Geronimo.

[bluesj]

3 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I think the crucial point in this case is whether geromino had btb, or not. If it didn't it will hopefully have implications for how btb is tested for and dealt with in future as it will have exposed how ineffective the current system is. 

A new test is being trialed at the moment but until it is cleared for use we can only use the tests we have or don't bother testing and just hope for the best.

[12gauge82]

35 minutes ago, bluesj said:

A new test is being trialed at the moment but until it is cleared for use we can only use the tests we have or don't bother testing and just hope for the best.

Agreed, however if the test turns out to be that inaccurate (and I'm not saying it is), on the assumption the tests are inaccurate, it's surely outrageous that farmers livelihoods are being ruined on the back of inaccurate tests. Perhaps they should be compensated everytime the tests are found to be wrong? 

[bluesj]

2 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Agreed, however if the test turns out to be that inaccurate (and I'm not saying it is), on the assumption the tests are inaccurate, it's surely outrageous that farmers livelihoods are being ruined on the back of inaccurate tests. Perhaps they should be compensated everytime the tests are found to be wrong? 

They are compensated for each animal slaughtered regardless of the test being right or wrong, Its the being shut down that causes the biggest financial problems

[12gauge82]

31 minutes ago, bluesj said:

They are compensated for each animal slaughtered regardless of the test being right or wrong, Its the being shut down that causes the biggest financial problems

Which if the tests turn out to be wrong or inaccurate they should be compensated for. Until that happens government minds won't be focused and nothing will change (assuming anything is wrong with tests, as I don't know) 

[bluesj]

23 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Which if the tests turn out to be wrong or inaccurate they should be compensated for. Until that happens government minds won't be focused and nothing will change (assuming anything is wrong with tests, as I don't know) 

The test can give about 1 in 5 false negative but 1 in 5000 false positive

The link below makes a better job of explaining it than me.

https://tbhub.co.uk/tb-testing-cattle/post-mortem-inspection/why-nvl-doesnt-mean-no-infection-with-m-bovis/

Edited September 9, 2021 by bluesj

[JohnfromUK]

5 minutes ago, bluesj said:

The test can give about 1 in 5 false negative but 1 in 5000 false positive

If so to have two false positives, from different samples taken some months apart is really almost impossibly unlikely.

[loriusgarrulus]

In the meantime alpaca bbq anyone. 

[bluesj]

10 minutes ago, loriusgarrulus said:

In the meantime alpaca bbq anyone. 

They smell a bit like popcorn, I wonder if the taste like it 🍿

16 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

If so to have two false positives, from different samples taken some months apart is really almost impossibly unlikely.

Not much of a chance!

[12gauge82]

12 hours ago, bluesj said:

The test can give about 1 in 5 false negative but 1 in 5000 false positive

The link below makes a better job of explaining it than me.

https://tbhub.co.uk/tb-testing-cattle/post-mortem-inspection/why-nvl-doesnt-mean-no-infection-with-m-bovis/

Interesting. By that link, geromino should with almost complete certainty be confirmed as a positive carrier onvmce the autopsy results are back. If not, there must be serious questions for the accuracy of the tests. 

[CharlieT]

2 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Interesting. By that link, geromino should with almost complete certainty be confirmed as a positive carrier onvmce the autopsy results are back. If not, there must be serious questions for the accuracy of the tests. 

Why should serious questions be asked. Worst case scenario is that this case is one of the 1 in 5000 false positives.

What you seem to refuse to accept is that at the moment it's the only test we have and as far as I'm concerned it's an acceptable error rate. Heartbreaking for stock owners, but necessary for the greater good.

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, CharlieT said:

Why should serious questions be asked. Worst case scenario is that this case is one of the 1 in 5000 false positives.

What you seem to refuse to accept is that at the moment it's the only test we have and as far as I'm concerned it's an acceptable error rate. Heartbreaking for stock owners, but necessary for the greater good.

No not at all. Its just the owner seems so confident that he wasn't infected plus what I've been told about tests and accuracy by a couple of farmers I know it does make me wonder. 

But like I've said in my post above it'll be interesting to see the autopsy results when they become apparent. 

If (and I do mean if, not when) it became apparent the test was wrong twice, that absolutely would cast doubt on the whole system. If not, then destroying geromino was correct and the system appears to work. I'm going to await the final outcome. 

