Geronimo the alpaca - 1 in 300?
Discussion
Some interesting stats at the end of this article
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestersh...
How has Geronimo been tested so far?
Geronimo the alpaca has been tested twice with the Enferplex blood test, says Defra
The UK government says this is the same test used on "a prize bull"
Owner Helen Macdonald says there is insufficient evidence as to the accuracy of this relatively new test when used on alpacas
Defra says Enferplex has a 0.34% chance of showing a false positive
Thats 1 in 300 chance of a false positive. Since the alpaca has shown no symptoms is this the 1 in 300?
Passed 4 times in New Zealand
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestersh...
How has Geronimo been tested so far?
Geronimo the alpaca has been tested twice with the Enferplex blood test, says Defra
The UK government says this is the same test used on "a prize bull"
Owner Helen Macdonald says there is insufficient evidence as to the accuracy of this relatively new test when used on alpacas
Defra says Enferplex has a 0.34% chance of showing a false positive
Thats 1 in 300 chance of a false positive. Since the alpaca has shown no symptoms is this the 1 in 300?
Passed 4 times in New Zealand
The animal is quite lovely, one that will generate a few ‘ahhs’ by those who see the image.
What is not clear is the nature of the animal. Is it a farm animal, bred for a particular purpose, or is it a pet? If the former, then I see no reason for the animal to be spared. There is, I am told, compensation for farmers in such circumstances. If it is a pet, then I can appreciate how distraught the woman feels. I thought that pet animals were not tested for TB.
The way to dispute the testing results and challenge the method is not by the use of a sweet animal that tugs at the heartstrings. It should be a decision based on evidence and repeatable testing. Nor should one anthropomorphize. It’s an animal. It won’t know what’s happening if it is killed humanely.
The fact that it showed negative in the results in NZ is hardly relevant. The thing about test for infectious diseases is that it can only state that the test showed negative at the time it was administered.
The woman is clearly distraught at the thought of her animal being slaughtered. One can appreciate her feelings. However, the only way to ascertain whether the animal has the infection is to test. She says she knows it isn't infected, but it can be asymptomatic, and such animals are thought to be a significant risk factor in the spreading of the disease.
Better safe than sorry is a hackneyed expression that is often used to cover poor decision making, but in this case, which amounts to a disagreement between the regulatory authority and an individual, it is, perhaps, an understandable point of view. If the tests are inaccurate, they should be modified, or a new system introduced. I doubt 0.34% is a precise figure, but I doubt the best answer is to allow an animal, which has tested positive more than once, to live while awaiting a change of testing method.
What is not clear is the nature of the animal. Is it a farm animal, bred for a particular purpose, or is it a pet? If the former, then I see no reason for the animal to be spared. There is, I am told, compensation for farmers in such circumstances. If it is a pet, then I can appreciate how distraught the woman feels. I thought that pet animals were not tested for TB.
The way to dispute the testing results and challenge the method is not by the use of a sweet animal that tugs at the heartstrings. It should be a decision based on evidence and repeatable testing. Nor should one anthropomorphize. It’s an animal. It won’t know what’s happening if it is killed humanely.
The fact that it showed negative in the results in NZ is hardly relevant. The thing about test for infectious diseases is that it can only state that the test showed negative at the time it was administered.
The woman is clearly distraught at the thought of her animal being slaughtered. One can appreciate her feelings. However, the only way to ascertain whether the animal has the infection is to test. She says she knows it isn't infected, but it can be asymptomatic, and such animals are thought to be a significant risk factor in the spreading of the disease.
Better safe than sorry is a hackneyed expression that is often used to cover poor decision making, but in this case, which amounts to a disagreement between the regulatory authority and an individual, it is, perhaps, an understandable point of view. If the tests are inaccurate, they should be modified, or a new system introduced. I doubt 0.34% is a precise figure, but I doubt the best answer is to allow an animal, which has tested positive more than once, to live while awaiting a change of testing method.
