37
BOVINE VIRAL DIARRHOEA (BVD): CONSULTATION ON CONTROL MEASURES STAGE THREE OF THE ERADICATION SCHEME Animal Health & Welfare Division May 2012
BOVINE VIRAL DIARRHOEA (BVD):
CONSULTATION ON CONTROL MEASURES
STAGE THREE OF THE ERADICATION SCHEME
Animal Health & Welfare Division
May 2012
227503 2pp 16/05/12
CMYK 35pp CW
P1 A4
LO
CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS CONSULTATIONS 2 CHAPTER THREE: PROHIBITING THE MOVEMENT OF PERSISTENTLY INFECTED
ANIMALS 7
CHAPTER FOUR: DECLARING THE BVD STATUS 10 CHAPTER FIVE: RESTRICTIONS ON ‘NOT-NEGATIVE’ HERDS 14 CHAPTER SIX: CROSS-BORDER MOVEMENTS 18 CHAPTER SEVEN: MONITORING, ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES 20 CHAPTER EIGHT: THE CONSULTATION QUESTIONS AND HOW TO RESPOND 23 ANNEX A: TIMELINE 32
CLOSING DATE FOR RESPONSES: FRIDAY 17 AUGUST 2012
CONTACT BVD Consultation P Spur Saughton House Broomhouse Drive Edinburgh EH11 3XD Tel: 0300 244 9151 Fax: 0300 244 9797 Email: [email protected]
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Bovine Viral Diarrhoea (BVD) is one of the most significant diseases of cattle in Scotland in economic costs and impact on welfare. Around 40% of herds show signs of exposure. BVD does not affect humans. BVD suppresses the immune system of infected cattle, increasing their risk of developing a wide range of conditions such as diarrhoea and pneumonia. It is a major cause of infertility, abortion, failure to thrive and is often fatal. The Scottish Government, together with industry, veterinary and scientific partners, is committed to eradicating BVD from Scotland. We have been working together for three years on a scheme to achieve this ambition in a way that suits the distinctive nature of Scottish farming. The scheme we have developed is in four stages; Stage 1 – Voluntary Stage: Subsidised Screening (Winter 2010-11) Stage 2 – Mandatory Annual Screening: All breeding herds to be screened for BVD annually, with a first screen by 1 February 2013. A range of testing methods is available to suit all herd types. Stage 3 – Controls: To commence on or after 1 February 2013:
A ban on knowingly moving Persistently Infected cattle, other than to slaughter;
A requirement that the BVD status of herds or animals must be declared prior to movement, other than direct to slaughter; and,
Movement restrictions on ‘not-negative’ herds. Stage 4 – Biosecurity: Controls placed on farms that fail to reasonably deal with a BVD problem. This consultation paper is about Stage Three – the measures to control BVD.
Prohibiting the Movement of Persistently Infected Animals
There are two types of BVD infection – transient infection (sometimes called acute infection), and persistent infection. Transient infection is where an animal is infected with BVD virus during its life. The animal will create antibody to the virus, which will allow them to fight off the virus in around three to four weeks. They will have antibodies to BVD in their system for a long time, often for life, and while they do they will be immune. Of much greater concern is persistent infection. This only occurs where a foetus is infected in the womb in the first three months of pregnancy, either by their mother becoming transiently infected at that time, or because the mother itself is persistently infected. Cattle infected in this way are known as Persistently Infected (PI). Their systems never recognise the virus as alien and they do not mount an immune response. PI
ii
cattle shed virus in huge quantities and are highly contagious throughout their lives. Most die as calves, but some live much longer and may appear to be healthy. Preventing the circulation of PI cattle among the national herd is essential to eradicating BVD. The Scottish Government proposes that it should be an offence to knowingly move a Persistently Infected animal, other than straight to slaughter.
Chapter Three seeks your views on banning the intentional movement of PI animals.
Declaring the BVD Status
By 1 February 2013 all breeding herds must have carried out a first screening test for BVD, giving them a herd status of either ‘negative’ or ‘not-negative’. Farmers should be able to know the BVD status of the individual cattle or the herd of origin of any cattle they buy. If they are to be made responsible for the BVD status of their own herd, they need to have information on the health status of the animals they are buying so that they can keep disease out. We therefore propose that before any movement of cattle from one holding to another, the keeper of the herd of origin must disclose the BVD status to the keeper of the receiving holding. They can do this by disclosing health scheme accreditation, their BVD herd status as defined by the screening carried out under the Scottish BVD eradication programme or, if known, the status of the individual animals.
Chapter Four seeks your views on whether the BVD status of cattle should have to be disclosed prior to movement, other than to slaughter.
Restrictions on ‘Not-Negative’ Herds
As long as there is a market for cattle from ‘not-negative’ herds, the disease will continue to circulate and seriously undermine any attempts made to rid Scotland of BVD. An effective way of ensuring that BVD does not continue to spread freely throughout Scotland would be to make it an offence for a keeper to move cattle from a breeding herd with a ‘not-negative’ status, unless;
The movement is directly to slaughter; or,
The animals have been individually tested negative for BVD virus. This would encourage keepers of herds with a ‘not-negative’ status to achieve a ‘negative’ status, and still provide them with a simple way of safely moving animals.
Chapter Five seeks your views on whether movement controls should be placed on ‘not-negative’ herds, and if so, how and when that should happen.
1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1. The Scottish Government, together with industry, veterinary and scientific partners, is committed to eradicating bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD) from Scotland. We have been working together for three years on a scheme to achieve this ambition in a way that suits the distinctive nature of Scottish farming. 2. The plan that has been collectively developed is in four stages; this consultation relates to the third stage, on measures to control the spread of BVD infection. Chapter Two below explains each of the stages of the scheme in detail. For Stage Three, we propose that:
From 1 February 2013;
It will be an offence to knowingly move a Persistently Infected (PI) animal, other than straight to slaughter;
The BVD status must be declared before cattle are moved or presented for sale;
And from a date to be determined based on consultation responses and disease prevalence;
Cattle from ‘not-negative’ herds can only be moved if they have tested negative for BVD virus, or are going straight to slaughter.
