Bovine Viral Diarrhoea eradication scheme: consultation on phase five

Annex B: Consultation Questions

Question 1: Do you think that keepers of cattle breeding herds that have recurring annual "not negative" BVD statuses should investigate the cause of BVD virus exposure in their herd?

Yes

No

Comments:

Question 2: Should there be exemptions to the "sweeper test" where farms have a breeding herd but also buy stores for further fattening or finishing? If so, how would this work in practice?

Yes

No

Comments:

Question 3: How long should affected herds be given to complete the "sweeper test"? Should it be completed relatively quickly, e.g. between 1 and 3 months?

Comments:

Question 4: To take account of "Trojan cows" (which appear healthy but are carrying a PI calf) should the "sweeper test" include calf screening for 12 months following completion of the individual testing?

Yes

No

Comments:

Question 5: Do you think that holdings that contain one or more live PIs should not be allowed to move cattle on to that holding? If so, please comment on what would you consider to be a reasonable time frame to allow the keeper to resample or remove the suspect PI/ PI animal(s) from their holding? Should moves on to the holding be permitted but limited to animals with an individual BVD negative status that have been vaccinated against BVD by a vet?

Yes

No

Comments:

Question 6: Do you think that all virus positive cattle should be housed separately from animals with an unknown or negative BVD status?

Yes

No

Comments:

Question 7: If virus positive animals must be housed, would inspection of these premises improve compliance?

Yes

No

Comments:

Question 8: If virus positive animals must be housed, how could we prevent inadvertent spread of BVD virus to other cattle via clothing/footwear/equipment?

Comments:

Question 9(a): Do you think that all tissue tag sampling should be carried out using a primary/secondary tag?

Yes

No

Comments:

Question 9(b): If not, do you agree that "not negative" herds are restricted to only using official tags?

Yes

No

Comments:

Question 10: The proposed restrictions to tissue tag sampling would limit tag testing to calves in the first 28 days of life. If keepers wish to test older animals, should they be permitted to use management tags for this purpose?

Yes

No

Comments:

Question 11: An alternative to limiting tissue tag sampling to primary/secondary tags would be to require all tissue sampling tags to carry the animal's official identification number. This approach would allow cattle keepers to continue to use management tags for tissue sampling, provided that the tags were printed with the official identification number. Would you agree that management tags used for BVD tissue sampling must be printed with the animal's official identification number?

Yes

No

Comments:

Question 12: Where the tissue tag has failed to produce a sample that is suitable for BVD testing, should management tags be allowed for re-testing or should the animal be re-sampled by a private veterinarian i.e. blood tested?

Yes

No

Comments:

Question 13: Where a virus positive animal is retested to establish whether it is a PI or only transiently infected, should the retest sample be limited to a blood sample taken by the vet or is it acceptable for the keeper to re-sample using a management tag?

Yes

No

Comments:

Question 14(a): Do you think that the check test should be amended to make it more effective?

Yes

No

Comments:

Question 14(b): Do you agree that increasing the minimum number of samples taken at a check test would result in a more robust test?

Yes

No

Comments:

Question 15: Do you think that the timescale for a BVD approved laboratory to report the result of sample be reduced to 5 working days?

Yes

No

Comments:

Question 16: Should the holding where the dam was resident on days 18-120 of pregnancy and the holding of birth be automatically given a "not negative" status as soon as the PI is identified? If so, please comment on what we would need to consider in order to avoid penalising holdings that have already carried out BVD investigations?

Yes

No

Comments:

Question 17(a): When tracking a PI back to their herd of birth, should this be restricted to confirmed PIs (i.e. those that have had a second positive antigen result at least 3 weeks after the first sample)?

Yes

No

Comments:

Question 17(b): If so, it may result in less confirmatory testing: are you concerned about this?

Yes

No

Comments:

Question 18: When tracking a PI back to their herd of birth, would this be better handled as an advisory matter, e.g. by sending a letter to the holding(s) concerned, possibly copied to their vet?

Yes

No

Comments:

Question 19: Do you think with the proposal to restrict the movement of untested animals off a holding until the results of the annual beef check test have been received?

Yes

No

Comments:

Question 20: Could imposition of movement restrictions encourage cattle keepers to delay their annual check test until after young stock sales, with possible loss of eligible age animals?

Yes

No

Comments:

Question 21: Should more use of ScotEID be encouraged, e.g. through guidance or at road shows rather than via legislation?

Yes

No

Comments:

Question 22: Does this proposal unfairly penalise beef breeding herds that have had a BVD negative status for several years?

Yes

No

Comments:

Question 23: Do you think that the Scottish Government should publish location details of virus-positive cattle?

Yes

No

Comments:

Question 23(a): If you answered yes to question 23, how long should cattle keepers be given between first disclosure of a virus positive animal and publication of its location?

Comments:

Question 23(b): If you answered yes to question 23, what format would you like to see for publication of PI location? Examples could include: a list of CPHs published on ScotEID; an interactive map; written notification to neighbours.

Comments: