The blood TB testing was approved in Wisconsin. Does anyone have any feedback regarding the blood test? Our state vet said there are more positive markers coming back throughout the US up by 1%. Now we are not sure it we should stick with the old "skin" TB testing or take our chances with the blood testing. Any feedback would be appreciated.
Blood TB Testing
- Thread starter Kadow Whitetails
- Start date
Our state vets. are telling us to stay with the old skin test. They were seeing to many problems with the new blood test.
Joined Apr 2009
2,617 Posts | 0+
Edgar, WI
Question - why if the bloodtest comes back with two suspects or whatever it's called, are we not allowed at that point to use the skin test on that particular animal? That could be done right away... I'm real curious as to why this can't be done other than the powers that be are saying we can't do that...
Question 2- it is my understanding that a captive whitetail or maybe even a whitetail period has never tested positive for brucellosis. If this is the case then how long do we have to play this game? Does anyone know of a whitetail testing positive for brucellosis?
If anyone has any answers to any of this, please share...
Question 2- it is my understanding that a captive whitetail or maybe even a whitetail period has never tested positive for brucellosis. If this is the case then how long do we have to play this game? Does anyone know of a whitetail testing positive for brucellosis?
If anyone has any answers to any of this, please share...
Joined Sep 2010
572 Posts | 0+
Indiana
Does anybody have first hand experience. We tested a farm last winter and had 1 suspect out of about 50. Then second test was fine. Seems to me that is not that bad after seeing the suspects 3 yrs ago with the skin test.
Also say you test 50 deer and you have a couple false positives. I would rather take my chances with the blood test then running every deer back thru a second time JMHO.
Also say you test 50 deer and you have a couple false positives. I would rather take my chances with the blood test then running every deer back thru a second time JMHO.
Joined Apr 2009
1,428 Posts | 0+
Northeast Wisconsin
With the skin test if you have a positive you only have to test that animal again, not the whole bunch.
Barry, we do not know of any whitetail testing positive for brucellosis. We also are not brucellosis certified because no government has asked for it and we didn't understand why the industry has imposed this on itself. Only one test is needed to move deer to another state, and none for in-state movement.
Barry, we do not know of any whitetail testing positive for brucellosis. We also are not brucellosis certified because no government has asked for it and we didn't understand why the industry has imposed this on itself. Only one test is needed to move deer to another state, and none for in-state movement.
we used the new blood test and had one false positive, it was a 2 yr old buck that was born here and had never left the farm. We went through the whole process of being quarantined, getting the buck appraised then they only pay a maximum of $3000 any way, they come out and put the deer down and send in samples to be cultured which takes about 10 weeks. Now I have heard some farms are being released from the quarantine within a week after they do an initial test and see no signs. I was told they would have to slaughter 30 animals to get the parameters on the test more accurate and they have to be nearing that number. Even though we had to lose one animal I am glad I didn't have to run the rest through the second time, but it all depends on which animal you may have to sacrifice for $3000.
Matt Kirchner
Missouri Whitetails
60-341-0554
Matt Kirchner
Missouri Whitetails
60-341-0554
I have a question for you. Being a former dairy farmer. Minnesota is a TB free state. We did not have to test dairy cattle to move out of state, [being from a TB free state]. With our deer farms in Minnesota, why are we testing for TB?
Gary
Gary
Joined Apr 2009
1,485 Posts | 0+
Vaughn, MT 59487
Gary,
Montana is also a TB free State and I have asked the State the same question. Answer was it's on the requirements for deer and elk so we have to test them. Like I said it's on the books and the government will not change anything till someone makes them. It all means money to government agencies.
Montana is also a TB free State and I have asked the State the same question. Answer was it's on the requirements for deer and elk so we have to test them. Like I said it's on the books and the government will not change anything till someone makes them. It all means money to government agencies.
Joined Apr 2009
1,136 Posts | 0+
Bedford, PA
I couldn't imagine having to lose even a single animal for a tb/bruc test! We are testing this year and sticking with the old method.
Matt, question for you. If you did the old skin test and had a false positive like you did would the consequences have been the same?
We are do to test this fall as well and hadn't decided yet which route to go. Being we don't have a handling facility we have to put them down to test, so blood test would only have to put down once instead of twice with skin test. Last time with skin test we had a false positive so had to redo the test a second time so that pour girl was down 4 times in about a weeks timeframe, but she passed the second test when state vet was there as expected. Decisions decisions!
We are do to test this fall as well and hadn't decided yet which route to go. Being we don't have a handling facility we have to put them down to test, so blood test would only have to put down once instead of twice with skin test. Last time with skin test we had a false positive so had to redo the test a second time so that pour girl was down 4 times in about a weeks timeframe, but she passed the second test when state vet was there as expected. Decisions decisions!