3. In addition, this consultation paper also covers proposals for dealing with cattle being brought into Scotland, and penalties and enforcement. 4. This paper covers a great deal of detail, as the outcome of the consultation process will lead directly to any legislation required to enable the next stage of BVD eradication. We welcome responses to all of the questions from all interested parties, especially individual farmers and veterinary practitioners, but please do not feel that you must consider all of the detail and respond to every question if you do not wish to do so. You may answer as few or as many of the questions as you like, and all responses will help us. We would however appreciate it if representative bodies and those with relevant expertise could give their attention to the details of the scheme, as once they are specified in legislation they will be very difficult to alter.
2
CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS CONSULTATIONS Bovine Viral Diarrhoea: The Disease
5. BVD is an infectious disease of cattle that is widespread in Scotland – a prevalence study carried out by SAC in 2007 showed that around 40% of herds have evidence of exposure. In terms of economic impact it is one of the most important diseases of cattle in Europe and North America. 6. BVD has welfare implications for infected animals, especially as it suppresses their immune system, greatly increasing their risk of developing a wide range of conditions such as diarrhoea, pneumonia and other respiratory diseases. It is a major cause of infertility, abortion, failure to thrive and is often fatal. 7. There are two types of BVD infection – transient infection (sometimes called acute infection), and persistent infection. Transient infection is where an animal is infected with BVD virus during its life. The animal will create antibody to the virus, which will allow them to fight off the virus in around three to four weeks. They will have antibodies to BVD in their systems for a long time, often for life, and while they do they will be immune. 8. Of much greater concern is persistent infection. This only occurs where a foetus is infected in the womb in the first three months of pregnancy, either by their mother becoming transiently infected at that time, or because the mother itself is persistently infected. 9. Cattle infected in this way are known as Persistently Infected (PI). Their systems never recognise the virus as alien and they do not mount an antibody response. They shed virus in huge quantities and are highly contagious throughout their lives. Around half of PI calves die in their first year, but around a quarter survive beyond two years and may enter the breeding herd. Most will grow poorly and will frequently suffer from ill-health, though some appear entirely normal. 10. If PI cattle are removed from the national herd, BVD will be eradicated. 11. Scottish Government economists have calculated that eradicating BVD could provide a net benefit to the Scottish cattle industry of £50M to £80M over ten years, and would reduce the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions. The Scottish BVD Eradication Plan 12. The scheme that industry, the veterinary profession, scientific bodies and the Scottish Government have developed is in four stages. 13. The Scottish eradication scheme is designed to reduce the number of PI calves being born by firstly putting responsibility and power in the hands of farmers, and then by making it increasingly difficult for them to continue to have BVD virus active in their herd. The intention is that this will encourage farmers to eliminate BVD from their own herds, but those who choose not to will have consequences in terms of trading disadvantages, movement restrictions and biosecurity controls.
3
14. The guiding principles are;
The scheme is industry-led. The Scottish Government is working with all stakeholders and the scheme developed reflects the interests of all parties, but we would not act against the wishes of industry.
Industry will benefit directly from BVD eradication, so they will bear the costs.
As industry is bearing the costs, the requirements on them are as flexible as possible, with a wide range of options for testing.
The scheme encourages rather than enforces, becoming stricter over time: o The first stage was designed to get farmers thinking about BVD and
talking to their vets, and to provide data on BVD prevalence; o Stage two is designed to make everyone who produces calves know the
BVD status of their herd; o Stage three is designed to allow farmers to easily source BVD-free cattle
and progressively reduce the likelihood of an infected animal being sold or moved.
o Stage four will require those who continue to refuse to tackle the BVD infection on their farm to protect their neighbours.
Stage One: Subsidised Screening 15. This stage ran from September 2010 to April 2011. The Scottish Government offered a small subsidy to keepers of all breeding herds to support a screening test for BVD through their veterinary practice. £36 was available for an initial test, and if this proved positive, a further £72 was offered for follow-up testing to identify infected animals, or to pay for the vet’s time to discuss the test result and what measures should consequently be taken. 16. Keepers of approximately 4,000 herds took advantage of the subsidy at a cost to the Scottish Government of £180,000. Of these, we received test results for around 3,500, made up of around 3,000 beef herds and 500 dairy herds. Among those taking part, 23% of beef herds had evidence of exposure to BVD, while the figure for dairy herds was 52%. As these are a measure of herds with antibodies to BVD, rather than the results of tests for virus, the percentage of herds with a current infection would be lower than those figures. This is particularly true for dairy herds as a single animal contributing antibodies to a bulk milk tank sample will lead to a positive result. 17. This stage delivered multiple benefits – it provided meaningful data upon which to base policy decisions; it significantly increased the awareness of the disease among farmers; and it put vets on 4,000 farms to talk about BVD, which increases the understanding of herd health management. 18. It also highlighted the wide variance in prevalence levels across Scotland, with herds in the Highlands and Islands having significantly lower levels of exposure than those in the south west. On the next page a map and table show the distribution of exposed and negative herds.
