BVD

greysides

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

The reason I ask is that the labs are supposed to be batch testing so if one in a batch of 10 has BVD, all 10 will show up as positive. Only the PI will show up in the second test ....

I would expect that the entire batch would be checked individually before anything would be reported. Maybe I'm wrong..

Buford T. Justice XIX

greysides wrote: »

I would expect that the entire batch would be checked individually before anything would be reported. Maybe I'm wrong..

I would've thought so as well but calves testing positive here in the first test and negative in the second a few years after the last PI going has me puzzled. Closed herd, calves tagged straight after dropping from the cow and nobody near the cows bar myself.

And there would be two or three showing up as positives as well in the one batch?

greysides

greysides wrote: »

Both herd incidence and PI incidence are one-eleventh of what they were starting out. I'll see if I can find a recent summary later.

greysides

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

I would've thought so as well but calves testing positive here in the first test and negative in the second a few years after the last PI going has me puzzled. Closed herd, calves tagged straight after dropping from the cow and nobody near the cows bar myself.

And there would be two or three showing up as positives as well in the one batch?

I'll enquire next chance I get.

Sheep breeder

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Was that a positive on the first test or a positive on the second test?


The reason I ask is that the labs are supposed to be batch testing so if one in a batch of 10 has BVD, all 10 will show up as positive. Only the PI will show up in the second test or may just have transient infection which they recover from and aren't carriers any more. The clear animals will show up as negatives.


We've put down a number of PIs at the start of the programme, we were in the voluntary part as well so this is year 8 for us. We had a few positives 2 years ago that were negative in the retest, for the reasons above according to my vet.


I'll fire up the link to the 2019 programme, it's worth looking at the change in distribution and numbers of PIs on the maps since 2013.


http://animalhealthireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/BVDKeyPoints2019_FINAL_Web_Version.pdf

Was the scheme not to run for 3 years and a money maker for testers, an post, tag company and nothing for the clear farmer, who is carrying the pi herds.

K.G.

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Was that a positive on the first test or a positive on the second test?


The reason I ask is that the labs are supposed to be batch testing so if one in a batch of 10 has BVD, all 10 will show up as positive. Only the PI will show up in the second test or may just have transient infection which they recover from and aren't carriers any more. The clear animals will show up as negatives.


We've put down a number of PIs at the start of the programme, we were in the voluntary part as well so this is year 8 for us. We had a few positives 2 years ago that were negative in the retest, for the reasons above according to my vet.


I'll fire up the link to the 2019 programme, it's worth looking at the change in distribution and numbers of PIs on the maps since 2013.


http://animalhealthireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/BVDKeyPoints2019_FINAL_Web_Version.pdf

the one last year was retested and positive again.common sense is telling me to get rid without retest this year but its a fr heifer.the one last year was the finest hereford bull you d see it was a crime to put him down but there was no question of doing anything else.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Sheep breeder wrote: »

Was the scheme not to run for 3 years and a money maker for testers, an post, tag company and nothing for the clear farmer, who is carrying the pi herds.

Yeah, it was supposed to run for 3 years, ideally.


But they made an absolute hames of explaining to farmers the importance of removing PIs from breeding herds and were unwilling to restrict herds with PIs after the first 3 years were over and were unwilling to compensate farmers for the removal of those PIs as well.


And, tbh, it is looking like a cash injection from farmers into tags companies and An Post, I definitely won't argue with you on that.


I would hope that lessons have been learned for the Johnes scheme but I doubt it:(

greysides

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Yeah, it was supposed to run for 3 years, ideally.

Firstly, it's nice to be, more or less, on the outside of this scheme and able to comment on it as relatively unaffected by it.

But they made an absolute hames of explaining to farmers the importance of removing PIs from breeding herds and were unwilling to restrict herds with PIs after the first 3 years were over and were unwilling to compensate farmers for the removal of those PIs as well.

Who is 'they'?
On the front line its AHI. They are basically working for the 20, or so, groups that back and fund them. That's the farming organisations, the CoOps, AI companies, Dept and Veterinary Ireland.

When it started Ireland was deep in financial strife. There was no government money and the private companies etc, weren't going to pony up.

