Bovine TB, badgers, testing, costs for UK, Ireland and New Zealand

Are you aware of the following?

In 2007/08 the tax payer paid £80 million to address bovine TB in Great Britain.

Year	Cattle Testing	Compensation	RBCT	Surveillance activity By the VLA	Other Research	HQ and Overheads	Totals
1998/99	7.3	3.5	2.9	1.9	2.5	6.7	24.8
1999/00	17.6	5.3	4.6	2.4	3.8	4.5	38.2
2000/01	13.3	6.6	6.6	3.5	5.3	0.9	36.2
2001/02	5.4	9.2	6	3.7	6.1	0.1	30.5
2002/03	24.7	31.9	6.6	4.1	6.5	0.7	74.5
2003/04	33.2	34.4	7.3	5.3	7	1	88.2
2004/05	36.4	35	7.2	4.9	5.7	1.3	90.5
2005/06	36.7	40.4	6.2	7.5	6.5	1.8	99.1
2006/07	37.8	24.5	1.63	6.4	7.78	1.7	79.71
2007/08	32.6	29.7	0.03	7.9	8.5	1.2	79.93

The above figures were sourced from DEFRA¹⁹. As you can see, the cost of testing⁸ now exceeds the compensation paid to farmers for slaughtered stock.

In the UK, the unit cost of a TB test is considerably higher than in New Zealand. In Great Britain, just less than half the annual budget is spent on testing.

The figures shown below reveal that the cost incurred by vets of testing an animal in England is three times greater than the cost in New Zealand. In Northern Ireland the cost is four times greater.

Interestingly, members of the British Veterinary Association are dissatisfied and a time and motion study is being carried out³⁴.

The following table shows costs in 2008.

Quantity	New Zealand	England	Northern Ireland	Wales
Test cost (£M)	4.32	12.465	7.764	3.2
Number of tests (M)	4.86	4.64	2.243	1.408
Cost per test (£)	0.89	2.68	3.46	2.27

This data was sourced as shown below.

New Zealand	Request (Sent 02Apr09)	Reply (Received 05Jun09)	Received data
England	Request (Sent 10May09)	Reply (Received 08Jun09)	Received data
Northern Ireland	Request (Sent 26Mar09)	Reply (Received 04Jun09)	Received data
Wales	Request (Sent 03May09)	Reply (Received 29May09)	Received data

In England and Wales, about half of test costs go towards funding the work of Animal Health laboratory staff. Animal Health is an Executive Agency of DEFRA. These laboratory costs are not included in the above table for any country.

In New Zealand, the following should be noted.

Farmers pay a levy and sums raised in this way pay for TB testing and compensatation for reactors. In fact the government does not provide any funds for testing or compensation.
When TB testing, the caudal fold site (which is just underneath the base of the tail) is injected rather than the neck. Hair from this site doesn't need clipping and as a consequence relatively large numbers of cattle can be tested in a day. In fact a tester may look to test approximately 1,000 cattle per day and this helps to keep the cost of testing down.

This information about New Zealand was sourced as shown below.

Request (Sent 02Apr09)

Reply (Received 26May09)

In 2006, the UK and Irish Republic had an incidence of TB which exceeded that in any other European country by more than 5 times.

The table below shows the top ten affected countries in Europe. Scotland is a lot less affected than Wales and England. If Wales and England were shown as separate countries their incidence would be higher than that shown for Great Britain. The national herd incidence represents the number of new reactor herds divided by herds tested during the year as defined in the Government Veterinary Journal.

Country National herd incidence (%)

Northern Ireland 9.17

Great Britain 6.87

Ireland 5.72

Spain 1.11

Greece 0.74

Italy 0.62

Portugal 0.17

Poland 0.04

France 0.03

Germany 0.01

On 30 September 2005 (unless otherwise stated), the following European countries had achieved official TB free status:

Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
Denmark (2003 data)
Finland
France (2003 data)
Germany
Luxembourg (2003 data)
Netherlands (2003 data)
Slovakia
Sweden

All the above data was taken from the Government Veterinary Journal.