4
Combined Beef Dairy
Total Herds Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive
East of Scotland 1145 823 72% 322 28% 787 72% 307 28% 36 71% 15 29% Highlands & Islands 1368 1217 89% 151 11% 1187 90% 134 10% 30 64% 17 36% South West 1054 565 54% 489 46% 397 60% 265 40% 168 43% 224 57%
RESULTS OF SUBSIDISED SCREENING FOR BVD
Exposed
Exposed
Negative
Negative
Beef Dairy
Beef Negative 77% Exposed 23%
Dairy Negative 48% Exposed 52%
5
Stage Two: Mandatory Annual Screening 19. The purpose of this stage is to ensure that keepers of all breeding herds know their BVD status, to enable the following stage of the scheme. 20. Keepers of breeding cattle herds are required to screen their herds annually for BVD, with a first test by 1 February 2013. Below is an outline description of the requirements; more detail can be found at www.scotland.gov.uk/bvd. 21. A wide range of testing methods has been offered, appropriate to dairy and beef herds, and to suit all different types of herd in Scotland. We have taken care to make cost-effective options for all, as farmers will pay the cost of testing. 22. It is not necessary to test all or even most of a herd to find out if it may be infected with BVD virus; by sampling a small number of calves for antibodies, or by looking for antibodies in a bulk milk tank sample, it can quickly and cheaply be discovered if they have ever come into contact with BVD. Most herds will be ‘negative’ at this stage. 23. After testing the samples, the laboratory will declare a BVD herd status of either ‘negative’, or ‘not-negative’. Ambiguous or inconclusive results will count as ‘not-negative’ until and unless proven otherwise. 24. A vet can change the herd status of a client from ‘not-negative’ to ‘negative’, after such follow-up testing as they believe is necessary, in accordance with guidance provided by the Scottish Government. This could range from a simple re-test to virus testing most or all of a herd, depending on the local conditions and the result of the screening test. The vet must declare that they have carried out such follow-up testing, and that either no PI cattle were found, or that if PI cattle were found state that the keeper has informed them that they have been removed from the herd and provide the official identity numbers for them. 25. A small number of calves are born each year to non-breeding herds, such as finishers, typically through the accidental purchase of a pregnant animal. In such cases the keeper is required to test the calf/calves for virus within 40 days of birth or earlier if they intend to move the animal(s) before then. Stage Three: Control Measures 26. This is the stage with which this consultation paper is concerned. The proposal has three elements:
A ban on knowingly moving PI cattle.
The BVD status of animals must be declared prior to sale or movement, other than direct to slaughter. A system of presenting cattle for sale through one of three BVD categories has been developed in collaboration with industry, in particular with the Institute of Appraisers and Auctioneers Scotland (IAAS).
6
Keepers of herds with a ‘not-negative’ status would only be allowed to move cattle direct to slaughter, unless the individual animals to be moved had tested negative for BVD virus at any point in their life.
Stage Four: Biosecurity Controls 27. Stage three is intended to move Scotland to the position where it is extremely unlikely that a PI animal could be accidentally bought in, all keepers have had sufficient time to deal with any BVD problem in their own herd and prevalence is at a very low level. At that point it will become essential to prevent BVD spreading from those herds that still have BVD to neighbouring farms. From a date not earlier than December 2013, and depending on the level of disease across Scotland, we intend to place biosecurity requirements on such herds that may require keepers to house cattle, test and house viraemic animals or to create a minimum three-metre boundary against neighbouring cattle farms. This will be consulted upon in due course. Previous Consultations 28. There have been two previous consultations on BVD eradication: in 2010 on the general principles; and in 2011 on stage two of the scheme, mandatory annual screening. All farming industry bodies gave their support to both consultations, notably the National Farmers’ Union Scotland, the National Beef Association, the Scottish Beef Cattle Association, the Scottish Dairy Cattle Association and Quality Meat Scotland. Also in favour are the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Veterinary Association, the British Cattle Veterinary Association, the Scottish Agricultural College and the Moredun Research Institute. No industry, veterinary, scientific or welfare bodies have voiced opposition to the scheme. 29. Both previous consultation papers, and all public responses to them, can be found on the Scottish Government website at www.scotland.gov.uk/bvd.
7
CHAPTER THREE: PROHIBITING THE MOVEMENT OF PERSISTENTLY INFECTED ANIMALS
30. Preventing the movement of Persistently Infected (PI) cattle is critical to any attempt to control BVD. While PI cattle are moving between herds it will not be possible to eradicate the disease. 31. PI animals can cause very significant economic losses when introduced to a herd, especially if that herd is unvaccinated and the cattle are naïve to BVD. In such cases a typical loss can run to tens of thousands of pounds in the first year alone. A farmer who sells an animal that they know or suspect to be PI to another farmer is potentially exposing themselves to civil legal action. However, this is not a sufficiently strong disincentive to prevent the trade in PI animals. 32. The Scottish Government therefore proposes that it should become a criminal offence to knowingly move a PI animal from a holding, other than straight to slaughter. Definition of a PI animal 33. The veterinary definition of PI may be relatively straightforward, but it cannot be determined whether an animal has a persistent or transient infection without conducting two tests. However, we cannot allow animals that have only had one positive BVD virus test to be treated as anything other than PI. 34. Therefore we propose that the offence of knowingly moving a PI animal would apply where any animal has had a positive test for BVD virus, without having had a subsequent negative test. This would allow farmers to re-test to check if a positive virus result is a consequence of a transient infection rather than a persistent infection. Why “knowingly”? 35. If there were to be a general ban on moving PI cattle, whether the keeper knew they were PI or not, keepers would be taking a risk of prosecution every time they moved an animal that had not been tested for virus. PI cattle can appear to be entirely normal, and can be born into herds without the keeper realising there is a BVD infection. A keeper could easily sell or move a PI animal without having any reason to suspect that it is PI. If it were to be an offence to sell or move a PI animal whether it was known that it was PI or not, the only way a keeper could be completely sure they were not risking prosecution would be to virus test all of their cattle before movement, other than to slaughter 36. This would be an unnecessary and disproportionate cost to place on cattle keepers. There are around 330,000 cattle moved in Scotland each year that aren’t moving to slaughter. To be sure they were not PI, each of these would have to be tested for virus at a cost to the keeper of around £5 per test.
8
If the keeper denies knowing that an animal is PI following a virus test 37. As the offence could only apply where the keeper knows they are moving a PI animal, there is a risk that a keeper could say they did not know it was PI as they had not received the virus result from the laboratory. To avoid this, we propose that where a laboratory has sent a positive virus result to a keeper or the keeper’s veterinary surgeon from samples from their herd and more than one month has passed, it shall be assumed that the keeper has received them and therefore knows they have a PI animal. 38. This means that, where a keeper has not received results of a virus test, the responsibility is on them to request the results to be re-issued from their veterinary surgeon or laboratory. If results are not received within one month and the animal is found to be PI, they will be liable. Extent of the ban on knowingly moving PI cattle 39. This measure would apply to cattle being moved into Scotland, or presented for sale here. We propose that it would also apply to keepers in Scotland moving cattle or presenting them for sale outside of Scotland. It is unreasonable to allow keepers in Scotland to spread disease to other countries by knowingly moving their PI cattle out of Scotland. 40. It would also apply to cattle being presented for sale in Scotland, regardless of the herd of origin or location of the keeper. This would mean that it is not only an offence to knowingly move a PI animal, it would be an offence to enter one into a sale at a market, or to advertise one for sale privately. 41. It is intended that the restrictions would prohibit the movement of PI cattle from the holding on which they were identified. This would mean that moves to linked holdings and other moves within a farm business would be prohibited. Monitoring PI cattle movements 42. Under the Bovine Viral Diarrhoea (Scotland) Order 2012, approved laboratories are required to inform Scottish Ministers of the result and ear tag number for any tests for BVD virus as part of a mandatory annual screening test. We propose extending this to include;
Any BVD virus test carried out by any laboratory in Scotland, and
Any BVD virus test carried out by an approved laboratory. 43. Virus results notified to Scottish Ministers will be stored on a database. Each month this will be checked against the Cattle Tracing System (CTS) managed by the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS). Where an animal that meets our definition of a PI animal is moved, this will be identified. 44. Penalties for offences are discussed at Chapter Seven below.
