Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Livestock
Livestock & Forage
Gamma TB test
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="gone up the hill" data-source="post: 3731732" data-attributes="member: 1048"><p>Actually on farm results show that around 7 out of 10 cattle killed as reactors under the skin test have lesions and that only 3% of blood tested cattle taken as reactors have lesions on kill..</p><p></p><p>By your way of thinking given the large numbers of cattle being taken in tests using the blood test then most farms would lose most of their cattle before they go TB clear but the reality on the ground shows that this is NOT the case if only the Skin test is used yet the herds go clear until the following grazing season when the cattle come into contact with infected animals again! </p><p></p><p>All other country's rely on the Skin test and the culling of infected wild animals to deal with the Tb problem and its working 100% in 100% of country's that use these methods..</p><p></p><p>We haven't been culling wild animals and are now using a blood test that is so inaccurate that the results are almost worthless and look what a mess TB is in this country..</p><p></p><p>If the blood test was 85/90% accurate then it should be used, reality is that its far more inaccurate than the Skin test and is taking 1000s of cattle needlessly at massive costs to farmers and thus it has no place in TB controls in places like the SW where TB is endemic in the wild badger and red deer population.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gone up the hill, post: 3731732, member: 1048"] Actually on farm results show that around 7 out of 10 cattle killed as reactors under the skin test have lesions and that only 3% of blood tested cattle taken as reactors have lesions on kill.. By your way of thinking given the large numbers of cattle being taken in tests using the blood test then most farms would lose most of their cattle before they go TB clear but the reality on the ground shows that this is NOT the case if only the Skin test is used yet the herds go clear until the following grazing season when the cattle come into contact with infected animals again! All other country's rely on the Skin test and the culling of infected wild animals to deal with the Tb problem and its working 100% in 100% of country's that use these methods.. We haven't been culling wild animals and are now using a blood test that is so inaccurate that the results are almost worthless and look what a mess TB is in this country.. If the blood test was 85/90% accurate then it should be used, reality is that its far more inaccurate than the Skin test and is taking 1000s of cattle needlessly at massive costs to farmers and thus it has no place in TB controls in places like the SW where TB is endemic in the wild badger and red deer population. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Livestock
Livestock & Forage
Gamma TB test
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top