Does New Zealand test differently from the UK?
I saw a quote recently from someone who said that if any species deserved to be extinct, it was alpacas, and that he would do everything possible to hasten the process. I think it was a disgruntled alpaca farmer - are they a difficult animal to rear?
I saw a quote recently from someone who said that if any species deserved to be extinct, it was alpacas, and that he would do everything possible to hasten the process. I think it was a disgruntled alpaca farmer - are they a difficult animal to rear?
As an alpaca breeder I can tell you there is a huge amount more to this story than is in the link. There are big concerns over how the test was administered by animal health, including by the manufacturer of the test, including the fact that the animal was primed with a dose for a cow which weighs a huge amount more and the number of times he was primed over a short time frame.
Also for an animal suffering a wasting disease for four years he is putting on weight. There is clear evidence that DEFRA are well aware that these tests don't work as they should but have too much invested in this to admit they could be wrong. She is happy to have another test done properly but they are only prepared to do it post-mortem which is slightly pointless, and it wouldn't be the first time an animal that supposedly had bTB had been destroyed only to be found clear afterwards.
Also for an animal suffering a wasting disease for four years he is putting on weight. There is clear evidence that DEFRA are well aware that these tests don't work as they should but have too much invested in this to admit they could be wrong. She is happy to have another test done properly but they are only prepared to do it post-mortem which is slightly pointless, and it wouldn't be the first time an animal that supposedly had bTB had been destroyed only to be found clear afterwards.
Halmyre said:
Does New Zealand test differently from the UK?
I saw a quote recently from someone who said that if any species deserved to be extinct, it was alpacas, and that he would do everything possible to hasten the process. I think it was a disgruntled alpaca farmer - are they a difficult animal to rear?
Why anyone would want alpacas extinct I have no idea, the fleece is far superior to sheeps wool in every way, warmer, lighter and hypo-allergenic and it is a natural, sustainable product. They are slightly harder to raise than sheep and have a longer gestation (11-12 months) but they are intelligent sensitive animals. I am not sure what test they use in NZ but he tested negative several times but he has been over primed and some of the tests have been banned because they didn't work.I saw a quote recently from someone who said that if any species deserved to be extinct, it was alpacas, and that he would do everything possible to hasten the process. I think it was a disgruntled alpaca farmer - are they a difficult animal to rear?
Alpacaman said:
As an alpaca breeder I can tell you there is a huge amount more to this story than is in the link. There are big concerns over how the test was administered by animal health, including by the manufacturer of the test, including the fact that the animal was primed with a dose for a cow which weighs a huge amount more and the number of times he was primed over a short time frame.
Also for an animal suffering a wasting disease for four years he is putting on weight. There is clear evidence that DEFRA are well aware that these tests don't work as they should but have too much invested in this to admit they could be wrong. She is happy to have another test done properly but they are only prepared to do it post-mortem which is slightly pointless, and it wouldn't be the first time an animal that supposedly had bTB had been destroyed only to be found clear afterwards.
It hasn't been suggested that the animal has been infected for four years, only that it was infected at the time of the test. It's a substantial difference. Could you let us know if the disease can be asymptomatic similarly to the way it can be in cattle? If so, then the test is the only dependable aspect, even if it is faulty. Also for an animal suffering a wasting disease for four years he is putting on weight. There is clear evidence that DEFRA are well aware that these tests don't work as they should but have too much invested in this to admit they could be wrong. She is happy to have another test done properly but they are only prepared to do it post-mortem which is slightly pointless, and it wouldn't be the first time an animal that supposedly had bTB had been destroyed only to be found clear afterwards.
Halmyre said:
Does New Zealand test differently from the UK?
I saw a quote recently from someone who said that if any species deserved to be extinct, it was alpacas, and that he would do everything possible to hasten the process. I think it was a disgruntled alpaca farmer - are they a difficult animal to rear?