9
Exceptions 45. We intend to allow PI cattle to be moved under licence, issued by the Scottish Government or AHVLA. This would typically be for the purpose of safeguarding the welfare of a PI animal or other animals in the same herd, for research or for education purposes. Licences would be issued for single, specific moves only. General exceptions could be permitted for moves in emergencies. Questions [Note: You can respond using the Consultation Questions Response Form at p.25]
Do you agree that it should be an offence to knowingly present of sale cattle that are known to be Persistently Infected with BVD?
Do you agree that it should be an offence to knowingly move cattle that are known to be Persistently Infected with BVD, other than straight to slaughter?
Do you agree that it should be an offence to sell or move Persistently Infected cattle beyond Scotland other than for slaughter ?
Do you agree that all laboratories in Scotland should be required to supply all BVD virus test results, along with the associated ear tag numbers, to Scottish Ministers?
What exceptions e.g. for research or welfare, should be considered to a ban on knowingly moving Persistently Infected animals?
Do you agree that keepers of all breeding herds should be legally required to declare the BVD status of their herd or animals prior to sale or movement?
10
CHAPTER FOUR: DECLARING THE BVD STATUS 46. Under the Bovine Viral Diarrhoea (Scotland) Order 2012, which came into force on 1 April 2012, keepers of all breeding herds must carry out a first screening test for BVD by 1 February 2013. This will generate a herd status for each herd of either ‘negative’ or ‘not-negative’.
47. Farmers should be able to know the BVD status of the individual cattle or the herd of origin of any cattle they buy. If they are to be made responsible for the BVD status of their own herd, they need to have information on the health status of the animals they are buying so that they can keep disease out. 48. We therefore propose that before all movements of cattle from one holding to another, the keeper of the herd of origin must disclose the BVD status to the keeper of the receiving holding. Declaration Standards 49. It would be possible to simply require keepers to declare the BVD herd status resulting from their most recent mandatory annual screening test. However, a declaration of ‘negative’ or ‘not-negative’ does not fairly represent the range of BVD health statuses available. Having a ’negative’ herd status is not equivalent to being accredited BVD-free through a health scheme that is a member of the Cattle Health Certification Standards (CHeCS). Also, any animal that has ever tested negative for BVD virus cannot be PI, regardless of the BVD status of the herd it comes from. Using the herd statuses alone would not allow these non-PI animals to be recognised and valued. 50. Therefore, representatives from industry, markets, scientific bodies and government have developed a categorisation system for BVD declarations. There are three categories, and within these a distinction made to reflect the greater risk from pregnant cattle. These are detailed on the next page.
11
BVD Declaration Standards
Category Standard Risk of being PI
Category 1: BVD certified negative
Cattle are not pregnant, and either;
From an accredited BVD-free herd through a CHeCS cattle health scheme
OR
Individually tested BVD virus-free
Very low risk
Category 2: BVD herd screen negative
or BVD protected breeding stock
Cattle are not pregnant and; From a herd with a ‘negative’ BVD herd status through a mandatory annual screening. Cattle may be pregnant and;
From an accredited BVD-free herd through a CHeCS cattle health scheme
OR
Certified virus free and vaccinated
Low risk
Category 3: No BVD declaration
All cattle not in either of the categories above (including from ‘not-negative’ herds)
Risk unknown
12
51. Category 1, illustrated above, would allow the benefit of being in a CHeCS health scheme to be represented. It is important that any declaration standards reflect the greater re-assurance from such herds, through more stringent testing, a potentially longer period of BVD freedom and higher biosecurity standards. 52. These two ‘top’ options should be available in order to give the buyer the best range of options and to enable a premium for high health status BVD free animals to emerge. 53. The categorisation system above allows cattle from any herd to be sold in Category 1 if it has tested negative for virus. While it could be transiently infected with BVD, and if it is from a ‘not-negative’ herd there is a greater risk of this, it cannot be PI. This means that a keeper of a ‘not-negative’ herd can present cattle for sale through Category 1 simply by having virus testing carried out in advance, and receiving negative results. Movements through a market 54. At present, the IAAS informally estimate that around 10% of the cattle being sold through the markets have a declared BVD status. The vast majority of these are high-value breeding cattle, usually through a pedigree sale. This means that there are insufficient numbers of cattle coming onto the market to give buyers the ability to choose BVD-free cattle over cattle of unknown status. 55. By considering the 2007 SAC BVD prevalence study and the results of the subsidised BVD screening offered in Stage One of the BVD eradication scheme, the Scottish Government estimates that around three-quarters of beef herds and half of dairy herds would have a ‘negative’ BVD herd status. This means that, were the statuses of all herds known and declared at sale, buyers looking to minimise the risks of introducing BVD to their herds would have a much greater pool of available animals from which to buy. This choice is currently unavailable. Non-market movements 56. It is not only sales that pose a risk of BVD spread - all livestock movements carry the risk of transmitting BVD. This would include bull hire or sharing, which carries a particular risk for BVD as it can lead to cows being infected with BVD virus early in pregnancy, the danger period for creating a PI calf. Also in this category would be seasonal shared grazing and livestock shows. Shows 57. Keepers would be required to provide the herd or animal status to the show organisers. Shows may accept any animals, but they may choose to refuse to accept cattle from ‘not-negative’ herds unless they are individually tested free of BVD virus before movement, if they wish.
