Changes to TB Eradication Scheme

patsy_mccabe

I mentioned it here already, but our herd went down with TB recently. 3 reactors and all home bred. It was the annual herd test. 20 year since we had it last
A department official visited yesterday to take blood samples from the 3. He was saying that there are new changes to the TB scheme now.
I have to do two clear 60 day tests. If clear then the last test is only valid for 3 months and I have to retest within 3 to 8 months again. Not sure what happens after that test (I lost concentration after that :mad:). I think he said there would be 2 more tests like that. Boullocks !!!!

Any one know the full changes?

Water Troughs
He walked the farm too, said that drinking troughs should be at least 32" off the ground.

Badgers
Plenty of badger activity to be seen too. Plenty of rooting of cow dung patches. He was saying that TB is endemic in the badger population and plenty of trials have linked the strain of TB in the local badgers to that of the TB found in local cattle. So proving the link.

Bit of a rant, but that was the last thing I needed right now.

foxy farmer

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

I mentioned it here already, but our herd went down with TB recently. 3 reactors and all home bred. It was the annual herd test. 20 year since we had it last
A department official visited yesterday to take blood samples from the 3. He was saying that there are new changes to the TB scheme now.
I have to do two clear 60 day tests. If clear then the last test is only valid for 3 months and I have to retest within 3 to 8 months again. Not sure what happens after that test (I lost concentration after that :mad:). I think he said there would be 2 more tests like that. Boullocks !!!!

Any one know the full changes?

Water Troughs
He walked the farm too, said that drinking troughs should be at least 32" off the ground.

Badgers
Plenty of badger activity to be seen too. Plenty of rooting of cow dung patches. He was saying that TB is endemic in the badger population and plenty of trials have linked the strain of TB in the local badgers to that of the TB found in local cattle. So proving the link.

Bit of a rant, but that was the last thing I needed right now.

The poor badger is blamed for everything. You'd think after 65 yrs of testing in this country they'd come up with something better. Wait till cattle are slaughtered and see if they have lesions.

_Brian

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

I mentioned it here already, but our herd went down with TB recently. 3 reactors and all home bred. It was the annual herd test. 20 year since we had it last
A department official visited yesterday to take blood samples from the 3. He was saying that there are new changes to the TB scheme now.
I have to do two clear 60 day tests. If clear then the last test is only valid for 3 months and I have to retest within 3 to 8 months again. Not sure what happens after that test (I lost concentration after that :mad:). I think he said there would be 2 more tests like that. Boullocks !!!!

Any one know the full changes?

Water Troughs
He walked the farm too, said that drinking troughs should be at least 32" off the ground.

Badgers
Plenty of badger activity to be seen too. Plenty of rooting of cow dung patches. He was saying that TB is endemic in the badger population and plenty of trials have linked the strain of TB in the local badgers to that of the TB found in local cattle. So proving the link.

Bit of a rant, but that was the last thing I needed right now.

Might be good to ask is the transmission definitely both ways, maybe the badgers are being infected from cattle but not the other way??

patsy_mccabe

If they show up with lesions, then this confirms they have TB. If no lesions evident then it's non-conclusive, as lesions only show up in advanced cases.
If no lesions show up, it doesn't make any difference to me. I'm still 'locked up' - am I right in saying that?

pedigree 6

_Brian wrote: »

Might be good to ask is the transmission definitely both ways, maybe the badgers are being infected from cattle but not the other way??

This is proven years ago.
The cattle infect the badgers, the poor badger infects other badgers and wanders off miles from the sett at night rooting dungpats in cattlefields where cattle are present passing on the disease to them.
I've seen cases where the only animals testing positive for tb in a herd were home bred calves in a shed and the link to how they got it was a badger going in at night time to eat the meal.

The measures the dept are taking are working. We don't want to turn into the crazy situation in England.
But patsy's cattle should of been valued and gone straight away.

crackcrack30

Overrun with badgers here, in every second ditch.....no tb issues

patsy_mccabe

pedigree 6 wrote: »

.....
But patsy's cattle should of been valued and gone straight away.

I think the reason they haven't gone straight away is they wanted to blood test them. No delay on my part I can tell you.

pedigree 6

crackcrack30 wrote: »

Overrun with badgers here, in every second ditch.....no tb issues

You've got clean badgers then. Lucky.

patsy_mccabe

pedigree 6 wrote: »

You've got clean badgers then. Lucky.

