Consultation on Control Measures
CHAPTER Three: PROHIBITING THE MOVEMENT OF PERSISTENTLY INFECTED ANIMALS 30. Stopping the movement of Persistently Infected (PI) cattle is important to any attempt to manage BVD. Even though PI cattle are moving in between herds it will not be possible to eradicate the illness.
31. PI animals can result in pretty important financial losses when introduced to a herd, in particular if that herd is unvaccinated and the cattle are nave to BVD. In such situations http://www.curapipe.com/Jordan.asp a standard loss can run to tens of thousands of pounds in the initially http://www.mustafasultan.com/Jordan.asp year alone. A farmer who sells an animal that they know or suspect to be PI to another farmer is potentially exposing themselves to civil legal action. Nonetheless, this is not a sufficiently sturdy disincentive to stop the trade in PI animals.
32. The Scottish Government as a result proposes that it should really become a criminal offence to knowingly move a PI animal from a holding, other than straight to slaughter.
Definition of a PI animal
33. The veterinary definition of PI may perhaps be somewhat straightforward, but it can't be determined regardless of whether an animal has a persistent or transient infection devoid of conducting two tests. Nevertheless, we cannot enable animals that have only had a single positive BVD virus test to be treated as anything other than PI.
34. Thus we propose that the offence of knowingly moving a PI animal would apply exactly where any animal has had a constructive test for BVD virus, without having having had a subsequent adverse test. This would enable farmers to re-test to check if a optimistic virus outcome is a consequence of a transient infection rather than a persistent infection.
Why "knowingly"?
35. If there had been Jordan 4 2013 to be a common http://www.justtheplacenebraska.com/Jordan.asp ban on moving PI cattle, irrespective of whether the keeper knew they had been PI or not, keepers would be taking a risk of prosecution just about every time they moved an animal that had not been tested for virus. PI cattle can seem to be entirely standard, and can be born into herds without having the keeper realising there is a BVD infection. A keeper could effortlessly sell or move a PI animal without the need of obtaining any purpose to suspect that it is PI. If it had been to be an offence to sell or move a PI animal no matter whether it was identified that it was PI or not, the only way a keeper could be absolutely certain they were not risking prosecution would be to virus test all of their cattle prior to movement, other than to slaughter
36. This would be an unnecessary and disproportionate expense to spot on cattle keepers. There are about 330,000 cattle moved in Scotland each Jordan 4 Toro Bravo year that aren't moving to slaughter. To be positive they had been not PI, every single of these would have to be tested for virus at a expense to the keeper of around five per test.
If the keeper denies realizing that an animal is PI following a virus test
37. As the offence could only apply where the keeper knows they are moving a PI animal,http://www.cancermonthly.com/Jordan.asp, there is a risk that a keeper could say they did not know it was PI as they had not received the virus result from the laboratory. To prevent this, we propose that exactly where a laboratory has sent a positive virus outcome to a keeper or the keeper's veterinary surgeon from samples from their herd and additional than one month has passed, it shall be assumed that the keeper has received them and thus knows they have a PI animal.
38. This suggests that, where a keeper has not received outcomes of a virus test, the duty is on them to request the outcomes to be re-issued from their veterinary surgeon or laboratory. If final results are not received inside a single month and the animal is located to be PI, they will be liable.
Extent of the ban on knowingly moving PI cattle
39. This measure would apply to cattle being moved into Scotland, or presented for sale here Jordan 4 Fire Red Toro. We propose that it would also apply to keepers in Scotland moving cattle or presenting them for sale outdoors of Scotland. It is unreasonable to let keepers in Scotland to spread disease to other nations by knowingly moving their PI cattle out of Scotland.
40. It would also apply to cattle becoming presented for sale in Scotland, regardless of the herd of origin or location of the keeper. This would imply that it is not only an offence to knowingly move a PI animal, it would be an offence to enter a single into a sale at a marketplace, or to promote one for sale privately.
41. It is intended that the restrictions would prohibit the movement of PI cattle from the holding on which they had been identified. This would mean that moves to linked holdings and other moves within a farm company would be prohibited.
Monitoring PI cattle movements
42. Below the Bovine Viral Diarrhoea (Scotland) Order 2012, authorized laboratories are needed to inform Scottish Ministers of the outcome and ear tag quantity for any tests for BVD virus as aspect of a mandatory annual screening test. We propose extending this to include things like
Any BVD virus test carried out by any laboratory in Scotland, and Any BVD virus test carried out by an authorized laboratory. 43. Virus final results notified to Scottish Ministers will be stored on a database. Each and every month this will be checked against the Cattle Tracing System (CTS) managed by the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS). Where an animal that meets our definition of a PI animal is moved, this will be identified.
44. Penalties for offences are discussed at Chapter Seven.
Exceptions
45. We intend to enable Jordan 4 Toro Bravo PI cattle to be moved below licence, issued by the Scottish Government or AHVLA. This would normally be for the purpose of safeguarding the welfare of a PI animal or other animals in the exact same herd, for investigation or for education purposes. Licences would be issued for single, distinct moves only. for analysis or welfare, should really be regarded as to a ban on knowingly moving Persistently Infected animals? Do you agree that keepers of all breeding herds ought to be legally necessary to declare the BVD status of their herd or animals prior to sale or movement?

http://www.euroenthusiastph.org/forum/showthread.php?62565-interchange-inside-pollutant-comic-content-library-it&p=244623#post244623

http://www.dezhou8.com/home.php?mod=space&uid=108037&do=blog&id=2950986

http://bbs.qinfangbencao.com/thread-3964986-1-1.html

http://kewlstix.com/dcmg/blogs.php?action=show_member_post&ownerID=3936&post_id=170368

http://ks.ioe.edu.np/node/745669

http://zgnzsyw.5d6d.com/

http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?AddNewUserDirect

http://wwwlf168net.win5.siteonlinetest.com/forum.php?mod=forumdisplay&fid=59&filter=typeid&typeid=58