13
Cross-border movements 58. This proposal would also apply to cattle from outside of Scotland being moved into Scotland or presented for sale here. Cattle being moved to Scotland or presented for sale would have to be moved under one of the categories in the BVD Declaration Standards above. Questions
[Note: You can respond using the Consultation Questions Response Form at p.25]
Do you agree with the herd declarations proposal for breeding herds laid out in the table on page 11?
Do you agree that herd declarations should not just apply at sales but also before all movements of cattle from one holding to another?
Should a ‘negative herd’ status be lost when cattle of unknown status are brought into the herd?
When a keeper declares his herd as 'negative', should they also declare how long the herd has been negative?
Do you think similar herd declarations should also apply to non-breeding herds – either now, or at some point in the future?
14
CHAPTER FIVE: RESTRICTIONS ON ‘NOT-NEGATIVE’ HERDS MOVEMENT RESTRICTIONS 59. The measures outlined in Chapters Three and Four above will make it significantly easier for a cattle keeper to avoid introducing BVD to their herd, which makes eradicating it from their own herd more achievable. It is anticipated that it will also lead to a price differential between ‘negative’ and ‘not-negative’ herds. 60. However, unless all, or almost all, keepers voluntarily remove BVD from their own herds, some form of movement control will be required in order for national BVD eradication to be achieved. As long as there is a market for cattle from ‘not-negative’ herds, the disease will continue to circulate and seriously undermine any attempts made to rid Scotland of BVD. Restrictions on ‘not-negative’ herds 61. An effective way of ensuring that BVD does not continue to spread freely throughout Scotland would be to make it an offence for a keeper to move cattle from a breeding herd with a ‘not-negative’ status, unless directly to slaughter, or if individually tested negative for BVD virus. This would encourage keepers of herds with a ‘not-negative’ status to achieve a ‘negative’ status, and still provide them with a simple way of safely moving animals. 62. In the second BVD consultation, in early 2011, the Scottish Government proposed that cattle from herds with a ‘not-negative’ status for BVD would only be allowed to move if they tested negative for BVD virus before being moved, or were going directly to slaughter. Through the responses received to the consultation, discussions with industry and consideration of the results of the subsidised testing offered by the Scottish Government over the winter of 2010-11, it was felt that 2012 may be too soon to introduce this measure. 63. This consultation paper therefore puts forward a range of options for introducing movement restrictions, seeking opinions in particular on timing and regionalisation. Testing for BVD virus 64. The cost of an individual virus test, which would be required to demonstrate that the animal was not PI, is approximately £5. It is important to bear in mind that it is likely a premium will emerge for higher status animals, so this cost ought to be recouped at sale. There is also a range of options through ‘tag and test’ schemes which mean the cost could be significantly less than this. For example, there are currently offers available which put the cost of an ear tag plus the test at just over £5. This requirement would mean that moves would have to be planned at least a week in advance to allow time for testing, but the Scottish Government believes this burden on ‘not-negative’ herds would be justified in order to inhibit the spread of disease.
15
Date of introduction 65. In considering when would be the most appropriate time to introduce movement restrictions, a number of factors are relevant. 66. Firstly, expert veterinary and scientific opinion, based on the epidemiology of the disease and evidence from thousands of herds, is that in the vast majority of cases BVD eradication is easily achievable in a herd in two breeding cycles. In a herd with a BVD virus infection this is typically achieved by testing a calf crop, the dams of any PI calves found, any cows that did not have a calf and all bulls. PI cattle should be removed, and then the next calf crop tested. If this is clear then the herd can be considered BVD virus free. Biosecurity measures, such as vaccination or double fencing, and testing replacements should be put in place as eradication from the herd begins. 67. At present, we estimate around one quarter of beef herds and one half of dairy herds would have to do some follow-up testing to establish if they have an active BVD virus infection, and many if not most would have to follow a protocol similar to that outlined above to remove BVD from their herd. However, in some parts of Scotland prevalence is much higher, and there are greater risks of re-introduction. 68. By 1 February 2013 all breeding herds should have a herd status. The industry will wish to consider very carefully what would be a reasonable period of time after that date before movement restrictions should be introduced on ‘not-negative’ herds. A balance needs to be struck between the interests of those who are currently BVD-free, and those who may find it difficult and expensive to remove BVD from their herds. Many of those with BVD-free herds have achieved that at some expense and are not fully benefitting while the disease is circulating at current levels. Regionalisation 69. Evidence, such as the SAC BVD prevalence study in 2007, and the subsidised screening in 2010-11, shows that BVD is more common in some parts of the country than others. It is lowest in the Highlands and Islands and Argyll, then more common down the east of Scotland from Grampian to the Borders, and highest in the South West, particularly Dumfriesshire and East Ayrshire. In part this is a reflection of the differing proportions of dairy herds and cattle density. 70. This is reflected in the opinions of farmers on how quickly BVD eradication attempts should be progressed, as expressed through NFUS surveys and feedback from public meetings. In areas of lower prevalence there is significantly greater enthusiasm for introducing control measures, such as restrictions on ‘not-negative’ herds. In areas of higher prevalence, while a significant majority of those who have expressed an opinion say they favour movement restrictions on ‘not-negative’ herds, there is less support for early introduction. 71. Movement restrictions could apply in a phased approach across the country. This would enable areas that have lower prevalence to progress more quickly, while
16
allowing other parts of the country with higher prevalence to progress at a slower rate so that their specific issues can be dealt with before ‘not-negative’ movement restrictions apply. If regionalised movement restrictions are agreed as being the correct way forward then it is likely that the regions would be as follows:
Region1: Highlands and Islands – Highland, The Northern and Western Isles, Argyll & Bute
Region 2: East of Scotland – Grampian, Tayside, Stirlingshire, Dunbartonshire, Fife, Lothian and Scottish Borders.
Region 3: South West – Renfrewshire, Lanarkshire, Ayrshire, Dumfries & Galloway.