As regards explaining the importance of removing PIs, I don't see what more could have been done. I was at two meetings, one vet and one farmer, where it was all explained. There was a large body of farmers that didn't go, and couldn't be persuaded, even ones I'd diagnosed the related and fatal Mucosal Disease in. There were articles in the farming press and online. If anyone was bothered the information was there to be found.

From the get-go the IFA were adamant there be no vet involvement in a cattle disease eradication scheme. However illogical that may appear, the scheme as set up is a good one, technologically and scientifically. And it's great to be on the sidelines and without any blame when its duration is discussed.

And, tbh, it is looking like a cash injection from farmers into tags companies and An Post, I definitely won't argue with you on that.

Those culpable have already been identified in a previous post. Essentially, it's human nature.

I would hope that lessons have been learned for the Johnes scheme but I doubt it:(

AHI were well aware where the Achilles heal was.

Despite the way it had dragged on there are benefits. They are hard to appreciate because they are what didn't happen rather than things you can see. There are ways to calculate it and it has been done. For the industry as a whole its a large amount and can be researched by those interested enough.

At farmer level, some may appreciate less calf scour and pneumonia losses. A decreased level of infertility, abortion and SCCs is harder to see. That will mainly apply to those whose herds were infected. Weanling buyers should be seeing less losses from pneumonia.

Sheep breeder

greysides wrote: »

Firstly, it's nice to be, more or less, on the outside of this scheme and able to comment on it as relatively unaffected by it.



Who is 'they'?
On the front line its AHI. They are basically working for the 20, or so, groups that back and fund them. That's the farming organisations, the CoOps, AI companies, Dept and Veterinary Ireland.

When it started Ireland was deep in financial strife. There was no government money and the private companies etc, weren't going to pony up.

As regards explaining the importance of removing PIs, I don't see what more could have been done. I was at two meetings, one vet and one farmer, where it was all explained. There was a large body of farmers that didn't go, and couldn't be persuaded, even ones I'd diagnosed the related and fatal Mucosal Disease in. There were articles in the farming press and online. If anyone was bothered the information was there to be found.

From the get-go the IFA were adamant there be no vet involvement in a cattle disease eradication scheme. However illogical that may appear, the scheme as set up is a good one, technologically and scientifically. And it's great to be on the sidelines and without any blame when its duration is discussed.



Those culpable have already been identified in a previous post. Essentially, it's human nature.



AHI were well aware where the Achilles heal was.

Despite the way it had dragged on there are benefits. They are hard to appreciate because they are what didn't happen rather than things you can see. There are ways to calculate it and it has been done. For the industry as a whole its a large amount and can be researched by those interested enough.

At farmer level, some may appreciate less calf scour and pneumonia losses. A decreased level of infertility, abortion and SCCs is harder to see. That will mainly apply to those whose herds were infected. Weanling buyers should be seeing less losses from pneumonia.

Good and true post and has improved the national herd and again the ifa have a lot to answer for. The vet is more important than politics.

wrangler

grassroot1 wrote: »

Until the department gets heavy handed with those retaining PI cattle it will never be sorted
Farmers are their own worst enemy

No one should do any thing for them,.... let them learn the hard way

wrangler

greysides wrote: »

Firstly, it's nice to be, more or less, on the outside of this scheme and able to comment on it as relatively unaffected by it.



Who is 'they'?
On the front line its AHI. They are basically working for the 20, or so, groups that back and fund them. That's the farming organisations, the CoOps, AI companies, Dept and Veterinary Ireland.

When it started Ireland was deep in financial strife. There was no government money and the private companies etc, weren't going to pony up.

As regards explaining the importance of removing PIs, I don't see what more could have been done. I was at two meetings, one vet and one farmer, where it was all explained. There was a large body of farmers that didn't go, and couldn't be persuaded, even ones I'd diagnosed the related and fatal Mucosal Disease in. There were articles in the farming press and online. If anyone was bothered the information was there to be found.

From the get-go the IFA were adamant there be no vet involvement in a cattle disease eradication scheme. However illogical that may appear, the scheme as set up is a good one, technologically and scientifically. And it's great to be on the sidelines and without any blame when its duration is discussed.



