Mooooo wrote: » Had 22 go last year. Factories send report to your vet. Rang vets they said only 1 killed out with lesions. Wasn't bad with them either as still got 600 in factory cheque, had heard of carcasses thrown out theybwere that bad Edit maybe vet can check with department, as opposed to get report, either way they can find out for you
Donegalforever wrote: » Is there not a danger that the farmer is nearly always going to be told that the animal had lesions. The farmer would need to be in the abattoir at the relevant time and know his/her stuff. I had a cow that failed the test a number of years ago and I phoned the abattoir inquiring if in fact the cow had lesions. I was told that she definitely had. Would they have said any different? Doubtful.
Base price wrote: » Our Vet and Accountant are key components of our small business and without their help, advise and support we might as well kiss our arse
foxy farmer wrote: » I'm in the same boat since 26 June. 2 reactors here. Dept called on Thursday about valuer. Knew one off the list and he called that evening. I always knew the skin test wasn't 100% accurate but he told me it's only accurate at picking up around 3-4% of true reactors. So 96 97% of cattle slaughtered as reactors aren't reactors at all. Make sure you find out how they kill out i.e. if they have lesions. Apparently its showing up in greater numbers this year. 60 odd years of testing and its worse than ever. Pure and utter joke.
Limestone Cowboy wrote: » I never even thought to ask how long id be clear for. Another crock of sh1t. Better ring the dvo Monday
Limestone Cowboy wrote: » Any place I heard where the cows were blood tested a good few more went with it after the skin test.
foxy farmer wrote: » Brucellosis testing was done by testing blood samples in a lab. Brucellosis is now resigned to history. If TB had a more reliable test which could be read in a lab I think we'd have far more success in eradication. Saying an animal has TB just by the size of a lump and which can't be verified without killing the animal. The skin test has too much room for it to be inaccurate. If it could identify animals with lesions for definite would be a major step forward.
The man in red and black wrote: » No test is perfect, they are reported to have developed a quick blood test on the other side of the Atlantic which I think reads within minutes. Now I presume that's in a University so may be some time but if it was accurate and becomes available routinely maybe it will help in the last years to finish it off. As it stands the Dept around me are often double checking any inconclusives or reactors with the standard blood test(Not a cow side, result in minutes test) and this aids them in deciding what restrictions to apply. In fairness the Dept do seem to have more scope to interpret rules on a regional basis recently. Or it seems that way to me, working in a practice that tests under two different Dept Offices with both areas having very different rates of TB and different consequences for single cases of inconclusives/reactors with no lesions etc.
Mooooo wrote: » Went clear in Jan, with new rules must test every 6 months for next 18 months and am oy clear to sell till 12 April, then locked up again till july
The man in red and black wrote: » I don't want to get into a huge arguement over testing, I just took particular offence to that last post, apologies if I offended you. Practices that rely solely on testing are on the way out. It's not the way of the future, they need to move with the times. TB testing IMO is responsible for vets being too busy/not interested and losing all the lameness and fertility work in cattle and most of the equine dentistry. Vets need to get into herd health, prevention, and unfortunately will have to start charging for time spent on farm investigating/advising on disease outbreaks. It will be a big change and some won't like getting a bill for time but it's the only way forward I think. As for TB. Reactor numbers are down hugely from 15 years ago never mind 60 years ago so it's not a waste of time. I think Greysides or someone else had a link before listing the numbers of reactors each year going back to the start?
Limestone Cowboy wrote: » I know, I said one of the reasons. Just think trying to vaccinate the badgers is a waste of time. For what it's worth I think the skin test throws up a lot of false positives. We have been held up here several times over the years with 1 or 2 reactors out of 100 cattle tested, none ever killed with lesions, how come we had no proper breakdown or any of our neighbours for that matter if there's tb in the area. There's a parish ten miles away and every couple of weeks you hear of someone new gone down with 10-50 cattle and they killing with lesions, never anything like that around my area. I have had this argument with my vet and despite all his logical explanations I remain unconvinced about the accuracy of the skin test.
The man in red and black wrote: » I'm biased as a vet but that's a really stink attitude to someone doing their job. If you have a lad out cutting silage and the silage is poor quality do you blame the contractor too? Lads want reactors ignored to sell cattle to other herds...but then happy to moan about the TB eradication scheme taking 60 years?!
Base price wrote: » I always understood that if we vaccinated cattle then our National Herd Health Status would be compromised thereby demising/obliterating our export markets.
Limestone Cowboy wrote: » What would happen to all the rural vetinary practice's if by some miracle it was ever eradicated? It's their bread and butter much like the direct payments to the farmers. I don't know it's called the tb eradication scheme either because we are no closer to eradication now than we were 60 years ago. There's a lot of things about it that make no sense. We are not allowed to vaccinate cattle but we are vaccinating badgers which is impractical at best with a vaccine that apparently doesn't provide 100% cover which is one of the reasons it won't be used on cattle because it will give false positives on skin test. Why is there money being wasted even trying to vaccinate badgers? I got caught last back end with 1 animal and 40 cattle to sell that I had to winter, I got 250e a month for my troubles after a battle with some of the most ignorant people I ever had to deal with in the dvo. I wonder how much a day the lads vaccinating the badgers are getting?
darragh_haven wrote: » Running the gauntlet here. Test yesterday, reading Monday. Depending on the result, the vet may or may not get paid in a timely fashion. There's one vet in local vet that hasn't seen a reactor in 20 years.
tanko wrote: » What about drinkers, is water contaminated by badgers a source of infection?
Over six years, scientists monitoring badgers fitted with GPS collars in Co Wicklow found that one in five males roamed a typical territory of 975ac, compared with the rest of the badger population staying within their close group's territory of 425ac. In distance terms, a so-called "super ranging" badger will travel 1.4km in one night, encroaching on his neighbours' territory, while his companions cover only 830m.
While the study did not identify causes for super ranging, it found that all badgers involved were young males, indicating that targeting this group could make TB vaccination more efficient,
