{"id":143724,"date":"2016-05-03T20:15:36","date_gmt":"2016-05-03T10:15:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/southburnett.com.au\/news2\/?p=143724"},"modified":"2020-10-15T14:17:30","modified_gmt":"2020-10-15T04:17:30","slug":"bjd-protected-zone-to-end","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/southburnett.com.au\/news2\/2016\/05\/03\/bjd-protected-zone-to-end\/","title":{"rendered":"BJD ‘Protected Zone’ To End"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
Queensland looks set to lose its protected zone status for Bovine Johne’s Disease<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

May 3, 2016<\/strong><\/p>\n

Queensland’s “protected zone” status for Bovine Johne’s Disease (BJD) looks to have been abandoned, creating a buyer beware environment for cattle producers.<\/p>\n

Animal Health Australia (AHA) released a statement on Tuesday saying it was now working with State Governments to implement its BJD “framework” document released in March.<\/p>\n

This document shifts responsibility for\u00a0 BJD management away from regulated control to what the AHA describes as a “broader on\u2010farm risk\u2010based approach to biosecurity”.<\/p>\n

It would now be the responsibility of producers to deal with BJD as they see fit.<\/p>\n

This means that in Queensland, properties where BJD is detected would no longer be quarantined or subject to cattle movement restrictions.<\/strong><\/p>\n

BJD is a wasting disease which can cause chronic diarrhoea in cattle, emaciation and eventually death.<\/p>\n

The bacteria lives and replicates in the intestines of animals and is excreted in faeces. It can survive in the soil for many months. It usually infects calves but the disease doesn\u2019t become apparent for several years.<\/p>\n

There is no effective treatment.<\/p>\n

BJD is endemic in southern Australia however Queensland had enjoyed “protected zone” status under the current National BJD Scheme.<\/p>\n

After an outbreak of BJD in the Rockhampton area in 2012, the then-LNP State Government provided $5 million in assistance to support\u00a0affected producers, who restricted cattle movements.<\/p>\n

The AHA says its “fresh approach” to the management of BJD would now “prioritise on\u2010farm biosecurity risk management”.<\/p>\n

In March, Shadow Agriculture Minister Deb Frecklington expressed concerns about the new approach.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThere are real risks to Queensland from any wholesale wind-back of either government regulation and government support for producers and assistance with dealing with outbreaks \u2013 because that is what\u2019s being proposed with individual herd\/property risk-based management,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis may suit southern States and seedstock producers and their representatives, but the wider Queensland industry would appear to be most at risk, along with Western Australia, from any major change to current protocols.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mrs Frecklington said she was concerned the broader Queensland breeding industry had not been engaged in the debate, and thought it needed to be before any major decisions are taken.<\/p>\n

\u201cMany Queensland cattle producers have been flat out dealing with drought, no cash-flow, and proposals to change the tick-line. Now they\u2019ve got a new plan from Animal Health in Canberra to dump our stance on BJD,” she said.<\/p>\n

The Queensland Dairyfarmers Organisation also expressed alarm.<\/strong><\/p>\n

“From an ethical and natural justice point of view, the just released Animal Health Australia document on removing regulations around BJD is probably one of the most unjust and one-sided documents I have seen in years,\u201d QDO president Brian Tessmann said.<\/p>\n

\u201cPut simply, the report transfers all responsibility for managing the risk of BJD from government agencies to individual producers,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe report goes on to say clearly that AHA\u2019s intention is to treat BJD as an endemic disease (but) in another section of the same report acknowledges that BJD is in fact not endemic in a number of Australian regions.<\/p>\n

\u201cThese regions obviously include Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia in which the past and current regulations have served well.”<\/p>\n

However, AHA Executive Manager of Biosecurity Services Duncan Rowland\u00a0said on Tuesday the new approach had been “agreed upon”.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s time to shift the thinking of industry away from regulated control of an individual disease to the broader on-farm risk-based approach to biosecurity,\u201d Mr Rowland said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe State Governments are currently reviewing how they are going to address the Framework recommendations, and are working with their industries to finalise their respective implementation plans.<\/p>\n

“Although implementation timeframes will vary from State to State, there is certainly an understanding for the need to embark upon the new approach as soon as possible.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mr Rowland said a communications plan would support State\u2010based implementation “by building awareness of the new approach and highlighting the need for strong biosecurity planning on\u2010farm”.<\/p>\n

The plan would also emphasise how producers “supported by minimal regulation where required”\u00a0were able to manage their own biosecurity risk status.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is a significant step forward for the industry with Australian livestock producers now able to take control of their own productivity and profitability,\u201d Mr Rowland said.<\/p>\n

He said the next steps in the implementation process would include:<\/strong><\/p>\n