On not scanning

[Poorbuthappy]

All test failures are 'reactors', in the jargon.

To you and me, they'd be 'IR's' but, when you think about it, our conception of a 'reactor' wouldn't be hanging about for a re-test in two months.

Mmm, I think you'll find IRs and reactors can be treated differently. Why would the rules you quote only refer to IRs if they mean reactors?
But I may be wrong of course.
I did have a letter following my last test, in which I had 2 IRs, saying that I was within my rights to send either for slaughter, but APHA reserved the right to order a further full herd test if I did so.

 

[Henarar]

lots of difference in herd restrictions between having a IR and a reactor

 

[matthew]

lots of difference in herd restrictions between having a IR and a reactor

^^^^ This.

"If at least 1 animal has had an inconclusive skin test result, it’s an inconclusive reactor, or IR, and your herd’s TB free status is lost. Depending on the herd’s TB history in the previous 3 years:"

That is the same in England.

An inconclusive reactor (IR) will trigger a shut down on the day, but if the herd has NOT had a breakdown in the previous 3 years, then that is lifted and just the IRs are restricted and retested in 60 days. The herd can trade.
If there has been a breakdown within the past 3 years, then although just the IRs are retested, the herd is restricted.

Reactors are different kettle of fish altogether.

 

[Walterp]

Mmm, I think you'll find IRs and reactors can be treated differently. Why would the rules you quote only refer to IRs if they mean reactors?
But I may be wrong of course.
I did have a letter following my last test, in which I had 2 IRs, saying that I was within my rights to send either for slaughter, but APHA reserved the right to order a further full herd test if I did so.

They're all 'reactors' - the conclusive reactors are taken and it's only when you get only inconclusive reactors that you get the 60 days standstill, then the valuable opportunity to lift it to sell stock (so long as the isolation rules are observed).

Saved Julie's bacon a few times.

The impression I obtained that no one applies for this suspension across the border. Is this right, or do you all already take advantage of this provision, as we do where we can?

 

[Poorbuthappy]

They're all 'reactors' - the conclusive reactors are taken and it's only when you get only inconclusive reactors that you get the 60 days standstill, then the valuable opportunity to lift it to sell stock (so long as the isolation rules are observed).

Saved Julie's bacon a few times.

The impression I obtained that no one applies for this suspension across the border. Is this right, or do you all already take advantage of this provision, as we do where we can?

See Matthews post above. Yes we all use that opportunity to sell if required. But as Matthew says it is not possible (At least in England) to sell if you've had a breakdown in the past 3 years. (As is my current situation).
But you haven't answered the point that your original post referred to reactors, which isn't an option.

 

[Walterp]

See Matthews post above. Yes we all use that opportunity to sell if required. But as Matthew says it is not possible (At least in England) to sell if you've had a breakdown in the past 3 years. (As is my current situation).
But you haven't answered the point that your original post referred to reactors, which isn't an option.

The confusion is over 'reactors' - both conclusive and inconclusive reactors are, by definition, reactors. But the 60 day suspension period only operates when there are only inconclusive ones, that's when you apply for a lifting and isolation order. That's clear from the rules.

The last few breakdowns we've had have been bunches of half a dozen or so inconclusives, all going clear on the re-test, and going into isolation to enable stock sales.

 

[Poorbuthappy]

The confusion is over 'reactors' - both conclusive and inconclusive reactors are, by definition, reactors. But the 60 day suspension period only operates when there are only inconclusive ones, that's when you apply for a lifting and isolation order. That's clear from the rules.

The last few breakdowns we've had have been bunches of half a dozen or so inconclusives, all going clear on the re-test, and going into isolation to enable stock sales.

