RDC(3) BTb1

Rural Development Sub-Committee

Inquiry into Bovine Tuberculosis

Response from Conwy County Borough Council

Bovine TB: The Scientific Evidence - Report by Professor J. Bourne

Consultation by the Welsh Assembly Government

Submission by
Peter Bolton FCMI
Senior Animal Health Officer
On behalf of Mr D. Beesley, Trading Standards Manager, Public Protection Dept., Conwy County Borough Council

6 September 2007

Introduction

The County of Conwy has been relatively free from bovine TB.  The incidence of TB is low and, in the main, confined to one parish which is now subject to pre-movement testing.

Locally this is a position which needs to be safeguarded and strengthened.

The scientific evidence does not support the cull of badgers.

The debate, led by the industry, lacks balance and is focussed on the need to cull badgers with little consideration given to the scientific evidence and the potential benefits of improved control measures.  This imbalance requires correction.

The general conclusion arrived at by Professor Bourne recommends that 'priority should be given to developing policies based on more rigorous application of control measures to cattle…’

It is my view this recommendation should be supported.

Factors in support of better control measures

A recent study has shown that '85% of cattle in Great Britain are not tested and that 50% of testing is directed to 4% of infected herds.’

The national TB monitoring unit monitors the level of compliance in pre-testing parishes.  The unit conducts a '100% cross check for compliance and then randomly targeting a minimum of 5% of CPH’s moving cattle and writing to them about their potentially non-compliant movements (to date we have targeted 10%).’  From this small sample a significant number of reactors have been detected.

The use of random selection could potentially miss out a group of farms in a TB hotspot area, diluting the monitoring effort and disease surveillance.

It is accepted that increased monitoring will require additional resources.

TB testing is based on parish boundaries which is an ineffective method in which to inform testing requirements and intervals.

Routine herd testing (4 yearly intervals) - not all cattle are tested.  Only 'eligible’ cattle are tested unless the keeper 'requests’ a full herd test.  In a recent local case we found that out of a herd of 53 cattle only one was eligible for testing.

To the lay person this would seem to make no sense as the disease could be present in the untested cattle within the same herd.

Not all cattle eligible for testing are presented for testing.  This is a serious concern.  Two cases, again locally, have highlighted this issue when undisclosed numbers of cattle were either kept back from testing or were not on the registered holding.

Sole occupancy authorities provide a route for the disease to 'escape’ and spread into other areas and herds.  There is one example in this county of a keeper with over 500 cattle and who has 10 holdings within his sole occupancy authority.  The 'home’ farm against which all cattle are listed is a TB 'hotspot’ yet he is lawfully permitted to move cattle, at will, around his holdings within his SOA.  Some of these holdings are in low risk areas. Therefore cattle from a high risk area are moving to a low risk area without the need for pre-movement testing.  The keeper does not have to report movements to BCMS and consequently local authorities (and the animal health agency) have no knowledge of the whereabouts of all the cattle at a given time. This exemption from pre-movement testing is indefensible and therefore should be removed.

Disease control in low risk areas

I fully support recommendation 21 (10.65) in that 'high priority should be given to preventing introduction of infection into low risk areas by imposing strict animal movement controls.’

Pre-movement and post movement testing together with the isolation of bought in animals is a positive step in keeping the disease out of low risk areas.  The prevention of cattle movements from areas (not parishes) categorised as high to low risk farms and regions will strengthen defences against the spread of disease.

The imposition of additional controls will result in extra costs to the industry but this will be offset by farms being free of the disease, fewer animals being slaughtered, less cost to the taxpayer and rewarded by increased consumer confidence.

Conclusion

Consumer confidence in the production of food can be fickle.  Every opportunity should be exploited to maintain consumer confidence in beef and milk products.  This can be achieved through a co-ordinated effort to segregate high and low risk herds thereby reducing the spread of disease.

The scientific evidence which points towards the reduction in the incidence of disease rests with improved 'control measures directly targeting cattle’ and not to the culling of badgers.

Policy decisions must have full regard to the published evidence and, therefore, the recommendations outlined by the Independent Scientific Group should be followed.

Peter Bolton