Memorandum submitted by F Wakefield (BTB
13)
I understand the Committee is asking for views
from the Public regarding the future control of TB in Cattle.
My thoughts may seem radical to some however I do believe these
observations are based on practical knowledge and past observations
of disease control.
The first observation I am going to give is
that to control a Disease everyone must be committed.
The second observation is the fact that this
Bacteria cannot be eradicated totally because of its characteristics
it can lay dormant for years in a state that is very difficult
to address.
The third observation is that if proven fact
is not available the next best is probability.
A. Commitment to control this Disease is
more about clinical control than medical. I would respectfully
ask members to go and visit some farms after they have had a positive
test. I think they will be amazed at the lack of any help or advice
given by the Dept regarding simple clinical control measures ie
steam cleaning, Ultra Violet light sterilisation, general cleaning
to create an environment where the Bacteria cannot survive. There
seems to be an unwritten theory by both the Department and the
Farmer that once tested positive it's slaughter, restriction and
nothing else matters. Whereas reality is showing that the Test
does not pick up some infections therefore without any further
clinical controls there are hosts in this environment that will
allow further reinfection at a latter date. (This is exactly how
TB was controlled, not eradicated, in humans in the UK and the
USA ) The problem from the Farmer's point of view seems to be
financial and motivation. Because he is going to get compensation
he is not really committed to a long term answer if the value
of the production were say 10 times the present compensation value
every possible clinical control would be used because a valuable
asset is threatened. I would once again respectfully ask the committee
to regard the overall spend on the control and the trials and
divide this by the number of Dairy Farmers (approx 20,000) and
see what the figure is (there are Beef Herds as well but we do
not know how many are infected from importations from Dairy Herds).
What I am suggesting is that the Department
should set the parameters for the control of this disease and
give good advice as to its control, but this is a management controlled
disease that has to be undertaken by someone who has a very strong
commercial interest to control it in his surroundings and make
sure if he imports any potential carrier be it animal or otherwise
there is a risk assessment that is in his domain. A practical
solution may be to offer grants for three years to enable farmers
to purchase equipment to clean there premises and also to put
a levy on the purchasers of Milk of say 1p per litre to pay for
these arrangements.
B. This Bacteria has been around since the
ancient Egyptians, it is very difficult to eradicate, affects
animals as well as man but can be controlled. The way we control
this disease through the NHS is probably the best presently available.
We could not afford the cost of the anti-biotic at present values
so slaughter would seem the only answer but this is a dangerous
sledge hammer to crack a nut that perhaps should have a second
chance. Just as with humans some animals are latent carriers these
are the ones that should be kept, they either have Genetic immunity
or their immune system has achieved a respite from the infection.
This is why the Skin Test is firstly unsound in that it does not
differentiate between active and latent TB and the test is only
perhaps 70% accurate anyway, it's no wonder they do not use it
in Hospital. This is not only distorting the overall figures but
allowing a waste of resources to occur when these resources should
be being used for proper detection as in Hospitals ie mobile X-Ray
machines. These should be Privately run and Farmers making purchases
or with suspicions of their own stock could buy these services
themselves. I come back to the point the onus is a commercial
one for every Farmer.
C. There is no proven fact that Badgers
do infect Cattle or that Cattle infect Badgers but when Trials
like the Irish one and the Thornbury one show such dramatic drops
in occurrence after clearances of Badger Setts probability says
this is a possible cause with consequential evidence to back it.
I do not know of a Farmer who wants just to be rid of his Badgers
or any wildlife but it is not fair on the Badger to infect his
fellow Badger or any other animal around him. Prior to 1940 Badgers
did not have TB, the Cattle must have infected them now probability
says they are infecting the Cattle but the why's and wherefores
are irrelevant the problem now has to be addressed and what seems
ironic is that the Badger Groups are arguing for controls and
Clinical clean-up of Farms and Farmers are calling for control
of the Badgers I do believe both are correct and both measures
need implementing simultaneously. I beg the Committee to not dither
any more on this issue and to implement these measures and explain
in detail to both parties the need to work together for a common
cause.
To sum up I think TB is a Farmers' problem not
the Nation's and needs regulation; its financial assistance must
come from the Market not the Tax payer.
February 2006
| 
