidence of cattle TB in 2007 show that the number of herd breakdowns is still increasing. The Chairman, Rt. Hon. Michael Jack MP, said: “The Committee unanimously felt that the response by the Secretary of State was less than satisfactory and that certain key deficiencies in it should be highlighted. We look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State again on this subject in the autumn”. For further details regarding this publication please see the press notice date 23 July 2008.

July 23 2008 ~ An end to UK calf exports?

Today's SCoFCAH meeting begins at 3.00 pm. Although the EU Commission views the July 12 incident below as a "one-off" and says it wants to find a more "proportionate" response than a ban on UK calf exports, it is feared that the draft regulation for today's meeting virtually amounts to a ban. The draft says calf exports may continue only from regions that are "TB-free" and from farms which test annually. Since most of the UK is unable to give such an assurance (there are now few areas where the average TB incidence is less than 1%) the cost to export becomes impractical . See Fwi article by Philip Clarke

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

This will be the first item on the agenda of today's SCoFCAH meeting It seems some protective measures will be discussed. More on bovine TB at warmwell's bTB page.

July 23 2008 ~ What a mess....

One farming emailer writes this morning on the subject of bTB
"What a mess. I know Defra are very much against PCR, mainly because it would place the responsibility for disposing of the inmates of positively infected setts, on 'someones' shoulders. But interesting that they plan to use it in lab for cattle lesions, even when sensitive to many other bacteria within the complex than m.bovis.... says it all really. And very like gammaIFN.
The Dutch calves thing rumbles on. There is a second case pending - unrelated to the Worcs batch. The Worcs. farm has one of the top holstein herds in the country. ET work, big sales, big show winners.
Its location is only 5 miles or so from the Broadway area, where in the ten years up until 1997, the badgers caught in removal ops. postmortemed at over 80 percent lesioned. The highest of any area. That is unlikely to have reduced in ten years of no culls at all, plus those awful floods a year ago would have scattered them around even more..."
And if the farm goes under restriction again, "that will about be it. I am not prepared to go through all that hassle again. You can't run a business at all, Can't trade - too much stock - stress. I don't need it. We'll grow crops and rent out the steeper land. Or sell up and buy a cottage .... Sorry, feeling angry and fragile today. Always do when we come to play Russian roulette with these tests. "
A mess indeed. And no sign at all of any effective help or improvement from a government whose parliamentary answers are those below..

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

In the course of his answers to Jim Paice, Jonathan Shaw said yesterday (Hansard)
"....while the PCR test specific for M. bovis was found to be only 50 per cent. as sensitive as the gold standard of culture, the sensitivity of the M. tuberculosis complex PCR test (i.e. a less specific PCR able to detect mycobacteria that are members of the M. tb complex) was increased from 70 per cent., to 90 per cent., by the end of the project. While such low sensitivities for M. bovis detection rules out the use of this PCR test for use on environmental samples and excretions collected from badgers, with further development and evaluation this test could be used in the laboratory to achieve faster confirmation and subsequent tracing of bTB infection in slaughterhouse cases.
Mr Shaw said that work funded by DEFRA " to validate the PCR test developed by Warwick University to detect M. bovis in the environment is ongoing" and added that a final report on the work will be published following its completion in April 2010. He said,
"If it is shown to be usable as a robust practical field test, consideration of its potential use in any bTB control policy will need to take account of the results of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial, which showed that localised culling was associated with an increase in cattle herd TB breakdowns due to the perturbation effect on badgers and increased transmission of bTB."
It is difficult to speak rationally about such an answer - particularly one that refers to a report that will not be published until 2010 when the disease is, as we see below, wreaking such havoc every single day. Warmwell.com would very much welcome informed comment. (email)

July 22 2008 ~ Bovine TB: More Parliamentary answers yesterday

The questions and answers from James Paice and Jonathan Shaw can be read here (Hansard). What we learn includes the
• "....Studies TB99 and CCS2005, found an association between feeding silage and the use of grass feeding types for grazing/forage and an increase in risk of TB breakdown, respectively.."
• "....associations were found between low levels of selenium and a higher risk of an animal being infected with M.bovis. However, given the design of the study and the evidence that the action of some micro-nutrients can be substantially influenced by the levels of others it was not possible to conclude that the observed associations were causal....I am not inclined to fund further research into this subject. "
• " increased use of the gamma interferon blood test.... increase our ability to identify infected cattle..the enhancements to the TB testing regime introduced over the last two years (such as pre-movement testing and gamma-interferon blood testing) are expected to result in higher numbers of reactors being identified each year."
Read in full

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

One can guess how the Dutch feel about having been handed this horrible disease. According to our limited understanding of the Dutch article today on www.minlnv.nl, the six premises that had had contact with the original 12 calves from the UK have returned 32 positive results with 60 possible positives. A further 21 premises were provisionally quarantined. Tuberculin tests have been carried out on 4000 animals - and of the 27 premises originally quarantined, 20 have returned negative results. The central veterinary institute in Lelystad is carrying out further bacteriological research on the animals whose results were positive or not clear. Results are expected in the course of next week.

