The ministry took 8 months to inform us that an animal that left our holding had been confirmed positive 7 months previously.

We have around 45 Limousin cross suckler cows that autumn calve, and basically run a closed herd. All food is home grown, as is bedding and the only movement off farm, other than retirements (straight to abattoir), is the offspring at 16 - 18 months which go to a finisher about twenty five miles away. We have 320 acres in the southern end of Gloucestershire and average rainfall is 23”. It is a traditional, mixed farm with an extensive grazing system for livestock and mainly permanent pasture. 130 acres is set to arable, which has been contracted out since 2009.

The farm has been tested routinely, every four years, for bovine TB (bTB) and has previously been clear. In autumn 2009 16 bulling heifers were brought in. These had all been tested and were claimed to be clear of bTB. In early February we received official notice advising that bTB testing would be every two years as we were in a ‘buffer’ zone. A few days later a ‘check’, rather than a ‘routine’ test was demanded by the ministry. The routine test was due in February 2009 so we wondered why this was being classed as a check test.

This test revealed a reactor, a fifteen-month old store cow (it would have been with the one that had gone from the farm in May 2009 see below), and this had visual lesions on slaughter. It had looked perfectly healthy when alive. There were also two first time in- conclusive reactors. Our own vet had performed this test. We were not happy with the way the test was performed as we feel that if a testing system is used it must be done properly. We also felt we had to photocopy the test results each time to ensure the figures were not changed.

Only by complaining vociferously as to why a check test had been imposed, did we eventually find out that 1 of a batch of 24 store cattle of ours, which had been moved off our farm to a finishing unit on May 1st 2009 had tested positive early June 2009. This animal had apparently had visual lesions on slaughter. We come under Reading, now overseen by Reigate, and the store testing was performed at a farm coming under Gloucester’s control. We were amazed there had been a lapse of some 8 months! Reading would not explain, nor Gloucester, the reason for the delay in contacting us and testing our animals.

Interestingly during the previous twelve months we had an influx of deer (we don’t suffer from badgers). Back roads surround our farm and we often get two or three deer but we considered the increased numbers (around 20) posed a hazard so we arranged for these to be culled.

Also of interest was the fact that in May 2009 we duly notified re movement that our bull was walked to a neighbour to serve his three cows. He came back to our farm in the autumn. At the time of the February 2010 test, when we were being asked about biosecurity etc, we reminded the ministry of the bull’s movement to the neighbour as we assumed the three cows he had served would need testing. However, no- one was interested and they said they would be tested during their next routine test, which not until March 2011!

A more senior vet did the second test some sixty days later but we were still not happy with the way it was carried out and complained about this. This test revealed that one of the two inconclusive reactors (both looked perfectly healthy) from the previous test was now clear but the other one remained an IR. This 2xIR animal was seven months old and a beautiful heifer, we had earmarked her for breeding, and really was the best in the bunch. She was slaughtered,no visible lesions and a negative culture test.

Following our dis-satisfaction with the way the test was being performed by staff from our own vet’s practice, the third test was undertaken by a ministry lay vet. He was a farmer, had been a meat inspector and was excellent with stock. He was also extremely helpful. We were confident that he did the test properly; clipping the area and measuring the skin carefully. On this third test all animals were clear.

The same lay tester also undertook the fourth test. He did point out that all the ‘bumps’ were much more prominent than on the previous test and he put this down to the tuberculin being used - some is apparently more sensitive than others! Sadly on this one an inconclusive was again identified only just over but as the test result had to be read under the severe interpretation rules, it had to be slaughtered. There were no visual lesions and they did not bother to do a tissue culture.

We were again told by our case vet and lead vet that one more clear test and we would be clear. We have been unable to confirm this. The flow chart says two clear tests are required. It has been very frustrating getting accurate information, particularly regarding the number of clear tests required before movement restrictions can be lifted. We were originally told we only had to have one clear test. After the 3rd test, because I gave Reading a hard time, they reluctantly gave me a copy of TR19 (revised 12/09). This is the flow chart that explains the sequence of decisions following a tuberculin test. It is from this chart that we doubt whether what we have been told regarding our 5th test (now scheduled for February 2011) is true (see below). Our 5th test was due in November 2010 but we had to postpone this due to calving. I understand the ministry is now doing all the short term tests in order to save money and they have a backlog. We wanted a test in January but they could not fit us in until February 2011. We have had to remain on movement restriction. It was extremely frustrating that many of our decisions were made based on ministry information, which was incorrect. Correct information is vital for any business and it is inexcusable if this is not the case. When challenged the stock reply from Reading, if they answered the phone, would be that the rules had changed, when they clearly had not. Reading do not accept emails only faxes.

The bTB breakdown in our herd has nearly bankrupted us. Because we could not sell the stores this spring, coupled with a drought in the summer of 2010, our food situation this autumn and winter was critical. Eventually we got permission to move the stores to an approved finishing unit (A.F.U.) but we lost a fortune. It would be easier to give up but farming is what I love.

Posted 25 January 2011