An excellent supply of information is available for other sources. There are problems with this approach. The first is that the statistics may not actually be correct in that the way that they are gathered may not be valid. For instance it is not at all clear how accurate MAFF's reported incidence of BSE is and there is some data showing that it has become more and more inaccurate as farmers recognised cases and just took them to market.
To look for the information from the IOE into the international figures for BSE try www.oie.int/eng/info/en_esb.htm.
Figures in tonnes of beef in specific years Country receiving 1990 1995 France 67,000 80,000 Italy 4,000 42,000 Netherlands 9,000 17,000 Spain 1,000 7,000 Other EU 16,000 45,000 South Africa 3,000 27,000 Non EU 14,000 28,000 (Derived from the Meat and Livestock Commision)(in 1988 12553 tonnes of meat based meal were exported from the UK to Europe and in 1989 it was 25005 tonnes. It is claimed by UK Government that most of this was for chickens and pigs but this cannot be relied upon)
May 1996
Country Case numbers May 96 June 96 Oct 96 Mar Jun Dec Jun 97* 97 97 99 UK 161,663 164,258 170,845 173k 178k Switzerland 205 218 228 256 262 304 Irish Republic 123 153 204 224 264 383 Portugal 31 39 58 53 70 86 271 France 13 20 26 25 27 29 62 Germany 4 4 5 6 6 Italy 2 2 2 2 2 Oman 2 2 2 2 2 Canada 1 1 1 1 1 Denmark 1 1 1 1 1 Falkland Islands 1 1 1 1 1 Holland 2 2 6 Belgium 1 9 Luxembourg 1 1 Lichtenstein 1 Only 7 of the cases in Portugal were imported from the UK *Independent n'paper 11.3.97Considering the amount of meat and bone meal that was exported by the UK during the epidemic rise of BSE it is not clear how this can have been all of the cause for difference in case numbers between different countries. There has been suggestions that many of the BSE found in other countries apart from UK and Switzerland were merely exported cattle from those countries. Again this does not hold good as the cases in Portugal were also the offspring of exported cattle from the UK. UK farmers are determined that there is large amounts of BSE in France and the French Government denies this.
Data are derived (except from Switzerland) from the OIE
Age of death estimate lower and higher confidence intervals 2 0.0011 0.0007 - 0.0014 3 0.0485 0.0430 - 0.0539 4 0.2386 0.2216 - 0.2556 5 0.3037 0.2943 - 0.3132 6 0.2103 0.2022 - 0.2184 7 0.1019 0.0933 - 0.1104 8 0.0477 0.0408 - 0.0546 9 0.0293 0.0228 - 0.0357 10 0.0189 0.0125 - 0.0253This does not take into account the fact that most of the cattle infected with BSE were slaughtered before any symptoms appeared. When this is done, however there is not a great change in the age distribution except for the fact that although a peak is still at age 5, a second peak starts to rise after around 7 years and, when the number of cases of bulls is removed from the data, it continues to rise. The reason for this double peak is also not clear. Perhaps it is because some of the cases of BSE are derived from cattle that were fed infected feed when very young and perhaps others are infected when fed it as milking cattle producing milk when older.
Age (years) Number under1 3,367,500 1-2 2,615,750 2-3 1,420,500 3-4 1,285,000 4-5 975,000 5-6 709,000 6-7 531,000 7-8 354,000 8-9 265,000 9-10 133,000 10-11 88,500 over 11 88,500Cows and heifers in milking herds are taken to have a similar age distribution as to those from milking herds. The age distribution of bulls for insemination is unclear but they represent less than 1 percent of the population.
Slaugher product (Kg) Carcass 610.0 Hide 75.0 Offal-edible Fat 53.3 Tongue 5.0 Liver 12.0 Sweetbreads 0.3 Tail 1.5 Kidneys 1.5 Tripe 18.0 Trimmings 5.2 Brain 0.6 Heart 2.7 Offal-inedible Viscera 75.2 blood 35.0 Fill 59.0 Head/feet 40.0 'Other' 5.0Taken from Byerly TC, Livestock and Livestock Products, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1964 p358. It does not quite add up to 1000kg however, and the precision of the the weights cannot be certain. Notice that certain things that an American text-book looks on as inedible are, in the UK used as food (blood for instance). I am not exactly sure what fill is. It probably represents gut contents.
Recipient Donor Mouse Hamster Sheep Goat Cow Human Mink Mouse 85 NT 0-100 NT 100 NT NT Hamster NT 100 NT NT NT NT NT Sheep NT NT 15-45 NT 25 NT NT Goat NT NT 25 100 33 NT 100 Cow NT NT NA NT 17+ NT NT Mink NT NT NT NT 100 NT NA Monkey NT NT 100 NT NT 100 NA Kudu NT NT NT NT 70 NT NT NA = oral transfer has been tested but data is not available NT = Not tested Figures indicate percentage success of transfer of the TSE from donor to recipient. The BSE data is partly from 1993 and is out of data.This shows more than anything that, if a disease can be transmitted orally at all, there is a high mortality rate.