Country	National herd incidence (%)
Northern Ireland	9.17
Great Britain	6.87
Ireland	5.72
Spain	1.11
Greece	0.74
Italy	0.62
Portugal	0.17
Poland	0.04
France	0.03
Germany	0.01

Between 1998 and 2008 the proportion of TB infected herds in Devon increased from 4% to 25%.

Number of bovine tb infected herds in different countries

Number of bovine tb infected herds in different countries

The percentage of TB infected herds were calculated by dividing the number of infected herds by the number of existing herds.

In the above graph, care should be taken when comparing graph lines. Please see below.

For England, South West England and Devon, figures for 2008 apply to the period 1st Nov 2007 to 31st Oct 2008. Figures for all other years apply to the period 1st Jan to 31st Dec in each year.
For the Irish Republic, the 2008 figure only applies from 01Jan to 12Dec.
For New Zealand the number of infected herds is based on data from July to June in each year with the number of existing herds calculated at the end of June in each year.
For Northern Ireland, the 2008 figures are estimates based on figures for the 12 month period 01/11/2007 to 31/10/2008.

England	Request (Sent 27Dec08) Follow up (Sent 26Jan09) Follow up (Sent 29Jan09) Follow up (Sent 12Feb09) Follow up (Sent 26Feb09)	Reply (Received 26Jan09) Reply (Received 29Jan09) Reply (Received 29Jan09) Reply (Received 12Feb09) Reply (Received 27Feb09)	Received data
Wales	Request (Sent 12Dec08)	Reply (Received 14Jan09)	See Reply
Northern Ireland	Request (Sent 12Dec08)	Reply (Received 22Dec08)	Part1 of received data Part2 of received data
Irish Republic	Request (Sent 12Dec08)	Reply (Received 18Dec08)	Received data
New Zealand	Request (Sent 13Dec08)	Reply (Received 15Dec08)	Received data

In England, levels of bovine TB have substantially increased since 1998. Gloucester is the worst affected county.

England Request (Sent 04Mar09) Reply (Received 01Apr09) Received data

Between 2007 and 2008 the 3 counties which suffered the largest percentage increase in TB infected herds were Cornwall (6.9% increase), Gloucestershire (5.0% increase) and Staffordshire (4.3% increase). Cleveland enjoyed the largest reduction (1.1% fall). The top 10 risers and fallers are shown here.
In Wales in 2008 there were also large increases in the number of TB infected herds. The worst affected county is clearly Gwent.

Wales Request (Sent 04Mar09) Reply (Received 30Mar09) Table 1 of received data
Table 2 of received data
In 2006 the European Comission issued a guidance report which states alternatives to vaccination should be implemented without any delay and the role of infected wildlife addressed. Under the EU funding agreement, the EU would provide up to 50 per cent of the funding for an effective eradication plan.²⁹

The following is an extract from a report titled Eradication of Bovine Tuberculosis in the EU.

" An active approach to the removal of TB-infected wildlife and the urgent development of alternative means of preventing transmission of TB from this source to cattle is proposed. It has now been reliably demonstrated that the persistence of an infected wildlife reservoir that enters into contact with cattle is a major obstacle to the eradication of TB. This obstacle should be addressed in tandem with the measures implemented in relation to the cattle population.

While future prospects for the development of suitable TB vaccines for use in wildlife are promising, considerable obstacles remain which make it difficult to foresee the use of such vaccination on its own as the most suitable tool to use to address the persistence of the variety of infected wildlife reservoirs worldwide in the near future. In the meantime, therefore, alternatives to vaccination, in order to address the role of infected wildlife in the persistence of TB should be implemented without any delay so as to allow the progress of the eradication programmes.

Removal of wildlife, either proactively or reactively following outbreaks, has proven to be an effective ancillary, and in certain situations necessary, measure to control and eradicate TB. "

It then goes on to say the following.

"The elimination or reduction of the risk posed by an infected wildlife reservoir enables the other measures contained in the programme to yield the expected results, whereas the persistence of TB in these wildlife populations impedes the effective elimination of the disease."

