Bovine TB: Fourth TB Advisory Group meeting - Friday 9 February 2007
1. The meeting focussed on the practical and operational delivery of bovine TB control policies. The Group invited representatives from Animal Health (formerly SVS) from Exeter, Truro, Worcester and Carmarthen to listen to their views and hear more about how they deliver the policies to farmers. The terms of reference for the meeting invited a frank exchange of opinion to explore current issues.
2. Representatives of Animal Health talked the Group through the procedures involved in the testing process from the calculation of TB testing intervals through to identifying and removing reactors, to give them a better understanding of what was involved and the difficulties they had.
Parish testing frequencies
3. As a starting point the meeting discussed parish testing frequencies which for the last two years have been set through an Animal Health centrally co-ordinated review process, mechanistically applying the directive requirements on test frequencies based on historical area incidence. Divisional Veterinary Managers (DVMs) were able to use their discretion in increasing testing frequencies above this threshold level based on a risk assessment of factors such as history of breakdowns in the parish, testing frequencies on the borders and whether there had been infection found in post-mortem results for dead badgers.
4. The importance of addressing all the potential risks of TB, including wildlife in the infected areas, was raised by Animal Health at this point.
5. The Animal Health representatives questioned the fact that DVMs were not permitted to discount the effect of isolated breakdowns where the reactor cattle had been recently purchased. The effect on annual testing and pre-movement testing on other herds within the parish was seen as disproportionate to the risk.
6. It was suggested that all other diseases are controlled by surveillance zones around the disease and TB should be tackled in a radial way too. Furthermore, those in large parishes should not be subject to higher testing frequencies because another herd possibly quite geographically distant within that large area had a TB breakdown. The Animal Health ’s Business Reform programme starts later this year. One of its aims is to consider alternatives to using parishes and one of which will be the feasibility of moving from a parish to a radial-based testing programme. It was acknowledged that although there was almost no veterinary logic for using administrative areas to delineate test frequencies, an alternative approach will require time to be developed and implemented.
Testing process
7. The meeting considered that the majority of TB testing was being carried out to a satisfactory standard. The DNV Consulting (Comer) report, commissioned by Defra to look into bovine TB testing procedures in England and Wales, has recommended that standards be reviewed.
8. The meeting discussed how long it took for infection to develop in an animal for it to be disclosed through testing or post mortem. This was relevant to whether a diseased animal with lesions for instance should be confirmed at its current location or on premises from which it had been recently moved. It was clear that there was a range for this timescale but those present considered that 30 days was sensible, and typing of the organism could help provide proof that the infection was purchased from elsewhere much later than this. In any case where the veterinary investigation concluded that infection was acquired before movement then the origin farm should be recorded as the infected location.
9. Most reported a swift removal of reactor animals of normally a week to ten days from receipt by Animal Health of test results from the LVI. The average time it took to culture and type infection in the laboratory was a couple of months. The Animal Health Planning and Delivery team reported that national statistics indicated 65% of reactor animals were removed within 10 days and 88% were removed within 20 days. It was recognised that delays occur if test charts are not sent to AHDOs promptly or there are problems with abattoir capacity or refusal by herd owners to release reactors. The situation was also slightly different in Wales as they still had an individual valuation system which could further delay the removal process.
10. Confirmed and unconfirmed cases were treated differently as allowed in the directive but it was suggested that enhanced disease control could include having a tougher policy regarding the unconfirmed breakdown.
11. The meeting also discussed severe interpretations. All were in agreement that its use in infected herds was justified and necessary to improve sensitivity but considered that the identification and subsequent removal of severe interpretation inconclusive reactors (that were passes at standard) should be reconsidered.
12. The meeting then discussed post mortem results and Animal Health veterinary staff stated the importance of ensuring quality assurance.
13. The meeting also briefly discussed table valuations. As a table valuation system is already in place in England and may well eventually come into use in Wales, then the only requirement prior to applying value is verification of the reactor animal and that it is a healthy animal of a certain defined table category. It was suggested that the testing official at the time of reading of the TB test could carry out this activity to reduce delays in reactor removal. Animals with a value that is outside of the table system would still have to be valued independently. The testing official could put in a reactor tag at the time of confirming a reactor to ensure that the correct animal is slaughtered.
14. TB in deer was also briefly covered at this point. It was felt there were an increasing number of deer to be found in the countryside and there was questioning as to whether deer are only an end host or part of a transmission chain either to the cattle or to the badger population or both.
15. Overall Animal Health staff thought that pre-movement testing will help reduce the number of incidents in clear areas but it was suggested that there was less benefit in high incidence areas where disease can possibly be acquired from wildlife reservoirs.
Communication
16. The Group recognised that good communication is a key element of working with farmers and the veterinary profession to tackle the disease. The Group asked to hear more about communication within Animal Health, with farmers and with the veterinary profession. All felt consistency and a streamlined approach were needed to control the disease. It was felt that regular face to face meetings between the different regions of Animal Health could help improve consistency. This forum would provide the opportunity to share ideas and knowledge as well as provide a learning opportunity for different regions. At present, Animal Health meet via teleconferences every 6 weeks. Animal Health veterinary staff, TBAG members and Defra suggested that face to face meetings should be considered as they felt such meetings would better promote the exchange of information.
17. The level of communication between Animal Health and local veterinary practices varied depending on the region. The Group suggested that Animal Health newsletters to local veterinary practices were valuable. However, Animal Health should consider sending more than one copy to larger practices to ensure all vets at the practice got the message.
18. Animal Health reported various degrees of success in communicating directly with farmers and local veterinary inspectors (LVIs). Generally, it was felt that more could be done to improve communications on a large scale but communicating on an individual basis was good. Animal Health were looking at how they could improve their large scale communications.
19. The Group asked whether there were any barriers to communication between Animal Health and farmers. Animal Health representatives felt their roles were sometimes undermined by farmers’ resistance to current approaches to policy. They felt that some farmers were less willing to co-operate with the cattle control measures already in place because of what was described as an unfair compensation system and the lack of action to address the wildlife issue.
20. The meeting then discussed ideas for the way forward in controlling bovine TB. It was felt by one of Animal Health's representatives present that there needed to be stronger action against those in the farming industry who deliberately and persistently disregarded the rules and did not comply with current control measures. Dealing with them proved very time consuming.
21. Animal Health representatives also felt that there needed to be decisions on dealing with the wildlife. Unless the disease in wildlife could be controlled disease levels in cattle would not reduce.
TB Advisory Group Secretariat
22 March 2007
Page last modified: 16 April 2007