TB testing

Toplink · 04-07-2015 9:40pm #1

So he rubbed their necks and lone behold one of them showed up with lumps. No doubt about it.

A lad we bought in 10 months ago. Dept ringing on Monday. This hasn't happened us in nearly 2 decades so unsure about how this plays out.

Do we need to 2 clear tests before we can sell in mart? The young man will be shipped away shortly... How will his market value be decided?

Thanks in advance.

Justjens · 04-07-2015 10:08pm

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 · 04-07-2015 10:15pm

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.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 04-07-2015 10:28pm

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.

That's not exactly right. I'm in the middle of a bad outbreak here and the current regime is a 35 day Dept test and then 2 more vet rounds at 35 days before being allowed to become clear.

However, two 60 day clear tests would be the standard practice for an isolated case.

The reactors are supposed to be taken within 10 days of the reactor being found and this was be the case here, thankfully.

After the animal is valued, you should get a valuation in the post within 4 working days and have a couple of days to agree or dispute the valuation. If you disagree, it will delay the removal and might not improve the valuation. You will get a BIG list of the valuations for each category of animal so have a good look at that before agreeing/rejecting the valuation.

The factory will send you their payment for the animals and the balance will be topped up by the Dept but that can take a good bit of time so don't spend it before you get it:)

Toplink · 04-07-2015 10:29pm

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.

So I was trying to figure out that... What do they inject in?

foxy farmer · 05-07-2015 2:58am

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.

greysides · 05-07-2015 7:26am

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.

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.

Toplink · 05-07-2015 11:18am

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

However, two 60 day clear tests would be the standard practice for an isolated case.

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 .

Buford T. Justice XIX · 05-07-2015 11:23am

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 .

Yeah, 60 days to the next and 60 days again, as long as there are no other cases around you. 2 clear tests and you're back in business.

Milked out · 05-07-2015 11:26am

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.

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 · 05-07-2015 4:55pm

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.

What would all the vets and department officals do for a living if they actually got rid of tb.

ganmo · 05-07-2015 5:30pm

mf240 wrote: »

What would all the vets and department officals do for a living if they actually got rid of tb.

I think Vets would be more proactive about disease plans etc. the dept lads...would move onto some other scheme

Base price · 05-07-2015 5:30pm

mf240 wrote: »

What would all the vets and department officals do for a living if they actually got rid of tb.

Spend their time visiting every farm in the country doing cross compliance, QA, etc checks

whelan2 · 05-07-2015 5:51pm

mf240 wrote: »

What would all the vets and department officals do for a living if they actually got rid of tb.

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:

Base price · 05-07-2015 6:29pm

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:

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.

foxy farmer · 28-07-2015 11:45am

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.

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.

P_Cash · 28-07-2015 5:52pm

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.

i was asked that question this morning, im waiting for him to be collected.

so if hes 100& negative, your still locked up for 120 days, with 2 tests. joke

Capercaillie · 28-07-2015 7:13pm

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.

Dangerous to try and blood cattle in a trailer.

Base price · 28-07-2015 7:30pm

Capercaillie wrote: »

Dangerous to try and blood cattle in a trailer.

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.

Capercaillie · 28-07-2015 7:57pm

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.

Good way to get busted up. Unless there is a crush in trailer it would not be worth the risk. The local vet would never do that. He always says it is not worth risking your life for a blood when can put them in a crush.

greysides · 28-07-2015 7:57pm

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.

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 · 28-07-2015 8:44pm

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.

But a nvl goes back to the food chain in Ireland, just not exported.

greysides · 28-07-2015 8:52pm

To the best of my knowledge, so does one with lesions. There is a set of circumstances which result in a carcase being totally condemned and there may be rules about partial condemnations too.

P_Cash · 28-07-2015 8:54pm

So it's in the food chain, but animals with no positive reaction are in lock down for 120 days. Who makes these rules

greysides · 28-07-2015 9:01pm

It takes ~60 days from exposure until an animals immune system will react to tuberculin. A bit like the delay in a vaccine becoming effective. Some of those locked up animals may have been exposed and will react at the next test although they are not yet ready to react to the test.

P_Cash · 28-07-2015 9:27pm

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 · 28-07-2015 10:03pm

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

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 · 28-07-2015 10:22pm

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 · 28-07-2015 10:36pm

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.

when TB was rampant on our farm 4 yrs ago.... most of the reactors occurred when cattle were on grass..... and when they were inside reactors were few and far between...

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

greysides · 28-07-2015 11:10pm

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?

Spot on. My impression of NVLs is that the dept use it as a statistic for comparisons. It should never have been made public as it only leads to the wrong conclusions to the benefit of no one. IMO.

greysides · 28-07-2015 11:27pm

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....

I would agree with that, my comments earlier were to do with cattle-to-cattle spread. IMO, the pattern of outdoor contact leading to reactors, and housing leading to clearance is very strong evidence that wildlife is the worst source.

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

I realise I've the benefit of not being in middle of that one but (dispassionately) I'd read that differently.

With 30 out of 70 cows from the first batch showing lesions that's a very high lesion rate. (Something like 1 in 3 is more normal.) There can be very little doubt about the presence of TB.

I met a situation once where cows and suckler calves went down in big numbers. Calves that weren't born at the test 60 days earlier went down with lesions.

I'd be inclined to think that if there was a false result it was with the culturing. I'd think that calves are unlikely to be exposed to the things that would cause similar lesions to TB.

TB testing

Comments