TB testing

Jennythekid

Are many of yea in troubel with TB? I had reactors were removed today.

bob charles

yip I have a constantly restricted herd even though I have never had animals going down in the testing all factory lesions

reilig

bob charles wrote: »

yip I have a constantly restricted herd even though I have never had animals going down in the testing all factory lesions

If you have an ongoing problem with lesions in the factory that are not picked up in the annual TB test, you should request that one of your 60 day TB tests is a Blood TB test. It will identify any TB carriers that the ordinary test won't.

Tipp Man

Beef herd passed the test 3 weeks ago - thank god as we are going back to the mart with them

Cows tested on Wednesday - reading tomorrow so hopefully it will be all clear

We are really lucky, we have only had 1 animal in the last 30 years go down - and she had no leasions when she went to the factory. Touch wood

bob charles

reilig wrote: »

If you have an ongoing problem with lesions in the factory that are not picked up in the annual TB test, you should request that one of your 60 day TB tests is a Blood TB test. It will identify any TB carriers that the ordinary test won't.

No my problem is just a high volume of animals moving through the herds. As by the time the 60 day post lesion test comes around, over 50% of the herd will have flipped. probably should go feedlot status but thats a pain in the ass aswell. Im just buying someone else's tb problems as there is no TB around these parts

Min

reilig wrote: »

If you have an ongoing problem with lesions in the factory that are not picked up in the annual TB test, you should request that one of your 60 day TB tests is a Blood TB test. It will identify any TB carriers that the ordinary test won't.

Talked to a vet about that, it is a very inaccurate test and should be avoided as it will take animals that have no TB and could take a high number that have no TB.

If one has breeding animals, dairy or suckler and want to avoid losing good animals then they should just stick with the tried and tested TB test.
One would be better off getting the local wildlife like badgers seen to whether vaccinated or culled.

reilig

Min wrote: »

Talked to a vet about that, it is a very inaccurate test and should be avoided as it will take animals that have no TB and could take a high number that have no TB.

.

My vet advised the very opposite. He said that the blood test is far more accurate than the ordinary test. We had problems a few years ago - every test there was 1 that was inconclusive - we'd get rid of her, but then next time there would be another. The vet advised us to request a blood test, so we did and on the test they identified 1 cow that had never shown up in the ordinary test. The department vet told us that she was probably a carrier - infecting the animals as she went along but never showing anything herself. Thankfully when she was slaughtered, we haven't had a reactor since.

5live

A neighbour went down with 94 reactors including calves:eek:. He is only back a few years after BSE and now this. And a closed dairy herd and the same all round him.

I am getting worried now as there is a huge number of new badger setts around the area including 5 on my bounds ditches.

But only 2 reactors in 25 years so hopefully...........

whelan1

5live wrote: »

A neighbour went down with 94 reactors including calves:eek:. He is only back a few years after BSE and now this. And a closed dairy herd and the same all round him.

I am getting worried now as there is a huge number of new badger setts around the area including 5 on my bounds ditches.

But only 2 reactors in 25 years so hopefully...........

holy fook that is some hit

what happen

5live wrote: »

A neighbour went down with 94 reactors including calves:eek:. He is only back a few years after BSE and now this. And a closed dairy herd and the same all round him.

I am getting worried now as there is a huge number of new badger setts around the area including 5 on my bounds ditches.

But only 2 reactors in 25 years so hopefully...........

hi if a dairy farmer had cows that went down with tb can he still sent the milk to the co op as normal.

Browning

40% of my herd gone down, due to go tomorrow. From talking to the DVO there seems to be a big increase this year in the number of herds going down. Maybe some link with the cold weather and badgers being stressed and coming into contact with cattle during the prolonged cold. Happy enough with the valuation but could have done without the setback given the fact there is nothing I could have done to avoid it. Must compliment the DVO for the way they have handled the whole thing.

