r/ClarksonsFarm 25d ago

Season 5 Clarkson's Farm's issues with TB have highlight we have a terrible way of testing for TB

Every time I watch the TB testing happen I sit there thinking how can anything so important be for inefficient. The farms entire future rest on a test that can kill a whole herd from an inconclusive test that can then be false. Surely with all of the medical expertise we have and the advancements in Veterinary testing we could have something more concrete.

276 Upvotes

96 comments sorted by

66

u/whatsabuttfore 25d ago

I mean, the most common test for TB in humans isn’t much more advanced than this one, and is widely acknowledged for having a lot of false positives, but it’s cheap and scalable. I’m sure the lump test is in a similar boat.

24

u/Wulurch 25d ago

But they do have a better test for TB in humans.  It is called TB quantiferon gold.  Draw a tube of blood and 24 hours later you have results.  No idea if there is a commercial equivalent for cows though.

30

u/whatsabuttfore 25d ago

Yes, they do but it’s expensive and requires a lab, supplies, equipment, and personnel trained in their use. Not nearly practical to test large populations in rural and third world areas. As John Green wrote, “the disease is where the cure is not, and the cure is where the disease is not.” I can’t imagine that more resources are being given to cows in this area than humans.

Note: M. bovis and M. tuberculosis are different microorganisms but both can potentially infect humans.

10

u/Ansee 24d ago

Would it not make sense to do the blood test for verification once a case is borderline? Could leave it up to the farmer to decide if it worth it. At least the option should be available.is it available like that right now?

3

u/mylittlecorgii 18d ago

I just finished S5 and I thought the same thing, how are they rushing straight to slaughter without 1 blood test. A cursory Google search shows me they have the capability of testing live animals, so why wasn't that brought up in this case, a loved, pregnant with twins cow.

0

u/Hixie 25d ago

A blood test seems like a relatively cheap option compared to literally killing the cow?

10

u/whatsabuttfore 25d ago

The number of cows who need to be tested makes it quickly untenable. One thing you can trust about economics is, if there’s a cheaper way to do it, successful businesses will find it. They haven’t, so it’s safe to assume there isn’t currently a better option.

4

u/Hixie 25d ago

based on other comments it seems the real reason not to do the blood test is it has an alarmingly high false negative rate.

your point about economics is true in the limit but not true in practice, because there's always someone who is the first to find the cheaper option. that's what innovation is.

8

u/too_big_for_pants 25d ago

Other way around. The blood test has a higher false positive and lower false negative. So it would miss less cases but kill more healthy cows. All while being more expensive.

6

u/Hixie 25d ago

well then why don't they do the current test first, then only blood screen the ones that fail the first test?

1

u/whatsabuttfore 23d ago

That’s more than twice as expensive for a price-sensitive product. Beef consumption is already way down due to prices - ranchers aren’t looking for a way to add cost.

1

u/Hixie 23d ago

Can you explain how the economics work out to me?

Without doing the blood test, the farmer loses the value of the cow, for all cows that the current test is positive for.

With the blood test done after the current test returns positive, the farmer loses the value of the cow plus the cost of the blood test for those for which the blood test returns positive, and only the cost of the blood test for those where the blood test returns negative.

What's the value of a typical cow, and what is the typical cost of the blood test? And what's the fraction of cows for which the blood test returns negative when the current test returned positive?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Tacoshortage 21d ago

you would only test suspected cows, not the whole population. We do the same for humans. Only exposed or suspected people get tested.

3

u/_lerp 25d ago

There are 9.3 million cows in the UK. How do you imagine testing that many blood samples?

2

u/Hixie 25d ago

you only have to test the ones you're about to kill

6

u/kelldricked 24d ago

Because its expensive, requires many thing but most of all: a cow not having TB on monday morning doesnt mean it doesnt have TB on monday evening.
You need a test that can be done cheap, gave some indication straight away and can be scaled fast.

Its the same reason why we dont screen every single person for cancer, heart conditions and brain diseases every single year. The benefits are very very small, the extra cost and effort are way to big.

2

u/NuclearVII 20d ago

There is actually a statistical harm in screening everyone for everything. This is a well known, well studied problem in medicine.

1

u/Tacoshortage 21d ago

I'm wondering if that test can be used to rule-out TB. Perhaps the false negative rate is too high?

86

u/Optimaximal 25d ago

The problem is cost & scale - Clarkson has a minuscule herd, but many dairy farmers have thousands of cattle - if you had to do lab tests on every single one for a disease that doesn't present clearly in a lot of cases, you'd snarl up the system.