72. This would mean that ‘not-negative’ herds in the areas under restrictions, for instance Regions 1 and 2, would not be able to move cattle other than straight to slaughter unless they had tested virus negative, while ‘not-negative’ herds in other parts of Scotland would be able to continue to trade without movement restrictions. In the context of the BVD Declaration Standards described in Chapter Four, keepers of herds in the restricted areas could not move Category 3 cattle, but those in other regions could. 73. The intended consequence of this would be that it would place more pressure on keepers of ‘not-negative’ herds in those regions to achieve a ‘negative’ status, but due to the lower risk of re-infection from their neighbours this is more easily achievable in areas of low prevalence. Keepers of ‘negative’ herds in these regions would benefit by their neighbours being more likely to tackle a BVD problem in their herd, and by an enhanced reputation for cattle from their area. 74. If regionalisation is implemented Scotland could not move forward as a whole, which would increase the complexity of the scheme and could have unforeseen negative consequences on trade, but regionalisation will be considered if the industry expresses a preference for it. Conclusion 75. The Scottish Government firmly believes that movement restrictions on ‘not-negative’ herds are necessary at some point if national eradication is to be achieved. However, we make no recommendation at this stage on when would be the most appropriate date to introduce this measure, and seek industry views. We do not believe it would be reasonable to introduce it in the high-prevalence regions from the originally proposed date of 1 December 2012. We intend to co-ordinate the views of all interested parties, particularly those of individual farmers, and gather and distribute information from mandatory annual screening results and markets as it is generated.
17
Questions [Note: You can respond using the Consultation Questions Response Form at p.25]
When do you think movement controls on 'not negative' herds should be introduced?
February 2013 February 2014 February 2015 Never Highlands & Islands
East of Scotland
South West Scotland
Please tick one date for each area – they can all be same dates, or different.
Do you favour a regionalised approach? Please provide us with your views.
Do you agree that if a regionalised approach to movement restrictions is taken the identified three areas are correct, or should they be altered?
Is correct Should be altered
Region1: Highlands and Islands – Highland, The Northern and Western Isles, Argyll & Bute
Region 2: East of Scotland – Grampian, Tayside, Stirlingshire, Dunbartonshire, Fife, Lothian and Scottish Borders.
Region 3: South West – Renfrewshire, Lanarkshire, Ayrshire, Dumfries & Galloway.
18
CHAPTER SIX: CROSS-BORDER MOVEMENTS 76. Farmers frequently raise the issue of cross-border trade, with the risk to a national eradication scheme from cattle brought into Scotland. Keepers of breeding herds in Scotland are responsible for the BVD status of their own herd, and they should consider the risks of bringing cattle of unknown BVD status into their herd whether they come from within or beyond Scotland. We do not propose to introduce specific measures for cattle being brought into Scotland at this stage; they would be covered by the same requirements as for cattle moving within Scotland:
It would be an offence to move a PI animal into or out of Scotland;
Cattle can be moved under Category 1 if they come from CHeCS health scheme accredited BVD-free herds, or the animals are individually tested negative for BVD virus.
77. As there are no known equivalent schemes in other countries to the Scottish BVD eradication scheme, we do not propose to permit cattle from outside of Scotland to be presented as being from a ‘not-negative’ herd. However, we are open to alternative views and would consider opening Category 2 to herds outwith Scotland if it were desirable and practically feasible. Movement restrictions on ‘not-negative’ herds from outside Scotland 78. When movement restrictions are introduced on ‘not-negative’ herds, as explained in Chapter Five above, we propose that restrictions would also apply to herds from outside Scotland. Cattle eligible to be moved under Category 1 – those from CHeCS health scheme accredited BVD-free herds, or individually tested virus negative – would continue to be able to be brought into Scotland as normal. 79. For all other cattle, there are two options:
Option 1 Where cattle of any other BVD status are brought into a Scottish herd with a ‘negative’ status, the herd status will change to ‘not-negative’. Further testing would be required through a veterinary surgeon to return the herd status to ‘not-negative’ – this could be a post-movement virus test. Where the receiving herd is already ‘not-negative’, there would be no difference. Option 2 Where cattle of any other BVD status are brought into any Scottish herd, they must be tested for virus within a short period of time after arrival.
80. Option 1 maintains the principle that the BVD status of a herd is the responsibility of the keeper, and it is up to them to protect a ‘negative’ status. It also has little regulatory impact on cross-border trade. It is arguably unfair though, as it would allow keepers of ‘not-negative’ herds to buy as normal, while keepers of ‘negative’ herds would be affected.
19
81. Option 2 is effectively pre- or post- movement testing, which would apply to all cattle coming into Scotland unless they are from a CHeCS health scheme accredited BVD-free herd. Around 35,000 to 40,000 cattle move into Scotland each year, not including those going to slaughterhouses, and only a small percentage will be from known BVD-free herds or previously virus tested. Many will be store cattle moving to finishers, but many others would have to be virus tested shortly after movement. Questions
[Note: You can respond using the Consultation Questions Response Form at p.25]
Should measures be introduced concerning cross-border trade when movement restrictions are introduced on ‘not-negative’ herds, or at an earlier or later time?
Should Category 2 (defined at page 11) be available to cattle coming from outside of Scotland?
What measures should be introduced on cross-border trade – options one or two (see page 18 to have these explained), or something else?