Jed_Bartlet

reilig wrote: »

My vet advised the very opposite. He said that the blood test is far more accurate than the ordinary test. We had problems a few years ago - every test there was 1 that was inconclusive - we'd get rid of her, but then next time there would be another. The vet advised us to request a blood test, so we did and on the test they identified 1 cow that had never shown up in the ordinary test. The department vet told us that she was probably a carrier - infecting the animals as she went along but never showing anything herself. Thankfully when she was slaughtered, we haven't had a reactor since.

Don't know that 'accurate' is the right way of describing the GIF test but neither is it 'inaccurate.' The standard Skin Test is about 97% accurate, whereas the GIF test is about 84% accurate. The GIF test is just a whole lot more sensitive than the standard test - it's looking for traits of TB in blood samples and some of the traits in TB are also appatent in other diseases and can result in 'False Positives.' The GIF might be best said to 'err on the side of caution,' if it even thinks that an animal has TB, it'll identify it as a positive reactor.

By the way, it's not as easy as you might think to get approval to do the test - the Dept. allocate a certain amount of money for GIF tests so they are restricted to the number they can do each year - a breakdown needs to be pretty bad in order to get approval to have one carried out.

LostCovey

reilig wrote: »

My vet advised the very opposite. He said that the blood test is far more accurate than the ordinary test. We had problems a few years ago - every test there was 1 that was inconclusive - we'd get rid of her, but then next time there would be another. The vet advised us to request a blood test, so we did and on the test they identified 1 cow that had never shown up in the ordinary test. The department vet told us that she was probably a carrier - infecting the animals as she went along but never showing anything herself. Thankfully when she was slaughtered, we haven't had a reactor since.

Reilig,

Your vet is wrong and Min is right and your isolated incident is just that.

The blood test misses very few TB positives, but it does take out a lot of TB negative animals. It is used to take out persistent sources of TB that don't react to the skin test, but it can take out a lot besides.

If the blood test were "more accurate" there would be no need for skin testing


LC

LostCovey

Jed_Bartlet wrote: »

Don't know that 'accurate' is the right way of describing the GIF test but neither is it 'inaccurate.' The standard Skin Test is about 97% accurate, whereas the GIF test is about 84% accurate. The GIF test is just a whole lot more sensitive than the standard test - it's looking for traits of TB in blood samples and some of the traits in TB are also appatent in other diseases and can result in 'False Positives.' The GIF might be best said to 'err on the side of caution,' if it even thinks that an animal has TB, it'll identify it as a positive reactor.

By the way, it's not as easy as you might think to get approval to do the test - the Dept. allocate a certain amount of money for GIF tests so they are restricted to the number they can do each year - a breakdown needs to be pretty bad in order to get approval to have one carried out.

Sorry I replied to Reilig before I read this - essentially this is exactly what I was saying, but put more elegantly, well said.

LC

LostCovey

what happen wrote: »

hi if a dairy farmer had cows that went down with tb can he still sent the milk to the co op as normal.

Yes, unless there was evidence that it had spread to the udder (TB mastitis). The animals can also be eaten (and are).

LC

MANSFIELD

Tipp Man wrote: »

Beef herd passed the test 3 weeks ago - thank god as we are going back to the mart with them

Cows tested on Wednesday - reading tomorrow so hopefully it will be all clear

We are really lucky, we have only had 1 animal in the last 30 years go down - and she had no leasions when she went to the factory. Touch wood

If a cow that fails the tb test and shows no leasions when she is killed in the factory . Does the factory then get more tests done in a lab (because she showed lumps) to see if she has tb but hasn't developed leasions?

If so how long do these tests take ?

Jed_Bartlet

Originally posted by Lost Covey
Sorry I replied to Reilig before I read this - essentially this is exactly what I was saying, but put more elegantly, well said.

LC

Thanks LC, always nice to get a compliment

Originally posted by MANSFIELD
If a cow that fails the tb test and shows no leasions when she is killed in the factory . Does the factory then get more tests done in a lab (because she showed lumps) to see if she has tb but hasn't developed leasions?

If so how long do these tests take ?