[old man]

On 09/09/2021 at 07:18, WalkedUp said:

Doesn’t really matter to me if it had it or not, the rule was if it tests positive it is destroyed. I am happy for beef and dairy farmers if it leads to more publicity and more accurate testing in future. 

Correct, any other outcome would be unfair?

[clangerman]

so we have the post-mortem result today inconclusive which is a weasels way of saying the animal did not have tb clearly defra like gump are allergic to the truth  

[12gauge82]

32 minutes ago, clangerman said:

so we have the post-mortem result today inconclusive which is a weasels way of saying the animal did not have tb clearly defra like gump are allergic to the truth  

Yep, this case shows to clearly there is a massive problem with the accuracy of the tests. The amount of farmers who must have needlessly lost their entire herds for nothing is a disgrace, something needs to change and fast. 

[12gauge82]

   Woops

Edited December 10, 2021 by 12gauge82
Wrong thread

[WalkedUp]

7 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

The amount of farmers who must have needlessly lost their entire herds for nothing is a disgrace, something needs to change and fast. 

Agree. I genuinely don’t care about the alpaca, but if helps improve TB testing and control then all the better. 

[12gauge82]

5 hours ago, WalkedUp said:

Agree. I genuinely don’t care about the alpaca, but if helps improve TB testing and control then all the better. 

👍

[old man]

6 hours ago, WalkedUp said:

Agree. I genuinely don’t care about the alpaca, but if helps improve TB testing and control then all the better. 

Surely if there was a more accurate test it would be in general use?

[12gauge82]

31 minutes ago, old man said:

Surely if there was a more accurate test it would be in general use?

I don't know if there currently is or not but there needs to be, this case has highlighted that. 

[WalkedUp]

46 minutes ago, old man said:

Surely if there was a more accurate test it would be in general use?

Farmers want a more accurate test. Now there is more pressure from the public because of the glorified garden ornament for one. 

To be developed. 

[Rewulf]

58 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I don't know if there currently is or not but there needs to be, this case has highlighted that. 

 

44 minutes ago, WalkedUp said:

Farmers want a more accurate test. Now there is more pressure from the public because of the glorified garden ornament for one. 

To be developed. 

bTB testing is a difficult process without cutting bits of animal out.
The current test is not 100 % accurate , but possible transmission into the herd is the primary concern.
Its a better safe than sorry scenario, but at present there isnt a better test, there is one in the pipeline, but its not fully tested.
At present the best way to limit transmission is to remove possible infected animals ASAP.

I wont go too deep into it here, but curtailing the badger population has made good progress into limiting bTB in the cull areas.
A limited cull last year in Lincolnshire last year  revealed 25 % of the culled badgers had TB.

Diagnosis of BTB is difficult since animals with disease often do not show signs until the infection has reached an advanced stage^8,9. In some countries, delay in BTB diagnosis may increase transmission rates from animals to humans. BTB eradication programs in developed countries like the US include comprehensive screening of imported and domestic cattle, tracking cattle movement between farms, euthanizing skin test-positive animals (reactors), inspecting meat at slaughter plants, pasteurizing dairy products, and performing positive sample tracebacks. If M. bovis is detected in a particular cow from a farm, then all cattle are quarantined and screened for M. bovis infection. If infection is confirmed in any of the tested cattle, then whole herd depopulation is performed or individual testing and removal is implemented^8,9. This method of surveillance and control drives a substantial economic burden. Within the last 10 years, the USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) program has directed $342 million of its budget on US BTB surveillance and control⁴. This does not include the cost of indemnity payments to farmers, cleaning and disinfection of infected farms, or wildlife surveillance in BTB-infected regions. Likewise, in 2013, the UK government spent £99 million on BTB with 35.6% of cost going towards cattle compensation costs¹². These labor and cost intensive approaches to reduce the prevalence will not be feasible in developing regions/countries.