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..."

BBC "Cases of bovine TB have been found in goats in Carmarthenshire. The Welsh Assembly Government confirmed the outbreak and said it knew of a similar case in England, but it is not clear if they are linked. The disease in goats is "unusual", and animal health officials are checking to see if it has spread to other herds. ......
....The GVS on its website said the disease was first found following a post mortem examination of a goat in Wales a few weeks ago. "The herd in question was in the process of being sold up due to retirement at the time the discovery was made," writes the society's secretary Nick Clayton to members. "And many of the goats from that herd went to two other herds, from both of which stock had been sold on quite widely."
The FUW's Mr Walters said it was a "worrying development". "It's another reservoir of TB that could affect the whole industry," he said. "The question is why and how did the goats pick it up?" ..."

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

A Devon farmer of pedigree Holsteins, David Partridge, who has in recent years lost 100 of them to compulsory slaughter, has won his Judicial challenge on the matter of the level of compensation paid by DEFRA. See BBC
"Mr Patridge's barrister, Hugh Mercer QC, had told the judge the current compensation scheme amounted to a "disincentive" both to careful cattle breeding and the introduction of bio-security methods to reduce the impact of TB on the UK's dairy and beef herds..."
Lord Justice Stanley Burnton - who has given DEFRA leave to challenge his ruling - said: "The Secretary of State has not satisfied me that reasonably reliable means of fairly compensating farmers with high value cattle at reasonable expense is impossible or impractical to achieve"

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

“At a time when we have the Prime Minister telling the public not to waste food, it is astonishing that the Government is prepared to continue to preside over the needless waste of tens of thousands of productive cattle.” National Farmers’ Union president Peter Kendall quoted by www.kentnews.co.uk
It will seem unfortunate to many the the major part of this article is given to the views of such as Peter Smith, chief executive of the Wildwood Trust: “It is infuriating that the subject of culling keeps coming up. All the evidence indicates that badgers are not responsible for the spread of bovine TB, yet farmers still blame these animals for the problem.”
Opinions differ on whether a targeted cull could be effectively carried out - but it is simply not true to say that "All the evidence indicates that badgers are not responsible for the spread of bovine TB". Doing nothing at all is causing deep distress - and diseased badgers, wandering alone and rejected from the now infected sett, are a sorry sight indeed.

Wednesday 9 July ~ RABDF Questions Government Bovine TB Funding

www.stackyard.com "The Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers has expressed dismay that Government’s announcement for a £20 million research and development package to develop bTB vaccines represents little new funding. Furthermore, the availability of both cattle and badger vaccines continue to remain more than six years away....RABDF chairman, Lyndon Edwards is quoted,
" The Minister also confirmed that an oral badger vaccine would not be available until 2014, and while research for an injectable cattle vaccine is underway, its earliest likely launch date is 2015. Last year, bTB led to a cull of 28,000 head, up 40% on the year; if the trend continues, then that figure will have risen to well over 400,000 head for 2015, a figure that can’t be taken lightly. In the meantime, government will have to overturn current EU legislation that prohibits cattle vaccination. We also beg the question, who is going to pay for and administer these vaccines, in particular that for badgers.”
RABDF is led to believe that government’s entire bTB vaccine research funding programme has so far been placed with its own scientists.
“bTB research is likely to continue to remain in government research institutes because it has very, very limited appeal for commercial take up; its marketplace is confined to relatively very small numbers and restricted within the UK In the meantime, the issue of Defra’s proposed responsibility and cost sharing policies will not go away, and we fail to see how dairy farmers will be able to participate when continued burdens are being placed on them and further increases in movement restrictions are only going to increase costs. For example, RABDF’s farmer survey earlier this year concluded that bTB pre-movement testing is already costing livestock producers more than £15 per animal, a figure that we deem is a major cost sharing burden to businesses, and one that continues to be ignored.
Hilary Benn stated he would reconsider his decision against a licenced cull in the light of evidence. We question what evidence that needs to be in view of the fact scientific evidence which we believe to be important has so far been ignored by Government. Ministers and their officials need to remember that scientific fact over rules public emotion.”

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..."