It depends on how the animal was treated by the DVO. If it was a Singleton Reactor, then the glands from the animal will be collected by the factory and sent to a lab in Abbotstown to be cultured. This can take about 6 weeks from the date they start the culture (Usually about a week and a half to two weeks after the animal is slaughtered).

If the animal was part of a larger breakdown (i.e. 2 or more reactors) then the only check the factory will carry out is the standard Post Mortem where they'll check the usual areas (lungs, mouth, windpipe, etc.) for lesions and if they don't see any on visual inspection, the animal is classed as 'NVL' (No Visible Lesions).

5live

Browning wrote: »

40% of my herd gone down, due to go tomorrow. From talking to the DVO there seems to be a big increase this year in the number of herds going down. Maybe some link with the cold weather and badgers being stressed and coming into contact with cattle during the prolonged cold. Happy enough with the valuation but could have done without the setback given the fact there is nothing I could have done to avoid it. Must compliment the DVO for the way they have handled the whole thing.

I met the farmer whose herd went down with 94 reactors last night. He was reckoning that the badgers were eating ration from a loose store that he was storing wheat in and passed on the TB from there. All his calves gone as the dept vets think it was TB from the milk that the calves got so all had to go:(

It was probably because of the frozen ground and they were hungry. One hell of a hit though

Pie Man

Done our test there yesterday and one of our cows has two lumps, the top lump is twice the size of the bottom on. I know if its the other way round she infected but dose it mean any thing the way my cow lumps are.

whelan1

if the bottom lump is bigger then you're in trouble but tbh i dont bother looking at them anymore as you are only annoying yourself could be a lump under the skin that you cant see... the top lump is avian tb

Grecco

Pie Man wrote: »

Done our test there yesterday and one of our cows has two lumps, the top lump is twice the size of the bottom on. I know if its the other way round she infected but dose it mean any thing the way my cow lumps are.

No a bigger top lump is a called a false positive. It shows that both lumps are probably caused by avian TB which is harmless.
However if there is a bad outbreak of TB in you area the dept can and usually do put down any animal with top or bottom lumps

Jed_Bartlet

Grecco wrote: »

No a bigger top lump is a called a false positive. It shows that both lumps are probably caused by avian TB which is harmless.
However if there is a bad outbreak of TB in you area the dept can and usually do put down any animal with top or bottom lumps

Bottom lumps I can understand as it likely indicates that the animal is a reactor. But a Dept. vet requesting that an animal be euthanized where a disease isn't confirmed and where it's not a serious welfare issue? I honestly haven't ever heard of that.

I've definetely heard of Veterinary Inspectors being consulted and recommending on farm euthanization (though it's extremely rare for them to actually do this themselves) on welfare grounds but most will just recommend that the animal be sent for slaughter providing it's fit to travel. If it's the top lump that's bigger and providing the animal isn't in pain, the Dept. don't have much of a leg to stand on to deem an animal a reactor (not that this would stop some of them - I know a few VI's who have a saying, "An animal is a reactor when I say it's a reactor!" but it leaves the Dept. open to paying compensation where they mightn't otherwise have to and it doesn't look all that good.)

Do you actually know if this has happened in Clare or somewhere? I'm not disputing it I've just never come across it.

LostCovey

Jed_Bartlet wrote: »

Grecco wrote: »

No a bigger top lump is a called a false positive. It shows that both lumps are probably caused by avian TB which is harmless.
However if there is a bad outbreak of TB in you area the dept can and usually do put down any animal with top or bottom lumps

Bottom lumps I can understand as it likely indicates that the animal is a reactor. But a Dept. vet requesting that an animal be euthanized where a disease isn't confirmed and where it's not a serious welfare issue? I honestly haven't ever heard of that.

I've definetely heard of Veterinary Inspectors being consulted and recommending on farm euthanization (though it's extremely rare for them to actually do this themselves) on welfare grounds but most will just recommend that the animal be sent for slaughter providing it's fit to travel. If it's the top lump that's bigger and providing the animal isn't in pain, the Dept. don't have much of a leg to stand on to deem an animal a reactor (not that this would stop some of them - I know a few VI's who have a saying, "An animal is a reactor when I say it's a reactor!" but it leaves the Dept. open to paying compensation where they mightn't otherwise have to and it doesn't look all that good.)