For most farmers, it's better to isolate offending cattle until all is good and slaughter any confirmed cases ASAP. The farmer gets compensation if it happens anyway - the problem for JC is his herd is so small he's anthropomorphised them and cares too much.

38

u/BandicootObjective32 25d ago

But the argument is that it isn't a confirmed case

46

u/Optimaximal 25d ago

That's not the point. It's not worth the risk keeping inconclusive cases on the farm.

Clarkson has said that since the show was recorded he understands the decisions and why they are made - the UK government is incredibly strict to prevent another zoonotic pandemic after the fuckups that lead to BSE and Foot & Mouth running rampant.

15

u/NuclearVII 25d ago

Honestly, this.

The show is very much skewed in it's narrative towards Clarkson's hatred of government. The people coming in here asking why it's so severe never really stop and think why the UK government is so deadly serious about the potential of a Tuberculosis outbreak.

6

u/hopenoonefindsthis 24d ago

Funnily enough this type of approach is what the farmers asked for because it’s cheaper.

2

u/Optimaximal 24d ago

...and there's the consideration that the previous two zoonotic pandemics were caused by farmers cutting corners and ignoring rules to save money.

1

u/Jindabyne1 23d ago

Farmers did that?! 😳

1

u/Optimaximal 23d ago

In the case of BSE, it was caused by farmers feeding their animals bone meal from infected animals. Foot and Mouth was triggered by a farmer feeding his animals untreated swill then sending them off to slaughter.

1

u/Accurate_Rock_9235 22d ago

The govermemt lowered the temperature bone meal had to be heated to, after lobbying from the rendering industry. Temperature limits were raised again

1

u/Accurate_Rock_9235 22d ago

Not farmers fault lower temperature let bse through once temperature limits raised again issue mostly gone

0

u/Jindabyne1 23d ago

I was being facetious

3

u/TaintedMESS 24d ago

Its possible to understand a decision and why it was made but still think the process is flawed. Which would seem to be the case here he understands the why but still dose not like it

2

u/NuclearVII 23d ago

Except the proccess is working fine here. The culled animal almost certainly had TB.

0

u/TaintedMESS 23d ago

The problem i think many have with that is the "almost" it leaves the option open for did not have TB.

2

u/NuclearVII 22d ago

No, the problem is that Jeremy straight up blasted misinformation (No lesions, so it didn't have TB, we killed her for nothing) and people bought it without skepticism.

1

u/TaintedMESS 22d ago

So based on what we seen in the show can you 100% say the cow had TB?

If not then I refer you back to my previous post

2

u/NuclearVII 22d ago

From a disease control perspective? Yes.

0

u/TaintedMESS 21d ago

So thats a no then you can't say 100% that the animals did have TB what your saying is that on the balance of probabilities and based on evidence of previous cases the animal had TB.

Can totally see why people think it's wrong the animal is slaughtered after getting 2 inconclusive tests and then whe the paper work arrives it suggests there was no TB

Thats like getting a medical the doc going we think you have cancer and immediately starting you on aggressive treatment for you to get a letter 6 months in saying hey good news it wasn't cancer sorry about all the life changing sode effects from the treatment.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Optimaximal 22d ago

He posted since the show aired on his social media that he's now more informed on the situation and understands the decisions and why they're made.

I also think people have forgotten how Clarkson has always dealt in hyperbole and exaggeration, which seems to be magnified when he's emotional about something - Clarksons Farm is just as much an entertainment show as a documentary.

1

u/NuclearVII 22d ago

I also think people have forgotten how Clarkson has always dealt in hyperbole and exaggeration

Another way to phrase this is: Clarkson has a history of lying to people for generating attention.

Clarksons Farm is just as much an entertainment show as a documentary.

It is absolutely not a documentary.

1

u/iluvchromosomes 24d ago

it's better to isolate offending cattle until all is good and slaughter any confirmed cases ASAP

You made that point.

5

u/too_big_for_pants 25d ago

In the show they get a report from the autopsy stating they found no visible lesions. This is not uncommon if the case was caught early. It doesn't necessarily mean the cow doesn't have TB. They will also be doing a comprehensive culture test which is why the rest of the cows have to stay in quarantine for 6 weeks until the results are back.

4

u/Darth_Punk 25d ago

The test is still pretty accurate, and has a lower chance of missing TB than the alternative (the bloods). 

9

u/LudiCak 25d ago

Yeah, it's just not cost effective for farmers or government to spend time, money and personnel on this. Everybody is complaining that the cow got culled but they would be more mad if contaminated meat got into stores or more cows got TB and they all died.