Most of the published information is based on cattle - so, this may not be applicable to alpacas and other animals. I saw a quote recently from someone who said that if any species deserved to be extinct, it was alpacas, and that he would do everything possible to hasten the process. I think it was a disgruntled alpaca farmer - are they a difficult animal to rear?
NZ does PCR testing, which only detects active infection, but is highly unreliable at detecting dormant infection. However, it is typically used by testing whole cattle herds, and treating any positive result as herd positivity. They do not recommend antibody testing due to unacceptably high false negative and postive rates.
One of the big problems with TB is that it tends not to get cleared by the immune system, and instead goes into a dormant state, with risk of reactivation at a later date. During the dormant phase, the animal is well and will usually test negative on PCR.
UK does antibody testing. In particular, the UK recommends "boosted" testing - where the animal is given an injection of TB extract which primes their immune system against TB (kind of like a vaccine, but the TB extract is ineffective as a vaccine). After a month or so, the antibody test is taken looking for evidence of an immune reaction against TB.
The boosted testing improves the false negative rate at the cost of worsening the false positive rate. While performing the UK antibody test in unboosted mode has a false positive rate of about 0.2%, after boosting the false positive rate is increased to around 6%.
There is an additional complexity with the UK test, which is that it is actually a cluster of 7 different antibody tests performed on the same sample. The actual score (number of individual positive tests) gives an indication of how reliable and strong the result is. The default position is to call a score of 2/7 "positive" - and this is where the 0.2 and 6% figures false positive figures come from.
However, higher scores are considered stronger positives. The manufacturer provides a software calculator which will take the test score, boosting, etc. calculate an estimated false positive rate for that specific test.
Derek Smith said:
Alpacaman said:
As an alpaca breeder I can tell you there is a huge amount more to this story than is in the link. There are big concerns over how the test was administered by animal health, including by the manufacturer of the test, including the fact that the animal was primed with a dose for a cow which weighs a huge amount more and the number of times he was primed over a short time frame.
Also for an animal suffering a wasting disease for four years he is putting on weight. There is clear evidence that DEFRA are well aware that these tests don't work as they should but have too much invested in this to admit they could be wrong. She is happy to have another test done properly but they are only prepared to do it post-mortem which is slightly pointless, and it wouldn't be the first time an animal that supposedly had bTB had been destroyed only to be found clear afterwards.
It hasn't been suggested that the animal has been infected for four years, only that it was infected at the time of the test. It's a substantial difference. Could you let us know if the disease can be asymptomatic similarly to the way it can be in cattle? If so, then the test is the only dependable aspect, even if it is faulty. Also for an animal suffering a wasting disease for four years he is putting on weight. There is clear evidence that DEFRA are well aware that these tests don't work as they should but have too much invested in this to admit they could be wrong. She is happy to have another test done properly but they are only prepared to do it post-mortem which is slightly pointless, and it wouldn't be the first time an animal that supposedly had bTB had been destroyed only to be found clear afterwards.
Beeb article said:
The 50-year-old veterinary nurse, who breeds the species at her farm in Wickwar, south Gloucestershire, has been locked in a legal battle with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) since 2017.
I'm assuming the legal battle with DEFRA that has been going on for four years is in regards to the test/s, if it wasn't in regards to the test/s what was it about?Derek Smith said:
Alpacaman said:
As an alpaca breeder I can tell you there is a huge amount more to this story than is in the link. There are big concerns over how the test was administered by animal health, including by the manufacturer of the test, including the fact that the animal was primed with a dose for a cow which weighs a huge amount more and the number of times he was primed over a short time frame.
Also for an animal suffering a wasting disease for four years he is putting on weight. There is clear evidence that DEFRA are well aware that these tests don't work as they should but have too much invested in this to admit they could be wrong. She is happy to have another test done properly but they are only prepared to do it post-mortem which is slightly pointless, and it wouldn't be the first time an animal hat supposedly had bTB had been destroyed only to be found clear afterwards.