Do you actually know if this has happened in Clare or somewhere? I'm not disputing it I've just never come across it.

Jed there is a linguistic gulf here. In the west "putting an animal down" at a TB test means labelling them as a reactor not euthanasia. And the poster is referring to severe interpretation although I dont think they have the details totally right.

LostCovey

Jed_Bartlet

LostCovey wrote: »

Jed there is a linguistic gulf here. In the west "putting an animal down" at a TB test means labelling them as a reactor not euthanasia. And the poster is referring to severe interpretation although I dont think they have the details totally right.
LostCovey

Ah, right. I'm from Limerick (but have a lot of dealings with Clare farmers) and am used to saying that an 'animal went down' but this was a bit too loose for me. Thanks for clearing it up.

You're probably right about the severe interpretation though, but the top lumps still wouldn't have anything to do with it - it just reduces the size that a lump has to be in order to call it a reactor a reactor but it's still the bottom lump being bigger than the top that indicates a reactor.

Bizzum

Jed,
Be very careful in some areas too if someone wants to "Take care of you"
Or indeed "Take you out":)

Jed_Bartlet

Bizzum wrote: »

Jed,
Be very careful in some areas too if someone wants to "Take care of you"
Or indeed "Take you out":)

After that, I'm never going to a doctor, a hospital or near a nurse again and I'm turning down any and all invitations to any social functions. In fact, I'm just going to never leave my house again. I think it'll be safer.

LostCovey

Jed_Bartlet wrote: »

After that, I'm never going to a doctor, a hospital or near a nurse again and I'm turning down any and all invitations to any social functions. In fact, I'm just going to never leave my house again. I think it'll be safer.

Even at home, you also need to know that people who call you 'pal' may be about to hit you.

e.g. "have you got a problem, pal"

LC

Dozer1

Sorry for dragging up an old thread lads and ladies but unfortunately I've a question on a TB reactor.

My PB CH bull went down yesterday, looked like the bottom of his neck was completely swelled, not in the usual style I'd associate with TB which would be a round lump, this guy's neck looked like a flat swelling.

Anyway vet said he's to go, not a sign on any of the rest of them and have a closed herd for nearly 2 years.

Question is I need a bull to replace him as quickly as possible, do I need a permit from the DVO or what can I do?

God only knows how they'll value him.
thanks

bob charles

Dozer1 wrote: »

Sorry for dragging up an old thread lads and ladies but unfortunately I've a question on a TB reactor.

My PB CH bull went down yesterday, looked like the bottom of his neck was completely swelled, not in the usual style I'd associate with TB which would be a round lump, this guy's neck looked like a flat swelling.

Anyway vet said he's to go, not a sign on any of the rest of them and have a closed herd for nearly 2 years.

Question is I need a bull to replace him as quickly as possible, do I need a permit from the DVO or what can I do?

God only knows how they'll value him.
thanks

Yes you will be allowed clearance after pinning your name to a piece of paper that signs away any further liability from the dept if more animals go down with TB in subsequent tests.

Dozer1

Thanks Bob, that's a bit of a risk to take, so if I buy a bull any more go down its at my expense, or is it just if the new bull went down

Jed_Bartlet

Dozer1 wrote: »

Thanks Bob, that's a bit of a risk to take, so if I buy a bull any more go down its at my expense, or is it just if the new bull went down

Dozer1, your local DVO can issue you with an ER37A permit permitting you to buy in a replacement stock bull or a replacement suckler calf. It won't affect any further reactors or payments and if the replacement bull goes down, the department will pay out on it.

Buying in heifers, cows or bullocks does affect disease grant payments but so long as you ring the DVO (you shouldn't even have to sign anything, an ER37A permit only has to be signed by a Veterinary Inspector) and tell them what you want, you should be fine.