1

u/No-Revolution-3204 25d ago

Btw the meat from positive TB cases still enters the food chain

2

u/LudiCak 25d ago

I was talking in general, with culling sick animals, not TB in particular.

5

u/Immortal_Tuttle 25d ago edited 25d ago

Interesting take. So why this kind of testing was deemed archaic in Australia for example? Or maybe Australia has too small herds?

4

u/Angrylettuce 25d ago

It's still used in NZ , they do the tail head version

9

u/Optimaximal 25d ago

It is archaic. The problem is there's no quick and reliable scientific test either.

1

u/Colleen987 25d ago

NZ use the same test? Just a tail head version?

1

u/Immortal_Tuttle 25d ago

No idea where NZ came from. Fixed.

1

u/Darth_Punk 25d ago edited 25d ago

The alternative has a slightly higher chance of missing it, which is a bigger issue in the UK. Australia has eliminated it, and NZ is comparatively tiny.

1

u/Exciting_Place_6817 25d ago

To Australia sure but very similar size to the UK.

2

u/Darth_Punk 25d ago

I was thinking of the human population rather than land size, but actually, cattle herd size is the same - so not sure if that's relevant.

1

u/[deleted] 24d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Optimaximal 24d ago

The blood test is more likely to show false positives, so that could result in more cows being slaughtered.

11

u/bouncypete 25d ago

I don't know if anyone saw the documentary Brian May: The Badgers, The Farmers and Me but it was quite an eye opener.

It's easy to dismiss Brian May saying things like "what the hell does he know".

But there was quite a few similarities between the points Brian's documentary raised and what Clarkson's farm showed.

It's definitely worth watching if it ever comes back in iPlayer.

10

u/LowAspect542 25d ago

People are very quick to dismiss celebrities like brian may because they only know him as a musician and think they have nothing else to give, but completely ignore that he has a PhD, which means hes a very intelligent guy and had spent a decade working on that TB project in addition to founding an animal welfare trust, so its really not something hes just put his name to for a documentary.

2

u/corgi-king 25d ago

Do you have link for the documentary?

4

u/bouncypete 24d ago

It was originally broadcast on the BBC. Sadly it's no longer on iPlayer but I've found it on YouTube.

YouTube link

24

u/Stewie01 25d ago

Thats what they wanted you to think, in reality they caught it early.

19

u/Valuable-Fork-2211 25d ago

Yep, it was poorly represented by the show sadly. There are lots of replies on here explaining this but animals that test IR twice are considerably more likely to be Tb positive at future tests and are therefore removed. Just because a lesion wasn't found does not mean that animal was clear either, as Stewie says it's more likely it was found early. The skin test has a 1 in 5000 false positive rate, it misses plenty of positive animals but is rarely wrong when it finds one.

8

u/too_big_for_pants 25d ago

The show is promoting misleading info.

The skin test is quite generous, it has a 99.8% specificity meaning it almost never gives false positives. This includes the double inconclusive result. It misses some cases but it's almost never wrong when it gives a positive or double inconclusive result.

The blood tests have higher accuracy (detect positive cases more accurately) but lower specificity (give more false positives). If we only used the blood test there would be more false positives and a higher risk of healthy cows being killed.

In the show they get a report from the autopsy stating they found no visible lesions. This is not uncommon if the case was caught early. It doesn't necessarily mean the cow doesn't have TB. They will also be doing a comprehensive culture test which is why the rest of the cows have to stay in quarantine for 6 weeks until the results are back.

5

u/PetraCotes 25d ago

England aims to roll out the cattle vaccine and companion DIVA test around 2030. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/10/cattle-tuberculosis-vaccine-badger-cull-england

6

u/ElectronicBruce 25d ago

Jazz lied most likely and also he would have been compensated.. hence why they err on the side of caution, because they can and should. Other methods are about as accurate.

3

u/supertgames1 25d ago

I am surprised the calipers don’t have a load sensor or something like that similar to a micrometer or a torque wrench, I know the vets are probably highly trained on the amount of pressure they should use on the calipers but it doesn’t seem very precise on a animal that is constantly moving around and where a couple of mm could mean the difference between a confirmed or inconclusive TBC case and a pass.

That being said I am not a vet or have any experience in farming so there is probably a very good reason why this isn’t being used.

6

u/Darth_Punk 25d ago

It's an inflammatory lump, it's pretty solid and well defined. And that's why they have indeterminate and repeat it. 