Those culpable have already been identified in a previous post. Essentially, it's human nature.



AHI were well aware where the Achilles heal was.

Despite the way it had dragged on there are benefits. They are hard to appreciate because they are what didn't happen rather than things you can see. There are ways to calculate it and it has been done. For the industry as a whole its a large amount and can be researched by those interested enough.

At farmer level, some may appreciate less calf scour and pneumonia losses. A decreased level of infertility, abortion and SCCs is harder to see. That will mainly apply to those whose herds were infected. Weanling buyers should be seeing less losses from pneumonia.

What's the point of the vets involvement, isn't the whinge rant now that there's too many bodies/quangos living out of farmers

K.G.

i know its just im pissed given the fact that we were clear all along and now have an issue but is the whole scheme economically justified-is the control of the desease justified given what it has cost farmers.allowing for animals disposed and testing postage its costing most farmers at least a fiver a cow.multiply by is it 6 years now you looking at an investment of 3 or4 k for 100 cow farmer.i remember back in the day during a poor scan of cows the scanner suggested bvd.move on a few years and in relation to another herd health issue the same scanner suggested ibr as being a big issue.was it ever as big an issue as was made out.given the progress on it id be very slow allowing ahi screen for any other desease with a view to eradication

greysides

AHI estimate an €85 million saving to farmers in 2018. 90% of breeding herds are clear.

In 2013, 16 192 PIs were born destined to die. In 2018 that figure was down to 1 529. There's a value there which doesn't include the reduction in disease morbidity and mortality they would have been responsible for.

AHI believe eradication is achievable by 2020. The benefits of the expense incurred will be there in perpetuity. The expense should be viewed as an investment.

K.G.

greysides wrote: »

AHI estimate an €85 million saving to farmers in 2018. 90% of breeding herds are clear.

In 2013, 16 192 PIs were born destined to die. In 2018 that figure was down to 1 529. There's a value there which doesn't include the reduction in disease morbidity and mortality they would have been responsible for.

AHI believe eradication is achievable by 2020. The benefits of the expense incurred will be there in perpetuity. The expense should be viewed as an investment.

2.3 million cows at a fiver a cow is 11.5 million
16000 pi calves at a notional value 200e is 3.2 million-you have to value at todays value and thats rough and smooth as regards calf value.add in ahi cost of the scheme and its looking very dodegy econmically especially if this drags on.bvd is one of maybe20 deseases that are affecting calf health so it would only reduce associated morbidity by 5%.

wrangler

K.G. wrote: »

i know its just im pissed given the fact that we were clear all along and now have an issue but is the whole scheme economically justified-is the control of the desease justified given what it has cost farmers.allowing for animals disposed and testing postage its costing most farmers at least a fiver a cow.multiply by is it 6 years now you looking at an investment of 3 or4 k for 100 cow farmer.i remember back in the day during a poor scan of cows the scanner suggested bvd.move on a few years and in relation to another herd health issue the same scanner suggested ibr as being a big issue.was it ever as big an issue as was made out.given the progress on it id be very slow allowing ahi screen for any other desease with a view to eradication

You'd imagine farmers should be responsible for their own farm disease control. they shouldn't need a nanny state to look after them.
You'd think after the TB fiasco and now BVD that they wouldn't be looking for their hands to be held in the care of their own cattle, Mumblings now about Johnes, a disease that was imported into the country as if we didn't have enough

Sacrolyte

How would it work with the johnes if implementated considering the animal needs to be over 2 yrs before getting an accurate test result if memory serves me correct. For dairy herds would blood or milk be used for sample?

Mooooo

Sacrolyte wrote: »

How would it work with the johnes if implementated considering the animal needs to be over 2 yrs before getting an accurate test result if memory serves me correct. For dairy herds would blood or milk be used for sample?