It hasn't been suggested that the animal has been infected for four years, only that it was infected at the time of the test. It's a substantial difference. Could you let us know if the disease can be asymptomatic similarly to the way it can be in cattle? If so, then the test is the only dependable aspect, even if it is faulty. Also for an animal suffering a wasting disease for four years he is putting on weight. There is clear evidence that DEFRA are well aware that these tests don't work as they should but have too much invested in this to admit they could be wrong. She is happy to have another test done properly but they are only prepared to do it post-mortem which is slightly pointless, and it wouldn't be the first time an animal hat supposedly had bTB had been destroyed only to be found clear afterwards.
The fact that DEFRA are issuing veiled threats to the test manufacturer, because they have raised concerns over how it was carried out, and suggesting they may lose their contract if they comment further should suggest something is wrong. Senior vets are concerned, lots of people who have far more knowledge than me are concerned how this is being dealt with.
All she wants is one final test done properly and has said if it comes back positive she will have him euthanised.
don'tbesilly said:
Beeb article said:
The 50-year-old veterinary nurse, who breeds the species at her farm in Wickwar, south Gloucestershire, has been locked in a legal battle with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) since 2017.
I'm assuming the legal battle with DEFRA that has been going on for four years is in regards to the test/s, if it wasn't in regards to the test/s what was it about?Alpacaman said:
There have been numerous cases of animals being tested positive, slaughtered and then turning out to be completely clear at post mortem.
There certainly have, often resulting in a whole herd being "depopulated" to use DEFRA's terminology, despite most of the animals returning negative results. I don't know what the current compensation figures are, but some years ago they would typically be more than most wethers (geldings) were worth, less than a breeding female and significantly less than a stud male such as Geronimo. It rarely makes sense for the owner to incur the cost of post mortem examinations - throwing good money after bad.Lily the Pink said:
don'tbesilly said:
Beeb article said:
The 50-year-old veterinary nurse, who breeds the species at her farm in Wickwar, south Gloucestershire, has been locked in a legal battle with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) since 2017.
I'm assuming the legal battle with DEFRA that has been going on for four years is in regards to the test/s, if it wasn't in regards to the test/s what was it about?Alpacaman said:
There have been numerous cases of animals being tested positive, slaughtered and then turning out to be completely clear at post mortem.
There certainly have, often resulting in a whole herd being "depopulated" to use DEFRA's terminology, despite most of the animals returning negative results. I don't know what the current compensation figures are, but some years ago they would typically be more than most wethers (geldings) were worth, less than a breeding female and significantly less than a stud male such as Geronimo. It rarely makes sense for the owner to incur the cost of post mortem examinations - throwing good money after bad.https://www.bas-uk.com/bas-position-on-recent-deve...
"At the present time BAS has 2000 members who, between them, own over 40,000 alpacas. The low level of voluntary testing clearly demonstrates a lack of confidence in the voluntary testing regime. A good deal of that lack of confidence can be linked to the Geronimo case. This is a lose-lose scenario because lack of confidence in testing leads to reduced testing and hence the opportunity to control bTB in alpacas for the benefit of alpacas and cattle.
BAS endorse the request for a further test of Geronimo to better understand what has happened. To date such requests have been declined by DEFRA/ APHA. It appears there is a fear of finding out further information."
Alpacaman said:
As an alpaca breeder I can tell you there is a huge amount more to this story than is in the link. There are big concerns over how the test was administered by animal health, including by the manufacturer of the test, including the fact that the animal was primed with a dose for a cow which weighs a huge amount more and the number of times he was primed over a short time frame.
Also for an animal suffering a wasting disease for four years he is putting on weight. There is clear evidence that DEFRA are well aware that these tests don't work as they should but have too much invested in this to admit they could be wrong. She is happy to have another test done properly but they are only prepared to do it post-mortem which is slightly pointless, and it wouldn't be the first time an animal that supposedly had bTB had been destroyed only to be found clear afterwards.
