- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
APHA and TB Errors
- Thread starter Frank-the-Wool
- Start date
gone up the hill
Member
- Location
- Devon
Can you read your Eid tags from 10 yards away in the field ?
Or in a shed, basically you will have to have EID and standard tags like now so just more cost for no gain to the farmer.
Bigger picture again required.
The post proves my point. If you can't marry up the tags and the beast for a simple TB test, how can your consumer have confidence in the provenance of the product. Never mind all that time and hassle doing things manually.
I disagree about sheep. Seems very successful to me. I can simply wave my 'wand' over a group, record who is there and upload the info - print, e mail, whatever. It doesn't double read, it doesn't require catching and wrestling, it can link to other data - worming, treatment, movements, event dates for individuals etc, etc.
The only problem arises with lost EID tags, but even they are easier to trace from the data base. I've spoken to a few big buyers who I can tell you love the ease of EID in lambs and ewes.
If everyone had to use them and the scale increased, this too would be overcome by clever design. The technology and investment will follow the demand, and really for what you can get out of it, it's not that expensive.
But I guess it's like anything, a horse is cheaper than a tractor, a surge is cheaper than a mower, a 'rack of eye' measurement is cheaper than a laser , etc, etc.
The post proves my point. If you can't marry up the tags and the beast for a simple TB test, how can your consumer have confidence in the provenance of the product. Never mind all that time and hassle doing things manually.
I disagree about sheep. Seems very successful to me. I can simply wave my 'wand' over a group, record who is there and upload the info - print, e mail, whatever. It doesn't double read, it doesn't require catching and wrestling, it can link to other data - worming, treatment, movements, event dates for individuals etc, etc.
The only problem arises with lost EID tags, but even they are easier to trace from the data base. I've spoken to a few big buyers who I can tell you love the ease of EID in lambs and ewes.
If everyone had to use them and the scale increased, this too would be overcome by clever design. The technology and investment will follow the demand, and really for what you can get out of it, it's not that expensive.
But I guess it's like anything, a horse is cheaper than a tractor, a surge is cheaper than a mower, a 'rack of eye' measurement is cheaper than a laser , etc, etc.
gone up the hill
Member
- Location
- Devon
I totally agree.
The bigger and more successful the herd/enterprise the better the recording (usually) and the smoother it goes. They often have good facilities, plenty of staff, excellent records which are very often electronic and linked to other cow data. Indeed robot units are all RFID read. The expensive thing is time.
No, you can't read them from 10 meters here YET, but given demand and time I suspect rapidly you could. There is mention in another thread on EID use in extensive operations in Aust with receivers every 10kms feeding info back to a home computer to record location, activity etc of every beast spread over vast areas. It's even linked to remote auto drafting gates, weigh platforms etc using watering points as the drover. It provides the traceability the big markets want. The tech is already there and used. These guys are already using this to manage herds of 20k plus and think it's good value.
Wakey, wakey.
The bigger and more successful the herd/enterprise the better the recording (usually) and the smoother it goes. They often have good facilities, plenty of staff, excellent records which are very often electronic and linked to other cow data. Indeed robot units are all RFID read. The expensive thing is time.
No, you can't read them from 10 meters here YET, but given demand and time I suspect rapidly you could. There is mention in another thread on EID use in extensive operations in Aust with receivers every 10kms feeding info back to a home computer to record location, activity etc of every beast spread over vast areas. It's even linked to remote auto drafting gates, weigh platforms etc using watering points as the drover. It provides the traceability the big markets want. The tech is already there and used. These guys are already using this to manage herds of 20k plus and think it's good value.
Wakey, wakey.
- Location
- East Sussex
Ok so a small part of the blame can be laid at my door, but having never had an issue before from testing over two thousand cattle in the last 6 years we have probably become a little blase about the accuracy of the reading.
There were a number of unusual issues this time, firstly having sold a large number of cattle in the previous two weeks that were still on the sheets the Vet was using.