Current detection methods rely on moderately sensitive, expensive, and labor intensive intradermal tuberculin tests^13,14, delayed culturing processes, BOVIGAM (IFN-γ release assay in blood), and/or PCR testing. Present screening methods include the Caudal Fold Tuberculin test (CFT) which is read at 72 h ± 6 h. If the animal responds to the CFT, then this test is followed by the Comparative Cervical Tuberculin test (CCT) also read at 72 h ± 6 h as a confirmatory test. The CCT must be administered by a state or federal veterinarian trained in the application of the test. If required, follow-up CCT testing must be performed within 10 days of the initial CFT in cattle, or the veterinarian must wait 60 days after the injection of the CFT before a follow-up CCT re-testing to avoid desensitization³. An animal is considered a reactor if it shows a response to the aforementioned official TB tests and is classified as a reactor by the testing, accredited, veterinarian or designated TB epidemiologist³. An animal can also be considered a reactor upon slaughter inspection, necropsy, histology, PCR, and/or culture by the federal or state veterinarian performing or supervising³. Compounding this issue is the reluctance of farmers to slaughter suspect BTB cattle for post-mortem testing (necropsy or histology) given the low prevalence of BTB in US cattle and subsequent high rate of false positives. Thus a simple, easy-to-use, cost-effective, and rapid diagnostic test for BTB is in needed to combat this disease.

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

 

bTB testing is a difficult process without cutting bits of animal out.
The current test is not 100 % accurate , but possible transmission into the herd is the primary concern.
Its a better safe than sorry scenario, but at present there isnt a better test, there is one in the pipeline, but its not fully tested.
At present the best way to limit transmission is to remove possible infected animals ASAP.

I wont go too deep into it here, but curtailing the badger population has made good progress into limiting bTB in the cull areas.
A limited cull last year in Lincolnshire last year  revealed 25 % of the culled badgers had TB.

Diagnosis of BTB is difficult since animals with disease often do not show signs until the infection has reached an advanced stage^8,9. In some countries, delay in BTB diagnosis may increase transmission rates from animals to humans. BTB eradication programs in developed countries like the US include comprehensive screening of imported and domestic cattle, tracking cattle movement between farms, euthanizing skin test-positive animals (reactors), inspecting meat at slaughter plants, pasteurizing dairy products, and performing positive sample tracebacks. If M. bovis is detected in a particular cow from a farm, then all cattle are quarantined and screened for M. bovis infection. If infection is confirmed in any of the tested cattle, then whole herd depopulation is performed or individual testing and removal is implemented^8,9. This method of surveillance and control drives a substantial economic burden. Within the last 10 years, the USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) program has directed $342 million of its budget on US BTB surveillance and control⁴. This does not include the cost of indemnity payments to farmers, cleaning and disinfection of infected farms, or wildlife surveillance in BTB-infected regions. Likewise, in 2013, the UK government spent £99 million on BTB with 35.6% of cost going towards cattle compensation costs¹². These labor and cost intensive approaches to reduce the prevalence will not be feasible in developing regions/countries.

Current detection methods rely on moderately sensitive, expensive, and labor intensive intradermal tuberculin tests^13,14, delayed culturing processes, BOVIGAM (IFN-γ release assay in blood), and/or PCR testing. Present screening methods include the Caudal Fold Tuberculin test (CFT) which is read at 72 h ± 6 h. If the animal responds to the CFT, then this test is followed by the Comparative Cervical Tuberculin test (CCT) also read at 72 h ± 6 h as a confirmatory test. The CCT must be administered by a state or federal veterinarian trained in the application of the test. If required, follow-up CCT testing must be performed within 10 days of the initial CFT in cattle, or the veterinarian must wait 60 days after the injection of the CFT before a follow-up CCT re-testing to avoid desensitization³. An animal is considered a reactor if it shows a response to the aforementioned official TB tests and is classified as a reactor by the testing, accredited, veterinarian or designated TB epidemiologist³. An animal can also be considered a reactor upon slaughter inspection, necropsy, histology, PCR, and/or culture by the federal or state veterinarian performing or supervising³. Compounding this issue is the reluctance of farmers to slaughter suspect BTB cattle for post-mortem testing (necropsy or histology) given the low prevalence of BTB in US cattle and subsequent high rate of false positives. Thus a simple, easy-to-use, cost-effective, and rapid diagnostic test for BTB is in needed to combat this disease.

Cheers for all that, not a simple problem to solve but clearly something that could do with improving on. 

[CharlieT]

15 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Cheers for all that, not a simple problem to solve but clearly something that could do with improving on. 

You may find this interesting reading https://tbhub.co.uk/tb-testing-cattle/skin-testing/tuberculin-skin-testing/

[12gauge82]

1 minute ago, CharlieT said:

You may find this interesting reading https://tbhub.co.uk/tb-testing-cattle/skin-testing/tuberculin-skin-testing/

Cheers ill take a read later 👍