This reminds me why I like the PH forums.Also for an animal suffering a wasting disease for four years he is putting on weight. There is clear evidence that DEFRA are well aware that these tests don't work as they should but have too much invested in this to admit they could be wrong. She is happy to have another test done properly but they are only prepared to do it post-mortem which is slightly pointless, and it wouldn't be the first time an animal that supposedly had bTB had been destroyed only to be found clear afterwards.
Someone asks a question about alpacas which is a niche subject for general knowledge, much less detailed understanding.
Within 4 responses, someone pops up who is an alpaca breeder and is on top of all the current news in the world of alpacas.
Brilliant.
OzzyR1 said:
This reminds me why I like the PH forums.
Someone asks a question about alpacas which is a niche subject for general knowledge, much less detailed understanding.
Within 4 responses, someone pops up who is an alpaca breeder and is on top of all the current news in the world of alpacas.
Brilliant.
Someone asks a question about alpacas which is a niche subject for general knowledge, much less detailed understanding.
Within 4 responses, someone pops up who is an alpaca breeder and is on top of all the current news in the world of alpacas.
Brilliant.
The clue was in his username I guess!
Coming into this completely fresh
I can see the argument of not putting the testing of dangerous diseases down to a popularity contest.
And I can see why defra don't want to open a can of worms about potentially flawed testing. To them: one alpaca is a small price to pay to keep their testing regime in tact. Because if they allowed this cute fluffy animal dispensation, then lots of boring plain ones would also suddenly be entitled to dispensation too.
It does seem unfair, but then that's the game farmers are in.
I can see the argument of not putting the testing of dangerous diseases down to a popularity contest.
And I can see why defra don't want to open a can of worms about potentially flawed testing. To them: one alpaca is a small price to pay to keep their testing regime in tact. Because if they allowed this cute fluffy animal dispensation, then lots of boring plain ones would also suddenly be entitled to dispensation too.
It does seem unfair, but then that's the game farmers are in.
Ian Geary said:
Coming into this completely fresh
I can see the argument of not putting the testing of dangerous diseases down to a popularity contest.
And I can see why defra don't want to open a can of worms about potentially flawed testing. To them: one alpaca is a small price to pay to keep their testing regime in tact. Because if they allowed this cute fluffy animal dispensation, then lots of boring plain ones would also suddenly be entitled to dispensation too.
It does seem unfair, but then that's the game farmers are in.
It's not about a popularity contest it is about her wanting the test done properly without her animal being primed several times with the dose suitable for an animal weighing 10 times the weight of an alpaca. Lots of cattle farmers think the test is flawed but seem happy to accept that as they are being compensated. While she will receive some compensation she thinks it is stupid to kill a potentially healthy animal based on poor science. I can see the argument of not putting the testing of dangerous diseases down to a popularity contest.
And I can see why defra don't want to open a can of worms about potentially flawed testing. To them: one alpaca is a small price to pay to keep their testing regime in tact. Because if they allowed this cute fluffy animal dispensation, then lots of boring plain ones would also suddenly be entitled to dispensation too.
It does seem unfair, but then that's the game farmers are in.
The question we should be asking is why, when other countries have managed to get rid of bTB, we haven't managed to control it.
Edited by Alpacaman on Sunday 8th August 19:34
Alpacaman said:
It's not about a popularity contest it is about her wanting the test done properly without her animal being primed several times with the dose suitable for an animal weighing 10 times the weight of an alpaca. Lots of cattle farmers think the test is flawed but seem happy to accept that as they are being compensated. While she will receive some compensation she thinks it is stupid to kill a potentially healthy animal based on poor science.
The question we should be asking is why, when other countries have managed to get rid of bTB, we haven't managed to control it.
Sorry to be picky, but an average cow weighs about 5 times an average alpaca it seems, c400kg vs c80kg. The question we should be asking is why, when other countries have managed to get rid of bTB, we haven't managed to control it.
Edited by Alpacaman on Sunday 8th August 19:34
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff