Bovine TB: Eighth TB Advisory Group meeting - Thursday 12 July 2007
Meeting summary
1. This was part of the series of fact-finding meetings the TB Advisory Group has been holding to get a balance of views on tackling TB from all interested parties.
2. The Group invited representatives from the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and the British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) to give their views on current TB control policies in England including views on the Independent Scientific Committee on Cattle TB (ISG)’s final report and conclusions.
Current controls and ISG Report
3. The BVA welcomed the ISG’s final report and stated there was a lot of information to consider and they would use the information to develop their thinking. They said the report goes beyond culling to recommend further cattle control measures without any evidence on, for example, cost effectiveness to support them. They confirmed they believed it was not possible to control TB in endemic areas with cattle controls alone. They stated that as the ISG suggest that perhaps 40% of infection may result in transmission from wildlife, then it was not credible for any TB control strategy to ignore this level of risk.
4. The BCVA agreed and stated there would not be much change in TB in the cattle population if disease control measures only focused on cattle. They believed the wildlife also needed controlling through a combination of husbandry best practices, vaccination and culling. This could be achieved through: separating cattle from badgers; following husbandry best practices where feasible; or waiting for vaccination. They felt the third option would be too late as vaccination was some years away.
5. The BVA and BCVA also stated that many of the cattle control measures outlined in the ISG’s report had already been introduced. And although there had not been a reduction in the disease, there could be a leveling off. It would take a number of years before the full impact of the cattle control measures introduced over the last couple of years started to show.
6. They believed a regional approach to tackling the disease was needed, which recognized the different disease situations in different parts of the country. The BVA and BCVA suggested that rapid eradication of TB in low incidence areas was needed. Pre-movement testing was helping to reduce spread. They felt that evidence of the impact that pre-movement testing and use of the gamma interferon test could have in tackling disease in low incidence areas would be valuable in giving farmers in TB hotspot areas more confidence and appetite to employ these measures in endemic areas.
7. The Group then asked attendees for their views on a number of the ISG report’s recommendations.
Culling Strategy views
8. The BVA and BCVA disagreed with the ISG report’s conclusion that culling would have no meaningful impact on the disease. They said that the evidence suggests that if culling was carried out on a large enough scale, with attention paid to the boundaries of a culling area and there was good farmer compliance with the approach, then a culling strategy could be successful. They acknowledged that it would take some time before any culling could possibly get off the ground given the range of issues that would need to be considered and the likelihood of legal challenge but they believed culling was likely to deliver benefits more quickly than a badger vaccination, which was some years away.
Increased cattle testing
9. The BVA and BCVA suggested that if testing frequency was increased then disease would be picked up more quickly. But it was acknowledged that any increase in testing would result in increased costs to the Government. However, they also suggested that if there was more frequent testing, the number of tracings would reduce, and therefore the number of whole herd tests would reduce, which would reduce other costs. The BVA and BCVA stated that if the budget was limited, the funds might need to be targeted for most impact, for example, diverting the costs of contiguous herds to higher priority testing.
10. The Group queried why Government should pay for increased testing. The BVA and BCVA responded that the issue of paying for increased cattle controls was for the Government and industry to agree. They stated that any costs to industry would not be spread evenly as not all areas needed the same levels of increased testing. They confirmed that it was difficult to encourage farmers to increase testing when testing alone would not stop the spread of the disease.
11. The Group asked for views on how targeted testing would need to be to reduce disease spread. The BVA and BCVA stated at least 2 yearly testing but decisions needed to be risk-based. Better IT systems would help assess risk using the history of an animal, trading routes, test history and present location. Once the risk factors were considered, annual testing might be introduced. They also cautioned that increased testing would help speed up the ability to trade but it was difficult to promote this as a positive message if increased testing leads to a breakdown which prevents trading.
12. The Group asked for views on whether there were any logistical or veterinary capacity issues with increased testing. The BVA and BCVA confirmed they had every confidence that they could cope with increased testing. Pre-movement testing had not led to any capacity issues as previously anticipated and there was no reason to suggest it would with increased testing. If there were capacity issues at a local level, practices could deal with them by agreeing to be flexible and help each other. It was also possible to recruit more vets, particularly from elsewhere in the EU, if the testing load was to increase sharply.
Zoning
13. The Group asked for views on whether zoning parts of the country (to prevent movements out of high risk areas) or using a risk-based approach per farm would help reduce disease spread. The BVA and BCVA suggested this would be a good idea to promote with industry so that it acted as a driver not to get TB. Those without TB would welcome it, but they would feel penalized if it affected their trading practices.
