The article illustrates a few issues that have been apparent in this Mycoplasma bovis disease response from July last year.
It has been and is a difficult time for those farmers who have had the disease confirmed on their farms.
It has been equally difficult for a larger number of farmers who have not had the disease but have been caught up with it as trace properties.
To date there are almost 3000 of them as against maybe 50 with the disease.
Those trace properties have all spent time having animals tested and dealing with the uncertainties of the Primary Industries Ministry.
The disease itself has not shown symptoms except on fewer than 10 farms so the problem for most concerned has been MPI rather than the disease itself.
When we relate this to others the general response is disbelief – surely MPI cannot be that bad?
Ask those who have dealt with EQC for the past seven years and it is easier to believe.
Industry bodies have all given good publicity to the theory they have been working with and supporting affected farmers.
That might be true in some cases but certainly was not as true in 2017 as in 2018.
Support has been slow coming and still non-existent for a lot of farmers.
MPI has also given good publicity to how it is helping farmers get back on their feet.
Again, untrue in most cases.
As regards sheep being infected with M bovis, the disease came to our farm in March 2017, in calves that were subsequently mixed with sheep for six months with shared yards, paddocks, water troughs and farm machinery movements.
There were some very wet periods in that time, which was ideal for bacterial type diseases.
We had 400 calves killed in September 2017 and were told they had 80% infection with M bovis though none showed any symptoms of the disease.
Our sheep were tested in September and October in two rounds of testing with blood tests, nasal swabs, milk samples and pizzle swabs being taken. No tests showed M bovis in the sheep.
Subsequently, we took some rams to the Canterbury A&P Show in mid November with full clearance from MPI.
And then we sold almost 100 rams to a large number of farms in early 2018.
MPI did not require any tracing of those animals or any other restrictions.
At that time we were still under a Notice of Direction, having been a Restricted Place until 60 days after the cattle left.
There have been other infected properties where sheep might have been exposed to M bovis.
As far as I am aware no other sheep have been proven to be infected and maybe not even tested for the disease.
All the information I have been able to find from other countries says the disease either does not infect sheep or it dies in them, ie they momentarily show infection before the organism dies in their system.
Nowhere in New Zealand have transmission of this disease occurred through movement on dirt, dung, machinery, trucks or people.
It might be possible that dirt of sheep’s hooves might move the organism but by comparison MPI protocols say similar transmission on dogs’ feet is not possible. This is evidenced on all farms under MPI restrictions.
MPI might or might not have passed the information gathered from our sheep to AsureQuality or any other organisations. It has been interesting that we did not have a debrief with MPI as to the behaviour or epidemiology of the disease and as far as I am aware they have not done so with other affected farmers.
When we ask for test results we have generally hit a brick wall.
As regards your not taking calves from a possibly infected source – I suggest you did the right thing for the wrong reasons.
The disease itself is not going to be crippling to your business.
Being placed under a Notice of Direction,or worse a Restricted Place Notice will hurt your business. The question is to what degree?
Also, the farming community has displayed a general attitude of feeling sorry for the affected farmers while really saying “thank God its not me”.
The reality for the affected farmers is that we are on our own.
Having business stopped is our reality until MPI gets on top of this disease or pulls out and lets the industry come to grips with it.
Both options will take some time and there is going to be more uncertainty and disruption until farmers get their heads around a few issues.
Not buying or reneging on deals might help safeguard your business but knocks the shitter out of some one else’s.
MPI has been very meagre on passing real and useful information to farmers.
I think this is because it started the response with the idea it was totally its problem and it would fix it.
As time has gone on the secret squirrel mentality has been shown to have a lot of flaws when it comes to longer-term co-operation or collaboration with the farming industry.
MPI staff are well trained in minimising any potential liability to their organisation.
However, that, along with being PC, ends up negating much potential usefulness to the community they are meant to serve.
