Justjens wrote: » You'll be given the contact details for a number of valuers to value the animal, if you and the Dept are in agreement then you'll be paid the reactor grant/balance of value on factory's reactor price. You may have to do some disinfecting of houses and that may have to be signed off before payment is issued, but I'm not too sure how that works now.Your first test is two months after reactor is removed and then two months again after that, all going well you will then get your restriction lifted.
blue5000 wrote: » There is so much TB showing up in places that lads around here are starting to wonder what exactly is in them little bottles the vets use for testing.
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.
Buford T. Justice V wrote: » However, two 60 day clear tests would be the standard practice for an isolated case.
Toplink wrote: » So do we have to wait 60 days for next test and then hoping that one goes ok, we'll have another one 60 days after that? Jut as well we are not selling weanlings in Autumn anyway .
greysides wrote: » The valuer should stick to what he knows as that's rubbish! If he's going around to farmers and talking about TB he really should either know his facts or know to keep to what he is expert on. While I can't quote figures the number of reactors, nationwide, has dropped a lot in recent years. Google the terms 'sensitivity', 'specificity' as they apply to tests and then check those figures for the skin test.....it's still the Gold Standard test for TB. I understand you're less-than-happy about being locked up but mis-information like that isn't going to improve your situation. It will only serve to make more annoyed.
Milked out wrote: » While I agree the figures that the valuer above quoted are bs the fact that they cannot improve on the test giving how long the scheme is running and the money spent is a Bollox to be honest.
mf240 wrote: » What would all the vets and department officals do for a living if they actually got rid of tb.
whelan2 wrote: » was just thinking about this earlier for when the blood testing is relaxed , have 1 heifer i am bringing to mart, 56 euro call out fee and then the cost of the blooding to get 1 animal tested:eek:
foxy farmer wrote: » Was in with vets this morning and enquired about how my 2 reactors killed out. They both killed out negative. No TB but still here we are locked up needlessly because of a test thats not 100% accurate or in my case 100% inaccurate on 2 counts.
Base price wrote: » Wow that is steep. We bought two young cows (FR and FRx) from a dairy farmer friend earlier this year to rear calves. They had pucks of milk and we didn't have enough calves at the time to empty them. A local dairy farmer happened to drive into the yard to borrow a bolus dosing gun, saw them and thankfully bought them. Vet charged €35 + vat to blood test them. * Awful pity you aren't allowed to put a single/two cows into the trailer and bring them to the vet to get blooded/tested.
Capercaillie wrote: » Dangerous to try and blood cattle in a trailer.
Base price wrote: » Depends on the vet, the width and length of the trailer, good gates and how secure the animals are. Our vet have handled/pregnancy tested cows & heifers in the trailer when they were too busy to do a on farm visit. Same vet also scanned mares in the horse box.
greysides wrote: » Killing out with No Visible Lesions (NVL) is not the same as not having been in-contact or infected with the TB bacillus.
P_Cash wrote: » How easy is it spread in a herd, i bought all mine in spring, and are out since, vet seems to think I'll be fine
greysides wrote: » That's not the simple question it appears to be. Or, at least, there isn't the simple answer to it that you'd expect. Yes, it is contagious but there's obviously more than one factor involved as experimentally there isn't a consistent result. AFAIK, it spreads more widely in cows than in fattening stock. Cows are under more pressure. Common-sense would suggest it will spread better in the confines of indoors than on pasture. There's likely to be a difference between strains. The health status of the cattle is liable to influence spread (by effects on the donor, if not the recipient) and concurrent disease may influence it too. Trouble is that it's hard to show these experimentally. Badger transmission was also ambivalent when it was studied. At the end of the day it's a respiratory disease so housing factors, weather factors, animal density etc will influence it in the same way they influence other pneumonias. Because swallowed infected sputum will exit via the faeces, there can be faecal spread also. Decades ago when clinical cases were common-place animal housing was often lacking ventilation and crowded. Animal husbandry/feeding over the winter was less expert than today. All these would have made animal-to-animal spread more of a feature. Lesions (basically dried abscesses) can be open or closed. That means open to the airways, and thus air movement, or sealed off. Open lesions facilitate spread. Closed lesions in a healthy animal, don't; at least while the animal remains healthy. Throw in a severe lameness or mastitis and that can change. In essence, I'd be thinking along the same lines as you're vet. Hopeful.
just do it wrote: » This thing of NVL isn't worth getting excited about. All NVL means is 1 or 2 incisions in a few lymph nodes didn't hit a TB abscess. It doesn't mean there aren't TB abscesses elsewhere in those same lymph nodes, micro-abscesses present, or abscesses elsewhere in the body. Also if the animal is freshly exposed it mightn't have developed abscess yet. If you get an early indication of cancer from your GP you get a whole battery of tests to check if the body is clear, not just a glance at a few lymph nodes. Cattle would need a full MRI to definitively state they're NVL. Who is willing to pay for that?
awaywithyou wrote: » our vet along with other vets i know told me at the time that when cattle were indoors we would have a better chance of no reactors... as the cattle are not in contact with wildlife....
On the lesions found in animals..... our first batch of 140 reactors (70 of which were calves) 4 yrs ago... 30 cows had lesions... calves were skipped we lost a load more calves to tb (ended up with every calf born on farm in 2011 being slaughtered)... this rumbled on into spring 2013... and we wanted the calves that put down and taken to a laboratory for analysis (we had to fight hard to get this).. calves inspected and had lesions... got a phone call to say they had lesions did we want to continue with growing cultures as they prob had tb... we wanted cultures grown... took 12 wks and the calves were clear.... my point - i think the tb eradication scheme is a joke