Another email pointing out that there is nothing compasionate about the decision to do nothing practical about bovine TB:
Extract:" DEFRA should insist that everyone in the country is on 12 monthly testing and then deal with the badgers as in the 1960s.. TB is destroying healthy cattle and healthy people. We have friends in Devon who are on 60 day testing - and that is a strain not only for the humans but cattle as well - and they are losing 12 pedigree cattle at a time. This is a closed herd of pedigree cattle started in the 1940's.
It is heartbreaking seeing what this is doing to the whole family, not to mention the cattle. ...." Read in full

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

"... at the Government's decision to reject the multi-faceted approach unanimously recommended by the House of Commons Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee (EFRACom) to address the spread of Bovine TB within the cattle and badger population.
BVA President Nick Blayney said that the veterinary profession was "deeply concerned about the ongoing lack of disease control and the resulting impact on cattle and badger health and welfare.
"Be in no doubt," he said "to date measures directed at cattle alone have not led to disease control."
As for the increased funding for research on vaccines Mr Blayney said that, although welcome, " any progress is some years down the line." Nothing, other than yet another group under a new name -"the Bovine TB Partnership Group"- is envisaged for the foreseeable future. (Read in full)

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

Sunday Telegraph comment from Christopher Booker "..... The Government is in breach of EU animal health rules obliging it to "eradicate" the wildlife reservoir of the disease..... The Government's decision to rely on a grotesquely unreliable "blood test" for diagnosing TB in cattle, rather than the long-proven "skin test", is resulting in so many faulty diagnoses that thousands of dairy cows are now being needlessly slaughtered. The animal rights lobby raises no objection to this but is quite happy that thousands of infected badgers should continue to die a lingering and painful death (as we see from the corpses of TB-weakened badgers on our roadsides). It has indeed been a remarkable "victory"." Read in full

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

As expected, the Bovine TB blog yesterday addressed all the issues in the fullest possible way, giving particular attention to the EU working document SANCO 10200/2006 and to the responsibilities of the government.
The blog entry is important and has done much of the hard work of sifting through and summarising key points. What emerges clearly is that eradication of bovine TB is a statutory duty for all Member States and that eradication can be achieved only if measures to control the disease in cattle are accompanied by equally effective measures to control the disease in the wild. As the paper puts it
" ... It has now been reliably demonstrated that the persistence of an infected wildlife reservoir that enters into contact with cattle is a major obstacle to the eradication of TB. This obstacle should be addressed in tandem with the measures implemented in relation to the cattle population.
While future prospects for the development of suitable TB vaccines for use in wildlife are promising, considerable obstacles remain which make it difficult to foresee the use of such vaccination on its own as the most suitable tool to use to address the persistence of the variety of infected wildlife reservoirs worldwide in the near future. In the meantime, therefore, alternatives to vaccination, in order to address the role of infected wildlife in the persistence of TB should be implemented without any delay so as to allow the progress of the eradication programmes..."
The BovineTB blogspot commentary can be seen here. Many thanks to Matthew.

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

Hansard two days ago. Jonathan Shaw: "....the situation is quite different in the high incidence areas of the country where 85-90 per cent. of all confirmed breakdowns occur. Some herds in these areas are also infected by purchased cattle, but wildlife is a major source of new herd infection and in many counties wildlife may be a more important source than cattle. It is impossible to put precise figures on these possible sources."

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

Jim Paice and others are quoted in fwi.co.uk in the wake of the news.
If Hilary Benn really does announce on Monday that the government prefers to sit on its hands it maym by some, be thought that they'd rather hand the poisoned chalice to the Tory hopefuls waiting in the wings - some of whom are actually aware of the grim reality of the situation for farmers. In last week's food security debate, Daniel Kawczynski the member for Shrewsbury and Atcham in Shropshire, who shares the affection many of us have for badgers, said:
"It does not have to be like this. France has eradicated bovine TB. ...France has tackled bovine TB through a huge investment in extra testing, vaccines and a limited cull of badgers. If the French can do it, why can the Government not do it? They will not do it because, in their growing unpopularity, they are desperately worried about those marginal seats ..... my priority has to be my Shropshire farmers.... I have seen all the evidence that there is a definite link between badgers and the spread of bovine TB."
Nobody wants a mass cull of healthy badgers - but a targeted cull of infected groups seems the best solution when so little has been done in Britain to produce a vaccine, suggest treatments to keep the badger population healthy or keep up a proper surveillance. There is a callous inhumanity in doing nothing, in ignoring the suffering caused by - as Bill Wiggin put it -
"leaving sick badgers to crawl around, excluded... then slowly dying, riddled with lesions that start in the bladder..... we should be acting responsibly towards our wild animals, but the taxpayers are footing a £100 million bill each year for culling infected cattle, and this bill looks set to rise inexorably higher. This situation cannot continue."
See also pdf of the ISID paper on the badger trial.

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

In a Parliamentary Answer on June 24, Mr Shaw clearly stated that badgers are the main wildlife reservoir and contribute to bovine TB (bTB) in cattle. He also commented on the risk to cattle of infection from "wild species other than badgers" concluding that there is no evidence that small mammals such as rats "have been shown to be able to be infected with bTB" but that "there is no evidence that they can transmit the infection to other species"- and also that "Quantitative risk assessments commissioned by DEFRA demonstrate that the risk of cattle infection from deer is only likely to be significant if the prevalence of TB infection in deer is high."
On the subject of the risk to humans, he also said,
"A number of Government departments (DEFRA, Department of Health, Food Standards Agency, Health Protection Agency, Health and Safety Executive) work together to protect the public from contracting infection caused by Mycobacterium bovis (M. bovis). The potential risks to public health from exposure to wild animals infected with M. bovis are minimal, therefore no wildlife-specific public health protection measures are necessary. However, advice is available on the HPA website and from local animal health offices if people have concerns."
"Advice" however, is not easy to find on the Health Protection Agency website which, like DEFRA's own, is somewhat labyrinthine. We found links to video presentations from the USA and Canada but only after searching for some time did we light upon a page specific to bovine TB, wildlife and humans: Extract:
"Transmission of M. bovis can occur between animals , from animals to humans and vice versa and rarely, between humans. As with M. tuberculosis, transmission is most commonly by the aerosol route but also through the ingestion of milk and meat from infected animals..." (See http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&Page&HPAwebAutoListName/Page/1204619502284?p=1204619502284 One does rather wonder about the evidence for the diagram that appears on the page


Cycle of Mycobacterium bovis transmission between cattle and humans. The thickness of the arrows suggests probability. Adapted from Collins and Grange (1987).

In fact, as we see below, cattle-to-cattle transmission is thought to account for just 1-2% of herd breakdowns. The remaining 98-99% of bovine TB is brought in from other sources.

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."

The Farmers Weekly quotes Jilly Greed in its article today about the a CD for farmers made by DEFRA
"The science says 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. In other words it is brought in by badgers and this advice shows DEFRA knows that."
Mrs Greed acts as a demonstration unit for best practice on biosecurity measures to control TB. But even so her herd has succumbed to the disease. The CD gives advice on how to cut the risk of TB spreading in which, of
" .... the 26 points, made in the Bovine TB Husbandry Best Practice guide, 23 focus directly on the risk of infection spread presented by badgers.."
Mrs Greed (see below) is a byword for biosecurity but even her extreme level of care did not save her. The FG article talks of double standards and says, "The content leaves no doubt that DEFRA knows how big a problem badger to cattle transmission is. And that has added to the anger and frustration of farmers."

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

A closed herd is thought a good way to help protect cattle from infectious disease. No cattle enter the farm either by purchase or loan, and resident cattle do not make contact with any cattle from other farms - yet it was from a closed herd that the mother of the suckling heifer calf, shown on the WMN report today, came. Her test was positive. She was slaughtered. The photo showing the hand-reared calf illustrates what happens when suspect cows are slaughtered by DEFRA's rules. WMN says, "In the week that a long-awaited Defra announcement on badger culls is expected, the calves' owner, Jilly Greed, has joined desperate farmers in calling for "radical" action to control the spread of the disease and avoid more heartbreaking scenes like this."

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

The mantra of gamma's 'early detection' was blown apart when Defra slaughtered Tony Yewdall's cows - only to find that of over 400 cattle piled up, just 6 had visible signs of disease after waiting in limbo for the best part of eight months. (See also bovinetb.blogspot.com/2008/05/early-detection-potential-of-gammaifn.html) and Jonathan Shaw's recent answer to Mr Clifton-Brown's Parliamentary Question is heartbreakingly misleading - as we point out below. One of the authors of the bovinetb blog writes, "The answer to the PQ is that 18.6% of cattle slaughtered as positive gammaIFN reactors are either found to have VL or be culture positive, or both whereas approx 50 per cent of skin test positive animals are found to have VLs or are culture positive.
As Colin Fink says, the location of any lesions (lymph glands or lungs for example) and their state of closed / walled up or open, will influence onwards transmission. Cattle and deer can have huge open lesions containing very few cf (colony forming) bacteria, whereas badgers are the opposite. Kidney lesions, sputum and bite wounds are absolutely loaded. Our PQs dragged out of Defra that a badger with kidney lesions can excrete up to 300,000 cfu of bacteria in just 1ml of urine. They void 30ml at a time, indiscriminately over grassland, and use the mechanism for scent marking and 'fright / flight' spraying. Just 70 cfu are needed to infect a cow. That's infect as opposed to provoke skin test reaction. Just 70. We were shocked and asked in a different way. Same answer. WMD?"