Regarding short term measures, it further says the following. (The underlined text in the second paragraph is of particular note)

"It is necessary to further explore and assess the impact of certain well-defined recommended measures that can be evaluated and incorporated into TB eradication programmes in the short term.

Those deemed appropriate for the current situation in a particular member state should be applied to a relevant degree and, for those deemed inappropriate, a sound explanation for disregarding or modifying them should be provided."

EU funding received by England from 1998 to 2008, and a request to and response from DEFRA regarding this, is shown here.
Ten years ago, levels of TB in New Zealand were comparable to those in England. (See one of the above graphs.) Between 1998 and 2008 the percentage of infected herds in New Zealand has dropped every year. In 2008 the proportion of infected herds was less than 13% of what it was in 1998. Click here for an explanation of how this was achieved.

The following is an extract from the Government Veterinary Journal which was published in 2006.
" Wildlife reservoirs of M. bovis constitute a major impediment to the eradication of bovine TB in the New Zealand cattle herd. However, a fundamental difference with the situation in the UK and Ireland is that those reservoirs are non-native species and regarded as introduced pests. Furthermore, agriculture is New Zealand’s largest industry, representing 60% of the country’s export earnings. All this makes the culling of wildlife (for livestock disease control purposes) a more socially acceptable proposition than it is in the UK."
Herd restrictions due to TB testing are over 5 times greater in Devon, England than they are in the Irish Republic

The number of herds which were under bovine TB movement restrictions in Devon, England as a result of TB testing at any time between January 2008 and September 2008 is 22.2%. This proportion ranges from 9.8 to 28.2% depending on county with Gloucester being worst affected.

The number of herds which were under restriction in the Irish Republic at any time between January 2008 and 5th October 2008 is 4.4%. This proportion ranges from 2.0% to 8.6% depending on county.

These sets of figures were supplied by DEFRA and DAFF. The DEFRA data³ was sourced from http://www.defra.gov.uk and DAFF data⁴ was supplied in response to an email request made to info@agriculture.gov.ie.
Between 1998 and 2007 the number of reactors to bovine TB fell by 37% in Ireland and increased by 72% in England.

The chart below shows the number of reactors detected each year in the Irish Republic and England and how these numbers have changed since 1998. These numbers were supplied by DAFF in response to an email sent to foi@agriculture.gov.ie and by DEFRA⁷ respectively. The 2008 figure supplied by DAFF is provisional. The definitive figure will be available in mid Feb. This illustrates how the number have reduced in the Irish Republic by 37% whilst they have increased by 72% in England.
In Great Britain the proportion of cattle reacting to the tb test reduced by a factor of 4 in just 5 years after 1960

The graph below shows the number and rate of tuberculin test reactors disclosed annually in Great Britain from 1956 to 2006. This was reproduced from the Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer 2006, Defra 2007³⁰. The time lines in 1991 and 2001 have been added.
DEFRA does not collate the number of newly infected herds which are closed.

A closed herd is often used to describe a herd in which all stock is replenished by artificial insemination. All cattle movement is recorded by the British Movement Cattle Scheme. In order to continue trading a farmer has to update a document known as a passport whenever an animal is bought or sold. It follows that this tracking system can be used to identify the incidence of Bovine TB in closed herds. If DEFRA were to collate the number of newly infected herds which are closed, this would help to reveal the extent to which the disease is being spread by non cattle-to-cattle means. One such source is through badger-to-cattle contact such as occurs when cows ingest grass close to badger setts⁹ and when badgers enter farm buildings whilst searching for food¹⁰. The following is an extract from a reply made by DEFRA who try to follow the guidelines outlined here when responding to requests.

We do not hold a record of the number of "TB restricted herds which solely rely on artificial insemination for regeneration and growth." Information on `closed herds' as we call them, is gathered during the disease inquiry following an incident of TB in a herd and is recorded on individual files at the time but is not collated to give an overall figure. In addition, occasionally, farmers will be forced to abandon their closed herd policy and buy in cattle because of the losses suffered during the breakdown, hence making our record inaccurate.
A report¹¹ compiled by Imperial College London and dated March 2008 has been discovered which weakens the basis on which Hilary Benn opposed the culling of badgers in July 2008.

