ARCHIVE FILE
This article was published in 1980
See the original document
Brucellosis Symposium
J.M. Wilson, B.V.Sc., Veterinary Inspector, Tweed/Lismore
Introduction
In my contribution to this symposium, bear in mind that I am less directly involved than some of my colleagues. Our Brucellosis Office, which covers the Tweed/Lismore and Casino Pastures Protection Districts, is generally under the control of a Veterinary Officer (Brucellosis), and my main role has involved giving active assistance in the field and acting as V.O. (Brucellosis) while that position is unoccupied. Perhaps as a result of this, I am able to take a more dispassionate view.
Our Secretary has suggested that comments be made around History, Test Results, Working of Teams, Aftermath, and District Peculiarities.
History
The Richmond-Tweed Brucellosis Office was established in Lismore in late 1976, and a pilot scheme (Upper Clarence) was commenced. In this area 360 properties with 70,000 breeding cattle were tackled by 3 teams of 2 bleeders and one senior Cattle Inspector. Valuable experience was gained, as the area ranged from small dairies to rough country, difficult to muster, and with more than a fair share of difficult stockowners.
Further lay bleeders were appointed and trained, and about mid 1977 test and slaughter commenced throughout the entire Richmond-Tweed area. Rather than 'on face' testing, priority was given to herds where infection was known to exist as a result of abattoir monitoring and milk factory Milk Ring Testing. On this basis it was indicated that about one in 4 herds would be infected.
The Brucellosis Office was moved from Lismore City to the old Cattle Tick Research Station at Alstonville in September 1977.
There are approximately 300,000 breeding cattle in the Richmond-Tweed area, and through the initial rounds of bleeding these were handled by 54 bleeders in teams of 3. The overall prevalence of infection at this stage was just under 2 per cent. By June 1979 cattle prevalence had fallen to below 0.2% and herd prevalence to about 2%. At this present time, now that Provisional Freedom has been attained, 6 teams totalling 13 bleeders are coping adequately, with a weekly average of around 5,000 samples.
Working of Teams
Lay bleeders were generally selected from local people, many of them with farm backgrounds. Others had been associated with the livestock industry through abattoirs, saleyards, auctioneers and some had no rural experience.
Initially 3 man teams were used, these dropped back to 2 as eradication progressed. Teams operated from sub-centres at Bonalbo, Casino, Kyogle, Lismore, Bangalow and Murwillumbah, and groups of teams were under the direct control of Cattle Inspectors. It was hoped initially that each member of a team would be able to perform all relevant tasks (ie bleeding recording, yarding up etc.), however, this was not always the case - some teams had members who were incapable of efficient bleeding but were good recorders. This tended to weaken the effectiveness of the team as a whole, although some members became so adept at extracting blood that the average veterinarian would be put to shame.
Teams generally had good local knowledge, but this sometimes was a disadvantage when team members were known personally to stockowners, and a certain amount of 'magging' took place, which often resulted in misunderstanding about test interpretations and some other aspects of the scheme.
Test Results
Actual test results are a matter of statistical record and will not be repeated here. Problems of interpretation were encountered on many properties - these largely stemmed from over-enthusiastic or injudicious use of Strain 19 vaccine by veterinary practitioners; also, sad to say but true, inadequate understanding of Brucellosis Serology by professional and lay staff. Special problems were generated by the use of the ill-chosen term 'Inconclusive', which caused a general lack of confidence in the testing in the minds of many of the lay staff, some of the public and sone veterinary practitioners.
Even within our own professional ranks, opinions varied as to the significance of C.F. 8 titres. We were inclined to take a fairly hard line in interpretation, especially in the early stages of the campaign.
Aftermath
The area is Provisionally free, and perhaps the fact that our D.V.O., area now has the lowest herd and cattle prevalence of Brucellosis can be attributed to our overkill philosophy together with our initial attention to known infected herds; instead of 'on face' bleeding. The reduced numbers of teams are coping adequately with all necessary bleeding, and breakdowns have been minimal. Currently, much time is being spent re-organising records and making computer corrections. Apart from the fact that the computer is now so overloaded that herd summaries are having to be condensed; for one reason or another a good deal of incorrect information (termed 'garbage' I believe) has crept into the system. Over the past 3 months 70 per cent of the working time of one V.O., one Senior Cattle Inspector and 2 clerical assistants has been devoted to computer corrections. This time might have been better spent on Brucellosis Eradication rather than Garbage Eradication.
District Peculiarities
1. Because of the availability of cattle dips, the area is well served with facilities for handling cattle.
2. There is a large number of small holdings with novice stockowners.
3. Frequent property transfers (800 - 1,000) per year necessitate constant revisions of tail tag lists and computer information.
4. Many of the new settlers have tertiary qualifications and are inclined to question and dispute all Departmental decisions. Members of the legal and medical professions, especially, have been most troublesome over the disposal of reactors.
5. The area is politically sensitive, harbouring a leading member of the Federal Government, and a State Cabinet Minister. Under these circumstances it may be that some decisions have been affected by political instead of epidemiological judgments.
6. Some veterinary practitioners have done little to assist eradication, in fact have actively undermined it; for example by late or multiple Strain 19 vaccination, by re-bleeding reactors at the instigation of owners and submitting samples under false identification, and by supplying owners with information designed to bring the testing into disrepute.
Staff morale has not been assisted by having 4 bosses (3 V.O.'s and 1 V.I.) in 3 years.
In Retrospect
The greatest contribution to our inefficiency has been failure to communicate. We could have made greater and better efforts to inform the public and to generate good public relations.
Veterinarians, both official and private, should have armed themselves with up-to-date information and understanding of serology and epidemiology.
There should have been greater delegation of administrative functions to senior Cattle Inspectors, thus freeing V.O.'s to actively investigate problem herds. Lay staff should have been better briefed on the collection of information, and its importance in relation to the computer. It may well be that a better approach to eradication based on serology is a hard line, overkill attitude, with rigidly applied guidelines for diagnosis.