Year of report Number of cattle Nos reported Estimate Low and High 95CI by MAFF 1982 1 0 2 1983 41 17 98 1984 276 127 598 1985 767 405 1462 1986 1526 894 2618 7 1987 2851 1797 4527 413 1988 5078 3352 7681 2185 1989 8203 5568 12059 6839 1990 12904 8889 18676 12927 1991 22759 15819 32610 22782 1992 41651 29074 59568 35045 1993 58914 40392 86219 36755 1994 65024 42506 101026 22911 1995 59903 35436 106272 13810 1996 43150 23186 84245 6748 1997 24699 12248 51423 1998 12425 5724 27045 1999 5897 2491 13676 2000 2761 1009 7193 2001 1016 270 3384Notice that in 1990 and 1991 the estimate level is actually fractionally lower than the actual number reported. This was because attempts were being made to underestimate to avoid MAFF denial of the final results. Also note that the numbers reported are not exactly the same as appear elsewhere. The reason for this is always unclear as the numbers appear to drop in previous years when reported in later years e.g. the number of cases dying and reported in 1994 might be 1000 but when the number is reported in 1996 this might be 985. The reason for this might have something to do with computer systems at CVL but it is not sure.
Year of percentage expected to become infected with BSE birth estimate 95pc confidence interval 1979-80 0.24 0.10-0.55 1980-81 0.48 0.26-0.88 1981-82 0.73 0.44-1.21 1982-83 1.47 0.93-2.30 1983-84 2.64 1.72-4.01 1984-85 3.74 2.49-5.57 1985-86 5.52 3.72-8.12 1986-87 10.65 7.22-15.56 1987-88 25.26 17.32-36.52 1988-89 22.97 14.02-37.31 1989-90 18.30 10.91-30.43 1990-91 15.62 5.69-42.54Remember that this applies to only dairy cattle but this includes the offspring of dairy cattle even if they are used for the production of meat.
These figures can be turned into figures for the number of cattle that would be expected to die of BSE had none been slaughtered simply by looking on the figures above as percentages of approximately 2,000,000 dairy cattle born each year.
Predicted number of BSE cases by age Age 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 3 330-490 4 1520-1860 1000-2000 5 3360-3870 1510-2120 1090-2280 6 3120-3650 1790-2410 800-1320 580-1420 7 3260-3620 1260-1630 720-1080 320-590 230-640 8 1260-1420 1290-1520 500-730 290-480 130-260 9 370-440 570-760 590-860 230-390 130-260 10 150-160 190-240 290-420 300-480 110-210 11+ 90-120 100-150 130-230 230-390 210-450 Unkn 420-490 250-340 130-220 60-120 30-60 Actual nummber of cases reported in 1995. These would represent at least 90% of the total Age Number reported 3 435 4 1660 5 3221 6 2942 7 2957 8 1021 9 311 10 117 11+ 67 Unknown 523 Total number now known turns out to be 14076 (from MAFF 14.2.97) in 1995 Number reported and confirmed by histology in 1996: 7202 So far the age distribution has not been given by MAFF but a good description is given in its progress report of June 1999.One thing that is noticed is that the actual data for 1995 is often lower than that predicted from this rather conservative model. Again the reason for this is unclear
TSE dianoses in exotic species: (data from MAFF, Dec 1997) Dec 1997 June 1999 Kudu 6 6 Gemsbok 1 1 Nyala 1 1 Oryx 2 2 Eland 6 6 Cat (domestic) 82 85 cheetah 6 9 Puma 3 3 Tiger 1 2 Ocelot 2 2 Bison 1 1 Ankole cow 2 2 Lion 1(remember that Harash Narang has claimed to have found a TSE in a chicken)
birth yr cases Observed Expected 85/86 13 2 86/87 55 23 87/88 177 100 88/89 112 60How the number expected is calculated is not stated in the SEAC 1995 report. However it is quickly statistically significant that there is an excess of BSE cattle born to clinically infected mothers than to others. In the report it said that there was no difference but this is not true unless they meant something different.