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?

Mr. Clifton-Brown asked in a Parliamentary Question on Wednesday, " what percentage of cows receiving positive (a) gamma interferon blood tests and (b) skin tests for bovine tuberculosis were subsequently demonstrated to be clear of the disease at post mortem in each of the last five years. [Hansard PQ 208239]
Jonathan Shaw:
" It is a misconception that failure to find post-mortem evidence of bovine TB in animals that have previously had a positive reaction to a TB test means such animals are clear of the disease..."
Not quite such a misconception as Mr Shaw implies, actually. We are told by an expert microbiologist this morning, "In cattle many will have met the infection and will have a few organisms walled off somewhere. That does not make them infectious, nor does it make their milk or meat infectious. But they will have positive skin tests and possibly positive interferon tests. So as our testing system is so poor and does not properly discriminate between sero-converted (positive on skin test) and truly active infection, we are culling perfectly good animals."
Below is what the expert informed us in full....

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"

The microbiologist, Dr Colin Fink, writes,
"M.Bovis like M. Tubercle hide in host tissues and surrounds itself with a host tissue reaction which attempts to wall off the organism and keep it out of harm's way. You and I will have some in our lungs (Tubercle) which causes us no trouble, but could possibly re emerge if we were immunosuppressed.
We would have positive skin tests but that does not mean we have TB that is of any significance. We have met the infection.
In cattle many will have met the infection and will have a few organisms walled off somewhere. That does not make them infectious, nor does it make their milk or meat infectious. But they will have positive skin tests and possibly positive interferon tests. So as our testing system is so poor and does not properly discriminate between sero-converted (positive on skin test) and truly active infection, we are culling perfectly good animals. 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 although on post mortem they may be filled with lesions and be generally highly infectious carriers."
He concludes that we need to come up with a better test or continue culling perfectly good animals - "which to my mind," he says,"is a sad waste and we could do better."

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

Booker's Notebook in the Sunday Telegraph eloquently echoes our latest entries below:
"...Eleven times a gunshot signalled the killing of a cow from the Yewdalls' 450-strong pedigree Guernsey herd. Sixty nine more, 30 still in calf, were loaded onto trucks to be killed at a local abattoir. For father and son, and for their herdsman who refused to be present, it was the blackest day of their farming lives.
...Mr Justice Mitting....resting his judgment solely on the law...ruled that, because the blood test had been approved by the EU, it was therefore lawful for Defra to rely on it. Even though Brussels had regarded gamma interferon as only an ancillary test, not to be relied on for a definitive diagnosis... ...." Read in full
The bovine TB epidemic, costs taxpayers £90 million a year and within six years, we read, the total bill could reach £2 billion. The path chosen by the government, like the 'kill to cure' of FMD 2001, is mismanagement on such a massively tragic scale that it can hardly be comprehended by those not involved.
See also today Tim Worstall and the ever excellent EU referendum Blog

May 18 2008 ~ What an appalling waste.

From the bovine TB blog which really must be read in full to comprehend the nature of the tragedy being enacted by officialdom in the name of 'disease control'.
".......The postmortem results on Mr. Yewdall's cattle are now to hand. After 6 months in isolation, just 2 cattle had Visible Lesions and a further 3 were found to have the very beginnings of small closed granulomas. Over 80 cattle were slaughtered in this carnage - as 'reactors' to the secondary, ancillary gamma interferon blood test. They had survived under an injunction for the best part of eight months in which the opportunity was there to produce full blown disease and prove Defra's point.
What a splendid result for our beloved Defra.
What a total waste of £100,000 for the UK taxpayer.
What a devastating and irreplaceable waste for the Yewdall family...."
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2008/05/carnage.html Do read this in full. It is important that people know how their money is being spent at a time when DEFRA's cuts are biting into the country's ability to protect itself, *see below.

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."

Kill first. Ask later. Many were shocked at the killing of an entire herd of uninfected cows in Somerset - as we reported on May 1 - when in spite of wholly negative results from the TB skin test, DEFRA ordered that all the animals in a Pewsey herd should be destroyed. And now, the story below about the High Court TB case that we first reported in January has the miserable sequel that 75 out of the 80 pedigree Guernsey cows, slaughtered under the anguished gaze of the Devon farmers, Tony Yewdall and his wife, were shown to be free of bovine TB on laboratory testing.
The Western Morning News reports this latest case with unease in spite of the "balance" they show in quoting a DEFRA official's words about "sound disease control reasons". As we have been saying for seven years, killing hordes of healthy animals pour encourager les autres does rather defeat the object of the exercise - unless, of course, there is a different object in view. The motives of those ordering such wholesale, insensitive and unscientific destruction must inevitably make us wonder. Certainly, no kindly consideration seems ever to be given to the farmers, their families, their futures. Nor, apparently, is there the faintest conception of the idea that there should be a contract of decency between animal and consumer and that the waste of a healthy farm animal is as sinful as anything referred to by David Attenborough below.

