National BVD Eradication Programme

blue5000 wrote: »

Thanks Greysides, how easy/different/expensive is it to test for antibodies vs virus?

For an individual, if you're not doing an ear notch test then it will be a blood sample, as per brucellosis test.

I can't put my hand on a price list at the moment, these tests generally have to be sent to private labs these days. The Dept Lab Service did very well priced tests until recently.
Antibodies are checked by an ELISA test; virus can be checked by ELISA or PCR. PCR is more expensive.

As a rough guide €8-€15. This is to give a general idea, I can't remember specifics.

pakalasa wrote: »

I still don't understand why they don't recomend vaccinating. All this round of testing is going to do, is check for the presence of PI calves in the herd.

My Vet explained it to me as follows : Earnotch Test to check for presence of PI's and then vaccination then to keep the disease out.

You would need to remove all PIs from a herd before vaccination would be as effective as you would want/expect it to be.
If you were intending vaccinating during the first year of the ear-notch test then you would want to check all other animals on the farm before starting.
This might not be too hard with some dairy herds. A bulk milk PCR would test the entire herd milking on that day in one fell swoop. Then individual blood samples could be used on the balance of the dry cows, heifers and yearlings. The numbers of these might not be huge on some farms.
In suckler herds, the same principles. Depending on when calves/stores/finishers are sold it would be more or less feasible.

Reading between the lines, in the assessment before the scheme was decided, vaccination with PI elimination was considered. It was obviously not decided to do it that way.

Why?

I'm not privy to the discussions but I'd say cost was a major factor. This scheme is CHEAP. The majority of the work is done by the farmer- in terms of collecting and handling samples.
Throw into the equation vaccination and you're now trying to insist on the rump of reluctant participants properly vaccinating their animals at their own cost. How would you ensure that?
It would have to be ensured as the scheme would be designed such that it would be a fundamental cornerstone.
I can hear the complaints in my mind already.

The way it has been left is that the end will be achieved over a longer timespan and at minimum cost. Those that can see the benefits of vaccination will be motivated to act further, those that are unwilling will still do have to do the minimum and that minimum is adequate as the scheme is designed.

Take for example then, a large Dairy herd that has been "closed" for years with no animals bought in. During the year BVD arrives into the herd, via the usual route for diseases, sh1ite on lorry wheels etc. Cows are in-calf about 2/3 months......what then?

The herd immunity that already exists in the animals that will carry the PIs will moderate the effect. It will be no different to if it had happened without going for the ear notch testing.

Eventually this years calves will come due to go in-calf and it would be important at that stage that BVD is under some degree of control.

However, it's here that that horrible word 'BIOSECURITY' raises it's head.

It has been like a throw-away phrase that was occassionally paid lip-service. It's now going to have to be taken seriously. It's time agriculture grew up and shouldered some responsibility for it's own diseases rather than seeing disease eradication as something that has been foisted upon it. The disinfection measures instituted during the FMD months were quickly forgotten.