Bovine TB: Tenth TB Advisory Group meeting - Tuesday 18th December 2007
Summary of discussion
1. The Group met with representatives from Animal Health’s new Veterinary and Technical Services team and the Planning and Delivery team to hear their views on tackling bovine TB (bTB) and gain a better understanding of some of the challenges and obstacles they face. Previously the Group has met with representatives from Animal Health local offices to learn more about the pressures Animal Health staff face in delivering bTB policies on the ground.
Delivery of current TB controls
2. The Group wants to promote a sense of urgency in tackling bTB and is keen to identify areas where things could be done more quickly. The Group asked Animal Health about its tracings target for identifying and testing animals within 9 weeks of confirmation of disease. It was interested to understand how Animal Health’s 65% target is achieved and where improvements might be made. Animal Health explained the 9-week process of tracing from confirmation of disease through to testing of an animal. Although, to the Group, the target appeared low, it was important to note that this target included the role and responsibility of the farmer and their Local Veterinary Inspector (LVI) to arrange and undertake a TB test.
3. Animal Health stated that tracings had to be prioritized within current resources. However, they confirmed they put a huge amount of effort into identifying the tracing requirements and locating the cattle or herd to be tested within 1 week of confirmation of disease. The farmer then had an 8-week window to arrange and complete a TB test. This timescale was in line with legal advice on what could be deemed an appropriate and reasonable length of time to request an unscheduled TB test.
4. The Group recognised that Animal Health were undertaking their part of the tracings process as quickly as possible and suggested that more could be done to encourage farmers and their LVI to organize a TB test more quickly to reduce the risk of disease spread. The meeting discussed how Animal Health could improve its communications to farmers. The Group suggested Animal Health could agree and promote two different targets for tracings: one for Animal Health’s role and the other would highlight the responsibility of the farmer and their LVI.
5. The meeting also briefly discussed reactor removals. Although it was acknowledged reactors are removed as quickly as possible, Animal Health agreed to look further at areas where there were lengthy delays to consider whether there were any regional factors with non-compliance or abattoir capacity.
6. The Group asked how farmers could take control of removing animals to speed things up. Animal Health explained that at present in most cases all arrangements for removing animals are made by Animal Health. The meeting discussed ways to help speed up the process by allowing farmers to take more responsibility for arranging the haulage and slaughter of their reactor animals.
7. The meeting also agreed on the importance of enforcement of isolating reactor animals. Animal Health confirmed it was good practice to have an isolation unit for many reasons not just for TB control. The meeting agreed most farms should have facilities to keep two groups of animals apart.
Improvements to delivery of current TB controls
8. Animal Health also confirmed that measures in their Business Reform Programme would help to improve communications and speed up processes. New databases would improve customer information and contacts and a new IT system would improve generic tracings which would include TB tracings.
9. Over recent months the Group has sought views on the ISG’s final report recommendations for increased cattle control measures. The Group asked Animal Health whether they would be able to deliver any increased cattle control measures if the Government decided on that approach. Animal Health confirmed they were confident they could deliver increased controls, if appropriate resources were made available. Animal Health explained to the Group that they had demonstrated their ability to adapt to increasing demands in recent Foot and Mouth disease and Bluetongue outbreaks, whilst continuing to deliver bTB control policies.
10. The meeting discussed concerns with an increased use of the gamma interferon blood test. Defra was currently reviewing the policy and how the test is used and these concerns are being considered as part of that process.
11. The Group then asked Animal Health for their views on a risk-based trading approach to help reduce the risk of disease spread. Animal Health expressed concern about categorizing risk and who would be responsible for determining those categories. There would be huge implications for those categorized as high risk and it would be very difficult to assess on a herd basis. The meeting agreed that this needed to be considered in more depth.
12. Lastly, the Group asked Animal Health about media coverage which in the past reported Animal Health staff comments which were not in line with Defra policy. Animal Health acknowledged that this may have happened in a number of isolated incidents about specific aspects of disease control policy. Such comments have been made by professional veterinarians within Animal Health who are dealing with an endemic disease in cattle and working closely with those affected by it, in the absence of a Ministerial decision on wildlife controls. However, it was recognised that Animal Health staff are here to deliver Defra policies and that the expression of some professional opinions, that may contain differences to current Defra policies, do not detract from their ability to effectively deliver the current control measures.
Those present:
Peter Jinman (Chairman)
Brian Jennings
Bill Madders
James Kirkwood
Andrew Cunningham
Representatives from the new Veterinary and Technical Services team and the Planning and Delivery team, Animal Health
John Montague, TB Programme, Defra.
Teresa Filley, Defra, TB Advisory Group Secretary.
8 February 2008
Page last modified: 26 February 2008