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

Private Eye's Muckspreader this week on the misery that is the UK's bovine TB policy - and the fact that, in the Somerset farmers' attempt to get sanity from a judicial review "Mr Justice Mitting dismissed the arguments of the farmers’ learned counsel, ruling that Defra’s ‘policy is lawful’...." It is unbearable too that
"....Tom Maidment of Pewsey, thirty-one of whose cattle had been condemned after the (gamma interferon) blood test had shown them as positive. He pleaded in vain with Defra in London for the chance to have them retested using the skin test. But, unaware of this, his local Defra Animal Health Office instructed him that his cattle should be skin tested after all. The results showed a stonking negative. Not one of his animals showed any sign of having been exposed to TB. And what was Defra’s response? It naturally ordered that all the animals should nevertheless be destroyed, at the taxpayers’ expense. Who gives a fig for science when someone else is footing the bill?"
Read in full and see also below for more background

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

Very little notice has been taken, it seems, of the conviction expressed over the past years by ex-colonel Danny Goodwin-Jones, director of the Carmarthen-based Trace Element Services Ltd, that "once you put back the trace elements all the creatures that live in the soil recover and they keep it healthy" (see earlier posts).
He maintains that restoring trace elements into the soil cuts fertiliser and vets' bills. Now, the Western Press' Steve Dube reports that Rural Affairs Minister Elin Jones wants officials to look into the use of micro-nutrients or trace elements in tackling the disease in badgers as well as cattle. Four years ago, the 2003 - 2004 EFRA Committee report on bovine TB ( pdf file 85 pages) (link mended) took Col. Goodwin Jones work on trace element restoration seriously: (Extract here)
Anecdotal evidence at least shows that trace element treated farms are free of TB, while their neighbours are going down with it

March 6 2008 ~ Bovine TB - polarised positions

"The Government's current method of controlling cattle TB, that of surveillance, testing and slaughter, is not working effectively Government must now make a decision on what its strategic objectives are. The impact of this disease has reached a stage where further procrastination is unsustainable". ." So said the EFRA Committee report last week. The Farmers Guardian reported: "Badger Trust spokesman Trevor Lawson insisted that badger culling was still 'effectively off the agenda' because of the demanding conditions that would have to be met, while the RSPCA said any attempt at badger culling 'flies in the face of sound scientific judgement'..."
Parliamentary Questions asked on Tuesday show the proportion of cattle killed without disease having been confirmed. Clarke Willmott's 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. See latest bovine TB news

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."

Asked yesterday, "how many cases are before the courts on challenges to the accuracy of the test for bovine tuberculosis", (Hansard) Jonathan Shaw replied,
"One farm business has issued legal proceedings against DEFRA, a date has yet to be set for the claim to be heard. Their claim for judicial review disputes the validity of the results of gamma interferon TB tests within their herds. The caimant is challenging DEFRA's decision not to re-test (using the tuberculin skin test) cattle within their herd that have had a positive reaction to the gamma interferon test. DEFRA has been put on notice that three other farm businesses are intending to issue proceedings on the same basis, but has agreed with those farmers that their animals will not be slaughtered pending the outcome of the judicial review. It is expected that this case will determine the issues in respect of all four complaints."
More on this in our Jan 25th report below. ( See also the Farmers Guardian today on farmers' reaction to the lack of decision over bTB)

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.

Farmers Guardian "....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'. .... "

---

 

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.

Farmers Guardian

 "....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."

The Farmers Guardian

 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'

According to comment on the BovineTB Blog

 
"... 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.

The Farmers Guardian

 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

By Alistair Driver

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

for Government Veterinary Journal - Bovine TB special (Volume 16, no 1, September 2006)

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

See USDA webpage.

---

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

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

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

The MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham, Daniel Kawczynski, asked
" The Conservatives, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said, have been calling for a very long time for action on bovine tuberculosis. Yesterday, on the news, we were informed that major trials were taking place on the immunisation of badgers. Why did we have to find out about the new trials from the BBC? Why did the Minister not inform the House first?"
Hansard.
Mr Bradshaw's replies to the several questions asked may appear to some readers to have been less than helpful.