Johnes will be an all merciful pain as the test is like tb, there is no definitive yes or no unless the cow is fcuked with it. Bloods and dung samples I'd imagine. In areas with a lot of tb testing it'll be difficult as well as tb test interferes with result

greysides

K.G. wrote: »

2.3 million cows at a fiver a cow is 11.5 million
16000 pi calves at a notional value 200e is 3.2 million-you have to value at todays value and thats rough and smooth as regards calf value.add in ahi cost of the scheme and its looking very dodegy econmically especially if this drags on.bvd is one of maybe20 deseases that are affecting calf health so it would only reduce associated morbidity by 5%.

You are viewing the PI calves as a loss due to the scheme. I would look at that the opposite way around. 70% of PIs don't see their first birthday, the majority left don't see their second.
The cost to rear, cost to try to cure, cost to dispose of, and all the time trying their best to bring others with them. I see them as literally, a dead loss.
The difference between the starting incidence and current incidence is lives saved and costs not incurred. A little under 15,000 extra calves alive at their first birthday.

The scheme was costed out before it started and it can be found on the AHI site. Here's an abstract...

greysides

Sacrolyte wrote: »

How would it work with the johnes if implementated considering the animal needs to be over 2 yrs before getting an accurate test result if memory serves me correct. For dairy herds would blood or milk be used for sample?

Blood and milk for herd screening with dung as back up.

It will be a hard scheme to sell. I was very sceptical initially but I've been on the training and now I think a little better of it. In herds with a high level of Johnes significant improvements can be made with the tools to hand. It's going to be a lot less clear cut in the herds with low or no, infection.
There seems to be little interest in tackling it at farm level despite some fairly good financial back up. The pressure is coming from the top down and a lot of good people have put a lot of time into it. So much so, I seriously doubt it will remain voluntary. I suspect one way or another every one will have to get involved.

BVD was a guaranteed success. Technically. But look where we are.

Johne's is a different animal altogether.

I rather deal with 2 invested farmers than 20 disinterested ones.

Buford T. Justice XIX

greysides wrote: »

Firstly, it's nice to be, more or less, on the outside of this scheme and able to comment on it as relatively unaffected by it.



Who is 'they'?
On the front line its AHI. They are basically working for the 20, or so, groups that back and fund them. That's the farming organisations, the CoOps, AI companies, Dept and Veterinary Ireland.

When it started Ireland was deep in financial strife. There was no government money and the private companies etc, weren't going to pony up.

As regards explaining the importance of removing PIs, I don't see what more could have been done. I was at two meetings, one vet and one farmer, where it was all explained. There was a large body of farmers that didn't go, and couldn't be persuaded, even ones I'd diagnosed the related and fatal Mucosal Disease in. There were articles in the farming press and online. If anyone was bothered the information was there to be found.

From the get-go the IFA were adamant there be no vet involvement in a cattle disease eradication scheme. However illogical that may appear, the scheme as set up is a good one, technologically and scientifically. And it's great to be on the sidelines and without any blame when its duration is discussed.



Those culpable have already been identified in a previous post. Essentially, it's human nature.



AHI were well aware where the Achilles heal was.

Despite the way it had dragged on there are benefits. They are hard to appreciate because they are what didn't happen rather than things you can see. There are ways to calculate it and it has been done. For the industry as a whole its a large amount and can be researched by those interested enough.

At farmer level, some may appreciate less calf scour and pneumonia losses. A decreased level of infertility, abortion and SCCs is harder to see. That will mainly apply to those whose herds were infected. Weanling buyers should be seeing less losses from pneumonia.

Facing into year 9 of a 6 year programme, I'm a little less then convinced it's going to finish any time soon:p

whelan2

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Facing into year 9 of a 6 year programme, I'm a little less then convinced it's going to finish any time soon:p

Do many other countries test for bvd?

Hard Knocks

wrangler wrote: »

Mumblings now about Johnes, a disease that was imported into the country as if we didn't have enough

Do we need better testing & quarantine for imported stock?

grassroot1

Hard Knocks wrote: »

Do we need better testing & quarantine for imported stock?

Too late now me man should have kept spike island in operation

whelan2

Hard Knocks wrote: »

Do we need better testing & quarantine for imported stock?