We had an exceptional number of duplicate last 3 and 4 numbers, 3 of which had the same check digit.
The trainee Vet seemed very efficient but obviously wasn't.
When the Vet input the information there were some typos between numbers like 1232 and 1223.
Perhaps the most bizarre query that came form APHA was that I had purchased 5 cattle on 15/8 which was the day they were tested and I moved them.
I had kept these separate so we knew not to test them, however APHA came up with that I should have tested 4 of them. When I pointed out they had been tested 4 weeks before they asked how I knew!! I knew because I helped the farmer I bought them from with the testing.
What I want to know is should I have put them through the race as APHA suggested so the Vet could see them?
My point about EID is that for a very small extra cost, less than a £1.00 per tag we would not have had the errors with the duplicate numbers and the whole process of checking would be instantaneous.
Using paper systems these days are inaccurate and laborious and a real pain when it is raining. The sooner we move the industry into the 21st century the better. The Luddites I am sure can still have a pen and paper!
There were a number of unusual issues this time, firstly having sold a large number of cattle in the previous two weeks that were still on the sheets the Vet was using.
We had an exceptional number of duplicate last 3 and 4 numbers, 3 of which had the same check digit.
The trainee Vet seemed very efficient but obviously wasn't.
When the Vet input the information there were some typos between numbers like 1232 and 1223.
Perhaps the most bizarre query that came form APHA was that I had purchased 5 cattle on 15/8 which was the day they were tested and I moved them.
I had kept these separate so we knew not to test them, however APHA came up with that I should have tested 4 of them. When I pointed out they had been tested 4 weeks before they asked how I knew!! I knew because I helped the farmer I bought them from with the testing.
What I want to know is should I have put them through the race as APHA suggested so the Vet could see them?
My point about EID is that for a very small extra cost, less than a £1.00 per tag we would not have had the errors with the duplicate numbers and the whole process of checking would be instantaneous.
Using paper systems these days are inaccurate and laborious and a real pain when it is raining. The sooner we move the industry into the 21st century the better. The Luddites I am sure can still have a pen and paper!
gone up the hill
Member
- Location
- Devon
You should NEVER be blasé when it comes to TB testing!
If it comes law to use EID tags in cattle the price of them will rocket to £4/5 head + easily..
Most vets now use hand held computers when TB testing.
Your vet failed to carry out your test correctly, you need to have a stern word with them and make it clear what he did was unacceptable because at the end of the day he has/did put your herd/ livelihood at risk.
matthew
Member
- Location
- Cornwall, SW England
@Frank-the-Wool said:
"Perhaps the most bizarre query that came form APHA was that I had purchased 5 cattle on 15/8 which was the day they were tested and I moved them."
And then an APHA comment about how Frank knew they had been preMT.
"When I pointed out they had been tested 4 weeks before they asked how I knew!! I knew because I helped the farmer I bought them from with the testing."
When we have preMT cattle and they have for some reason not been sold, but are presented for a herd test, or registered calves under 42 days are listed but under age to test, the APHA paperwork has a hieroglyphic squiggle in the comments section, which tells the vet - DO NOT TEST.
The APHA computer (SAM - Sod awful Machine ) should have had the input details of the 15/08 test for the 5 purchased animals. It is not your responsibility to check that, it's the vet and APHA's.
Any cattle appearing on the paperwork, without a skin reading on jab day, should have been checked and sorted by the vet, before that vet left the farm.
"Perhaps the most bizarre query that came form APHA was that I had purchased 5 cattle on 15/8 which was the day they were tested and I moved them."
And then an APHA comment about how Frank knew they had been preMT.
"When I pointed out they had been tested 4 weeks before they asked how I knew!! I knew because I helped the farmer I bought them from with the testing."
