Before TB Health Check Wales there were many herds that were very overdue regarding TB testing. Some cattle had never been tested. With this massive increase in the number of cattle being tested it is hardly surprising the number of reactors and inconclusive reactors have increased. If it is the existing skin test alone that is the indicator regarding whether or not TB is endemic in an area, we need total assurance that the test being used is very accurate and not detecting animals that are reacting to the test for reasons other than TB. If such proof is not available then surely we are wasting tax payers' money. killing animals and causing farmers considerable stress for no good reason . I see from recent press reports today that TB is threatening to kill off the UK's dairy industry. I suppose that will solve all the problems, then when we do have to provide our own food if, in the future, we are not able to rely on imports, we will have to start all over again and TB will have had a chance to die out!
Saffy (Guest)
7 May 2010, 6:46 PM
There is a vaccine for cattle - we just aren't allowed to use it in this country.
Keith (Guest)
3 Apr 2010, 7:59 PM
According to http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/4766979.Do_we_need_to_slaughter_badgers_/ Ms Glossop, the WAG chief vet and advocate of the badger cull, says “We are talking about a potential public health problem, a massive epidemic, huge expenditure for the government, the tax payer and farmers. We have to take this disease seriously and I feel we are at a cross roads. If we carry on with what we have been doing we may as well give up and that has implications for public health, food production and compensation costs."
Firstly, is bovine TB really an epidemic? Surely she means endemic in a few areas? Are we seeing huge numbers of cattle, badgers or humans with clinical systems of TB? The 'status' of bovine TB is currently more of an assumption than fact as it is based solely on the results of the existing intradermal tuberculin skin test undertaken on cattle. Many believe the skin test to be unreliable. For the majority of cattle slaughtered no evidence of lesions are found and tissue cultures are negative but they are classed as having TB.
Secondly, the existing skin test, slaughter of cattle, compensation, cull proposals and associated infrastructure for the policy is costing millions and its true value is not known. It is certainly a lucrative business for those involved.
Thirdly, Bovine TB is no longer the human health problem it once was, particularly now virtually all milk is pasteurised and meat is cooked (pasteurisation and cooking kills off any TB bacteria). The Food Standards Agency says 'there had not been a single documented case of someone developing human TB after eating infected meat.' In fact, so low is the risk that they go on to say 'Where a carcass shows evidence of localised TB, the lesions are cut out and the rest of the carcass is passed as fit for human consumption.' Bovine TB may be a 'zoonosis', but figures reveal that, despite the alleged increase in bovine TB in cattle and other animals in some areas of the UK, still under 1% of all confirmed cases of TB in humans is due to M. bovine (the human form), so the spread to humans is extremely rare. Even the Health Protection Agency says the risks from bovine TB are ‚'negligible'. The dictionary definition of ‚'negligible'‚ is ‚"so small, trifling, unimportant that it may safely be neglected or disregarded‚". If this is the case then should we be asking whether the whole TB issue is being blown up out of all proportion?
There is a vaccine for humans to protect against TB, there is now one for badgers - so why not cattle? To use the EU/export market as an excuse is not good enough.
Mike (Guest)
27 Mar 2010, 7:22 PM
The attached document shows some interesting statistics for cattle tested and slaughtered under bTB policy in Wales. The figures are correct up to 31 October 2009 and all data is taken from official WAG/Defra sites and publications.
Keith (Guest)
2 Mar 2010, 5:50 PM
Too many farmers and cattle owners are suffering Decades of skin tests, considerable cost and millions of slaughtered cattle and yet we are told that bovine TB is still out of control in some areas so the existing policy cannot be working. Why is there no alternative to the skin test, which can cause considerable stress and problems for farmers and cattle owners that would not be tolerated in other sectors? Farmers are concerned that subsidies will be delayed or withheld if they do not comply, so they rarely complain. However, those who experience herd breakdowns have to suffer frequent and regular testing, with the severe hardships to both the humans and animals at the brunt of this system. Waiting for each result is an awful process and can adversely affect the quality of life, family relationships and the business (ref 1). Farmers and cattle owners are forced to contend with an officious and bureaucratic system which has such negligible benefits. There are no compromises allowed or alternative tests permitted. The health and welfare of cattle owners and their animals are ignored and disregarded as the bureaucrats and government ministers are interested only in ensuring political targets and deadlines are met. They have no idea of how much hardship is being caused as a result of the current inflexible policy. The skin test takes up considerable time, particularly as each necessitates 2 separate visits over three days. Farmers and cattle owners are not reimbursed for this time and are only compensated for those cattle found to be reactors or second time inconclusives and subsequently slaughtered. The test disrupts the routine for cattle and can cause milk yields to reduce. What are the consequences of injecting regular does of tuberculin and other substances into cattle? There can be significant health and safety issues, even with the best handling systems. Testers, vets and their vehicles going from farm to farm pose health and disease risks. For some the compensation payments for the animals killed are generous, for others they are not adequate. For those who care about their herd, the loss of any animal is difficult to cope with, particularly if there is no evidence of any disease found after slaughter. There have also been cases of abuse of the system (ref 2). The new proposals for increased bio-security will involve more expense for farmers.
The human form of bovine Tb has been successfully controlled with a vaccination programme. Humans have not needed to be killed in order to control the disease, so why is there still no vaccination available or permitted for cattle as an alternative to the existing tests and EU legislation amended to allow this?
Interestingly, in WAG’s latest moves to give them even greater powers under the proposed Tuberculosis and Brucellosis (Wales) Order 2010, currently out for public consultation (deadline was February 2010) there is a proposal which will ensure they no longer have to deal with ‘wild, unmanageable cattle’, as they will be apparently be treated as if they are infected with TB and therefore killed. Surely this will distort the figures for the disease or maybe such cattle herds are very few! They will also have to warn other departments of this new clause as cattle are often recommended by the powers that be for conservation grazing - such herds are not likely to be handled regularly and may well be breeds that are notoriously difficult to handle! Be warned that if you are thinking of getting cattle for conservation grazing only you will still need a crush and proper handling facilities in order to comply with the strict testing regime and health/safety issues. Such equipment is expensive.