So what you're saying is in your original post when you said "reactors" you meant IRs, and rather than say so you're trying to say they're the same thing, despite them obviously being treated as different by APHA

 

[matthew]

Bedtime reading.


http://ahvla.defra.gov.uk/external-operations-admin/library/documents/tuberculosis/TB64(W).pdf

And

http://ahvla.defra.gov.uk/External_OV_Instructions/TB_Instructions/Skin_Test/Skin_Test_Day_Two.html

 

[Doc]

It's pretty simple as @matthew says. Try TB hub for faq's.
Reactors and IR's are different and treated as such by APHA.
One is condemended and one gets benefit of the doubt, provided isolation protocols are followed. The 60day window of trade is part of the problem here and I would argue similar with radial zone notification and I'm currently in one.
@matthew is obviously an expert in this field and may explain why chronically infected, old cows with poor immune systems and isolated walled off abscesses may not show up with the sid test. They are rare though.
Fiddling the (crap) system doesn't do anyone with long term aspirations in the beef industry any favours nor their neighbours. The politically weak approach to this problem is the problem and is costing everyone dear.

 

[Poorbuthappy]

As Walter says cattle to cattle spread risk is low. I'd be interested to know if the cattle he describes as having walled off lesions are infectious at all?

 

[topground]

If the cow had scar /lesions at slaughter would you still get paid properly for it ?

The affected part would be rejected ( condemned) typically the head or perhaps the lungs. Any lesions found triggers the examination of additional lymph nodes in the carcase and if there are other lesion sites the whole carcass would be rejected on the grounds of generalised Tb

 

[matthew]

It's pretty simple as @matthew says. Try TB hub for faq's.
Reactors and IR's are different and treated as such by APHA.
One is condemended and one gets benefit of the doubt, provided isolation protocols are followed. The 60day window of trade is part of the problem here and I would argue similar with radial zone notification and I'm currently in one.
@matthew is obviously an expert in this field and may explain why chronically infected, old cows with poor immune systems and isolated walled off abscesses may not show up with the sid test. They are rare though.
Fiddling the (crap) system doesn't do anyone with long term aspirations in the beef industry any favours nor their neighbours. The politically weak approach to this problem is the problem and is costing everyone dear.

The skin test relies on the stimulation of the immune system. If theanimal is overwhelmed with disease, then it has no immune respoanse to make. That is very rare and known as an 'anergic' animal.

As Walter says cattle to cattle spread risk is low. I'd be interested to know if the cattle he describes as having walled off lesions are infectious at all?

The amount of cfu (colony forming units) of TB bacteria in any cattle lesions is low. Thus in the field, with regular testing and slaughter, cattle to cattle spread is low. Most cattle lesions are in the lymph nodes.
Walled up lesions are like walnuts and the tough jacket prevents the escape of bacteria. This is known as 'latentcy' and at that time the animal (or human) is not infectious. When the lesions break down, they will be.

The affected part would be rejected ( condemned) typically the head or perhaps the lungs. Any lesions found triggers the examination of additional lymph nodes in the carcase and if there are other lesion sites the whole carcass would be rejected on the grounds of generalised Tb

^^ This. The whole OVS / MHS system of carcase examination is geared to finding TB.
If TB nodules are found in more than two(?) places, then the whole carcase is binned. If not, the affected lymph nodes are removed and the meat is sold. Salvage value to the ministry exceeds £3.8m annually.

 

[GTB]

Costs £80 + VAT here (but it's increasing) and I thought we were the only ones who did it but I met a farmer in Worcester mart who said he did the same, for the same reasons.

Easy decision for the worn-out good cows (not worth much v TB risk) but a hard call for the over-fat - although those tend to go early, because they use up their chance.

I've never heard of anyone doing this? Why is sending a cull cow a TB risk? If she goes direct to slaughter there's no need for pre movement testing?

 

[GTB]

1. Renderers don't carry out TB surveillance

2. WAG will, as a general rule, lift restrictions on condition of isolation of the reactor.

I bet you never even asked for restrictions to be lifted?

If you have had a TB breakdown in the last three years then WAG WILL NOT lift restrictions after an IR or reactor is isolated.

 

[Poorbuthappy]

I've never heard of anyone doing this? Why is sending a cull cow a TB risk? If she goes direct to slaughter there's no need for pre movement testing?

I think Walt means lesions would be found at slaughter.

 

[milkloss]

The first scanning thread I could find on the search. Could someone advise me how many days in-calf a cow is at 4.5 months? I guess it’s 4.5x28days which gives 126 days? Had the scanner man in and I’ve gone totally blank!

Many thanks.