Month Year and month of of birth report. Figures are all the cases by that time i.e. cumulative End Nov End April April Aug June Nov Nov June 1992 1992 1993 1993a 1993b 1993 1994c 1994 1995 1996 1988 Jul 234 36 259 250 120 190 410 403 469 497 Aug 782 204 1249 1040 600 924 1750 2076 2544 2662 Sept 913 184 1531 1300 640 1108 2140 2649 3272 3424 Oct 525 95 964 770 355 663 1450 1761 2215 2338 Nov 269 39 505 380 265 318 750 969 1276 1359 Dec 170 20 296 205 105 189 500 697 951 1018 1989 Jan 96 7 180 160 50 112 360 524 884 1041 Feb 60 2 106 85 25 70 140 266 381 415 Mar 45 1 91 60 10 39 135 290 480 523 Apr 30 2 70 30 10 35 100 191 313 346 May 30 41 15 5 16 75 149 239 278 Jun 51 4 83 60 10 35 125 306 515 576 Jul 57 1 167 100 12 67 360 526 870 984 Aug 60 1 256 150 18 94 550 1003 1722 1926 Sept 63 3 234 130 25 89 540 990 1786 2082 Oct ? ? 50 7 39 300 586 1129 1312 Nov ? ? 20 15 110 346 675 803 Dec ? ? 5 3 60 191 464 572 1990 Jan 1 5 110 335 465 Feb 52 175 220 Mar 49 156 204 Apr 33 109 147 May 25 89 141 Jun 36 142 213 Jul 1 74 276 396 Aug 1 79 393 575 Sept 60 357 537 Oct 48 211 331 Nov 18 115 187 Dec 11 106 165 1991 Jan 1 68 133 Feb 1 28 61 Mar 38 82 Apr 27 58 May 1 27 60 Jun 37 123 Jul 70 187 Aug 1 89 220 Sept 59 183 Oct 22 114 Nov 17 56 Dec 8 43 1992 Jan 4 25 Feb 2 16 Mar 1 12 Apr 8 May 3 Jun 14 Jul 11 Aug 1 16 Sept 4 Oct 4 Nov 3 Dec 3 1993 June 1 Month Year and month of of birth report. Figures are all the cases by that time i.e. cumulative June Nov June Dec June 1996 1996 1997 1997 1999 1988 Jul 497 507 511 514 516 Aug 2662 2714 2752 2767 2787 Sept 3424 3482 3539 3560 3585 Oct 2338 2401 2437 2455 2478 Nov 1359 1389 1422 1433 1449 Dec 1018 1073 1099 1107 1121 1989 Jan 1041 1116 1184 1215 1260 Feb 415 432 454 461 463 Mar 523 545 567 584 596 Apr 346 365 377 382 387 May 278 287 300 305 308 Jun 576 597 632 637 648 Jul 984 1040 1093 1104 1116 Aug 1926 2047 2140 2180 2201 Sept 2082 2242 2349 2397 2425 Oct 1312 1420 2490 1527 1552 Nov 803 868 922 937 951 Dec 572 632 680 692 713 1990 Jan 465 526 603 636 696 Feb 220 244 261 266 271 Mar 204 239 267 280 295 Apr 147 177 205 217 229 May 141 164 196 209 219 Jun 213 259 298 312 331 Jul 396 464 531 558 589 Aug 575 705 806 853 900 Sept 537 658 753 814 851 Oct 331 413 484 531 562 Nov 187 248 294 313 333 Dec 165 213 260 290 317 1991 Jan 133 186 233 281 348 Feb 61 90 115 136 160 Mar 82 123 155 187 221 Apr 58 85 116 131 160 May 60 99 128 143 158 Jun 123 181 234 276 307 Jul 187 297 401 496 575 Aug 220 381 532 653 772 Sept 183 329 494 616 731 Oct 114 197 276 348 441 Nov 56 105 172 220 283 Dec 43 91 149 196 272 1992 Jan 25 54 117 160 282 Feb 16 33 64 85 140 Mar 12 25 51 84 133 Apr 8 16 37 64 106 May 3 11 23 45 94 Jun 14 28 67 107 192 Jul 11 38 106 181 344 Aug 16 45 119 218 453 Sept 4 30 94 167 387 Oct 4 21 74 130 308 Nov 3 11 34 75 207 Dec 3 5 17 52 169 1993 Jan 2 14 36 143 Feb 3 18 79 Mar 5 24 83 Apr 8 15 71 May 4 17 77 June 1 2 9 31 163 July 4 23 239 Aug 4 25 256 Sept 1 13 200 Oct 12 144 Nov 2 10 99 Dec 4 98 1994 Jan 2 48 Feb 39 Mar 37 Apr 1 20 May 26 June 47 July 67 August 80 September 58 October 25 November 28 December 16 1995 January 11 February 2 March 1 April 2 May 3 June 5 July 2 August 1 September 2 October 1End 92/93 Dealler SF. Kent JT. Br. Food J. 1995;97:3-18 April 1993a Wilesmith Seminars in virology 1994;5:179-87 April 1993b MAFF report on BSE 1993 (suspect cases) June 1994 Hoinville LJ, et al Vet Rec. 1995;136:312-8 November 1994 MAFF report on BSE Nov 1994 November 1995 MAFF report on BSE Nov 1995 April 1993a,b and 1994c were measured from published bar graphs. All other data are from MAFF reports on confirmed cases. They all seem to make reasonable sense except Nov 1992 and 1993b which seems to have figures that are far too low (but are reasonable for each other). Exactly why is not clear. Using the 1992 figures it is possible to predict the numbers that should be reported in later years and calculate the relative rates of underreporting in those years.