20
CHAPTER SEVEN: MONITORING, ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES Who should monitor and enforce? 82. The statutory enforcing authority for offences under the Animal Health Act 1981 in Scotland is the relevant local authority. It is their responsibility to gather the information necessary to present a case for prosecution to the procurator fiscal. 83. The Animal Health Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA) is the delivery agency for veterinary policy for the three administrations in Great Britain. AHVLA’s duties include serving notices of movement restrictions on herds, such as where there is a bovine TB reactor, or where a notifiable exotic disease is suspected. Breaches of such notices are prosecuted by the relevant local authority. 84. The Scottish Government intends to use a combination of a dedicated BVD database and CTS to monitor compliance. We have not made a decision on who should monitor the data. 85. We propose that, given their greater experience in monitoring and enforcing animal disease and movement legislation, AHVLA should have a significant role. They should have responsibility for extracting information from databases to monitor compliance, issue movement restriction notices where appropriate, and gather any information necessary where there is non-compliance. The role of local authorities would be focussed on prosecutions, where they are required. What should the penalties be? 86. It is an offence under the Animal Health Act 1981 to fail to comply with the Bovine Viral Diarrhoea (Scotland) Order 2012. Section 75(2) of the Act specifies that a person guilty of an offence shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment to a term not exceeding 6 months, and/or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. At present, level 5 is £5,000. 87. We wish to avoid prosecutions where possible as they are an ineffective and expensive way of ensuring compliance. The option of prosecution cannot and should not be removed, but other methods of encouraging compliance may be preferable. We propose that prosecution should be regarded as a last resort, and that more appropriate and effective measures should be used to persuade keepers to comply. There are a number of options that could be available alongside prosecution to encourage compliance. Penalty for not complying with mandatory annual screening 88. We propose that a movement ban should be placed on a herd that has failed to comply with the requirement to screen their herd for BVD. The movement restrictions would be the same as where there is a bovine TB reactor – the monitoring authority would serve a notice, and cattle would not be permitted to be moved from the holding until the restrictions were lifted by notice. We would allow movements under specific licence, generally for welfare reasons.
21
89. The restriction would last until the herd had been satisfactorily screened and a BVD herd status declared by the testing laboratory. 90. We believe this would be a proportionate response to the offence, as it is not difficult for any herd to carry out a compliant test from the range of options available. A keeper of any herd could comply with the requirements in a matter of days. 91. Using movement restrictions would be administratively simpler than prosecuting directly for failure to screen for BVD, as prosecutions for moving cattle under restriction would be likely to be easier to prove and follow a more established route. This means that the likelihood of the penalty actually being applied is greater. 92. The penalty for moving cattle from a herd under restrictions would be the same as for a herd under TB movement restrictions. Penalty for knowingly moving a Persistently Infected animal 93. PI animals can cause very significant economic losses when introduced to a herd, especially if that herd is unvaccinated and the cattle are naïve to BVD. In such cases a loss in the first year of tens of thousands of pounds are routine. Current best estimates are that half of all PI cattle die before they are one year old, and only one-fifth live beyond two years, so the health of the animals themselves is seriously compromised, before their impact on the rest of the herd is considered. 94. Following discussion with a wide range of industry partners, we believe that the fine for knowingly moving a PI animal should be as severe as the Animal Health Act 1981 permits. This means a fine on summary conviction of up to £5,000. 95. We would welcome views on whether this is felt to be sufficient, or whether any further measures should be considered, such as limitation on future movements for a period, or comprehensive virus testing required in the herd of an offending keeper. It should be noted that it would not be possible to increase the maximum level for fines without primary legislation, which would mean putting a Bill through the Scottish Parliament, and there is little prospect of securing parliamentary time for such a measure. Penalty for failing to declare a BVD status, or misrepresenting a BVD status
Keepers 96. We propose that the maximum penalty for failure to declare a status, or misrepresenting a status, should be the same as for not carrying out a mandatory screening test - £5,000, or £1,000 per animal where more than 10 animals are involved. 97. Cattle keepers who misrepresent a herd or animal status may also be exposing themselves to civil liabilities if they impact on the business of the receiving keeper or his neighbours.
22
Markets
98. Markets will also have a duty to declare the herd or individual animal BVD status of all cattle presented for sale through their facilities. We intend to allow a wide degree of discretion on how they would meet this obligation, but fundamentally potential buyers must be able to easily discover the BVD status of any cattle before bidding. This could be achieved through such mechanisms as the published catalogue and announcements in the ring as cattle enter. It would remain the keeper’s obligation to inform the market of the BVD status, but it would be the market’s responsibility to make that information available to prospective buyers. 99. Where a farmer buys cattle from a market without the BVD status being suitably declared by the market, the market may be exposed to civil liabilities for losses incurred by that farmer or his neighbours. Questions [Note: You can respond using the Consultation Questions Response Form at p.25]
Who should have responsibility for enforcing the scheme?
What should the penalty be for not carrying out a herd test?
What should the penalty be for misrepresenting or not reporting a BVD status?
What should the penalty be for knowingly selling a Persistently Infected animal?
23
CHAPTER EIGHT: THE CONSULTATION QUESTIONS AND HOW TO RESPOND The Scottish Government would like to hear from all interested parties and from affected individuals. We need to have these views so that the scheme we establish will be practical, realistic and effective. We amended the voluntary phase of BVD eradication to reflect the views expressed in consultation responses and are willing to do so again. Moreover, we need to be sure that the industry strongly prefers to have compulsory requirements before we will proceed. In particular we would appreciate responses from all cattle industry stakeholder bodies. These questions can be answered online at www.scotland.gov.uk/bvd, by email to [email protected] or in writing, to BVD Consultation, P Spur, Saughton House, Edinburgh, EH11 3XD. Please ensure that you read the How To Respond section below before replying, and please complete the respondent information form, which can be done online, downloaded from our website or completed by filling in the form attached. The last day that responses will be accepted is Friday 17 August 2012.
It would be helpful to have your response through the online survey or by email. We are of course happy to receive written submissions too.
Online submission A form to submit responses is below and a link to the online survey is available at www.scotland.gov.uk/bvd. Email submissions Please email submissions (preferably using the form below) to [email protected]. Written submissions Written submissions (preferably using the form below) should be sent to: BVD Consultation P Spur Saughton House Broomhouse Drive Edinburgh EH11 3XD We would be grateful if you would use the consultation questions provided, the online questionnaire or if you would clearly indicate in your response which questions or parts of the consultation paper you are responding to, as this will aid our analysis of the responses received.
24
This consultation, and all other Scottish Government consultation exercises, can be viewed online on the consultation web pages of the Scottish Government website at www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations. You can telephone Freephone 0800 77 1234 to find out where your nearest public internet access point is. The Scottish Government has an email alert system for consultations. This system, called SEconsult, allows individuals and organisations to register and receive a weekly email with details of all new consultations (including web links). SEconsult complements, but in no way replaces, Scottish Government distribution lists. It is designed to allow people with an interest to keep up to date with all Scottish Government consultation activity. You can register at SEconsult: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations/seconsult.aspx. Handling your response We need to know how you wish your response to be handled and, in particular, whether you are happy for your response to be made public. Please complete and return the Respondent Information Form which forms part of the separate consultation questionnaire as this will ensure that we treat your response appropriately. If you ask for your response not to be published we will regard it as confidential, and we will treat it accordingly. All respondents should be aware that the Scottish Government is subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and would therefore have to consider any request made to it under the Act for information relating to responses made to this consultation exercise.
25
BOVINE VIRAL DIARRHOEA (BVD): CONSULTATION ON CONTROL MEASURES
RESPONDENT INFORMATION FORM Please Note this form must be returned with your response to ensure that we handle your response appropriately
1. Name/Organisation Organisation Name
Title Mr Ms Mrs Miss Dr Please tick as appropriate Surname
Forename
2. Postal Address
Postcode Phone Email
3. Permissions - I am responding as…
Individual / Group/Organisation
Please tick as appropriate
(a) Do you agree to your response being made available to the public (in Scottish Government library and/or on the Scottish
Government web site)?
Please tick as appropriate Yes No
(c) The name and address of your organisation will be made available to the public (in the Scottish Government library and/or on the Scottish
Government web site).
(b) Where confidentiality is not requested, we will make your responses available to the public on the following basis
Are you content for your response to be made available?
Please tick ONE of the following boxes Please tick as appropriate Yes No
Yes, make my response, name and address all available
or Yes, make my response available,
but not my name and address
or Yes, make my response and name
available, but not my address
(d) We will share your response internally with other Scottish Government policy teams who may be addressing the issues you discuss. They may wish to contact you again in the future, but we require your permission to do so.
Are you content for Scottish Government to contact you again in relation to this consultation exercise?
Please tick as appropriate Yes No
26
CONSULTATION QUESTIONS RESPONSE FORM 1. Do you agree that it should be an offence to knowingly present for sale cattle that are Persistently Infected with BVD? Yes No Comments:
2. Do you agree that it should be an offence to knowingly move cattle that are known to be Persistently Infected with BVD, other than straight to slaughter?
Yes No Comments:
3. Do you agree that it should be an offence to sell or move Persistently Infected cattle beyond Scotland other than for slaughter ?
Yes No
Comments:
4. Do you agree that all laboratories in Scotland should be required to supply all BVD virus test results, along with the associated ear tag numbers, to Scottish Ministers? Yes No Comments:
27
5. What exceptions e.g. for research or welfare, should be considered to a ban on knowingly moving Persistently Infected animals? Comments:
6. Do you agree that keepers of all breeding herds should be legally required to declare the BVD status of their herd or animals prior to sale or movement?
Yes No Comments:
7. Do you agree with the herd declarations proposal for breeding herds laid out in the table on page 11? Yes No 8. Please provide any advice you wish, include alternative versions of the declaration standards.
9. Do you agree that herd declarations should not just apply at sales but also before all movements of cattle from one holding to another?
Yes No Comments:
28
10. Should a ‘negative herd’ status be lost when cattle of unknown status are brought into the herd? Yes No Comments:
11. When a keeper declares his herd as 'negative', should they also declare how long the herd has been negative?
Yes No Comments:
12. Do you think similar herd declarations should also apply to non-breeding herds – either now, or at some point in the future? Yes No Comments:
13. When do you think movement controls on 'not negative' herds should be introduced?
February 2013 February 2014 February 2015 Never
Highlands & Islands
East of Scotland
South West Scotland
Comments
29
14. Do you favour a regionalised approach? Please provide us with your views.
Yes No Comments:
15. Do you agree that if a regionalised approach to movement restrictions is taken the identified three areas are correct, or should they be altered?
Is correct
Should be altered
Region1: Highlands and Islands – Highland, The Northern and Western Isles, Argyll & Bute
Region 2: East of Scotland – Grampian, Tayside, Stirlingshire, Dunbartonshire, Fife, Lothian and Scottish Borders.
Region 3: South West – Renfrewshire, Lanarkshire, Ayrshire, Dumfries & Galloway.
Comments
16. Should measures be introduced concerning cross-border trade when movement restrictions are introduced on ‘not-negative herds’, or at an earlier or later time?
When movement restrictions are introduced At an earlier time At a later time
Comments:
30
17. Should Category 2 (defined at page 11) be available to cattle coming from outside of Scotland?
Yes No If yes, how?
18. What measures should be introduced on cross-border trade – options one or two (see page 18 to have these explained) or something else?
Option 1 Option 2 Comments:
19. Who should have responsibility for enforcing the scheme? AHVLA Local Authority Other:
20. What should the penalty be for not carrying out a herd test? Fine (up to £5000) Should be something more Should be no penalty Comments
31
21. What should the penalty be for misrepresenting or not reporting a BVD status?
Fine (up to £5000) Should be something more Should be no penalty Comments
22. What should the penalty be for knowingly selling a Persistently Infected animal?
Fine (up to £5000) Should be something more Should be no penalty Comments
32
ANNEX A TIMELINE
1 June 2010 First consultation opened 16 July 2010 First consultation closed 22 September 2010 Voluntary phase began, including subsidised
testing 17 January 2011 Second consultation opens 31 March 2011 Subsidised testing ends 15 April 2011 Second consultation closes 1 September 2011 Mandatory annual screening period begins 1 April 2012 Legislation for mandatory annual screening comes
into force 18 May 2012 Consultation opens on third stage of BVD
eradication 17 August 2012 Consultation closes 1 February 2013 Deadline for mandatory annual screening tests Third Stage of BVD eradication to begin:
Ban on knowingly moving PI cattle BVD status declarations required
Date to be determined Movement controls on ‘not-negative’ herds Not before December 2013 Biosecurity measures required for ‘not-negative’
herds
w w w . s c o t l a n d . g o v . u k
© Crown copyright 2012
You may re-use this information (excluding logos and images) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or e-mail: [email protected].
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
ISBN: 978-1-78045-823-6 (web only)
The Scottish GovernmentSt Andrew’s HouseEdinburghEH1 3DG
Produced for the Scottish Government by APS Group ScotlandDPPAS12986 (05/12)
Published by the Scottish Government, May 2012