They won't test positive for johnes until they are at least 2 years of age. Vet was saying last week they are seeing an increase in herds testing for johnes. We are in year 5 of testing here

alps

whelan2 wrote: »

Do many other countries test for bvd?

Yes, and some have eradicated it.

The Swiss model had 1 distinct difference to our fuddled effort.....it was compulsory to get rid of the PI

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38062082_BVD_eradication_in_Switzerland-A_new_approach

Hard Knocks

whelan2 wrote: »

They won't test positive for johnes until they are at least 2 years of age. Vet was saying last week they are seeing an increase in herds testing for johnes. We are in year 5 of testing here

Should their dams of been tested?

To me it seams we’re looking to improve the genetics of the national herd but through diseases coming in with the imported stock we’re leaving the national herd worse off

greysides

alps wrote: »

Yes, and some have eradicated it.

The Swiss model had 1 distinct difference to our fuddled effort.....it was compulsory to get rid of the PI

The PI issue was the weak point of the scheme. I don't know the exact reasons it wasn't compulsory even when participation became compulsory but I think it was a legal thing. The scheme was an industry led scheme rather than a government imposed one where the national coffers would have been raided.

I think several of the Nordic countries have eradicated BVD. It's not hard, even using less sophisticated tests it could be eliminated on a herd basis years before the scheme was started. The six, or so, herds. I cleared have stayed clear since. Thankfully. It cost a bit in testing but results were forthcoming. The difference was attitude and commitment of the herdowner- they had a problem that needed sorting.

K.G.

i suppose we ll have to wait until 2020 to know if the scheme will be a sucess or not .all i know is that bvd was not an issue on our farm until now and im quit concerned that this could be the beginning of as i belive we are very open to a
wipeout.prior to the comencement of the scheme the impression i got was that bvd was an issue in most herds and was alot more widspread than it has so proved

wrangler

greysides wrote: »

The PI issue was the weak point of the scheme. I don't know the exact reasons it wasn't compulsory even when participation became compulsory but I think it was a legal thing. The scheme was an industry led scheme rather than a government imposed one where the national coffers would have been raided.

I think several of the Nordic countries have eradicated BVD. It's not hard, even using less sophisticated tests it could be eliminated on a herd basis years before the scheme was started. The six, or so, herds. I cleared have stayed clear since. Thankfully. It cost a bit in testing but results were forthcoming. The difference was attitude and commitment of the herdowner- they had a problem that needed sorting.

I think it's not made compulsory to get rid of PIs because the department would be obliged to compensate if it was.
They sold flag the offenders at marts so that a compliant farmer buying replacement sucklers isn't at risk of buying from a bvd herd

greysides

K.G. wrote: »

i suppose we ll have to wait until 2020 to know if the scheme will be a sucess or not .all i know is that bvd was not an issue on our farm until now and im quit concerned that this could be the beginning of as i belive we are very open to a
wipeout.prior to the comencement of the scheme the impression i got was that bvd was an issue in most herds and was alot more widspread than it has so proved

IIRC, BVD was reckoned to be in about 70% of herds based on blood antibodies. Not all of those herds would have had PIs though. You presumably had a TASAH investigation last year, did it identify any possible ways the disease may have arrived?
Getting rid of PIs promptly is always advisable as they are the biggest source of virus and their presence increases the likelihood another pregnant animal will be infected during the window for creating another PI.
Herd Immunity will be very small now compared to previously due to lack of exposure of animals to the virus so creating a Trojan dam will be easier if virus is present. So its important to keep calved cows away from unchecked calves, where possible, and have all calves tested before breeding starts. Another option, to put in a firewall, is to vaccinate all breeding stock prior to the season starting. It's not foolproof but it is a good measure of help.
If your job involves visiting marts or other farms separate outer clothes and disinfection of boots should help. In this day and age it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask all visitors to disinfect.
Contractors slurry spreaders or muck spreaders are a risk that there's no easy answer to. Maybe have them spread the first few loads on silage ground?
Buying in heifers in-calf is risky. If unavoidable I'd suggest extra precautions around calving time- calve in isolation and keep separate till the test results are back.
Anyway, I imagine your vet has had a chat with you already. These are just some random thoughts I had.