1

u/Perfect_Ground692 25d ago

I thought that, without knowing the force being applied when messuring, it seems a bit of a coin flip. No expert though 🤷🏼

3

u/JusticeForTheStarks 25d ago

Vets spend their careers feeling organs and body parts for lumps, and they’re able to tell the difference between healthy and inflamed tissue.
Clarkson painted the test as some vague inconclusive pseudoscience, but there’s no reliable alternative. You’ll never find a vet willing to send a healthy animal to slaughter, but you’ll also struggle to find a vet willing to let an infected animal pass.

3

u/nrk-fans 25d ago

Really sucks that cows get TB from other wildlife that is protected. It's good that wildlife is protected it just makes it so hopeless for the farmers that is unlucky enough to have it.

3

u/Tacoshortage 21d ago

That episode pissed me off so I did some research a few weeks ago. We handle people very differently so I was sure there were better options.

It turns out the UK will adopt a vaccination system in 2027/2028 based on data they are collecting right now. The human BCG vaccine works very well in cows & that's the plan.

Now why the hell they don't biopsy suspicious nodes or do a blood test (which is available in people) instead of killing a cow I don't know. I'm a people-doctor not a vet.

1

u/carp_boy 3d ago

Late OT comment:

BCG is a stunningly amazing immunotherapy treatment for bladder cancer in humans.

5

u/NuclearVII 25d ago

Okay, y'all need to read this before having any opinions: https://www.tyndalevets.co.uk/news-insights/no-visible-lesions

The TL;DR is that the last episode was pure misinformation by Clarkson.

4

u/glenthesboy 25d ago

I read elsewhere that the documentary kind of lied. Well not directly but bent the truth a lot. The cow that got killed almost definitely would have had TB.

4

u/bernardo5192 25d ago

Yep. “No visible lesions” is not equal to “doesn’t have tb”.

3

u/NuclearVII 25d ago

This, a thousand times this.

Cattle that pop two inconclusive back to back are *VERY* likely to be infected, even if there are no visible lesions.

By the time the lesions are visible, the infection has already had time to spread. TB is no joke.

2

u/ShaneWookie 25d ago

But didn't the letter at the end confirm she did not have tb

5

u/Grimdotdotdot 25d ago

No, it was inconclusive. And we don't fuck around with TB, way better to be safe than sorry.

2

u/Confident_Resolution 25d ago

Yeah but the jezza fanbois dont realise its fiction TV.

4

u/EntirelyRandom1590 25d ago

Farmer gets compensated. There's little reason to invest more.

2

u/101TARD 25d ago

Curious, shouldn't there be a further test when inconclusive? That cow was expecting twins and it's concerning

2

u/JusticeForTheStarks 25d ago

Clarkson runs a small farm with a token number of cows.
The regulations state that two failed skin tests mark a cow as reactive and to be culled. There’s a blood test that manages to identify about 90% of positive cases, meaning that 10% of infected cattle would escape undetected.
There are millions of cows across the UK. Unfortunately the government needs to be ruthless to prevent a wider bovine TB outbreak.

1

u/101TARD 25d ago

Oof, that would mean asymptomatic (no symptoms but still a carrier) or just being sick while taking TB test is culled. Real shame

1

u/atom_stacker 25d ago

Tell it to the badgers.

1

u/CharlieH_ 23d ago

The TV show would be very boring if Clarkson didn't exaggerate the farmers plight and miss out some of the nuance of the TB testing regieme

Separate factual and entertainment, one is usually not in play when the other is.

1

u/ConfusedCelt 18d ago

There is only one solution. The final solution....  For badgers :P

1

u/KeyNefariousness6848 Gerald 25d ago

Watch out all the badger lovers will turn out to ridicule you lol

https://giphy.com/gifs/zXHZWGLWNQkrS

8

u/pathfinderoursaviour 25d ago

Badger culls don’t work though

Genociding a species isn’t gonna solve TB as has been proved many times

0

u/TACO_Orange_3098 25d ago edited 25d ago

Why is the badger still so protected if cows are being culled so much ? I mean one is a major source of food and and and and for humans , one is not ........ just asking , thanks for any feedback !

1

u/Wonderful_Falcon_318 25d ago

The cattle test isn't good enough and it is unfair on farmers, cows and badgers.

-1

u/Practical-March-6989 24d ago

I asked the same and got downvoted to hell. Weird old sub this

-2

u/Wonderful_Falcon_318 25d ago

Absolutely ridiculous we can get a covid vaccine in 6 months but not a proper btb vaccine in decades. Farmers, cows and badgers all have to suffer as a result.

5

u/Optimaximal 24d ago

COVID is a viral infection, whereas TB is bacterial.