Skip to main content
Normal View

Bovine Disease Controls

Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 15 January 2014

Wednesday, 15 January 2014

Questions (654)

Michael Ring

Question:

654. Deputy Michael Ring asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the reason for the varying BVD test results for one animal (details supplied) in County Mayo; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [55579/13]

View answer

Written answers

For the purposes of the national BVD eradication programme promoted by Animal Health Ireland (AHI) - a herdowner can submit a blood sample to DAFM Laboratories to confirm a persistently infected (PI) status in calves that have received an initial positive result on tissue tag testing. The confirmatory test is performed on a blood sample submitted by a private veterinary practitioner to the Sligo Regional Veterinary Laboratory accompanied by a form which is issued to the herdowner by ICBF. The form indicates that a re-test of an animal sampled under the BVD programme is required and certifies the identity of the animals sampled.

These blood samples are tested using an antigen detection ELISA test. In view of the fact samples taken from young PI calves can give rise to a false negative result on the ELISA test due to interference by antibodies derived from the dam, a second test method (PCR) is applied to those samples from animals less than 60 days old which give a negative ELISA test result.

With regard to the BVD test in question, DAFM laboratories received four samples from the herdowner’s private veterinary practitioner on 18 April 2013. These samples were not accompanied by the paperwork required under the BVD programme and there was no reference to the BVD eradication programme, animal type or the age of the animals etc., with the samples. In view of this, the samples were deemed to have been submitted for routine diagnostic testing and were tested by ELISA only. Since they tested negative, the PCR test was not applied. The sample for the animal in question gave a negative ELISA result and this was reported to the herdowner through his private veterinary practitioner.

In October 2013 the herdowner presented the animal for sale and was informed that the second result was not a valid re-test in compliance with the BVD programme and that, as a consequence the results had not been transferred to ICBF. The private veterinary practitioner subsequently submitted a further blood sample to DAFM, though the BVD programme accompanied by the required ICBF submission form. This blood sample was then tested using both ELISA and PCR and the result of the test was positive.

Top
Share