When we have preMT cattle and they have for some reason not been sold, but are presented for a herd test, or registered calves under 42 days are listed but under age to test, the APHA paperwork has a hieroglyphic squiggle in the comments section, which tells the vet - DO NOT TEST.
The APHA computer (SAM - Sod awful Machine ) should have had the input details of the 15/08 test for the 5 purchased animals. It is not your responsibility to check that, it's the vet and APHA's.
Any cattle appearing on the paperwork, without a skin reading on jab day, should have been checked and sorted by the vet, before that vet left the farm.
It's on the forum. I previously made comment and I recall @llamedos veey kindly put on a link to a podcast. Very interesting and enlightening.
If I can make one comment further on this.
The whole TB testing debacle is a result of lack of funding to support it. It's a political mess, the objective is doomed not because of the testing process itself ( it's worked elsewhere) but because it is only a part of the solution and no one wants to address the other, less palatable bits.
Please Don't give the poor Vet a hard time, they are victims of a 'race to the bottom' in the tendering process for the XL Vet network to assume total control of the contract. Even West Point couldn't make it add up. It's a numbers game, they, XL Farmcare, profit on the large, easy herds but lose on the smaller and difficult. Their employees are numbers driven to achieve centralised profit objective, so inevitably short cuts will occur and the brunt bourne by the poor sod who has to turn up to do it. I'm pretty sure he/she is the least paid on the day and it's on headage not unravelling poor paper records.
The whole TB testing debacle is a result of lack of funding to support it. It's a political mess, the objective is doomed not because of the testing process itself ( it's worked elsewhere) but because it is only a part of the solution and no one wants to address the other, less palatable bits.
Please Don't give the poor Vet a hard time, they are victims of a 'race to the bottom' in the tendering process for the XL Vet network to assume total control of the contract. Even West Point couldn't make it add up. It's a numbers game, they, XL Farmcare, profit on the large, easy herds but lose on the smaller and difficult. Their employees are numbers driven to achieve centralised profit objective, so inevitably short cuts will occur and the brunt bourne by the poor sod who has to turn up to do it. I'm pretty sure he/she is the least paid on the day and it's on headage not unravelling poor paper records.
gone up the hill
Member
- Location
- Devon
Sorry but the ultimate buck to ensure the test/ paperwork is completed correctly lies with the vet testing and him/ her alone.
Just no excuse for sloppy testing and yes XL vets have driven the price for tendering down into the gutter but that isn't the farmers problem and in fact most vets now charge farmers an hourly rate if they don't test 60/80 cattle an hour! why should farmers take all the costs/ hassle when testing isn't completed correctly? the effects if a TB test isn't done correctly can be massive and very costly for the farmer involved!
That's strictly not allowed. Anything could happen, it could be lost/tampered with.
Agree 100% (this is the 2nd time now).
This is specifically not allowed in the contract.
The thing I don't understand is how the paperwork can have been so wrong? Animals tested in the last 60 days show up as not to test. We don't ever have to type numbers of cows in unless bought recently before they went on BCMS and even then it will only allow 'real' numbers. Transcription errors with tags are very difficult to do. We only have to input reactions, so it doesn't matter if you have 10 cows all with the same last 3 digits if none have lumps.
The longest we will print test sheets off is 3 days (print Friday for Monday morning testing) but some movements notified days before are not always correct. I don't think the AHPA system can be a live link with BCMS and must update periodically. No point doing them any sooner as eligibility for the test will be wrong.
I'm not leaving until everything is accounted for.
(NB its rare to do a test without lost tags so EID would leave us in the same place. There is literally no money for buying handheld computers with what we get paid. I fully expect TT testing to move from being a vet job in the near future as further cost cutting hits. I'm in 2 minds about it, but now is not the time to invest in TT testing equipment IMO),
Its not lack of funding thats got us into this mess, Its outside funding put into a strategic pressure point thats responsible.