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

ProMed gives detailsof this work by the Central Science Laboratory. Its trials involve catching about 250 badgers in baited traps. The moderator's comments are, as usual, well worth reading in full. Extract
"...The Randomised Badger Culling Trials demonstrated that if you do not achieve culling targets above 60 percent (and sometimes these were no more than 20 percent), you will only make matters worse -- Bovine TB was practically eradicated in the UK by 1986 by proactive badger culling along with tuberculin testing of cattle when only 84 herd breakdowns were recorded in that year. ...... as the UK Government acknowledges in their report of 2004, if the present policy of inaction continues there is no way but up!
....... Culling, when done efficiently, i.e. when delineated areas are free of badgers for at least 12 months, has an immediate disease control benefit. In the UK there is a stark dichotomy between the demands for culling by the farming community, including wildlife veterinarians, and the extreme reluctance on the part of the government. We have yet to see what the impact of badger vaccination will be. - Mod.MHJ"
However good this news may seem, we are left once again wondering why - if the trials are successful and the vaccine found to be safe and effective - it has to "take at least 5 years before the vaccine could be administered to the general badger population outside the lab through microcapsules mixed with peanuts." Why so long when the situation is so desperate? Some may remember the reasons given by Defra against allowing vaccination against H5N1 in the UK involved the argument about "market authorisation"- even though European legislation permits "Market Authorisation" to be bypassed in exceptional, objective and verifiable circumstances.

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

on when the government would announce its response to the consultation, which attracted 48,000 responses. He said: "We're still considering responses - a decision will be made in due course." FWi

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

Mr Swarbrick wrote:
"...... Like many others, Bourne and colleagues appear to be ignoring several important factors and offering no real solutions.
Over 25 years there does not appear to have been any concerted national action to control, let alone eradicate, the relentless spread of bovine TB. We have an EU obligation to eradicate bovine TB. Given that there are no vaccines, prophylaxis or therapy for bovine TB, we can only adopt the long-established medical and veterinary principles for infectious disease control by removing all infected, and more especially diseased, individuals from any contact with healthy populations.............
We need a veterinary consensus as to what to do and how to do it, and veterinarians must also find consensus with the ecologists, who have an important contribution. ...... We also need to persuade the pro-badger lobby that some of their comments are incorrect. Time is not on our side and veterinarians, farmers and the UK as a whole cannot allow the perceived difficulties to be an excuse for inaction.
Will the ISG please now put forward its strategy and protocols for the eradication of bovine TB from the UK and also for preventing diseased badgers from infecting cattle, badgers and all the other animals, bearing in mind that there is a potentially important human dimension." Read in full

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."

Muckspreader in Private Eye last week. "Even Defra admits that the percentage of badgers culled was sometimes as low as 20 percent. Prof.Bourne has admitted in the Veterinary Record that his staff were not allowed into a third of the land chosen for study. Meanwhile the tragedy rolls on: for farmers, for cattle, for taxpayers, and for all those sick badgers, condemned to a lingering death, only because humans became so blinded by sentimentality that they allowed badger numbers to explode to a level nature could no longer tolerate.."

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

A letter from H.D.Coryn MRCVS in the current Veterinary Record says, " "....It would seem that too many individuals on all sides of this debate are taking an over simplistic view that by culling the badger the problem will go away. ..... enormous changes in both the profession and in farming ....."
".... In today's world all these crops are in the main cut with either flail harvesters or rotary mowers. ...sweeps up all the debris by its rotary suction and blows with it in to the bag, leaves, soil and any other debris. Consideration should therefore be given to what happens in maize crops, beloved by badgers, silage etc. which have been contaminated by any infected mammal from man, deer, badgers down to mice that are excreting TB. Faeces dried urine and saliva are swept and chopped up and distributed into the forage in an efficient and random way thus infecting the crop. Could this be a factor in the spread of TB in herds?"
"..... Other factors that may play a part are the stress involved in the push for ever higher yields and the ever increasing use of chemicals in all forms of crops, with their residues affecting the immune system...." The letter should be read in full

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

A report will be produced summarising the responses to the consultation. This has taken longer than expected due to the large number of consultation responses received (47,474 responses were received during the consultation period). We do not have a date for the final report but an announcement will be made when it is available. Once published the report will be accessible by following the link from the Defra website's Bovine TB Pages at http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/index.htm
No decision has yet been made on whether or not to cull badgers to help control bovine TB in cattle. Ministers will consider all available evidence including the summary of consultation responses before making a decision...."

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

See Western Morning News "The cost of sacking the wildlife officers, some of whom have been with the department for more than 20 years, has been put at between £2 million and £3 million....The redundancies have been attacked as an attempt by ministers to shift responsibility for the handling of the bovine TB crisis on to farmers while allowing Defra to meet Treasury budget targets. ..."
It continues to amaze that we hear nothing at all from DEFRA about the technology that can make real progress in the eradication of bovine TB in wildlife. Policy, it appears, must always be driven by bureaucracy and budgets instead of by the extraordinary advances in technology and veterinary skill.
An article in the Veterinary Times back in 2004 concluded that the attraction of using rapid real-time PCR 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. " While the research below using UK built rapid RT-PCR diagnosis in badger setts and latrines shows that we have now, at this moment, the technology that can show which badgers are infected. "we would prefer that culling is targeted at diseased and infectious animals" said the researchers - and this would indeed be possible.