1993 1994 1995 1996 cumulative cumulative total 1997 total 1999 Guernsey 115 69 44 30 651 682 Jersey 35 22 10 8 132 145 Northern Ireland 487 363 170 74 1766 1786 Isle of Man 111 53 32 10 426 435 These figures require those put out by MAFF to be fully understood: Total number to 31st Oct 1996: Northern Ireland 1733, Isle of Man 408, Jersey 120, Guernsey 600, Alderney 2.
Year of birth Date of survey March 1996 December 1996 1983 11,600 5,750 1984 22,000 12,825 1985 36,300 23,700 1986 62,800 42,100 1987 72,000 48,825 1988 117,400 84,500 1989 171,400 129,675 1990 249,800 197,500 1991 330,500 268,800 1992 414,600 346,500 1993 544,700 485,700 1994 (Jan-Mar) 65,400 92,300 total 2,098,500 1,738,175This data, derived from the National Milk Records, formerly part of the Milk Marketing Board, indicates that the average age of dairy cattle dropped from 4.9 yrs to 4.7 yrs between March and December and that this drop took place due largely to a drop in the number of older cattle present in the herds. Analysis of 1.2 million dairy cows currently recorded by NMR - 57 per cent of all cows in England and Wales extrapolated for the national herd in the region estimate tha there are 347,375 cows born before 1990 currently in herds, 197,500 born in 1990 and 268 born in 1991.
To a statistician: It is possible to calculate the number of calves born each year by looking at the above numbers and realising that all cattle producing milk must have had a calf beforehand. If you then put that figure for the 'number born in 1995'. You can also realise that as the above figures only represent 57% of all adult cattlethat it is possible to estimate the total number of calves born from dairy and beef suckler cattle.
The data that I got for the age distribution for cattle in 1991 was similar to that found in March 1996 before the crisis.
1996 MAFF 6.4 BBSRC 2.4 MRC 0.68 Dept of Health 0.22 (in 1996 D of H allocated an additional sum of 5M)
'96-97 -98 -99 -2000 Over 30 month scheme 700 350 330 330 Selective cull 20 160 - - Intervention 190 290 190 190 Calf slaughter premium 50 60 50 50 Disposal chain 210 60 - - EC-funded beef support measures 160 - - - MAFF department costs 70 70 70 70 Other measures 50 90 - - Savings on export refund -80 -70 -60 -60 Total 1370 1010 580 490More data from the Independent 2.12.97: estimates show BSE will cost UK a further 3.4 billion pounds before 2001. 1.5 billion in 1996-7, 930 million in 1997-8, 563 million in 1998-9 and 488 million in 1999-2000. (estimates so far have been lower than this - ed)
Age 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 25 43 81 64 38 18 13 12 4 3 419 805 2055 4150 1653 1016 456 479 232 4 1229 2681 4830 10062 15181 5887 3374 1765 1267 5 855 2539 4098 6358 12603 15167 5863 3342 1410 6 256 1043 2017 2691 4700 7876 8085 3038 1368 7 76 240 600 985 1369 2078 3182 3035 988 8 23 72 143 264 490 636 823 1068 802 9 9 20 17 96 170 252 290 335 271 10 6 10 20 35 40 102 127 124 75 11+ 2 9 14 27 43 41 70 78 65 unkn 240 312 704 1129 858 697 628 489 266Predictions of the total number of cattle born in specific years that would develop BSE by the age of 10
This is calculated from the number of BABs born in specific years and these calculations come mainly from the figures of the MAFF BSE progress report in June 1999.
1988 17000 1989 11000 1990 5600 1991 4700 1992 4100 1993 4000 1994 4600 (CI 4100-5400)These depressing figures suggest that the disease is not disappearing and are not in the format that would be expected as vertical transmission either. The suggestion is that there is a continuing environmental factor that is present.
Ireland 107,865 Brazil 71,662 Netherlands 12,966 Argentina 9,735 Uraguay 9,124 Australia 6,814 Namibia 6,187 Zimbabwe 6,086 France 5,573 Botswana 4,746 Germany 4,042
It is important that we know who wants information about BSE and what
you think about what is here. If you would like
regular information mailed to you on the mailing list
or the internet journal please tell us.