Well I can say this from first hand experience, we tested 20 animals in march (7 months ago), two deer tested positive for TB with the new blood test. First they wanted to kill the entire herd here in Missouri and I received the quarantine at 7 in the morning on a Saturday. Many people got involved for me I.E. Nathan Blosser, Shawn Schafer and Kevin Grace. By noon on Saturday with the help from those listed the government was just going to kill those two does. By the end of the day they decided to make a decision on Monday. On Monday the phone call came from the state vet. and they asked me if I wanted to wait and do a re-test after the two does fawn but I would remain in quarantine. I said yes, so we re-tested the two does in july and the next day one of the two does that tested positive in march came back negative on the second test. The other doe was positive again so the following week they put her down and paid indemnity for her. Two days later I received a phone call from Jefferson city that the preliminaries showed that she was negative for T.B. but I was still under quarantine for about 60 days (October 1st) to see if they could grow the virus....That's my story, you decide what you want to deal with, Hope that helps.....troy
Wow, these are some nightmare stories. We were very excited about the new test but this raises alot of questions. I fail to see why the deer would have to be killed in order to grow the virus? Any reason why, if you obtain a false positive, you couldn't simply do the skin test as your second confirming test. Does anyone know the Code Section regarding the new blood test. I would like to read this so I have a better understanding. I, among many other farmers had no idea that the second confirming test required the animal to be put down. That's outrageous. I have gone through the old way of doing this testing twice. The only concern after a false positive was the stress of running them through two more times. This is very disappointing news, the blood testing option for TB was supposed to be more accurate and less stressful on our animals. Who can run the risk of losing deer if there is a false positive?
Joined Oct 2009
3,165 Posts | 1+
upstate ny
I will add one thing. Make sure your state uses the right test. When we did our testing they came back with 2 suspects. Well they held me up from selling deer untill after the second test, In the time it took before the second test our main vet noticed they used the TB chart for cattle testing and not cervids. The line on the graph has a huge difference between testing.
Rocky whitetails...Did you just test your deer and have double positive with the old test or the new blood test? You should never test in the summer if at all possible. The heat in the summer can raise the chance of a false positive but the biggest reason is your local bird population in the summer. Your deer eat and lick more bird crap in the summer and if you research TB you will see the huge effect bird crap has on TB test results!
Rocky whitetails...Did you just test your deer and have double positive with the old test or the new blood test? You should never test in the summer if at all possible. The heat in the summer can raise the chance of a false positive but the biggest reason is your local bird population in the summer. Your deer eat and lick more bird crap in the summer and if you research TB you will see the huge effect bird crap has on TB test results!
Rocky, thanks for you story, but my question remains. Is this a result of it being from using the blood test alone. Meaning if you used the skin method and had a false positive (which seems to be somewhat common) would the aftermath be the same. It's seems like everyone I talk to that especially has a large herd ends up with a few false positives that need to be retested even with the skin test. But until these two stories I never heard it turning into a major ordeal almost shutting down the operation, just did the second test and all was fine. Not sure why a false positive on the blood test would be any different than a false positive with the skin test?
Hollowroad Whitetails said:
The Deer had to be killed not because of a false positive, the test showed positive. Now, the USDA is working on finding a specific level in the test, I.E. from a scale of 1-100 if the Deer test at 51 then the deer tests positive for T.B. If the test show 49 then it is Negative. That is just my example but that is what they are working on. If you use the Blood test and you get a positive. "THEY WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO USE THE SKIN TEST FOR A RE-CHECK OR A SECOND TEST." again, IF YOU USE THE BLOOD TEST, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO USE THE SKIN TEST ON THAT DEER TO COUNTER A POSITIVE WITH THE BLOOD TEST.....
Four Seasons Whitetails said:
Hey Mike, we were one of the first ones in Missouri to use the new Blood test and that was early March, I had no choice with the second test, they let me wait until the does had their fawns and that was it. So the second test was early morning in July..
Wow...I feel like we started a great thread here and we got a lot of information. Our biggest fear is having to destroy one of our deer from the results of the blood test to only find it was actually negative. I did talk to our state vet again and like Rocky Cedar posted the USAD is now researching to find a specific level as of now the level may be too high. Our state vet also recommended calling her for updates specifically before we TB test because they could push through updates to the testing sooner than later. Thank you everyone for your stories, advice and feedback!
Joined May 2009
2,369 Posts | 0+
Chillicothe, Missouri
Why can they NOT wait to KILL the deer.....................Until the test comes back?
Then see if it needs destroyed ?
Then see if it needs destroyed ?