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.

In spite of press coverage at the time of the calf's death, the story from his owner about the aftermath of the killing of Fern raises some very serious questions. The calf had been in isolation for 3 months after he had reacted to the test. The SVS vet, Linda Farrant SVS, had said that the reaction in a young calf meant that the infection "would have spread rapidly through his system", he must be " very diseased", so he must be dealt with " very quickly". Mrs Kremers writes:
".... Four SVS personnel searched diligently for lesions. None were found in the lungs or stomach areas.
Eventually a small, calcified abcess was found in one of the throat glands. It was not an open lesion.... it had been there some time, and this would be sent to the laboratories to be cultured, to see if it was indeed bTB. The results would be known in six weeks. (ie the results would not be available until the middle of May) Imagine my shock when the Western Morning Newspaper phoned me on the Monday .... The journalist read out a stream of sentences which said Fern had shown typical signs of bTB at the post mortem. This validated their tests. Etc.etc.
Mr Kremers concludes " I used to believe that we lived in a democracy, but now I know better. Many thanks to everyone who has listened, helped, supported and cared. I only hope that I have given others the courage to stand up for their principles, their cattle, their valuations and their birds, should the time come to them.."
If Mrs Kremers is right, it looks very much as though there has been lying and falsification on the part of DEFRA and the SVS in order to justify their actions and silence those who supported Mrs Kremers' stand.

April 13 2006 ~ TB TESTING CONCESSION ANNOUNCED BY MINISTER

WMN "Ministers agreed to a partial climbdown over the controversial new TB testing regime last night in the face of mounting opposition from farmers. Farms Minister Lord Bach said the Government would meet part of the cost of the new pre-movement testing regime, designed to slow the spread of bovine TB.
From the end of last month virtually all Westcountry farmers have been legally obliged to pay for testing of their cattle before they can be moved off farm. The tests aim to identifying infected animals before they can infect a new herd.
But farmers have complained the tests typify the Government's "one-sided" approach to the problem, as they do nothing to tackle the spread of the disease by wildlife. Some farmers want to boycott the system.
Farmers are also unhappy about the cost of the tests - particularly as many are still waiting for last year's Single Farm Payments agriculture subsidies.
Lord Bach said the Government would pay for one pre-movement herd test per farm this year, at a total cost of up to £700,000.
He said: "Early indications are that the new system is settling in well, but the Government wants to ease the transition and ensure that pre-movement testing is a success."
Pre-movement tests, which cost an average of £9 per animal, are valid for 60 days. Ian Johnson, spokesman for the National Farmers' Union in the South West, said many farmers would need to pay for more than one test, but that the concession was welcome."

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

in the period from February 20 to June 30 this year. NFU Deputy President Meurig Raymond said: This will help to alleviate at least some of the extra financial burden that farmers in the TB areas will have to shoulder as a result of pre-movement testing. It will also give Defra extra time to issue licenses for exempt fattening units and mean that farmers who may be able to take advantage of them are not penalised in the meantime. Farmers are more than ready to play their full part in stopping the hugely damaging spread of bovine TB, but to be worthwhile, pre-movement testing must be part of an overall strategy that includes action to deal with the reservoir of infection in wildlife. ..." Farming UK

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

It is a very short report with no detail. BBC The sorry saga of Fern and his distraught but determined owner can be read on this warmwell page.

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

ic Wales Opposition moves to transfer the cost of pre-movement testing for bovine TB in Wales from farmers to the Welsh Assembly Government have been rejected .

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

reports the WMN - but evidently the implications of the use of the portable RT-PCR machines have not reached farmers' leaders and senior vets if the Western Morning News is correct in its reporting that
only a badger cull will stem its advance, according to farmers' leaders and senior vets."
The whole point of the use of the Enigma machine (British) is that it can ascertain whether a sett is indeed infected. If it is not then no culling is required.

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"

The WMN (Friday)
The Kremers case - and the hundreds like it, is desperately sad. Its chronology may be read here.

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

FRESH EVIDENCE IN THE BATTLE WITH BOVINE TB, the WMN article on Friday, looks at the selenium theory and the idea by Oxford University Wildlife Conservation Research Unit about providing more hedges for badgers to use as latrines which may the spread of TB. But, says the WMN,
" the problem is so acute, particularly in Devo