In July 2008 Hilary Benn announced his decision not to allow the culling of badgers. In the debate¹² which followed Mr Benn often cited the detrimental impact culling has on neighbouring areas outside the culling area. This report which outlines the results of a trial implemented by DEFRA, looks at the affects of culling after culling ceased. It both reports continued and more pronounced reductions in TB incidence inside the culled areas (54% lower instead of 23% lower) and diminished detrimental affects outside the culled areas (23% lower instead of 24% greater).
Out of England, Wales, Northern Ireland²⁵ and the Republic of Ireland, England is the only country which is not looking at reducing badger numbers as part of its program to eradicate bovine TB.
Farmers have been spending thousands of pounds on biosecurity

Click on the thumbnails below to see pictures of a wall and sheeted gates designed to stop badgers entering farm buildings.

The cost of the above badger barrier plus a third gate came to £9403.81 excluding VAT. This cost breaks down as follows.

Item Cost (£)

Sand 135.10

Concrete blocks 396.00

Cement 133.71

Labour for wall construction 2092.00

Steel + labour for metal work 6647.00

Total 9403.81

This work was carried out on a 100-cow dairy farm which went down with bovine TB in the summer of 2008. This is a closed farm in so far as no new stock from outside herds had been allowed on the farm and no stock had been taken off and returned to the farm since 1989. This farmer was fortunate in so far as the layout of the buildings were such that erecting a badger barrier was not prohibitively expensive. Many farm building layouts however are too open to allow affective sealing without incurring massive investment. This cost, the rigours of bovine tb testing, loss of stock which test positive, and the limited market when selling stock from a TB restricted herd is making it very hard for affected farmers to survive. This is accelerating the rate at which farmers are leaving the industry.

Item	Cost (£)
Sand	135.10
Concrete blocks	396.00
Cement	133.71
Labour for wall construction	2092.00
Steel + labour for metal work	6647.00
Total	9403.81

Out of Northern Ireland, Wales, the Irish Republic, New Zealand and England, England's dairy herd numbers have reduced the most rapidly

The rate at which dairy herd numbers are reducing each year gives an indication of the rate at which dairy farmers are leaving the industry. Out of Wales, Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic, New Zealand and England, the greatest reduction since 2000 is seen in England. In fact the number in 2008 was less than 60% of what it was in 2000. In New Zealand the number was over 85%. In England the recorded figures reduced most between June 2003 and June 2004. This is illustrated in the graph shown below.

Dairy herd numbers in England, Northern Ireland, Wales, the Irish Republic and New Zealand

Dairy herd numbers in England, Northern Ireland, Wales, the Irish Republic and New Zealand

Data for the above graph was sourced as shown below.

New Zealand	Request (Sent 09Apr09)	Reply (Received 14Apr09)	Received data
Wales	Request (Sent 09Apr09)	Reply (Received 27Apr09)	See reply
Northern Ireland	Request (Sent 09Apr09)	Reply (Received 27Apr09)	See reply
Irish Republic	Request (Sent 09Apr09)	Reply (Received 29Jun09)	Received data
England	Request (Sent 09Apr09)	Reply (Received 07May09)	Received data

England now imports over 1 million litres of milk per day due to falls in milk production

England is now being forced to import over 1 million litres of milk a day from neighbouring countries at a cost. Countries such as Ireland, Germany and Italy are being fined heavily for producing milk over quota whereas milk production in England is well under quota. [Source Farmers Weekly Interactive¹³] Milk prices in the shops have increased by 13% in the last year (up to Nov 08) and a rapid fall in milk production will ensure that this trend continues.

In the above graph, the date when the first positive affects of the vaccine is expected is predicted in Ref 14. The number of dairy herds were sourced as shown below.

Dairy herds in England Request (Sent 09Apr09) Reply (Received 07May09) Received data

The figures in the above graph were sourced from the Rural Payments Agency¹⁶. As reported in Reference 31, milk production in the UK is now at a 35-year low. Between 1998 and 2008 milk production in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland has actually increased slightly whereas production in England is rapidly falling off. This can can be seen in the graphs shown in Reference 32 for which data was sourced as shown below.