Betting rid of the scourge that TB is was considered to be in the national interest, farmers were paid to present their cattle for testing and generous grants given for handling
facilities and housing improvements. The host vector was identified and dealt with whenever hotspots of infection came to light.. THIS WORKED extremely well and left most of
the country with healthy herds and healthy badgers.
All was good untill a few attention seeking scintists in search of some easy funding collaborated with some wrong headed townies to cast doubt on the procedures.
Politicians were bought and elections won. The costs involved stemming from this for cattle farming are enormous and proving disastrous for the badger
Rather Ironic that the two problems have the same initials.
matthew
Member
- Location
- Cornwall, SW England
^^^ Couldn't agree more. Some examples of TB 'beneficiaries'.
See:
http://bovinetb.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/beneficial-crisis.html
and
http://bovinetb.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/ker-ching.html
See:
http://bovinetb.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/beneficial-crisis.html
and
http://bovinetb.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/ker-ching.html
- Location
- South Molton
List are never complete picture of what is on farm.
I have pmt tested animals whiched showed on the sheet but not pmt and moved between injection and reading under licence. This i was told is not allowed. Then why was i given the licence?
Between the vets farmers and ahpa as the saying goes too many cookc spoil the broth!
I have in the past had issues with vets incorrectly reading tags. Never have an issue when we read them and do the paperwork.
@gone up the hill out of interest how many cattle have you tested this year and from how many different farms did they come from?
I have pmt tested animals whiched showed on the sheet but not pmt and moved between injection and reading under licence. This i was told is not allowed. Then why was i given the licence?
Between the vets farmers and ahpa as the saying goes too many cookc spoil the broth!
I have in the past had issues with vets incorrectly reading tags. Never have an issue when we read them and do the paperwork.
@gone up the hill out of interest how many cattle have you tested this year and from how many different farms did they come from?
gone up the hill
Member
- Location
- Devon
Do you update BCMS yourself @Frank-the-Wool or have a secretary that does it?
Also have you checked the BCMS site yourself to see the status of the animals concerned since AH raised the issue of these movements?
Also have you checked the BCMS site yourself to see the status of the animals concerned since AH raised the issue of these movements?
- Location
- East Sussex
I do the updating and the numbers and status of all but one animal was correct now. The one error is an on movement date that had been incorrectly entered!
Lovegoodstock
Member
- Location
- Buckinghamshire
I have had a few in the past that have been sold privately and the purchaser clearly has not done an on movement, they then appear on my list, not a problem, then I get a letter from bcms about 6 weeks later to ask where they have gone. Also a few animals where I have the passport, which would have been applied for on line through bcms, never been moved off as suckler cows, yet don't appear on bcms list. Vet adds them manually and he tells me if it hasn't been applied for or been moved off the system wont allow a manual addition yet he adds them fine, seems odd how this happens? @Doc I may well be wrong but just seem to remember a vet telling me, @bovine im sure will put me right, but the current test was designed and firstly used in Australia in much higher temps? If this is correct any vaccine / drug would surely be trialled under varying conditions?
The single intradermal test using TBppd has been around for yonks. Its also used in humans.
It's a good test with very low incidence of false positives. False negatives can occur, most often in early infection or if the beast is truly knackered and can't mount an immune response (v rare).
It was the same stuff as used in btec in Australia. There injection was into the fold of skin either side of the tail head rather than neck. The tuberculin should be kept refrigerated in storage but is still reliable and effective at room temperature when used the same day and has been proven reliable even in tropical climes.
The efficacy of the Tuberculin isn't the problem.
It's a good test with very low incidence of false positives. False negatives can occur, most often in early infection or if the beast is truly knackered and can't mount an immune response (v rare).
It was the same stuff as used in btec in Australia. There injection was into the fold of skin either side of the tail head rather than neck. The tuberculin should be kept refrigerated in storage but is still reliable and effective at room temperature when used the same day and has been proven reliable even in tropical climes.
The efficacy of the Tuberculin isn't the problem.