Yep. Just leave them be. If they're gone, new ones will move in and they might not be so clean.

pedigree 6

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

Yep. Just leave them be. If they're gone, new ones will move in and they might not be so clean.

But then the opposite is true if they are infected they have to go. As i say common sense still rules in this country.
Nobody wants to have coughing snotty nosed dieing badgers going around infecting other badgers.

Buford T. Justice XIX

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

I mentioned it here already, but our herd went down with TB recently. 3 reactors and all home bred. It was the annual herd test. 20 year since we had it last
A department official visited yesterday to take blood samples from the 3. He was saying that there are new changes to the TB scheme now.
I have to do two clear 60 day tests. If clear then the last test is only valid for 3 months and I have to retest within 3 to 8 months again. Not sure what happens after that test (I lost concentration after that :mad:). I think he said there would be 2 more tests like that. Boullocks !!!!

Any one know the full changes?

Water Troughs
He walked the farm too, said that drinking troughs should be at least 32" off the ground.

Badgers
Plenty of badger activity to be seen too. Plenty of rooting of cow dung patches. He was saying that TB is endemic in the badger population and plenty of trials have linked the strain of TB in the local badgers to that of the TB found in local cattle. So proving the link.

Bit of a rant, but that was the last thing I needed right now.

Most of that was in place already, the only part I hadn't heard of was a 3 month window for selling after 2 clear tests.

And the 6 month retest is standard also, we have ours next week, Dept test:(

If clear, the next test is the standard yearly test but I haven't heard of new rules after that, yet anyway.

Buford T. Justice XIX

pedigree 6 wrote: »

But then the opposite is true if they are infected they have to go. As i say common sense still rules in this country.
Nobody wants to have coughing snotty nosed dieing badgers going around infecting other badgers.

In certain areas, the badgers are overcrowded, according to the local man that traps for the Dept so they seem to be reducing the population to a standard level to reduce stress on the badgers and keep their immunity high.

limo_100

We used to have badgers and the department used to live around our farm and the neighboring farms until them culled them all. And we never had tb problem anyway

pedigree 6

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

In certain areas, the badgers are overcrowded, according to the local man that traps for the Dept so they seem to be reducing the population to a standard level to reduce stress on the badgers and keep their immunity high.

People would read that and say that's terrible the poor badger. But you have to remember there's no natural predators now in this country for badgers. So before if you had a slow diseased animal it would have been picked off by wolves or bears. Now it can wander home and infect the whole sett. There's nobody advocating killing all the badgers but keeping the one's we have clean and healthy.

pedigree 6

limo_100 wrote: »

We used to have badgers and the department used to live around our farm and the neighboring farms until them culled them all. And we never had tb problem anyway

The dept usually test the badgers and any roadkill badgers found. Must've found they were infected.

I have badgers here and haven't got tb in the cattle. But still take precautions with watertroughs and meal troughs, lick buckets though.

croot

pedigree 6 wrote: »

I have badgers here and haven't got tb in the cattle. But still take precautions with watertroughs and meal troughs, lick buckets though.

Same here thankfully. Lick buckets are a disaster for attracting badgers I'd say. I have seen some of my buckets with what looks like claw marks or teeth marks on the surface and I'm sure the badger loves the free molasses treats.

croot

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

I mentioned it here already, but our herd went down with TB recently. 3 reactors and all home bred. It was the annual herd test. 20 year since we had it last.

Sorry to hear that patsy. I think the reading of the herd test must be the most stressful thing on a livestock farm. There isn't a thing you can do about the result and following the vet when he stops at the neck of an animal and checks the reading a second or third time is torture.

Sam Kade

I had a retest in an inconclusive yesterday, I hope that I won't be in the same boat.

L1985

I was walking in the woods a few weeks back and must have found 4 if not 5 setts. Thank god we passed our test in April so we are leaving them be. They are obviously healthy and not causing problems as the woods are right in the middle of our farm so would be loads of interaction between them. Nothing worse then going down with TB.

Sam Kade

L1985 wrote: »

I was walking in the woods a few weeks back and must have found 4 if not 5 setts. Thank god we passed our test in April so we are leaving them be. They are obviously healthy and not causing problems as the woods are right in the middle of our farm so would be loads of interaction between them. Nothing worse then going down with TB.

I have loads of loam on the farm badgers go mad for it but the department send out a man now and again to snare them to check for tb but this inconclusive is worrying

L1985

Very. Nothing worse then waiting and not being able to do anything. Fingers crossed-farming so much crap completely out of your control that knocks you for6!!!