14. The meeting agreed geographical zoning would not work. A more sophisticated approach was ‘risk-based trading’. All agreed trading has to continue - high risk areas could trade with other high risk areas. If farmers wanted to buy animals from high risk areas they should post movement test them as well. The Group said they would be interested to hear further consideration of how this would work but also encouraged consideration of options that would not incur lengthy changes to legislation. Any suggestions needed to be simple, enforceable and quick to implement.
Gamma interferon (IFNg) – when and where
15. The BVA and BCVA believed that a review of the use of gamma interferon needs to be performed before any wider roll-out. They felt the results were questionable as there were concerns about specificity issues. When and where to use the gamma interferon test needs to be considered alongside the specificity issue. The BVA and BCVA said there were concerns about specificity and recommended more generally that communication about IFNg positive cases with no visible lesions (NVLs) needs to be improved. Farmers were confused that NVLs mean their animal does not have TB. They suggested views on further use of gamma interferon testing would depend on where it would be used. They also suggested some might consider the risk of false positives was outweighed by identifying reactors quickly to stop further spread. They further suggested if there is limited capacity for using the test, when and where it is currently being used is about right.
16. Furthermore, the BVA and BCVA stated that if money was no object, they would suggest using the TB skin test and gamma interferon as a pre-movement test. They also questioned whether there was merit in exploring gamma interferon as a pre-movement test when moving animals from high to low incidence areas.
Biosecurity measures
17. The BVA and BCVA believed that pre- and post-movement testing, as well as isolation of reactors was the ideal disease control measure. The Group asked how we could promote and incentivise isolation. The BVA and BCVA said that speeding up reactor removal times would help with the logistics of isolation and help reduce disease spread. But the meeting agreed it was difficult to achieve isolation, particularly for dairy cattle, when cattle were on farm for a long time. They felt that since the introduction of zero tolerance to overdue testing had been announced, delays to reactor removals were not well received given farmers had completed their part of the deal. These delays did not demonstrate a sense of urgency in dealing with the disease. In addition, the BVA and BCVA believed there was a need to improve the messages about separating cattle and badgers but a significant number of herd owners were not concerned if they thought there was a low risk.
18. The Group asked what causes delays to reactor removals. The BVA and BCVA stated it could be a number of reasons: capacity at slaughter, Animal Health resource issue (with their contractors) and seasonality with high numbers of reactors at certain points.
Tracings
19. The BVA and BCVA acknowledged tracings are not as quick as they could be. They suggested that the vet carrying out the TB test could also do the initial tracing while on farm to help speed up the process. They felt this would also have the benefit of improving the vet's understanding of the epidemiology and spread of the disease and control measures applied. Tracings are currently tested under normal interpretation, they queried whether there was any opportunity to move tracings to a severe interpretation to clear infection as quickly as possible.
AOB
20. The BVA and BCVA suggested that compliance with the EC Directive regarding inconclusive reactors (IRs) should be reviewed. At present, IRs have two follow-up tests to their initial skin test. It was suggested that this could be reduced to one follow-up test as required by the Directive.
21. The Group also asked for views on Exempt Finishing Units (EFUs). The meeting agreed there was a low take-up on EFUs partly because it was felt that the biosecurity rules were too stringent, for example, there were difficulties with handling slurry, splitting units, having to cleanse and disinfect shared equipment. Whether to establish an EFU is a decision for individual farm businesses and the driver for take-up is whether it is economically viable. The BVA recalled that at a previous pre-movement testing stakeholder meeting in December they asked whether financial support could be provided by Government to set up EFUs as part of wider herd health planning initiatives.
22. In conclusion, the BVA and BCVA believed pre-movement testing will take some time to assess but the existing control measures would not deliver results to control or eradicate the disease. To eradicate the disease there needs to be a package of measures: address wildlife transmission, improve husbandry practices, and increase cattle controls.
Those present:
Peter Jinman (Chairman)
Brian Jennings
Bill Madders
Andrew Cunningham
David Catlow (President, BVA)
Graham Brooks (President, BCVA)
Andy Biggs (Senior Vice-President, BCVA)
Carl Padgett (Junior Vice-President, BCVA)
Gabrielle Edwards, Defra
Fiona Stuart, Defra
Teresa Filley, Defra, TB Advisory Group Secretary
Debbie Hide, Defra, TB Advisory Group Secretariat
21 September 2007
Page last modified:
17 March 2008