The madness of “one size fits all “

Private Pike

New Member
It's not 'our' rules, it is International Trading rules set by International bodies.

So the rules can't change? When I say "we" I'm being rather loose, I'm well aware that the OIE terrestrial manual stipulates what tests it approves for diagnosing bTB, and 64/432/EEC dictate what we do, but these do change with time. Give it 5, 10 years, maybe "we" will have more tests to choose from. If there were a viable alternative we were allowed to use would we really choose the skin test?
 
So the rules can't change? When I say "we" I'm being rather loose, I'm well aware that the OIE terrestrial manual stipulates what tests it approves for diagnosing bTB, and 64/432/EEC dictate what we do, but these do change with time. Give it 5, 10 years, maybe "we" will have more tests to choose from. If there were a viable alternative we were allowed to use would we really choose the skin test?

In that case @Private Pike, presumably the OIE would license any such test world wide, thus your scenario is unrealistic. ‘We’ unilaterally cannot create economic suicide by going it alone, outwith International trading guidelines. Or we would be extremely stupid to try.
 

Private Pike

New Member
In that case @Private Pike, presumably the OIE would license any such test world wide, thus your scenario is unrealistic. ‘We’ unilaterally cannot create economic suicide by going it alone, outwith International trading guidelines. Or we would be extremely stupid to try.

At no point have I suggested the UK decides to ignore OIE rules or EU legislation? The point I have been trying to make, which you may have missed, is that the tuberculin skin testing is, while cheap, a pretty crap way of diagnosing tuberculosis.

If we were to have a test available to us which could for the same price achieve the same sensitivity and specificity as the SICCT but didn't rely on a human measuring skin thickness would that not be preferable?
 

vantage

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Pembs
At no point have I suggested the UK decides to ignore OIE rules or EU legislation? The point I have been trying to make, which you may have missed, is that the tuberculin skin testing is, while cheap, a pretty crap way of diagnosing tuberculosis.

If we were to have a test available to us which could for the same price achieve the same sensitivity and specificity as the SICCT but didn't rely on a human measuring skin thickness would that not be preferable?
Only if the rest of the World adopted it as well.
 
At no point have I suggested the UK decides to ignore OIE rules or EU legislation? The point I have been trying to make, which you may have missed, is that the tuberculin skin testing is, while cheap, a pretty crap way of diagnosing tuberculosis.

If we were to have a test available to us which could for the same price achieve the same sensitivity and specificity as the SICCT but didn't rely on a human measuring skin thickness would that not be preferable?

Frequently, universities,usually holding hands with bio tech companies, launch a 'new test' for zTB.
Frequently that test has been trialled on humans first and frequently it has failed to live up to its promotional hype.
Also, taking blood samples and screening in a lab is more expensive way of screening for TB than the skin test and in all cases of which I'm aware, is very much less specific even if sensitivity is improved.

As a herd test, the skin test (SICCT ) is the best there is (for cattle), and repeated regularly any diagnostic test achieves a higher secificity / senstivety result than a one off on a single animal.

.
 
[QUOTE="Private Pike, post: 5858022, member: 109188"The point I have been trying to make,.............., is that the tuberculin skin testing is, while cheap, a pretty crap way of diagnosing tuberculosis.
?[/QUOTE]

If its so crap how did we get to bring bTB down to such a low level, through the 1960s & 1970s starting from very a high level of infection in the 1950s, using that test?
What is the principal change since then that turns a good, effective ,proven test to a crap test?
 
Last edited:
^^^^
Us too. An IR that I would have sworn was a reactor in October - flat as a pancake. She went nuts in the crush last time, had just calved and managed to rip her eartag out. Dunno if that an influence, but.. she’s clear today. And they didn’t restrict the rest, so we were able to trade.
No. I didn’t understand that either, but grabbed the paperwork with both hands when it came. :)
 

nails

Member
Location
East Dorset
[QUOTE="Private Pike, post: 5858022, member: 109188"The point I have been trying to make,.............., is that the tuberculin skin testing is, while cheap, a pretty crap way of diagnosing tuberculosis.
?

If its so crap how did we get to bring bTB down to such a low level, through the 1960s & 1970s starting from very a high level of infection in the 1950s, using that test?
What is the principal change since then that turns a good, effective ,proven test to a crap test?[/QUOTE]

Took the boot off the neck of the badger, Four year testing was a bit too long ,Cattle moved after the last Foot and mouth without testing and general no testing in that period, Some slack testing when we thought we had it licked. . In hindsight the last few areas in the 70,s with T,B should have probably have had whole herd culls to finally 99% wipe it out.
Now it is firefighting with monetary support being reduced.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 80 42.1%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 67 35.3%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 15.8%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,294
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top