RedPeppers

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

If they show up with lesions, then this confirms they have TB. If no lesions evident then it's non-conclusive, as lesions only show up in advanced cases.
If no lesions show up, it doesn't make any difference to me. I'm still 'locked up' - am I right in saying that?

Yes you are still locked up as I understand it. Can someone explain the logic of this?

J.O. Farmer

RedPeppers wrote: »

Yes you are still locked up as I understand it. Can someone explain the logic of this?

Patsy did in the post you quoted. It's a case of absence of proof is not proof of absence.

RedPeppers

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

Patsy did in the post you quoted. It's a case of absence of proof is not proof of absence.

We had an inconclusive earlier this year. Vet said borderline to put him straight down. All clear on retest no trace of anything, now if that animal went down first time round and subsequently no lesions found how is it acceptable for me to be locked up for months when the animal never had any tb.

J.O. Farmer

RedPeppers wrote: »

We had an inconclusive earlier this year. Vet said borderline to put him straight down. All clear on retest no trace of anything, now if that animal went down first time round and subsequently no lesions found how is it acceptable for me to be locked up for months when the animal never had any tb.

Thats a slightly different situation. You'd an inconclusive. If it was decided that you had a reactor no lesions doesn't mean no TB. As someone else pointed out lesions are only seen in advanced cases.

patsy_mccabe

RedPeppers wrote: »

We had an inconclusive earlier this year. Vet said borderline to put him straight down. All clear on retest no trace of anything, now if that animal went down first time round and subsequently no lesions found how is it acceptable for me to be locked up for months when the animal never had any tb.

This is exactly what bugs the hell out of me. I've been in the exact situation with some animals been borderline. On the following test these animals were clear. This happened a number of times down through the years.
To me it's proof just how inaccurate the skin test is.

tractorporn

patsy_mccabe wrote:

This is exactly what bugs the hell out of me. I've been in the exact situation with some animals been borderline. On the following test these animals were clear. This happened a number of times down through the years. To me it's proof just how inaccurate the skin test is.

I have zero faith in that skin test. We get locked up here every 18-24 months. Last time we went down we sent a 14 year old cow for culling and she showed lesions after passing a test on the re test 10 cows went down and none showed any signs in the factory. I am biased but I think the whole TB erad scheme is a racket.

RedPeppers

What size does lump need to be to be considered a reactor as opposed to inconclusive?

Kovu

RedPeppers wrote: »

What size does lump need to be to be considered a reactor as opposed to inconclusive?

I believe it's more to do with the difference in sizes between the two lumps.

If you've an inconclusive animal you're nearly as well to factory them rather than keep them for retest. They can't be sold in a mart once they were inconclusive at any stage and sometimes it's better to bite the bullet when an animal shows up iffy.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Kovu wrote: »

I believe it's more to do with the difference in sizes between the two lumps.

If you've an inconclusive animal you're nearly as well to factory them rather than keep them for retest. They can't be sold in a mart once they were inconclusive at any stage and sometimes it's better to bite the bullet when an animal shows up iffy.

And any inconclusive from previous tests will be deemed reactors if another animal goes down with TB in a subsequent test.

Kovu

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

And any inconclusive from previous tests will be deemed reactors if another animal goes down with TB in a subsequent test.

I didn't know that! Lad next to me had one inconclusive a year or two ago, clear in tests since but KO'ed with lesions so he was locked up again. Wouldn't he have been better off putting her in the first day!

Sami23

pedigree 6 wrote: »

limo_100 wrote: »

We used to have badgers and the department used to live around our farm and the neighboring farms until them culled them all. And we never had tb problem anyway

I have badgers here and haven't got tb in the cattle. But still take precautions with watertroughs and meal troughs, lick buckets though.

What sort of precautions ?

Buford T. Justice XIX

Kovu wrote: »

I didn't know that! Lad next to me had one inconclusive a year or two ago, clear in tests since but KO'ed with lesions so he was locked up again. Wouldn't he have been better off putting her in the first day!

I didn't know it until the first cow showed up and they informed me that the inconclusive had to go too. A super 12yo cow, a few weeks from calving:(

Kovu

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

I didn't know it until the first cow showed up and they informed me that the inconclusive had to go too. A super 12yo cow, a few weeks from calving:(

I remember you saying that, really shít for you that was