Milk production Request (Sent 15Apr09) Reply (Received 05May09) Received data

Good questions to ask

Why is the incidence of bovine tb in the UK and Ireland more than 5 times²³ greater than in any other European country?
In all but 3 years in the last 20 years (up to 2006), the incidence of bovine tb in Great Britain has significantly increased each year and there has been a very large increase in the last year (2008). Why did the proportion of cattle reacting to the tb test in Great Britain reduce by a factor of 4 in just 5 years after 1960? How was this achieved and why can we not do this now?
How has New Zealand been able to reduce the number of infected herds from 1500 to 150 in 10 years since 1994? (These numbers were read off a bar chart in the Government Veterinary Journal.)
Out of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, England is now the only country which is not looking at reducing badger numbers as part of its bovine TB eradication plan.
On 7th July 2008 Hilary Benn issued a statement saying that badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB. Prior to making this statement Mr Benn referred to the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) which was overseen by the Independent Scientific Group. He observed that bovine TB increases outside a culled area due to disturbance and movement of badgers. Work which followed on from the RBCT, and which was funded by Defra and published on 9th April 2008 continued to monitor herd breakdown incidences after culling stopped in October 2005. This work¹¹ found that breakdown incidences were 54% lower in culled areas, instead of 23% lower as reported in the RBCT, and that in neighbouring areas where the negative affects of perturbation were seen, incidences were actually 23% lower instead of 24% higher. In other words, after culling ceased, incidence reductions were sustained. In fact radical benefits were seen in both the culled and adjacent areas.
In view of this, how can it be said that badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB?
In the Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB²⁷ it says "we have concerns, previously expressed, concerning the capacity of Defra policy groups to translate scientific findings into policy. This we consider stems, in part, from Defra’s own organisational structures which we believe enforce a separation of policy development and the scientific evidence on which policy should be based."
Is the decision on bader culling an example of where scientific findings do not properly translate into policy? Please click here for more detail.
In South Devon, a farmer found in 2008 that his whole herd cleared the test for tb only then to find that cattle slaughtered after clearing the test exhibited tb lesians. Conversely, it was reported¹⁸ in May 2008 that a farmer of pedigree guernseys suffered the slaughter of 80 cows to then find that only 5 showed symptoms during examinations after slaughter. How much is the government spending on improving the sensitivity and accuracy of testing techniques compared to the bill of £60m¹⁹ which the tax payer is paying each year for routine testing and compensation?
The proportion of false negative and false positive results when TB testing, and a request to and response from DEFRA regarding this, is shown here.
Milk production in the UK is now (Dec 2008) the lowest it has been for 34 years. In addition to this the average age of dairy farmers is now 60²⁰. Has the government properly looked into the repercussions should the supply base shrink further, processing plants close and hard-to-create infrastructure is lost?
Vaccination of badgers by injection will be difficult and expensive to administer. An oral vaccine for badgers is not expected to be available until 2014. Although in theory the vaccination of cattle may offer the most expedient solution, it is illegal by European law. In fact, EU legislation currently prohibits the use of bovine tuberculosis vaccines, as the use of injectable BCG vaccine for bovine tuberculosis in cattle interferes with the current tuberculin skin test. Changing such legislation will require successful negotiation with the Commission in Brussels and other member states.²⁶
How does the government believe it is going to be able to legalise the vaccination of cattle when 11 European countries have in recent years been bovine tb free²³?
In 2007/08 the tax payer paid £80 million¹⁹ to address bovine TB in Great Britain and there has been a 5% increase² in the number of new bovine TB incidents in Great Britain over the last year. By how much does this cost need to rise or what disease development needs to occur before the government is prepared to consider a comprehensive and robust set of measures to reduce bovine TB?

References

Other relevant sources of information

If you would like to send to me your comments, please add them here.

Last Modified 02 Jul 2009 22:55

Bovine tuberculosis statistics and costs